[Rondec]

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)...

Yes, but I don't think the differences are huge. To me, more modern lenses are quite sharp and have out of focus areas that are a little more flat, for lack of a better word. Lenses like the FA limiteds seem to have more interesting bokeh and then there are lenses like the Soligor where the bokeh seems to be the point of the images (I don't really like those images). Most stuff is fixable in post as long as a certain level of sharpness and contrast are present in an image, but out of focus rendering sort of is what it is. But there are many images where everything or just about everything is in focus and I have trouble seeing the difference -- feels like more like choices in post processing than anything else.

[clackers]

I definitely did some comparison shots last year between the DA 35mm/2.4 and the Super Takumar 35mm/2.0 that I think showed exactly that clinical vs characterful difference. . . but now I can't find the darn things so I must have deleted them. I'll leave Recuva running while I'm out this afternoon and see if I can undelete them. I got rid of the DA 35mm so I can't reshoot the comparison.

Yeah, that'd be useful, Dave - exactly the same photo with two different lenses.

[normhead]

We have discussed this so many times recently, I'm looking for a couple quotes but can't find them.

The lenses I would compare would be the DA 70 and 77 ltd.

The 77 ltd is pecifically designed, for "the way people take pictures, not for the test chats, where the DA 70 is more of a test chart lens.

The DFA 28-105 is also an example of a design for 3 spacial characteristics rather than absolute test chart sharpness. There is a quote somewhere where Masakazu Saori discusses this aspect of it's design in one of his interviews. Apparently the interviews aren't searchable and I can't come up with the quote.

I think part of the issue is people like one or the other. Many who had both the 70 and 77 sold one because the other was what they wanted.

I don't think you see a difference in every image, but sometimes it just pops out and punches you in the face.

[ffking]

I don't know what it proves, but I had a go at shooting a hastily contrived scene with the FA 31 Ltd and the D-FA 14-70 at 31mm, both at f/4 and light post processing pasted from one to the other. (both on K-1)

FA 31 Ltd



24-70 @31mm



The 24-70 isn't especially noted as being 'clinical', but it is noted as being quite even across the frame

[BigMackCam]

Yes, but I don't think the differences are huge. To me, more modern lenses are quite sharp and have out of focus areas that are a little more flat, for lack of a better word.

Agreed, the differences can be quite subtle. And it depends, to quite a significant extent, on the content of the scene - positioned within the frame and at various distances.

Lenses like the FA limiteds seem to have more interesting bokeh and then there are lenses like the Soligor where the bokeh seems to be the point of the images (I don't really like those images).

As I mentioned further up in the thread, this is pretty subjective stuff, IMHO. One person's "pixie dust" may be another person's "nice lens", may be another person's "meh..."

Most stuff is fixable in post as long as a certain level of sharpness and contrast are present in an image, but out of focus rendering sort of is what it is.

Recreating contrast, colour rendition and overall sharpness (at least in the final resized output) can be achieved to some extent in post, for sure. Even the addition or removal of a certain amount of inherent simple distortion and vignetting. But aberrations and out-of-focus rendering are very hard - if not impossible - to recreate effectively. As an admittedly-extreme example, the (in)famous "soap bubble" bokeh from a Trioplan... Perhaps not your cup of tea, but that lens has an awful lot of fans who'd place it in "pixie dust" territory. It's very subjective.

But there are many images where everything or just about everything is in focus and I have trouble seeing the difference -- feels like more like choices in post processing than anything else.

Absolutely - that does happen. Back to my first point; it depends very much on the scene as well as the lens

[UncleVanya]

I have the 70 and 77 and do not find he 70 to be clinical.

[Alex645]

I would like to see the same scene shot at the same time with one lens that's supposedly clinical and another that's not, eg FA35, DA35.

Yes I posted earlier this request too. What is problematic is that unless the photographer is a wealthy collector, they won't have duplicate focal lengths or they prefer clinical lenses over pixie dust and thus their kit has one or the other, but not both.

A few examples with what I'd call clinical first, followed by pixie dust:

Meyer-Optik Gorlitz P75 75mm f/1.9
vs.
Pentax SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
vs.
Pentax HD DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited

Meyer-Optik Gorlitz P58 58mm f/1.9
vs.
Pentax 55mm f/1.4 DA* SDM

or in Nikon mount:

Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T* ZF.2 (or the Planar or the Milvus)
vs.
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G

Yes, I realize some of these are not the exact same focal length or largest aperture, and that some are FF vs. APS-C, but one could still compare if cropped identically.

This is also presuming the quality of the image (portrait, landscape, etc.) is not in the category that I mentioned earlier; a clinical image. Two shots of a rock wall, or a test chart, or a skyline are going to not bring out the potential to show differences other than the technical merits or flaws.

---------- Post added 11-18-17 at 02:08 PM ----------

I don't know what it proves, but I had a go at shooting a hastily contrived scene with the FA 31 Ltd and the D-FA 14-70 at 31mm, both at f/4 and light post processing pasted from one to the other. (both on K-1)

In the 31mm prime, I see less distortion (note couch in top corners), higher resolution in the center/focal point (bowl surface), and better color rendition or vibrancy (bowl).

Primes will outperform most zooms, so if anything, the prime is more 'clinical' than the zoom, but given this comparison, I'd judge that the clinically superior lens has more pixie dust, which is contrary to my previous definition of what makes a lens more clinical. Hmmm.....

---------- Post added 11-18-17 at 02:29 PM ----------

There are plenty of us guilty of that one

True, most of us. But anyone that is successful will not dwell with the majority of the mediocrity we create. All that matters is that we get a few gems.

I'm a bit stressed right now because I have an upcoming gig to shoot a 130 foot yacht (for sale) and the owner expects 15-20 great shots. It's docked in a high security pier surrounded by ugly fences and he won't take it out of the pier for the photo shoot.

Imagine shooting a Ferrari that the owner wants to sell but refuses to take it out a small garage. All I can promise him is that I'll do a better job than his cell phone. All this to say, the reality of professional photography can be very different than the musings of clinical vs. pixie dust on PF.

[kh1234567890]

I have the 70 and 77 and do not find he 70 to be clinical.

I've just had a quick look through the couple of thousand images I'd taken with my DA70 and I also struggle to find many that are 'clinical' (as in lifeless, as opposed to boring because of subject, light or composition).

[IgorZ]

A few examples with what I'd call clinical first, followed by pixie dust:

Meyer-Optik Gorlitz P75 75mm f/1.9
vs.
Pentax SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
vs.
Pentax HD DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited

Meyer-Optik Gorlitz P58 58mm f/1.9
vs.
Pentax 55mm f/1.4 DA* SDM

or in Nikon mount:
.

Meyer Optik is clinical? I have never had a chance to hold either the 75mm or the 58mm, but looking at the photos I'd never have thought of them as clinical...
Always great to hear a variety of opinions!

[BigMackCam]

Meyer Optik is clinical? I have never had a chance to hold either the 75mm or the 58mm, but looking at the photos I'd never have thought of them as clinical...
Always great to hear a variety of opinions!

A perfect example of how subjective this whole thing is

[Rondec]

I have no examples of the same shot with two different lenses. I tend to delete one rather than keep both.

Here are two different shots, one with the DFA 24-70 and the other with the FA 77 limited.





Obviously they are shot at completely different times and are just different photos. You can still see differences in the rendering of the backgrounds and that to me is often the difference between lenses. The DFA 24-70 is a more modern design, but I still don't see a huge difference except that it is a little more contrasty.

[pepperberry farm]

A perfect example of how subjective this whole thing is

bingo...

[normhead]

You can still see differences in the rendering of the backgrounds and that to me is often the difference between lenses

The differences just are not that great, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. In the shot of the bowls above, the differences are actually greater than the differences between my DA* 60-250 and the tamron 90 macro. Not at all subjective to me. I look at the two images provided by ffking and the 31's 3D pop is unmistakable as is it's superior centre sharpness. Part of that is the much cleaner, smoother bokeh. But there may be a slight difference in the focus point as the 24-70 is sharper in front of the bowl.

But that's not all that's going on. If it was all the focus point and the focus point in the 24-70 is further forward it should be smoother bokeh behind the bowl, the 31 is smoother both front and back and not in sharp focus, thus a 3 D effect with better subject isolation. The sharpness of the foreground in front of the bowl with the 24-70 leads to less subject isolation, drawing your eye away from the subject.

But hey, that's just me. I wouldn't have picked the 31 as one that had the kind of spacial characteristics the 77does, and I don't know what ti's design principle was but who knows, maybe ti does. I certainly see a difference.

[leekil]

In the bowls photos, the FA31 photo seems to be a bit brighter, and perhaps more glare from the bowl than the 24-70 photo. I tried to check the EXIF data to verify that they had the same exposure settings, but the images are private on Flickr, so it wasn't possible.

[ffking]

In the bowls photos, the FA31 photo seems to be a bit brighter, and perhaps more glare from the bowl than the 24-70 photo. I tried to check the EXIF data to verify that they had the same exposure settings, but the images are private on Flickr, so it wasn't possible.

yes - in fact it was a difficult decision - I shot on manual and 'zeroed' the exposure via the shutter speed in both cases - the result of which was that the FA31 was shot at 1/5sec and the 24-70 at 1/6 sec. I could have kept both the same, but the 24-70 also took in a wider field of view (focus breathing? - the exif show it was clearly at 31mm) -which might have taken in a bit more window light, thus reducing the overall exposure time fractionally. Maybe it would have been better t control all variables, but it's the choice I made. To get the same amount of background, I'd have had to shoot at somewhere around 33-35mm, and other variables would have come into play - including the bowl being a lot larger - here's one at 33mm (I've also raised the exposure by 0.2 on lightroom to compensate):



One thing that interested me was that there is more of the table runner visible to the sides on the bowl/pot with the 31mm - maybe some of our optical experts can explain that - is it just because the front element of the lens is physically further away in the smaller prime?

Apologies for making the images private on Flickr - I didn't want them to be part of my stream for comment.