Reading mode: Light Dark

Lenses not certified for 40mp …why exactly?

Go to last post
P

Pangolin99

New member
Messages
1
Reaction score
3
What’s not happening with lenses not on the ‘certified for 40mp’ list? What actual differences should I expect? Would I need to increase my exposure time to compensate, expect increased vignetting, aberrations, or a generally soft image across the frame? Physically, what’s going on? Has anyone tried a Viltrox lens on the X-T5 or X-H2?
 
That reply was getting away from me until the last paragraph which is an excellent summary.
 
Doppler9000 said:
michaeladawson said:
Doppler9000 said:
michaeladawson said:
I disagree that there were many alternatives for a "kit" lens. To begin with, what is a "kit" lens?
Click to expand...
Fuji could have packaged the camera with a different lens - they weren’t limited to “kit” lenses, were they? In the past, Fuji has bundled bodies with 27mm prime lenses, for example.
Click to expand...
Sure. But there's is absolutely nothing wrong with the 16-80 as a packaged lens option.
Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 said:
It's never the best lens you have. It is a good starter lens, usually for first time buyers into your system.
Click to expand...
I would suspect that the X-H2 was not positioned as a starter body into Fuji.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Even higher end bodies come with a "kit" lens as an option sometimes. Don't confuse "starter" with "beginner".
Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 said:
A lens to get you going before you can afford to buy more. Which usually also means it will be a mid-range zoom.
Click to expand...
There are several superior primes that sell for less than the 16-80mm lens. Primes offer more optical performance for the dollar, at the expense of range, compared to zooms. Given the likely X-H2 buyer, including a better prime would seem to make more sense.
Click to expand...
We'll simply have to disagree here. When I started with Fujifilm I was a Nikon shooter who had a D5 and a D810. I was an experienced shooter and I wasn't buying cheap equipment. I wanted a zoom lens as my starter lens. For the most part I shoot zooms, not primes.
Click to expand...
Surely you don’t disagree that a prime lens offers higher optical performance than an equivalently-priced zoom.
Click to expand...
Where did I ever say that? I'm not sure what point you're debating. I'm debating the 16-80mm as a logical kit lens for someone that wants a zoom lens but doesn't want to pay for and lug the 16-55 f/2.8. I have some extremely sharp prime lenses in my Nikon collection. But I shoot zooms 99% of the time. I would never buy a camera body packaged with a prime lens as a kit if I was starting out with a new brand. I'll buy primes later. But I'm going to want a zoom and I'm going to want the zoom sooner than the prime.
Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 said:
The 18-55mm is a really decent lens but hardly a top lens. It doesn't maximize a 24 MP sensor, much less 40. Yet it was part of a kit bundle. I'm not surprised at all that the 16-80mm lens is the kit lens with the X-T5. It makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that it wasn’t included in the lenses Fuji published as being best for the body - it is inconsistent messaging.
Click to expand...
I was making a point. Fujifilm saw fit to package the 18-55 with bodies several years ago when the 18-55mm is clearly not a lens that would go onto such a list.
Click to expand...
You are saying that Fuji is consistent in its inconsistency?
Click to expand...
You seem to be trying to trap me into something that I don't believe in the first place. Namely, that Fuji is being inconsistent. They aren't. Offering the 16-80mm as a kit lens with the 40MP bodies is not inconsistent with their messages. One message is "here is a list of our best lenses". The other message is "here is a 40MP camera that we're going to make available to you packaged with a kit lens".
Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 said:
If the 18-55 was good enough for the 24 and 26MP bodies as a kit lens, the 16-80 is good enough for the 40MP bodies.
Click to expand...
By what logic have you drawn this conclusion? It seems you are just making things up.
Click to expand...
No at all.
Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 said:
It's not inconsistent messaging at all.
Click to expand...
Of course the messaging is inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Again. No it's not. We disagree. Move on.
Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 said:
Plus, look at the number of people that are shooting their 40MP bodies with any number of cheap Chinese lenses.
Click to expand...
This is a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It's further evidence that many people are not demanding the highest performing lenses to use on their 40MP bodies.
 
Truman Prevatt said:
SamfromAL said:
It is true that the sensor needs to out resolve a lens for the best the lense can do.

But if the manufacturer is asked why a sensor of increased resolution needs a lense of increased quality this is the reason. If resolution is the goal.
Click to expand...
There is no free lunch. First there is a physical limit on lens resolution, the Abbe limit that defines the upper limit on lens resolution. It is approximately 1/2 the wavelength of the light being used for the measurement scaled by the f-number. The 26 MP APSC Fuji sensor will out resolve ever lens current and in the future at f8 and beyond. The 40 MP APSC Fuji will out resolve every current and future lens starting at about 2/3 stop earlier.

There is a limit on the resolution of a digital sensor, called the Peterson-Middleton wavenumber. It is a multidimensional version of the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem. It applies to two dimensions - images, three dimensions - holograms, etc.

Every sampling lattice has a wavenumber limit above which the sampling lattice cannot resolve. It can perfectly reconstruct images or any other multidimensional data that are limited to that wave number or less. Above that wave number the energy is aliased the information lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_sampling

it is simple to determine the resolution limit of a sensor form the layout of the lattice and spacing between lattice points.

If one is designing a scientific instrument then such questions are important and addressed. However, one has to wonder if this obsession makes much sense for photography. We are rapidly coming to the limit of a perfect glass lens being able to provide sufficient resolution for modern sensors. Even today the 25 MP APSC sensor out resolves a perfect lens at f8 and beyond. The only way to go beyond the Abbe limit of optics is to not use glass lenses. In fact one needs a negative refractive index. It can be done by using meta materials.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1784272

https://nanoconvergencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40580-015-0053-7

The obsession about lens resolution is great for the camera companies as they can build and sell lenses with a marginal increase in resolution chumming the market and increasing their profit similar to the new cell phone cycle every two years. But in reality we are about as good as we are going to be able to be with glass lenses.
Click to expand...
 
michaeladawson said:
Doppler9000 said:
michaeladawson said:
Doppler9000 said:
michaeladawson said:
I disagree that there were many alternatives for a "kit" lens. To begin with, what is a "kit" lens?
Click to expand...
Fuji could have packaged the camera with a different lens - they weren’t limited to “kit” lenses, were they? In the past, Fuji has bundled bodies with 27mm prime lenses, for example.
Click to expand...
Sure. But there's is absolutely nothing wrong with the 16-80 as a packaged lens option.
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
It's never the best lens you have. It is a good starter lens, usually for first time buyers into your system.
Click to expand...
I would suspect that the X-H2 was not positioned as a starter body into Fuji.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Even higher end bodies come with a "kit" lens as an option sometimes. Don't confuse "starter" with "beginner".
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
A lens to get you going before you can afford to buy more. Which usually also means it will be a mid-range zoom.
Click to expand...
There are several superior primes that sell for less than the 16-80mm lens. Primes offer more optical performance for the dollar, at the expense of range, compared to zooms. Given the likely X-H2 buyer, including a better prime would seem to make more sense.
Click to expand...
We'll simply have to disagree here. When I started with Fujifilm I was a Nikon shooter who had a D5 and a D810. I was an experienced shooter and I wasn't buying cheap equipment. I wanted a zoom lens as my starter lens. For the most part I shoot zooms, not primes.
Click to expand...
Surely you don’t disagree that a prime lens offers higher optical performance than an equivalently-priced zoom.
Click to expand...
Where did I ever say that? I'm not sure what point you're debating. I'm debating the 16-80mm as a logical kit lens for someone that wants a zoom lens but doesn't want to pay for and lug the 16-55 f/2.8. I have some extremely sharp prime lenses in my Nikon collection. But I shoot zooms 99% of the time. I would never buy a camera body packaged with a prime lens as a kit if I was starting out with a new brand. I'll buy primes later. But I'm going to want a zoom and I'm going to want the zoom sooner than the prime.
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
The 18-55mm is a really decent lens but hardly a top lens. It doesn't maximize a 24 MP sensor, much less 40. Yet it was part of a kit bundle. I'm not surprised at all that the 16-80mm lens is the kit lens with the X-T5. It makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that it wasn’t included in the lenses Fuji published as being best for the body - it is inconsistent messaging.
Click to expand...
I was making a point. Fujifilm saw fit to package the 18-55 with bodies several years ago when the 18-55mm is clearly not a lens that would go onto such a list.
Click to expand...
You are saying that Fuji is consistent in its inconsistency?
Click to expand...
You seem to be trying to trap me into something that I don't believe in the first place. Namely, that Fuji is being inconsistent. They aren't. Offering the 16-80mm as a kit lens with the 40MP bodies is not inconsistent with their messages. One message is "here is a list of our best lenses". The other message is "here is a 40MP camera that we're going to make available to you packaged with a kit lens".
Click to expand...
The list was developed specifically for the X-H2, and cameras with the same sensor, it is not a generic “best” list. The messages are not independent, as you have stated.
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
If the 18-55 was good enough for the 24 and 26MP bodies as a kit lens, the 16-80 is good enough for the 40MP bodies.
Click to expand...
By what logic have you drawn this conclusion? It seems you are just making things up.
Click to expand...
No at all.
Click to expand...
You concluded that the 16-80mm was good enough for the 40 MP sensor based entirely on your view that the 18-55mm was good enough for the 26 MP sensor. This is an entirely logic- and fact-free conclusion, isn’t it?
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
Of course the messaging is inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Again. No it's not. We disagree. Move on.
Click to expand...
Fuji released a new flagship camera and a list of lenses recommended to take advantage of its ground-breaking pixel pitch/resolution. They bundled the camera with a lens that didn’t make the cut. If you don’t see this as inconsistent messaging, then, indeed, we ought to move on.
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
michaeladawson said:
Plus, look at the number of people that are shooting their 40MP bodies with any number of cheap Chinese lenses.
Click to expand...
This is a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It's further evidence that many people are not demanding the highest performing lenses to use on their 40MP bodies.
Click to expand...
 
Better, yes, but only up to the lenses max. resolving power. No lens has infinite resolving power.
 
forest dream said:
John Gellings said:
When Nikon released the D800 (36mp) they said some lenses should not be used. Guess what? people used them anyway and there was no problem. Note Sony has never said some lenses should not be used with the 64mp A7R IV.
Click to expand...
If someone used cheap tyres on sport car, it should no issue if drive < 70 mph :)
Click to expand...
Right, but photography is not driving...
 
No, we really do not. Do not over-complicate it. It isn't that hard.
 
That is just paranoia at work. Canon had a similar list.

Every lens has a max. resolving power even the lens in your eyes. Otherwise, it would take away one of the reasons for buying higher end lenses and no one would need to wear glasses.
 
John Gellings said:
No, we really do not. Do not over-complicate it. It isn't that hard.
Click to expand...
I agree. It really isn't that complicated. A person should be buying a lens based on what they want to photograph. Unless you buy a dog of a lens, and you should have known based on various reviews, the right focal length lens for the situation will be produce as fine a photograph as you can compose. It won't matter which tier it sits on.
 
... otherwise, they would need to wear glasses like some people do.
 
Doppler9000 said:
Doppler9000 wrote:.
If you don’t see this as inconsistent messaging, then, indeed, we ought to move on.
Click to expand...
Excellent. I was hoping for this.
 
True. It only needs to be able to resolve the max. output of the sensor.

Just put some eyeglasses in front of your lens.
 
well ok but Wikipedia indicates Abbe is for microscopes that have a human viewer not a camera system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system

So I cannot really tell what your responses are providing. The statements I say are true and you seem to act like there are sooo many considerations it is non trivial. Ok it doesn't change the idea that resolution can be limited by the PSF.

And then you start mixing optics constructs in the dissertation which are not accurate.

I am not arguing with you, you are arguing with yourself as I have said nothing wrong and you continue to mesmerize with a bunch of unhelpful words of misdirection.

Which leads to whatever
 
Truman Prevatt said:
SamfromAL said:
It is true that the sensor needs to out resolve a lens for the best the lense can do.

But if the manufacturer is asked why a sensor of increased resolution needs a lense of increased quality this is the reason. If resolution is the goal.
Click to expand...
There is no free lunch. First there is a physical limit on lens resolution, the Abbe limit that defines the upper limit on lens resolution. It is approximately 1/2 the wavelength of the light being used for the measurement scaled by the f-number. The 26 MP APSC Fuji sensor will out resolve ever lens current and in the future at f8 and beyond. The 40 MP APSC Fuji will out resolve every current and future lens starting at about 2/3 stop earlier.

There is a limit on the resolution of a digital sensor, called the Peterson-Middleton wavenumber. It is a multidimensional version of the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem. It applies to two dimensions - images, three dimensions - holograms, etc.

Every sampling lattice has a wavenumber limit above which the sampling lattice cannot resolve. It can perfectly reconstruct images or any other multidimensional data that are limited to that wave number or less. Above that wave number the energy is aliased the information lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_sampling

it is simple to determine the resolution limit of a sensor form the layout of the lattice and spacing between lattice points.

If one is designing a scientific instrument then such questions are important and addressed. However, one has to wonder if this obsession makes much sense for photography. We are rapidly coming to the limit of a perfect glass lens being able to provide sufficient resolution for modern sensors. Even today the 25 MP APSC sensor out resolves a perfect lens at f8 and beyond.
Click to expand...
How are defining “outresolve”? Are you saying that with a perfect lens, at f/8, an image taken using a 25 MP sensor is indistinguishable from one taken with, say, a 40 MP sensor?
Truman Prevatt said:
The only way to go beyond the Abbe limit of optics is to not use glass lenses. In fact one needs a negative refractive index. It can be done by using meta materials.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1784272

https://nanoconvergencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40580-015-0053-7

The obsession about lens resolution is great for the camera companies as they can build and sell lenses with a marginal increase in resolution chumming the market and increasing their profit similar to the new cell phone cycle every two years.
Click to expand...
You underestimate the ability of buyers to choose and make informed decisions.
Truman Prevatt said:
But in reality we are about as good as we are going to be able to be with glass lenses.
Click to expand...
The very best lenses are significantly better than even very good lenses. We are not at any sort of limit of glass lenses yet. If you disagree, please link to the MTFs of all the perfect lenses you are speaking about.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like Fuji is just trying to scare you into replacing perfectly good glass :-D

I have got tack sharp photos from old film era kit zooms on 40MP+ sensors. Any decent lens should have no problem being sharp across most of the frame... stopped down.
 
RobRoy22 said:
In the interests of accuracy, can we be clear.

Fuji have published a list of lenses which will give optimal results combined with the 40mp sensor.

40ba617f58f5497ba6327f718621a689.jpg

Nowhere have they indicated that older, or non-listed lenses will give poor results, should be avoided, or special treatment is needed.

A number of posters view that advice as a marketing ploy to promote new lenses. I don’t agree. They are of course fully entitled to this opinion, but shouldn’t exaggerate or distort it to something which it isn’t, or become unnecessarily indignant.

Fuji have issued some info or guidance. Use it as you see fit, or take it with a pinch of salt if that’s how you feel. I will continue using my 16-80 and 16mm prime with the larger sensor 😊. Happy New Year everyone.
Click to expand...
Not a maketing ploy? You really think the xf18-120 will outresolve the primes that didn't make the list? Ie xf56 xf16f1.4, gen1 xf27. It's a random list of their newer lenses that they want to sell IMHO. It's pretty arbitrary. Why the 16f2.8 and not the 16f1.4?
 
John Gellings said:
forest dream said:
John Gellings said:
When Nikon released the D800 (36mp) they said some lenses should not be used. Guess what? people used them anyway and there was no problem. Note Sony has never said some lenses should not be used with the 64mp A7R IV.
Click to expand...
If someone used cheap tyres on sport car, it should no issue if drive < 70 mph :)
Click to expand...
Right, but photography is not driving...
Click to expand...
Right, but OP topics is about gears, not about photography skills.

If consumer only print small, both X-S10 & X-H2 can fullfill consumer requirements.
 
It gets some people's attention.
 
sportyaccordy said:
Sounds like Fuji is just trying to scare you into replacing perfectly good glass :-D

I have got tack sharp photos from old film era kit zooms on 40MP+ sensors. Any decent lens should have no problem being sharp across most of the frame... stopped down.
Click to expand...
I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Viltrox Air Series - a few tests
Replies
16
Views
5K
John Bean (UK)
J
J
Landscape: X-T2 vs X-T5?
2
Replies
30
Views
11K
Jeff Biscuits
J
A
Understanding Diffraction: Why It Matters for Photographers
2 3
Replies
54
Views
16K
Detail Man
Detail Man
J
Fujifilm aren't that ambitious with lens designs
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
15K
green_badger
green_badger
Meeces
The XF500/X-T5 goes to the Blue Angels airshow . . .
Replies
8
Views
2K
Morris0
Morris0

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top