Fuji lenses THAT DON'T RESOLVE 40 MP!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- Fuji lenses THAT DON'T RESOLVE 40 MP! When Fujifilm came out with their list of lenses that resolve the new Fuji 40 megapixel sensor I was astonished that their kit lenses were not included. The reason for this was that they were selling these lenses with their new cameras as kit lenses. I have been a big proponent of the XF 16-80 and love the 18-55. So I wanted to see if one of them would hold up. The other lens that I was surprised was not on the list was the X 16 f 1.4. It is a superb lens and there is no reason for it to not carry 40 mp. As a comparison I used one of the lenses on the list the 23 f2 which was beautiful. In this video we find out what's up and what it looks like to not resolve 40 mp.
Video Chapters
Intro - 0:00
16mm / 16-80 - 2:21
22.3 mm / 16-80 - 3:53
XF 16 f 1.4 - 4:56
XF 23 f 2 - 5:44
Compare
XF 16 f 1.4 & 16mm / 16-80 - 7:22
XF 23 f 2 & 22.3 / 16-80 - 8:03
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER THE NEW FUJI X-T5 AT ADORAMA
Fujifilm X-T5 Black Body - adorama.rfvk.net/e4mDm1
Fujifilm X-T5 Silver Body - adorama.rfvk.net/5b4R4b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITES - capeannphototours.com, krwphoto.com
WORKSHOPS - capeannphototours.com/photogr...
PHOTO BLOGS - capeannphototours.com/photo-b...
www.krwphoto.com/blog
INSTAGRAM: Cape Ann Photo Tours / capeannphototours
KR Williamson Photography - / krwilliamsonphoto
Affiliate Links below
More information about Fujifilm zoom lenses
Fujifilm XF 16-80 f4 OIS WR - amzn.to/3bWjG2D
Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 - adorama.rfvk.net/gbPVmA
Fujifilm XF 50-140 f 2.8 - amzn.to/3mjEBCM
Fujifilm prime lenses
Fujifilm XF 16 f1.4 R WR - amzn.to/307Tw7C
Fujifilm XF 23 f2.0 R WR - amzn.to/3sJ7Fok
Fujifilm XF 35 f2 WR - adorama.rfvk.net/gb39Z2
Fujifilm XF 90 f2.0 LM WR - amzn.to/2NTwfE5
AMAZON Affiliate LINKS FOR GEAR I USE EVERYDAY
Fujifilm X-T3 - amzn.to/3uLaiaX
Fujifilm X-T30 - amzn.to/3e24XWE
Fujifilm XF 23 f2.0 R WR - amzn.to/3sJ7Fok
Fujifilm XF 16-80 f4 OIS WR - amzn.to/3bWjG2D
FUJIFILM XF 70-300 F4-5.6 - amzn.to/3bTnDW7
Fujifilm X-H1 - adorama.rfvk.net/e4ezED
Fujifilm X-T3 - amzn.to/3uLaiaX
Fujifilm X-T30 - amzn.to/3e24XWE
Fujifilm XF 10-24 f4 OIS - amzn.to/3uMGLxz
Fujifilm XF 16-80 f4 OIS WR - amzn.to/3bWjG2D
Fujifilm XF 55-200 f3.5/4.8 OIS - amzn.to/3uLgTlC
Fujifilm XF 100-400 f4.5/5.6 OIS WR - amzn.to/3b9UMO1
Fujifilm X-T3 & XF 16-80 Bundle - amzn.to/3kAvTOG
Backpack and tripod gear
Lowepro Flipside 400 AW - amzn.to/3r9VwZ5
Feisol CT 3401 - amzn.to/3075QoU
Feisol CB 40D ballhead - amzn.to/3r9We8H
Neweer Leveling base - amzn.to/3860fDI
Video Gear
Fuji X-H1 - amzn.to/3uQdAJR
Canon M50 - amzn.to/2NYrSaJ
DJI Osmo pocket - amzn.to/2NNXIqS
Benro Slim tripod - amzn.to/3bUQsBl
#fujifilmxf1680 #fujifilmxf23f2 #fujifilmXF16f1.4 
Хобби
I find myself feeling all warm and fuzzy after watching your uncomplicated and relaxing videos. Thank you so much for spreading some joy in the world!
Thanks Henry!
Fun stuff! Thanks for this, really curious about these new sensors. I still love my XS 10 but really considering an upgrade
Go for it!
Thank you Kirk, this is the video I've been waiting for someone to make to see how the 16-80 which gets a bashing in RUclips videos stacks up on the new sensor. It's helped me make a decision on my next kit purchase, so appreciate your efforts to make and share this - thank you :)
Many thanks Tom - I love my 16-80 and will be using it with my X-T5 anyway
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography that's the decision that I came to - your images didn't show me anything to be too worried about. I think that lens gets a bad reputation in RUclips videos for, in reality, the small amount softer it is
Hi Kirk! I trust that you are well! Great and love your reviews!!! Cheers
Yes Carlos doing well thanks.
Thank You for your analysis . .
much appreciated !!
this is exactly what I was waiting for reviewers to cover this. Especially the XF16-80.
I have the fuji 16-55mm that I intend to use with my new X-T5, and since I won't be exposed at the Museum of Arts, I guess it will do for me.
Great analysis.
Have a great day!
I find the 16-80mm is soft around the edges on all X series bodies I've used and changing the aperture makes no difference. Once you go below 35mm the edge softness becomes more profound. It's a great walkabout lens for general photography, but I'm sure Fuji could easily improve it with a mark 2 version.
I sent mine back because it couldn't resolve a sharp image on my X-T2.
is it sharper at f8 than at f5.6?
Thanks for doing these tests. I got carried away and just brought the 16mm second hand. I’m much relieved that it’ll work with my XH2.
You should have no problem with that lens it’s beautiful.
While I liked the zoom range given to me by the 16-80mm I ended up selling it because I did find it soft around the edges using my XH-1 and XPro3. Thank you for the fair assessment!
Bill - I still love the lens. I have a great copy but on the X-T5 it is a bit soft on the edges. Since I shoot wide open with it a lot for news work I never notice it.
Great video, Kirk, and an even better thumbnail! :)
Thanks Phil! Haha last minute decision on the thumbnail.
Thanks for this comparison, just got that kit, the X-T5 with the 16-80mm and am loving it so far, but did know it was not on that list, so looking for something that is. Might go with either the 23 f/2, the 33 f/1.4 or the 35 f/2
Very interesting and thanks for the side-by-sides. And here I purchased my XT5 with the 16-80 kit. Oh well, the photo's I've shot so far look great. I guess I should refrain from blowing it up to 100%.
I would not worry about it and just make photogrsphs.
Very interesting test, thank you!
Many thanks
Nice video. I think you would need to shoot each lens at the same number of stops from it's wide open aperture for it to be a fair comparison. Try it again and shoot the 16-80 between f8 and f11 and I bet it would perform a little better in the corners. I usually shoot my 16-80 at f8 or 9.
I thought your 16-80 was resolving as well as any copy of that lens I have ever seen! I had two copies of it and disliked them both due to soft images both on an X-H1 and an X-T4. I haven't found a short telephoto zoom I love yet (Sigma 18-50 is on order), but I think the 70-300 zoom is excellent. Thanks for the review Kirk.
Nice comparisons. I’m loving the 23 f/2 with the X-T5. I’m loving it so much that I am selling the Z7. The color science is incredible on the film simulations. That lens is super tac sharp. Lightroom just added nostalgic neg to update the profiles with the X-T5. Fuji really makes an exceptional product that makes me want to take photos. Nikon lost that for me.
Good choice!
It's funny, I switched from Fuji to Nikon FF just because Fuji's sensors were so sub par and their lenses, too. Not surprised that they can't resolve measly 40 mpxl. I'm sticking with Nikon, because I want the ultimate image quality.
@@n1ngnuo agree, the noise performance at iso 3200 is night and day difference. The Nikon FF has so much better noise performance in lower lights or with bigger lenses
Maybe some day they’ll make a camera that is so perfect, it won’t even require human interaction. It’ll just go take amazing photos on its own and then bring them back to us to enjoy. Won’t that be awesome? 😂🙄
Get the Red label 16-55/2.8 if looking for no compromises. That’s why the Fuji rep recommended the H2 with the red label zoom instead of the XT5 kit. Glad I did.
Agreed that is the way to go. But I'm not willing to haul around the 16-55. I love that lens by the way but too big and expensive.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography but if people can find ample used copies for $600-$750-ish that are clean, they really should consider it. Especially landscapers... has some of the best coatings for flaring/contrast/color rendering, etc in the lineup, which is handy in conditions that can be random. And sharp-sharp.
@@tjkrueger2655the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is going to have something to say about that. Even it it’s marginally worse, the cost and weight savings might be worth it. Obviously no weather sealing and smaller range. You can’t have it all.
@@awake780 it's not going to say much aside from "I'm smaller and cheaper". The IQ isn't comparable, lacks weather sealing and an aperture ring. Nothing wrong with having more zoom options, and the Sigma seems like a good one... but for landscapes, especially on the 40mp sensor, the xf 16-55 should be in the bag.
@@tjkrueger2655 as always, your miles may vary. Everyone has different demands for their gear. I own the 16-55 and it has bagged me tons of great photos. But I wouldn’t be so cavalier in writing the Sigma off just yet. Size is a huge consideration for crop sensor cameras. The Sigma weighs 280 g for goodness sake. Furthermore, the Sigma has been tested against the 16-55 and showed better flare control/contrast in harsh lighting conditions. I’m looking forward to testing them head to head.
Getting my X-T5 tomorrow can't wait to check this out. Kirk maybe it is time to get the 8-16mm zoom.
Dan - I have one on loan and need to try it out wit the X-T5.
Thanks! Maybe there's a little misunderstanding regarding this list. Actually the lenses that aren't on it are as excellent with the new 40MP sensor as they were with the previous generation, they just won't use the full potential of the new one. Some older lenses aren't on the list but they have character and that won't change if you use them with the X-H2 or the X-T5
Yes my 16-80 is still excellent it's just not as good as the 16-55 but we already knew that.
Glad to hear, love the xt5 but don’t want to update all my lenses. Fuji lenses have always been great
I'm an "advanced amateur" in photography and this is kind of confusing to me. When we use one of the lenses "that don't resolve 40mp" what does that mean? I see the comparison in pictures quality, but what about the final MP count? Lower than 40MP? Or still 40 with the displayed softer image? Thanks!
I had an XH2 on order from B&H and I figured it would be a good fit for me to do both video, some product photography, and high resolution pixel-shift scanning of film negatives. But the thought of not having lenses that resolve the full resolution and missing out on some open-gate / high frame rate recording features made me rethink my choice. I'm glad that Fuji is pushing the envelope for an APSC sensor, but on reflection I don't think I really need the extra megapixels if the final image result doesn't feel that much better.
Kyle - To be honest, despite the major pixel peeping, the detail is great with all my lenses.
Thanks for showing the side by side comparisons. I picked up an Xh2 recently and have been pretty disappointed at how poorly the 10-24, and 18-55 resolve in the midframe and corners. Comparing it side by side to the older fuji sensor I have and the xh2 is actually blurrier zoomed in at the same size. I thought there was something wrong with my camera but there are many photographers reporting the same. I like the feature set improvements on the new cameras but as a cityscape, architectural, and landscape photographer primarily the resolution results are very disappointing. Most shocking was when I compared images shot side by side with my 24mp full frame camera and saw how much more it resolved. I think im going to return this xh2 and continue shooting with my old fuji and 24mp full frame. I do prefer fuji colors but have seen some good reviews with others using digital emulations from cobalt images.
Paul thanks for your thoughts. It also bothers me as I plan on using the X-T5 for landscape and as my main go to out the door camera. I bought for the ibis, battery,af etc not for the sensor so we shall see.
@Kirk Williamson this just maybe a lens issue. The PHOBLOGRAPHER, Gordon Laing, and Pascal Basel reported that certain lens fair better than others, especially if they are the new Prime lens. My Viltrox 13mm 1.4 lens is excellent with my XH2.
I think Fuji made a mistake putting out this lens list, it's only caused many to over-react. This 40mp sensor is amazing and I'm getting great results no matter what lens I pop on it. Of course some of my newer lenses are sharper edge to edge (such as the 23 & 33mm LM WR's), but it's hard to notice without pixel peeping or printing large prints. I've even used a couple of my 50 and 60 year old M-42 mount Takumar's and am getting very satisfying and unique results. In my opinion Fuji hit a home run with this 40mp sensor, it's the best crop sensor camera I've ever owned(X-T5). Happy shooting ;)
Jim I tend to agree with you! I love this camera (X-T5). The prints are outstanding.
No… Fujifilm is a respectable company, it lets us know what happened on its new products.
Fuji are long over due a lens refresh. I was about to buy the 16 80 to replace my 18 55. Agree with what you said about the red 16 55, it's a lot of money and heavy, lacks OIS. I very nearly bought one a few weeks ago but didn't when I remembered I only shoot travel and holiday snaps for some personal memories 😅
Michael good choice I'm sure once they get rid of the old 16-80 a new one will show up.
Hi Kirk. Thank you for that review. I have the same issues as you :) I recently purchased an X-T5 myself and absolutely love the camera. I was wondering what the results would look like if you compared your 16-80mm lens against the two primes on a 26mgp body such as the X-T3 or 4. Given zooms, on the average, are not as sharp as primes, would your results be similar on the 26mgp sensor. Cheers and thanks again.
Yes, guess the video lacks this comparison. In order to start such an assessment you have to set a benchmark. And that benchmark is a 16-80 performance on a 24-26Mpx sensor.
Kirk, thank you for your work on this. I have a couple of comments and questions. First, Andreas Georghaides, the Fujfifilm Product Manager for the U.K. mentioned in a Fujicast Podcast interview some time back that Fujifilm initially designed their lenses to resolve up to 32mp. Knowing sensors with greater pixel counts were coming, they started redesigning some and adding new ones that can resolve higher pixel counts. A) It would be nice for a direct comparison-same scene, same lighting, same settings-with both your X-T3’s 26.2 mp sensor versus the 40mp sensor to actually visualize the differences in image rendering with each lens. B) The 16-80mm lens is not a top quality lens. I’ve tried two samples and others have reviewed it and the general consensus is that it isn’t very good in the edges and corners. I’m as surprised as you that Fujifilm included it as a kit lens. That said, being a long, long time and well experienced photographer, you know some lenses are flat-field (like macro lenses) and others have a curved plane of focus, typically concave. Being that you photographed a flat wall and if the 16-80 is a curved-field lens and you focused in the middle of the frame then obviously the focus will be less than perfect on the edges and it will naturally show less sharpness. Try a shot focusing in the middle and a second identical shot with the focus point moved to the edge and see if there is a difference. Most likely it will. C) One aperture setting cannot tell the whole story. I wish you had experimented with several apertures. D) sometimes we mistake slight misfocus for lack of resolution. The edges of a frame can be soft due to slight misfocus on a very high resolution lens and we think the lens can’t resolve fine detail when it might be the focusing, especially of a curved field lens imaging a flat surface such as brick wall. Finally, on the good news side, we’ll, partially good news, Fujifilm says all of their lenses, even the oldest, can resolve up to 32mp. So if you’ve previously used a Fujifilm camera with 26.2mp, you now experience a nice bump in resolution, just not the full 40mp. At least it is better! Again, thank you, sir, for your work. Happy Holidays.
The 16-80mm coming as part of a kit is fuji openly downgrading it imo. I own one and when people asked, I always said it's not worth buying at the RRP. Well overpriced initially. They might be selling it as a kit to shift stock or to pad sale numbers to justify building it or maybe, to just break-even.
It's a shame because it's super versatile. Certainly not fuji's finest hour. I'm tempted to sell mine and grab the new Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 because the 16-55mm is too big and so is the Tamron 17-70mm.
@@kieronperalta6198 It's a fine lens for what it is. It actually performs better than the 16-55 on mtf charts. But the distortion correction makes the edges weaker. There's also two problems people encountered: sample variation and shutter shock. Use an electronic shutter and ensure the ois is not inducing vibration to the images. There's an entire forum thread about this on dpreview.
Agree that its a very odd choice that the two kit lenses they are pushing (hard to find body only) don't resolve the sensor. I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of what the lenses look like when comparing the same shot on the 26mp sensor vs the 40mp.
Yes I found it quite strange.
I own the Viltrox 23 1.4 and it is really sharp on my XT5 as well as the Viltrox 13mm 1.4. I do have the 16-80 and I'm satisfied with it for what it is but I'll see what Fuji will do with its future lineup.
It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Hey Kirk - what are you comparing that Fuji lens with?
And just how great do you believe the difference is in resolution between that lens, and any other similar lens of your choice by other manufacturers? All lenses of course have aberrations; but how many aberrations are super noticeable, and moreover, are in fact quite objectionable? Image quality within the same lens is of course somewhat variable just based on the aperture you choose. Most lenses seem to perform best, the greatest resolution and/or the fewest aberrations when stopped down about two stops past wide open.
I'm still shooting the old 35mm f1.4 on the 5 and it's fine. It'l just looks good. And it's really surprisingly snappy.
I am glad to hear that! I’ve been thinking about the original 23 1.4. Sweet!
I've compared shots from my X-T5 against similar shots from my X-E3 and my Nikons. Maybe I'm imaging this, but my impression is that, in many cases, when the edge sharpness looks worse on the X-T5, what I'm actually doing is comparing to the center sharpness of the same image, which is sharper with the 40mp sensor (because the center can resolve more detail, and take advantage of the sensor, while the edges can't), so there's a greater visible difference between the center and the edge. When I put one of those pictures up against the same shot with one of the other cameras, I find that the center of the shot taken with the X-T5 is sharper than the center of the others, but the edges are similar. There's less variation across the shot with other camera/lens combos, so I don't think "wow, this lens is really soft at the edges" like I do with the X-T5.
It's not that the edges are worse than on other cameras. It's that the center is better, which makes the edges look worse by comparison.
Stopping down helps A LOT, and at f7.1 or beyond, shots taken with the X-T5 look pretty consistent from edge to edge (with the 18-55, 18-135, or 15-80). I own several of the lenses on "the list" and everything looks great with those, no matter what aperture. I'm hoping Fuji will release updated versions of the non-list zooms at some point in the not too distant future, especially the 18-135 as that's my go to walk around lens.
Yes I’m sure that the two kit zooms will be upgraded at some point.
A very thoughtful comment Jay. I am planning on getting an X-T5 body because I want IBIS. It sounds like the lenses I use will perform at least as well on a new X-T5 as they do on my X-T3.
@@albertphillips447 Yes, they should. And the IBIS is really nice in low light situations.
Love the 23mm F2, fantastic lens.
Yes a favorite of mine.
Hi Kirk,thanks for your comments. They are very helpfully. Go on and greetings from Germany
Many thanks! I'm loving the X-T5 and will continue to use my 16-80 with it.
Nice video
I found my 16-80 is soft at F/4 on the X-T3, but is much better @F/8 but luckily for me, the corners normally do not matter.
Will maybe run some tests on the X-T5 when I get the chance.
The 16-80 is my lens for when I have no idea what I will be shooting, and a zoom is never as sharp as a prime, I think I'm more interested in doing tests on another lens not on the 40MP list... the 60mm F/2.4 I always found that lens too sharp (generally for me, if eyes are in focus, nothing else matters :) )
I love my 16-80 on my X-T3 and I will probably use it on my X-T5 almost as much even though it's not as sharp around the edges.
f/8 is already limited on 40mp due to diffraction. It may well be that the corners still improve on the 16-80m at f/8, but it's impossible to resolve 40mp. The max resolution at f/8 is about 22mp (if you are kind) - or effectively a 27mp sensor (~25% loss due to Bayer interpolation). If a lens can't resolve 40mp by f/6.3, it'll never do.
in the first image, your focal plane is not parallel to the visible side of the building so the image will appear soft as you move away from the centre, assuming your focus point was in the centre of the frame.
Great analysis! Clear and to the point.
I am fine with Fujifilm demonstrating their leadership in APS-C camera's. But as a stills amateur and personally I al fine with 60x40 CM prints from even a 16 mp sensor. But I liked to hear about your experience since I own those 2 prime lenses too. And I like them too. Thanks.
Marc, Yes I was just interested as to what the heck was up with Fuji. I don’t pay much attention to this stuff usually I just like using the gear and making some nice size prints.
Kirk - while there may be a little bit of difference in resolution and sharpness that is a bit more noticeable with the X-T5, have you noticed any shots ruined because of the difference? I notice the overall composition, light, shading, and colors of a photograph much much more than critical focus. For street photography, everyday scenes, most landscapes, and even close face portraits, the sharpest of the sharp and clearest of the clearest resolution may add only a slightest of the slightly improvement to the end result and may often detract from the character of the scene.
The feel in the hand and the emotional connection with our equipment is much more important to me than the resolving power on a test screen.
The best equipment to use is the one you want to pick up and use. My take anyway.
Enjoyed your review and comments, thanks.
You are absolutely correct. I was just pointing out some differences with Fujifilm's marketing.
Very interesting Kirk! I’ve only ever shot my zeiss zm 50 and 28 on the 10mp m8.2 and now you’ve me curious how they’ll go on the m10r or m11!!! I’ve a feeling they’ll be razor sharp tbh. Highly underrated. I’ve never tried the Fuji system. Would love to someday.
Colin - I bet you are right!
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I’m usually wrong though 🤣 great content Kirk. It’s been subzero all week and I did manager to shoot a video in the hills. I’ll release it tomorrow night. Hope you tune in.
I have had the 18-55 since the X-S10, and now have the X-T5. It is still as good as ever, and would not change it. I did not buy the X-T5 for the 40MP anyway - I would have taken a revamped camera with the 26 MP sensor. Perhaps that what the XS-20 will / should be.
Yes Colin - I'm with you on this. I purchased it for various other reasons not the 40mp.
Interesting conclusion about the 16-80mm lens, Kirk. For Andy Mumford, one of the world’s most recognized landscape photographers, this is his “lens of choice” and recommends it in a recent RUclips video in spite of some softness around the edges. He often carries only it and the 70-300mm lens on shoots.
John when I go out to do landscapes I only carry the 10-24, 16-80, and the 70-300. I agree with Andy’s conclusions. Andy did state that he shoots mostly with the 10-24 and uses the 16-80 more for video. Then he clarified that earlier statement to say he now uses the 16-80 for landscapes as well. He also used the 55-200 more than the 70-300 but he has now changed that to the 70-300. My conclusion was that it’s not as bad as some think. I use it all the time on my XT5.
I’m thinking about upgrading from the X-T3 to the X-T5. I also have a plethora of lenses, my two favourites being the the 35/f1.8 and the 16-80 for walking around. Where is the list of recommended lenses that you reference found? I want to check and see which of my lenses will resolve to the 40 mp sensor. Thanks for your informative videos!
www.fujirumors.com/list-of-fujinon-xf-lenses-that-get-maximum-benefit-from-fujifilm-x-h2-and-x-t5-with-40-megapixel-resolution/
The thing I have found with the so-called "optimized lenses" is that subject tracking is noticeably better than those that are not. Optically, the only time I'm seeing a major difference is extreme pixel peeping. If you're sharing images on social media, you won't notice a difference.
Absolutely agree Ryan!
The 16-80 actually performs better than the 16-55 2.8 in MTF charts but it's possible it was made with distortion correction turned off. Fixing the distortion makes the edges a bit soft on the wide end.
Hi, I have always been wondering where you can find those MTF charts ? It doesn't really seem lens companies are promoting them
@@moneyfornothing8509 lenstip opticallimits tbphotography (did all fuji lenses). For midrange zooms I recommend the sigma 18-50 or tamron 17-70 tho
I was (and still am to a degree) a Nikon shooter, happily using my old manual focus Nikkors on my 12mp D700, when Nikon announced the 36mp D800. Suddenly, people's favorite glass was no longer "good enough" for that resolution. I was able to defeat that problem by continuing to use my D700. I never felt limited by 12mp.
When I started using Fujifilm, I was more than satisfied with 16mp and 24mp, eventually I got the X-T3, but only for the availability not the extra couple of mega pixels. So I am replicating my workaround for using my current fuji glass, like I did with my Nikons. I'm going to keep using my 16, 24 and 26mp cameras and all of my 12 XF lenses. Every lens I have even the much maligned (usually by people that never used it) 18mm f/2 are good enough with my current stable of cameras.
Why would I want to render 75% of them "not good enough" so that I can brag about 40mp?
I got the xt5 for the IBIS and the better AF oh and better battery. So far it’s great.
I have a similar view. I traded my 24MP Nikon D750 and bought two XT-1 bodies w/16MP sensors. I don’t see a difference other than better colors in the Fuji where I don’t fight blues and greens constantly in post. I’m avoiding a 40MP sensor until I have no choice. Until then, lower MP counts don’t impact my photos in any way. In fact, I debated moving from the D750 to the D700, but size and weight were considerations.
@@billb8262 Yeah, I love my D700 and it still impresses me every time that I take it out, but after using X-T class Fuji bodies the Nikon seems way too big and heavy... I can't believe that I use to have it over my shoulder every time that I left the house, just on spec.
You gotta love small and light gear that gives results without compromise.
Thank you for the video. I really want to buy x-t5. But I refrain because of the optics. What do you recommend? Are there currently lenses that can actually cope with a 40 million senor without distortion? Thank you!
I’m using the 16-80, 16 1.4, 23,35,50 f2’s, 70-300 and the optics are beautiful any minor softness is a the very edge of the 16-80 and very very minor on the 16 1.4. Everything else is just fine and no worries.
I love the 16-80mm, not because probably is no the sharpest lens, but because the zoom range is perfect for my walkaround photography
I still use mine for everything I love it and have found it to be sharp where I want it.
I love my 16mm 1.4 and it seems to resolve lots of detail looking at your video in 2160. Maybe it's not on the list as its' not as good on the AF side?
Looks like you have a good copy of 23f2. There should be 23f2 mkii coming along with release of xpro4(hopefully). For their release of 2023 lenses, 23f2 received the most votes. Fingers crossed 🤞
All my Fujicrons are pretty awesome
I found that same softness with my 16-80 but since acquiring Topaz Sharpen AI, it’s no longer an issue. That software fixes any softness. And it was a lot cheaper than a new lens.
Stan I just got that software so I will have to try it out.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography interested to hear your opinion. I find it remarkable in that there's no haloing unless you crank it up too high. I tried using my X-T4 with the 80mm macro lens to image 35mm transparencies. Topaz Sharpen really improved those images to the point I retired my dedicated slide scanner.
Hello Kirk: Have you tried the 90mm F2 lens on your X-T5? I own this lens and it has always impressed me as an over-achiever on my X-T2. I would like to know what you think about it?
I have a basketball game to shoot and I'll give it a whirl. It will be wide open at f2.
Hi Kirk.Thanks for that useful information. I can't afford an XT5 at the moment and maybe I'll steer clear of it anyway when I can, if you are seeing worse results than you previously had with the 16-80 mm lens. Were you using the XT3 or XT4 previously when you were getting sharper results from your 16-80 mm lens. I'm about to buy a used XT3 or XT4 and can't make up my mind which one to go with. Appreciate any help making that decision.
Ken - I am still using my X-T3. I did not upgrade to the X-T4 because of the flippy screen. The only reason to go with the X-T4 would be the ibis. Other than that the two cameras are exactly the same minus a few small things. The AF is no better than the X-T3. There are more film simulations but that's not a big deal either. The 16-80 is beautiful on my X-T3 and X-T30.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thanks Kirk for your advice. I think the XT3 will be better for me too, as you say, that flippy screen not an advantage for stills and I don't bother with video much at all these days. I think I'll keep the XT30 as well to use with small primes and the size convenience and buy an XT3 when I see a bargain one. It will be an advantage over the XT30 for bigger lenses and I wouldn't mind the weather sealing.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thanks Kirk. I think it will likely be an XT3 for me and cheaper too. Thanks again.
Thanks. Is it as pronounced on a 26 Megapixel camera such as the X-T3?
Not even close. My 16-80 copy resolves fine on the 26mp X-T3
Interesting comparisons. It is easy to see differences between the original images in your imaging software on your computer. The problem for me is I am looking at those images through whatever RUclips does to compress them and my computer's display. The differences, unless they are extreme, aren't really visible. Not just your pictures but everyone else's, too. The quality of the new camera sensors, lenses, software, and displays really make it difficult to see the difference between the images and to decide where in the process the difference is added. Is it one of these, two, more, all? Is there a way to determine that? And then there is the visual acuity of the viewer.
Larry - All salient points! I have decided that I will never see the side issues unless I make very large prints.
Onless I am fooling myself, it seems the xt5 has markedly improved both the 18-55 and the 55-200 in sharpness. Anyone else experiencing that happening?
Interesting you would say this. I have found that these lenses somehow look better even though they are not on the list. New technology!
The very same for me.
thanks kirk !!
You bet!
From what I read on the Fujifilm website, the lenses on the list will resolve 40mp even when shot wide open. The other lenses do ok when stopped down. However the extensive lens testing that Christopher Frost does shows the 16-80 to be soft in the corners at all apertures even on the X-T3. The test results on the new 18mm f1.4 show it do be incredible even wide open. I have an X-T3 and a GFX50R. I wish the XT5 could replace the GFX50R as I would like to lighten my load. I'm waiting patiently. Lol
I disagree with Chris’s testing of the 16-80 my copy is great on my X-T3.
The old 35mm 1.4 works very well on the X-T5, not the fastest AF, but great quality.
I’m pretty sure all of them are great. I need to try my 16 1.4 and see how it does
I have the xh2 with the 16-80 and its not that great (lens) Quite soft in the corners especially at 16mm wide open. In certain circumstances the 40 megapixels looks good and you can crop in nicely. But I’m on the fence whether its an “upgrade”. They needed it to get the 8k video resolution spec on the marketing. I do like the camera with very little gripes though.
😀
Curious if you have tried the original 56mm 1.2 (non-WR)? It's not on the list and has been discounted by retailers. The newer 56mm WR is on the list though.
I would love to try that one but don't own it. My guess is that it's probably ok but even at 1.2 on the X-T3 it's a little soft around the edges which is not a bad thing for a portrait lens.
Been using the 14/23/56 primes with my X-T1/H1 for many years. Wonder if they need to be replaced going X-H2/T5. Feels like buying into new ecosystem.
Guess as long as the 23/56 center area fully resolve 40MP it would be fine since it is mostly for portraits. The 14mm is bit different story.
Old reply, but those lenses should do great on the new sensor. Generally most primes are fine.
@@marvellous9652 biggest cons using older primes is the motor. E.g newer 23mm has much faster linear motor to take advantage of the better eye tracking AF
It’d be interesting to see the difference in images using those lenses on the X-T3 or X-T4 vs the X-T5. Unfortunately I’ve sold my X-T4!
Selling the X-T4 is not a bad thing. I bought the X-T5 for the IBIS,battery, autofocus, etc. not the sensor. The perfect upgrade from my X-T3.
Probably will be a long time before fuji gives 16-80mkii. Reason is the 1680 lens was just released 3 years ago. Quite disappointing it couldnt resolve the full 40mp sensor since the lens is quite new.
Im kind of stumped by their putting a lens out three years ago that barley does 32mp.
I actually have put the 18-120 on the H2. ( for photography) and found it excellent for my landscape work and very versatile. Image can be cropped easily with very good results. The 16-80 has always been a bit iffy even on prior cameras. But as you say is a convenient travel/walkabout lens on the 26MP sensor, including the stacked on on the H2S.
i don't know man, 18-120 doesn't seem to be very sharp either.
That lens is primarily a video lens anyway and at 6K it's still not using 40mp.
I have not used the 18-120 so I can't really comment on it besides that it was made primarily for video.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography indeed it is a video oriented lens. It is on the Fuji 40MP list and can be used for photography as well. Wilts quite good results in my experience
you just started the video and immediately "right after the break let's get into it" these youtube trends need to die
I am definitely wondering about your copy of the 16-80. Mine is very sharp from corner to relative corner. I'm not seeing on mine what you are on yours. I bought my X-T5 with this lens. I am used to shooting a Nikon Z7 with the 24-120 F4 and the two lenses aren't exactly the same but they are actually pretty close. In face, its amazing. The two cameras are actually quite close. I will be making a new RUclips video about my findings in the not to distant future.
Thomas my copy is very sharp at 26 mp. I use it all the time and love it. Good news is you have an outstanding copy.
Hi Kirk. I'm late to the party on this, as usual.
The 16-80 hasn't the best reputation. Justifiably.
A great replacement is the Tamron 17-70 f2.8. Works great on my X-T5 (and for that matter on my X-E4, though the weight distribution is sub optimal).
Sharp and very low to nil CA.
My 16-80 is awesome. Very sharp until you get to far to the edges. But my copy maybe unusual. I have been a fan of it since I got it.
I'll continue to use my XT2 because that's all I need. It's all bussniss, nothing more.....
No new lenses, no new computer, just taking pictures, nothing else. :-)
Still all good!
I called Fujifilm and they said the lenses not on the list won’t resolve the 40 megapixel sensor, but will have a higher resolution than the 26 megapixels on the XT3 and 4
Jeremy yes of course.
I like as you the 16 /80 zoom used with my XT30 … A naïve question : is it possible that Fuji could Solve that problem of no compatibility lenses with a frimeware ? ( I am afraid not because sems to be an hardware problem ) … because if not for me there is not interest in XT5
Can’t solve this issue with a firmware upgrade
There’s a lot of nonsense going around about resolution of cameras and resolving capabilities of lenses and I’m guessing Fuji caused more confusion than clarity with their ‘marketing-driven’ recommended lenses for 40MP cameras.
First, most people will be hard-pressed to really see an improvement when viewing a 26MP vs. 40MP real-life images, when both on the same sensor size. Esp. when ISO goes up, the 26MP might even have an edge! I took some tests in our studio with an X-T3 and an X-H2. Above ISO1600, I actually prefer the cleaner X-T3 images with better preserved tonality over the X-H2 images. Just saying, there’s much more to a camera than just megapixels.
The 16-80 is one of Fuji’s ‘lesser’ lenses when you look at technical image quality and it’s getting worse towards the long end. In fact so is the 23/f2 at wide-open aperture esp. when close focused. But, there are two lenses even worse, that made it on the list. The 16/f2.8 and the utterly disappointing 18-120. Both are technically speaking very soft in the corners and near the edges. I use the phrase ‘technical image quality’ on purpose, because lenses like this can still render beautifully in real-life with 3D subjects. In fact, the whole vintage lens market thrives on less-than-perfect lenses to create a specific look.
Why would Fuji say that their kit-lens that comes with the X-T5 and X-H2 isn’t able to bring the best out of these cameras? Well, that’s called “leaving them to want more”. The number of lenses sold per camera body is a commercial key-metric. They’re not going to say that the kit lens is all you need to get the best out of the camera. As for the 16/f1.4, rumor goes that will have a MkII in 2023. So, current owners are inclined to upgrade their lens when they buy a 40MP camera. That’s why I call the list ‘marketing-driven’.
When you have a favorite lens that in your perception renders beautifully, it will still do so on a higher MP camera. Just as I don’t worry whether my Zeiss glasses will resolve the megapixels of my retina…
Well that has answered my concerns about the lenses. I'm seriously looking at X-T5. Maybe buy it without the kit lens and resolved only. Obviously 'resolved' is the key word. I look for sharpness and probably am a 'pixel peeper', but then again I pay for lenses and want my expectations satisfied. Paying hundreds per lens I intend to ensure I get the best. And I'm quite sure manufacturers have to move stock one way and another. Its buyer beware as usual.
Phil I would look at the 16-55 2.8 but it will seem large on the xt5
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography No thanks!. I am buying no new camera which doesn't have lenses to suit my needs. I am also buying no new camera that needs firmware updates. Time this industry sorted its motivational issues out. It's my money not yours or the camera companies or You tubers who beg for 'buy me a coffee' to pay for their new equipment either.
The problem is not with the lenses (obviously, prime always will be better than zoom), but with too much pixel density on APSC sensor which even the newest lens could not fully resolve. Did you see Mark Denney video "What the Camera Industry’s Hiding from You!"? Although he was using newest and most competent lens XF30mm Macro, XT5 doesn't have more details than XT4. More resolution? Yes. But more details? No. When comparing full frame 24MP of Nikon D750/Z6 to 46MP of D850/Z7, there are clearly more details in the latter (the same comparing medium format Fuji GFX 50r vs. GFX 100S). So far it looks like the smaller sensor format is, the smaller benefits of more pixels are. Borderline for APSC is probably 26-30 MP.
Yes that is correct! The benefits of having so many pixels stuffed into an APS-C sensor are self defeating.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Then the question is why the company with such history and knowledge as Fujifilm is doing this? Is it only marketing gimmick? The main reason, why a lot of Fuji users upgraded to XT5, was new 40MP sensor, but in reality they actually did get only bigger files? These mega pixels wars should stop.
My understanding of the issue is that as pixel density goes up, the quality of the glass has to follow. Many of the lenses that didn’t make the cut started their lives on a 16mp sensor, and imo look great at 26mp too. My guess is that most of the lenses that can do 60 lines per mm or better even wide open are those that were “recommended”. Think of it as what Apple called “retina” display-the point at which pixel density was so high you could not distinguish pixels on the screen. In my experience lens tested to produce 60-70 line per mm are enough to make razor sharp images on my 26mp sensor. Don’t necessarily know how that would translate on the 40mp sensor, but I’m not surprised the 16-80 had softer edges. The edges weren’t great on the 26mp sensor either. FYI I had read something that full frame lenses generally needed to hit 40 lines per mm to have that same “retina” effect-smaller sensors may be more, not less demanding!
Exactly. Who needs more resolution needs a bigger format. There is a tiny bit more detail at base iso and a good lens. But the difference is much less than from 16 to 24/26MP.
Hi Marek. You are wrong. Whether it is Fuji at 40 mp or Canon at 32 mp lenses that can capitalise on the extra resolution need to have greater resolving power.
It is the same on FF. My A7R IV needs quality glass to get the best out of the 61 mp sensor.
Because of pixel density the issue is more crucial on a crop sensor, for the moment.
If there is greater resolution there must be more detail captured. The weak link in the chain is the lens as always. The sensor size is one of a number of variables.
XF 30 mm Macro? Be better to test on the 56mm f1.2 Mark II.
It would have been interesting if Kirk had tested the 23mm f2 on 26 mp and 40 mp. That would be a better test and removed variables.
How about it Kirk?
The 16-80 is good enough as an allrounder for travel and holidays - without alternative.
I just got back from Oregon with it and I honestly can't tell unless I blow the images up too far.
16-80 is a beautiful lens.
Very nice! Thanks. I have to say it confirms my prejudice. I tried the 16-80 on the xt-3 and it’s a terrible in more ways than just resolution, especially flare. Very disappointing performance by Fuji here.
I’ve had my 16-80 since it was launched and I love it.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Glad you like it. I could certainly live with the resolution, but the flare was too much. Then I tried the 16-55 and completely fell for it as it is absolutely phantastic, but heavy and lacks that 5x zoom...
How do the lenses perform on a lower megapixel camera? Comparison of the same lenses and exposures on the X-T5 vs the X-T4 or X-T3?
The 16-80 performs much better on the X-T3 and X-T30!
@@KirkWilliamsonphotographyThat’s a real shame. They should have a software solution that allows you to use older lenses and get equivalent performance to older bodies. I noticed the 10-24 isn’t on the list and it was just updated last year.
The 18-55 and the 16-80 are both soft in the corners even with the older sensors. The 18-55 got a firmware upgrade recently for image quality. I think in real world photography the 16-80 will be fine. Maybe you could shoot a little wide and crop the soft corners out. You have 40MP after all.
@@jmpattillo Software can't always beat the laws of physics.
@@kaneclements7761 if the demosaic algorithm is somehow causing certain lenses to be softer on the xt-5 than the 26MP bodies, then it seems like they could implement some sort of pixel binning to get around that. If the XT-5 causes your existing lenses to give worse results that’s a big deal
I would have to guess that Fujifilm is not the only camera manufacturer that has this problem, for many years camera bodies were made with 36 or less megapixels not counting medium format cameras , in the last few years the pixel count was increasing and a few new lens were released but at a cost that most camera buyers did not budget for. Many photographers have pushed for cameras with higher pixel count sensors never taken into account that to get the most resolution out of these cameras that the lens that was used would play such an important role in the photo quality. Many times people on RUclips talk about the best cameras but leave out how important lens selection is to that specific camera.
Yes very much so. Most people can’t tell the difference anyway. I use my 16-80 on the X-T5 all the time and I really can’t see any issues.
Kirk your own testing showed that the XT5 40mp RAWs were pretty darn noisy compared to the 26mp sensor - but converted to JPEG they basically looked great! For curiosity's sake, could you convert some of those images from this test to JPEG and comment on whether they looked better/worse/same? Obviously making jpegs is going to tend to sacrifice ultimate detail and all that - but if the images looked good it would be a strike against the notion that using "old" lenses sub optimal (frankly I think all lenses gain objectively from higher megapixel counts, even if the result can be called unsatisfying). I think of it as "downsampling" - plenty of video shooters rave on the benefits of shooting 4K or higher just to get a better 2K render. My theory on why the industry pushes the megapixels is partly that it creates optical headroom that may make a nastier RAW but ultimately a better image.
I did not convert the files to jpg. The jpgs were out of camera taken at the same time as the raws.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I'm wondering why you are using Lightroom to handle Fuji raws. It is notoriously bad at handling x-trans data, even worse with the new XT-5.
@@anonymousl5150 I'm going to do a Lightroom trial soon to test that theory, which I do not think is true anymore. It has been tested more recently and while there are differences, it seemed somewhat moot. Lightroom actually seems to have better lens support than CaptureOne, which is getting behind in Fuji world, or adding lenses that I'd bet are not widely owned (the 150-600? How many people bought those so far?). It does a great job, but sometimes I really prefer the output from the camera itself, which has just a touch of "beauty mode" on faces that is pleasing.
Even though the 50-140 red label is on the list, I don’t think it resolves the 40mp. I took it birding and even locked on and in focus, the shots I got were soft. Gonna take my XH2s out this weekend and try the same thing to see if it’s the lens. But I’ve gotten sharp photos with my XH2s and that lens at the race track recently.
I love that lens. So far its been dynamite for me with the X-T5.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography same for me at the track. I’m gonna mess with it and see if I can make it work better with the XH2.
I’m not a big bird guy but that lens should be great for song birds.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I’m not either. I was just bored lol. The lens has been great for motorsports and such. But I was using it with the XH2s. I need to do more testing. Could just be the shooter 😂
The 18-55mm f/2.8-4 resolves surprisingly well on the x-t5. What really is unfortunate is the 150-600mm does not resolve well, especially when stopping down. That lens seems best on my x-t4. I’m not sure if it’s diffraction or maybe a firmware update can fix the issue. The 70-300 works great; and the best so far for me is the 18mm f/1.4. Incidentally, I’ve adapted my Canon L lens on the x-t5 and they are fantastic.
I have not used the 18-55 on the camera yet. I have to sell it and the 55-200 to cover some of the cost of the X-T5. That 18 f 1.4 is a beautiful lens.
In C1 there is a slider called "sharpness falloff "in the lens section. Pull it halfways to the right and nobody will notice even in big prints.
I’ll have to give that a try - thanks!
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography forgot to mention you have to set the lens profile to "generic" to see the best effect.
@@hejakma4682 Thank you so much for this tip. I just tried it with some images from my 16-80mm and it made a noticeable difference.
@@Teewinot2 Glad, that i could help😀
The 16-80 is fine for 5x6cm Instagram shots. Done.
I use it for everything with the xt5 without issue
Nice
😀
Funny that you mention twice ' I'm not a pixel peeper ' , and then what you show us is simple pixel peeping because once a picture on the wall nobody will check this out .
I have the 23 F2. Good lens. Wonder how my 14mm F2.8 will come out cause that one got a reward at the time.
I was interested to see what all the fuss was about so I tried to take a look and see. I normally pay no attention to that stuff.
Lenses not on the list aren't going to be somehow worse on a high res sensor, they're just not going to allow as much crop-ability as one that is. If you were to do that wall test again with a X-T3 or another 24/26mp camera, the 16-80 would look just as soft in the corners... you may not have noticed it before because we're not often shooting a flat edge to edge subject. The focus plane can be so wildly different from copy to copy, lens to lens anyway.
Agree, lenses which have weaker optical performance on a 26mp sensor will be the same on the 40mp sensor - it's just that the higher resolution 40mp sensor will more expose any optical flaws.
Not in my experience
If the image circle projected on the sensor is the same and the sensor sizes are the same, I can't figure out the reason why the older lenses would perform poorly. Lens quality and performance is a totally different matter from resolving.
I think you should try the 16-80 at F8, especially for landscape. It's hard for me to tell the difference between my 35F2 and the 16-80 at F8. It starts to get sharp edges at F5.6 at 35mm, which is what I think is its best focal length. I'm sure you will feel better. It does better at F8 from 18mm to 60mm. The edges are much sharper. The 16-80 performs better on my X-T5 than on my X-T3. An advantage of the X-T5 and having 40 megapixels is being able to use "Sports Finder Mode". You get a 29% crop to both raw and jpeg, which 40 megapixels can handle, and it yields sharp edges and corners with almost any lens.
Fred - you are probably right and I debated about that. I actually shoot wide open with that lens quite often for news events and it is great. For landscapes yes I am at f8 - f13 most of the time.
Probably Fuji wants me to stay with my X-H1 and X-E3 combo and not bother about my mighty lenses...😊
Nice combo
so 5.6 is optimal? Or are they sharper at f8?
I decided to go with 5,6 just to see how the sensor would handle it. Yes probably should have gone with the lenses sweet spot.
Would love to see a comparison using the XF16-80 with the X-T5 against an X-T4 or X-T3. I keep reading that while the non-listed lenses don't take maximum advantage of the 40 megapixel sensory, they will result in better shots compared to the smaller sensor. Your experience with the XF16-80 suggests that perhaps non-listed lenses will perform worse with the X-T5. Would love to see that tested.
Thanks for your comment Paul. In my experience with the 16-80 and my X-T3 I have no issue with it at all. the X-T5 sensor is the same size as the X-T3 it just has more pixels stuffed onto it.
Hi Paul. I had the 16-80, a good copy, and sold it on. The focal range is great. But there have been too many reports of manufacturing issues. I've seen pictures from one or two that look like they were taken in 1922, let alone 2022. Also it too soft at the long end. Probably over 55mm questionable even on the 26 mp sensor.
@@kaneclements7761 The really bad pictures were due to shutter shock. People who used mechanical shutter at high-ish shutter speed induced vibration from the OIS, which in turn induced blur to the images. That said, there's probably a lot of variation in all the Fuji zoom lenses, I have hard more than a few stories.
All lenses will perform exactly the same whatever the sensor, but a higher resolution sensor will reveal more resolution, if it’s there, as you zoom in. Also don’t forget that, in LR, 100% zoom with a higher resolution image is more zoomed in, than with a lower resolution image; so all other things being equal will look softer.
I am not sure if this is a valid test, The 16-80 f4 lens is soft on the edges on XT 4 as well (if I remember correct) So in fairness you should in fact compare center sharpness... Or as a minimum compare edges to edges on XT4 vs XT5... just my humble opinion... Have a great day
I did do some testing on my X-T3 a long time ago when I bought the lens. I only noticed the softness at 80mm.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I forgot to say... This is my goto lens for my X camera, so you made me curious and I had to go and check how it performed... I have to say on my x-t5 It does not seem to fall off that much on sharpness toward the edges as I thought... Just quickly looked at some portrait shots @65mm f8... I think it performs quire well actually...
They should have done it like leica where you could cut your megapixels in half.
Yes would have been a good thought.
Even the rather new 33mm 1.4 is not really capable to resolve enough for 40MP if you're really looking. Compared to the Viltrox 27 1.2 it is struggling (also has lots of fringing in comparison to the Viltrox),
Viltrox lenses are just Meh in my opinion. Btw 40 mm (27) lens is not something I would ever use.
Man that 16 mm is sharp!!!!!
It sure is a real gem in my opinion.
Interesting that fuji includes the 16-80mm as a kit lens... it can't be that bad right?
Jack it’s not, its outstanding and I use it all the time!
Where can I find fuji's list?
I'm not sure they still have it posted because I could not find it. primes are 23 1.4R, 35 1.4R, probably others, zooms 18-55, 16-80, 18-135, 55-200 mostly the older stuff.
I am confused. I am not sure where the value of this story lies. I want to see if there was some magical extra value added by the 40 m pixel sensor that made it automatically do something to the image-making that is lost with the 26m pixel sensor. The improvement in rendering and the potential to enlarge the image or use a crop from the frame without serious degradation, would be my expectation. The size of a lens image circle is used to limit both distortion and shift in focus, as the spherical focal plane is projected onto a flat image sensor. The best lenses will have very large image circles and may even use aspheric elements to artificially flatten the lens’ focal plane to better match the sensor focal plane.
The differences between lenses is more obvious on the new sensor probably only in a very few specific use cases. It is an opportunity to develop lens formulae, coatings, glass formulations, hybrid elements, floating groups and so on, to take advantage of the finer pixel pitch but, my guess is that these Fujifilm cameras are applying algorithms to the output of the lens to fix the normal aberrations that the mismatch between the lens focal plane creates with flat sensors. I would say that Fujifilm will be cherrypicking algorithms to apply to their newest lenses and marketing those as best-suited for the new sensor.
I think all the photographers whose work involves zero depth of focus of perfectly rectilinear details on a flat surface at 90 degrees to the lens would find a reason to buy the better performing optic but, the repairs to output are now done digitally in-camera just in case. Fujifilm’s marketing department can sell you the lenses that can be digitally corrected more accurately. Does it make you make better pictures? Does it pave the way for more extreme, non-APSC sensor size sales to the big brands fighting for scraps in a shrinking camera market? If Fuji get it right it’s a win for APSC camera sales, APSC lens sales and sensor sales and creates a reason for people to buy a new camera.
I was suspicious about the 16-80mm from the start, so I opred for the 16-55mm f2.8 instead. I guess I won that bet 😊
Undoubtedly the 16-55 is a better lens! A red badge lens of superior quality. The 16-80 is an f4 lens with a super range ff of 24-120. The 16-55 can’t say that. For what I do I will take the lighter weight, smaller size and less cost with a better range. I’ve used the 16-55 and it is awesome but to big for what I like do do.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Well, for me, the one who must use heavy FF / DSLR with several lenses by order on my day job, Fuji's 16-55/2.8 is a lightweight...
I beleive that in real life people looking at photos from some distance and softness on the edges for me does not metter, people eyes not as perfect as a digital camera. What is metter for me is for travel I picked one lens16-80mm, no swapping lenses. I'm going to watch my photos on big screen TV and if nessessery I can encrease sharpnes in post production, no need 40 MP.
Right you are. In most cases no need for 40mp.
i'm new at this, can someone else explain to me this like I'm 5, so I can better understand when it means to "resolve"
I think it just means: is the lens sharp enough to take advantage of the new higher megapixel sensor?