« on: November 01, 2014, 02:35:55 PM »
If you look at Nikon, the lenses that were mediocre with the D700 are S___ with the 3x higher resolving D810...
I believe that for instance the 17-40 or the 24-105 will perform badly on a high MP body.
I keep reading that only a very select few Nikon lenses make the most of their 36mp ff cameras, along with comments like yours, but based on my experience attaching a wide range of lenses to my Sony a7r I don't believe it. It may be true that, when you view an image made with such a sensor at 100%, the resulting increase in magnification you get (compared with viewing an image made with a 20MP sensor at 100%) reveals more clearly any flaws a lens (not to mention the user) may have. And, conversely, it may be true that the very best lenses (and techniques) yield even better results on such a sensor.
But I'm constantly amazed at just how good the images are than I get via my a7r, not just via the two excellent Sony/Zeiss primes but also current L primes, such "lesser" lenses as the EF 50mm 1.4 and EF 85mm 1.8, and even a whole raft of cheap old manual lenses (with one exception which, for all I know, may simply be because it's a bad copy). As well as the two zooms you mention - the images they produce on my a7r look at least as good as they do on my FF Canon bodies (not that I use them much - I've been developing a fondness for manual primes). Sharpness, clarity, detail, etc. are fantastic - as, I'm sure, they will be when Canon gets around to similar sensors of their own.
(I'm also skeptical of the oft-encountered contention that you will need to use a tripod and can't use very fast lenses. I never use a tripod and often use very fast lenses wide open with my a7r and don't think my success rate is noticeably different; I doubt there's anything special about my hand-holding technique.)
Of course, Nikon & Canon etc. would like us to believe that we need to buy new lenses when we buy cameras with higher MP sensors, but we don't have to play along....