X-H2 (and X-T5) Fuji's recommended lens list

Fuji has made a list of lenses that they recommend to use with the 40MP sensor. Many on this forum have rightfully pointed out that the list makes no sense and that lenses not listed will do just fine on the new sensor in terms of resolution. Other have discounted the list as marketing tool to sell lenses.

So why the list?

View: original size

If you look closely, these are all lenses that are likely not affected by the AF issues discussed in thread: www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67031917 .

Personally, I would treat this list as a shopping guide for lenses that perform well on new (and old) cameras when it comes to AF. I would be cautious with lenses not on the list. Seems that AF accuracy and reliability (or lack thereof) show more on a 40MP sensor - hence Fuji trying to direct customers to the ones that work best.

Someone pointed out to me that the 16f2.8 does show some of the AF issues but is still on the list. He is right. The reason, I think, is that the issue is less pronounced and that without that lens, Fuji's list of recommended primes would only cover 18mm at the wide end.

Another observation is that the kit lens (18-55) is not on the list. How come the lens is sold in the kit with a 40MP body but doesn't make it onto Fuji's list? The answer seems to be: There is no alternative zoom in that range - and the 16-55 is too premium and expensive to be sold as a kit lens.

And the consensus seems to be that it can't be resolving power. In particular the 14f2.8 - which is not on the list, resolves fine "if" focus critical focus is achieved. And marketing (to sell lenses) also seems to be far fetched.

Nikon did the same thing when they launched their 36 mp cameras, D800 series. They mentioned at the time that some lenses would extract the most resolution/detail from the high resolution sensor. Sony does something similar, when they mention that their GM lenses are designed with 100 mp specification.

Fuji is doing the same thing. Of course there is a mix of marketing too, as more recent lenses, purportedly designed to cater for higher resolution sensors, tend to be more expensive. Anyway, such benefits will only be visible if one crops a lot, prints really big, or both. At normal reproduction, no one can tell the difference.

Except that Fuji excludes lenses that are perfectly capable of delivering enough resolution (tried myself): The 10-24 and the 14. And both are not cheap lenses, either.

You may be right. There certainly seems to be something other than just resolving power at play. It strikes me as odd that some quite lowly lenses like the 23mm f2 (which doesn’t resolve brilliantly even on the older sensors in some circumstances) are on the list, but other much loved lenses like the 35 f1.4 aren’t for example.

Also the newer, WR version of the 27mm f2.8 is there, but not the older version which is (as far as I know) optically identical.

Is there a simple cut-off being used in terms of release date? Are lenses released before a certain time simply excluded? And could that be because of some fundamental hardware difference in the way older vs newer lenses are focussed, for instance an improved controller chip? Just guessing.

When I bought my wife her XH2, I had to buy the "kit version" with the 16-80. There were no "body only" products in stock. Given the reputation of the 16-80 - particularly in online reviews I was a bit apprehensive. However, my wife is extremely pleased with this lens and I must say it is much better than the reputation it has. It is more than adequate for the 40 MP sensor. The lens also has a nice smooth rendering over most of the range. For a zoom it is quite good. The issue is I think it is the OCD pixel peakers that scream the loudest and most people don't consider the source and listen to them and repeat it. The Internet is if nothing else is is the world's biggest echo chamber.

I expect that one of the bigger criteria in Fuji's list was video support. Most of the newer lenses have been designed to support hybrid cameras so they are corrected better for such things as focus breathing, A/F noise which could be distracting in a video and video A/F tracking. If one doesn't do video - then these corrections which can make the lenses larger, heavier and more expensive are not really necessary. The 16-80 is a nice midrange zoom.

isn't the most likely interpretation that this list is mostly just a thing made for marketing purposes?

I’d absolutely agree if it weren’t for the fact that many, if not all of the excluded lenses are still being made and sold as current products, about a year after that list was released. Why would Fuji’s marketing department decide to campaign against their own existing products? I’d understand if these were discontinued or obsolete and Fuji just wanted to sell the newer replacements, but that’s not the case here.

I wouldn't call it 'campaigning against' older models but more in favor of newer stuff prospective new buyers of cameras could also buy. I wouldn't say this was the smartest of moves, but I suggest not attaching much weight to it,

All I know for sure is that lens sales are what make a brand's mount profitable (not the bodies), and the list was put out there with no technical explanation. Normally, I'd say that should pretty much end the debate, but quite obviously it has only served to fuel the speculation. I'd say mission accomplished (from Fuji's point of view).

Sure, but similar to what Nikon argued at the time, some lenses will perform better with higher resolution sensors, compared to others. Whether or not older lenses will perform fine for normal use/print size is irrelevant. They want to foster the recent lenses.

First time I have thought of the word foster as a synonym for sell.

English is not my primary language. Still, foster means: encourage, promote, stimulate, forward. So I think it is appropriate.

There is no such list. There is a list of lenses that can take maximum advantage of the 40MP sensor. All Fuji lenses are approved for use on both cameras.

Morris

One could argue that the list provided by Fuji contains the lenses that they recommend (word used by the OP) to take maximum benefit (Fuji's words) of the 40MP sensor. Of course all Fuji's X lenses will work on all cameras.

Well... absent a clearly worded clarification from Fujifilm as to why these lenses are "recommended" vs. others, all of this will be strictly in the realm of guesswork. It's certainly fun to speculate, but that's pretty well all that any of us are in a position to do without further information on the criteria for that designation. Thus, I'd take all this with a large grain (block?) of salt and use more useful criteria (such as reviews, test results, and real world examples) to influence any purchase decisions that I'd make. JMHO.

Of course. Fuji does not state what the "benefit" is, but given that the cameras are higher resolution, my interpretation is that it is related with getting the most out of the new sensors in terms of resolution. It could also be that such lenses are faster in terms of interaction with the new processors. Clearly there is some marketing effort too, similar to what others do (Nikon and Sony).

If it was - then why would Fuji not want to sell the 14f2.8 (which is regarded highly from an optical PoV, but sucks in the AF-department)? Or the 10-24?

The clear inference being that X series lenses that are not on that list cannot take maximum advantage of the 40MP sensor. The question then is - why not? Most seem to agree that some if not all of those lenses are perfectly capable of resolving to the required standard, so what else is it that’s holding them back in some way?

It does absolutely not follow these. They may think they stand a better chance of selling something else, for instance because most who want the 14 already have it. And on what do you build the idea that Fuji thinks the 14 sucks in AF? Not even all users think so.
You're building a house of cards