Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

Started Apr 17, 2013 | Discussions
ScottD1964 Senior Member • Posts: 1,924
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

viking79 wrote:

ScottD1964 wrote:

viking79 wrote:

Absolutic wrote:

well, i frankly could are less about 55-200, but the 56/1.2 is on the other hand, something, I will be salivating about

I am excited about a newly designed 1.2. I don't think have been any new lenses of that aperture for some time.  I imagine price was it will be similar to a Canon 50mm f/1.2, APS-C vs FF shouldn't make much difference at that focal length.

EriC

Why do you say that? Is the Fuji 35 f1.4 anywhere near the price of the Canon or Nikon offerings of the same focal length and f stop?  Hell, it's even $300.00 less than the new 35 f1.4 Sigma and that lens is optically better than the Canon or Nikon.

Those are full frame lenses.  Look at the DX 35mm f/1.8 from Nikon, it is $200, so half a stop and $400 more for the Fuji.  Sony A mount 35mm f/1.8 is about the same, but their NEX mount is about $450, but has OIS and is priced according to the market.  This price is similar to what the $600 Fuji is for what you get.

We've all seen that the Fuji 35 is no slouch optically so it's not as if Fuji is building inferior quality lenses.  The 56 f1.2 may be in the same price range as the 14mm f2.8 but it won't be anywhere near the price of the Canon 50 f1.2.  Just because Canon and Nikon can charge up the yingyang for their high end lenses (and find people to buy them) doesn't mean that the lenses have to sell for that much.  Judy look st the Sigma 35 at $899 as proof.

Full frame lenses, again.  I would say the absolute minimum price for a 56mm f/1.2 is $900, as you say, same price as 14mm f/2.8, but I wouldn't  be surprised if it is $1000 or more.  I just used the Canon as it is an example of a 50mm f/1.2 lens.

Eric

Well, I guess it doesn't do any of us any good to sit here and speculate pricing.  I think we all hope Fuji doesn't throw the 56 f1.2 into a new price range (four figures) from any of the other x mount lenses. Save the four figure price range for the Zeiss lenses. We'll know for sure in 8 months or so.

Scott

 ScottD1964's gear list:ScottD1964's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +3 more
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,152
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

ScottD1964 wrote:

viking79 wrote:

ScottD1964 wrote:

viking79 wrote:

Absolutic wrote:

well, i frankly could are less about 55-200, but the 56/1.2 is on the other hand, something, I will be salivating about

I am excited about a newly designed 1.2. I don't think have been any new lenses of that aperture for some time.  I imagine price was it will be similar to a Canon 50mm f/1.2, APS-C vs FF shouldn't make much difference at that focal length.

EriC

Why do you say that? Is the Fuji 35 f1.4 anywhere near the price of the Canon or Nikon offerings of the same focal length and f stop?  Hell, it's even $300.00 less than the new 35 f1.4 Sigma and that lens is optically better than the Canon or Nikon.

Those are full frame lenses.  Look at the DX 35mm f/1.8 from Nikon, it is $200, so half a stop and $400 more for the Fuji.  Sony A mount 35mm f/1.8 is about the same, but their NEX mount is about $450, but has OIS and is priced according to the market.  This price is similar to what the $600 Fuji is for what you get.

We've all seen that the Fuji 35 is no slouch optically so it's not as if Fuji is building inferior quality lenses.  The 56 f1.2 may be in the same price range as the 14mm f2.8 but it won't be anywhere near the price of the Canon 50 f1.2.  Just because Canon and Nikon can charge up the yingyang for their high end lenses (and find people to buy them) doesn't mean that the lenses have to sell for that much.  Judy look st the Sigma 35 at $899 as proof.

Full frame lenses, again.  I would say the absolute minimum price for a 56mm f/1.2 is $900, as you say, same price as 14mm f/2.8, but I wouldn't  be surprised if it is $1000 or more.  I just used the Canon as it is an example of a 50mm f/1.2 lens.

Eric

Well, I guess it doesn't do any of us any good to sit here and speculate pricing.  I think we all hope Fuji doesn't throw the 56 f1.2 into a new price range (four figures) from any of the other x mount lenses. Save the four figure price range for the Zeiss lenses. We'll know for sure in 8 months or so.

Scott

Lol, very true.  I imagine they would be smart to keep it at that price, $900 seems fair for what it is. I have wanted to see APS-C go to larger aperture lenses for quite a while, it only makes sense given the smaller sensor.  I suppose they will price it at whatever they think the market will handle

Eric

-- hide signature --

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
hellocrowley Senior Member • Posts: 1,291
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

viking79 wrote:

A 56 mm f/1.2 only requires a minimum of 47 mm front element, that is not huge.  A 56mm f/1.4 would be only 40mm.  Hardly a difference.

Front element is not everything, have you compared Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1.4?. The f/1.4 mockup showed a 58mm filter, I'm sure f/1.2 will be approaching 70mm.

viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,152
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

hellocrowley wrote:

viking79 wrote:

A 56 mm f/1.2 only requires a minimum of 47 mm front element, that is not huge.  A 56mm f/1.4 would be only 40mm.  Hardly a difference.

Front element is not everything, have you compared Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1.4?. The f/1.4 mockup showed a 58mm filter, I'm sure f/1.2 will be approaching 70mm.

That lens appears to be mostly focus motor or something.  No idea why it is so bulky.  The 56mm f/1.2 will be less bulky because it likely won't have a ring USM motor and a 55mm on APS-C has a much tighter field of view than a 55mm on full frame.

I am just saying the filter size difference between a 56mm f/1.2 and 56mm f/1.4 is small.  A Pentax manual focus 50mm f/1.4 has a 49mm filter size and a 50mm f/1.2 has a 52mm filter size.

There is no reason the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 couldn't fit in a 58mm filter size.  How do you know that the mockup isn't really a 56mm f/1.2?

Eric

-- hide signature --

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Dailypix Contributing Member • Posts: 637
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

I can hardly wait. I remember paying about $2,000 for my Canon 50mm F1.2 a few years ago. I know I should have shopped around but with taxes and such it is still in that range.

It is heavy, slow to auto focus but with wonderful results. If Fuji can come up with an affordable lens with similar optics count me in.

Here is a shot of the Canon 50mm F 1.2 mounted to the X Pro 1

Fuji X Pri 1 with Canon 50mm F 1.2 via Kippon adaptor

ithinkihaveacat New Member • Posts: 18
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality
1

"A 56 mm f/1.2 only requires a minimum of 47 mm front element, that is not huge.  A 56mm f/1.4 would be only 40mm.  Hardly a difference."

How do you calculate what size front element is needed for a given aperture?

Michael

 ithinkihaveacat's gear list:ithinkihaveacat's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Olympus OM-D E-M10 III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +3 more
Absolutic
OP Absolutic Veteran Member • Posts: 5,524
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

Dailypix wrote:

I can hardly wait. I remember paying about $2,000 for my Canon 50mm F1.2 a few years ago. I know I should have shopped around but with taxes and such it is still in that range.

It is heavy, slow to auto focus but with wonderful results. If Fuji can come up with an affordable lens with similar optics count me in.

Here is a shot of the Canon 50mm F 1.2 mounted to the X Pro 1

Fuji X Pri 1 with Canon 50mm F 1.2 via Kippon adaptor

Nice. Which reminds me that I need to get an adapter so I can mount my 85L II on my XE-1!!!

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7700 Sony RX10 IV Sony RX100 VI Nikon D500 Fujifilm X-T2 +21 more
samhain Senior Member • Posts: 1,430
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

I won't hesitate to drop $1200 on that 56mm f1.2. I'd even go up to $2k. Gotta have it. Gimmie. I don't care how big it is.
I buy and sell bodies like its going out of style. But I plan on staying with the x-pro system. And I'll pay whatever it costs for the best lenses, especially fast portrait lenses.
F1.2= 110% awesome.

Those who find it too big or expensive always have the 60mm lens option, as well as third party options.

acoil New Member • Posts: 2
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

The depth of field is going to be paper thin on this thing. Does anyone have a feel for how the auto focus might work? I've never used an AF 1.2 anything.

I can imagine lots of I-didn't-mean-to-focus-there shots. Auto focus bracketing might be a nice feature.

 acoil's gear list:acoil's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1
sgoldswo
sgoldswo Veteran Member • Posts: 5,725
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality
1

acoil wrote:

The depth of field is going to be paper thin on this thing. Does anyone have a feel for how the auto focus might work? I've never used an AF 1.2 anything.

I can imagine lots of I-didn't-mean-to-focus-there shots. Auto focus bracketing might be a nice feature.

Given that it's a portrait lens I don't think it's going to be to much of a problem. If it is you can just stop down  . I also suspect some of the advantages of CDAF accuracy may help out here. Bear in mind the DOF will be equivalent to F1.8-F2 ish on FF, and there are a number of FF F1.8 portrait lenses.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Sony RX1R II Fujifilm X100F Olympus E-M1 II Nikon D850 Sony a7R III +2 more
Dailypix Contributing Member • Posts: 637
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

acoil wrote:

The depth of field is going to be paper thin on this thing. Does anyone have a feel for how the auto focus might work? I've never used an AF 1.2 anything.

I can imagine lots of I-didn't-mean-to-focus-there shots. Auto focus bracketing might be a nice feature.

Paper thin yes but no doubt with wonderful Bokeh. And you can stop down when needed.  It should end up a go to lens for natural low light portraits, indoor work, romantic video - you know the couple on the picnic blanket with the background all soft and dreamy.

I love my F 1.2 it is a light catcher and on the XPro 1 with the great ISO you can practically shoot in the dark. The Fuji WP kills my Canon. The 5DII control of WB is so bad even after wasting time on PS colour shots I often ended up going B & W not for artistic reasons but to kill the awful orange and other tints the Canon comes up with indoors. (yes I know about setting custom wb etc)

Like I said before I can hardly wait.

hellocrowley Senior Member • Posts: 1,291
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality
1

There's a difference between thin DOF and quality of bokeh. Many fast lenses have swirly/harsh bokeh but Fuji probably won't release such a lens. Anyway, an equivalent of 85/1.8 is pretty common on FF, so this is far from being "too thin".

Absolutic
OP Absolutic Veteran Member • Posts: 5,524
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality

acoil wrote:

The depth of field is going to be paper thin on this thing. Does anyone have a feel for how the auto focus might work? I've never used an AF 1.2 anything.

I can imagine lots of I-didn't-mean-to-focus-there shots. Auto focus bracketing might be a nice feature.

I have 85L II (F/1,2) and shoot it wide open all the time and have no problems focusing it.   So F/1.2 on a crop which is more like F/1.6 on Full Frame, is a piece of cake.

85 1.2 at 1.2 on 5DM3

Sigma 35/1.4 at 1.4 on 5DM3

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7700 Sony RX10 IV Sony RX100 VI Nikon D500 Fujifilm X-T2 +21 more
samhain Senior Member • Posts: 1,430
Don't fear f1.2
2

It shouldn't be hard to lock focus at all. It's not as thin as it sounds on aps-c. I've never even had issues locking focus on f1.4 on full frame cameras. At worst you just re-hit the shutter button a couple of times to re-focus. What's also great about it is that by stopping down to F1.4 your sharpness & bokeh attributes/faults will improve more so than just shooting an f1.4 lens at max aperture. It's a win-win.

The only problem you'll have is that once you start shooting super fast glass, you don't want to settle for anything else. At least that's my problem. I won't even consider buying a lens slower than f2 on aps-c. I really don't want one that slow for FF either.  The x100/100s has been the only exception for me.

nemist Regular Member • Posts: 381
Re: Very nice
2

I was hoping this would happen.  Fuji is really taking great steps to satisfy still photographers.  Impressive.  I can't wait till they come out with a FF.

Apteryx6 Contributing Member • Posts: 903
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality
1

viking79 wrote:

I am just saying the filter size difference between a 56mm f/1.2 and 56mm f/1.4 is small.  A Pentax manual focus 50mm f/1.4 has a 49mm filter size and a 50mm f/1.2 has a 52mm filter size.

Amongst Nikon MF lenses, there is no difference at all in filter sizes - 52mm whether you want your 50mm lens as a f2, f1.8, f1.4, or f1.2.

-- hide signature --

Apteryx

chromophore
chromophore Regular Member • Posts: 145
I concur

My noct-nikkor 58mm 1.2 take size regular 52mm filter, and I don't find it particularly soft wide open:

 chromophore's gear list:chromophore's gear list
Nikon D3S Nikon D750 Nikon PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +9 more
Absolutic
OP Absolutic Veteran Member • Posts: 5,524
Re: I concur

chromophore wrote:

My noct-nikkor 58mm 1.2 take size regular 52mm filter, and I don't find it particularly soft wide open:

yes but that is a legendary lens you are talking about.   How much does your 58 cost?  I think a lot.    My Nikkkor 50 1.2 Ai-S was pretty soft wide open and had to be stopped down.    Canon 85L on the other hand - is pretty sharp wide open.

P.S. What a great shot!!!!  Now I want that 1.2 even more!

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7700 Sony RX10 IV Sony RX100 VI Nikon D500 Fujifilm X-T2 +21 more
tko Forum Pro • Posts: 12,913
that FF equivalent

The FF equivalent would be 84 MM F1.8. Lots of FF choices. 135MM F2.0, 100MM F2.8, 100MM F2.0 85MM F1.8, 1.4, and 1.2.

Or you can get a FF 70-200 F2.8 zoom, which is only 1.0 stops slower.

The Canon 100MM F2.0 is $449.00. Based on past history, the smaller lenses will be heavier and more expensive than the FF counterpoint, but smaller. The lower FF cost is probably due to production volume.

Absolutic wrote:

any guess on the price?  it is hard to guess, because there is no equivalent lens for crop sensor currently in production for any manufacturer.   Panasonic's 42.5/1.2 is also coming only in 2014.   The only 85 1.2 for full frame is Canon 85L II but it is $2K.  However, logically, a lens designed to cover a crop sensor should be smaller/requiring less glass/cheaper, right?

24hrexposure Regular Member • Posts: 297
Re: Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is officially a reality
1

ithinkihaveacat wrote:

"A 56 mm f/1.2 only requires a minimum of 47 mm front element, that is not huge.  A 56mm f/1.4 would be only 40mm.  Hardly a difference."

How do you calculate what size front element is needed for a given aperture?

Michael

The minimum is focal length / f-number, so 56/1.2 ~= 47. f-number is just focal length / pupil size, so you can work backwards from the focal length and f-number to get pupil size. The front element has to be at least as big as the pupil.

Other examples would be

  • 300mm/f2.8 = 107mm
  • 50mm/f1.4 = 36mm
  • 35mm/f1.4 = 25mm
  • 18mm/f2.0 = 9mm
  • 14mm/f2.8 = 5mm

You can see that as the angle of view gets wider, the front element starts to get much bigger than its theoretical minimum for practical reasons. Telephotos past 150mm start to get pretty close to the theoretical best.

 24hrexposure's gear list:24hrexposure's gear list
Gimp +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads