Fujifilm 50-230mm - both versions

Vic Chapman wrote:

JNR wrote:

Well, what exactly is the definition of optically substandard?

We can all agree that that an Apple iPhone is substandard compared to the 50-230. No one expects it to perform close to the 50-140+tc given the pricing, weight and size difference. However, they would be considered quite similar in quality compared to a Pentax 645z coupled with a 600 f/5.6 - which would be a quantum leap in optical quality. (I'd use the Fuji example, but they don't yet have a comparable, truly long lens in the medium format arsenal.)

JNR

You have just proved my point. "We can all agree that that an Apple iPhone is substandard compared to the 50-230." You're just drawing the line to different standard.

I'm not arguing with the fact that the 50-230mm is for its price/weight/size, a good alternative. What I am arguing is users saying it is pixel peeping to view images at full size. I repeat, I personally have yet to see a really sharp picture from the long end of this lens in spite of users posting pictures purporting to show sharpness.

There are respected members on this forum who own both 50-230 and 55-200. That shows the usefulness of the XC lens when traveling but also shows that the XF lens is enough better to own for use when weight is not such a problem.

My real argument is with the pixel peeping remark that finds it acceptable to view at half size as a means of making the lens "better" - yet the same person can't wait to buy a new body with more pixels - which is nonsensical.

I'll ask you this - do you agree with the generally accepted wisdom that good lenses beat a good body and that systems are built on the quality of the lenses? That is where the distinction comes in.

Not everyone can afford the best lenses and Fuji serve that camp too. I can't afford new lenses either, I save hard and buy used lenses and bodies. I learned a long time ago that buying second best quality only leaves one dissatisfied and means buying twice. That's one reason I try to make the point when members are asking advice on gear.

Vic

Mostly agreed, based on your clarifications. While I agree that the pixel packing race is somewhat less relevant if lenses fail to reach resolving "limits," some misconceptions exist. My vintage Pentax lenses probably tend to match the old 6 mp CCD sensors in overall resolving capability. Still, when shot on the current 24 pixel sensors, they perform as though they are considerably sharper. If the sensor "canvas" is finer, even relatively soft lenses exhibit greater detail and depth. The old lenses tend to do especially well in low light where signal amplification from ISO boost has a softening impact. And, yes, every brand uses some form of smoothing at ISOs beyond 800 - but for some reason the major players (and advertisers) never get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. It is a bit comical.