I don’t really get the reviews. In some reviews, the resolution is very high. Imatest scores peak out at 3800 or higher for the Nikon 20mm 1.8 S, for example.
This lens peaks out at 2700 ish, which would likely render it archaic by the same standard (and i’ve owned it, in my view alone it is nothing special).
Does MTF matter, and if it does, why do people talk so glowingly about Fujifilm lenses? What is the comparison?
Ramon, please don’t compare MTF numbers between different formats. First of all, the sensors resolution is completely different (45 MP vs 24 MP), and second, the cameras I tested with are completely different (Nikon D850 / Z7 vs Fuji X-H1). Once cameras change, all variables are out of the window. Even low-pass filters between two different cameras can cause numbers to change.
That’s why I only include Fuji lenses in Fuji lens reviews. Cannot compare them to FF.
For Fuji lenses that peak out at around 2800-2900 (best of the best), this lens is excellent.
Thanks Nasim, that all make sense. As does Pete A above.
So is there any way of standardising results which would show relative acuity between sensor/lens combinations, and could that be a prerequisite to understanding or interpreting the reviews?
Obviously there are a number of factors between FF and APSC, the 1 stop loss, the lens resolution, the pixel pitch and therefore diffraction, and even the pixel configuration on the sensor?
So although the lens if excellent, should I question whether the sensor (x-trans) is the limiting factor in the combination, or is the implication that a Fujifilm image comparable to a full frame camera, possibly just due to pixel density, and that you just lose a stop and some DoF? A vaguely loaded question I guess as I find the output of a Fuji APSC camera slightly deficient although i’m trying to understand if that deficiency is real or if it is my perception.
Great reviews and website by the way, I refer to them a lot, cheers.
Luc
September 25, 2020 7:10 pm
This is my favorite lens for landscape on my XT2. Its expensive for a lens without any weather protection.
Pete A
September 24, 2020 8:13 am
“… the Fujifilm XF 14mm f/2.8 R, a 21mm full-frame equivalent …” a 21 mm f/4.3 full-frame equivalent …
Technically both of you are correct but 99% of photographers could not care less about DOF equivalency when it comes to ultra wide lens so go be a smartass somewhere else Pete A. A T2.8 lens for APS-C will EXPOSE EXACTLY as T2.8 lens on a medium or full frame. That’s just physics of light transmission Pete.
Agree with Pete, when stating equivalent focal lengths the equivalent aperture should be shown as well. Personally I find this to be a very flat rendering prime. I’ve shot zoom DX images at 11mm and f/2.8 that show much better depth rendition than this Fuji.
Pete, you are right. However, the field of view is more important than all other variables for those who switch between full-frame and smaller formats.
I don’t really get the reviews. In some reviews, the resolution is very high. Imatest scores peak out at 3800 or higher for the Nikon 20mm 1.8 S, for example.
This lens peaks out at 2700 ish, which would likely render it archaic by the same standard (and i’ve owned it, in my view alone it is nothing special).
Does MTF matter, and if it does, why do people talk so glowingly about Fujifilm lenses? What is the comparison?
Disclaimer: Nikon owner, ex Fuji owner.
It seems to me that the MTF numbers are line widths per picture height (LW/PH), at 50% MTF. From this, we get:
86 line pairs per mm at f/4 on Fujifilm XF 14 mm f/2.8 R
80 line pairs per mm at f/4 on Nikkor Z 20 mm f/1.8 S
line pairs per mm = LW/PH / 2 / sensor height (mm)
Interesting, intuitively, I’m wondering of the pixel size of each respective sensor is also a major factor.
I don’t know which camera was used to measure the XF lens, so the following is just a guide to pixel pitch:
4.34 um Nikon Z 7
3.75 um Fujifilm X-T4
Ramon, please don’t compare MTF numbers between different formats. First of all, the sensors resolution is completely different (45 MP vs 24 MP), and second, the cameras I tested with are completely different (Nikon D850 / Z7 vs Fuji X-H1). Once cameras change, all variables are out of the window. Even low-pass filters between two different cameras can cause numbers to change.
That’s why I only include Fuji lenses in Fuji lens reviews. Cannot compare them to FF.
For Fuji lenses that peak out at around 2800-2900 (best of the best), this lens is excellent.
Thanks Nasim, that all make sense. As does Pete A above.
So is there any way of standardising results which would show relative acuity between sensor/lens combinations, and could that be a prerequisite to understanding or interpreting the reviews?
Obviously there are a number of factors between FF and APSC, the 1 stop loss, the lens resolution, the pixel pitch and therefore diffraction, and even the pixel configuration on the sensor?
So although the lens if excellent, should I question whether the sensor (x-trans) is the limiting factor in the combination, or is the implication that a Fujifilm image comparable to a full frame camera, possibly just due to pixel density, and that you just lose a stop and some DoF? A vaguely loaded question I guess as I find the output of a Fuji APSC camera slightly deficient although i’m trying to understand if that deficiency is real or if it is my perception.
Great reviews and website by the way, I refer to them a lot, cheers.
This is my favorite lens for landscape on my XT2. Its expensive for a lens without any weather protection.
“… the Fujifilm XF 14mm f/2.8 R, a 21mm full-frame equivalent …”
a 21 mm f/4.3 full-frame equivalent …
Technically both of you are correct but 99% of photographers could not care less about DOF equivalency when it comes to ultra wide lens so go be a smartass somewhere else Pete A.
A T2.8 lens for APS-C will EXPOSE EXACTLY as T2.8 lens on a medium or full frame. That’s just physics of light transmission Pete.
See Equivalence Also Includes Aperture and ISO by Spencer Cox:
photographylife.com/equiv…re-and-iso
Agree with Pete, when stating equivalent focal lengths the equivalent aperture should be shown as well. Personally I find this to be a very flat rendering prime. I’ve shot zoom DX images at 11mm and f/2.8 that show much better depth rendition than this Fuji.
Pete, you are right. However, the field of view is more important than all other variables for those who switch between full-frame and smaller formats.