The Unfair Fight - Fujifilm 56mm f1.2 R WR vs Viltrox 56mm f1.4 AF STM

Pennyfan wrote:

WeirdSheep wrote:

You must have had a poor copy of the original 56mm because mine is optically fantastic right from F1.2, l can't fault it, it's superb. I read a lot of criticism of lenses on this forum based on one copy which quickly seem to become the perceived wisdom. I've only had one Fuji X lens l was disappointed with, the 18-55mm, but l know l must have had a sub par copy as many love it, so l've never generalised about its quality. Every other Fuji X lens l've had has been excellent, the 10-24mm, 16-80mm, 18-135mm etc.

As a general comment, l just wish people wouldn't write off lenses based on a single experience of one lens, this has previously put me off buying lenses l've now bought now l know better not to take forum 'wisdom' as gospel.

Case in point is the 18-135mm l've just received, it's far better than forum curmudgeon's would have us believe. I took a punt on it because l did extensive checking elsewhere, which led me to believe it would be, and it definitely is. I find this to be a regular theme on here, l have no idea why, maybe l'm that lucky guy that almost always gets good copies, but l very much doubt it.

I wonder how many other people have been put off buying lenses they would really enjoy if people didn't adopt this herd mentality of panning a lens based on one copy, or camera, that didn't meet their expectations?

I'll be hanging on to my copy of the 56mm mk1, it's truly outstanding in my experience, l couldn't reasonably expect its image quality to be improved by anything else, it doesn't even sound like the same lens you had based on your description.

There's no way I can test 10 copies and come out with a scientific conclusion, so I could only speak on my personal experience. My old 56mm could be a lemon, but everyone have different demands on sharpness, some pixel peep some don't. I simply found most older Fujinon XF lenses ain't as sharp as how they were praised, and by looking at some Youtuber's test results confirmed that.

However, the new age Fujinon primes are clinically sharp, including the 18mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4, 33mmf1.4 and 56mm f1.2. If you ever have chance to shoot them side by side maybe you will agree with me, and I believe once you noticed the different, you cannot unseen them.

(Check out Christopher Frost's YouTube channel, he tested both old and new 56mm, he rated the 56mm f1.2 WR the sharpest lens he tested in 2022).

You don't need to test 10 copies, just not judge a lens based on one copy. I agree that Fuji's consistency in terms of quality has improved resulting in less copy variation, that's just a natural evolution we frequently see with all lens manufacturers over time with new designs. However, there is plenty of evidence that a good copy of the first version of the 56mm is as sharp as the new version, the differences between the lenses are minimal. I've used and owned many lenses over the years, from bad to outstanding and everything inbetween, so l do know what l'm seeing.

The 56mm l own is as good a lens as l have ever used, no question. Yes it is a clunky focuser, that's the main criticism l would agree with, but it's an F1.2 lens, they are notorious for being tricky to focus due to the wafer thin dof (depending on distance to subject). In terms of sharpness across the frame, colour and contrast it's a stellar lens, there's no question about that, there are thousands of images that will verify that from thousands of owners. No lens is perfect, but the focusing quirks of this lens are acceptable to me considering how optically outstanding it is, but then l'm in no hurry to grab my shots. For running and gunning it may not be the best, that's the only trade off l see with it. In all honesty, for certain types of shots l can see this lens ticking the 'too sharp' box very easily, even wide open, that's how good my copy is anyway.