Originally posted by Rondec I guess I don't really buy the whole discussion. Some lenses are better than others -- sharper, more contrasty, better at transitions from in focus to out of focus -- but in the end, images come down to things like light, subject and composition. But I generally see the word clinical applied to what I think are just generally uninteresting photos.
But... Taking two identical shots, exactly the same subject, composition and lighting, captured with two different lenses of the same focal length, at the same aperture setting... Would you agree that one
can look more pleasing than the other because of the way it is rendered by the lens?
An uninteresting photo isn't much use, regardless of the lens used - except perhaps as a record. An interesting photo can - I would argue - have that extra something because of the optical qualities of the lens used. I don't think that has to mean it's especially sharp or super-contrasty (though it
could mean that depending on the viewer's preferences)...