Reading mode: Light Dark

XF 33mm F1.4 vs XF 56mm F1.2 R WR Lens

Go to last post
superspartan

superspartan

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
303
Reaction score
122
Location
Dubai, AE
I initially bought my X-H2s with the XF 56mm F1.2 R WR Lens and the bokeh effect/portraits were out of this world. Never seen a lens with such nice and dreamy bokeh.

I then took the camera to the gym and found it a bit annoying to have to step back a lot when shooting my subject as the 56mm focal length is too zoomed in.

So I exchanged it and got the XF 33mm F/1.4 R LM WR Lens which gave me a more usable focal length where I don't have to step back so much to get my subject into the frame. The bokeh it produces is nice, but not as magical and dreamy as the 56mm.

Now I am starting to wonder, did I make the right choice by getting the 33m as an all-rounder or shall I try to exchange it again and get the 56mm?

I shoot mostly pics and videos at the gym and I care about blurring the background/other people the most and auto focus performance is very important, not sure how both lenses compare in terms of auto focus but the XF33mm has great auto focus capabalities.

What would you do?
 
superspartan said:
I initially bought my X-H2s with the XF 56mm F1.2 R WR Lens and the bokeh effect/portraits were out of this world. Never seen a lens with such nice and dreamy bokeh.

I then took the camera to the gym and found it a bit annoying to have to step back a lot when shooting my subject as the 56mm focal length is too zoomed in.

So I exchanged it and got the XF 33mm F/1.4 R LM WR Lens which gave me a more usable focal length where I don't have to step back so much to get my subject into the frame. The bokeh it produces is nice, but not as magical and dreamy as the 56mm.

Now I am starting to wonder, did I make the right choice by getting the 33m as an all-rounder or shall I try to exchange it again and get the 56mm?

I shoot mostly pics and videos at the gym and I care about blurring the background/other people the most and auto focus performance is very important, not sure how both lenses compare in terms of auto focus but the XF33mm has great auto focus capabalities.

What would you do?
Click to expand...
For my interests I would get both.
If it’s an either/or nobody but you can decide, although it does sound like the 33 is the better fit. Horses for courses.
 
Last edited:
superspartan said:
I initially bought my X-H2s with the XF 56mm F1.2 R WR Lens and the bokeh effect/portraits were out of this world. Never seen a lens with such nice and dreamy bokeh.

I then took the camera to the gym and found it a bit annoying to have to step back a lot when shooting my subject as the 56mm focal length is too zoomed in.

So I exchanged it and got the XF 33mm F/1.4 R LM WR Lens which gave me a more usable focal length where I don't have to step back so much to get my subject into the frame. The bokeh it produces is nice, but not as magical and dreamy as the 56mm.

Now I am starting to wonder, did I make the right choice by getting the 33m as an all-rounder or shall I try to exchange it again and get the 56mm?

I shoot mostly pics and videos at the gym and I care about blurring the background/other people the most and auto focus performance is very important, not sure how both lenses compare in terms of auto focus but the XF33mm has great auto focus capabalities.

What would you do?
Click to expand...
If you're shooting wide open, we're mainly talking about physics of course. To achieve the same DoF with your 33 mm lens like with the 56 mm at f/1.2, you'd need a 33/0.7 lens.

On the other hand, your use case is well defined, you're limited in maximum distance to the subject. 56 mm seems to be too large an fl.

There are relatively fast manual lenses avaliable down to 33...35/0.95. There's the Mitakon, there's 7Artisans, there's Laowa Argus. There's even a HanDeVision Kipon Ibelux 40/0.85 Mk II which would exactly equal the DoF produced by the 56/1.2 from theory point of view (IQ and aestheticial characteristics of bokeh is another discussion, of course I cannot make a statement here). But these are all manual focus lenses. And you say you need AF.

The new XF 56/1.2 has good AF but from what I've read, in terms of speed, it is not comparable to that of the new XF 33/1.4.

In your case, I'd really carefully check whether you can afford a greater fl than 33 mm or not, in view of the spatial situation. That's the main limitation. And then decide again.

Regards,

Martin

--
SmugMug - https://martinlang.smugmug.com
500px - https://500px.com/martinlangphotography
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/martin.lang.photography
 
Last edited:
superspartan said:
I initially bought my X-H2s with the XF 56mm F1.2 R WR Lens and the bokeh effect/portraits were out of this world. Never seen a lens with such nice and dreamy bokeh.

I then took the camera to the gym and found it a bit annoying to have to step back a lot when shooting my subject as the 56mm focal length is too zoomed in.

So I exchanged it and got the XF 33mm F/1.4 R LM WR Lens which gave me a more usable focal length where I don't have to step back so much to get my subject into the frame. The bokeh it produces is nice, but not as magical and dreamy as the 56mm.

Now I am starting to wonder, did I make the right choice by getting the 33m as an all-rounder or shall I try to exchange it again and get the 56mm?

I shoot mostly pics and videos at the gym and I care about blurring the background/other people the most and auto focus performance is very important, not sure how both lenses compare in terms of auto focus but the XF33mm has great auto focus capabalities.

What would you do?
Click to expand...
Yes the 56mm f1.2 (both old & new) has great bokeh. However, as you experienced, it requires you to step further back. You might know already but the 33mm is a 50mm full frame equivalent & the 56mm is an 85mm equivalent.

If the 33mm focal length is the best option for your scenario, it cannot get any better than the lens you own unless you wanna try a manual focus lens (eg. f0.95!). The other option is to get a full frame camera with a 50mm f1.2/f1.4 lens...this will give more bokeh than apsc.

However, the best thing to do is to continue using your existing lens and work more on your composition rather relying on bokeh. Try showing some more context with the gym equipment, move around to choose you background carefully for better effect or get closer to make the background blurrier. With practice, you will not need that super shallow depth of field...not that there is anything wrong with that. You could pick up the new Viltrox 75mm f1.2 as a second lens and use for certain shots (obviously this requires you to move further back!). :p
 
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
 
superspartan said:
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
Click to expand...
The lens you have is a great choice for that FL
 
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
Click to expand...
The lens you have is a great choice for that FL
Click to expand...
got it, thanks a lot. The reason I made this thread is because when I googled this, I could only find comparisons between the 33mm vs the 35mm f2 and f1.4 but none with the 56mm f1.2
 
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
Click to expand...
The lens you have is a great choice for that FL
Click to expand...
got it, thanks a lot. The reason I made this thread is because when I googled this, I could only find comparisons between the 33mm vs the 35mm f2 and f1.4 but none with the 56mm f1.2
Click to expand...
Those comparisons are logical because those three share (essentially) the same FL and angle of view or perspective. The 56, as you experienced, allows you to view the subject differently and is commonly understood to be a good choice for portraits, tho’ obviously not limited to that.
 
Last edited:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
Click to expand...
The lens you have is a great choice for that FL
Click to expand...
got it, thanks a lot. The reason I made this thread is because when I googled this, I could only find comparisons between the 33mm vs the 35mm f2 and f1.4 but none with the 56mm f1.2
Click to expand...
Those comparisons are logical because those three share (essentially) the same FL and angle of view or perspective. The 56, as you experienced, allows you to view the subject differently and is commonly understood to be a good choice for portraits, tho’ obviously not limited to that.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. What I was hoping for is for someone who has both lenses to do a direct comparison between the portrait shots. When I had the 56mm, any portrait shot I took looked magical, but man, that focal length, so darn close.
 
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
Click to expand...
The lens you have is a great choice for that FL
Click to expand...
got it, thanks a lot. The reason I made this thread is because when I googled this, I could only find comparisons between the 33mm vs the 35mm f2 and f1.4 but none with the 56mm f1.2
Click to expand...
Those comparisons are logical because those three share (essentially) the same FL and angle of view or perspective. The 56, as you experienced, allows you to view the subject differently and is commonly understood to be a good choice for portraits, tho’ obviously not limited to that.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. What I was hoping for is for someone who has both lenses to do a direct comparison between the portrait shots. When I had the 56mm, any portrait shot I took looked magical, but man, that focal length, so darn close.
Click to expand...
It is of course possible to compare any two or more lenses against any set of considerations. But as the gap between FL grows, the more the perspective differences show. A closer comparison of portrait lenses in the Fujisphere is 56mm f1.2 Vs 50mm f1.0. The latter is huge and heavy and relatively slow focusing, but capable of some gorgeous results.

But you’ve already owned both 56 and 33 and know how they behave in real use. I’m not sure what else anyone on this forum can tell you that you haven’t experienced!
 
Last edited:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
Click to expand...
The lens you have is a great choice for that FL
Click to expand...
got it, thanks a lot. The reason I made this thread is because when I googled this, I could only find comparisons between the 33mm vs the 35mm f2 and f1.4 but none with the 56mm f1.2
Click to expand...
Those comparisons are logical because those three share (essentially) the same FL and angle of view or perspective. The 56, as you experienced, allows you to view the subject differently and is commonly understood to be a good choice for portraits, tho’ obviously not limited to that.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. What I was hoping for is for someone who has both lenses to do a direct comparison between the portrait shots. When I had the 56mm, any portrait shot I took looked magical, but man, that focal length, so darn close.
Click to expand...
It is of course possible to compare any two or more lenses against any set of considerations. But as the gap between FL grows, the more the perspective differences show. A closer comparison of portrait lenses in the Fujisphere is 56mm f1.2 Vs 50mm f1.0. The latter is huge and heavy and relatively slow focusing, but capable of some gorgeous results.

But you’ve already owned both 56 and 33 and know how they behave in real use. I’m not sure what else anyone on this forum can tell you that you haven’t experienced!
Click to expand...
I personally find no difference in focusing speed between the 50 f1 and the new 56 f1.2 WR. If anything, I found the 50 to be a bit more confident in locking in to the subject.

I would love it if Fuji released more f1 lenses, a 23 and 33, to compete with full frame. I have no issues at all using the 50 f1 on my X-H2S. Saying something is big and heavy is all relative anyway.
 
GSharp87 said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
Click to expand...
The lens you have is a great choice for that FL
Click to expand...
got it, thanks a lot. The reason I made this thread is because when I googled this, I could only find comparisons between the 33mm vs the 35mm f2 and f1.4 but none with the 56mm f1.2
Click to expand...
Those comparisons are logical because those three share (essentially) the same FL and angle of view or perspective. The 56, as you experienced, allows you to view the subject differently and is commonly understood to be a good choice for portraits, tho’ obviously not limited to that.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. What I was hoping for is for someone who has both lenses to do a direct comparison between the portrait shots. When I had the 56mm, any portrait shot I took looked magical, but man, that focal length, so darn close.
Click to expand...
It is of course possible to compare any two or more lenses against any set of considerations. But as the gap between FL grows, the more the perspective differences show. A closer comparison of portrait lenses in the Fujisphere is 56mm f1.2 Vs 50mm f1.0. The latter is huge and heavy and relatively slow focusing, but capable of some gorgeous results.

But you’ve already owned both 56 and 33 and know how they behave in real use. I’m not sure what else anyone on this forum can tell you that you haven’t experienced!
Click to expand...
I personally find no difference in focusing speed between the 50 f1 and the new 56 f1.2 WR. If anything, I found the 50 to be a bit more confident in locking in to the subject.

I would love it if Fuji released more f1 lenses, a 23 and 33, to compete with full frame. I have no issues at all using the 50 f1 on my X-H2S. Saying something is big and heavy is all relative anyway.
Click to expand...
I am interested in your experience of the two in focus speed.
Of course everything is relative, but surely you are not disputing that the 50 f1 is huge and heavy compared to other ‘similar’ glass in the range? Check the specs and the filter size.
 
Last edited:
RobRoy22 said:
GSharp87 said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
Click to expand...
The lens you have is a great choice for that FL
Click to expand...
got it, thanks a lot. The reason I made this thread is because when I googled this, I could only find comparisons between the 33mm vs the 35mm f2 and f1.4 but none with the 56mm f1.2
Click to expand...
Those comparisons are logical because those three share (essentially) the same FL and angle of view or perspective. The 56, as you experienced, allows you to view the subject differently and is commonly understood to be a good choice for portraits, tho’ obviously not limited to that.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. What I was hoping for is for someone who has both lenses to do a direct comparison between the portrait shots. When I had the 56mm, any portrait shot I took looked magical, but man, that focal length, so darn close.
Click to expand...
It is of course possible to compare any two or more lenses against any set of considerations. But as the gap between FL grows, the more the perspective differences show. A closer comparison of portrait lenses in the Fujisphere is 56mm f1.2 Vs 50mm f1.0. The latter is huge and heavy and relatively slow focusing, but capable of some gorgeous results.

But you’ve already owned both 56 and 33 and know how they behave in real use. I’m not sure what else anyone on this forum can tell you that you haven’t experienced!
Click to expand...
I personally find no difference in focusing speed between the 50 f1 and the new 56 f1.2 WR. If anything, I found the 50 to be a bit more confident in locking in to the subject.

I would love it if Fuji released more f1 lenses, a 23 and 33, to compete with full frame. I have no issues at all using the 50 f1 on my X-H2S. Saying something is big and heavy is all relative anyway.
Click to expand...
I am interested in your experience of the two in focus speed.
Of course everything is relative, but surely you are not disputing that the 50 f1 is huge and heavy compared to other ‘similar’ glass in the range? Check the specs and the filter size.
Click to expand...
someone explain this to me, if the body has good auto focus, and the lense has good or average auto focus, how do they play along together? who does the auto focus? the lens or the body or they both work in tandem?
 
Was also looking at the XF 50mm F1.0 R WR but I read that its autofocus performance is not great has me concerned. 2 things I care about the most while shooting videos at the gym, bokeh effect and good autofocus otherwise my workout video would be ruined if the lens hunts for focus: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-xf-50mm-f1-0-r-wr-field-review
 
superspartan said:
Was also looking at the XF 50mm F1.0 R WR but I read that its autofocus performance is not great has me concerned. 2 things I care about the most while shooting videos at the gym, bokeh effect and good autofocus otherwise my workout video would be ruined if the lens hunts for focus: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-xf-50mm-f1-0-r-wr-field-review
Click to expand...
Please note I was not recommending this lens for your particular needs. I mentioned it in the context of your desire for a specific back to back lens comparison of two lenses, of which you already have hands on experience.
 
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Was also looking at the XF 50mm F1.0 R WR but I read that its autofocus performance is not great has me concerned. 2 things I care about the most while shooting videos at the gym, bokeh effect and good autofocus otherwise my workout video would be ruined if the lens hunts for focus: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-xf-50mm-f1-0-r-wr-field-review
Click to expand...
Please note I was not recommending this lens for your particular needs. I mentioned it in the context of your desire for a specific back to back lens comparison of two lenses, of which you already have hands on experience.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, I wasn't saying that, I was just saying that I just saw that lens and it caught my attention until I read the part about the slow AF.
 
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
GSharp87 said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Got it, so it seems what I have now is the most practical for my use case. I just wanted affirmation that I did the right choice by returning the 56mm f1.2 for the 33mm f1.4.

I remember when I was at the gym I had to take 5 ore more steps back which is not always possible when people are around.
Click to expand...
The lens you have is a great choice for that FL
Click to expand...
got it, thanks a lot. The reason I made this thread is because when I googled this, I could only find comparisons between the 33mm vs the 35mm f2 and f1.4 but none with the 56mm f1.2
Click to expand...
Those comparisons are logical because those three share (essentially) the same FL and angle of view or perspective. The 56, as you experienced, allows you to view the subject differently and is commonly understood to be a good choice for portraits, tho’ obviously not limited to that.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. What I was hoping for is for someone who has both lenses to do a direct comparison between the portrait shots. When I had the 56mm, any portrait shot I took looked magical, but man, that focal length, so darn close.
Click to expand...
It is of course possible to compare any two or more lenses against any set of considerations. But as the gap between FL grows, the more the perspective differences show. A closer comparison of portrait lenses in the Fujisphere is 56mm f1.2 Vs 50mm f1.0. The latter is huge and heavy and relatively slow focusing, but capable of some gorgeous results.

But you’ve already owned both 56 and 33 and know how they behave in real use. I’m not sure what else anyone on this forum can tell you that you haven’t experienced!
Click to expand...
I personally find no difference in focusing speed between the 50 f1 and the new 56 f1.2 WR. If anything, I found the 50 to be a bit more confident in locking in to the subject.

I would love it if Fuji released more f1 lenses, a 23 and 33, to compete with full frame. I have no issues at all using the 50 f1 on my X-H2S. Saying something is big and heavy is all relative anyway.
Click to expand...
I am interested in your experience of the two in focus speed.
Of course everything is relative, but surely you are not disputing that the 50 f1 is huge and heavy compared to other ‘similar’ glass in the range? Check the specs and the filter size.
Click to expand...
someone explain this to me, if the body has good auto focus, and the lense has good or average auto focus, how do they play along together? who does the auto focus? the lens or the body or they both work in tandem?
Click to expand...
I think you should start a new thread if you wish to open this topic for discussion. Simply put, the sensor and processor in the camera body analyse & drive the focus. The lens AF motor moves the focus element (or group?) within the lens. That is a very basic description.
 
If the new 56mm f1.2 had good enough AF performance, the 50mm f1 isn’t any worse. For anything that’s not fast moving it will keep up perfectly. It is a bigger lens, but then having the wider field of view makes it more versatile. An f1 lens on APSC will give you the look of an ~f1.4 on full frame while f1.2 is around f1.8, so size and weight is to be expected.

I personally preferred the 50 f1 after owning both, but I wouldn’t use either as a one lens setup. I always have a wider angle lens for the times I don’t have the space to step back.
 
Last edited:
superspartan said:
  1. superspartan wrote:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Was also looking at the XF 50mm F1.0 R WR but I read that its autofocus performance is not great has me concerned. 2 things I care about the most while shooting videos at the gym, bokeh effect and good autofocus otherwise my workout video would be ruined if the lens hunts for focus: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-xf-50mm-f1-0-r-wr-field-review
Click to expand...
Please note I was not recommending this lens for your particular needs. I mentioned it in the context of your desire for a specific back to back lens comparison of two lenses, of which you already have hands on experience.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, I wasn't saying that, I was just saying that I just saw that lens and it caught my attention until I read the part about the slow AF.
Click to expand...
This lens has strengths in low light and pleasing out of focus areas. It can give very pleasing results. It wasn’t designed for fast action. And it does not focus as rapidly as your 33.
 
Last edited:
RobRoy22 said:
RobRoy22 said:
  1. superspartan wrote:
RobRoy22 said:
superspartan said:
Was also looking at the XF 50mm F1.0 R WR but I read that its autofocus performance is not great has me concerned. 2 things I care about the most while shooting videos at the gym, bokeh effect and good autofocus otherwise my workout video would be ruined if the lens hunts for focus: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-xf-50mm-f1-0-r-wr-field-review
Click to expand...
Please note I was not recommending this lens for your particular needs. I mentioned it in the context of your desire for a specific back to back lens comparison of two lenses, of which you already have hands on experience.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, I wasn't saying that, I was just saying that I just saw that lens and it caught my attention until I read the part about the slow AF.
Click to expand...
This lens has strengths in low light and pleasing out of focus areas. It can give very pleasing results. It wasn’t designed for fast action. And it does not focus as rapidly as your 33.
Click to expand...
got it. thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Which Fujinon Lenses should/would you buy 2nd hand?
Replies
12
Views
164
DJ STU-C
DJ STU-C
M
56/f1.2 R WR vs 16-55/f2.8 mkii
Replies
17
Views
22
Minolta TC-1
M
N
Unclear whether Fujifilm X-H2 has advantage over iPhone 17 Pro for under 100mm FF eqv
Replies
17
Views
18
biza43
B
mahidoes
  • Poll Poll
XT5: XF 23mm f/2.8 R WR vs TTartisan 23mm f/1.4
Replies
11
Views
12
yoshi2425
yoshi2425
M
XF 10-24mm f/4 R, XF 33mm f/1.4 & XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for backpacking landscape photography
Replies
9
Views
20
Mountaingrapher
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top