That 56/1.2 is tempting...

[marco1974]

but OTOH, the 60/2.4 is already so darn nice!

Wide open, high contrast scene, and yet super-sharp and with virtually no fringing (LoCA):

And super-smooth bokeh even stopped down (at f/5.6 here):

As good as it may be, I honestly don't think the 56 can be any better - 'just' two stops faster...

Mmmmh... decisions, decisions...

Marco

 

[taz98spin]

Yes, for portrait sessions, the 60/2.4 lens is my go to lens.

However, most of the images are too sharp, requiring time & effort to smooth out the model's skin in PP.

That's why I'm excited for this lens!

As long as I can get their eyes in focus, I'll be set!

 

[marco1974]

Yes, for portrait sessions, the 60/2.4 lens is my go to lens.

However, most of the images are too sharp, requiring time & effort to smooth out the model's skin in PP.

That's why I'm excited for this lens!

As long as I can get their eyes in focus, I'll be set!

--
http://taz-spin.smugmug.com/

So you're expecting the 56/1.2 to be less sharp at the same apertures?

I don't think that'll be the case, and in any case I wouldn't want a one grand lens that smooths out skin because it isn't sharp enough.

Or do you want that special f/1.2 close-up look where only the eyes are in focus and the rest of the face is blurred? I'm personally not so sure about that, I find it a bit 'cliché'.

To me, the main attraction of the 56 would be the ability to shoot hand-held in even darker conditions (jazz clubs, etc.). That, and the ability to separate the subject even more from the background when shooting full body portraits.

Marco

 

[Lisa O]

Yes, I am tempted too. I have the 60 2.4 but the 56 1.2 seems to be calling me.

 

[taz98spin]

Yes, for portrait sessions, the 60/2.4 lens is my go to lens.

However, most of the images are too sharp, requiring time & effort to smooth out the model's skin in PP.

That's why I'm excited for this lens!

As long as I can get their eyes in focus, I'll be set!

 

[marco1974]

Yes, for portrait sessions, the 60/2.4 lens is my go to lens.

However, most of the images are too sharp, requiring time & effort to smooth out the model's skin in PP.

That's why I'm excited for this lens!

As long as I can get their eyes in focus, I'll be set!

 

[taz98spin]

Yes, for portrait sessions, the 60/2.4 lens is my go to lens.

However, most of the images are too sharp, requiring time & effort to smooth out the model's skin in PP.

That's why I'm excited for this lens!

As long as I can get their eyes in focus, I'll be set!

 

[Lisa O]

Here's an article on the X-T1 and the 56 1.2

Loading…

www.riflessifotografici.com

 

[57LowRider]

I've read that the big thing with very fast lenses is that you can stop them down to f1.8 or f2 and have sharpness corner to corner. I do use my 23 a lot between f2 - f2.8 and it is superb; I only use f1.4 for those seldom small-DoF shots.

Here's the 23 at f2.8 (and I can imagine taking a shot of one of the girls at f2 with the 56) giving me enough DoF just about. It's all about having the flexibility and leeway -

 

[Jason Jamal Nakleh]

I ordered one to go with my new X-T1! Can't wait for it to come.

 

[Jason Jamal Nakleh]

Yes, for portrait sessions, the 60/2.4 lens is my go to lens.

However, most of the images are too sharp, requiring time & effort to smooth out the model's skin in PP.

That's why I'm excited for this lens!

As long as I can get their eyes in focus, I'll be set!

 

[taz98spin]

Yes, for portrait sessions, the 60/2.4 lens is my go to lens.

However, most of the images are too sharp, requiring time & effort to smooth out the model's skin in PP.

That's why I'm excited for this lens!

As long as I can get their eyes in focus, I'll be set!

--
http://taz-spin.smugmug.com/

Taz98spin, do you find the focusing slow on this lens or is it ok? The reviews I read all say that it's slow to focus.. what are your opinions on it?

--
Jn.
http://www.nakleh.com

Yes, the 60/2.4 is the slowest lens for the X system.

You just need patience with this lens.

Even last Sunday, during a shoot in good lighting, I got several good image in a row.

Put the camera down to ask the model to move her hand in a different way, put the camera back up to my eye (neither her or I moved closer or away from each other), and lens would not focus.......! :-x

So yes, it's slow and you need patience, but the images are super sharp and out focus areas are nice!

--
http://taz-spin.smugmug.com/

 

[57LowRider]

Here's an article on the X-T1 and the 56 1.2

http://www.riflessifotografici.com/english/fujifilm-x-t1.html

Oh dear! For portraits, "The Fujinon XF 56mm F1.2 R is...is just too perfect." Damn!

 

[janrifkinson]

I want the extra f stops so I'm going to buy this lens. The question is: what to do with my 60mm lens. Almost new, where is best place to sell @ a fair price. And what would a fair price be in your opinion? Thanks.

 

[Rservello]

but OTOH, the 60/2.4 is already so darn nice!

Wide open, high contrast scene, and yet super-sharp and with virtually no fringing (LoCA):

And super-smooth bokeh even stopped down (at f/5.6 here):

As good as it may be, I honestly don't think the 56 can be any better - 'just' two stops faster...

Mmmmh... decisions, decisions...

Marco

I don't really see a point to an f1.2...I guess on an APS-C sensor it would be closer in DOF to a f1.4 and being cropped wouldn't have the awful vignetting you would get with a ff 1.2. But honestly, the speed you get is offset by much too narrow DOF for most situations.

--

Richard Servello

Explore Richard Servello’s 2,725 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Richard Servello | Visual Effects, Editor, Editorial Department

Known for: District 9, Green Lantern, Surrogates

www.imdb.com

* Sensitive Internet User Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and are not meant to offend you or damage your precious beliefs.

 

[marco1974]

"The thing here is that it is still a 56mm, not an 85mm or a 105mm.
The 56mm is an extremely bright lens, but it is still a "normal" focal lenght.
The "atmosphere" created by a lens like a Nikon 85mm F1.4D is, for instance, far more pronounced.
Don't get me wrong, this is not a criticism to the lens, which I'm sure will receive high praise on reviews, Mtf and user reports. What I'm saying is that this is a great lens but it doesn't have the usual rendering a proper 75-85mm can produce. And there's no way out, it is something related to it's real focal lenght."

Oh dear! This nonsense again!

He too (like many others) does not understand that what defines a lens is the Field of View (FoV), NOT the Focal Length (FL) per se.

To prove this point, of course, it is sufficient to note that "a proper 75-85mm" is only a 'normal' lens on a 645 medium format camera (FoV ~45º), and the same lens is an ULTRA-WIDE ANGLE (FoV ~ 80º) on 4x5"!

Marco

 

[Les Lammers]

Why not get a 55mm f1.8 Pentax, or comparable, and an adapter for less than $100 and see how that works for you? If you really like it get the 56.

 

[taz98spin]

Why not get a 55mm f1.8 Pentax, or comparable, and an adapter for less than $100 and see how that works for you? If you really like it get the 56.

Were you replying to me?

If so, I want the AF. I have the Voigtlander 50/1.1 already, and as much as I like it, sometimes I just want AF.

 

[Les Lammers]

I agree but if you want f1.2 and can afford it...go for it.

 

[Les Lammers]

I was replying to Marco. This board can be confusing.