Fujifilm X-T1, Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R, 1/125, f/1.6 Iso 800.
Max (riflessifotografici) didn’t just test the X-T1… he is working and realizing a photographic project with it (“La Via Dolorosa”). If you want to read and see how it performs on the field, then you should check it out here in English (or in Italian here).
The images where processed with Iridient. They say that: “Luckily “Iridient Digital” came in to help me, allowing me to use a preview version of its brand new powerful software. I will never stop thanking them and I would like to point out that their 2.3.3 version of the software is so powerful that I used it for all the images of this review and for my latest work called “La Via Dolorosa” (The painful road) which will be presented March 5 at the beginning of Lent.”
Also tested, the XF 56mm: “The Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R is an excellent lens and as shown by the attached pictures it is good to face almost every photographic condition without problems. The fact that it’s not a longer focal lenght is probably a personal interpretation of what a portrait lens should provide but, other than that, we have to give credit to Fujifilm for this great, sharp lens.”
But it won’t stop here: “I want to point out that the X-T1 coverage doesn’t end here. After Nikon Df, Sony A7r and Olympus OM-D reviews we will write a little summary that will show the good and the bad of all of these cameras. I can tell you that all four cameras are pretty good ones, and the X-T1 is by far the best APSC CSC camera I have ever used. It is a new evolution of the CSC world, a world that is now moving towards a more traditional approach to photography.”
X-T1 + 56mm pre-orders
X-T1 body only ($1,299): USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / Pictureline / EU: wexDE / wexUK / PCHstore /
X-T1 with 18-55 ($1,699): USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / Pictureline / EU: wexDE / wexUK / PCHstore /
XF 56mm f/1.2 ($999): USA AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / DigitalRev / – EUROPE: wexUK / wexDE / PCHstore / DigitalRev
Fujifilm X-T1, Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R, 1/125 f/2.5, Iso 800.
20 Responses
Very impressive.
Hey guys, it’s kaizen time… It’s time for firmware update!!! 🙂
http://www.fujifilm.eu/eu/news/article/news/new-firmware-updates-for-several-x-series-cameras-and-fujinon-zoom-lenses/
It’s very strange to me why he says that the lens doesn’t produce the same feel as a 75-85mm on ff because the 56mm on aps-c = 84mm on ff…and says that is more a general purpose lens like the Nikon 58mm f1.4 G…
He’s a nut. He’s whining because it’s too clean. It’s too sharp wide open. It’s a little ridiculous. He hasn’t adapted to the modern digital workflow world where you can trivially soften up your photos in post, etc.
One thing to keep in mind, though, where he almost makes a valid point (but fails to actually do so, at least in English) is where he compares to 85/1.4. This lens will not produce the same shallow DOF. And since he refers to an older 85/1.4, he probably likes the less modern coatings and the effect they have on the image especially with backlit scenes where the images will be much hazier. The 56/1.2 will be roughly equivalent to an 85/1.8 on full frame, except not really. If you normalize circles of confusion based on the output print rather than pixel size it will render more like an 85/2. Not a big deal. Still great for portraits, and still shallower DoF than anyone really needs, even for full length portraits. But it’s a notable difference from an 85/1.4. Very notable, especially when considering that this lens will likely render better sharpness than an old 85/1.4 in many situations.
Anyway, I wouldn’t worry about this commentary particularly if you’re not coming straight from years of shooting with an 85/1.4 on full frame. You’re going to love this lens for its purpose of portrait shooting (and whatever else). No other lens on APS-C or smaller formats will come close to this one.
Maybe the new Pana Leica 42.5 f1.2 will come closest to this lens regarding sharpness but that is a 85 f2.4 ff equiv and has OIS (redundant for such a lens which is portrait oriented imo). Considering it’s much pricey and MFT is not capable of same IQ as X-Trans (it’s visible even if MFT users say that the 40% difference in sensor size is negligible), I think the 56 f1.2 is a winner. I will get one in the future 🙂
It’s true because physics.
56mm on APS-C doesn’t produce a 84mm equivalent image, it produces the 84mm equivalent crop of a 56mm image.
Basically, since you can’t change the physics of optics, a 56mm lens, will always take a 56mm image, regardless of the sensor. The sensor then takes that 56mm and cuts all the edges off, so it will seem like you took the picture in a 84mm lens, but in reality you haven’t.
Put another way, if you are holding a 56mm/APS-C and another photographer holding 84mm/FF and you’re both standing in the same spot, take a picture of the same subject, the two photographs will be quite different, even though the crop is very similar.
This is my understanding of how the lenses work. Please correct me if I made mistakes anywhere.
The perspective of a 56mm on aps-c is the same as a 85mm on ff;perspective is only decided by object distance rather than focal length.If you have a zoom,like 24-70,you can take pictures on 24mm and 70mm,and you cut the edges of the 24mm off,you can get the same perspective as 70mm,the only difference is DOF.
You can see in the two bottom pairs that 100mm on dx (aps-c) has the same fow than a 150mm on fx (ff). The only difference is the dof. There are a lot of other examples on the internet. A 56 lens is a 56 lens only on ff. On an aps-c body it gives the same fow as a 84mm on ff.
http://www.jimgamblin.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TEST-1.jpg
I know they’re very similar, but I don’t think that the only difference is the DoF. The picture you mentioned makes sense, but it doesn’t consider background “compression” or other lens features.
Optically speaking, a 56mm lens is a 56mm lens regardless of the sensor. If you stick it on a crop sensor, you’re not getting a 84mm photo, you’re getting a cutout of a 56mm photo. The sensor isn’t magnifying the photo, that’s why it’s equivalent to an 84mm picture, not identical.
For example, Shooting 150mm on an MFT (2x crop factor) isn’t the same as shooting 300mm on FF. It sure feels like it, but you’re not actually physically seeing further with 150mm lens.
You’re right. Most of the time photographs taken on a crop are indistinguishable from their 35mm/FF-equivalents, just like in the picture above.
I’m still new to photography, and I’m also trying to wrap my head around some concepts. These posts helped me a lot:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
http://chasingdelicious.com/2013/gear-50mm-vs-85mm/
http://www.scottbideauphotography.com/myths-about-lens-compression/
It’s not that the focal lenght or the lens distorts the image nor compress the background. It’s simply a thing of perspective. If you want to take a portrait with a 20mm, you will have to be very close to the subject and there the nose will look huge because of perspective. If you stand with the same 20mm lens at the distance for a headshot with a 85 or even 200mm lens and you crop, to get what you are seeing with the 85 or 200mm (considering the resolution is high enough), you will get the exact same “compression” of the background from the 20mm than with the 200mm. The so called compression is simply a perspective side effect of having to stand further aways because of the angle of view you get. So the compression, angle of view, distortion, etc (not DoF) it’s identical on a 85mm on FF than on a 56mm APC. Cheers!
It’s not that the focal lenght or the lens distorts the image nor compress the background. It’s simply a thing of perspective. If you want to take a portrait with a 20mm, you will have to be very close to the subject and there the nose will look huge because of perspective. If you stand with the same 20mm lens at the distance for a headshot with a 85 or even 200mm lens and you crop, to get what you are seeing with the 85 or 200mm (considering the resolution is high enough), you will get the exact same “compression” of the background from the 20mm than with the 200mm. The so called compression is simply a perspective side effect of having to stand further aways because of the angle of view you get. So the compression, angle of view, distortion, etc (not DoF) it’s identical on a 85mm on FF than on a 56mm APC. Cheers!
Very wrong. I even wrote an article about it. Not sure why this myth continues to persists.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/perspective-correcting-myth/
Very wrong. I even wrote an article about it. Not sure why this myth continues to persists.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/perspective-correcting-myth/
I know they’re very similar, but I don’t think that the only difference is the DoF. The picture you mentioned makes sense, but it doesn’t consider background “compression” or other lens features.
Optically speaking, a 56mm lens is a 56mm lens regardless of the sensor. If you stick it on a crop sensor, you’re not getting a 84mm photo, you’re getting a cutout of a 56mm photo. The sensor isn’t magnifying the photo, that’s why it’s equivalent to an 84mm picture, not identical.
For example, Shooting 150mm on an MFT (2x crop factor) isn’t the same as shooting 300mm on FF. It sure feels like it, but you’re not actually physically seeing further with 150mm lens.
You’re right. Most of the time photographs taken on a crop are indistinguishable from their 35mm/FF-equivalents, just like in the picture above.
I’m still new to photography, and I’m also trying to wrap my head around some concepts. These posts helped me a lot:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
http://chasingdelicious.com/2013/gear-50mm-vs-85mm/
http://www.scottbideauphotography.com/myths-about-lens-compression/
You can see in the two bottom pairs that 100mm on dx (aps-c) has the same fow than a 150mm on fx (ff). The only difference is the dof. There are a lot of other examples on the internet. A 56 lens is a 56 lens only on ff. On an aps-c body it gives the same fow as a 84mm on ff.
http://www.jimgamblin.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TEST-1.jpg
I think you are completely right. The characteristics of each focal length will remain the same when you shoot with a 56mm or 85mm, regardless of the sensor size. The major difference that comes to my mind is the compression in the picture. Good explanation!
I think you are completely right. The characteristics of each focal length will remain the same when you shoot with a 56mm or 85mm, regardless of the sensor size. The major difference that comes to my mind is the compression in the picture. Good explanation!
Right, so Andrei, Mguel, JordanCS13, Hans, you all have a good point. There’s a mistake in my understanding of perspective.
The first part that I mentioned is true, a 56mm lens will always cast a 56mm image on the sensor, regardless of the size of the sensor.
However, perspective is controlled by the camera-to-subject distance and not by focal length. All the focal length does is get more stuff into the picture, so it alters Field-of-View, not perspective.
On the other hand, since the lens’s focal length does affect the image (e.g. barrel distortion), it still doesn’t produce identical results to the 35mm equivalent.
The extreme example I have is, let’s say you’re using a 9mm wide angle on MFT. That should be the 35mm equivalent of 18mm on FF. Now the perspective (like background compression) doesn’t change when switching 9mm/MFT to 18mm/FF, and for all practical purposes, they produce an extremely similar image.. but not identical.
If the 9mm has trouble bending and distorting the image at the corners, then that’ll still happen. The photographer won’t notice it if the sensor crops it, but it still happens.
This article helped me understand a little bit more http://www.leavethatcouch.com/2013/12/28/someone-is-wrong-perspective-versus-focal-length/
Am I in the ballpark now?
Well, barrel distortion and such isn’t a function of focal length, it’s a function of the particular lens design. Take the Fuji 14mm for example: Essentially 0 distortion…it’s less than 0.5%. The Zeiss 21mm for full frame, on the other hand, has a rather funky mustache distortion. Also, a 9mm lens on m4/3 like the Olympus 9-18 isn’t cropping anything…the image circle is designed for that sensor size. 35mm isn’t a magic format..it just happens to be the one that was the most popular in the film era….there’s plenty of people who still view 35mm format as a ‘small’ format. Indeed, when it first came out, people called it the ‘minature’ format.
I don’t know…it seems very soft at 1.2/1.4 but very good from 1.6, don’t?
I preferred one 56 1.4 perfect at 1.4 (and less expensive) like my 35 1.4 xf.
..mmm I will not sell my 85 1.8 Canon for this (350 euro vs 999 ).