Lars
Active member
You know, it's possible that I was thinking of the 75/1.4 Summilux. Massive internal vignetting, hot edge rear defocus.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Mild Rant - What the $%&^ Does "Lens is Too Clinical" Mean?
- Thread starter dandrewk
- Start date
V
Vivek
Guest
Why do you say that? Any personal experience or you are just trying to sound cute?
V
Vivek
Guest
Lovely, samples, Charlie!
That is what I was comparing. The shorter SLR Nikkors.
Here is one from the lens that reminds me of APO Summicron 75/2, the Zony 55/1.8 (on A7s):
Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr
Lars
Active member
Who doesn't want to sound cute?
Seriously though - the level of internal vignetting creates a very far from uniform background defocus. Especially when focused very close the background defocus gets quite disturbing - I know, this is partly subjective. There was a thread here some years ago but most images posted in old threads seem to have disappeared.davidstock
New member
I'd like to volunteer to relieve any photographer burdened by "clinically sharp" lenses of their heavy load. I offer to set up a Clinical Lens Foundation so that these lenses can be put out to pasture in my home. I will even give them exercise occasionally!
Seriously, though. I completely support photographers whose creativity is enhanced by particular lenses, no matter what their "flaws" as perceived by others. Lenses are tools, and we need lots of different tools. Whatever works.
I think there are differences in visual strategy that underly the discussion here. Some photographers are more expressionistic, and want to directly convey emotion using specific qualities of blur, bokeh, aberrations, etc. Others wish to emphasize the hyper-realistic potential of photography, which can evoke emotion in other ways. Some people use a combination approach. And finally, there are those who see a digital capture as a sort of negative, to be shaped in post-processing. Ansel Adams said, "the negative is the score; the print is the performance." Today, for some, the RAW file is the score; the TIFF (or PSD) is the performance!
These are all valid ways of using photography to be creative. I don't think we should make a cult out of any of them, or be derogatory about any of them either. Wouldn't it be useless for people who like one style of painting to make fun of people who like another style? The main thing, IMO, is to be as clear as possible about what we are trying to accomplish. When we use a lens, we should generally try to look at the world as that lens sees it.
Of course, even that can't be a hard and fast rule. Some people might want to add randomness or surprise to their technique. One of the members of my gallery in Brooklyn recently exhibited a group of work shot with a Diana camera with a plastic lens in a location she had never been before. In many ways, she didn't know what she'd get until she processed the film. Unexpected results were a built-in part of that process.
Anyhow, the value I see in this thread is that it helps me to be more aware about the particular characteristics of a variety of lenses.
--d
Seriously, though. I completely support photographers whose creativity is enhanced by particular lenses, no matter what their "flaws" as perceived by others. Lenses are tools, and we need lots of different tools. Whatever works.
I think there are differences in visual strategy that underly the discussion here. Some photographers are more expressionistic, and want to directly convey emotion using specific qualities of blur, bokeh, aberrations, etc. Others wish to emphasize the hyper-realistic potential of photography, which can evoke emotion in other ways. Some people use a combination approach. And finally, there are those who see a digital capture as a sort of negative, to be shaped in post-processing. Ansel Adams said, "the negative is the score; the print is the performance." Today, for some, the RAW file is the score; the TIFF (or PSD) is the performance!
These are all valid ways of using photography to be creative. I don't think we should make a cult out of any of them, or be derogatory about any of them either. Wouldn't it be useless for people who like one style of painting to make fun of people who like another style? The main thing, IMO, is to be as clear as possible about what we are trying to accomplish. When we use a lens, we should generally try to look at the world as that lens sees it.
Of course, even that can't be a hard and fast rule. Some people might want to add randomness or surprise to their technique. One of the members of my gallery in Brooklyn recently exhibited a group of work shot with a Diana camera with a plastic lens in a location she had never been before. In many ways, she didn't know what she'd get until she processed the film. Unexpected results were a built-in part of that process.
Anyhow, the value I see in this thread is that it helps me to be more aware about the particular characteristics of a variety of lenses.
--d
Oh yes, 75 Lux and Cron. Two of the worst lenses ever. :chug:
The lux is especially offensive:
Puberty by unoh7, on Flickr
Txt Pro by unoh7, on Flickrreally soft in general:
Blue and Silver by unoh7, on Flickr
And useless at F/1.4:
Mini in Snow by unoh7, on Flickr
Just another massive "Leica Fail" I'm not surprised nobody wants one.
Bliss Not Butts by unoh7, on Flickr
Tim
Active member
I gotta disagree, the Olympus OM Zuiko 250mm f2 and 350mm f2.8 win my vote.
Tough to find online sample image but some of the Olympus books I have feature them.
I just wish I could afford either.
Not my image from here - Zuiko AUTO-T 250mm f/2.0 ED-IF super-telephoto lense
