Dan, I agree with you. But you probably had some confirmation bias when you read the list and didn't believe it, then created some photos to confirm it. As you say, its human nature, we all do it.
Price doesn't aalways correlate to performance. My favorite 1980's ~70-210 type lenses cost $7 & $49. My main gripe is no af, excellent lenses.
Before 2lb 50/1.2's, less expensive 1.8's & f/2 50mm generally considered better stopped down than their more expensive, faster counterparts.
So the used 14mm may be 1/3 of new just due to lack of demand or whatever. Newer lenses seem to have the potential to be better at max aperture, but are you going to use the 14mm at 2.8 anyway, and it's really not that old and may be excellent at 2.8, too
Many of the older lenses were featured in multiple of the old instant rebate sales. Which used to be often and very large percentage wise. The 14/2.8 was offered new multiple times for 400-500 new. At least one of the older pancakes got sold for $199 with rebate early on. So I think there are lots out there that people got at a good price and tend to sell at one as well.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Dan, I agree with you. But you probably had some confirmation bias when you read the list and didn't believe it, then created some photos to confirm it. As you say, its human nature, we all do it.
To be clear, if I created photos to “prove” it, and they didn’t prove it, but I buried my doubts and said they looked great, that could be an example of succumbing ot confirmation bias.
I try to test stuff out and I’ll change my practices based on what I learn, including moving away from some supposed facts about equipment if the tests show otherwise.
On the other hand, there’s a lot of “wisdom” of forums (mixed in with real wisdom, so the problem isn’t universal) that mostly ones from repeating something that people heard or read somewhere. These things sometimes take on a life of their own.
One of the most egregious examples devolved from Fujifilm’s infamous list of lenses that were “ready for 40MP.” We STILL get people assuming that lenses that were not on that list were not sharp enough for 40MP. That, of course, was nonsense, and a very careful, critical reading of Fujifilm’s wording about the list made it pretty clear that it was not a case of “on the list OK, not on the list not OK.”
Back to confirmation bias. We’re all susceptible to it, and warding it off takes constant effort.
I didn't have the same experiences with older lenses. The 35mm f/1.4 and 16-55mm v1 were excellent on my X-T2. When I upgraded to the X-H2, they just didn't hold up. Both didn't capture sharpness, and it's not pixel peeping, they were just too soft.
Fast forward to my experiences with the Viltrox 75mm, which captures sharp eyelashes wide open. I gambled with the 35mm f/1.7 Air series and it blows me away. Great sharpness wide open. That led me to getting the 56mm Air on Amazon Prime sale. I can't believe how all these newer, cheaper lenses perform on the 40 mp sensor.
And maybe that's why the lenses that started the post can be found at much better prices; there are many more options than when they were released, with better image quality, and still cheaper new.
ksegedi wrote:
I didn't have the same experiences with older lenses. The 35mm f/1.4 and 16-55mm v1 were excellent on my X-T2. When I upgraded to the X-H2, they just didn't hold up. Both didn't capture sharpness, and it's not pixel peeping, they were just too soft.
A photo made with the XT5 and the 35mm f/1.4:
100% crop of the above photo:
Perhaps you had a broken copy of the lens? It holds up very well on my 40MP Fujifilm APS-C camera, pixel peeping or not. Not soft at all.
ksegedi wrote:
I didn't have the same experiences with older lenses. The 35mm f/1.4 and 16-55mm v1 were excellent on my X-T2. When I upgraded to the X-H2, they just didn't hold up. Both didn't capture sharpness, and it's not pixel peeping, they were just too soft...
How did you see that the older lenses were not sharp on the X-H2? I assume you zoom to 100%? That, is pixel peeping.
As others have mentioned, I think video also plays a significant role in this. I've seen several reviews comparing the old to the new, and several have a "if you're interested / not interested in video" comment as to why you should look at the old versus the new. AF speed and noise are both often mentioned.
For me, it simply means I can buy more great lenses cheaper.
Many of the launch or very early XF lenses were absolute dogs when it came to AF speed and/or haptics. The first 23/1.4 fits into this camp IMO- AMAZING glass, just such a delightful look from it, but it is big, chunky, and has the really polarizing push/pull focus ring when most the bodies have always had a M/S/C switch. I hate the push/pull ring, personally, and the AF speed on my XE4 was nothing to write home about.
The 35/1.4 is a legend optically, and has a great physical look and feel too it as well, but pretty slow AF. If it works for you, then no biggie, but it can be challenging to do people shots with it.
Towncaptain wrote:
And here's the thing, most of those older lenses (with the exception of the 35mm f/1.4 and some 35mm f/2s) are super sharp, including that 16mm f/1.4! They're so close to the newer ones in sharpness it's barely noticeable. And I would personally classify the 16mm f1.4, the 80mm f2.8 macro and the 90mm f2 in the same league as the newer f1.4 lenses.
But, I can confirm that starting from f/2 then XF 16/1.4 is sharp across the frame, and @f/5.6 is tack sharp corner to corner (even on 40Mpix sensors)
I have exact same experience with old XF 23/1.4 R, XF 35/1.4 R, and XF 56/1.2 R
I can provide 40Mpix RAW files as examples if You think that I'm wrong.
ksegedi wrote:
I didn't have the same experiences with older lenses. The 35mm f/1.4 and 16-55mm v1 were excellent on my X-T2. When I upgraded to the X-H2, they just didn't hold up. Both didn't capture sharpness, and it's not pixel peeping, they were just too soft.
There are those among us (and there are plenty of them) who claim that 16-50/2.8 mkI performs splendid on a 40MP sensor
So, as you can see... opinions are completely different.
I've stopped believing in others opinions long time ago.
For me, when it comes to technical IQ - only measurements matter (or perhaps technically well-prepared test photos).
Opinions are good for conversation over a beer at the pub, not for making decisions about choosing photography equipment based on strict image quality requirements.
Oh yes I definitely can argue that At that time of testing I had a X-T30 or X-T4 (can't remember), and I used the sample test charts from B&H, which can found on Google. I printed them out and shot it from there. The XF 16mm f1.4 stood out for me. I got it locally from Kiijiji in Toronto, was a 2020 copy from what I can decipher from the serial code. I swear to you from f1.4, this thing was so sharp. I even compare it to the 18mm f1.4 I had and it was 99.9% close. You could test it out on a chart if you want and lets see how your copy does
But, I can confirm that starting from f/2 then XF 16/1.4 is sharp across the frame, and @f/5.6 is tack sharp corner to corner (even on 40Mpix sensors)
I have exact same experience with old XF 23/1.4 R, XF 35/1.4 R, and XF 56/1.2 R
I can provide 40Mpix RAW files as examples if You think that I'm wrong.
BeatX wrote:
There are those among us (and there are plenty of them) who claim that 16-50/2.8 mkI performs splendid on a 40MP sensor
So, as you can see... opinions are completely different.
I've stopped believing in others opinions long time ago.
For me, when it comes to technical IQ - only measurements matter (or perhaps technically well-prepared test photos).
Opinions are good for conversation over a beer at the pub, not for making decisions about choosing photography equipment based on strict image quality requirements.
"when it comes to technical IQ", I guess I would agree in that circumstance, the charts matter. But wouldn't you agree that there is more to a lens than technical IQ? These days finding a sharp lens is pretty easy. A little harder to find those you love to use and choose them for your camera. I have a couple of lenses that are rarely used even though they are very sharp. And a couple others with the same FL that are really very different in look and get chosen for different things.
It’s really difficult to claim a lens as good or poor without comparing it to something else. Then as mentioned, there’s a lot more to good and poor than just sharpness, contrast and flare resistance. Character matters to many of us, MTF chart excellence or deficiency not so much, but it’s great when you get both.
My opinions come from comparison to literally hundreds of other systems and lenses I have owned and used over the past 40 years. I like sharp, I like contrasty, I like smooth oof rendering and I like consistency in color cast. Beyond that, the amounts of each can be varied depending. At the end of the day, I have made some of my “best” images with some of my “worst” lenses...
My main point is most lenses are better than most photographers. Virtually any existing Fuji X lens is going to be more than adequate enough optically to make stellar images. It may be optically slow, it may have noisy or slow AF, it may even be not so great wide open but good enough stopped down a bit. In the same breath, if it’s obviously blurry or smeared even stopped down, then it’s most likely damaged in some way, which is a one-off situation and should not be a slur against them all.
Jack Flesher wrote:
...At the end of the day, I have made some of my “best” images with some of my “worst” lenses...
My main point is most lenses are better than most photographers. Virtually any existing Fuji X lens is going to be more than adequate enough optically to make stellar images.
This, 100%. Image quality is not the same as a quality image.
