uote]RoamingScott wrote:
There's a very good reason the 35/1.4 isn't on the 40mp sensor list.
It is on that list.
Sigh…
- - -
I surprised to see anyone still referring to that infamous “ready for 40mm” list. It has been thoroughly debunked. (Folks misinterpreted the list as suggesting that lenses not on the list were not good enough for 40MP sensors, but Fujifilm did not say that. Some excellent lenses were left off, and Fujifilm put some mediocre lenses on it. [1] It was a marketing effort designed to persuade buyers of 40MP cameras that they needed new lenses.)
Just a quick test image made while out on a walk last fall. Handheld with the 35mm f/1.4 on the 40MP XT5.
Full image.
100% magnification crop.
Seems pretty sharp.
- - -
Jack Flesher wrote: Nielk Mike wrote: SGinNorcal wrote:
I do think it is very useful to have a couple lenses to soften digital harshness/precision/clinical looks in your arsenal.
For that there is software or very affordable vintage lenses like the Carl Zeis Jena 35f2.8 silver. Spending a lot on a lens for that - well I don't know.
Software softness—or diffusion, or any other after-the-fact digital filtration—is never as believable or nuanced as the real thing. If you like it, awesome for you, but to me it’s all usually obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly in an image; and ditto for tone-mapping as long as I’m ranting on crappy effect processing…
I’d generally rather get my narrow DOF OOF stuff from a large aperture lens, but… I wonder if it has occurred to you that you notice the “ obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly” examples while careful, well-done, examples escape your notice because they look fine.
(I’m reminded of the old HDR fad a few years back. Some of you may remember a few social media types who made their name with really obvious examples. As a result HDR got a bad name. Meanwhile a number of really good, respected photographers were applying HDR techniques but without the “HDR look” — and their positive contribution never got noticed because it didn’t have the HDR look.)
Enhancing out of focus non-subject areas in post can look early awful, but it can also be pretty effective when used with care.
- - -
[1] Some favorite inconsistencies in that list: The old 27mm f/2.8 (without the aperture ring) was not on the list but the new 27mm f/2.8 with the aperture was — but they are optically identical. The 18-55 kit zoom was on the list. It is a pretty good lens for an inexpensive kit zoom, but it most certainly is not more “ready for 40MP” than the 35mm f/1.4 prime. There are others…
uote]RoamingScott wrote:
There's a very good reason the 35/1.4 isn't on the 40mp sensor list.
It is on that infamous list.
I surprised to see anyone still referring to that infamous “ready for 40mm” list. It has been thoroughly debunked. (Folks misinterpreted the list as suggesting that lenses not on the list were not good enough for 40MP sensors, but Fujifilm did not say that. Some excellent lenses were left off, and Fujifilm put some mediocre lenses on it. [1] It was a marketing effort designed to persuade buyers of 40MP cameras that they needed new lenses.)
Just a quick test image made while out on a walk last fall. Handheld with the 35mm f/1.4 on the 40MP XT5.
Full image.
100% magnification crop.
Seems pretty sharp.
- - -
Jack Flesher wrote: Nielk Mike wrote: SGinNorcal wrote:
I do think it is very useful to have a couple lenses to soften digital harshness/precision/clinical looks in your arsenal.
For that there is software or very affordable vintage lenses like the Carl Zeis Jena 35f2.8 silver. Spending a lot on a lens for that - well I don't know.
Software softness—or diffusion, or any other after-the-fact digital filtration—is never as believable or nuanced as the real thing. If you like it, awesome for you, but to me it’s all usually obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly in an image; and ditto for tone-mapping as long as I’m ranting on crappy effect processing…
I’d generally rather get my narrow DOF OOF stuff from a large aperture lens, but… I wonder if it has occurred to you that you notice the “ obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly” examples while careful, well-done, examples escape your notice because they look fine.
(I’m reminded of the old HDR fad a few years back. Some of you may remember a few social media types who made their name with really obvious examples. As a result HDR got a bad name. Meanwhile a number of really good, respected photographers were applying HDR techniques but without the “HDR look” — and their positive contribution never got noticed because it didn’t have the HDR look.)
Enhancing out of focus non-subject areas in post can look early awful, but it can also be pretty effective when used with care.
- - -
[1] Some favorite inconsistencies in that list: The old 27mm f/2.8 (without the aperture ring) was not on the list but the new 27mm f/2.8 with the aperture was — but they are optically identical. The 18-55 kit zoom was on the list. It is a pretty good lens for an inexpensive kit zoom, but it most certainly is not more “ready for 40MP” than the 35mm f/1.4 prime. There are others…
I surprised to see anyone still referring to that infamous “ready for 40mm” list. It has been thoroughly debunked. (Folks misinterpreted the list as suggesting that lenses not on the list were not good enough for 40MP sensors, but Fujifilm did not say that. Some excellent lenses were left off, and Fujifilm put some mediocre lenses on it. [1] It was a marketing effort designed to persuade buyers of 40MP cameras that they needed new lenses.)
Just a quick test image made while out on a walk last fall. Handheld with the 35mm f/1.4 on the 40MP XT5.
Full image.
100% magnification crop.
Seems pretty sharp.
- - -
Jack Flesher wrote: Nielk Mike wrote: SGinNorcal wrote:
I do think it is very useful to have a couple lenses to soften digital harshness/precision/clinical looks in your arsenal.
For that there is software or very affordable vintage lenses like the Carl Zeis Jena 35f2.8 silver. Spending a lot on a lens for that - well I don't know.
Software softness—or diffusion, or any other after-the-fact digital filtration—is never as believable or nuanced as the real thing. If you like it, awesome for you, but to me it’s all usually obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly in an image; and ditto for tone-mapping as long as I’m ranting on crappy effect processing…
I’d generally rather get my narrow DOF OOF stuff from a large aperture lens, but… I wonder if it has occurred to you that you notice the “ obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly” examples while careful, well-done, examples escape your notice because they look fine.
(I’m reminded of the old HDR fad a few years back. Some of you may remember a few social media types who made their name with really obvious examples. As a result HDR got a bad name. Meanwhile a number of really good, respected photographers were applying HDR techniques but without the “HDR look” — and their positive contribution never got noticed because it didn’t have the HDR look.)
Enhancing out of focus non-subject areas in post can look early awful, but it can also be pretty effective when used with care.
- - -
[1] Some favorite inconsistencies in that list: The old 27mm f/2.8 (without the aperture ring) was not on the list but the new 27mm f/2.8 with the aperture was — but they are optically identical. The 18-55 kit zoom was on the list. It is a pretty good lens for an inexpensive kit zoom, but it most certainly is not more “ready for 40MP” than the 35mm f/1.4 prime. There are others…
Mar 24, 2026 at 10:25 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #17009353 « My thoughts on Fuji XF 35 vs. 33 »
