Is there such a thing...

Steelo

Steelo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,729
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
Is there such a thing as a lens that just seems too 'clinical'?

I'm a landscaper, Sony a7rii, Tokina FiRIN 20mm 2.8 AF, Samyang 24mm 2.8 AF and the Sony 24-240mm for the times I don't feel like using my primes or need longer...

A couple of weeks ago I spent 8 days up in the Assynt region of Scotland, and thought I'd hire a wide lens 'just in case'...so I hired the Sony 16-35 2.8 G Master. Whilst it is a special bit of kit, there is no denying that, I just feel the images I made using it, I don't like. I'm quite an accomplished photographer, so I didn't just shoot everything at 16mm, this isn't the issue here, it's just the look of the images seem too clinical, too crisp, too sharp, the colour rendition doesn't seem to sit right etc etc.

Is that a thing any of you have found in your photographic journey along the way? I kind of wish I never bothered hiring it and just stuck with my own lenses, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
 
It is all preference of the user, it sounds like what I prefer so we both have a different view of it.
 
I tend to like lenses that have a more interesting character or even dual characters being one thing at wide apertures and another stopped down.

I'm not too sure about being too clinical though as excellent across the frame from wide open to f11 seems to be what gets the applause at the mo and not just with Sony lenses as many manufacturers are going down the bigger and better from wide open route.

I suppose you can always degrade a technically very good shot later whereas you can't really improve in a technical sense one that's soft in the centre, downright mushy in the corners and full of aberrations. I suppose one key is to use the sharp and accurate lens for shots that suit that and use the characterful lens for shots that'll suit it.
 
Not the first time I have heard someone say similar things about the 16-35GM. Some lenses are known for this i.e being technically great but without character, lifeless what ever you want to call it. The Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 in particular and most of the other e-mount a.f Zeiss lenses as well have this rep to a certain extent.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Not the first time I have heard someone say similar things about the 16-35GM. Some lenses are known for this i.e being technically great but without character, lifeless what ever you want to call it. The Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 in particular and most of the other e-mount a.f Zeiss lenses as well have this rep to a certain extent.
Click to expand...

As long as people don't slate one marques lenses for being so good they lack character and then praise another for the same thing :D That would be the height of fan boy silliness.

The Sony 55mm f1.8 is an excellent lens and I can't criticise it for that but look at the success Sigma has had with the Art series so there must be a lot of love out there for lenses which are so good they're getting to the point where the only criticism we can make is that it's too good and therefore lacking "character." Go too far into character though and people don't like it. For example one of my current favourites is the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 classic but many people would consider it too characterful. I suppose there's a balance to be found but some are trying, see the recent Sigma 45mm f2.8 which was designed for a look rather than sharpness across the frame.

I'd imagine someone wanting accuracy would think that the Sony 16-35mm is a good tool. Likewise the 55mm f1.8 if what you want is a lens that records accurately and transparently. An easy antidote for me is the Rokkor 50mm f1.2 or Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 or even Vivitar 19mm. Accuracy and near faultlessness is just another option.
 
Caerus said:
It is all preference of the user, it sounds like what I prefer so we both have a different view of it.
Click to expand...
woof woof said:
I tend to like lenses that have a more interesting character or even dual characters being one thing at wide apertures and another stopped down.

I'm not too sure about being too clinical though as excellent across the frame from wide open to f11 seems to be what gets the applause at the mo and not just with Sony lenses as many manufacturers are going down the bigger and better from wide open route.

I suppose you can always degrade a technically very good shot later whereas you can't really improve in a technical sense one that's soft in the centre, downright mushy in the corners and full of aberrations. I suppose one key is to use the sharp and accurate lens for shots that suit that and use the characterful lens for shots that'll suit it.
Click to expand...


Oh I totally agree, it's probably what most folk look for in a lens. FWIW the little 20mm Tokina is exceptional throughout too but certainly has a different 'look' to the images taken with it which I prefer. Maybe it's a prime thing? I don't know. It's hard to describe really.

Maybe it's also because I had the luxury of the 16-35mm range that I maybe didn't think about my compositions so much as I would using my primes either. I don't know really.


f/2.8 said:
Not the first time I have heard someone say similar things about the 16-35GM. Some lenses are known for this i.e being technically great but without character, lifeless what ever you want to call it. The Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 in particular and most of the other e-mount a.f Zeiss lenses as well have this rep to a certain extent.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not the only one then. As I said originally too, it is a stunning bit of kit, there is no denying that, but I'm glad I just hired it rather than buying one to find this out.
 
woof woof said:
As long as people don't slate one marques lenses for being so good they lack character and then praise another for the same thing :D That would be the height of fan boy silliness.

The Sony 55mm f1.8 is an excellent lens and I can't criticise it for that but look at the success Sigma has had with the Art series so there must be a lot of love out there for lenses which are so good they're getting to the point where the only criticism we can make is that it's too good and therefore lacking "character." Go too far into character though and people don't like it. For example one of my current favourites is the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 classic but many people would consider it too characterful. I suppose there's a balance to be found but some are trying, see the recent Sigma 45mm f2.8 which was designed for a look rather than sharpness across the frame.

I'd imagine someone wanting accuracy would think that the Sony 16-35mm is a good tool. Likewise the 55mm f1.8 if what you want is a lens that records accurately and transparently. An easy antidote for me is the Rokkor 50mm f1.2 or Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 or even Vivitar 19mm. Accuracy and near faultlessness is just another option.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm not slating it for being so good, believe me it is a phenomenal bit of kit, I can't deny that. I just don't think it suits what I needed it for, maybe, or maybe it's just me? :D
 
Steelo said:
Oh I totally agree, it's probably what most folk look for in a lens. FWIW the little 20mm Tokina is exceptional throughout too but certainly has a different 'look' to the images taken with it which I prefer. Maybe it's a prime thing? I don't know. It's hard to describe really.

Maybe it's also because I had the luxury of the 16-35mm range that I maybe didn't think about my compositions so much as I would using my primes either. I don't know really.




I'm glad I'm not the only one then. As I said originally too, it is a stunning bit of kit, there is no denying that, but I'm glad I just hired it rather than buying one to find this out.
Click to expand...

I'm nervous when using terms like character and lifeless. I'm much rather define what the strengths or issues are as that removes even the merest hint of bias, fanboyism or misunderstanding.

Some lenses are excellent across the frame and that will suit a lot of shots whereas another might not be as sharp in the centre and drop off quite dramatically away from it and suffer distortion, increasing aberrations and also high vignetting. That could help the bokeh to look softer and dreamy and create an overall more pleasing look for a limited dof portrait with the right not too busy background but be hair pullingly annoying if there's a distorted and downright smeared looking building or foliage in the background.

I think these days people tend to look for technical goodness across the frame from wide open and this must be partly why we're seeing larger and technical better lenses such as the Sigma Art, Sony GM and other ranges.
 
woof woof said:
I'm nervous when using terms like character and lifeless. I'm much rather define what the strengths or issues are as that removes even the merest hint of bias, fanboyism or misunderstanding.

Some lenses are excellent across the frame and that will suit a lot of shots whereas another might not be as sharp in the centre and drop off quite dramatically away from it and suffer distortion, increasing aberrations and also high vignetting. That could help the bokeh to look softer and dreamy and create an overall more pleasing look for a limited dof portrait with the right not too busy background but be hair pullingly annoying if there's a distorted and downright smeared looking building or foliage in the background.

I think these days people tend to look for technical goodness across the frame from wide open and this must be partly why we're seeing larger and technical better lenses such as the Sigma Art, Sony GM and other ranges.
Click to expand...

Yeah when I shot Canon I had the Sigma 20mm ART and still stand by my opinion that it's the best bit of glass I've owned to date. So so good, but the Tokina 20mm pushes it close for sure. I'm certainly not a fanboy or brand snob, I'll use what works for me personally.


woof woof said:
Try an old film era wide angle for some character therapy :D
Click to expand...

I did think about adapting my old Olympus 24mm 2.8 Zuiko onto the Sony, but I sold it before I had chance to do so lol
 
woof woof said:
I'm nervous when using terms like character and lifeless. I'm much rather define what the strengths or issues are as that removes even the merest hint of bias, fanboyism or misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
:plus1:
 
Some time back when the best lenses were seen to be European made.......then the growth in Japanese cameras and lens/lens design made inroads into "their marketplace" both users and reviewers mentioned the differences seen in the prints.

As I think I recall contrast, colour & details rendition being the key differences. The Japanese lens designs (a bit like their automotive developments) grew apace to to the point now where euro designed ones are few and far between and expensive!

So, the fact that a lens can render an image "differently" but not in a pleasing way is not necessarily a surprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top