The list Fuji published was pretty much to avoid a "meh" moment for many customers should they view an image of their brand new 40MP camera @100% and find softness away from the center until stopped down. Most of the lenses on the list are sharp enough in that situation, some are on there just because there had been a gap in FL (or zooms) otherwise.
The 35f1.4 at f1.4 or f2 on a 40MP sensor would have been such a "meh" moment.
Your sample image is nice and sharp - taken at f5.6! What's the point? I have questioned the lens performance stopped down.
The list is just as problematic as Nikon's was when they tried the same nonsense when the D800 was announces an age ago, it was even suggested that a tripod was necessary to get the benefits of the higher res. Driven it seemed largely to encourage trade ins to newer lenses. Nobody produced a lens list suitable for Pan F when it was announced as it would resolve more than FP4. Lens performance doesn't get suddenly worse with higher resolurion, but it will allow higher resolution lenses to show. Nonsense to suggest that the 35 1.4 will look worse on 40mpx than it did on 26, unless you magnify more. And if you are realistic about the capabilities of your lenses a look with the magnifying glass should never give surprises.
I can assure you my 14mm for instance does just as well on tge Xt5 asit does on Xpro2 and Xt3.
gyoung143 wrote:
The list is just as problematic as Nikon's was when they tried the same nonsense when the D800 was announces an age ago, it was even suggested that a tripod was necessary to get the benefits of the higher res. Driven it seemed largely to encourage trade ins to newer lenses. Nobody produced a lens list suitable for Pan F when it was announced as it would resolve more than FP4. Lens performance doesn't get suddenly worse with higher resolurion, but it will allow higher resolution lenses to show. Nonsense to suggest that the 35 1.4 will look worse on 40mpx than it did on 26, unless you magnify more. And if you are realistic about the capabilities of your lenses a look with the magnifying glass should never give surprises.
I can assure you my 14mm for instance does just as well on tge Xt5 asit does on Xpro2 and Xt3.
Nikon was right: The higher the resolution, the more one needs to avoid camera movement. One way is to use a tripod, another way is to increase the shutter speed ratio from 1/Focal Length to 2 or 3/Focal Length.
"Unless you magnify more". Very important. Exactly. But you can bet your whatever that most new users of the 40MP sensor went for it :-) And being somewhat disappointed by what they saw. I was with my first 60MP sensor - though I should have known better :-( Nikon and Fuji management were just afraid to lose customers because of that. And of course, selling some new lenses also comes in handy. But I absolutely agree with you that all my lenses perform the same on my cameras "if" I view them at normal size and from a normal viewing distance. Then again, having a 40MP sensor begs for significant cropping (road side size prints are not my thing :-) ) So off you go and do some cropping (2x, 3x) - and the difference between the older lenses and the newer ones start to show. So, yes, I understand why the companies (much to the annoyance of those in the know) published those lists.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Nikon was right: The higher the resolution, the more one needs to avoid camera movement. One way is to use a tripod, another way is to increase the shutter speed ratio from 1/Focal Length to 2 or 3/Focal Length.
"Unless you magnify more". Very important. Exactly. But you can bet your whatever that most new users of the 40MP sensor went for it :-) And being somewhat disappointed by what they saw. I was with my first 60MP sensor - though I should have known better :-( Nikon and Fuji management were just afraid to lose customers because of that. And of course, selling some new lenses also comes in handy. But I absolutely agree with you that all my lenses perform the same on my cameras "if" I view them at normal size and from a normal viewing distance. Then again, having a 40MP sensor begs for significant cropping (road side size prints are not my thing :-) ) So off you go and do some cropping (2x, 3x) - and the difference between the older lenses and the newer ones start to show. So, yes, I understand why the companies (much to the annoyance of those in the know) published those lists. ...Show more →
Yes, one of the main reasons I justified to myself the purchase of the Xt5 was the cropping possibilities. In particular with the 90mm for sports in low light and also with a 100-400 for wildlife. I'm getting old for lugging around heavy lenses like the 150-600 or a 70-200 2.8 for the relatively few occasions I want them, and for my own amusement rather than client approval. Both OIS and the IBIS of the Xt5 are a help in situations where a tripod is not really workable. Good high iso noise performance can be used too compared to D800 days so higher shutter speeds can be used.
A normal, uncropped image filling an HD monitor of an A3 print is not going to show any difference between 26 and 40mpx, evenb16mpx of my old Nikon looks just as good as long as its base iso.
We are getting a long way away from the original thread content, apologies to thr OP.
gyoung143 wrote:
Yes, one of the main reasons I justified to myself the purchase of the Xt5 was the cropping possibilities. In particular with the 90mm for sports in low light and also with a 100-400 for wildlife. I'm getting old for lugging around heavy lenses like the 150-600 or a 70-200 2.8 for the relatively few occasions I want them, and for my own amusement rather than client approval. Both OIS and the IBIS of the Xt5 are a help in situations where a tripod is not really workable. Good high iso noise performance can be used too compared to D800 days so higher shutter speeds can be used.
A normal, uncropped image filling an HD monitor of an A3 print is not going to show any difference between 26 and 40mpx, evenb16mpx of my old Nikon looks just as good as long as its base iso.
We are getting a long way away from the original thread content, apologies to thr OP.
Nielk Mike wrote:
The list Fuji published was pretty much to avoid a "meh" moment for many customers should they view an image of their brand new 40MP camera @100% and find softness away from the center until stopped down. Most of the lenses on the list are sharp enough in that situation, some are on there just because there had been a gap in FL (or zooms) otherwise.
The 35f1.4 at f1.4 or f2 on a 40MP sensor would have been such a "meh" moment.
If you look at that “ready for 40MP list” — which Fujifilm more or less buried shortly after it came out — it is clearly something cooked up b their marketing department to promote mostly newer lenses.
If you can find the original list (and not just the numerous second and third party posts referencing it, like the ubiquitous one at FujiRumors) you’ll find all kinds of obvious inconsistencies in it. You’ll also not that while its claim is that some lenses are “ready for 40MP,” the language used carefully avoids actually stating that lenses not on the list are not “ready.”
Your sample image is nice and sharp - taken at f5.6! What's the point? I have questioned the lens performance stopped down.
I was replying to someone else’s post. I have edited to post to clarify that. That person claimed that the 35mm f/1.4 was left off the list because it isn’t sharp.
- - -
gyoung143 wrote:
The list is just as problematic as Nikon's was when they tried the same nonsense when the D800 was announces an age ago, it was even suggested that a tripod was necessary to get the benefits of the higher res. Driven it seemed largely to encourage trade ins to newer lenses. Nobody produced a lens list suitable for Pan F when it was announced as it would resolve more than FP4. Lens performance doesn't get suddenly worse with higher resolurion, but it will allow higher resolution lenses to show. Nonsense to suggest that the 35 1.4 will look worse on 40mpx than it did on 26, unless you magnify more. And if you are realistic about the capabilities of your lenses a look with the magnifying glass should never give surprises.
I can assure you my 14mm for instance does just as well on tge Xt5 asit does on Xpro2 and Xt3.
You are exactly right about the Fujifilm list. (I can’t speak to the Nikon list since I don’t have experience with or knowledge of it.) But this statement matches up with what the Fujifilm list seemed intended to accomplish: “ Driven it seemed largely to encourage trade ins to newer lenses.”
The 14mm f/2.8 is one of the other lenses inexplicably left off that list. It is a really fine lens and a great performer — man users regard it as one of Fuji’s best all-time x-trans lenses. (You don’t hear about it much because it is older, only f/2.8, and not inexpensive.)
- - -
About that Fujifilm list of lenses “ready for 40MP…”
I’ve looked for the original post that was once on the Fujifilm website several times in the past year or two, but I can no longer find any links to it. There are secondary mentions of the list on lots of other sites (like FujiRumors and others), but they no longer link to the source list. I checked a bunch of sites referencing “the list” and I searched the fujfilm.com website with a variety of of search terms: “40,” “40MP,” “ready for 40MP,” 40 megapixels,” etc.
Anyone? A link to the actual list on a Fujifilmsite?
It seems like Fujifilm no longer supports that list, and that they have “disappeared” it — like an executed former politician in a photograph from the Stalin era in Russia. ;-)
RoamingScott wrote:
There's a very good reason the 35/1.4 isn't on the 40mp sensor list.
Now look what you did Scott, triggered another thread wander from the "greatest hits" file. FWIW, I thought of "the list" while looking at the output from these lenses and it made more sense to me than before. But regardless if whatever Fuji's intention was, they should have known better and I'm glad they disappeared it. There's just no way that peeps won't get offended when a favorite lens is dissed and any useful discussion around it is derailed.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Now look what you did Scott, triggered another thread wander from the "greatest hits" file.
This lens is the perfect example of why The List exists, it was Fuji acknowledging that their standards for IQ have shifted over the years. The 35/1.4 just so happens to be one of the best examples of that and other lenses on The List started at a higher level with more modern rendering and aren't such obvious picks to have been included.
Not sure what you mean by disappeared it, it's still prominent on some product pages (like the X-H2).
Fuji should have included the X100VI's lens, too, if we're being honest
RoamingScott wrote:
This lens is the perfect example of why The List exists, it was Fuji acknowledging that their standards for IQ have shifted over the years. The 35/1.4 just so happens to be one of the best examples of that and other lenses on The List started at a higher level with more modern rendering and aren't such obvious picks to have been included.
Not sure what you mean by disappeared it, it's still prominent on some product pages (like the X-H2).
Fuji should have included the X100VI's lens, too, if we're being honest
I agree, but apparently its controversial to some that a lens might not have the highest resolving power but still be a desirable lens. Fuji took a shot with the foot notes. I didn't see The List on the H2-S page but maybe its there, I didn't look hard. I don't think the 100VI was out yet when The List was made.
I think a challenge for lens makers moving forward will be to market their lenses accurately. They can't be all things to all people, all the time. Fuji is at least taking some steps of acknowledging the differences with things like The Vote survey, noting some lenses as "character rich". I hope they lean into it while still bringing next level fast and detailed models as well. Just looking around here you can see the market for some classic lens designs is alive and well.
RoamingScott wrote:
It's not on the H2S page because that's not a 40mp camera.
That's what I meant X-H2. I see the list is still there, just kind of hard to find and you can't link to the list. Oh good, we can flog it some more.
The footnote is pretty useful:
*The list specifies our selection of lenses that have high resolution performance from edge to edge at maximum aperture, allowing you to fully experience all that the 40MP sensor has to offer. Lenses not listed will also allow you to experience the improved resolution performance of the 40MP sensor.
RoamingScott wrote:
This lens is the perfect example of why The List exists, it was Fuji acknowledging that their standards for IQ have shifted over the years. The 35/1.4 just so happens to be one of the best examples of that and other lenses on The List started at a higher level with more modern rendering and aren't such obvious picks to have been included.
Not sure what you mean by disappeared it, it's still prominent on some product pages (like the X-H2).
Fuji should have included the X100VI's lens, too, if we're being honest
But they carefully avoided stating what the criteria for inclusion were, and there are enough anomalies to eliminate any simple criteria you can think of logically, other than a desire to sell newer lenses.
Even if you take the two lenses compared here, there is a lot of difference at the edges at 1.4, nowhere near as much in the middle at 2.8 and I doubt any at all at 8, so a blanket exclusion without qualification makes no sense.
gyoung143 wrote:
But they carefully avoided stating what the criteria for inclusion were, and there are enough anomalies to eliminate any simple criteria you can think of logically, other than a desire to sell newer lenses.
Even if you take the two lenses compared here, there is a lot of difference at the edges at 1.4, nowhere near as much in the middle at 2.8 and I doubt any at all at 8, so a blanket exclusion without qualification makes no sense.
RoamingScott wrote:
You should read the post directly above yours
Ok, I haven't seen that referenced before, although that is such a tight criteria its still meaningless in terms of use of the 40mpx sensor. Should wd only buy it if we are going to use tge camera at full aperture etc? Still nonsense. I bought it to crop with shots taken at the lenses best performance.
gyoung143 wrote:
Ok, I haven't seen that referenced before, although that is such a tight criteria its still meaningless in terms of use of the 40mpx sensor. Should wd only buy it if we are going to use tge camera at full aperture etc? Still nonsense. I bought it to crop with shots taken at the lenses best performance.
Gerry
I guess if I try hard I can imagine a situation in which someone might photograph a flat subject that stretches from corner to corner and use f/1.4… but that would have to be extremely rare.
More likely, the reason for using f/1.4 is to produce narrow DOF, in which case OOF is not only accepted but hoped for, everywhere but on the primary subject.
I suppose someone will say that they need f/1.4 for low light photography… but there you are unlikely to have all scene elements in the plane of focus and its acceptable DOF at f/1.4 on a 35mm APS-C lens.
I wonder what other common use case people are thinking of for any f/1.4 lens…
gdanmitchell wrote:
I guess if I try hard I can imagine a situation in which someone might photograph a flat subject that stretches from corner to corner and use f/1.4… but that would have to be extremely rare.
More likely, the reason for using f/1.4 is to produce narrow DOF, in which case OOF is not only accepted but hoped for, everywhere but on the primary subject.
I suppose someone will say that they need f/1.4 for low light photography… but there you are unlikely to have all scene elements in the plane of focus and its acceptable DOF at f/1.4 on a 35mm APS-C lens.
I wonder what other common use case people are thinking of for any f/1.4 lens…...Show more →
Fair enough. A good, wide aperture, wide angle lens with minimal coma, probably manual focusing. (Though I'm betting that by "astrophotography" you mean something like Milky Way photography right?)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Fair enough. A good, wide aperture, wide angle lens with minimal coma, probably manual focusing. (Though I'm betting that by "astrophotography" you mean something like Milky Way photography right?)
What else?
Any shot where there is enough DoF but not enough space to use something longer? I found f/2 handy on film for quick shots in museums, cathedrals etc so 1.4 is just as good on APS-C.
One could say that we use wideangle to get a wider view so sharpness at the edges is important. I certainly was a consideration when I bought the 23 f/2, which is sharper at the edges at 2 and 2.8 than the old 23 1.4. Also why I always had Summicron 35s on Leica rather than Summilux, and for that matter why I used the Leica for such casual work rather than the Nikon or Olympus cameras I had, the 35 f/2 Summicron is sharper at the edges than the Nikon or Olypus 35 f/2s at large apertures. I am tempted by the new 23 and 33 1.4s simply for the extra stop without losing the edge 0erf9rmance, although the bulk and weight penaltys are discouraging.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Fair enough. A good, wide aperture, wide angle lens with minimal coma, probably manual focusing. (Though I'm betting that by "astrophotography" you mean something like Milky Way photography right?)
What else?
Milkyway photography is astrophotography as last I checked the Milkyway was made of stars and nebula.
Geoff D F wrote:
Milkyway photography is astrophotography as last I checked the Milkyway was made of stars and nebula.
It has certainly, within the photography world, come to be described that way. But a lot of it seems to me more like night landscape photography. Including the sky —day, night, or twilight — never made a photogaprhy into astrophotography in the past. The old idea was that “astrophotography” was using telescopes to photograph distant objects that could ot otherwise really be seen — like photographs of distant nebulae, comets, etc.
I admit that today that is a minority notion in the photography world.
- - -
Back to an earlier topic in this thread ‚ examples, as mentioned above of low light photography done without resorting to f/1.4 apertures, which would have produced DOF far too narrow for the subjects:
