Thread: What are the most "clinical" lenses

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1 What are the most "clinical" lenses 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,229
    For full frame.

    In a "good" way and in a "bad" way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    Posts
    793
    Sigma's higher-end line tend to be very sharp, very clean and without too much CA and fairly balanced in terms of color. I would describe them as clinical in a lot of ways. All except for the breathing on the non-cinema versions.
    Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.
    - Theodore Roosevelt

    Justin McAleece
    Sigma Pro Primes and Video Production
    Justin at BLAREMedia dot net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Michael Lindsay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    2,758
    The Sigmas are amazing for the money and pretty clean... def heading to clinical (don't love the green flares)

    Leitz FF primes are the cleanest most modern of the FF cinema lenses.... but in a good way. Sort of better cleaner smoother Masterprimes. Clinical carries a negative connotation for me so I wouldn't use it to describe lenses I like.

    The Premista Fuji lenses look pretty clean and do seem 'clinical'... to crispy for me.

    Arri Signatures are maybe too smooth to be ever described as clinical but they are very clean and flat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,229
    I had an 18-35mm and the green flare was the one thing I didn't care for.

    Just for reference, how would you describe the look of Samyang, for instance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Sigmas are not really clean they vignette alot, not a starp vignette but a quite strong settle one that streach from the center lens to the very edge. They are built from the art series, not the cleanest of lenses but "arty" They sigmas also bloom quite a bit when shot open.

    Not saying the sigmas are bad but they are not cleanical


    Tokinas are way more cleanical. Still looking very pleasing. I see them as the MP´s of FF.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se/axis
    VFX / Flame / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member PatrickWebb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    Norway.
    Posts
    159
    I would probably lean towards the Zeiss Milvus lenses. There are pretty clean all around.
    Patrick Webb,
    Director of Photography
    Heapsgood Productions, Norway.
    (www.Heapsgood.no)
    EPIC-X #06833 "Monsta" & SCARLET-X #01773 "Scratch"
    Carl Zeiss & Voigtänder Glass
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    361
    I'd say that the Angenieux EZ series-- the newer zooms that convert to FF via an optical element-- are much more clinical than Angenieux's s35mm lines (which I'd say are a little more "romantic").

    Clinical is a tough term to define, significantly because it is meant to describe an emotional quality-- not just neutral or objective, but perhaps merciless in description, accurate but cold or distant, the way we might imagine a scientist making notes while looking through a microscope at an insect. I'd say the Sigmas fall on the clinical side of the spectrum for lenses, but I wouldn't necessarily put all those negative qualities on them. And I also don't disagree with Bjorn's description of their actual characteristics-- they're not flawless.

    In practice, lighting and filtration contribute a lot to how "clinical" a shot feels. The movement-- or lack of it-- can also contribute to a sense of a shot being "clinical" (I'm thinking of certain Michael Haneke movies-- he's very good at "objective and chilly").
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    586
    Sony Alta is my most "clinical" compared to my Angenieux, Leica, Nikon and Zeiss legacy glass.

    Oppps.....you were looking for FF lenses. Sony Altas are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Otus lenses, possibly?

    “clinical” comes from clinic-like, and we associate clinics with sterile and “cold”. In photographic sense, in terms of color, we associate the color blue with cold. When some speak of a lens looking “clinical” they may mean that the lens tends towards blue. And it have nothing to do with sharpness in how they are using “clinical”.

    Is there a lens that trends warm and is also considered “clinical”?

    The unsatisfying answer to the question from the OP is:

    It depends on what you mean by “clinical” and also upon who you ask.


    I myself tend to associate Zeiss, in general, with clinical because Zeiss is known for microscopes and other precision instruments used in scientific labs / clinical settings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,229
    Thanks, everyone. Interesting answers and it has me thinking. I want a "vintage" but digital look to something and am going to shoot Alexa or Amira and am now choosing between Lomo and Zeiss standard speeds (can't afford Cooke, or maybe I could rent them) at least in my head. But my widest Lomo is 22mm whereas Zeiss has a nice 16mm. :(

    Maybe I will rent an Amira and Cookes. But I wonder what else will work.

    For something else, I want the most "digital" look possible. A blue tint is a start. And will shoot 6K rather than Alexa.

    I agree, Sigma Art was my first thought but it's not clinical in a "bad way" except that green flare I dislike. I think the 18-35mm f1.8 is a great looking lens except for that. Best lens for the money regardless IMO.

    So... what word would you use to describe Samyang?

    I dismissed this:

    https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/1...eath-of-3d-pop

    But then I took a 10-18mm Canon zoom, 18-35mm Sigma Art lens, 24mm f2.0 Nikkor lens with a wide angle adapter, and I forget what else. Possibly a 18-55mm kit zoom. But the 10-18mm Canon zoom was among the better performers, but had a "flat" feel to it. The Sigma and Nikkor both had "depth" but the Nikkor was a very poor performer wide open. I think standard speeds and Cookes have a good feel to them, too. They're not worlds apart imo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts