Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
p.7 #1Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
Geoff D F wrote:
That's only true if you are making photos for artistic purposes and that is only one small part of imaging.
There are very objective ways of measuring the IQ of a lens. Marketing to convince people that crappy IQ is good is just ridiculous. It would be more honest to just say that the lens has poor IQ with severe optical aberrations suitable for artsy work.
EBHT
Even photographs produced for supposedly non-“artistic” purposes — for example journalism or real estate or some portraits — are evaluated on their aesthetic merit. It would be exceedingly rare for an editor to consider a group of appropriate photographs of a subject and use “accuracy” as the criteria for selection.
…A picture editor would typically be looking for composition, or capture of a 'decisive moment'. Not the quality of out of focus highlights....
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
GerrySo anyone who chooses a slow shutter speed to allow some motion blur in the subject is automatically making a worse photo than if they chose to freeze the action? Far to many absolute claims in this thread considering most of what anyone will like in a photo is subjective.
This is turning into quite the straw man thread. I don’t think anyone said the thing that you are arguing about here.
gyoung143 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Photography has never been about reproducing an image accurately but producing something interesting.There are very objective ways of measuring the IQ of a lens. Marketing to convince people that crappy IQ is good is just ridiculous. It would be more honest to just say that the lens has poor IQ with severe optical aberrations suitable for artsy work.
EBH
Even photographs produced for supposedly non-“artistic” purposes — for example journalism or real estate or some portraits — are evaluated on their aesthetic merit. It would be exceedingly rare for an editor to consider a group of appropriate photographs of a subject and use “accuracy” as the criteria for selection.
…
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
Gerry
This is turning into quite the straw man thread. I don’t think anyone said the thing that you are arguing about here.
Jan 26, 2026 at 11:07 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.7 #2Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Geoff D F wrote
gyoung143 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Photography has never been about reproducing an image accurately but producing something interesting.There are very objective ways of measuring the IQ of a lens. Marketing to convince people that crappy IQ is good is just ridiculous. It would be more honest to just say that the lens has poor IQ with severe optical aberrations suitable for artsy work.
EBH
Even photographs produced for supposedly non-“artistic” purposes — for example journalism or real estate or some portraits — are evaluated on their aesthetic merit. It would be exceedingly rare for an editor to consider a group of appropriate photographs of a subject and use “accuracy” as the criteria for selection.
…
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
Gerry
Which, has nothing to do with the OP's question, does it GDan? Like you gripe at me for.
Jan 27, 2026 at 12:49 AM
p.7 #3Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
Geoff D F wrote:
That's only true if you are making photos for artistic purposes and that is only one small part of imaging.
There are very objective ways of measuring the IQ of a lens. Marketing to convince people that crappy IQ is good is just ridiculous. It would be more honest to just say that the lens has poor IQ with severe optical aberrations suitable for artsy work.
EBHEven photographs produced for supposedly non-“artistic” purposes — for example journalism or real estate or some portraits — are evaluated on their aesthetic merit. It would be exceedingly rare for an editor to consider a group of appropriate photographs of a subject and use “accuracy” as the criteria for selection.
…A picture editor would typically be looking for composition, or capture of a 'decisive moment'. Not the quality of out of focus highlights....
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
GerrySo anyone who chooses a slow shutter speed to allow some motion blur in the subject is automatically making a worse photo than if they chose to freeze the action? Far to many absolute claims in this thread considering most of what anyone will like in a photo is subjective.
Not if it's for artistic reasons as per the post I quoted. My point was for a more usual, professional situation, picture editors will be looking for what the general public will appreciate, and I suggest the general public will see motion blur as a failure to get a sharp photo. And it also has nothing whatever to do with lens sharpness which this thread is about?
Gerry
gyoung143 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Photography has never been about reproducing an image accurately but producing something interesting.There are very objective ways of measuring the IQ of a lens. Marketing to convince people that crappy IQ is good is just ridiculous. It would be more honest to just say that the lens has poor IQ with severe optical aberrations suitable for artsy work.
EBH
…
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
Gerry
Not if it's for artistic reasons as per the post I quoted. My point was for a more usual, professional situation, picture editors will be looking for what the general public will appreciate, and I suggest the general public will see motion blur as a failure to get a sharp photo. And it also has nothing whatever to do with lens sharpness which this thread is about?
Gerry
Jan 27, 2026 at 01:57 AM
p.7 #4Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
gyoung143 wrote:
That's only true if you are making photos for artistic purposes and that is only one small part of imaging.
There are very objective ways of measuring the IQ of a lens. Marketing to convince people that crappy IQ is good is just ridiculous. It would be more honest to just say that the lens has poor IQ with severe optical aberrations suitable for artsy work.
EBHEven photographs produced for supposedly non-“artistic” purposes — for example journalism or real estate or some portraits — are evaluated on their aesthetic merit. It would be exceedingly rare for an editor to consider a group of appropriate photographs of a subject and use “accuracy” as the criteria for selection.
…A picture editor would typically be looking for composition, or capture of a 'decisive moment'. Not the quality of out of focus highlights....
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
GerrySo anyone who chooses a slow shutter speed to allow some motion blur in the subject is automatically making a worse photo than if they chose to freeze the action? Far to many absolute claims in this thread considering most of what anyone will like in a photo is subjective.Not if it's for artistic reasons as per the post I quoted. My point was for a more usual, professional situation, picture editors will be looking for what the general public will appreciate, and I suggest the general public will see motion blur as a failure to get a sharp photo. And it also has nothing whatever to do with lens sharpness which this thread is about?
Gerry
Your statement was quite definitive that lack of best sharpness will do nothing absolutely nothing to make a picture better. Now to be clear, I like sharp lenses and i mostly prefer sharp photos, but I think your statement is just silly. There are plenty of times one might use motion blur, shoot in foggy conditions, use a diffusion or pro mist filter or any number of other reasons to produce a better image than one that was as sharp as could possibly be.
Geoff D F wrote
gyoung143 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Photography has never been about reproducing an image accurately but producing something interesting.There are very objective ways of measuring the IQ of a lens. Marketing to convince people that crappy IQ is good is just ridiculous. It would be more honest to just say that the lens has poor IQ with severe optical aberrations suitable for artsy work.
EBH
…
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
Gerry
Gerry
Your statement was quite definitive that lack of best sharpness will do nothing absolutely nothing to make a picture better. Now to be clear, I like sharp lenses and i mostly prefer sharp photos, but I think your statement is just silly. There are plenty of times one might use motion blur, shoot in foggy conditions, use a diffusion or pro mist filter or any number of other reasons to produce a better image than one that was as sharp as could possibly be.
Jan 27, 2026 at 04:12 AM
p.7 #5Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
Geoff D F wrote:
There are very objective ways of measuring the IQ of a lens. Marketing to convince people that crappy IQ is good is just ridiculous. It would be more honest to just say that the lens has poor IQ with severe optical aberrations suitable for artsy work.
EBHEven photographs produced for supposedly non-“artistic” purposes — for example journalism or real estate or some portraits — are evaluated on their aesthetic merit. It would be exceedingly rare for an editor to consider a group of appropriate photographs of a subject and use “accuracy” as the criteria for selection.
…A picture editor would typically be looking for composition, or capture of a 'decisive moment'. Not the quality of out of focus highlights....
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
GerrySo anyone who chooses a slow shutter speed to allow some motion blur in the subject is automatically making a worse photo than if they chose to freeze the action? Far to many absolute claims in this thread considering most of what anyone will like in a photo is subjective.Not if it's for artistic reasons as per the post I quoted. My point was for a more usual, professional situation, picture editors will be looking for what the general public will appreciate, and I suggest the general public will see motion blur as a failure to get a sharp photo. And it also has nothing whatever to do with lens sharpness which this thread is about?
GerryYour statement was quite definitive that lack of best sharpness will do nothing absolutely nothing to make a picture better. Now to be clear, I like sharp lenses and i mostly prefer sharp photos, but I think your statement is just silly. There are plenty of times one might use motion blur, shoot in foggy conditions, use a diffusion or pro mist filter or any number of other reasons to produce a better image than one that was as sharp as could possibly be.
And I think you are being at least 'silly' if you think motion blur has got anything to do with the 'best iq from a Fuji lens'.
gyoung143 wrote
Geoff D F wrote
gyoung143 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
That's only true if you are making photos for artistic purposes and that is only one small part of imaging.There are very objective ways of measuring the IQ of a lens. Marketing to convince people that crappy IQ is good is just ridiculous. It would be more honest to just say that the lens has poor IQ with severe optical aberrations suitable for artsy work.
EBH
…
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
Gerry
Gerry
And I think you are being at least 'silly' if you think motion blur has got anything to do with the 'best iq from a Fuji lens'.
Jan 27, 2026 at 07:30 AM
p.7 #6Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
We could end this little detour pretty quickly by agreeing that motion blur used intentionally for creative reasons can be creatively effective but that unintentional motion blur causes by accidental camera motion generally is a flaw.
Can we move on now?
Can we move on now?
Jan 27, 2026 at 10:44 AM
p.7 #7Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm fine with people saying, "I just prefer this lens."
I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."How would you define lens "character"? Or do you just dislike the term altogether?I dislike the way the term is used, in particular (where I started this) the common use of the term to contrast lenses that have “character” with those that are “clinical.” It is a implicit shorthand for “virtue” in this and other cases.
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to,...Show more →
Now you didn't answer my question
I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous" bugs, you should avoid wine tastings and reviews, its massively overused. At least there is no photographic equivalent of a sommelier, wait, maybe that's a YouTube reviewer! Along those line, in both cases its best to align yourself with a reviewer who appears to see/taste as you do. Then the adjectives become more meaningful. In the end, best not to forget we are supposed to be enjoying these pursuits, lol!
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
I believe the character vs. clinical is simply a way many people choose to have a criteria where they get to choose what they like without defining what it is they prefer.I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to,...Show more →
Now you didn't answer my question
I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous" bugs, you should avoid wine tastings and reviews, its massively overused. At least there is no photographic equivalent of a sommelier, wait, maybe that's a YouTube reviewer! Along those line, in both cases its best to align yourself with a reviewer who appears to see/taste as you do. Then the adjectives become more meaningful. In the end, best not to forget we are supposed to be enjoying these pursuits, lol!Jan 27, 2026 at 11:53 AM
p.7 #8Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
SGinNorcal wrote:
I'm fine with people saying, "I just prefer this lens."
I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."How would you define lens "character"? Or do you just dislike the term altogether?I dislike the way the term is used, in particular (where I started this) the common use of the term to contrast lenses that have “character” with those that are “clinical.” It is a implicit shorthand for “virtue” in this and other cases.
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to, first of all, drop the “clinical” description, as if being sharp and optically well-balanced were a liability. Then better to simply note/describe the feature of the lens with supposed “character” — “nice bokeh, vignetting, soft focus, etc.
Yeah, I’m a bit of stickler about words, their meaning, and how they are used. And I’m not a fan of words that are used to claim value for something by being vague wiht a sort of “if you don’t get it, you don’t understand” vibe ;-)
It isn’t limited to photography terms. Example. I was recently at a fine (yeah, Michelin starred) restaurant to celebrate a milestone event. It was a wonderful experience. But part of the show was the announcement and description of each course as it arrived, during which I heard one of my least favorite au courant culinary terms: “unctious,” used as if it were a good thing.
One definition is as follows:
1. Excessively ingratiating or insincerely earnest.
"was annoyed by the unctuous waiter."
2. Containing or composed of oil or fat.
3 Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery.
;-)Now you didn't answer my question I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous"...Show more →
You are kind of coming full circle here. I've said that I don't like the way the term is used. in part because its meaning is so nebulous and confused.
So asking me to define the term that I think is unuseful and amorphous and which I don't use is kind of backwards.
Regarding "clinical," I've heard it used regularly as a criticism of lenses, but I don't think I've ever heard it used in photography as a compliment.
I love good food (I'm a cook and I like to eat out) and we like and collect wine... and every time I hear that term "unctious" used in those contexts I cringe just a bit. ;-)
I'm not sure where your advice to me to "enjoy these pursuits" is coming from... ;-)
Edited on Jan 27, 2026 at 04:04 PM · View previous versions
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
I believe the character vs. clinical is simply a way many people choose to have a criteria where they get to choose what they like without defining what it is they prefer.I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to, first of all, drop the “clinical” description, as if being sharp and optically well-balanced were a liability. Then better to simply note/describe the feature of the lens with supposed “character” — “nice bokeh, vignetting, soft focus, etc.
Yeah, I’m a bit of stickler about words, their meaning, and how they are used. And I’m not a fan of words that are used to claim value for something by being vague wiht a sort of “if you don’t get it, you don’t understand” vibe ;-)
It isn’t limited to photography terms. Example. I was recently at a fine (yeah, Michelin starred) restaurant to celebrate a milestone event. It was a wonderful experience. But part of the show was the announcement and description of each course as it arrived, during which I heard one of my least favorite au courant culinary terms: “unctious,” used as if it were a good thing.
One definition is as follows:
1. Excessively ingratiating or insincerely earnest.
"was annoyed by the unctuous waiter."
2. Containing or composed of oil or fat.
3 Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery.
;-)
I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous"...Show more →You are kind of coming full circle here. I've said that I don't like the way the term is used. in part because its meaning is so nebulous and confused.
So asking me to define the term that I think is unuseful and amorphous and which I don't use is kind of backwards.
Regarding "clinical," I've heard it used regularly as a criticism of lenses, but I don't think I've ever heard it used in photography as a compliment.
I love good food (I'm a cook and I like to eat out) and we like and collect wine... and every time I hear that term "unctious" used in those contexts I cringe just a bit. ;-)
I'm not sure where your advice to me to "enjoy these pursuits" is coming from... ;-)
Edited on Jan 27, 2026 at 04:04 PM · View previous versions
Jan 27, 2026 at 01:55 PM
|
p.7 #9Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
gyoung143 wrote:
…A picture editor would typically be looking for composition, or capture of a 'decisive moment'. Not the quality of out of focus highlights....
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
GerrySo anyone who chooses a slow shutter speed to allow some motion blur in the subject is automatically making a worse photo than if they chose to freeze the action? Far to many absolute claims in this thread considering most of what anyone will like in a photo is subjective.Not if it's for artistic reasons as per the post I quoted. My point was for a more usual, professional situation, picture editors will be looking for what the general public will appreciate, and I suggest the general public will see motion blur as a failure to get a sharp photo. And it also has nothing whatever to do with lens sharpness which this thread is about?
GerryYour statement was quite definitive that lack of best sharpness will do nothing absolutely nothing to make a picture better. Now to be clear, I like sharp lenses and i mostly prefer sharp photos, but I think your statement is just silly. There are plenty of times one might use motion blur, shoot in foggy conditions, use a diffusion or pro mist filter or any number of other reasons to produce a better image than one that was as sharp as could possibly be.And I think you are being at least 'silly' if you think motion blur has got anything to do with the 'best iq from a Fuji lens'.
I don't think that and you seem to be trying to misrepresent my views.
Geoff D F wrote
gyoung143 wrote
Geoff D F wrote
gyoung143 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
Even photographs produced for supposedly non-“artistic” purposes — for example journalism or real estate or some portraits — are evaluated on their aesthetic merit. It would be exceedingly rare for an editor to consider a group of appropriate photographs of a subject and use “accuracy” as the criteria for selection.…
And whilst a lack of the best sharpness might not rule a photo out, it will do absolutely nothing to make it a better picture.
Gerry
Gerry
I don't think that and you seem to be trying to misrepresent my views.
Jan 27, 2026 at 03:41 PM
p.7 #10Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm fine with people saying, "I just prefer this lens."
I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."How would you define lens "character"? Or do you just dislike the term altogether?I dislike the way the term is used, in particular (where I started this) the common use of the term to contrast lenses that have “character” with those that are “clinical.” It is a implicit shorthand for “virtue” in this and other cases.
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to, first of all, drop the “clinical” description, as if being sharp and optically well-balanced were a liability. Then better to simply note/describe the feature of the lens with supposed “character” — “nice bokeh, vignetting, soft focus, etc.
Yeah, I’m a bit of stickler about words, their meaning, and how they are used. And I’m not a fan of words that are used to claim value for something by being vague wiht a sort of “if you don’t get it, you don’t understand” vibe ;-)
It isn’t limited to photography terms. Example. I was recently at a fine (yeah, Michelin starred) restaurant to celebrate a milestone event. It was a wonderful experience. But part of the show was the announcement and description of each course as it arrived, during which I heard one of my least favorite au courant culinary terms: “unctious,” used as if it were a good thing.
One definition is as follows:
1. Excessively ingratiating or insincerely earnest.
"was annoyed by the unctuous waiter."
2. Containing or composed of oil or fat.
3 Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery.
;-)Now you didn't answer my question I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous" bugs, you should avoid wine tastings and reviews, its massively overused. At least there is no photographic equivalent of a sommelier, wait, maybe that's a YouTube reviewer! Along those line, in both cases its best to align yourself with a reviewer who appears to see/taste as you do. Then the adjectives become more meaningful. In the end, best not to forget we are supposed to be enjoying these pursuits, lol!You are kind of coming full circle here. I've said that I don't like the way the term is used. in part because its meaning is so nebulous and confused.
So asking me to define the term that I think is unuseful and amorphous and which I don't use is kind of backwards.
Regarding "clinical," I've heard it used regularly as a criticism of lenses, but I don't think I've ever heard it used in photography as a compliment.
I love good food (I'm a cook and I like to eat out) and we like and collect wine... and every time...Show more →
I tend to think of clinical as being a bit like the look dentists get when photographing someone's teeth with a macro lens and ring flash. Technically perfect in terms of being able to see detail everywhere you look and leaving nothing to the imagination.
I don't think there is a universal definition of 'character' in a lens, but I normally think of it as having nice interesting bokeh (not nervous, harsh or distracting, possibly with some swirl), some vignetting wide open, and a pleasing transition between the zone of focus and out of focus areas.
In terms of modern versus older lens designs, modern lenses often use asperical elements and especially in zooms this can often produce nervous bokeh. The lenses will be sharper and free from CA, but bokeh may suffer as a result.
Modern lens designers seem to be aiming mostly for nuetral bokeh these days, and when they pull it of you get bokeh that on the one hand is not distracting, but on the other not interesting.
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
I believe the character vs. clinical is simply a way many people choose to have a criteria where they get to choose what they like without defining what it is they prefer.I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to, first of all, drop the “clinical” description, as if being sharp and optically well-balanced were a liability. Then better to simply note/describe the feature of the lens with supposed “character” — “nice bokeh, vignetting, soft focus, etc.
Yeah, I’m a bit of stickler about words, their meaning, and how they are used. And I’m not a fan of words that are used to claim value for something by being vague wiht a sort of “if you don’t get it, you don’t understand” vibe ;-)
It isn’t limited to photography terms. Example. I was recently at a fine (yeah, Michelin starred) restaurant to celebrate a milestone event. It was a wonderful experience. But part of the show was the announcement and description of each course as it arrived, during which I heard one of my least favorite au courant culinary terms: “unctious,” used as if it were a good thing.
One definition is as follows:
1. Excessively ingratiating or insincerely earnest.
"was annoyed by the unctuous waiter."
2. Containing or composed of oil or fat.
3 Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery.
;-)
I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous" bugs, you should avoid wine tastings and reviews, its massively overused. At least there is no photographic equivalent of a sommelier, wait, maybe that's a YouTube reviewer! Along those line, in both cases its best to align yourself with a reviewer who appears to see/taste as you do. Then the adjectives become more meaningful. In the end, best not to forget we are supposed to be enjoying these pursuits, lol!So asking me to define the term that I think is unuseful and amorphous and which I don't use is kind of backwards.
Regarding "clinical," I've heard it used regularly as a criticism of lenses, but I don't think I've ever heard it used in photography as a compliment.
I love good food (I'm a cook and I like to eat out) and we like and collect wine... and every time...Show more →
I tend to think of clinical as being a bit like the look dentists get when photographing someone's teeth with a macro lens and ring flash. Technically perfect in terms of being able to see detail everywhere you look and leaving nothing to the imagination.
I don't think there is a universal definition of 'character' in a lens, but I normally think of it as having nice interesting bokeh (not nervous, harsh or distracting, possibly with some swirl), some vignetting wide open, and a pleasing transition between the zone of focus and out of focus areas.
In terms of modern versus older lens designs, modern lenses often use asperical elements and especially in zooms this can often produce nervous bokeh. The lenses will be sharper and free from CA, but bokeh may suffer as a result.
Modern lens designers seem to be aiming mostly for nuetral bokeh these days, and when they pull it of you get bokeh that on the one hand is not distracting, but on the other not interesting.
Jan 27, 2026 at 03:54 PM
p.7 #11Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm fine with people saying, "I just prefer this lens."
I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."How would you define lens "character"? Or do you just dislike the term altogether?I dislike the way the term is used, in particular (where I started this) the common use of the term to contrast lenses that have “character” with those that are “clinical.” It is a implicit shorthand for “virtue” in this and other cases.
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to, first of all, drop the “clinical” description, as if being sharp and optically well-balanced were a liability. Then better to simply note/describe the feature of the lens with supposed “character” — “nice bokeh, vignetting, soft focus, etc.
Yeah, I’m a bit of stickler about words, their meaning, and how they are used. And I’m not a fan of words that are used to claim value for something by being vague wiht a sort of “if you don’t get it, you don’t understand” vibe ;-)
It isn’t limited to photography terms. Example. I was recently at a fine (yeah, Michelin starred) restaurant to celebrate a milestone event. It was a wonderful experience. But part of the show was the announcement and description of each course as it arrived, during which I heard one of my least favorite au courant culinary terms: “unctious,” used as if it were a good thing.
One definition is as follows:
1. Excessively ingratiating or insincerely earnest.
"was annoyed by the unctuous waiter."
2. Containing or composed of oil or fat.
3 Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery.
;-)Now you didn't answer my question I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous" bugs, you should avoid wine tastings and reviews, its massively overused. At least there is no photographic equivalent of a sommelier, wait, maybe that's a YouTube reviewer! Along those line, in both cases its best to align yourself with a reviewer who appears to see/taste as you do. Then the adjectives become more meaningful. In the end, best not to forget we are supposed to be enjoying these pursuits, lol!You are kind of coming full circle here. I've said that I don't like the way the term is used. in part because its meaning is so nebulous and confused.
So asking me to define the term that I think is unuseful and amorphous and which I don't use is kind of backwards.
Regarding "clinical," I've heard it used regularly as a criticism of lenses, but I don't think I've ever heard it used in photography as a compliment.
I love good food (I'm a cook and I like to eat out) and we like and collect wine... and every time...Show more →
Not trying to stir you up, just trying to understand your perspective. You said you don't like how others often use the term "character" and my question was "what does it mean to you/how would you use it?" Perhaps you don't use it all, that's fine.
My comment about "enjoying these pursuits" was simply my suggestion that we all don't take it to seriously. There is so much negativity in the world without adding more via photography forums.
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
I believe the character vs. clinical is simply a way many people choose to have a criteria where they get to choose what they like without defining what it is they prefer.I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to, first of all, drop the “clinical” description, as if being sharp and optically well-balanced were a liability. Then better to simply note/describe the feature of the lens with supposed “character” — “nice bokeh, vignetting, soft focus, etc.
Yeah, I’m a bit of stickler about words, their meaning, and how they are used. And I’m not a fan of words that are used to claim value for something by being vague wiht a sort of “if you don’t get it, you don’t understand” vibe ;-)
It isn’t limited to photography terms. Example. I was recently at a fine (yeah, Michelin starred) restaurant to celebrate a milestone event. It was a wonderful experience. But part of the show was the announcement and description of each course as it arrived, during which I heard one of my least favorite au courant culinary terms: “unctious,” used as if it were a good thing.
One definition is as follows:
1. Excessively ingratiating or insincerely earnest.
"was annoyed by the unctuous waiter."
2. Containing or composed of oil or fat.
3 Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery.
;-)
I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous" bugs, you should avoid wine tastings and reviews, its massively overused. At least there is no photographic equivalent of a sommelier, wait, maybe that's a YouTube reviewer! Along those line, in both cases its best to align yourself with a reviewer who appears to see/taste as you do. Then the adjectives become more meaningful. In the end, best not to forget we are supposed to be enjoying these pursuits, lol!So asking me to define the term that I think is unuseful and amorphous and which I don't use is kind of backwards.
Regarding "clinical," I've heard it used regularly as a criticism of lenses, but I don't think I've ever heard it used in photography as a compliment.
I love good food (I'm a cook and I like to eat out) and we like and collect wine... and every time...Show more →
Not trying to stir you up, just trying to understand your perspective. You said you don't like how others often use the term "character" and my question was "what does it mean to you/how would you use it?" Perhaps you don't use it all, that's fine.
My comment about "enjoying these pursuits" was simply my suggestion that we all don't take it to seriously. There is so much negativity in the world without adding more via photography forums.
Jan 27, 2026 at 04:07 PM
p.7 #12Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
I found this guy's take on Leica lenses interesting in the context of our discussion of character verses technical image quality, though I wouldn't say I agree with him exactly.
In his view Leica lenses are not technically perfect and some of the stuff he espouses sounds like techno babble to me. Though I probably do agree that Leica lenses have a somewhat signature look. I don't own any myself and Leica doesn't seem to perform exceptionally well on Optical Limits bench tests.
As a related aside, I have been testing some lenses myself as I have too many and need to downsize my collection. I haven't been conducting technical tests but rather just shooting stuff and seeing which lenses produce images I like the most. Lenses have been from Fujifilm, Viltrox, TTArtisans, Meike and Sigma. While, I couldn't discern huge differences in sharpness in any of them (they are all good) I mostly found myself liking the images from the Fujifilm lenses better, with a Viltrox lens next best. I can't rule out confirmation bias, but my process was to look at the pictures, compare and then look at the Exif data to see which lens was used. This result surprised me a little.
Describing why I like the Fuji images more is a little tricky. I would say the colours looked a bit more saturated without blocking up, and also the macro contrast seemed to be better tamed, while the micro contrast still held up. The Youtube video mentions this as a property of Leica lenses, though I'd be the first to admit from a physics and lens design point of view I don't see how such a theory could make sense. I could also say the rendering of the Fujis was more pleasing, but I don't know if there is any measurable aspect to 'rendering'
In his view Leica lenses are not technically perfect and some of the stuff he espouses sounds like techno babble to me. Though I probably do agree that Leica lenses have a somewhat signature look. I don't own any myself and Leica doesn't seem to perform exceptionally well on Optical Limits bench tests.
As a related aside, I have been testing some lenses myself as I have too many and need to downsize my collection. I haven't been conducting technical tests but rather just shooting stuff and seeing which lenses produce images I like the most. Lenses have been from Fujifilm, Viltrox, TTArtisans, Meike and Sigma. While, I couldn't discern huge differences in sharpness in any of them (they are all good) I mostly found myself liking the images from the Fujifilm lenses better, with a Viltrox lens next best. I can't rule out confirmation bias, but my process was to look at the pictures, compare and then look at the Exif data to see which lens was used. This result surprised me a little.
Describing why I like the Fuji images more is a little tricky. I would say the colours looked a bit more saturated without blocking up, and also the macro contrast seemed to be better tamed, while the micro contrast still held up. The Youtube video mentions this as a property of Leica lenses, though I'd be the first to admit from a physics and lens design point of view I don't see how such a theory could make sense. I could also say the rendering of the Fujis was more pleasing, but I don't know if there is any measurable aspect to 'rendering'
Feb 03, 2026 at 10:35 PM
p.7 #13Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
Geoff D F wrote:
I found this guy's take on Leica lenses interesting in the context of our discussion of character verses technical image quality, though I wouldn't say I agree with him exactly.
In his view Leica lenses are not technically perfect and some of the stuff he espouses sounds like techno babble to me. Though I probably do agree that Leica lenses have a somewhat signature look. I don't own any myself and Leica doesn't seem to perform exceptionally well on Optical Limits bench tests.
As a related aside, I have been testing some lenses myself as I have too many and...Show more →
I can remember the satisfaction I got when I bought my Leica M3 and lenses in 1968. Of the lenses the 35mm Summicron was sharper at corners and edges than anything else I had tried then. There weren't many 35mm f/2 lenses available and certainly the Pentax and Nikon ones struggled with the slr backfocus to get any where near as good in any respect. The 50mm Summicron I got later too was by some margin sharper at corners and edges at wider apertures than Nikon and anything else I owned in film days. The 90 and 135 were at least as good as others. And much later the 21 2.8 aspheric was better than the 20 Nikkor, both for sharpness at wider apertures and low distortion, the 35mm aspheric Summicron I had showed improvements in sharpness at corners etc at wider apertures over its ancestor..
But where all the Leica lenses I had stood out from the others in that era was in rendering, both tonally in b&w and in colour, much better and more subtle, less contrast but clean highlights and more detailed shadows. The Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad 500 were similarly much nicer than the Nikkors on the Bronica.
I haven't had any Leica lenses produced in very recent times, they are beyond my price range, but the Fuji and Nikon ones I have owned are very nice, a distinct improvement over the years, I presume at least partly due to availability of different glass types, as well as computer aided design. I particular like the Fuji ones, no complaints.
Gerry
I found this guy's take on Leica lenses interesting in the context of our discussion of character verses technical image quality, though I wouldn't say I agree with him exactly.
In his view Leica lenses are not technically perfect and some of the stuff he espouses sounds like techno babble to me. Though I probably do agree that Leica lenses have a somewhat signature look. I don't own any myself and Leica doesn't seem to perform exceptionally well on Optical Limits bench tests.
As a related aside, I have been testing some lenses myself as I have too many and...Show more →
I can remember the satisfaction I got when I bought my Leica M3 and lenses in 1968. Of the lenses the 35mm Summicron was sharper at corners and edges than anything else I had tried then. There weren't many 35mm f/2 lenses available and certainly the Pentax and Nikon ones struggled with the slr backfocus to get any where near as good in any respect. The 50mm Summicron I got later too was by some margin sharper at corners and edges at wider apertures than Nikon and anything else I owned in film days. The 90 and 135 were at least as good as others. And much later the 21 2.8 aspheric was better than the 20 Nikkor, both for sharpness at wider apertures and low distortion, the 35mm aspheric Summicron I had showed improvements in sharpness at corners etc at wider apertures over its ancestor..
But where all the Leica lenses I had stood out from the others in that era was in rendering, both tonally in b&w and in colour, much better and more subtle, less contrast but clean highlights and more detailed shadows. The Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad 500 were similarly much nicer than the Nikkors on the Bronica.
I haven't had any Leica lenses produced in very recent times, they are beyond my price range, but the Fuji and Nikon ones I have owned are very nice, a distinct improvement over the years, I presume at least partly due to availability of different glass types, as well as computer aided design. I particular like the Fuji ones, no complaints.
Gerry
Feb 04, 2026 at 05:09 AM
p.7 #14Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
SGinNorcal wrote:
I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."How would you define lens "character"? Or do you just dislike the term altogether?I dislike the way the term is used, in particular (where I started this) the common use of the term to contrast lenses that have “character” with those that are “clinical.” It is a implicit shorthand for “virtue” in this and other cases.
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to, first of all, drop the “clinical” description, as if being sharp and optically well-balanced were a liability. Then better to simply note/describe the feature of the lens with supposed “character” — “nice bokeh, vignetting, soft focus, etc.
Yeah, I’m a bit of stickler about words, their meaning, and how they are used. And I’m not a fan of words that are used to claim value for something by being vague wiht a sort of “if you don’t get it, you don’t understand” vibe ;-)
It isn’t limited to photography terms. Example. I was recently at a fine (yeah, Michelin starred) restaurant to celebrate a milestone event. It was a wonderful experience. But part of the show was the announcement and description of each course as it arrived, during which I heard one of my least favorite au courant culinary terms: “unctious,” used as if it were a good thing.
One definition is as follows:
1. Excessively ingratiating or insincerely earnest.
"was annoyed by the unctuous waiter."
2. Containing or composed of oil or fat.
3 Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery.
;-)Now you didn't answer my question I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous" bugs, you should avoid wine tastings and reviews, its massively overused. At least there is no photographic equivalent of a sommelier, wait, maybe that's a YouTube reviewer! Along those line, in both cases its best to align yourself with a reviewer who appears to see/taste as you do. Then the adjectives become more meaningful. In the end, best not to forget we are supposed to be enjoying these pursuits, lol!You are kind of coming full circle here. I've said that I don't like the way the term is used. in part because its meaning is so nebulous and confused.
So asking me to define the term that I think is unuseful and amorphous and which I don't use is kind of backwards.
Regarding "clinical," I've heard it used regularly as a criticism of lenses, but I don't think I've ever heard it used in photography as a compliment.
I love good food (I'm a cook and I like to eat out) and we like and collect wine... and every time I hear that term "unctious" used in those contexts I cringe just a bit. ;-)
I'm not sure where your advice to me to "enjoy this pursuits" is coming from... ;-)Not trying to stir you up, just trying to understand your perspective. You said you don't like how others often use the term "character" and my question was "what does it mean to you/how would you use it?" Perhaps you don't use it all, that's fine.
My comment about "enjoying these pursuits" was simply my suggestion that we all don't take it to seriously. There is so much negativity in the world without adding more via photography forums.
Honest answer: I never use that term to describe lenses.
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I'm fine with people saying, "I just prefer this lens."I'm not fine with people justifying (when there's no need to) their simple preference with the veneer of "character."
“Character” can apparently mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Apparently saying a lens has “character” can simply mean “i like it.” Or it could mean that it has objective faults — excessive vignetting, soft corners, etc. Or it might be a particular characteristic that the owner regards as a virtue, such as smooth, soft bokeh.
Better to, first of all, drop the “clinical” description, as if being sharp and optically well-balanced were a liability. Then better to simply note/describe the feature of the lens with supposed “character” — “nice bokeh, vignetting, soft focus, etc.
Yeah, I’m a bit of stickler about words, their meaning, and how they are used. And I’m not a fan of words that are used to claim value for something by being vague wiht a sort of “if you don’t get it, you don’t understand” vibe ;-)
It isn’t limited to photography terms. Example. I was recently at a fine (yeah, Michelin starred) restaurant to celebrate a milestone event. It was a wonderful experience. But part of the show was the announcement and description of each course as it arrived, during which I heard one of my least favorite au courant culinary terms: “unctious,” used as if it were a good thing.
One definition is as follows:
1. Excessively ingratiating or insincerely earnest.
"was annoyed by the unctuous waiter."
2. Containing or composed of oil or fat.
3 Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery.
;-)
I said how would you define character. Not what you think others mean by it. But I get what you mean, there is no universally accepted usage, one persons character is another's crap. When one says "clinical" its a compliment, to others criticism. If think if both are read in context the meaning comes through. In my other passion pursuit, I'm a winemaker for my small production label. I can't but help but think of ways people describe taste and it makes the terms people use for photography seem pretty reasonable. If "unctuous" bugs, you should avoid wine tastings and reviews, its massively overused. At least there is no photographic equivalent of a sommelier, wait, maybe that's a YouTube reviewer! Along those line, in both cases its best to align yourself with a reviewer who appears to see/taste as you do. Then the adjectives become more meaningful. In the end, best not to forget we are supposed to be enjoying these pursuits, lol!So asking me to define the term that I think is unuseful and amorphous and which I don't use is kind of backwards.
Regarding "clinical," I've heard it used regularly as a criticism of lenses, but I don't think I've ever heard it used in photography as a compliment.
I love good food (I'm a cook and I like to eat out) and we like and collect wine... and every time I hear that term "unctious" used in those contexts I cringe just a bit. ;-)
I'm not sure where your advice to me to "enjoy this pursuits" is coming from... ;-)
My comment about "enjoying these pursuits" was simply my suggestion that we all don't take it to seriously. There is so much negativity in the world without adding more via photography forums.
Honest answer: I never use that term to describe lenses.
Feb 04, 2026 at 09:01 AM
p.7 #15Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens?
"Character" might be a fuzzy word but there are other such words in the context of photography: bokeh, artistry, atmosphere, balance, mood, creamy, visual weight, even sharpness (that least one can at least be measured quantitively, though it is simultaneously subjective). I define "character" as a euphemistic term for a sort of imperfect or eccentric visual feature, attributed to the lens, that adds visual or interest to the photograph. But I don't use it much either -- I'd rather just try my best to describe what it is about the lens that gives it character.
On the other hand, unctuous is a word with a pretty definite meaning...
On the other hand, unctuous is a word with a pretty definite meaning...
Feb 04, 2026 at 11:03 AM