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

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?  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.

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 think you've probably done your homework and said it all.

The 60mm f2.4 is way cheaper, lighter, more compact (swap the big hood for the 35mm one or third party), serves dual purpose and its max aperture is ideal for portraits unless you often want the one eye sharp look (which becomes tiresome). It now focuses as fast as the 56mm f1.2. The 60mm also has an aperture controlled by 9 rounded blades which ensures a pleasant bokeh with highlights of soft edged circles - in fact I rate it second only to my 90mm f2. Obviously the background is not quite as oof as an f1.2 will get you but as I wrote earlier, that wide aperture is of more use for 3/4 to full length images which are effective but which require more space.

The 56mm f1.2 is a fine lens and I'd not refuse one as a gift (after all, you don't have to use it at widest) but for all the reasons above I will not swapping.

Consider buying used.

BTW, it is also great for street and for picking out architectural and other detail.

60mm @ f2.4

60mm @ f2.4

As a portrait lens, there's no competition. You get the full-frame depth-of-field equivalence of an 85mm F1.8 lens with the 56mm while you get the DOF of a 90mm F3.6 lens with the 60mm. That's quite a difference in subject isolation and background blur, quite a difference. So for portraits, the 56mm lens complements the zoom you already own much better than the 60mm does. The 56mm also has potential for event shooting.

For close-up, semi-macro shooting, however, the 60mm complements your zoom much better than the 56mm does. So you need to decide which -- portrait or macro -- is your top priority.

I own both lenses but also own the 16-55mm zoom, which gives me F2.8 at 55mm -- fairly similar to the 60mm's F2.4. So I rarely use the 60mm anymore unless I'm doing close-up work -- flowers, copying photos, etc. If I'm doing head and shoulders or even half-torso shots, I carry the 56mm to supplement my F2.8 zoom. Sometimes I shoot it at F1.2 -- especially if the subject is farther away -- but more typically I shoot at F1.8 or 2.0 if the subject is closer.

Hope this is helpful. If I owned neither of them, I'd buy the 56mm. I've thought about selling the 60mm but keep it around for close-up shots. You might also consider the 90mm if a lot of your shooting is outdoors.

This website will do simulations of the depth of field for different lenses and apertures. You might find it useful.

I know 56 can hunt and peck on focus but I didn't know the 60 was as fast now on new FW. If so, very nice. But for slow (former?) focus I know many love the 60.

Thank you for the responses.  Good points on both lenses, and they're quite helpful.

I think I'm gonna go with the 60mm at this time.  If I get serious with the portrait photos and feel the 60 doesn't quite do what I want, I can upgrade in a couple of years when the 56 is likely to be a bit cheaper than it is now.

Allen Y. wrote:

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.

Most likely you will be satisfied (or dissatisfied) with both.

Both are on the slow side when it comes to focusing and both are capable of producing great shots.

If you do not need f/1.2 then go with 60mm as it's much cheaper, smaller and sharp from f/2.4.

It also renders a little warmer images than 56 (nothing you cannot change in post though).

I went with 60 this time because it suits me better for the kind of portraits I use it for.

Also consider either new or old 35 - these are fantastic lenses more suited for everyday casual shooting than 56/60 that you might find not using that much. For the price of 56 you can almost have both 60 and 35 anyway.

My last advice is to wait for the discounts from Fuji (they often discount their bodies and lenses - few times a year) if you are planning to buy a new one (though there are plenty of them used in mint condition).

Best regards

dengx wrote:

Allen Y. wrote:

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.

For the price of 56 you can almost have both 60 and 35 anyway.

Thanks for the feedback.  This was my thought as well.  I'm planning on picking up the 35 f/2.

Having tried both I kept the 60. I like the macro capability, it is smaller and the image quality is on a par. The fact that it was so much cheaper was a bonus.

The obvious advantage of the 56 is the very wide aperture. Given that I'm likely to stop it down a little for portrait anyway I don't really miss it, but it would offer better subject isolation if you really need that bit extra, and it is better in low light (though with shallow DoF of course).

I'm happy with the 60.

d750guy wrote:

Get the 56mm 1.2 The 60mm isn't much difference than your 18-55mm at 55mm.

It's a much better lens than the zoom in many respects. Better IQ (sharper, nicer bokeh), over a stop faster and of course much better for close-up.

It sounds like you have decided and I would agree with your choice. At one time I had both and though the 56 was an absolutely gorgeous lens, it doesn't focus close or any faster than the 60 and I found the bokeh from the 60 was better in my opinion (only my opinion). I swapped even the 56 for a 16-55 and feel like I got a bargain. I use the 60 primarily for closeups and the zoom most of the time for the few portraits I shoot.

I have the 60 and 35/1.4 and very happy with this combo. I did try the 56 in a store but found it too big and heavy, as well as expensive. The 35 is my walk around lens and I also use it for casual portraits in low light. The 60 I use for close ups of flowers etc and also for daytime portraits.  The 60 tends to hunt for focus in low light, so the 35 is always ready for these situations as I do a lot of street and night photography. I also have the 50-230 for trips to zoos and parks, which I really like and find it has excellent IQ for a plastic lens, and is so light and good for daytime shooting. Here are a few portrait shots with the 60.

The 60 would work well. So would the excellent manual focus Pentax M 50mm f1.7 that you could get for $50-75. You'd need an adapter about $10-15.

Whoops, thought I better throw in a few flowers as well.

Get the 90. 

blessingx wrote:

Get the 90.

Hah, that's a given for sure but it's no lens for a tight-ish budget. Happily I have the best of both worlds in the 60 and the 90.

LouisScarole wrote:

http://www.fujivsfuji.com/60mm-f2pt4-vs-56mm-f1pt2/

Excellent comparison. Thanks for posting.

i read the first sentence and quit reading rest. get 56 F1.2, no comparison there.