60mm f2.4 vs 56mm f1.2 for Portraits

Maybe it's a bit unfair, but I wanted to understand if the 60mm is good for portraits, standing against the 56mm. So I asked my very best friend Christine to act as a model, and we had a lot of fun and some kind of testing as well

The story's end: The 60 is good, very good. But somehow boring. The 56 has the pop. The cream & keeper machine.

60mm:

It is not a bad lens, obviously. Nice bokeh, sharp images. But now the 56... in the Sony forum, we had a lot of talk about the Zeiss pop. Well, yes, maybe... but here is the Fuji pop!

And, finally, a very personal portrait of Christine (w/ Acros):

The 56mm is ideal If all you care about is blowing out the backgrounds.  But I'm more into environmental work, so the surroundings need to be clear enough to understand.

For me, the best shot is the first one, and it was taken with the 60mm.  There's plenty of snap, and I can see the subject's environment.

Thanks for the comparison Markus. Much to my surprise, I like the 60 examples you posted much more than the 56. I do own the 60. Not my favorite macro (number was the Oly 60 m43) but do really enjoy using the Fuji 60.

My 60 was sharper than my 56. The sharpest was my 50. However the rendering is the reason I kept my 56 and got rid of the rest.

smooth

Robert A wrote:

The 56mm is ideal If all you care about is blowing out the backgrounds. But I'm more into environmental work, so the surroundings need to be clear enough to understand.

For me, the best shot is the first one, and it was taken with the 60mm. There's plenty of snap, and I can see the subject's environment.

Both type of portraits have merit

The beauty of an f/1.2 lens is that you can also use it stopped down. You can't get f/1.2 on an f/2.4 lens.

It all comes down to shooting style. As you say, your preference is for environmental portraits so if you never feel you need wider apertures, there's really no need for the extra expense. Other's may want the flexibility to do both or prefer subject isolation. I think the problem comes when people buy a faster lens and feel that they always have to use it wide open otherwise they've wasted their money.

Polybazze wrote:

IMHO this kind of 'street photography' is much more interesting and doesn't rely on effects like shallow dof:

https://geraldgay.format.com/india#16

I looked through that gallery and there are examples of both shallow dof (subject isolation) and environmental portraits. One style isn't better than the other. However, I do think that some people use shallow dof as a crutch to deal with difficult backgrounds without really thinking about why and when they should use shallow dof. It can also be a status symbol in others...eg "I can get just a single eyelash in focus because of my fancy expensive fast lens". Of course, these a sweeping generalisations

The 56 is at advantage being two stops faster.

If you stopped down the 56 to f/2.4 or so, would it still have that "pop"?

Hmmmm....all this talk of "rendering" and "pop" requires me to ask all you folks to define your terms (which parts of the photograph are you talking about, specifically?).

Otherwise, I'll assume you are just talking about wider aperture and the consequently more blurry background.

I'd honestly like to know if there is something specific you can point to and describe.

Thanks!

They are aspects of the image you find easier to detect once you know what lens was used.

The background is very busy so yes the 56 will do better with that with a busy close background. This is going to be better for event or wedding shooters facing uncontrolled backgrounds and challenging light. However, if placing your model at certain distances and picked locations or in studio, the gap can easily be mitigated, and the 60 is quite excellent.

I’m usually more focused on location and lighting over shallow dof though. It’s a piece of cake to do shallow dof with a 60 if you do a half body shot and keep the background farther away.

All that being said, I do think the 56 is the better lens but not necessarily for the reasons you’re giving. I think the colors are slightly less contrasty which is generally good for skin tones. It’s also likely sharper stopped down to f2.

The 60 was meant as a hybrid portrait/macro lens so can do both pretty good, but not as specialized as the 56 (esp the apd) or the 80.

I actually think the second example on each lens has more 'pop'.. from that perspective seems both these lens can 'pop' and both can look pretty average, probably true of most lenses. Of course 'pop; is completely subjective too.

Well, if you plan to use apertures higher than f2.4, then the choice is obvious.

Very interesting comparison showing the big difference between 2.4 and 1.2

Tha said I keep my 60mm that i do love !

Unless you want a totally blown out background at that focal length the 60/2.4 is a very nice lens, especially if you were able to grab it with the most recent discount.

Personally I like much longer focal lengths like the 90/2 or 50-140/2.6 for heavy subject isolation shots where wider angles such as 35 or 60 I would want to incorporate the backgrounds into the shot.

Montanawildlives wrote:

Hmmmm....all this talk of "rendering" and "pop" requires me to ask all you folks to define your terms (which parts of the photograph are you talking about, specifically?).

Otherwise, I'll assume you are just talking about wider aperture and the consequently more blurry background.

I'd honestly like to know if there is something specific you can point to and describe.

Thanks!

To me 'Pop' in images refers to an almost 3D-like quality, subjects have depth, great contrast, images don't look flat or lifeless.  You do not need shallow DOF to achieve it with the right lens.

I'm not really seeing that here, no offence to the OP, I guess they meant it more so as shallower DOF - but that doesn't always make images 'pop' - they can still seem quite flat.

If you asked someone not into photography which images they might prefer, chances are they will opt for the ones with more in focus, not the faster aperture ones.  There was a YT video on this a while back, think it was Denae and Andrew did it.  They show a bunch of non photography people various images shot at varying apertures, and most tended to prefer images with more detail in the background, because more of the subjects were in sharp focus.