Many speak of some lenses as having a “clinical” rendering of images. What does this mean to to you? I’m genuinely curious. I never use this word in this context because I’ve never really heard a definition that makes sense.
Great question, “clinical” and “character” being another of those subjective terms like “bokeh” and “street photography” where there is no official answer/ explanation, it’s really up to you and how you see it. What does it mean to me? Well, it’s all well and good having a technically perfect image, but it’s not going to look any different to the others as that’s the standard these days. For me, most if not all current new lenses, subject to their respective apertures, and cameras, render relatively the same. So I suppose lenses that render differently to that could be seen to have “character”. The sort of lens where you instinctively provide for its limitations like not shooting towards the sun but against it so as to bring out the best of the lens and its colours working around any deficiencies resulting in an image different but yet very pleasing compared to any of the new ‘perfect’ lenses. A first easy example of this would be a legacy lens, designed for film, but used on a digital camera. A second not so easy to find example would be a current digital lens that renders similarly. In both cases (and this is just me), the results of the images borne by the lens would require little to no PP, more uniquely pleasing to the eye and unable in one’s own mind to be truly replicated with some plug in. I think of examples of current lenses that I use on my digital cameras that fit this criteria such as the Nikkor 35mm F2 D, Nokton 58mm F1.4 and Zeiss Sonnar however, they were all designed for film cameras. So, for their colours and rendering, I would say the images I’ve seen closest to that from digital AF lenses would be from the Fuji F1.4 lenses, Lumix and particularly the 20mm F1.7 lenses and pretty much most if not all the Canon EF primes (although those may have been designed for film cameras?) and most Pentax APSC primes.
Lenses that don’t have it out of the box which require PP to get a more unique image; I have a Tamron which is great but I know the light’s going to have to be manipulated either when shooting or in PP to get something out of the ordinary and in my experience it’s the same with the Fuji F2 lenses, Nikkor G lenses, Olympus lenses, (even the magnificent 75, but possibly with the exception of the 12mm F2) and any new Sigma or Tamron. Don’t get me wrong, the end result after PP can be magnificent, but not as originaly shot. My guess is that it’s likley the same with the brand new Nikon Z and Canon R lenses. There’s less need to manipulate and work these lenses, they just do their thing right out of the box on the camera’s P mode which for me wouldn’t neccesarily equate to more memorable or stand out images.
But imo, there’s no getting around the fact that the combination of the lens with the camera is pretty much as important as the lens when it comes to, let’s call it, non clinical rendering. I’ve seen people on another forum post images from their new Leica M10s with older RF lenses to get that character; I can see where they’re going but for me it doesn’t really work, the modern rendering of the camera is still apparent, well to me anyway. On the other hand, if you look at
@theoldsmithy ’s images with his Google Pixel, those images do defnitely look pleasingly different in their rendering and also have that “character” which I thnk come from the camera/ lens combo. Another example to me of the lens/ camera combo is
@MiguelATF and his carefully chosen gear, which produce images what I would consider full of “character”, somehow different to the rest even before/ after PP and I think it’s a result of the lens *and* the camera. The older Canikon & Fuji P&S cameras, Ricoh GR/GRII, Pentax CCD DSLRs Olympus EP1 to EP3 Fuji ILCs up to the XT1 as well as Nikon D80 to D800E in my experience, seem to render that “character” regardless of the lens (btw, those early cmos cameras/ (Sony?) sensors definitely seem to render more pleasantly to my eye than the cmos cameras/ sensors of say the last 5 years). For me, it’s all about the image looking less digital.
But then, so what if one has a “clinical” lens that doesn’t have “character”? As someone who has owned and still owns a number of lenses on that above list of lenses that I say do not have character, I’d say consider that:
- Light is just as important and capable of rendering an image as a lens with “character”, whatever gear you use and can render a similar/ same result;
- You may find what you need through PP plugins - that’s far cheaper than the gear route to achieving same; and
- For all this talk of “clinical” and “character”, do you think it actually makes a difference to your images? It may not, these things are in the eye of the beholder. If you can’t see the difference, don’t bother.
I should probably heed my own advice as, in what is probably the biggest first world problem you’re going to hear today, I’m currently in a bind over considering in the long term, a Summilux ASPH or pre ASPH over this same issue of “clinical” and "character”. If you’re not like me, that’s probably a good thing!