What are the most "clinical" lenses

[Matt W.]

For full frame.

In a "good" way and in a "bad" way.

 

[Justin McAleece]

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.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

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.

 

[Matt W.]

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?

 

[Björn Benckert]

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.

 

[PatrickWebb]

I would probably lean towards the Zeiss Milvus lenses. There are pretty clean all around.

 

[M Harvey]

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").

 

[Vance Colvig]

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.

 

[John David Pope]

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.

 

[Matt W.]

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/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-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.

 

[Dan Kanes]

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/special/120medical.htm

Oh... wait... not that kind of clinical... my bad.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I would probably lean towards the Zeiss Milvus lenses. There are pretty clean all around.

Milvus, at least some focal length are exact same glas as supreme prime so, yes supreme prime is as clinical as milvus and has more focal lengths.

 

[Björn Benckert]

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/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-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.

We did this not so scientific but to me quite telling lens test the other day for a Tv series that want a somewhat retro / more arty then clean look. The DP wants the spherical Kowas, I tried to convince him to go for our EE FD´s but he will likely go for the kowas that they used for last season. This was all with komodo that they will use for the show, but the FD´s cover FF as well.

https://vimeo.com/523040287

 

[Steve Sherrick]

MattW, not quite following. So you want it to look clinical as in almost too good or as in no character?

 

[Matt W.]

MattW, not quite following. So you want it to look clinical as in almost too good or as in no character?

Yes, I want it to look flat and bad while still being properly exposed and technically fine. I've made up my mind but am curious what others think. This is why I mention Samyang. It was fine, it performs fine, but it's cheap. CP2s I did not really like nor MP but they seem fine on Alexa, maybe only because Alexa is a bit soft.

We did this not so scientific but to me quite telling lens test the other day for a Tv series that want a somewhat retro / more arty then clean look. The DP wants the spherical Kowas, I tried to convince him to go for our EE FD´s but he will likely go for the kowas that they used for last season. This was all with komodo that they will use for the show, but the FD´s cover FF as well.

https://vimeo.com/523040287

The Kowas do look good but they look strange. So much CA. Cooke I remember has much less. FDs I cannot make up my mind on. I think I like them best when they're wide open, but I generally don't like "clinical." Those and the Kowas are my favorite.

 

[John David Pope]

I would probably lean towards the Zeiss Milvus lenses. There are pretty clean all around.

Aren’t the Milvus in essence less-sharp Otus?

If so, and if sharp makes clinical, Otus would be even more clinical than Milvus.

My understanding is that Otus is the sharpest lens Zeiss has ever made, cinema glass included.

 

[Matt W.]

Aren’t the Milvus in essence less-sharp Otus?

If so, and if sharp makes clinical, Otus would be even more clinical than Milvus.

My understanding is that Otus is the sharpest lens Zeiss has ever made, cinema glass included.

I think the Milvus has more CA... Almost as sharp but not as extremely corrected.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

The Otus are extremely sharp but I don’t think they lack some character and they have some pop to them from my initial testing. On my EVA1 which is closer to Alexa in terms of sharpness the Otus lenses literally change the camera. It’s like adding some post sharpening (in a good way) but it’s the lens doing it. Even when I compare my Sigma 40 to it, it’s like wow, the Otus are just different league in just about every way.

 

[Matt W.]

The Otus are extremely sharp but I don’t think they lack some character and they have some pop to them from my initial testing. On my EVA1 which is closer to Alexa in terms of sharpness the Otus lenses literally change the camera. It’s like adding some post sharpening (in a good way) but it’s the lens doing it. Even when I compare my Sigma 40 to it, it’s like wow, the Otus are just different league in just about every way.

That's impressive. The EVA1 is a great camera but imo sharper than Alexa, which is quite soft and a bit strange in that the sensor has a strong OLPF on top of being low res but then the ProRes image at least has added in-camera sharpening. I think if the Alexa weren't so popular this would be considered "weird."

But that is very impressive, especially given that the 40mm is highly regarded.

I was thinking of a flat "corporate video" vibe for a personal project. But it just made me curious what people meant when they said "clinical" pejoratively. I think it originally had something to do with how MPs look too sharp on digital, but that hasn't been my experience.