XF 60mm f/2.4 vs. XF 56mm f/1.2

Allen Y. wrote:

Okay all, I need a little help on a decision regarding a portrait lens. For a little background, I am a decidedly amateur photographer who has really gotten more into better glass in the last 18 months. After picking up an X-T10 back in the fall with the 18-55 kit lens, I'm ready to start investing in some additional lenses.

So, given my level of experience, do you expect I will get any substantial benefit from purchasing the 56mm f/1.2 over the 60mm f/2.4?

No... there is more subject isolation with the 56, but that means you have to be more careful with DOF. The 60 is perfect for 'formal' portraits, is very sharp wide open, has very precise AF and has very nice bokeh quality (typical macro lens).

56 is more specialised, will give more isolation at a distance which is good for street work, when the subject is full length and not as close.

I use the 56 more outdoors and the 60 in the studio. Also a near perfect product photography lens and duplication lens. I have shot about 20 photographs of painting and artworks for book covers with the 60 and it is really excellent for that.

I expect I will use either primarily for portraits of family and friends, and from looking around a photos of the style I like, it seems as though the f/2.4 will give me shallow enough DOF for my purposes. Though it's not my primary interest, I'm also intrigued by the semi-macro ability of the 60mm.

Yes, and don't forget the effective macro strength of an APSC lens is 1.5X great than on FF. Eg 0.5X macro is actually 0.75X. So it's quite useful and very sharp.

As you can tell, I'm leaning toward the 60 given it's much lower purchase price (and weight). But a little personal experience from someone in the know would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

I love them both, but I prefer formals with the 60 and street portraits with the 56.