# I don't like the new lens designs



## Ruined (May 26, 2021)

Is it just me, or is what is going on with lenses these days a bit strange?

It seems to me we have lens manufacturers in a sharpness arms race (probably driven by Sony), where we are getting large, heavy, overcorrected and clinical lenses with zero flaws or softness. To the extent, where Canon releases a special version of their 85mm 1.2 with a defocus coating to smooth things out a bit since they corrected out most of the SA from the old 85 1.2 design in the base version. And now it seems soft focus and other filters that add aberrations are very much back in style because many of these new lens designs are found to look too clinical if you just shoot them naked.

Isn't a bit strange to spend double the price for a larger, heavier, hypercorrected lens and then spend even more on filters (or a special coating) to reintroduce the corrected flaws so the rendering is more forgiving or appealing?

Just a thought, anyone else noticing this trend?


----------



## unfocused (May 26, 2021)

Not sure how much of a trend it is or how new. Canon has had an EF 135mm soft focus lens for many years which I never saw the point of either. 

I'd admit though that some of these new lenses seem like overkill. But then again, I've always thought Bokeh was overrated. It's just not my style of photography. 

And, of course it's a bit ironic that while lenses get sharper and sharper, almost all pictures these days live on the internet, or more accurately, on cellphones, where everything looks sharp. 

I do think there is a certain amount of "because we can" among lens designers, coupled with buyers whose lens collections are more about ego than photography. Just look at some of the ridiculously long lists of lenses and bodies that some folks on this forum append to their signatures. 

On the other hand, I do appreciate the many options we have these days. Those with money to waste (in my opinion) can buy a $3,000 85 mm lens, but I can also buy my wife an 800mm lens for under $1,000. As long as Canon keeps making lenses I want, I can feel smug about not buying the lenses that I think are stupid, knowing full well that others might think my lens choices are equally stupid. 

Keep in mind, it's not a zero sum game. When Canon makes a lens that seems silly to us, they are earning profits and making design improvements that benefit the lenses we want.


----------



## Ruined (May 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Not sure how much of a trend it is or how new. Canon has had an EF 135mm soft focus lens for many years which I never saw the point of either.
> 
> I'd admit though that some of these new lenses seem like overkill. But then again, I've always thought Bokeh was overrated. It's just not my style of photography.
> 
> ...


I have a lot of the same thoughts I just didn't want to make my OP huge. I feel exactly the same way, that sharpness is really the only image quality aspect smartphones do well. And people view on images on smartphones. So why focus on sharpness as the primary differentiator for an expensive lens?

I look at the entire 2021 canon lineup from bodies to lenses and to me, this looks like an attempt to embarrass Sony and convert the market Sony created to Canon. That's probably a smart business move, I just don't like it from an artistic standpoint


----------



## unfocused (May 26, 2021)

Ruined said:


> I have a lot of the same thoughts I just didn't want to make my OP huge...


I tend to be a little wordy.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2021)

I've been saying the same thing here for a while, with differing levels of pushback. The size and price of lenses nowadays for questionable 'image quality improvements' has far surpassed the level of common sense or general need. But as soon as you say that some dish!t pipes up that they *need *f1.2 instead of f1.4, or they need 50lppmm 'more' because their 'sensor can out resolve their current lens', which just shows they have no understanding of how system resolution works.

The only group of posters that I see that genuinely do need 'more' are the wildlife people, particularly birders, that have small subjects often at some distance so they do regularly push the boundaries of resolution and pixel density. For most of the rest of us thinking we 'need' this bigger, heavier, faster, more exotic glass is just a crutch to support our own photographic inadequacies.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I tend to be a little wordy.


I tend to be opinionated


----------



## Ruined (May 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I've been saying the same thing here for a while, with differing levels of pushback. The size and price of lenses nowadays for questionable 'image quality improvements' has far surpassed the level of common sense or general need. But as soon as you say that some dish!t pipes up that they *need *f1.2 instead of f1.4, or they need 50lppmm 'more' because their 'sensor can out resolve their current lens', which just shows they have no understanding of how system resolution works.
> 
> The only group of posters that I see that genuinely do need 'more' are the wildlife people, particularly birders, that have small subjects often at some distance so thy do regularly push the boundaries of resolution and pixel density. For most of the rest of us thinking we 'need' this bigger, heavier, faster, more exotic glass is just a crutch to support our own photographic inadequacies.


On the plus side I was able to pick up two brand new "outdated" 5DsR bodies for $1499/ea to replace my 6D which I thought was a simply incredible deal given the typical Canon pricing. Even during clearance thats usually only 6D territory!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2021)

Ruined said:


> On the plus side I was able to pick up two brand new "outdated" 5DsR bodies for $1499/ea to replace my 6D which I thought was a simply incredible deal given the typical Canon pricing. Even during clearance thats usually only 6D territory!


Exactly, the EF gear is becoming an amazing bargain for people not distracted by the new shiny stuff.

Very lightly used 1DX III's are changing hands at $5,000 and 1DX II's are just a touch over $2,000! The 100-400 II can be found, with a bit of searching, for $1,000-$1,200 which I think is an insane bargain, but a new EF 35 f1.4L is $1,799, how much will the RF version be, $500, $700 more?


----------



## Del Paso (May 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I've been saying the same thing here for a while, with differing levels of pushback. The size and price of lenses nowadays for questionable 'image quality improvements' has far surpassed the level of common sense or general need. But as soon as you say that some dish!t pipes up that they *need *f1.2 instead of f1.4, or they need 50lppmm 'more' because their 'sensor can out resolve their current lens', which just shows they have no understanding of how system resolution works.
> 
> The only group of posters that I see that genuinely do need 'more' are the wildlife people, particularly birders, that have small subjects often at some distance so they do regularly push the boundaries of resolution and pixel density. For most of the rest of us thinking we 'need' this bigger, heavier, faster, more exotic glass is just a crutch to support our own photographic inadequacies.


I couldn't agree more !


----------



## Bdbtoys (May 26, 2021)

Are you sure that those buying these lenses are really applying softening techniques? Outside of DOF, I do not add softening to my images.

Also, the 85/1.2DS is not to soften the overall image... it was to soften the bokeh balls at the expense of about 1 less stop of light. There were discussions on this and most liked one or the other.

Last, if someone was going to modify an image as you described... wouldn't it be easier (give better results) starting from a sharp picture (as the reverse would be harder)?

Do I 'need' these fancy lenses... not really. Do I 'want' them... yes. Could I get use out of them... yes. If I'm going to pay for a lens, why not get the best that pairs with the camera?


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I've been saying the same thing here for a while, with differing levels of pushback. The size and price of lenses nowadays for questionable 'image quality improvements' has far surpassed the level of common sense or general need. But as soon as you say that some dish!t pipes up that they *need *f1.2 instead of f1.4, or they need 50lppmm 'more' because their 'sensor can out resolve their current lens', which just shows they have no understanding of how system resolution works.
> 
> The only group of posters that I see that genuinely do need 'more' are the wildlife people, particularly birders, that have small subjects often at some distance so they do regularly push the boundaries of resolution and pixel density. For most of the rest of us thinking we 'need' this bigger, heavier, faster, more exotic glass is just a crutch to support our own photographic inadequacies.


Leaving aside your "opinionations", you are right for us birders, and we are being well served by the manufacturers giving us more mm and more Mpx as well incredible AF.


----------



## Ruined (May 27, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Are you sure that those buying these lenses are really applying softening techniques? Outside of DOF, I do not add softening to my images.



Looking around social media I haven't seen the demand for soft filters and filters that introduce aberrations as strong as it is now in a very long time, and I am hypothesizing that this may be due to the overly "clinical" overcorrected nature of lenses released in the past couple of years.



Bdbtoys said:


> Also, the 85/1.2DS is not to soften the overall image... it was to soften the bokeh balls at the expense of about 1 less stop of light. There were discussions on this and most liked one or the other...
> 
> Do I 'need' these fancy lenses... not really. Do I 'want' them... yes. Could I get use out of them... yes. If I'm going to pay for a lens, why not get the best that pairs with the camera?



The RF 50mm f/1.2 & RF 85mm f/1.2 are great examples actually. Both of them mounted on mirrorless are much larger and more cumbersome than their EF counterparts mounted on a DSLR.

While these are the only options available for RF @ 1.2 without using an adapter, I personally don't feel they are better than the the f/1.2 EF lenses they replaced in overall image rendering. Sharper? Yes. Less artifacts? Yes. More visually appealing? No. The RF 85mm f/1.2 they corrected so much of the aberrations that some of the creaminess of the bokeh was lost (likely due to overzealous spherical aberration correction, resulting in more neutral bokeh); Canon realized this and likely did not want to have an RF lens with harsher bokeh than the EF lens it replaced, so they also released the overkill DS version - and that one I don't like either as the bokeh looks unnatural, more like a smartphone "portrait filter" than something that was taken with a professional camera. While if I were picking one of the two RF lenses I would definitely pick the non-DS, I would pick the EF over both of them despite it being less sharp with a lot more LOCA.

In photography there are always tradeoffs and making one thing "better" often makes another thing "worse." I just think this race for sharpness and complete artifact-free perfection has left lenses that are devoid of unique rendering capabilities and are emphasizing the wrong thing since even a cheap smartphone can take sharp pictures... which is probably why people are adding artifacts back in using filters to make their photos look more unique and different than a smartphone picture.



Bdbtoys said:


> Last, if someone was going to modify an image as you described... wouldn't it be easier (give better results) starting from a sharp picture (as the reverse would be harder)?


I'd rather have the lens give me the image I find the most visually appealing in the first place, even if it is not the sharpest and not 100% corrected of all aberrations.


----------



## becceric (May 27, 2021)

After having a majority of mediocre lenses over the years, I love the results from my current group of L lenses. While having a nice balance of various optical qualities is necessary, sharpness is a treat. None of the people seeing the photos have questioned any visible signs of chromatic aberration, vignetting, barrel distortion, etc. They’ve always appreciated sharpness though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 27, 2021)

I've been buying the consumer grade RF lenses. The only RF "L" lens I will own is the 100L Macro where I really do like to have a perfect image. Of course, I still have 4 EF L lenses but I see no need to upgrade them, in fact, I may sell them and wind down my photography a step. My hands are getting weaker and hand holding a large telephoto is more and more difficult.


Obviously, a lot of the producing exotic new lenses is marketing and profit. Canon makes no pretense about that. Their financial reports mention that RF lenses are very profitable. A high MP body can get a very good image from a consumer grade lens. 
I have a old EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro laying around. My R5 really made it come back to life. I was surprised at how good the images looked. Some of it may be the more accurate autofocus.

My feeling is that getting a good mirrorless body is a one time exception to the old rule of getting glass first. It makes your existing glass look better.


----------



## Ruined (May 27, 2021)

becceric said:


> After having a majority of mediocre lenses over the years, I love the results from my current group of L lenses. While having a nice balance of various optical qualities is necessary, sharpness is a treat. None of the people seeing the photos have questioned any visible signs of chromatic aberration, vignetting, barrel distortion, etc. They’ve always appreciated sharpness though.


In my experience, capturing the moment is the most important thing to people over any one technical quality. But if some combination of technical qualities somehow enhances capturing the moment, people tend to like that. A lot of people actually *don't* appreciate razor sharpness because it highlights skin defects, makeup application, hairs, pimples, wrinkles, etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Very lightly used 1DX III's are changing hands at $5,000 and 1DX II's are just a touch over $2,000!


I wonder if I’ll even be able to give my 1D X away (even after I get the presumably-failed PCB replaced).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder if I’ll even be able to give my 1D X away (even after I get the presumably-failed PCB replaced).


I’d keep it for a ‘spare’ and sentimental value. Though depending on shutter count and condition you might get $1,000-1,200?


----------



## Bdbtoys (May 27, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Looking around social media I haven't seen the demand for soft filters and filters that introduce aberrations as strong as it is now in a very long time, and I am hypothesizing that this may be due to the overly "clinical" overcorrected nature of lenses released in the past couple of years.
> 
> The RF 50mm f/1.2 & RF 85mm f/1.2 are great examples actually. Both of them mounted on mirrorless are much larger and more cumbersome than their EF counterparts mounted on a DSLR.
> 
> ...



For the record... I like the 85 non-DS over the DS. I commented about the DS because it sounded like you implied a general smoothing effect, when it's really more smoothing of the bokeh.

However this is all opinion in what people prefer. If you don't like the new lenses, that's great... however, I do.

But it sounded like you were implying that people are getting these lenses just to smooth filter over them. So now I'm curious... how many here with the RF L's are actually doing that? (Not counting artsy effects that they would put over a picture from any lens).


----------



## becceric (May 27, 2021)

Ruined said:


> In my experience, capturing the moment is the most important thing to people over any one technical quality. But if some combination of technical qualities somehow enhances capturing the moment, people tend to like that. A lot of people actually *don't* appreciate razor sharpness because it highlights skin defects, makeup application, hairs, pimples, wrinkles, etc.


Oh, I fully understand that. Luckily, I never photograph people. Granted I really don’t care for the increased sharpness of the porcupine photos I’ve taken.


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Exactly, the EF gear is becoming an amazing bargain for people not distracted by the new shiny stuff.
> 
> Very lightly used 1DX III's are changing hands at $5,000 and 1DX II's are just a touch over $2,000! The 100-400 II can be found, with a bit of searching, for $1,000-$1,200 which I think is an insane bargain, but a new EF 35 f1.4L is $1,799, how much will the RF version be, $500, $700 more?


As someone who is easily distracted by the new shiny stuff you've hit on the dilemma I'm facing after about a week with the R5. It seems to do everything my 1DxIII does and more, and I find myself contemplating whether or not to go all in when the R3 comes out and sell the 1Dx III. 

I don't regret buying the 1DxIII because it got me through this last sports year and really is superior to the 1DxII. But, I can tell from the R5 that an R3 is likely to be even better and it would allow me to have just one mount for everything. 

I'm currently preparing to sell my 5DIV and 7DII, although it's tough to part with them for sentimental reasons and because I know I'll only get a fraction of their value. Part of me says to keep them, given how little they will sell for, but honestly, having them sit on a shelf gathering dust doesn't make any financial sense either. 

As far as lenses go, though, once I finally secure a 100-500, I'm not really tempted by any of the other RF lenses as I already have the RF 24-105. Add in the EF 70-200 and those three are the lenses I use 99% of the time. As long as the RF 70-200 commands nearly $1,000 over the EF version, I'm not tempted. For the remaining 1%, I have plenty of EF lenses that work just fine with adapters and I'm not seeing much that makes me say I have to have the RF version of an EF lens I seldom use.


----------



## Ruined (May 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> . As long as the RF 70-200 commands nearly $1,000 over the EF version, I'm not tempted. For the remaining 1%, I have plenty of EF lenses that work just fine with adapters and I'm not seeing much that makes me say I have to have the RF version of an EF lens I seldom use.


Keep in mind while the RF version is smaller in the bag (tho same size @200mm), it zooms slower and is more challenging to accurately zoom compared to the EF version. If you are shooting sports or fast action might make a difference in favor of the EF. Like most things there was a tradeoff with the change in the RF 70-200.


Bdbtoys said:


> For the record... I like the 85 non-DS over the DS. I commented about the DS because it sounded like you implied a general smoothing effect, when it's really more smoothing of the bokeh.
> 
> However this is all opinion in what people prefer. If you don't like the new lenses, that's great... however, I do.
> 
> But it sounded like you were implying that people are getting these lenses just to smooth filter over them. So now I'm curious... how many here with the RF L's are actually doing that? (Not counting artsy effects that they would put over a picture from any lens).


That's the thing, the DS version *IS* getting the super corrected lens just to "smooth filter" over it. So anyone who got that lens is one of those folks. You are right it is only targeting the bokeh, but the reason they had to offer that in the first place is because they overcorrected the spherical abberation in the non-DS so it would look cleaner and sharper at the expense of less creamy bokeh. Since they didn't want to release an 85 1.2 with worse bokeh than the previous version, they offered the DS "add on" as an IMO inferior compromise - it wouldnt be cost effective to try to market a version with true better bokeh like the previous 85 1.2 at the same time as the new one as optical design would be different. If Canon had left in more SA like the prior 85 1.2 design there would be no need for the DS version - and the lens would be smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

When you say "this is what people prefer," first of all it's not like they have a choice if they have an RF camera and want a native 50 1.2 / 85 1.2 lens. Second, that is basically the point of this thread, that IMO this new trend to pursue hyper corrected sharpness is artistically misguided, especially when it compels people to further modify the optical path because the image looks too sterile, and bokeh too neutral or nervous.


----------



## H. Jones (May 27, 2021)

Ruined said:


> When you say "this is what people prefer," first of all it's not like they have a choice if they have an RF camera and want a native 50 1.2 / 85 1.2 lens. Second, that is basically the point of this thread, that IMO this new trend to pursue hyper corrected sharpness is artistically misguided, especially when it compels people to further modify the optical path because the image looks too sterile, and bokeh too neutral or nervous.


I will say, looking at Canon's RF line-up, I'm a bit hopeful the expensive, "perfect" f/1.2 lenses give Canon more room to release F/1.4 primes that don't search for "perfection" and instead value size over optics. I personally don't see a reason why F/1.4 primes would have to chase pure sharpness if Canon already has a $2500 option for that reason, I'd rather have weather-sealed L lenses that are rough around the edges but get the job done in a smaller package. It sounds like Sony already did something similar to this with their new small-ish 35mm F/1.4, and I'm hopeful that Canon will also come out with a smaller set of F/1.4 primes.


On a sidenote, everyone's needs are clearly different, but the first lens I jumped on when I got for my R5 was the RF 70-200 F/2.8L IS, and I have used it for all kinds of sports and fast action without an issue. I still have my EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II briefly while I wait to swap the 1DX2 for an R3, but I far prefer using the RF lens over the EF lens. The RF 70-200 truly changes the way I think about the 70-200 as a lens, and it feels no different than using a 24-70. So for a lens I use all day every day on every shoot I go on, I greatly, greatly appreciate the weight and size difference. Anyone who has used a 100-400 IS II for sports will already know how to properly handle the longer throw for the zoom ring.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 27, 2021)

Isn't this just the norm? Technology developing more and more, and things becoming more and more perfect and losing the flaws that gave them character? Which is why handmade clothing is still valuable and so much more expensive, old hand-ground lenses ground are desired by filmmakers over modern lenses, and handmade pottery is worth so much more than the perfections churned out by ceramic factories every day? I feel I am really lucky that has not happened so far with Canon lenses. As @privatebydesign pointed out, you can get great EF lenses with 'character' for low prices if that's what you want, or go with the best that technology can provide if that's what you want instead (and can afford it). I really enjoy the speed and accuracy of my RF 50/1.2 but when it comes to color and look, I love my EF 35/1.4 v1 (whose price dropped like a stone after the v2 came out) far more.


----------



## Ruined (May 28, 2021)

sagittariansrock said:


> Isn't this just the norm? Technology developing more and more, and things becoming more and more perfect and losing the flaws that gave them character? Which is why handmade clothing is still valuable and so much more expensive, old hand-ground lenses ground are desired by filmmakers over modern lenses, and handmade pottery is worth so much more than the perfections churned out by ceramic factories every day? I feel I am really lucky that has not happened so far with Canon lenses. As @privatebydesign pointed out, you can get great EF lenses with 'character' for low prices if that's what you want, or go with the best that technology can provide if that's what you want instead (and can afford it). I really enjoy the speed and accuracy of my RF 50/1.2 but when it comes to color and look, I love my EF 35/1.4 v1 (whose price dropped like a stone after the v2 came out) far more.


For me, at least, it seems like the "golden age" of canon lens design was like 2005-2017. Starting with lenses like the EF 50 1.2 / 85 1.2 II and ending with lenses like the 16-35 III

I am not saying that I want some blurry totally flawed lens. I do believe there is value in some corrections. Like, if you compare the EF 50mm f/1.0 to the 50 f/1.2 or 85 f/1.2 II, the EF 50 1.0 will show rainbows, massive amounts of flare, the bokeh balls are onioned, etc. Those are things I think you can apply a bit of correction to and improve in all dimensions like we saw with the EF 50 f/1.2 and 85 f/1.2 II. For portraits, I personally would rather shoot with the EF 50 1.2 over the EF 50 1.0, but Id also rather shoot with the EF 50 1.2 over the RF 50 1.2. Similarly I'd take the EF 85 1.2 II over the EF 85 1.2 I, EF 85 1.4, and RF 85 1.2 (both versions)

This latest crop of 2018-2021 lenses, I really feel they are going overboard on the corrections on the portrait primes especially, and now the lenses are too clinical with less pleasing bokeh than the ones they replaced while also being much larger and more expensive. The EF 50 1.2 rendered beautifully and was not much bigger than the 35 f/2 IS. The RF 1.2 is so much larger and more expensive, sure maybe sharper and easier to use but the bokeh is not as nice as a result of all the corrections.


----------



## Sporgon (May 30, 2021)

Whilst I too am not that keen on the very large, ultra fast lenses being offered in the RF mount I do like the accuracy of the AF that the mirrorless R series brings. No great photo ever had the subject unintentionally out of focus, and the wide open accuracy and sharpness I'm seeing with the RP is really much better than I could guarantee to achieve with a dslr when shooting through the viewfinder. Fortunately we can still use the old EF lenses and that's what I will be doing.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 31, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Whilst I too am not that keen on the very large, ultra fast lenses being offered in the RF mount I do like the accuracy of the AF that the mirrorless R series brings. No great photo ever had the subject unintentionally out of focus, and the wide open accuracy and sharpness I'm seeing with the RP is really much better than I could guarantee to achieve with a dslr when shooting through the viewfinder. Fortunately we can still use the old EF lenses and that's what I will be doing.


Whilst I'd broadly agree I would also say there is a big difference between _"No great photo ever had the subject unintentionally out of focus"_ and the current reality of general expectations from photographers. Now it seems if you can't cut yourself on it it isn't 'sharp enough' yet there are countless 'great' images out there that are not 'sharp'.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Whilst I'd broadly agree I would also say there is a big difference between _"No great photo ever had the subject unintentionally out of focus"_ and the current reality of general expectations from photographers. Now it seems if you can't cut yourself on it it isn't 'sharp enough' yet there are countless 'great' images out there that are not 'sharp'.
> 
> View attachment 197960
> View attachment 197962
> ...


As you say, a photograph doesn't have to be digitally sharp to be in focus, the two things are not necessarily the same. Take your examples; in the CB photo the point of focus is spot on - look at the duck boards, but CB has used motion blur to emphasis the shot. The same in the second image; the focus is bang on as intended with the hand of the girl pressed up against the window of the car in focus and their faces just beyond the dof. In fact this image rather emphasises my point. In the last image - the falling soldier by Capa: it looks in focus to me ! (It should have been if it was staged as has been suggested). 

What I have found with the RP is that I can shoot wide open with impunity, even when the point of focus is well to the side of the frame, something I wouldn't have dared do with the slr in a critical shot on the fly as it were. The RF mount is definitely offering us something more in this respect. The elephant in the room of course is the EVF vs the OVF. It's a pleasure to go back to using the sir's viewfinder, though after holding the RP the 5DS feels like it's been at the pies and ale too much. I must say the RP fits in my hand like a double scotch that PBD has just paid for


----------



## Dockland (Jun 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I've been saying the same thing here for a while, with differing levels of pushback. The size and price of lenses nowadays for questionable 'image quality improvements' has far surpassed the level of common sense or general need. But as soon as you say that some dish!t pipes up that they *need *f1.2 instead of f1.4, or they need 50lppmm 'more' because their 'sensor can out resolve their current lens', which just shows they have no understanding of how system resolution works.
> 
> The only group of posters that I see that genuinely do need 'more' are the wildlife people, particularly birders, that have small subjects often at some distance so they do regularly push the boundaries of resolution and pixel density. For most of the rest of us thinking we 'need' this bigger, heavier, faster, more exotic glass is just a crutch to support our own photographic inadequacies.



I'm pleased with my RF 85 f/1.2 if i compare it to my (now sold) EF 85mm f/1.4. The CA is way better on the f/1.2. Way better.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2021)

Dockland said:


> I'm pleased with my RF 85 f/1.2 if i compare it to my (now sold) EF 85mm f/1.4. The CA is way better on the f/1.2. Way better.


Seriously, who cares about CA, it is so easy to correct in post it is a complete non issue.


----------



## Dockland (Jun 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Seriously, who cares about CA, it is so easy to correct in post it is a complete non issue.



Ok. Then it's no meaning Canon develops anything to correct this in the optics. Completely meaningless. They can just state any aberrations with a simple "just correct that in post" and continue to produce cheap shitty lenses like EF 85mm f/1.8 f/1.4. 

I rather have as little aberrations in the first step myself, but that's just me perhaps.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2021)

Dockland said:


> Ok. Then it's no meaning Canon develops anything to correct this in the optics. Completely meaningless. They can just state any aberrations with a simple "just correct that in post" and continue to produce cheap shitty lenses like EF 85mm f/1.8 f/1.4.
> 
> I rather have as little aberrations in the first step myself, but that's just me perhaps.


No, it’s just a compromise between size weight and cost vs minor aberrations that can be easily and effectively removed if necessary. Very few people would agree with you that the EF 85 f1.4 L IS is a “cheap and shitty lens”. Sounds like you have a touch of buyers guilt or gear insecurity.


----------



## Dockland (Jun 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No, it’s just a compromise between size weight and cost vs minor aberrations that can be easily and effectively removed if necessary. Very few people would agree with you that the EF 85 f1.4 L IS is a “cheap and shitty lens”. Sounds like you have a touch of buyers guilt or gear insecurity.



I wasn't pleased with the 85 f/1.4. There's certainly a market for those kind of lenses, no doubt.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2021)

Dockland said:


> I wasn't pleased with the 85 f/1.4. There's certainly a market for those kind of lenses, no doubt.


Can you post some images you took with the EF85 f1.4 L that you are disappointed with because the CA was unacceptably bad?


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 2, 2021)

People keep talking about "overcorrected" lenses having a "clinical" look, but I don't really know what people mean by "clinical". I understand that some lenses have smoother bokeh and others have "busier" looking bokeh, but the word "clinical" seems to imply something else. I can't help wondering whether some of the people using that term even really know themselves what they mean by it. I've noticed that even in articles about this, I've never seen side-by-side identical shots taken with different lenses to illustrate what is meant. The articles always have examples of totally different photographs taken with the different lenses, which doesn't really illustrate anything.


----------



## Dockland (Jun 2, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> People keep talking about "overcorrected" lenses having a "clinical" look, but I don't really know what people mean by "clinical". I understand that some lenses have smoother bokeh and others have "busier" looking bokeh, but the word "clinical" seems to imply something else. I can't help wondering whether some of the people using that term even really know themselves what they mean by it. I've noticed that even in articles about this, I've never seen side-by-side identical shots taken with different lenses to illustrate what is meant. The articles always have examples of totally different photographs taken with the different lenses, which doesn't really illustrate anything.



According to the "dirtiness" as old school cool-images, it's easy fixable in post


----------



## stevelee (Jun 2, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> People keep talking about "overcorrected" lenses having a "clinical" look, but I don't really know what people mean by "clinical". I understand that some lenses have smoother bokeh and others have "busier" looking bokeh, but the word "clinical" seems to imply something else. I can't help wondering whether some of the people using that term even really know themselves what they mean by it. I've noticed that even in articles about this, I've never seen side-by-side identical shots taken with different lenses to illustrate what is meant. The articles always have examples of totally different photographs taken with the different lenses, which doesn't really illustrate anything.


The only time I have used the word "clinical" in criticism of a lens was of the portraits I took with my 100mm macro. It's a great lens, and 100mm is perfect for portraits. But I didn't like the look. I liked better the portraits made with my 24mm–105mm zoom, but of course the aperture doesn't open as wide. I've since bought a refurbed 85mm f/1.8 and like it, too in that range.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 2, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> People keep talking about "overcorrected" lenses having a "clinical" look, but I don't really know what people mean by "clinical". I understand that some lenses have smoother bokeh and others have "busier" looking bokeh, but the word "clinical" seems to imply something else. I can't help wondering whether some of the people using that term even really know themselves what they mean by it. I've noticed that even in articles about this, I've never seen side-by-side identical shots taken with different lenses to illustrate what is meant. The articles always have examples of totally different photographs taken with the different lenses, which doesn't really illustrate anything.


IMO clinical generally means an ultra sharp image combined with bokeh and/or color rendering that is less impressive than other options available. An example can be found in the bokeh section of this RF 85 1.2 analysis, the EF 85 1.2 II does notably better than this




__





Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 USM L - Review / Test Report - Analysis


Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 USM L - Review / Test Report




opticallimits.com


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2021)

Dockland said:


> According to the "dirtiness" as old school cool-images, it's easy fixable in post


Nope, bokeh and falloff are impossible to 'fix' in post, as opposed to CA which is a simple fix. Funny how you can argue the opposite of both...


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 3, 2021)

stevelee said:


> The only time I have used the word "clinical" in criticism of a lens was of the portraits I took with my 100mm macro. It's a great lens, and 100mm is perfect for portraits. But I didn't like the look. I liked better the portraits made with my 24mm–105mm zoom, but of course the aperture doesn't open as wide. I've since bought a refurbed 85mm f/1.8 and like it, too in that range.


Can you explain what was different about the look between the two lenses?

Are you referring to the 100mm macro L or non-L?


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 3, 2021)

Ruined said:


> IMO clinical generally means an ultra sharp image combined with bokeh and/or color rendering that is less impressive than other options available. An example can be found in the bokeh section of this RF 85 1.2 analysis, the EF 85 1.2 II does notably better than this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks. I agree that the bokeh in the photo of the bird is not attractive, very "busy", not smooth. It's never been clear to me what causes this - I've heard it blamed on aspheric elements but I don't really know whether that has anything to do with the issue or not. If this is what people mean by "clinical" - sharp in focus but with busy bokeh - I wish they would say that, as I don't think the word clinical conveys that very well. But I'm not sure if some people mean more, or something else, by clinical.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 3, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Nope, bokeh and falloff are impossible to 'fix' in post, as opposed to CA which is a simple fix. Funny how you can argue the opposite of both...


I guess in theory you could select the out of focus areas in PS and apply blur, but that is more difficult than fixing CA, and it would be difficult to get the gradations of softness/blur that you would get SOOC with a lens that has smooth bokeh.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 3, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> Can you explain what was different about the look between the two lenses?
> 
> Are you referring to the 100mm macro L or non-L?


I have the non-L version (or as I call it, Noël). From what I've read, there is not a lot of difference between the two other than IS.

The difference is very subjective and hard to describe (hence the word "clinical"). Maybe the fact that a cat was baring her fangs in one shot (even though she wasn't unhappy or threatening in real life) made the picture look more in-your-face.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 3, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I have the non-L version (or as I call it, Noël). From what I've read, there is not a lot of difference between the two other than IS.
> 
> The difference is very subjective and hard to describe (hence the word "clinical"). Maybe the fact that a cat was baring her fangs in one shot (even though she wasn't unhappy or threatening in real life) made the picture look more in-your-face.


LOL, thanks. I have that lens and the 85 f/1.8 (hmm, just realized I didn't ask whether you meant the older EF or the new RF 85; I'd assumed you meant the older EF); I'll have to experiment a bit myself and see if I see a difference.


----------



## Dockland (Jun 3, 2021)

Ruined said:


> IMO clinical generally means an ultra sharp image combined with bokeh and/or color rendering that is less impressive than other options available. An example can be found in the bokeh section of this RF 85 1.2 analysis, the EF 85 1.2 II does notably better than this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another example from my RF 85 f/1.2 @f/1.2


----------



## stevelee (Jun 4, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> LOL, thanks. I have that lens and the 85 f/1.8 (hmm, just realized I didn't ask whether you meant the older EF or the new RF 85; I'd assumed you meant the older EF); I'll have to experiment a bit myself and see if I see a difference.


You are correct. I do not have any RF lenses, or a camera to put them on, and no plans to buy one any time soon.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 4, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> LOL, thanks. I have that lens and the 85 f/1.8 (hmm, just realized I didn't ask whether you meant the older EF or the new RF 85; I'd assumed you meant the older EF); I'll have to experiment a bit myself and see if I see a difference.


I found the cat picture I had in mind. Not a great shot anyway, and I haven't photographed her with the EF 85 for comparison:


----------



## Ruined (Jun 5, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> Thanks. I agree that the bokeh in the photo of the bird is not attractive, very "busy", not smooth. It's never been clear to me what causes this - I've heard it blamed on aspheric elements but I don't really know whether that has anything to do with the issue or not. If this is what people mean by "clinical" - sharp in focus but with busy bokeh - I wish they would say that, as I don't think the word clinical conveys that very well. But I'm not sure if some people mean more, or something else, by clinical.


Clinical almost always refers a lens that is measurably superior in some way yet with a visible end result that is not as pleasing compared to other alternatives for some other visual reason. It is not restricted to bokeh, it just means that *something* about the image subjectively is not pleasing despite it being technically astute in some way (i.e. sharp), but bokeh is often one of those somethings.

For instance, some of the non-L primes/zooms in Canon's lineup are referred to as "clinical" not necessarily because of just bad bokeh, but instead/also because the color and microcontrast is not as good as some of the L zooms/primes *despite* said non-L measuring well in sharpness. You can measure sharpness, but its hard to measure color rendering and bokeh quality, hence terms like clinical get tossed around when these non-measurable components are less desirable.

This term also is used for audio gear, by the way. When an amplifier or DAC is noted to be "clinical," it means it performs well on the test bench but for some reason the subjective output is not pleasing to the ears (most often referring to harsh treble). It seems "clinical" in both audio/photo cases is associated by users with output that is "sharp" but ultimately less pleasing in non-measurable components than other available alternatives.

Also, re: aspheric elements and over-correction impact on bokeh, Zeiss has a good article on it:


https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/Article-Bokeh-2010-EN.pdf



Note this passage:
"The more appealing the blurriness is in the background, the less appealing it is in the foreground. There it often seems harsh and disturbing. It generates swirls of small highlights and *transforms lines into double lines*... We must make use of this characteristic moderately with lenses intended for general use and have to limit the spherical under-correction. In any case, we should avoid spherical over-correction. This is not to say that the lens is now better than good - *overcorrection just means that the spherical aberrations now have a different signature. The marginal rays then intersect far behind the focal point of the paraxial rays. The bokeh characteristics are then simply reversed. The foreground characteristics with under-correction are found in the background in case of overcorrection.* And because background is almost always more important, it would be the less desired balancing of the lens."

If you go back to that optical limits bokeh review of the RF 85mm, you'll see the bolded Zeiss passage is exactly what is happening!


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder if I’ll even be able to give my 1D X away (even after I get the presumably-failed PCB replaced).


Yes you will. I'll send you my address in PM.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 5, 2021)

Ruined said:


> This term also is used for audio gear, by the way. When an amplifier or DAC is noted to be "clinical," it means it performs well on the test bench but for some reason the subjective output is not pleasing to the ears (most often referring to harsh treble). It seems "clinical" in both audio/photo cases is associated by users with output that is "sharp" but ultimately less pleasing in non-measurable components than other available alternatives.


Early CDs did sometimes sound rough in the treble until mastering and DAC technology matured a bit. But even when well done, people missed what they called “warmth,” especially in the strings. We got so used to the intermodulation distortion in analog recording that we missed it. People whose “golden ears” were unsullied by live performances seemed affected the most. Also, analog tape was forgiving of saturation and such, which digital recording isn’t. And a bit of tape hiss can add a nice sense of openness and clarity.

About the only part of that without rather obvious parallels in photography, is that photographers have more opportunities to see the real world than stereophiles to hear symphony concerts.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 6, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Clinical almost always refers a lens that is measurably superior in some way yet with a visible end result that is not as pleasing compared to other alternatives for some other visual reason. It is not restricted to bokeh, it just means that *something* about the image subjectively is not pleasing despite it being technically astute in some way (i.e. sharp), but bokeh is often one of those somethings.
> 
> For instance, some of the non-L primes/zooms in Canon's lineup are referred to as "clinical" not necessarily because of just bad bokeh, but instead/also because the color and microcontrast is not as good as some of the L zooms/primes *despite* said non-L measuring well in sharpness. You can measure sharpness, but its hard to measure color rendering and bokeh quality, hence terms like clinical get tossed around when these non-measurable components are less desirable.
> 
> ...





Ruined said:


> Clinical almost always refers a lens that is measurably superior in some way yet with a visible end result that is not as pleasing compared to other alternatives for some other visual reason. It is not restricted to bokeh, it just means that *something* about the image subjectively is not pleasing despite it being technically astute in some way (i.e. sharp), but bokeh is often one of those somethings.
> 
> For instance, some of the non-L primes/zooms in Canon's lineup are referred to as "clinical" not necessarily because of just bad bokeh, but instead/also because the color and microcontrast is not as good as some of the L zooms/primes *despite* said non-L measuring well in sharpness. You can measure sharpness, but its hard to measure color rendering and bokeh quality, hence terms like clinical get tossed around when these non-measurable components are less desirable.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the detailed reply. Saying a lens is sharp but has poor microcontrast, or is sharp but has poor color (or bokeh that isn't smooth), those things make sense and are clear. I guess I wish that people would say those things instead of just using the word clinical. I guess sometimes it isn't obvious what exactly is making one image look better than another, and so people fall back on the word clinical. I think your definition of clinical is a good one - "Clinical almost always refers a lens that is measurably superior in some way yet with a visible end result that is not as pleasing compared to other alternatives for some other visual reason."

I've also noticed the term being used in audio; I've seen it a lot in discussions of headphones.

Thanks for the link and that passage. I did not realize that making bokeh smoother behind or in front of the subject makes it less smooth on the other side (which I think is what that is saying).


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 6, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Early CDs did sometimes sound rough in the treble until mastering and DAC technology matured a bit. But even when well done, people missed what they called “warmth,” especially in the strings. We got so used to the intermodulation distortion in analog recording that we missed it. People whose “golden ears” were unsullied by live performances seemed affected the most. Also, analog tape was forgiving of saturation and such, which digital recording isn’t. And a bit of tape hiss can add a nice sense of openness and clarity.
> 
> About the only part of that without rather obvious parallels in photography, is that photographers have more opportunities to see the real world than stereophiles to hear symphony concerts.


I've always wondered why someone would complain about music not being rendered faithfully. I think you make good points about getting used to certain distortions, and ears being "unsullied by live performances". I'm curious about tape hiss adding a sense of openness and clarity -I don't quite understand that, but maybe it's similar to the way noise can add a sense of sharpness to a photo?


----------



## stevelee (Jun 6, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> I've always wondered why someone would complain about music not being rendered faithfully. I think you make good points about getting used to certain distortions, and ears being "unsullied by live performances". I'm curious about tape hiss adding a sense of openness and clarity -I don't quite understand that, but maybe it's similar to the way noise can add a sense of sharpness to a photo?


Yes, that is a pretty good parallel. At least some of the frequencies in the hiss are overtones/harmonics of sounds in the music. At a low level of hiss, the brain interprets it so. If you take away all the hiss, the music can sound rather bald. Even if the hiss is a bit loud, you can ignore it in part, but still hear some of it as clarity. I forget the name of the process, but there was a patented box that added sheen to pop recordings for years, and other processes that mimicked the effect. Some raise level of the existing treble in a small band of frequencies. Some added filtered noise. Some did an autocorrelation to add multiples of existing frequencies. There were also boxes that added the frequency an octave below the lowest note. All of these were analog, I think, at the time. I have an old autocorrelation box somewhere in the garage. I don’t recall exactly what it did. It has a knob that lets you dial in just the right amount.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 6, 2021)

I'm not brave enough to have a stab at defining a 'clinical' lens. I have found that some lenses that have a reputation for beautiful rendering actually have very poor sharpness away from the centre of the image when at fast apertures and so this contributes to both the rendering in the centre of the frame and the bokeh elsewhere, and lenses that are not as greatly corrected for various CAs can have a smoother transition from in-focus to blur. But at the end of the day, to anyone other than the photographer who took the picture, it really is content that counts. We have some guys here on CR who are very competent photographers with a good understanding of composition and lighting, and wax lyrical about lenses such as the RF 85/1.2 and post examples to demonstrate the prowess of the lens, yet those images would have been good if they had been shot on any reasonably fast prime lens even if costing just a couple of hundred dollars. 

I'll go get my tin hat.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jun 6, 2021)

For my part, I've always equated 'clinical' with 'sterile' - a very good thing if undergoing open surgery, but also suggestive in non-medical settings as lacking some warmth or character.

I'll now go and share Sporgon's tin hat ....


----------



## stevelee (Jun 6, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I'm not brave enough to have a stab at defining a 'clinical' lens. I have found that some lenses that have a reputation for beautiful rendering actually have very poor sharpness away from the centre of the image when at fast apertures and so this contributes to both the rendering in the centre of the frame and the bokeh elsewhere, and lenses that are not as greatly corrected for various CAs can have a smoother transition from in-focus to blur. But at the end of the day, to anyone other than the photographer who took the picture, it really is content that counts. We have some guys here on CR who are very competent photographers with a good understanding of composition and lighting, and wax lyrical about lenses such as the RF 85/1.2 and post examples to demonstrate the prowess of the lens, yet those images would have been good if they had been shot on any reasonably fast prime lens even if costing just a couple of hundred dollars.
> 
> I'll go get my tin hat.


As someone who found that using a wonderful macro lens of a perfect focal length to produce less than desirable portraits, I think that having a flat field is a likely factor.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 7, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> I've always wondered why someone would complain about music not being rendered faithfully. I think you make good points about getting used to certain distortions, and ears being "unsullied by live performances". I'm curious about tape hiss adding a sense of openness and clarity -I don't quite understand that, but maybe it's similar to the way noise can add a sense of sharpness to a photo?


On some headphones that are unforgiving wirh high frequencies but very rewarding if you get a good match (like Senn HD800S, Focal Utopia) the "clinical" component becomes very important NOT to have in the amp/dac. Meaning, you can take two amps that post the same flat frequency response and similar low distortion but one will sound noticably worse (sometimes to the point of discomfort) than the other with these specific headphones. Similarly, you don't want hardware that has the high frequencies rolled off or muted because that eliminates the point of the higher detailed headphone.

LIke bokeh, there are components of audio that cannot be effectively measured yet and these can make all the difference if the speaker/headphone reproduces them


----------

