lenstip.com resolution results - 2009 outstanding vs 2016 decent

[petergabriel]

I just saw a picture in a news paper taken by a professional photographer with a Canon EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM and decided to look at its image resolution using lenstip.com - besides heavy distortion the image looked fine.

 

http://www.lenstip.com/198.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

 

Here lenstip state:

"By f/5.6 at all focal lengths the lens reaches ideally even and outstandingly high level of 44 lpmm."

 

And with many of their Fujinon lens reviews fresh in memory using the same MTF50(lpm) test, a number like that is only barely called decent.

 

http://www.lenstip.com/413.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_10-24_mm_f_4R_OIS_Image_resolution.html

 

"Let’s remind here that the best fixed-focus lenses, tested that way, have maximum results of 70-72 lpmm; the decency level is situated near 40-41 lpmm."

 

Has so much really happened lens construction wise, that a lens with clearly a lot lower resolution is called outstanding in 2009, whereas in 2016 it is only decent?

 

And if so, does this not mean that there is no need to pixel peep when buying lenses today, and instead just look at contrast, color rendition etc.?

Edited July 16, 2016 by petergabriel

[cosinaphile]

hmmmm ...food for thought ....  i will read into this    youve peaked my interest. 

[frod]

does it make sense to compare resolution results from different sensors? Even notwithstanding bayer vs x-trans. Not that ultimate sharpness is a panacea anyway.

Edited July 16, 2016 by frod