Chasing bokeh: Fuji 50/2

deednets wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Background taming.

I have both the Fuji 50 f2 and 56 f1.4. The 50 is in my Pro2 bag as the 56 has been moved to my H1 bag since it is a much better balanced by the H1. However, I have used the 56 on the Pro2 often and will probably do it again.

My take on Boken relative to these two lenses is I find the 50 f2 a bit "sterile." It is a good value lens but. It will work fine on the Pro2 since it won't be used all that often on the street. It is light and it is about half the price of the 56.

As far the 56. It is a special lens. It is one of those lenses that one just can't part with. The scene below - the back ground was a absolute mess. The big bold tropical print on the chair to all the shinny stuff in the kitchen behind Dan (faucet, toaster). The lighting was somewhat harsh coming from the front to the scene which cause direct reflections off the bright stuff in the kitchen. It was shot at 1/60s at f1.2, ISO320. Why I love this lens is it tamed the gnarly background with ease. The second benefit was I was able to shoot at ISO 320 on this scene. The resulting file was actually very easy to edit - which I find for the case of most of the 56 f1.2 files.

This is another shot with the 56. Again on the Pro2 at 1/8000s f4 at ISO200. I didn't have an ND filter handy and I didn't want to shoot above 1/8000s or I would have probably shot at f2. But even at f4 this lens nicely smooths out the background which is cluttered with people and frames the woman as she gets he money together for her next bet. There is enough detail in the background to tell you it is at the race track.

Here is one with my 50 f2 at 1/80s at f2 and ISO 250. It struggles to handle softening out the bright reflections in the back ground. The shelf if further away from the focal point here than the faucet and toaster were from Dan's head but still they could be rendered better and softer - particularly the specular reflections. It is not a bad rendering but it is not a great rendering. The focal distance between the focal point is similar on this shot and the shot of Dan above.

The 50 is a nice lens but the rendering seems somewhat "hard." Some have mentioned the world "sterile." I do know I have had to spend more time on the 50 files to get them to match my vision for the scene and often times I've given up and will need to go back later. On this image I actually spent time with masking out the upper right corner and the right side and applying some Gaussian blur to try to further soften the background.

The 50 is a good lens and it is a great value for the price. For a "need me every once in awhile" option in the Pro2 bag it fits the bill. Would I pay twice as much for the 50 f2 than the current cost? Not likely. Would I pay twice the cost of the 50 for the 56 f1.2 absolutely.

I also have both lenses and can appreciate the 56/1.2 for what it is. The 56/1.2 has 7 rounded blades whereas the 50/2 has 9. Some Leica lenses use 11 blades and some Jupiter lenses 15 ...

Wide open, the number of aperture blades is of no consequence, so this only changes when stopping down. I have occasionally wondered why Fuji decided to “only” equip the 56 with 7. Your examples regarding the race track and the café shot are not fair in my opinion as the metallic highlights plus the criss-cross on the shelves invite any lens to fail. There is none of this in the racetrack shot. But wouldn’t think that the café shot is really bad as such.

You have to deal with what you have to deal with in the background.  Neither the shot of Dan or the coffee shot shot were "fair" backgrounds but they were there.  How a lens handles what is thrown at it can make the difference between a good shot and one that doesn't get printed.  Smoothing out background specular reflections is a tough nut to crack for a lens.

Look, I wasn’t advocating that the 50/2 is better than the 56/1.2 I don’t think I even mentioned the 56. What I did try was to share some examples.

As you might know, I often travel to remote places and often push my gear already to the upper limits as to what I can comfortably carry. The 50/2 is a compromise as F2 is the maximum aperture, but then, people here use the 16-55/2.8 at the long end where I have no idea how the zoom would have rendered my examples. Less subject isolation for sure and possibly a different character, but not necessarily better than the 50/2. Dunno.

I expect the one stop difference at f2.8 vs. f2 would make a big difference in a lot of shots.

Also regarding “sterile”: as soon as a term like this creeps into general discussions about a lens, people start seeing it. Fact is that the 50/2 is just VERY sharp which will have an effect on the bokeh.

Being sharp should not have a negative effect on bokeh. The 56 f1.2 is also quite sharp but the quality of its rendering is quite different than the 50.  Terms like "sterile," "hard," etc., tend to be more related to an emotional impact one has from viewing an image.  It just doesn't refer to a photographic image. For example in an art gallery one might hear, "...this painting tends to be a bit sterile..."   There are a lot of words that are used to describe the emotional impact of art.  Good bokeh tends to be rendering that smoothes out the distractions in the back ground/foreground and focus the viewers eye on the main subject. In reality good bokeh also describes an emotional aspect of the image.

Was thinking that maybe on my next sort of out-there trip to Myanmar in October I should take the 56/1.2 again and leave the 90 at home. Truth is I seem to feel the need to compromise regarding weight, closest focal distance and bokeh. I am also still playing with the idea of just taking an X-T20 plus 14, 50 and add the 23/1.4. I guess I could work with a lot of combinations these days ...

Thanks for your lengthy response!

Deed