# Which lenses will match a 40+MP camera?



## kyklop (Dec 13, 2012)

I read lens reviews with great interest - The job can wait ....
The MTF charts tell me of the improving standards and which lenses to drool for. 
Now some recent reviews ask whether the actual lens’ performance exceeds the ability of the sensor being used in the tests. 
Here is the question the other way round: Which lenses will match the awaited 40+ MP "Hawk-eye" sensor?
Here is my camera-bag:
5Dc and 5D MkII houses
50mm /1.4, Old Tamron 28-200 , TS-E 24 L (old), 16-35 / 2.8 L II, 70-300 L
Recently invested in a 24mm 2.8 IS as my price-dropped, but still expencive - pancake.
Which of them would survive a possible (theoretic) upgrade to a monstrous 40+ MP house? That is: will they give pictures sharp enough to justify the upgrade?
And how many other lenses would?
Will the new multi-MP cameras have many options, other than prime lenses in the future? 
Or will we see new lenses with other optical qualities being sacrificed: CA, distortion, vignetting, etc., for higher MTF values?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2012)

If it can out-resolve the 7D, It should Out-resolve the 46Mp camera.

The 135L is one of those lenses.


----------



## AmbientLight (Dec 13, 2012)

To answer the OP's question: In my opinion you shouldn't have trouble using all your Canon lenses with a new high MP body. Any lens optimized for resolution and not optimized like the f1.2 lenses (and shot with large apertures) should be fine. Many, if not all L lenses in the f2 or f2.8 range and slower should be splendid with a high MP body. Large focal length range zooms, especially cheaper ones, won't be likely to deliver pleasant results with a high MP body.

Of course shooting a 50mm f1.4 wide open won't give you any brownie points with the high MP fairy ;D, but then this applies to all very fast glass (f1.2-f1.8 ), that is you won't be able to fully realize a high MP body's potential with fast glass with a maximum aperture beyond f2 shot wide open. I would rather use such a high MP body to shoot at apertures like f8, while I use my 1D-X for the fast glass.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 13, 2012)

This topic has been a bone of contention in these forums with endless paragraphs written, argued about, and flamed over... 

I can hardly add much more to what has been said other than simply state my own view: I think the modern sensors are more and more demanding, and less and less forgiving. While Canon has done a fair job updating their lenses in recent years some of the older lenses I am sure would not stand up so well. One has to presume that in designing updates for their lenses, Canon is sure to have taken into account their top sensors in the pipeline. But what can be considered "new" with the lenses is probably a sliding scale....


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 13, 2012)

I'm still in the camp that thinks if it was good enough for film it's good enough for digital. Also at 40MP on 35mm sensors. Much beyond that we'll get resolution problems anyway that have nothing to do with the lenses. So it's really a non-issue.

The bigger question to me still is when we'll have printing technology available that can actually portrait this kind of resolution.


----------



## dhofmann (Dec 13, 2012)

46MP on a 36x24mm sensor has close to the same pixel density as 18MP on an APS-C sensor. So you can test your lenses now. My 85mm f/1.8 stopped down just barely outresolves my 550D's 18MP in the center of the frame.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 13, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> 46MP on a 36x24mm sensor has close to the same pixel density as 18MP on an APS-C sensor. So you can test your lenses now. My 85mm f/1.8 stopped down just barely outresolves my 550D's 18MP in the center of the frame.



But it'll be a different story around the edges on full frame. I still don't get this 40MP thing: it's hard enough to realise full potential of 22Mp on a FF size chip. People talk about producing Billboard size prints but Billboards are always printed at a very low resolution anyway !


----------



## Rocky (Dec 13, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> If it can out-resolve the 7D, It should Out-resolve the 46Mp camera.
> 
> The 135L is one of those lenses.


This is not a fair test. All lenses have better resolution in the center area of the image. APS-C (7D etc) usese this area only. In FF the full field is being used, and the resolution for off enter area will drop. Some might even drop drastically.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2012)

Rocky said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > If it can out-resolve the 7D, It should Out-resolve the 46Mp camera.
> ...



*It Should* outresolve the hypothetical 46mp sensor.

The 135L has outresolved pretty much any camera I've used, so it would be a great candidate for this non-existent sensor.


----------



## dhofmann (Dec 13, 2012)

Rocky said:


> All lenses have better resolution in the center area of the image.



Which is fine because the center of the image is where you need the most resolution anyway, especially when you're using wider apertures.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 13, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


----------



## Rocky (Dec 13, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > All lenses have better resolution in the center area of the image.
> ...


It is okay for portrait, but not for landscape, city scape or interior of buildings.


----------



## dhofmann (Dec 13, 2012)

Rocky said:


> dhofmann said:
> 
> 
> > ...the center of the image is where you need the most resolution anyway, especially when you're using wider apertures.
> ...



Why would you be shooting those wide open?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2012)

Rocky said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



Word: *Should*

(auxiliary) Will likely (become or do something); indicates that the subject of the sentence is likely to execute the sentence predicate.

Your 135L *Should* out-resolve that 1Ds MarkVI with its amazing 46mp sensor.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 14, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


"SHOULD" is a too strong endorsement. I would rather use the word 'MAY". epecially you do not have any data to back it up. I just hate to see someone take your'advice" and spend tons of money now and regret it later.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 14, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > dhofmann said:
> ...


I am not talking about wide open. lenses still have less resolution at the corner than the center even they have been stopped down. Just read you own previous post.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 14, 2012)

Have you even used the 135L? ???


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 16, 2012)

kyklop said:


> Here is the question the other way round: Which lenses will match the awaited 40+ MP "Hawk-eye" sensor?
> ....
> Which of them would survive a possible (theoretic) upgrade to a monstrous 40+ MP house? That is: will they give pictures sharp enough to justify the upgrade?


Are you making very large prints? If not, then a 40mp sensor will make little difference, and all lenses will look the same as with a lower res sensor. As I've gone from 4mp to 6mp to 8mp to 12mp to 22mp, my lenses survived every camera upgrade because my usual print size has remained constant, usually not bigger than 11x14". I think 40+ mp will make a difference for people who print very large.


----------



## ahab1372 (Dec 16, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Are you making very large prints? If not, then a 40mp sensor will make little difference, and all lenses will look the same as with a lower res sensor. As I've gone from 4mp to 6mp to 8mp to 12mp to 22mp, my lenses survived every camera upgrade because my usual print size has remained constant, usually not bigger than 11x14". I think 40+ mp will make a difference for people who print very large.


Or for those who always shoot widest angle and worry about composition in PP


----------



## AmbientLight (Dec 16, 2012)

Not claiming to know everything (and even before it appears on the market) I kind of refrain from putting exact numbers on this case.

Nevertheless I am convinced that it is quite correct to state that most current lenses and also the better older lenses can be used with what appears today to be very high MP bodies, such as the rumoured 46 MP body.

I expect serious problems to appear only in case of compromise designs, for example cheap super-zoom lenses, which are likely to be used out-of-context of what they had been designed for. You will also be more likely to see defects/errors in other designs doing pixel-peeping, but related to the end product (a picture) what would be the point? Walls/prints/screens won't magically become larger, only crops in photos will contain more detail. That doesn't necessarily force us to crop from a corner of a lens with noticeable corner distortion and there are correction possibilities in post-processing, too, so I don't see old lenses going bad all of a sudden. We will just be more susceptible to buying better lenses, because we will be able to see the difference with increased clarity.


----------

