Optical constraints for DSLRs > 36mp

[chambeshi]

This article should fan some debate! As it evaluates resolving performance of F-Nikkors on the "Official List" Recommended for the D810 and D850. Basically only 5 out of 13 zooms tested by Nasim Mansurov (Photography Life) 'crack the nod' for resolving above 36mp ie when used on a D850 and Z7. One of the veterans is the 14-24mm f/2.8G.

Quite a few G primes don't make the grade. But to my mind, the premium on high resolution depends across different genre(s) and allied uses of the images. For www based shots of travel etc, a 24-120 f4G does very well. And for quite a few of us, there are more than a few classic Nikkors including the 'Cream Machine' aka 85 f1.4 AFD have unique roles on a D850. And I still find the couple of AIS lenses still perform well on the D850: Namely 28 f2.8AIS and 55 f2.8AIS Micro-Nikkor.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-dslr-resolution

"...found most Nikon F lenses unable to resolve over 36 MP, sometimes even over 24 MP (for many zoom lenses). That’s nothing new, considering that Nikon has previously issued different lists of recommended lenses for high-resolution cameras like D810 and D850. However, even many of the recommended lenses for the Nikon D850 turned out to be not good enough for 45 MP sensors, as I demonstrate below."

"...Whether we like it or not, Nikon will be forced to transition to the Z system in the future, if it wants to stay competitive with other camera manufacturers…" [italics added]

[Erik Lund]

Confirms what many have observed, that many of the old lenses does have very good image quality on the D850 that's very nice know!

[John Geerts]

The D850 is more forgiving for lenses than the D800E and D810.

I wonder why the 50mm G 1.4 and 1.8 are missing in the list.?  (And the 17-35/2.8  is ignored)

[Erik Lund]

In the 'test' they look at resolving power, not the rendering of the lenses, quite different things
I remember comparing the 14-24mm f/2.8 AFS  to my 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS on D3 and D3X - Resolution especially in the outer region was far better on the new zoom, but the central part and the overall rendering was very nice and similar for the two lenses if used around f/5.6
50mm f/1.4 AF-D and 80-200mm f/2.8 AFS are also not on the list but for sure high resolving lenses with amazing nice rendering on D850
105mm f/2 DC AF-D the resolution score is not up to 36 MP according to the test, but IMHO very sharp while retaining nice smooth tone transitions and of course Bokeh on D850
The list is nice as a baseline if and when you need sharp, high resolving power, but that's it All the other characteristics you need to look elsewhere to find

[chambeshi]

In the 'test' they look at resolving power, not the rendering of the lenses, quite different things
I remember comparing the 14-24mm f/2.8 AFS  to my 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS on D3 and D3X - Resolution especially in the outer region was far better on the new zoom, but the central part and the overall rendering was very nice and similar for the two lenses if used around f/5.6
50mm f/1.4 AF-D and 80-200mm f/2.8 AFS are also not on the list but for sure high resolving lenses with amazing nice rendering on D850
105mm f/2 DC AF-D the resolution score is not up to 36 MP according to the test, but IMHO very sharp while retaining nice smooth tone transitions and of course Bokeh on D850
The list is nice as a baseline if and when you need sharp, high resolving power, but that's it All the other characteristics you need to look elsewhere to find

Tendency is to rate Rendering as the poor/distant relation to Resolution. More pragmatic to set one's own criteria for contrast and sharpness. And here we have many choices, even for high-resolution FX cameras (ie > 36mp)

[simsurace]

I think there is an underlying (and very common) misconception (or approach*, if you will) about resolution, MTF, etc. For any lens, using a higher-res sensor will improve the overall quality, if perhaps only slightly. There seems to be a common thinking that you want/need very high MTF at Nyquist frequency... Besides triggering aliasing, this pushes for very big lenses (the lens has to have much higher resolution than the sensor) that possibly compromise other aspects of rendering. Very high-res sensors reveal the 'true character' of a lens and might show more pronounced differences e.g. center vs borders. But on low-res sensors we would never see the center resolution on this level. We might not like the differences between center and edge, but the next generation of sensors will also reveal the same thing about today's best lenses that now (viewed with today's sensors) seem to have very uniform sharpness across the frame. In any case, this dynamic keeps lens manufacturers busy. Back when the D800 came out, I was told by the owner of a photography store that Nikon doesn't have any lenses available that can be used with the camera. I had to laugh -- but he was not the only one to spread this message. 

For me, I currently don't want to deal with files bigger than 24mp... I have run into aliasing with some recent very sharp lenses. This would go away if I used a denser sensor - but I would have to bear the cost of large files for the other 90% of images that do not need the additional pixels. I also enjoy some old lenses e.g. Nikon Ai-s with which these problems do not appear.. but with every new generation of cameras, all lenses seem to get slightly better. IMHO it has never gone backwards if you look at the entire image. So I tend to hang on to my lenses.

I agree about the potential of Z mount to give us very good optics without the massive size/weight, borne out by some examples already, such as 50/1.8S vs. Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 (as some tests seem to indicate, I don't have first-hand experience with the Otus).

[longzoom]

2019-06-14 059-1 by longz[url=https://flic.kr/p/2gehpWM]2019-06-14 059-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickroom[/url], on Flickr.       The Z7, 80-400G, wide open, crop of 100%.  LZ               

[longzoom]

2019-05-30_29-1 by longzoom[/url[url=https://flic.kr/p/2g5Tht3]2019-05-30_29-1-3 by longzoom, on Flickr], on Flickr.       The Z7, 80-400G, wide open, crop.  LZ

[longzoom]

2019-04-07_7-1 by longzoom, on Flic2019-04-07_7-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickrkr    The Z7, 80-400G, wide open at 400mm, crop from the extreme corner of 200%.  So needless to trust some/every  test, ( i think, personaly), because you will test your OWN COPY of the  lens.  Try it, make your own conclusion. Good luck!  LZ

[the solitaire]

Having read many such articles over the past 20 years, I more and more believe that the scientific evidence is mostly supported by revenue. Trying to make susceptible buyers buy lenses they do not need.

My better half has been using a Nikon D800 for about 5 years now. She uses mostly the Sigma Art primes. 35mm f1,4 and 135mm f1,8. Both lenses are tested with high resolving power.

I just bought a D800 two days ago, and will mostly use lenses like the Nikon 55mm f1,2, 105mm f2,5 and 35mm f2 Nikkor-O. I decided to buy a 36 Mp camera after using the lenses on Kristinas D800 and seeing how they perform there.

From those personal experiences, the least sharp lenses are the 55mm f1,2 (wide open) and the 300mm f2,8 Ai-S. All other lenses do not only appear sharper, but, like the 4 element 135mm f2,8 Nikkor-Q.C actually are perfectly sharp when zoomed to 1:1, which is closer examination then most viewers will perform on the resulting images.

Optical constraints is another term for "We want your money". So far I have not seen evidence of lenses for the Nikon F mount not being perfectly sharp on cameras with an F mount. Maybe I'm just lucky though, and buy all the good samples out there

[pluton]

Having read many such articles over the past 20 years, I more and more believe that the scientific evidence is mostly supported by revenue. Trying to make susceptible buyers buy lenses they do not need.

Agree...these are businesses, and need to sell stuff. 
If I want to make digital shots on my D800/E that are reminiscent of that which is achievable with an 8x10 view camera, I will need a better lens than the average old manual focus Nikkor (28/2.8 AiS and 55/2.8 AiS excepted)...and I'll need a tripod and careful manual focusing.
I shoot mostly handheld, which reduces my D800/E to the equivalent of roughly a 12 or 16 megapixel camera due to camera shake. I'm fine with that. My next cam will be 24 MP, max.

[John Geerts]

Optical constraints is another term for "We want your money". So far I have not seen evidence of lenses for the Nikon F mount not being perfectly sharp on cameras with an F mount. Maybe I'm just lucky though, and buy all the good samples out there

It's indeed in many cases not the optical constraint.  Different mp's just ask for a different technique.  Which is also valid for relative high mp's (24) on a DX camera.

[the solitaire]

Agree...these are businesses, and need to sell stuff. 
If I want to make digital shots on my D800/E that are reminiscent of that which is achievable with an 8x10 view camera, I will need a better lens than the average old manual focus Nikkor (28/2.8 AiS and 55/2.8 AiS excepted)...and I'll need a tripod and careful manual focusing.
I shoot mostly handheld, which reduces my D800/E to the equivalent of roughly a 12 or 16 megapixel camera due to camera shake. I'm fine with that. My next cam will be 24 MP, max.

There are actually quite a few more exceptions, including the 16mm f3,5 Fish Eye and the 135mm f3,5, which is a 4 element lens with exceptional sharpness, but a few other flaws. In the necxt few days I will try out the selection of lenses I have to see how they hold up, but I expect that I won't see a lack of resolving power in most of these lenses at 100% pixel peeper view.

[pluton]

There are actually quite a few more exceptions, including the 16mm f3,5 Fish Eye and the 135mm f3,5, which is a 4 element lens with exceptional sharpness, but a few other flaws. In the necxt few days I will try out the selection of lenses I have to see how they hold up, but I expect that I won't see a lack of resolving power in most of these lenses at 100% pixel peeper view.

Yes, yes...I didn't mean to imply that the 28/2.8 AiS and 55/2.8 were the only high-performing older Nikkors.
I will try to make comparison between my 135/3.5 AiS and the Zeiss ZF 100/2 when an appropriate subject presents itself.

[Peter Connan]

I don't think the article is saying these lenses are rubbish, or that you need to replace your lenses.

What it's saying is that there is no point is buying a higher-resolution camera if those are the lenses that will be paired with it.

So in fact, he is saying that if you are happy with your current lenses, and they are not on the list, then you don't need to buy the higher resolution camera.