# Canon Lenses not able to handle 50Mpx Resolution?



## flux capacitor (Apr 3, 2015)

Hello everyone,
I don't know if this has been discussed before but rumors are spreading on on the web that the upcoming 50Mpx Sensors are a waste of money since current Gen Canon Lenses are "only" optimized for 35 Megapixel Sensors.
What are your thoughts on this Issue? How would an Image shot with a lens optmized for 35mpx actually differ from a one which is optimized for 50mpx?

Cheers,
Flux


----------



## Camerajah (Apr 3, 2015)

The same was said when the D60 came out and that was moving from 3 to 6 megapixels and so and so forth


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 3, 2015)

flux capacitor said:


> Hello everyone,
> I don't know if this has been discussed before but rumors are spreading on on the web that the upcoming 50Mpx Sensors are a waste of money since current Gen Canon Lenses are "only" optimized for 35 Megapixel Sensors.
> What are your thoughts on this Issue? How would an Image shot with a lens optmized for 35mpx actually differ from a one which is optimized for 50mpx?
> 
> ...




Hi Flux

It has been discussed before

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25001.0


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2015)

flux capacitor said:


> ...rumors are spreading on on the web that the upcoming 50Mpx Sensors are a waste of money since current Gen Canon Lenses are "only" optimized for 35 Megapixel Sensors.
> What are your thoughts on this Issue?



My thoughts are that people don't have a clue about how optical systems work. There also rumors that Dennis Rodman is an alien (or was that in some movie?). :


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> flux capacitor said:
> 
> 
> > ...rumors are spreading on on the web that the upcoming 50Mpx Sensors are a waste of money since current Gen Canon Lenses are "only" optimized for 35 Megapixel Sensors.
> ...



Dennis Rodman *is* an alien. 

It would be a good day if sensor technology exceeds the lenses ability to resolve. Said sensors would become common place, the sensor tech race would reach a level plateau and the price of high quality DSLR's would fall and be affordable for the masses.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 3, 2015)

You are confusing two statements, one of which totally false. ???

Statement 1:
"Sensors 50 megapixel do not better images with current lenses." 

Statement 2:
"Sensors 50 megapixel make small improvements, use of low quality lenses." :

The statement 1 is totally false, but the statement 2 applies to the use in the real world. Note that not all old lenses are of poor quality, and some new lenses have image quality mediocre.

Scenario A:
Imagine someone uses low quality lenses on a 5D Mark ii camera, and will upgrade your camera to the new 5DSR. This person will see small improvements in image quality, and it would be better to spend money on excellent lens for your old camera. :-\ 

Scenario B:
Imagine someone uses high quality lens on a 5D Mark ii camera, and will upgrade your camera to the new 5DSR. This person will see and sharper images, which are worth the upgrade camera.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 3, 2015)

All Canon EF lenses since the launch of the EF100 f2.8L Macro IS have been able to resolve detail from the 50MP sensor and many before this can in other words sensors lagged the lenses. What it does however show up more readily is lateral & axial chromatic abberations and fall off from vignetting to a degree given the cost of the lenses to purchase to competely correct optically would produce lenses at the prices that cinematography lenses cost such as Zeiss Master Primes, Panavision Primo 70 which would price us all out of the game.


----------



## WorkonSunday (Apr 9, 2015)

probably worth noting that 50MP seems alot, but actually, in terms of pixel density, it's only about the same as a 22MP APS-C camera. Those have been fine using the L lens.

obviously, APS-C camera only uses the center of the image circle, so edge performance may vary.


----------



## KimH (Apr 9, 2015)

Some time ago I took the time to read this article on Limunous Landscape - it helped me find my way thrugh this discussion.

https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-aeoeoutresolveae%C2%9D-lenses/

With some luck (I've never linked before on this site) this link should show the chart of Aperture and SensorSize to find our way through... at least in theory.

https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/TABLA3.jpg


----------



## asmundma (Apr 9, 2015)

My latest experience - buy a 5k/4K monitor and you pictures will dramatically improve detail (unless you print all your pictures on a good printer.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2015)

flux capacitor said:


> current Gen Canon Lenses are "only" optimized for 35 Megapixel Sensors.


I keep hearing this - does anyone know where is this rumor coming from? I'm not giving it any credence, just curious why people keep referencing it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 9, 2015)

It doesn't really matter. Crappy lens on the 5D Mark II vs. the same crappy lens on the 5Ds will be relative. The lens on the 5Ds will still have more detail and resolution vs. the 5D Mark II, regardless if the system resolution is all 50 MP's or not.


----------



## geekpower (Apr 9, 2015)

consider the size of a photon compared to the size of a pixel, and you will realize that is impossible for any sensor to ever out resolve ANY lens, even if that lens is a coke bottle. no, you can't get a clear image through a coke bottle, no matter what sensor is behind it, but the better the sensor, the smoother and more detailed the blurry, distorted image will be.


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 9, 2015)

Still with this? Yikes. Glass is optical. There's no hard ceiling in relation to resolving up to some mythical pixel count. A higher resolution sensor will simply allow more detail passed through the glass to be captured, and the comparable results will be relative to what lenses you use. An 18-55 kit lens (pretending it would fill a FF image circle for a moment here) will yield a better result with 50MP capturing it vs 18MP. The same can be said, relatively speaking, of the 24-70 f2.8 L II. Obviously the L will blow the $100 kit lens out the water by light years, BUT both lenses would see improved resolve thanks to a denser sensor with better pixels. Will every lens yield the full 50MP? No. No lens can perfectly resolve all light because as a matter of physics, there is some relative degree of loss as light passes through the elements of glass. However, we've come to a point where great lenses now have been engineered so darn well that the loss is almost unnoticeable to the naked eye, particularly when compared to lens technology of just a few decades ago. As an example, just pull up some DxO scores on Nikon and Sony lenses and look at how close/far the resolve to 36MP on a D810 or A7R. None of them get to 36. There are few who get you into the 30s, but they are $5000 Zeiss primes. Some of Canon's sharpest glass is currently resolving near 20MP on a 5DIII, whose sensor is only 22MP. That's a 90% resolve. That's about as damn good as it gets. So take that same 90% figure and apply it to a 50MP sensor, and I bet we see 40-45MP scores from some L glass on a 5DSR (think 135L 24-70 L II, 70-200 L II, 300 L, etc....)


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2015)

You guys might want to take a look at my post from February 3rd as well:

Best Lenses for the Canon 5Ds


----------



## tiredofstitching (Apr 10, 2015)

flux capacitor said:


> Hello everyone,
> I don't know if this has been discussed before but rumors are spreading on on the web that the upcoming 50Mpx Sensors are a waste of money since current Gen Canon Lenses are "only" optimized for 35 Megapixel Sensors.
> What are your thoughts on this Issue? How would an Image shot with a lens optmized for 35mpx actually differ from a one which is optimized for 50mpx?
> 
> ...



In my opinion, that is true of some L-lenses, but only when one considers the overall image sharpness, right into the corners. But the "sweet spot" image circle of most L-lenses should yield the resolution of a 5oMp sensor when set at optimal F-stops. The forthcoming Canon 5oMp cameras are 36Mp equivalent, resolution wise, anyway.


----------



## lintoni (Apr 10, 2015)

tiredofstitching said:


> flux capacitor said:
> 
> 
> > Hello everyone,
> ...


? ???


----------



## zim (Apr 10, 2015)

lintoni said:


> tiredofstitching said:
> 
> 
> > flux capacitor said:
> ...




??? Eh +1


----------



## tiredofstitching (Apr 10, 2015)

> ???



Yes, image size set apart, they don't contain more information than what the Sony 36Mp CMOS produces. … That's for the pre-production 5DsR samples that we have seen, and a miracle is always a possibility, if perhaps Canon deliberately clipped the resolution of those samples to hide the potential of the new camera for some obscure marketing reason. But that would be a second miracle. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2015)

tiredofstitching said:


> > ???
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, image size set apart, they don't contain more information than what the Sony 36Mp CMOS produces. … That's for the pre-production 5DsR samples that we have seen, and a miracle is always a possibility, if perhaps Canon deliberately clipped the resolution of those samples to hide the potential of the new camera for some obscure marketing reason. But that would be a second miracle. ;D



??? ??? ???

Then again, the 36 MP D810 with Nikon's 24-70 delivers the resolution of the 22 MP 5D3 with Canon's 24-70, so perhaps Nikon deliberately clipped the resolution of their system, too. :


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Still with this? Yikes. Glass is optical. There's no hard ceiling in relation to resolving up to some mythical pixel count. A higher resolution sensor will simply allow more detail passed through the glass to be captured, and the comparable results will be relative to what lenses you use. An 18-55 kit lens (pretending it would fill a FF image circle for a moment here) will yield a better result with 50MP capturing it vs 18MP. The same can be said, relatively speaking, of the 24-70 f2.8 L II. Obviously the L will blow the $100 kit lens out the water by light years, BUT both lenses would see improved resolve thanks to a denser sensor with better pixels. Will every lens yield the full 50MP? No. No lens can perfectly resolve all light because as a matter of physics, there is some relative degree of loss as light passes through the elements of glass. However, we've come to a point where great lenses now have been engineered so darn well that the loss is almost unnoticeable to the naked eye, particularly when compared to lens technology of just a few decades ago. As an example, just pull up some DxO scores on Nikon and Sony lenses and look at how close/far the resolve to 36MP on a D810 or A7R. None of them get to 36. There are few who get you into the 30s, but they are $5000 Zeiss primes. Some of Canon's sharpest glass is currently resolving near 20MP on a 5DIII, whose sensor is only 22MP. That's a 90% resolve. That's about as damn good as it gets. So take that same 90% figure and apply it to a 50MP sensor, and I bet we see 40-45MP scores from some L glass on a 5DSR (think 135L 24-70 L II, 70-200 L II, 300 L, etc....)



How dare you bring logic and common sense into an emotional argument!

Seriously though, well said!


----------



## zim (Apr 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> tiredofstitching said:
> 
> 
> > > ???
> ...



For a simpleton :-[ what does 'clipped the resolution' mean?

resolution: what is resolved on a chart with a specific camera/lens combination?
clipping: use of cheap glass?


----------



## tiredofstitching (Apr 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ??? ??? ???
> 
> Then again, the 36 MP D810 with Nikon's 24-70 delivers the resolution of the 22 MP 5D3 with Canon's 24-70, so perhaps Nikon deliberately clipped the resolution of their system, too. :



;D ;D ;D

Lenses put aside, I believe—taken with a ladle—, that a sensor that has no AA filter resolves what an AA or cancelled-effect AA sensor of the larger capacity resolves. That concerns the resolving power, not the richness of tones and smoother color gradients that more pixels can produce. Of course, concerning the 5DsR, it is mere speculation and the future will tell.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 10, 2015)

No Canon lens whatsoever will be able "to handle 50MP resolution". So if you plan to buy a 5DS/R, you absolutely have to buy new, high-resolution Nikon lenses and extra high-DR Sony lenses. But don't worry, just send all your current low-res/low-DR Canon lenses to me, and I'll take care of proper waste disposal. Especially any and all Canon L lenses should be dumped "with extreme prejudice".  ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 10, 2015)

At the risk of using DXO data.... 

Take a kit lens, a good lens, and a fantastic lens on the 7D... let's use the 18-135, the 70-200F4L, and the 600L as our examples...

DXO rates the sharpness of those three as 6Mpx, 9Mpx and 12Mpx....

now go to a bit denser sensor, like the 70D... DXO now rates the sharpness of those three as 7Mpx, 11Mpx and 14Mpx....

now go to a FF sensor, like the 5D3... DXO now rates the sharpness of those three as 11Mpx, 18Mpx and 22Mpx....

As we can be fairly certain that the optical properties of the lens do not change as we go from one camera body to the other, and as we look at more and more examples, it should become fairly obvious that there are three main parameters that affect the sharpness rating... lens quality, sensor size, and sensor density.


We can make a very good estimation of what these sharpness ratings will be on a new 50Mpixel body... The 70D has about the same pixel density as a 50Mpixel FF camera, so the sharpness rating should be 2.56 times the rating for the 70D, or 15Mpx, 28Mpx and 36Mpx.

and comparing the percent improvement from a 5D3 to a 50Mpixel FF body, for the three lenses we get an increase of resolution of 36%, 55%, and 64%. This tells us that the better the lens, the more of an increase in sharpness you will see.

So yes, it does not matter if you have a kit lens or a $15,000 big white, you will see an increase in sharpness by going to a higher megapixel FF body.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 11, 2015)

Don, fully agree with your conclusion. However, 18-135 is an EF-S lens - so no use on FF sensor cameras. 
Except for "purely theoretical DXO megapickles."


----------



## tiredofstitching (Apr 11, 2015)

zim said:


> For a simpleton :-[ what does 'clipped the resolution' mean?
> 
> resolution: what is resolved on a chart with a specific camera/lens combination?
> clipping: use of cheap glass?



The resolution can be clipped by a gross conversion to JPG. Actually, all the image samples that we have seen were in camera JPG's. Imaging Resources had also some RAW samples for a time, but they have been withdrawn. Maybe Canon realized that their in camera algorithm wasn't rape yet and asked for it. I got one RAW when they were available but have no means of opening it, although IR have a report that LibRaw can actually demosaic the 5DsR RAW's and produce more detailed images than the JPG previews that we see on the 5DsR product page, which in itself is normal. To what extent are the RAW's sharper than the JPG's, that's hard to guess. But I doubt that with the presence of an AA filter with effect cancelled, the images will be much more detailed than for instance the 36Mp A7R RAW's. Again, only taking guesses and the proof by the image should come in a short while.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> No Canon lens whatsoever will be able "to handle 50MP resolution". So if you plan to buy a 5DS/R, you absolutely have to buy new, high-resolution Nikon lenses and extra high-DR Sony lenses. But don't worry, just send all your current low-res/low-DR Canon lenses to me, and I'll take care of proper waste disposal. Especially any and all Canon L lenses should be dumped "with extreme prejudice".  ;D



LOL


----------



## charlesa (Apr 11, 2015)

All I say is wait and say. All this pre-emptive talk of noise, and dynamic range and lenses not up to the job. No one has had a half decent up close meeting with the camera as yet, except Canon insiders.


----------



## tiredofstitching (Apr 11, 2015)

charlesa said:


> All I say is wait and say. All this pre-emptive talk of noise, and dynamic range and lenses not up to the job. No one has had a half decent up close meeting with the camera as yet, except Canon insiders.



Absolutely. The day we will see an image sample that approaches the 645Z quality, I will start to seriously drool on the new camera. Other's expectations may vary.

8)


----------



## zim (Apr 11, 2015)

tiredofstitching said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > For a simpleton :-[ what does 'clipped the resolution' mean?
> ...



Ah right, agreed 

I think charlesa has it right, "All I say is wait and see", Canon have a bit of a track record of not supplying great initial images, generally the RAWs are also softer until the good RAW converters come on line, causing much whohaa, gnashing of teeth and forum foder


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2015)

charlesa said:


> All I say is wait and say. All this pre-emptive talk of noise, and dynamic range and lenses not up to the job. No one has had a half decent up close meeting with the camera as yet, except Canon insiders.



Wait for what? The first lens-cap shot? We know it doesn't have 14-stops of DR, therefore it will have poor IQ and the camera will be a complete fail, further demonstrating Canon's lack of innovation. Boy, if they don't deliver more low ISO DR soon, they're *******.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... further demonstrating Canon's lack of innovation. Boy, if they don't deliver more low ISO DR soon, they're *******.



+1


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 14, 2015)

How many Dynamic range stops would it need to have to see contract on the lens cap? :


----------



## LDS (Apr 14, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Still with this? Yikes. Glass is optical. There's no hard ceiling in relation to resolving up to some mythical pixel count.


Unluckily, there is, because of the very nature of light itself. Those who had worked with telescopes for a long time, where you often greatly enlarge the image coming from the lens/mirror, know it very well. For a given lens diameter (aperture), there's a maximum theoretical resolution which depends on the light wavelength also.
Theoretical angular resolution is proportional to the wavelengh, and inversely proportional to the lens diameter (so a larger lens will *increase* resolution, all other parameters the same).
That's because of diffraction (changes in refractive index like in a lens cause diffraction as well), and any "point" will become an "Airy disc", a central bright small spot sorrounded by rings of light and dark od decreasing brightness. How large these discs are, and how bright are the rings, will led to the "actual" resolution of the lens - when two Airy discs can be perceived as separated. Of course, in any actual lens the actual resolution is less than the theoretical one.
That's one reason astroboffins want larger and larger telescopes - not only you can gather more light, you're also able to obtain a far better resolution. That's why, also, smartphones cameras with their small diameter lenses won't ever be able to compete with the larger DSLR ones.
This about pure angular resolution, then there are several other kind of aberrations that can also reduce resolution. Having pixels smaller and closer than the Airy disc a lens can generate is useless - they will see a single light "point" anyway.
Thereby there will be a lower limit to the pixel size and dimension to be used with a "portable" lens, and lens needs to be designed to exploit the sensor resolving power - but where are actual lenses and sensor I don't know.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 14, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> How many Dynamic range stops would it need to have to see contract on the lens cap? :



Well, since the 5Ds/5DsR have a high ISO of ONLY 6400, you're going to be forked with this camera anyway in trying to make those important lens cap test images.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 14, 2015)

zim said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tiredofstitching said:
> ...



Resolution is generally a contrast measurement. It can be measured in various ways, it is based on the ability of the eye to detect the difference in dark and light adjacent areas of a image. In its simplest form, a narrow slit behind a bright light is projected thru a lens that is focused onto a sensing medium. The result can be measured to determine contrast (MTF). MTF is the critical concept since it is used to determine the response of a optical system. Read up on it.

Resolution of light waves is analogous to frequency. The higher resolution produces higher frequencies. Low pass filters are used to block the high frequencies in order to prevent Moiré. It is also done in the electronics. So by clipping or filtering out the high frequencies, resolution can be limited. This is good, because it makes a image viewable rather than just a huge rainbow of Moiré.


Its all about the sensor, low pass filter, and the electronics processing the signal. The glass has no problem with 50mp resolutions. It does distort the image which reduces contrast and acts like a low pass filter, but its not a problem with current sensor technology. Maybe 1000 MP might see some effects that outweigh the sensor.

The increased light fall off at the edges of the image is also sensor driven, the angle of incident light increases towards the edge of the sensor so less light is converted to electrons. There are various strategies for minimizing this, but only partially.


----------



## Jeffrey (Apr 14, 2015)

It still goes back to that if your images look crappy at 15 or 18 megapixels, just imagine how wonderful your images will look at 50 megapixels! I'm not completely sold on the quality of the lens argument. 

I really wonder how many amateurs need more than say 15 megapixels for anything they shoot. Instead what they need are additional study/lessons/workshops in order to become very good shooters.

Isn't equipment marketing wonderful!


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 14, 2015)

Don, did you burst into flames after typing that? ;D



Don Haines said:


> At the risk of using DXO data....
> 
> Take a kit lens, a good lens, and a fantastic lens on the 7D... let's use the 18-135, the 70-200F4L, and the 600L as our examples...
> 
> ...


----------



## flux capacitor (Apr 17, 2015)

Thank you Guys for the tons of informations you provided.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 6, 2015)

DXO use their analyzer to check lenses which are shot on a camera body. Lens designers DONT design lenses this way and never have. Lenses are designed using optical formulas based around known values atributable to glass types like say BK16, then coatings, baffles, iris etc all play their part. Lenses are computer modelled these days knowing the details listed above, they maybe optimised for 20 lines per mm, 40 lines per mm etc. based around averaged pixel sizes to attain the best nyquist match (Schneider have a great explaination of this). When lenses are built they are checked on an MTF bench to the specification they were designed for and on an f stop machine and projected to view distortions, chromatic abberations (color fringing) & sharpness at each marked distance. Test lenses usually allow for some adjustment before designs are locked off. 
In modern manufacturing glass batches are checked, randon lenses would be taken off production lines and fully tested because scales are normally extrapolated from infinity and say 5 feet otherwise each distance would need to be individually marked & engraved (cinematography lenses are made this way). It all comes down to cost, no lens is perfect hence why even new Canon lenses like the EF 16-35mm f4L still have vignetting wide open and or lenses are soft at the edges into the corners wide open. Lenses are expensive to design, glass particularly rare earth glass is expensive, then laddle in distributor & dealer margins its remarkable we get lenses at the prices we pay.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 6, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Canon lenses like the EF 16-35mm f4L still have vignetting wide open and or lenses are soft at the edges into the corners wide open.



Vignetting is as much a property of the sensor as it is a lens. The light striking the sensor at the edges and corners only partially illuminates the photosites due to the angle. Its less of a issue with smaller sensors. The camera processor turns up the pixel gain as you get toward the edges which helps with vignetting, but also hurts IQ at the edges. This makes for a double whammy, the lens properties you mention plus the sensor edge effects make perfection a unreachable goal.

A film camera is much less susceptible to this effect, but its a problem for digital and is not entirely due to the lens.


----------



## rfdesigner (May 8, 2015)

yes canon lenses seriously outperform the current full frame sensors.

if you take a "20Mpix" sensor and use it with a "20Mpix" lens you don't get 20Mpix, you'll probably get about 14MPix, for canon to score nearly as many Mpixies as their sensor ratings on DxO for several lenses then the lenses must be resolving comfortably finer detail than the sensors.

Looking at the 300mm L, I'm making a semi-educated guess of 44MPixels with the 5Ds, and with an infinite Mpix sensor I seem to remember calculating something north of 200MPixels.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 10, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> yes canon lenses seriously outperform the current full frame sensors.
> 
> if you take a "20Mpix" sensor and use it with a "20Mpix" lens you don't get 20Mpix, you'll probably get about 14MPix, for canon to score nearly as many Mpixies as their sensor ratings on DxO for several lenses then the lenses must be resolving comfortably finer detail than the sensors.
> 
> Looking at the 300mm L, I'm making a semi-educated guess of 44MPixels with the 5Ds, and with an infinite Mpix sensor I seem to remember calculating something north of 200MPixels.


Based on MTF data from 4.1 micrometer pixels, the 300mm f/4 L will resolve about 39MP of detail on the 5Ds if shooting at close to f/8, it's optimal resolving aperture. If shooting wider open than f/8 the corner performance will not be at its best and if shooting at smaller apertures then the image will start to soften due to diffraction.

On the 5Ds-R you could gain a bit more detail, so I'd say your educated guess reflects more of the capabilities of the lens on the body with OLPF cancellation rather than on the normal 5Ds.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 10, 2015)

flux capacitor said:


> I don't know if this has been discussed before but rumors are spreading on on the web that the upcoming 50Mpx Sensors are a waste of money since current Gen Canon Lenses are "only" optimized for 35 Megapixel Sensors



I don't know where the 35 metapixie number originates from, but Canon stated that post-2010 (or something about that time) L lenses are optimized for the 5ds sensor.

Afaik they did not say how _all other lenses_ perform though, so that's up to your imagination or testing. My guess is that for example with my 17-40L and 70-300L I'd rather stick to 20mp-ish sensors as the zone of diminishing returns would be reached rather sooner than later.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 13, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon lenses like the EF 16-35mm f4L still have vignetting wide open and or lenses are soft at the edges into the corners wide open.
> ...



Agreed about sensors but only in as much as the lens design is to a given image circle and the image circle affects No 1 cost of design & manufacture so they are deliberately kept to a minimum and therefor more prone to shading in the corners. Modelling has been done on different micro lens designs the further out from the centre of a sensor a bit like a flower moving to the light in terms of gathering light but manufacturing cost & difficulties have not produced viable products. It all comes down to cost, the bulk of the technicalities can be resolved I would argue modern high contrast lenses are conceivably too sharp in some instances but then that can be mitigated with filters better too much than not enough.


----------

