XF 56mm f/1.2 ($999): USA AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama – EUROPE: wexUK / PCHstore / DigitalRev
X100S black ($1299): USA AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama – EUROPE: wexUK / PCHstore
It’s a great Fuji day! After the first image of the X-T1, Fujifilm posted some beautiful samples taken with the 56mm f/1.2 on their website here.
1) X-photographer Nathan Elson shared some first impressions and a video on his blog here: “The Fuji 56mm f/1.2 (85mm equivalent) has quite possibly been the most anticipated lens for portrait photographers using the X system, and now that it is finally here, I can honestly say that it is beautiful.”
David B. send me his first feedback, judging from the images on Fuji’s website:
– some samples, especially sample number 4 clearly illustrate that Fuji need to consider a 135mm equivalent prime. The face of the woman clearly looks unflattering with 85mm equivalent which is too short here. 135 or above would have flatten that face nicely and made the photo more flattering. I guess a 70-200 equivalent is the answer?
– 1.2 on a crop is not a 1.2 on a full frame and that is clear from samples shot at 1.2. Those who were concerned that it is hard to keep in focus at 1.2, its not. It is merely like focusing Full Frame at 1.8. Nothing magical.
– the sharpness looks great at all photos even wide open.
2) It’s online again, Patrick La Roque here. For part2 click here: “Here are some 100% crops to give you an idea of the sharpness vs DOF when shooting this lens wide open. Bear in mind that these are from an early pre-production unit. You can click on them to get a larger and clearer version.“
3) For Bert Stephani’s nice video review click here: “Even at 1.2 it’s perfectly sharp.”
[UPDATE: Rico Pfirstinger started a sample set on Flickr here.]
112 Responses
Hi Patrick,
you should take a day off after the X-T1 rumor & updated rumor sessions! 🙂
After the announcement there will be reviews, samples, first impressions… I don’t think I can take a day off. But I leave for my day job now, so for a few hours I’ll “relax” with my students :-).
My PRECIOUS!!!!
Wondering why plastic lens hood?
How much more would it cost to make it metal? I see metal lens hoods of all kids on Amazon for $10 +/-, I am sure it would have been possible for almost no extra cost.
Why do u need metal hood?
I wondered this too, but really metal is only adding to the weight and if you do drop it it’s more likely to dent than quality plastic would be to break. It is a bit of a shame that all the Fuji hoods since the original lens lineup (18/35/60) have been a bit ‘meh’ though, all petal or big tubes. It would be nice to see some smaller vented ones and square finished ones where practical.
Plastic hood will absorb shock, metal and filters will transfer the shock if dropped or banged. Best to use plastic and keep it on all the time.
Wowwww. I’m sold!!!
Will we get some Zeiss x-mount MF-lenses?
From the reviewers (Nathan, Bert), sharpness and focus are very good just like 23mm. However, I don’t like the bokeh, hard edge, contrasty, and distracted. Looks worse than a cheaper Oly 45mm f1.8.
Huh???? I have Oly 45mm f1.8 and that lens can’t come anywhere close to producing the images like the Fuji samples posted. I even have the 75mm f1.8 (m4/3 best lens) and would trade it in a second for this Fuji 56mm f1.2.
James, I think Nick talks about “bokeh” not the “sharpness”. I tend to agree too after looking at the images. Check out this reviews:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Nocticron_42-5mm_f1-2_H-NS043E/bokeh_comparison.shtml
On the side note, don’t forget that bokeh for a crop-sensor like Fuji will have a greater dof than the equivalent full-frame lenses at the same “view of field”. Therefore, a 56mm f/1.2 will be similar to 85mm at f/1.8.
oops, I meant same “field of view” 🙂
You’re right Phil (& Nick). On the bokeh I do agree the Oly 45mm f1.8 looks better. For me the bokeh quality is a small price to pay for all the other advantages you gain with the Fuji 56mm.
I do wonder why Fuji put up a mix of incredibly sharp pics wide open at f/1.2 (#9, 11, 12) as well as some that are not so sharp (ie. the focus on #4 & #8 should have been on the eyes). Perhaps this is where the focus on the Fuji chose to home in at.
Nick, are you David B. under a different, well, nick?
No I am David B. You have problem with anything I said? I said I liked the sharpness. I have that lens on pre-order actually. But debating if I absolutely need
it. I do own the 60/2.4, 23/1.4 and the 35/1.4. Along with 16-50.
What I said, after looking at some samples is that they reminded me again that 135mm equivalent is more flattering to many women’s faces than 85mm equivalent (talking about headshots).
You can probably make that conclusion after you compared the shots at those focal lengths next to each other.
No, David, I don’t necessarily have a problem with anything you said. I would just argue that everyone knows that 1.2 on crop is different from 1.2 on full frame just as 1.2 on full frame is different from 1.2 on large format insofar as DOF is concerned, so it’s a bit of ‘dog bites man’.
I was a bit disappointed in the ‘there’s nothing magical here’ statement – 1.2 on crop is still a big deal, since DOF isn’t everything and the lens still lets in the same amount of light as a 1.2 would let on full frame allowing for lower ISO and faster shutter speed. Admittedly is not quite as big a deal as on full frame, but again, everything is relative. This lens is a big step forward for the X system.
my comment was specifically as to the statements by several people concerned that it would be hard to focus 56/1.2 due to very thin DOF. I just pointed out that it not that thin, it is similar to regular full frame 85/1.8 DOF which is very easy to focus.
Hi, why do you own the 16-50 and not the 18-55?
I owned 18-55 and 16-50 and I like the 16-50 better. Both are not comparable with Fuji primes in my opinion. However, 18-55 in my experience is not very wide. In fact I believe itn is more 29 or 30mm wide. Why do I think that? Well I test all my cameras and lenses shooting at a local church outside my work. I’ve shot numerous cameras and lenses at the same spot, so I pretty much know what a 27mm wide angle shot should look from the point I shoot, and 18-55 is narrower at 18. So I think it is more lke 30. 16-50 on the other hand, is like the true 24mm equivalent angle, which means, for outside vacation type, or irrelevant shooting, 16-50 works better for me than 18-55. Also 16-50 is smaller and lighter in weight than 18-55, and AF is just as fast, if not faster. Thus, for me 16-50 works better than 18-55 as a zoom.
Reading on the net, the 23mm is an incredible,outstanding,excellent,luxury,out of this wirld performer.
I bought one, and guys, it is a good lens but really a medium performer at full aperture.
Good in the center, fair in the edge poor in the corners, with a dreamy look in hicontrast situatiins. It start to be sharp at f2, and really sharp at 2.888. I use it on my xo1. I can say that a 6d and a sigma 35 1.4 are bigger and heavier but a lot sharper at 1.4
I do agree that 23/1.4 is clearly not as sharp wide open as 35/1.4 for example. 35/1.4 is truly razor sharp wide open. But 23/1.4 is still acceptable to me wide open and I am a pixel peeper. I do agree that Sigma 35/1.4 is a very good lens, I had it on my former Canon 5DM3 and it was a very good lens. But it is quite large and heavy. Some samples suffer from back and front ffocus – a known fact, even with the new, improved, Sigma art series. I think 23/1.4 is a keeper, and what it looks like to me, after I got 23/1.4, my 35/1.4 gets less use
I agree.
23 as i told is a good lens, nice color and contrast even if in a digital era these parameters are less important (you really can change a shoot in post actually).
and 23mm is enough compact and light to take advantages from a mirrorless system.. bu really there is too much “wow” factor around the X-system, and too many people talking whitout even try and use the lenses they are talking about.
Having both the Nikon D800 with a set of good primes – and an X-Pro1 – same story – I’ve got the feeling quite some people are having a bit of fantasies about the X-serie. We can’t change physic and optical laws and a smaller sensor has limitations a bigger one just doesn’t have. My AF-S 85mm F1.8G Nikkor is delivering a result that is regarding shallow depth & bokeh a lot better than what I see from this XF 56mm F1.2. Nothing’s better than the Nikkor AF 135mm f/2 D DC, no counterpart in the XF-world, and I can’t imagine there will be one soon. The praised and awarded Sigma 35mm F1.4 is outperforming the XF23mm F1.4 hands down. Yes, the x-series deliver an excellent quality in the APS/C-world but don’t dream, there is no kind of special magic going on. A FF high-end DSLR is still a different beast – I’d like to have the same competences with the X-Pro1, but unfortunately, I don’t have.
Same goes for FF which is tiny compared to the Medium Format (not to mention the Large Format). There’s always a bigger fish…
we are not talking about fishes but sharpness..
a sigma 35 1.4 FF is cheaper and a lot sharper wide open..
i work with canon and fuji and i really like the x-system, but really i am so tired to read about the perfection of these lenses.. these are good lenses compact and nice to use, but really this myth around the X lenses it start to be disturbing..
even more when i read pro photographer talking about corner to corner sharpness wide open (i am speaking about the 23, i dont have hte 56 so i cant talk about it) …
in the beginning i was thinking i get a lemon.. 🙂 after i just realize that all or almost all these pro put buying links on here review..
lol
You are such a trol who haven’t used Fuji X-Series …. So all these reviewers are fools but yourself? May be you have lemons inside your head. Can you post examples? I bet you wont!!
Dear Hood, i am used to talk only about things i own and i know really well.
so as i said in a previous post i own a XP1, a 14mm 2.8 a 23mm 1.4, a 35mm 1.4 a 60mm 2.4 and a 18/55mm.
i don’t own any blog or forum so i am not looking for clicks or selling stuff to make money.
here you can see the samples i took this morning.
these are the center crops with a 23 1.4 mounted on a XP1 on a sturdy tripod ans using a 10s delay.
i focussed each shoot individually.
http://www.riccimarco.com/trash/23_14/CENTER.jpg
and here you can see the lower right corner this time i focussed on the lower right patch, to eliminate any problems related to a field curvature)
http://www.riccimarco.com/trash/23_14/LR_CORNER.jpg
here you can download the original files OOC i used for the center crop
http://www.riccimarco.com/trash/23_14/center_files.zip
now, if you have samples that look really different from mine, please post them, but if you are talking about q lens you don’t own you will join the long fanboy list…
If this is how you test lens then I would call it self induced delusion!! And you call yourself Full Frame Pro? No wonder.
@Marco 100% right about this Sigma 35mm1.4FF lens. Own one myself, hard to beat by anything. A lot of people are really dreaming that others can’t do better than Fuji.
@Andy. Yes you’re right. But a FF-camera is still within reach of most advanced photographers, certainly those playing with an X-trans alike budget (cameras & lenses are very far from being cheap). A digital MF-format is beyond budget of any amateur photographer. It’s just about the choices you make. Owning both, I wouldn’t really know which system has truly my preference, I assume I’d still go for the FF DSLR if I could have only one, more solid, more reliable, better IQ, better dynamics, better 3D Pop… vs only ‘the lightweight advantage…?
An f1.2 56mm will have the same DOF as an f1.8 85mm, that’s just maths. Of course how each lens renders the out of focus areas can be very different, but the degree of blur should be the same. There’s no extra magic that makes full frame bokeh better when everything else is equal.
Yes there is. A 56mm remains a 56mm lens and a 85mm remains a 85mm lens. Different perspective lining, different behaviour.
Nope. Perspective lining (Field of view) has nothing to do with focal length. Only the sensor size and the focal length combined give you the appropriate field of view.
Just imagine a pinhole camera. Focal length is the distance between screen and pinhole and whatever area you determine to be your frame is your sensor size.
Choose a 36x24mm frame and you have yourself a “full frame” equivalent field of view, choose 24x16mm and you get an APS-C equivalent Image. End of story.
Now depth of field is of course something completely different.
perspective is not related to focal lenght.
take a 14mm and a 300mm shot without move the camera, crop the 14mm and you get the *same* image (sure resolution it will be different 🙂
Believe what you want to believe. I’ll send you comparison pictures, if you want.
MMm if you can’t understand that perspective dipend from user and subject position, and not from the lens, it will be hard, anyway give a read here
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/changing-perspective.shtml
Make it simple. I put an AF-S 28mm to my Nikon D800, and an 18mm to the Fujifilm. Yes, theoretically with the crop-factor they will match the same field of view. If you compare the apertures, the 2.8mm on the Fuji will more or less match the 1.8mm in DOF. But look at the pictures. They’re different, perspective is not the same, since an 18mm lens retains its optical 18mm properties even on an APS/C and an 28mm lens remains an 28mm lens on a FF. Certainly in the wide-angle region you’ll notice quite some difference. The more towards a tele, an the further the subject, the smaller the difference that can be noticed. The problem is that quite a few people just think it’s a story of multiplying the focal length with the crop factor. Now in most cases this is still acceptable, otherwise APS/C would not even exist, but regarding portrait photography, it is a bit different. Faces tend to look different in this wide-angle area and there is a very important difference between a 18mm APS/C portrait & a 28mm FF one. I don’t claim it’s a good practice to use wide angles for portraits – it never is except on purpose – but it’s just to make the case I’m using this example.
Well, EJPB, I’d love to see those sample shots. But you would have to set the Fuji to 1/2.0 and the Nikkor to 1/2.8 for approximately the same DOF.
The perspective will be the same. Lens distortion not. But that is usually rectified in Hard- or Software.
Common guys. The perspective is a lot more spread open in a wide angle lens and squeezed towards a tele. Even a novice using a camera knows this. Perspective is NOT the same in different focal lengths, and of course the distortion will be also (possibly, depending on the lens properties) different. Don’t lead the APS/C lobby misguise you, it’s just not true.
But a 56 is a Tele lens on APS-C, just like it is a normal lens on FF or a wide Angle on Medium Format. If something is wide or tele depends on the Field or Angle of View, which is a combination of sensor size and Focal length.
Opening Angle of any sensor size/focal length combination:
Opening Angle = tan(sensor width/focal length)
Sorry… should be:
opening angle = arctan(sensor width/focal length)
You can input any “width” you like… height, width or diagonal, depending on which angle you like best. 😉
Please look at this. So relevant for this 56mm. http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/01/23/what-is-the-best-aperture-and-focal-length-for-portraits/.
yes, the DOF with a 56 1.2 will be about the same as an 85 1.8 .
but talking about sharpness.
actually i have a lot of fuji lenses (14 2.8, 23 1.4, 35 1.4, 60 2.4 and a 18/55 IS), i am a pro photographer wirking with canon (and actually fuji) gear.
the 23 1.4 is a good lens, but no more than that..
at TA it’s not really so good in difficult situation.
in the beginning after all these incredible review about this lenses (really don’t trust anymore an enthusiast review with a link to adorama/amazon/bh etc 🙂
just check at the corner here , in a simple not contrasted, well lighted scene
http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_xf_23mm_f1_4/sample_images/fujifilm_xf_23mm_f1_4_01.jpg
or check the upper left corner here in a real situation
http://tinyurl.com/qdx5zht
or look at this graph at ephotozine
http://tinyurl.com/pmyn92q
edge are just fair, i can tell you that corner are poor.
i really like the X-system and there are good lenses, but really people need to take keep calm and take a breath 🙂
marco – unfortunately none of your links to sample images work, maybe because they are hotlinked? we can probably find the photography blog one by the file name in the review, but the other two, no chance. If you see this could you repost or just say which images you’re referencing at which page? Thanks
It looks fine from the corner crops in the Photography Blog review – really how many images do you take wide open where the extreme corner sharpness is that critical? All lens designs have some compromises, whether it’s size, weight, max aperture, cost etc. Fuji is very good at striking the balance between size, max aperture and image quality and so gets suitably lauded for it. Are its lenses faultless, of course not, but for real photography rather than pixel peeping test charts they perform as well or better than equivalents on most other systems.
Fuzzy, sorry for that..
see image DSCF0069 from the dpreview samples gallery in the 23 1.4 review.
the other one was the sharphess graph posted in 23 1.4 review at ephotozine.
yes Raz as i told fuji is good. but reading review as “sharper corner to corner wide open” really it sound so so so bad having one 23 1.4 ..
for sure you can forget to have an honest review from that bloggers…
Thanks marco 🙂 will have a proper look in a little while
Marco you’d be surprised how differently people interpret what ‘sharp’ means in the context of photography, it’s not black and white at all. What might technically not be pin sharp on a test chart can be perfectly acceptable in a real world shot and still deemed as ‘sharp’ by the author. What you may find as unacceptably soft others will have no problem with, it’s subjective as are most reviews. Is the 23 f1.4 sharp wide open across the frame? Yeah fairly, is it sharper still stopped down? Yes. Is the center better than the corners wide open, yes. Does that matter? That depends on the eye of the beholder.
Not really. Yes, there is equalization but it is not exact. I have never seen any of my APS-C cameras render shallow DOF as well as the comparative lens on FF.
It just doesn’t work that way in application.
As Andy said above, same thing for Medium Format compared to FF.
That is maybe because it is easier to design a F/1.8 lens that is sharp wide open than a F/1.2 lens that is sharp wide open? So in that regard, Full Frame will always have an advantage over crop or m43. It is probably easier to design 85/1.8G than to design a 56/1.2.
yes for sure.. and the FF it will be cheaper.. imho buy an APSC and invest a lot of money to have a thin DOF is a nonsense..
Marco you are starting to make me think… My wife bought me a 23/1.4 lens which was over $900 with tax here in the US, and the 56/1.2 I have on pre-order is $999. XE2 body – another grand. This Fuji gear is costing me a lot already!.
That Nikon 85 1.8G which I used to own goes on sale for $399 frequently. So much cheaper! Good lens, although I love rendering of my 85 1.4D much better.
The tradeoff is the weight though. To me mirrorless is all about portability. I won’t fly with my D800 and lenses anymore. I shoot it around the house, or locally, or I might take it if I drive somewhere.
At this point I will fly with my XE2 and a few lenses instead. I’ve travelled with mirrorless only several times within the last couple years and it is liberating in terms of portability. Also on rare occasions I get to go out (I have a toddler at home) I will bring the mirrorless.
David, i work as pro photogapher using canon (and now fuji, mainly for reportage) gear.
fuji lenses ar good, really.. but the main advantage using the X-system is size and weight if compared to a DSLR, for sure not the quality (quality is good but no way better)
i am comparyng shoots coming from my 6D and sigma 35 1.4 (i have a XP1 with 14mm, 23mm, 35mm, 60mm and 18/55) they are better (and you have 1 stop shallower DOF) in any way compared to XP1 and 23 1.4, and the cost of 2 system is almost equal here in italy..
if i look at images of my 85 1.2 fore sure are not worst (my be a little more CA, but i prefer the mood) globally than the images i am looking coming from this (good and nice) 56 1.2
sure 85mm 1.2 it cost 1.5x more and it’s a lot heavier, so everything ia sbout priority..
an 85 1.8 can give you she same DOF and normally they are priced around 400 dollar..
23 1.4 is nice, really and still enough compact to keep the size and weight advantage of a mirrorless system, but imho it’s the limit.. a full frame 35 f2.0 IS is stabilised, cheaper (in italy is 500 euro and the 23mm FUJI 800 euro) and opticallly in the same league as the fuji.. so, imho if weight and size are not essential and you plan to buy a 56 1.2, give a look at a canon 6D, 35 IS, and 85 1.8 (or 100 F2) . actually in italy you can buy everything (6D; 35 F2 IS, 85 1.8) for 2200/2300 euro, a XE-2, 23 1.4 and 56 1.2 it would be 2400/2500 euro.. check size and weight and performance and make your choice..
@ Nick,
I have the cheap Oly 45/1.8, and this Fuji 56/1.2 bokeh looks way better!
Better than my Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.1
& better than samples I’ve seen of the higly hyped Panasonic Nocticron 42.5//1.2!
Did you lose your glasses?
Raz if i buy a 1.4 lens 2x times bigger heavier and pricer than a F2 lens is to use it at 1.4..
sure not always but sometime i need it…
for you it look fine? open the samle at 1.4 and look at the corner.. and after give a look at sigma 35 1.4 or even the hated fuji 18mm F2.. 🙂
Marco, I looked at the samples on DPReview for DSCF0069, and also DSCF0015. Both show good overall corner sharpness, they also show chromatic aberration and a little loss of contrast which I think you’re interpreting as softness. You could easily correct these in post processing without applying sharpening. The right hand side of DSCF0069 is also in better focus which may mean DPReview’s lens was slightly de-centered. It might also be motion blur given the shot is handheld at less than 1/100 of a second.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2772719/dscf0015?inalbum=fujifilm-xf-23mm-f1-4r-samples-gallery
I want now. Beautiful bokeh.
Stephanie: the perfect subject for inch a beautiful lens ;-p
Such, not inch. But what a beauty!
Glad to see that you posted this Patrick. I agree that the 4th sample shot aint that flattering, but the photographer also talks about this in his review video. He rather use the new lens and shots with it just to try it out.
Beautiful work by Nathan Elson. Looks like another Fuji winner.
What is most impressive is the quality at large apertures. Perfect for portraiture. Often large aperture lenses are very soft when used wide open but the 56 seems to be spot on.
What photos are you looking at? I count at least six out of focus images and the ones that are in focus are not critically sharp when wide open. Did you view them at full resolution?
Sorry Markus, I was referring to the Fuji samples site, not Nate’s blog. Fuji should have selected a few more of his photos from that session. Oddly, a couple of them that they did, are truly out of focus. They need better editors.
…at f1.2 this lens is not sharp…beautiful color, but really really not sharp.
well…colors look good as always on a fuji cam and glass…bokeh is nice too.
but what is it with the sharpness? i am not a pixel peeper, and often you don´t even want to have every pixel sharp as a knife for portrait work…but there is not a single sample(!) on the fuji website that looks sharp and punchy. they are all mushy and watercolory when viewed at 100%. the f1.4 shot (i guess that was close to mfd) of the little girl has no sharpness anywhere in the frame and even the f5.6 studio shots are nothing to rave about. as said it often doesnt have to be tack sharp, but a lens that costs a thousand bucks should better be able to deliver it when needed.
not really impressed here…
I can’t figure it out Dominic. Was it a problem with the lens, camera or photographer? These samples are embarrassing and I am not one to criticize sample photos – they usually are what they are – but in this case Fuji clearly went out of their way to demonstrate this lens’ aptitude at portraiture and the results are dismal upon critical review.
These pro shooters know what they do so I have to trust their “words” for it. However, the photos don’t show its sharpness and bokeh is definitely not good regardless what they say “don’t give a damn”. Yes, I do give a lot of damn for it as I’m portrait shooter too although I’m not pro.
Hopefully, these are issues with pre-production lenses which will be corrected. I have my doubt though.
damn, take a look at her lacuer on fingers, like 5y old girl
http://www.fujifilm.eu/uploads/tx_fujifilmproducts/samples/ff_xf56mmf12_r_011_xe2_02.JPG
I suppose you’re an expert at applying nail varnish? 😉
beginner, but still
so true. that lacquer is UGLY. alex is right, her 5 year old daughter probably did it…
Finally we have the judgement betwen this lens and Pana’s Nocticron.
From image samples of both lens, it’s very clear that XF56/1.2 will poorly be Nocticron’s snack.
yes, nocticron is more expensive, but it look really better fully open.
I stopped watching the Stephani review at 2:56 when he announces the 56mm has the compression characteristics of an 85mm on full frame.
Because… you knew that already?
Because I know it isn’t that simple… simple.
Maybe it isn’t that simple but that’s how it is.
Someone doesn’t understand perspective compression. ^^^
Cropping a lens does not alter perspective compression. Bert is way wrong.
I think some people are confusing focal length and field of view. I think I am repeating myself, but the only thing that matters for perspective compression is the field of angle of view.
Let me give you a few numbers to make it perfectly clear:
let’s assume you have a FF sensor, 24mm from top to bottom and a 100mm lens. Then an object, 1m away from your camera your image plane would be 240mm hight, which means a 240mm object would stretch over your frame from top to bottom. At 2m distance, the object would have to be 480mm tall to appear the same size.
Now take am APS-C sensor, 16mm in height, put on a 66.66mm lens (100mm equivalent) and the object at 240mm object at 1m distance will fill your screen from top to bottom. At 2m distance, the 480mm object will do the same again.
And unless light doesn’t travel in straight lines or the intercept theorems are not valid any more these examples can be applied to any sensor size and focal length or equivalent.
Dirk,
You are correct, my bad. I incorrectly used “perspective compression” which is defined specifically by how far a subject and background will appear from each other at a given distance from subject.
However there is a real difference in how a lens renders at 85mm compared to 56mm at the same distance from subject. Easy enough to test yourself if you have a full frame and APS-C setup with any two lenses that “equal out” between formats.
And the DOF equalization is a bit of a farce. You can shoot at f/4.5 on full frame and compare to f/2.8 on APS-C (which should give the APS camera an advantage) and still see a more shallow DOF on full frame. This is at an equalized distance to subject.
I rather fear you are arguing about matters which are not in dispute.
Well, of course DOF is a different matter. But glad we agree on the compression part now. I feel there are to many people crawling the web and spreading the false rumor a 50mm equiv. will not give you the same background compression as “real” 50mm.
Of course the 56mm has the DOF of a 56mm. But if you go to equal physical aperture sizes, the DOF will be the same. Of course only if you print them equally sized. You cannot use pixel level sharpness for instance, if your sensors have different resolution or one has an AA filter and the other not.
If we talk about how the out of focus areas are “rendered” (bokeh!), it doesn’t depend on the FL again, but on the lens as a whole package. Even two different 50mm lenses on a FF won’t be identical in that matter. But this is very hard to calculate.
I might still buy the lens, but honestly the bokeh in all of those Fuji test images is pretty ugly. I have a Fuji X100 and am keen to buy an X-Pro 2 when it shows up. Wide open, this 56mm lens is clearly sharp, but the bokeh is not something I’d ever want to look at. Not trolling, just the truth. I’ve got 15 years of professional experience as a shooter, not a pixel peeper.
Doesn’t help that the pictures appear to be over-sharpened jpegs… benefit of the doubt, faint hope, and all that
Can you be more specific? what’s ugly about these? or what makes for prettier bokeh? I’m not saying you’re wrong or looking to provoke an argument, I’m just interested in the opinion of someone not caught up in the hype.
Personally, I find the background blur kind of harsh and distracting in some images where the background has strong lights or highlights, sometimes competing with the subject, not sure if david refers to that
Why are the majority of the samples out of focus Fuji? You obviously spent some time and money on model setups to show off a portrait lens (even though 56mm is not ideal) and your photographer can’t nail eye focus and in some cases the whole face is out of focus!
@ Chad
Why are you so mad?
I have to wonder what’s wrong with the eyes of some people, all of the images are in focus. You might not agree with what the photographer has chosen to make the focal point, but none of them are blurry where they’re not supposed to be. Remember this is a portrait lens, if Fuji wanted to show this off as a general purpose lens they’d have lots of nice f5.6 or f8 landscape shots so people could count grains of sand on the beach or leaves on trees. As it is most pros will actually artificially soften portraits because people don’t want to see every pore and wrinkle on people’s faces. When you’re shooting people at f1.2 you’re doing it well in the knowledge that you have very little DOF and you use that to soften the appearance of the skin. It’s deliberate, not some idiot photographer who doesn’t know what he’s doing.
@ Raz
Totally agree! Couldn’t have typed it any better!
Not mad, just confused as to why Fuji would choose to display some of these. It is generally agreed that in any conservative portrait, focus is on the subject’s eyes. Raz, you can argue that the photographer wanted the focus elsewhere but I’m sorry, that doesn’t fly. I at least expect to see the model’s face and preferably their eyes and mouth in focus. By that measuring stick, see many examples of missed focus, including this one where the whole model’s face is out of focus – http://www.fujifilm.eu/uploads/tx_fujifilmproducts/samples/ff_xf56mmf12_r_017_xe2_02.JPG
Others are:
http://www.fujifilm.eu/uploads/tx_fujifilmproducts/samples/ff_xf56mmf12_r_008_xe2_02.JPG
http://www.fujifilm.eu/uploads/tx_fujifilmproducts/samples/ff_xf56mmf12_r_003_xe2_02.JPG
http://www.fujifilm.eu/uploads/tx_fujifilmproducts/samples/ff_xf56mmf12_r_004_xe2_02.JPG
I’m not criticizing the lens although I am wondering (1) why it was so hard to acquire focus if we assume the photographer was targeting the eyes and (2) why fuji chose to display those images.
Chad the DOF is so thin in one shot the eyelashes are sharp but the pupils are slightly soft. Short of holding the model’s head in a vice and putting the camera on a tripod this is what will happen when you shoot people close up at f1.2. The reality is though these are all nice shots, it really doesn’t matter that they are fractionally imperfectly focused, at any reasonable viewing distance the images look fine. You could print any of these at full magazine size without them looking “soft”, and the gentlest of sharpening in post processing would make them look even nicer. Overall I think the slightly dreamy quality improves rather than detracts, if you need everything pin sharp you need to stop down a bit. Look at the shot of the woman with the cloth veil over her face, that’s amazingly sharp.
We will agree to disagree. The DOF is not razor sharp on the images I am referring to. They are simply mis-focused.
I shoot with a Zeiss 85mm 1.4 so I know a little about razor thin and what is acceptable for print.
I was looking at the 56mm as a smaller alternative but based on these samples I don’t think it is as good – even on the images that are properly focused.
Hi all,
I have a question. Why is greater depth of field at the same aperture for APS-C and FF is never looked at as an advantage of a crop sensor.
OK, in this case for a portrait lens where quality of the bokeh plays a bigger role maybe not. But for anything wider, would it not be more important to have more area in focus at the same amount of light than to miss the focus on the critical part of the frame.
I may be biased as I shoot a fair amount of street stuff and zone focus a lot. Great discussion all, learning a lot. Cheers.
The answer to your question is subjective to the photographer, their style and subject.
Great DOF is good if you shoot landscape. For portrait shooters, shallow dof is a critical factor to bring the depth and pop of the image. I’m sure you will find on-going discussions on this topic and the arguments on both sides but the bottom line is, the needs for 35mm fast prime 35mm, 50mm, 85mm at f/1.0, 1.2, and 1.4 are huge. I myself used to shoot fast zoom 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 but they are bulky and quality is still not as good as prime, period.
So for landscape work, you should not need to pay big bucks for fast prime like this one as you will almost always stop it down to f/11 -> f/22, which all “pro” lenses will be as good.
I understand Phil about the landscape work where you stop down anyways for max detail. But I am more talking about natural (often low) light situations where you need max aperture yet would love to retain max possible depth of field. Such is documentary photography or fast street work where it’s so easy to miss the moment and focus.
Thanks.
FYI:
http://nathanelson.com/fashion-shoot-bts-with-the-fuji-56mm-1-2/
This “1.2 on a crop is not a 1.2 on a full frame” is a strange thing to say. F/1.2 is f/1.2.
F/1.2 on the crop sensor / shorter lens can be a big advantage in relation to a FF sensor / longer lens when you are working in low light and need the widest aperture possible.
Wafer thin depth of field is not always the ultimate aim in a picture.
I have started a sample set. Will keep adding images till Tuesday, and beyond: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157640008036286/
Hi Rico,
thanks! Finally some images which are showing what the lens is capable of. I am quite impressed, especially wide open and far distance the shots are still very sharp.
Also the picture of the grid is showing the quality of the lens.
Bokeh and contrast are to my eye also a very high quality level.
For me these pictures are the first real prove that Fuji was again very serious to deliver a very good piece of glas.
Daniel
hey Rico can you get some pics of full body portraits with smooth back ground blur.Im Interested in this lens i would really like to know whether this lens can provide that film/full frame look of full body portrait with nice smooth back ground blur which i have seen with many 85mm F1.8 full frame lenses. Im referring to pics like these
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11284742@N04/9515191645/in/pool-canonef85mmf18usm/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tylerimaging/12093954056/in/pool-canon85mm
Had a look at the samples on Fuji website, and I have to agree with Chad it looks soft! Almost like a soft focus lens.
Wether this was intentional or not, I don’t know but you would think Fuji would vary the shots to showcase sharpness, colour rendition, bokeh and varied aperture range.
T B
I think the same. In focus or not, none of the samples are sharp. This is like a soft focus lens.
I read so many of these comments about the sample shots with incredulity. Are there any photographers here? Or this just a place for blokes with cameras? Some of these samples are beautiful shots rich in subject, colour, tone, composition, lighting and giving a clear indication of the potential of the system in capable hands.
Partick,
You missed this one ( http://nathanelson.com/fashion-shoot-bts-with-the-fuji-56mm-1-2/#comment-888 )