Great Little Lens

Positives: Small and compact. Great sidekick for 35 f1.4 for the XPro. Great street lens if you have the space. Good rendering. Clearly the best image quality and rendering of the "Fujicrone" trinity.

Negatives: Can produce some soap bubble and onion ring bokeh with some backgrounds.

Grade: a good solid B. A solid performer and a great value.

It's heartening to see a "DPR user review" with effort taken to express pros as well as cons (rather than a simple thumbs up with no useful information), however brief it may be.

Thumbs up, T.  

Bob Tullis wrote:

It's heartening to see a "DPR user review" with effort taken to express pros as well as cons (rather than a simple thumbs up with no useful information), however brief it may be.

Thumbs up, T.

Thanks Bob,

Of course all reviews are subjective at the end of the day.  We all have our expectations of what we want to see and properties we value in a lens  based on how we view photography.  But I think a few words gives a better idea of the lens performance.

Great Little Lens indeed! Good review Truman. My rating for this very versatile lens is 5 star. It's uses are limited only by your imagination. Here is a floral shot for example.

Sapphire Tower (Puya alpestris) A rare specimen that hails from Chile in the Andes Mountains.

Thanks Truman, keep up the good work!

Thank you for the review. The voice of experience is so useful.

I have been considering the 50mm 'cron myself -  juggling it against a secondhand 56mm f/1.2 and the maybe-upcoming Tokina 56mm as a general purpose lens for the potential X-T2. I much prefer the longer focal length, but "50mm on crop" is a thing in its own right, and I don't  hate it.

A lovely and mysterious image. Every lens is a flower lens for me, so this is cool to see.

Great job Truman.

Really good for a DPR gear list user review to actually have some meat in it.  I just give stars and gave 5 to all three of the beautiful little 23/35/50 F2s.

You can't have a perfect lens with glass that size.  I agree with your comments though.

My, oh my. . .  that's a beau-ti-ful photograph.

Foxjet wrote:

Great Little Lens indeed! Good review Truman. My rating for this very versatile lens is 5 star. It's uses are limited only by your imagination. Here is a floral shot for example.

Sapphire Tower (Puya alpestris) A rare specimen that hails from Chile in the Andes Mountains.

Thanks Truman, keep up the good work!

What a great shot!

Thank you Truman. Thinking along "Horses for courses" lines and already having too many lenses, I believe the 50 & 56 could live happily together. Foxjet, wonderful and unique image.

OK... that really is a fantastic shot.  Beautiful colors and composition.

Foxjet wrote:

Great Little Lens indeed! Good review Truman. My rating for this very versatile lens is 5 star. It's uses are limited only by your imagination. Here is a floral shot for example.

Sapphire Tower (Puya alpestris) A rare specimen that hails from Chile in the Andes Mountains.

Thanks Truman, keep up the good work!

Stunning, thank you

Foxjet wrote:

Great Little Lens indeed! Good review Truman. My rating for this very versatile lens is 5 star. It's uses are limited only by your imagination. Here is a floral shot for example.

Sapphire Tower (Puya alpestris) A rare specimen that hails from Chile in the Andes Mountains.

Thanks Truman, keep up the good work!

That's not a flower - that's a abstract!  Great presentation.

yardcoyote wrote:

Thank you for the review. The voice of experience is so useful.

I have been considering the 50mm 'cron myself - juggling it against a secondhand 56mm f/1.2 and the maybe-upcoming Tokina 56mm as a general purpose lens for the potential X-T2. I much prefer the longer focal length, but "50mm on crop" is a thing in its own right, and I don't hate it.

There is some history here with the 75 mm (equivalent). It's a range finder thing. The first 75 was released by Leica in 1932 and Leica has been refining this focal length ever since. It is somewhat a hybrid focal length. It is a "long normal" or short telephoto. For some reason it never caught on in the SLR wold.

Spending years with a Leica - the 75 really grew on me and I find it quite versatile. It works well as a street lens if you have the room.  It can work as a portrait lens in a pinch.

People who cut their teeth in the SLR world tend not to have any experience with this focal length and often berate it.  But it can be very useful.  The 56 (85 equiv) is a true portrait lens.  For a pure portrait lens I prefer the 100 to 105 as I find the 85 a bit short.  However, Fuji does not have an offering of a 70 mm prime.

I much prefer my 50 to my 56 for street and general knock around.  The 50 and the XPro are a wonderful team.  For a formal portrait I'd go with the 56 as it has a little smoother rendering of the out of focus areas ( but not by a lot) to the 50. If I didn't have my 56 with me I have no hesitation using the 50 for a portrait.

This lens is a kind of dream given siz weight performance price

Ideal for portrait, small not intrusicve superb built WR but NO OIS

AFAIK bokeh is very good even if other lenses acan do better with bigger size ...and price !

I quoted it 5/5 taking into account criterai already mentiooned

In absolute quote could be 4/5 when comparing to much more expensive lenses

I spent 20+ years shooting with a Pentax K1000 and a 50 and 85 mm f/2. This was my student kit and I guess I never felt like I needed anything else. My 85 was a particularly nice copy of that classic design, and I kept it on the camera for years at a time. That field of view was what I expected to see when I looked out of a camera for a long time, even after I quit for 6 or 8 years, then moved to digital. It's still my favorite, and I can't imagine my Fuji kit being complete without a 55 or 56 if there is a chance of getting one.

But I'm not a portraitist, and the f/1.2 is really overkill for me. It also has a fairly long minimium focus distance, while the 50mm 'cron's is barely longer than the 35mm f/1.4's . And that lens is very good in the garden. Hmm ...

Greg7579 wrote:

Great job Truman.

Really good for a DPR gear list user review to actually have some meat in it. I just give stars and gave 5 to all three of the beautiful little 23/35/50 F2s.

If everyone gets an A - an A has no meaning.  Average is a "C" right in the middle.  If a C lens gets an A - then what does that say about the true A lenses?

I was teaching in college when the "everyone has to get an A craze hit the undergraduate world."  The justification was "if I don't get an A, I'll never get into medical school and my life will be ruined."  A few test later when those demanding an A figured out that they were going to be lucky to pass the course - the tune changed.  Then it was - "your test are too hard."  It was "me" it was the entire facility.  If so why did some do very well on them?  You have to give the cream room to rise to the top.

If there is to be a valid ranking system it needs to represent something or else it has no meaning.  Five thumbs up on every lens Fuji makes tells no one anything.  Not all lenses are created equal.  That does not mean they are "bad lenses." Personally I would rather know the warts of a particular lens before I buy it.  That's why I don't pay much attention to lens reviews on line.  Most are pretty worthless.

You can't have a perfect lens with glass that size. I agree with your comments though.

There is no perfect lens.  Every design, Sonnar, Planer, etc. has trade offs and some will be better in one area and a different design in another area.  The best lens for a given person is the one that fits best with the type of rendering a person wants and needs for his selectee genre.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Great job Truman.

Really good for a DPR gear list user review to actually have some meat in it. I just give stars and gave 5 to all three of the beautiful little 23/35/50 F2s.

If everyone gets an A - an A has no meaning. Average is a "C" right in the middle. If a C lens gets an A - then what does that say about the true A lenses?

I was teaching in college when the "everyone has to get an A craze hit the undergraduate world." The justification was "if I don't get an A, I'll never get into medical school and my life will be ruined." A few test later when those demanding an A figured out that they were going to be lucky to pass the course - the tune changed. Then it was - "your test are too hard." It was "me" it was the entire facility. If so why did some do very well on them? You have to give the cream room to rise to the top.

What a meanie.  

If there is to be a valid ranking system it needs to represent something or else it has no meaning. Five thumbs up on every lens Fuji makes tells no one anything. Not all lenses are created equal. That does not mean they are "bad lenses." Personally I would rather know the warts of a particular lens before I buy it. That's why I don't pay much attention to lens reviews on line. Most are pretty worthless.

You can't have a perfect lens with glass that size. I agree with your comments though.

There is no perfect lens. Every design, Sonnar, Planer, etc. has trade offs and some will be better in one area and a different design in another area. The best lens for a given person is the one that fits best with the type of rendering a person wants and needs for his selectee genre.

There you go, bursting bubbles again.    I for one much appreciate seeing a reality check. Kudos.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Great job Truman.

Really good for a DPR gear list user review to actually have some meat in it. I just give stars and gave 5 to all three of the beautiful little 23/35/50 F2s.

If everyone gets an A - an A has no meaning. Average is a "C" right in the middle. If a C lens gets an A - then what does that say about the true A lenses?

I was teaching in college when the "everyone has to get an A craze hit the undergraduate world." The justification was "if I don't get an A, I'll never get into medical school and my life will be ruined." A few test later when those demanding an A figured out that they were going to be lucky to pass the course - the tune changed. Then it was - "your test are too hard." It was "me" it was the entire facility. If so why did some do very well on them? You have to give the cream room to rise to the top.

If there is to be a valid ranking system it needs to represent something or else it has no meaning. Five thumbs up on every lens Fuji makes tells no one anything. Not all lenses are created equal. That does not mean they are "bad lenses." Personally I would rather know the warts of a particular lens before I buy it. That's why I don't pay much attention to lens reviews on line. Most are pretty worthless.

You can't have a perfect lens with glass that size. I agree with your comments though.

There is no perfect lens. Every design, Sonnar, Planer, etc. has trade offs and some will be better in one area and a different design in another area. The best lens for a given person is the one that fits best with the type of rendering a person wants and needs for his selectee genre.

I think you must have completely misunderstood my response.  I was complementing you.  Why are you lecturing on the current propensity of American society and the Milenials' desire for an all A system?  I am vehemently opposed to that nonsense. You know where I went to school and that I spent 30 years in the military right?

We don't give out As.  But if I were rating the Fuji 23/35/50 F2s, I would give them an A.  But I agree with your review.