👀👉 🏒 Fuji 56Mm F1 2 Or 90Mm F2

Weappreciate your understanding. by the quality and efficiency of our service. We always aim to provide a great product and want you to be 100% satisfied. Our high standard of honesty has gained us a respectful reputation in Japan. Pick56mm f1.2: if you really lust after the bokeh and want those dreamlike portraits. People have used this lens also for street photography successfully as well. Pick 50mm f2: if you want to travel light, want the insurance of WR, need fast AF and want to save money. Remember, this lens is SHARP. J Cameras Focal, lens. Views: 10,956. I decided to do a quick test of the new 50mm f/2 compared to the excellent 56mm f/1.2. The new 50mm f/2 is a compact, weather-resistant prime lens, while the older 56mm f/1.2 fills the class 85mm portrait focal length with an ultra-fast f/1.2 aperture. Apaperbedaan antara Fujifilm Fujinon XF 90mm F2 R LM WR dan Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R APD? Temukan mana yang lebih baik dan performa mereka secara keseluruhan dalam peringkat lensa kamera. Kategori. Cari. Fujifilm Fujinon XF 90mm F2 R LM WR vs Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R APD Vay Tiền Nhanh Chỉ Cần Cmnd. Fujifilm XF 56mm R APDSony FE 90mm Macro G OSSvs33 características comparadasFujifilm XF 56mm R APDSony FE 90mm Macro G OSSPor que Fujifilm XF 56mm R APD é melhor que Sony FE 90mm Macro G OSS?Abertura na distância focal mínima maior?f/ vsf/ Tem conector de metal?Abertura na distância focal máxima maior? mais leve?405gvs602gTem motor de foco silencioso embutido na lente?Distância focal mínima 34mm menor?56mmvs90mmPor que Sony FE 90mm Macro G OSS é melhor que Fujifilm XF 56mm R APD?Tem estabilizador óptico de imagem embutido?Impermeável à prova de respingos?Pode focar infinitamente?34mm melhor distância focal máxima ou teleobjetiva, com mais alcance.?90mmvs56mmTem motor de foco?Tem foco manual full-time?Distância focal mínima menor? mais lâminas de abertura?9vs7Tamron SP 90mm F28 Di Macro 11 VC USDTamron SP 85mm F18 Di VC USDSony FE 55mm F18 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar TTamron SP 24-70mm F/ Di VC USDTamron SP 35mm Di VC USDSigma 35mm f/ DG DN ArtNikon Nikkor Z 50mm f/ SCanon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STMSigma 105mm EX DG OS HSM MacroAvaliações de usuáriosInformações geraisTipo de lenteobjetivas de distancia focal fixaobjetivas de distancia focal fixa, Teleobjetiva, MacroO tipo de dispositivo tem proteção adicional para evitar falhas causadas por poeira, pingos de chuva e respingos de conector de metal costuma ser superior a um conector de plástico, pois é mais que um peso mais baixo é melhor, já que aparelhos mais leves são mais confortáveis de manusear. Isso também é uma vantagem para eletrodomésticos, pois facilita o transporte, e para muitos outros tipos de elemento frontal não roda. Isto é importante se você usar filtros, por exemplo filtros polarizadores e gradientes têm de ser orientados de uma certa com uma capa de lente para que não tenha de a comprar separadamente. Estas são usadas para bloquear fontes de luz forte da lente, como a luz do sol por exemplo, para prevenir brilhos e reflexos da capa da lente pode ser atarrachada na lente no sentido inverso para que possa mantê-la sempre na câmera, pronta a do filtro Desconhecido. Ajude-nos sugerindo um valor. Fujifilm XF 56mm R APD Desconhecido. Ajude-nos sugerindo um valor. Sony FE 90mm Macro G OSSEsta medida é importante a ser levada em conta na compra de maior distância focal máxima permite que você foque em apenas uma pequena parte do enquadramento, e oferece um ângulo de visão mais estreito que as distâncias focais mais distância focal mínima mais curta permite que você obtenha mais da cena na foto, e oferece um ângulo de visão mais amplo que as distâncias focais mais estabilização óptica de imagem utiliza sensores giroscópicos para detectar vibrações da câmera. A lente ajusta o percurso óptico de acordo com o resultado, garantindo que qualquer tipo de "motion blur" - ou mancha de movimento - seja corrigido antes do sensor capturar a menor lado da lente oferece o ângulo de visão mais amplo. Isto permite que você integre mais elementos de cena em uma fotografia baseado no formato APS-C.Na parte mais longa da lente você tem o ângulo de visão mais estreito. Isto permite-lhe apanhar uma pequena parte da cena na fotografia da mesma maneira quando faz zoom em algo baseado no formato APS-C.Uma verdadeira lente macro tem uma ampliação de 11. Isto significa que a imagem produzida é uma representação em tamanho real do objeto faixa de zoom é a razão entre os comprimentos mais longos e menor focais. A faixa de zoom mais elevado significa que a lente é mais uma maior abertura de diafragma, o sensor pode captar mais luz e ajudar a evitar imagens fora de foco, acionando maior velocidade de obturação. Isso também gera uma menor profundidade de campo, permitindo que as imagens em segundo plano sejam desfocadas e trazendo, assim, maior foco ao objeto uma abertura de diafragma mais ampla, o sensor pode captar mais luminosidade, ajudando, com maior velocidade de obturação, a evitar imagens desfocadas. Isso também cria uma baixa profundidade de campo, permitindo que você desfoque o segundo plano e foque no objeto ao número de lâminas de abertura, as lâminas arredondadas afectam a maneira como a luz entra no sensor. As lâminas arredondadas, normalmente encontradas em lentes mais caras, melhoram a aparência das áreas desfocadas. Isto permite-lhe obter um melhor e mais suave efeito bokeh nas suas abertura controla a quantidade de luz que chega ao sensor da câmera. Mais lâminas costumam indicar uma lente de melhor qualidade. Isso também permite obter melhor aspecto visual em efeitos - como o efeito "bokeh" - ao desfocar o plano de fundo, enquanto uma lente com menos lâminas costuma produzir efeitos "bokeh" mais duros e abertura menor reduz a quantidade de luz que alcança o sensor. Isso é importante em condições de claridade, em que uma abertura mais ampla poderia resultar em superexposição de imagem. Outra vantagem é que, com uma abertura menor, é possível obter maior profundidade de campo e manter toda a imagem em abertura menor reduz a quantidade de luz que alcança o sensor. Isso é importante em situações de claridade, quando que uma abertura maior poderia resultar em superexposição da imagem. Outra vantagem é que, com uma abertura menor, é possível obter maior profundidade de campo e manter toda a imagem em lentes permitem fazer foco infinito. Isso é essencial quando você quer tirar fotos que incluam objetos muito distantes, como paisagens, de modo que tudo esteja nítido e em com um motor de foco embutido podem fazer focos automáticos mesmo que a câmera não tenha o seu próprio motor de o foco manual em tempo integral, é possível mover o anel de foco enquanto estiver no modo AF foco automático. Isso significa que você pode fazer ajustes manuais sem que seja necessário alterar para o modo com motor de foco embutido focam mais rápido e silenciosamente que as lentes sem motor de foco que apenas podem utilizar o motor de foco do corpo da é a menor distância em que a lente pode focar. Uma menor distância focal mínima permite chegar mais perto do objeto fotografado, o que é especialmente importante quando se faz de nitidez Desconhecido. Ajude-nos sugerindo um valor. Fujifilm XF 56mm R APDO resultado da nítidez da medição da DxOMark. Este resultado é baseado na medição do MTF modulation transfer function, e dá uma indicação geral da nitídez da imagem produzida pela lente. Testado com a Nikon D7000 ou Canon 7D. Fonte resultado da distorção cromática lateral da medição da DxOMark. A distorção cromática é um tipo de distorção que resulta na disperção de cor ao longo das bordas da imagem. Testado com a Nikon D7000 ou Canon 7D. Fonte DxOMark Desconhecido. Ajude-nos sugerindo um valor. Fujifilm XF 56mm R APDDxOMark é uma série de testes que medem o desempenho e a qualidade de lentes e câmeras. O resultado DxOMark é a pontuação geral atribuída à lente. Testada com Nikon D7000 ou Canon 7D. Fonte Desconhecido. Ajude-nos sugerindo um valor. Fujifilm XF 56mm R APDO resultado da distorção da medição da DxOMark. A distorção na lente refere-se à variação da magnificação ao longo da imagem. Mais distorção irá resultar na gravação incorrecta de linhas rectas na imagem. Testado com a Nikon D7000 ou Canon 7D. Fonte Desconhecido. Ajude-nos sugerindo um valor. Fujifilm XF 56mm R APDO resultado de transmissão da medição da DxOMark. A transmissão refere-se à quantidade de luz que chega ao sensor através de todos os elementos de vidro de uma lente, com um TStop mais baixo a significar mais luz. Isto é importante visto que menos luz a alcançar o sensor pode requirir ISOs maiores ou velocidades de obturador mais lentas. Testado com a Nikon D7000 ou Canon 7D. Fonte vignette Desconhecido. Ajude-nos sugerindo um valor. Fujifilm XF 56mm R APDO resultado dos efeitos de vinheta da medição da DxOMark. Os efeitos de vinheta referem-se a quando o brilho de uma imagem muda a partir do centro para as bordas resultando em cantos escurecidos. O resultado de 0 é perfeito e a imagem não terá efeitos de vinheta. Testado com a Nikon D7000 ou Canon 7D. Fonte FE 70-200mm f/ GM OSS IITamron SP 90mm F28 Di Macro 11 VC USDSony FE 55mm F18 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar TCanon EF 85mm f/14L IS USMTamron SP 85mm F18 Di VC USDNikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm F14E EDCanon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USMCanon EF 70-200mm F/28L IS II USMSony FE 100-400mm f/45-5__6 GM OSSExibir tudo The Fujifilm platform has been the best place to be to get excellent APS-C lenses of all shapes and sizes. Fuji’s strategy has been to forego the popular 35mm full frame sensor and putting all their eggs into the APS-C basket. They’ve also moved into the Medium Format space with their GFx system, but that is a more niche, specialized space that the average photographer is essentially oblivious to. The APS-C shooters in the Canon, Nikon, and Sony space have typically had to make due with mostly lower tier lenses for APS-C, as the vast majority of the development from these companies is for full frame. Fujifilm shooters, however, have been treated to a fairly significant array of options both commercial grade and premium in and around most popular focal lengths and zoom ranges. Case in point is the lens that we are reviewing today, the Fujinon XF 90mm F2 R LM WR hereafter called the XF90 for brevity, which is a premium grade 135mm equivalent telephoto lens at a very popular portrait focal length. I recently reviewed the Fujinon XF 56mm R lens, which serves a role much like an 85mm lens on a full frame 35mm system. The Fuji X-mount cameras have a crop factor of though this is not an entirely accurate figure, as Fuji actually cites the full frame equivalency of the XF90 as 137mm rather than 135mm more like I’ve seen this before when examining their tech specs, so I think this is a general observation about the X system’s crop factor. For all practical purposes, however, we have a 135mmish portrait and telephoto lens…though with a considerably smaller form factor than an equivalent lens for full frame. I’ve done this review on a Fujfilm X-T3 camera body, which means that there is no in body image stabilization. The XF90 does not have OS, unfortunately, so this is going to be a non-stabilized option unless you are using an X-H1 camera or successive bodies after this review than contain IBIS. That is a significant drawback, unfortunately, as 135mm is a long enough focal length to encounter more obvious motion blur. This combines with the reality that 26Mp is very pixel-dense for an APS-C sensor, so motion blur becomes a little more obvious here as well. I mention this because I was occasionally surprised by minor motion blur in some of my images in unexpected situations like shooting at shutter speeds of 1/200th. This is a focal length, frankly, that would have benefited from some kind of stabilization. This isn’t a problem unique to Fuji, per se, but it is part of the reason why I continue to believe that Fujifilm should expand their inclusion of IBIS to more models…including the X-T can see evidence of some motion blur here in this 1/200th shot…and I have steady hands!While I’ve lamented what wasn’t in the XF90, fortunately there are a lot of things that are there, including LM linear motors to drive autofocus, in this case 4!! of them and WR weather resistance, in the form of a gasket at the lens mount along with six other internal seals. This is a premium lens, and both of these were features missing on the XF 56mm that I recently reviewed. But is the XF90 the lens for you? Let’s explore that idea together…Prefer to watch your reviews? Here’s my two part video review series Part 1 covers build, handling, and image quality. Part 2 covers portraits, autofocus performance, video performance, and my conclusionsFollow Me Patreon My Newsletter Instagram Facebook Twitter Flickr 500pxFuji XF90 Build, Handling, and DesignThe XF90 is a very nicely made lens. It features a great form factor. We see the advantage of developing for the smaller sensor in a smaller lens when compared to full frame 135mm lenses. The lens is only x 75 x 105 mm D x L and weighs a moderate lb 540g. That’s roughly 7mm less in diameter and length and 210g less in weight than the Canon EF 135mm F2L lens. The front filter thread is a slightly uncommon 62mm; not every filter maker produces filters in this size, but there are plenty of options out there. The lens balances well on the X-T3 body I used for review. The body is primarily made of metal and has a premium feel to it. I did notice a very slight wobble in the lens mount connection to the camera. The lens has a classic semi-glass black finish to it and is completed with thorough weather sealing as already noted.There are two rings. The closest to the mount is the aperture ring. You have the option to select A and control the aperture from the camera or to physically select your preferred aperture in one-third stop detents. There is no clickless option for the aperture. It should be noted that the aperture ring is a “by-wire” system. Using the aperture ring without the lens attached to the camera and the camera powered on will accomplish nothing. I do prefer having an aperture ring on a lens as I find that it makes the photographer more intentional about aperture selection. If you don’t want to mess with it, just put it in A mode and forget about wide focus ring has nice metal ridges and moves nicely. It to is a “by-wire” ring, and input on the focus ring will be routed through the focus motor to move the elements. The damping is about right, and the ring moves smoothly and precisely. Fuji gives the option of choosing between linear and non-linear focus action, though neither quite imitates true manual focus. Non-linear will allow you to make faster focus changes if you twist the focus ring quickly, but this option lacks repeatability. You’re never quite sure exactly where you’ll end up. Selecting linear allows for more repeatability/predictability, but making major focus changes requires repeated full rotations of the ring and as a result it is difficult to make smooth focus pulls when shooting video. Bottom line is that if you want excellent manual focus, buy a manual focus XF90 has a great looking front facade with lens information on the front. Fuji makes attractive lenses with a wonderfully classic you look through the lens, you will see a lot of glass. An aperture of F2 at this focal length is nice and big!I’m far less enthused about the lens hood. It is a fairly cheap feeling plastic with interior ribs to help block stray light from bouncing around. It has a matte plastic finish that shows marks fairly easily and does not click definitely into place. It’s very easy to rotate loose. The lens hood feels like a cheap misfit on such an otherwise nicely built than this misstep I’m very happy with the build quality and handling of the XF90 Autofocus PerformanceThis section is a little complicated for me, as Fujifilm is one of three mirrorless systems that I spend a lot of time with, and as a result part of my opinions are formed by what I perceive as Fujifilm vulnerabilities when it comes to focus. It’s hard to divorce lens performance from camera performance when it comes to autofocus. Let’s start with what is clearly positive and lens specific. The XF90 has a very powerful quad linear motor focus system. This gives it a clear advantage over a lens like the 56mm in both focus speed and quality of is fast and quiet, though there can sometimes be a micro-pulse or two before focus settles. This shows up when shooting video, too, as while focus pulls are fairly quick and smooth better than most of what I’ve seen on Fuji, there is some minor pulsing before focus settles. What I do see is less obvious stepping than what I see from many Fuji lenses, so there is definitely some evidence that those quad focus motors are doing their job. The focus speed also helps this to be a better lens for stopping action than some of their other medium telephoto are few places where the lens/system fall short, though. The first is that while the lens has a great minimum focus distance and great maximum magnification figure in real-world terms, the lens is very reluctant to focus on a foreground object if focus is not already close. You can set a focus point right on an obvious foreground object, and still the lens will refuse to focus on the foreground object. I had a number of situations in my review period where I had restart the focus process multiple times or try to focus on another midpoint object to start moving focus towards the foreground. On a few occasions it required switching to manual focus and manually pulling focus in the right direction like the shot below. Very annoying. The reason that I don’t blame this entirely on the lens is that I’ve seen a press release regarding a future firmware update for the X-T3 scheduled for January 2020 that included this nugget that caught my eye, “Improving autofocus capability on a foreground subject even when there is a mixture of foreground and background subjects within a frame, causing the foreground subject to go out of focus, when shooting flowers against a busy background.” That sounds very much like what I’ve seen throughout this review, so it seems like this could be more of a camera focus problem than a lens-specific problem. This is probably also true of the second issue which, ironically, may also be addressed in that same firmware update according the press release. I find the Eye AF Pupil Detection to be somewhat less accurate than either Sony’s excellent Eye AF or Canon’s dramatically improved Eye AF after firmware on the EOS R. A lens like the XF90 sports a very shallow depth of field DOF, and I often found that the eyelashes rather than the eye itself would be in the shot below, the lens did not properly focus on the visible eyes because of the coffee mug held in the subject’s hands. I had to override focus to get what I wantedIn many situations the lens focused just fine though, and, with a little effort, I was able to get what I wanted in most all line is that while it feels like there is an effective focus system in the XF90, it is held back somewhat by some areas that Fuji still lags a bit behind some of its XF90 Image Quality BreakdownThere is one thing that Fuji does particularly well, and that is that they really do develop exceptionally good profiles for their lenses. Even RAW files arrive with embedded correction profiles, so you will only ever see an uncorrected image if you turned off the corrections in camera. The byproduct of this is that my brick wall tests are among the cleanest that I ever see, with no vignette or distortion to be seen. I’ll spare you even looking at them you can determine the lack of vignette from the sharpness samples below. It’s not unusual for 135mm lenses to have little to no distortion, but vignette is another matter. The reason I praise Fuji’s corrections as being exceptional is because they produce extremely even results with vignette correction unlike some profiles where the corners are overboosted compared to the remainder of the XF90 produces excellent center results and nearly as good corners even at F2Real world results look great, too. Check out the detail in the fibers of the rope at F2You can see excellent real-world contrast in this imageThe reason for this can be seen in another image, which shows that longitudinal chromatic aberrations are really well controlled. The high contrast transition edges on this statue show no real signs of any fringingStopping the lens down to shows an obvious uptick in contrast, with darker areas looking darker and lighter areas looking lighter and crisperThis trend continues on to F4, where resolution and contrast reach exceptional levels across the frameThe detail in the somewhat distant peninsula is exceptional and a tribute to the flexibility of a lens like this for shooting a variety of and contrast peak at with a fractional regression at F8 and a more noticeable one by F16 due to alluded to previously, the lens has an excellent reproduction ratio, though Fuji kind of obfuscates this by citing two different magnification figures. They cite the APS-C reproduction ratio as and the full frame equivalent of I find this a little silly, as you will only ever see ONE reproduction ratio, and it is the higher figure. Look at how much greater the magnification of the Fuji is than that of the Zeiss Milvus 135mm F2 and its magnification. The close-up performance of the Fuji isn’t as good as the Zeiss…but few lenses are, so I won’t hold that against it. I love having a great magnification on a lens like this; it adds so much versatility to what you can the most practical aspect of this is that you can mostly frame as tight as you like and be creative with your bokeh of the XF90 is very nice, though I wouldn’t characterize it as “magical” in the way that some exceptional telephoto portrait lenses can be the Milvus, for example. The aperture iris has seven rounded blades, though you will start to see their shape with the lens stopped down a bit. The first shot below is wide open; the second is F4, and you can definitely see a few points on the edges of the quality of the background blur at many focus distances is very nice…though there are few situations where it can look a little busyBokeh is a fairly subjective topic, so I’ll just show you some images at varying focus distances and let you be the judge yourselfI would say that in general I think the lens does a good generally find the colors from the lens quite are very nice as wellThe primary vulnerability for the XF90 like many wide aperture primes is some susceptibility to flare. You will have to be careful with either the sun in the frame or a strongly backlit subject with direct lights. The first two images show both artificial light flashlight and the sun in the frame at F2; the third image shows the resulting pattern at F11There’s definitely some veiling loss of contrast at F2 along with some generally undefined ghosting blobs. There is a more defined ghosting pattern at F11, though some might find that artistic. You’ll just either have to be careful or creative in the way that you use flare…as there will definitely be general I’m pleased with the optical performance of the lens. It’s capable of fantastic results, though I wish Eye AF was a little more accurate so that it could show this lens to its best potential. You can definitely take some magical shots with My general impressions of the Fujinon XF 90mm F2 R LM WR are more positive than those of the 56mm because the latter lacks an effective autofocus system or weathersealing no LM or WR and yet is the more expensive lens of the two. It delivers a stronger wide open performance as well and was more pleasing to use because of the more modern, sophisticated quality of focus due to the quad linear motors. Both lenses are effective portrait lenses when used to their strengths. But an 85mm equivalent lens 56mm and 135mm 90mm lens are different in kind. While I generally prefer the unique look that 135mm lenses produce they can create a wonderful “cutout” effect for full frame portraits, they are also less many situations a 135mm lens or 90mm on APS-C is generally too long. In a wedding situation, for example, I have found that there were times that I couldn’t step back enough, and my framing felt crowded. So while the Fujinon 90mm is capable of producing more special images and is nicer to use, the 56mm is the more flexible tool. Which lens is better for you might depend on what else you have in your is a nice lens, however, capable of producing beautiful images that you can be proud of, and there is every reason to believe that it will perform even better as Fujifilm continues to tweak their focus systems in their cameras and hopefully adds IBIS to more bodies! I noted that on B&H Photo’s website there is an aggregate 5 star rating with 100 reviews…so people are definitely fans of this lens. This is a very useful tool and may just become the favorite portrait lens in your bag…just make sure you have enough room to use it!ProsVery nice construction complete with thorough weather sealingQuad linear motors provide quick, quiet focusNice sharpness and contrast wide openExceptional sharpness when stopped downGood colorExceptional chromatic aberration controlNice bokehConsLens hood is cheapSometimes won’t focus on foreground subjectsSomewhat flare pronePurchase the Fujinon XF 90mm F2 B&H Photo Amazon Amazon Canada Amazon UK Amazon Germany Ebay Purchase the FUJIFilm X-T3 B&H Photo Amazon Amazon Canada Amazon UK Amazon Germany EbayPeak Design Slide Lite Peak Design Store B&H Photo Amazon Amazon Canada Amazon UKPeak Design Leash Strap Peak Design Store B&H Photo Amazon Amazon Canada Amazon UKBenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo Amazon Amazon UKAdobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year SubscriptionAlien Skin Exposure X4 Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everythingVisit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gearPurchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!Check me out on My Patreon Sign Up for My Newsletter Instagram Facebook Twitter Flickr 500px Google+ Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off $15 CDN any Skylum product Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic Keywords Fujinon, Fuji, 90mm, Fuji 90 Review, Fujinon 90mm, 90mm 2, 90 F2, 90mm F2, Fuji 90mm F2 R Review, Fujifilm X-T3, 90mm, F2, 2, FE, XF, Dustin Abbott, Review, Autofocus, Hands On, Video Test, Portrait, Video, Bokeh, Real World, Comparison, VSDISCLAIMER This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Fuji FUJINON XF 60mm F/ Macro vs. XF 56mm F/ Introduction The FUJINON XF 60mm f/ was one of the three original lenses released with the Fujifilm X-Pro1. It has always had excellent options, but was plagued by slow autofocus speeds and for many, too small a maximum aperture. Newer cameras X-T1 onwards and Fuji’s regular firmware updates have made improvements to the autofocus pace, but the size of the aperture wasn’t about to change. That’s where the XF 56mm F/ comes in. This was the fast 85mm equivalent Fuji fans have been waiting for to round out their prime kits. At f/ it’s much faster, but it’s also bigger, heavier, and significantly more expensive. Are these tradeoffs worth the creamy bokeh making goodness of an f/ aperture? Read on to find out. If you’d like to purchase one of these lenses, or anything else for that matter, please consider using one of the Amazon affiliate links below. The price is the same for you, but a small percentage of the purchase price goes to me, which helps keep this site going. Thank you. Specifications XF 60mm F/ Macro XF 56mm F/ Announced January 9, 2012 January 6, 2014 Released February, 2012 March, 2014 PriceMSRP $649 $599 introductory $999 Lens Construction 10 elements in 8 groups1 aspherical, 1 abnormal dispersion 11 elements in 8 groups 1 aspherical, 2 extra low dispersion 35mm Equivalent Angle of View Aperture Range f/ - f/22 f/ - f/16 Focus Range Macro - ∞ Infinity Approx. - ∞ Infinity Maximum Magnification External Dimensions diameter x long diameter x long Weight Measured 218g 304g with caps and hood 396g 449g with caps and hood Filter Size 39mm 62mm The FUJINON XF 60mm f/ Macro old-style box design enclosure The FUJINON XF 56mm f/ new school box design What’s in the box The usual array of manual, warranty card, and oversized pouch are included with each lens. It’s unfortunate that after Fujifilm released their first 3 primes, they moved away from the more premium, magnetized and foam padded boxes for the lenses. I remember cracking open my XF 35mm F/ and really feeling like I was opening something special. Inner box with magnetic clasp and classy insert The foam insert oozes quality Now we’re back to the standard fast-food drink tray material used by many camera manufacturers. Ultimately it doesn’t really matter, but the importance of first impressions can’t be denied. There’s a reason why unboxing videos became a thing. Inner fast-food drink tray enclosure Handling The XF 60mm F/ Macro is significantly smaller and lighter compared to the XF 56mm F/ So much so that size and weight alone may be reason enough to opt for the 60mm. If you’re looking to build a Fujifilm system that’s as light as possible and includes a “portrait” lens, the 60mm f/ is it. Hoods With the hoods mounted, the lenses end up being almost exactly the same length, and the weight evens out a little bit too, thanks to the superior, but heavier metal hood on the XF 60mm F/ Macro. I’ve done a lot of work with off-camera flash, and there has been instances of the XF 60mm F/ Macro lens falring with the hood on where the XF 56mm F/ does not. The XF 56mm F/ will require less flagging in a studio environment. The XF 56mm F/ has been more prone to flare during sunny outdoor shooting in my experience, but it’s not bad enough or ugly enough for me to consider adding so much size to the lens with the hood. For commercial work, sure, I’ll use the hood. For walking around though, the hood will always stay home. With the hoods attached, the lenses are almost exactly the same length Lens Caps A second 62mm Nikon lens cap was ordered to replace the more fiddly Fujifilm cap on the XF 56mm F/ Sadly, a genuine Nikon cap isn’t an option for the tiny, and even more fiddly 39mm cap for the XF 60mm F/ Macro the fake Nikon caps don’t compare. The tiny cap is next to impossible to remove with gloves. I’ve thought about buying a clear filter and just leaving it on, but then I’m bringing a piece of glass right out to the front of the lens, which is just begging for flare. I often like real flare from the lens, but I don’t want to add it with a filter. Aperture Rings The aperture ring on Fujifilm lenses has been a point of contention for me. There are major differences from lens to lens on how the aperture rings feel. They tend to err on the side of being a little too loose, and some feel like a brisk wind might knock them to a different aperture. While I’ve noticed the aperture ring not wanting to stay seated at f/ on one 56, thankfully all the copies I’ve handled have had a similarly good amount of clickiness to them. This makes two lenses in a row now the 23mm f/ has also been good that have had consistently good aperture rings so hopefully Fujifilm have left the variances behind them. The 60mm f/ on the other hand, was one of the earlier releases and that shows in how stiff the aperture ring is on it. Of the three original primes the 18mm f/2, 35mm f/ and 60mm f/ the 60mm has the tightest ring by far with the 18mm having the loosest. Both copies of the 60mm f/ I’ve handled had very tight aperture rings. It feels little bit rough when it’s turned, but there is no way you’ll accidentally knock that ring out of place. The relatively diminutive 60mm f/ left, and the hulking 56mm f/ right Focus Rings The focus ring is another place where the FUJINON XF 60mm f/ Macro is a little rough. It reminds me a little of Nikons’s pro zoom focus rings. You can really feel it as it turns. It’s also tight and by the time it gets to minimum focusing distances, it takes a lot of turns to move the plane of focus. For a macro lens, this is a good thing. For anyone buying it as a portrait lens, it could get tedious. In my early review of the 56mm f/ I sort of gushed about its focus ring. Thankfully, the focus ring on my production unit is also nice and smooth. There’s a weird characteristic when you turn the ring back and forth where you might feel it get momentarily looser, but in practice, you’d never turn the ring this way so I’m not bothered by it. On the topic of focusing, the 56mm f/ elements stay put on the outside while as mentioned, the 60mm f/ Macro’s barrel protrudes in a weird sort of phallic way. The barrel keeps the front element nicely recessed though, making it virtually impossible to scratch. I’ve already accidentally smudged my fingers on the 56mm f/ huge front element. Size & Weight Outside of maximum aperture and price, this is the biggest difference between the lenses. The 60mm f/ is really not a whole lot bigger or heavier than the 35mm f/ The FUJINON XF 56mm f/ actually make the 23mm f/ feel sort of small. It’s a big lens and a heavy hunk of glass. That’s what f/ gets you. It’s a little awkward on the X-E cameras, and balances better on an X-T1, especially with the vertical grip. That’s not to say you should look away from the 56 if you’re an X-E1 or X-E2 shooter. When actually shooting, the ergonomics of the combo are actually excellent. The 60mm f/ balances well on any X-Trans body you can buy these days. It would be pretty front-heavy on an X-A1 or X-M1 with the hood, but otherwise should be fine. Filter Threads The 56mm f/ comes with a 62mm filter thread making it an ideal mate for the 23mm f/ as it shares the 62mm filter size. Unfortunately the 60mm f/ Macro has a weirdly small 39mm filter thread. This makes buying filters for it economical, but it would have been great if it shared the same 52mm filter size as the 18mm f/2 and 35mm f/ That way one set of filters could cover a huge focal range from 3 small, lightweight, and inexpensive lenses. Autofocus Performance Here’s where your money starts buying you more. Without doubt, the FUJINON XF 56mm f/ focuses faster on the X-E1, X-E2, and X-T1. It’s perfectly usable, to great, to excellent respectively. The 60mm f/ on the X-T1 focuses at about the same speed as the 56mm f/ on an X-E2. On the X-E1 the 60 starts to really slow down, and it can sometimes miss focus, then drag itself kicking and screaming through it’s entire focal range before proudly displaying a red “can’t focus” box. Honestly, if you’re shooting in lowlight, the 60mm f/ on an X-E1 will frustrate you. Then again, if you’re shooting in lowlight often, you owe it to yourself to have a look at the X-E2, at least. As far as Continuous AF is concerned, I had pretty good success with the pre-production unit of the 56mm f/ with an X-T1. Less so with the X-E2, which is to be expected. Nothing about the 60mm f/ is built for Continuous AF so I haven’t even tried it. I did have a number of cases in my testing where the 60mm f/ appeared to have locked focus, but upon reviewing my images, I see that the initial autofocus on the 60mm f/ missed completely. This is a shame since it cost me a fair bit of testing time, but it would be even worse of these images really mattered. I’ll have to keep tabs on this phenomenon. Sharpness I’ve done a few sharpness comparisons so far using different subjects to show fine detail, edge-to-edge performance, and sharpness at infinity. 60mm f/ Macro vs. 56mm f/ – Angry Birds I shot this subject for the next round of my Film Simulation comparison, and I figured it would also make a nice edition to the 56mm f/ vs. 60mm f/ article. Focus was on the pig’s eye, so in the first image at least, you’ll notice his nose falling out of focus, particularly on the 60mm f/ I kept these shots to equal apertures, starting with f/ One thing that keep surprising me is how big a difference that 4mm makes. The 60mm f/ gets you noticeably closer. 60mm f/ Macro vs. 56mm f/ – click to enlarge At f/ I have to hand it to the 56mm f/ It’s not really a fair fight since it’s already stopped down quite a bit where the 60mm f/ is pretty close to wide open. 60mm f/ Macro vs. 56mm f/ – click to enlarge By f/4, things balance out a little, but the 56mm f/ is still holding more detail and is more constrasty. 60mm f/ Macro vs. 56mm f/ f/ – click to enlarge The trend continues at f/ This appears to be the 56mm f/ sharpest aperture. 60mm f/ Macro vs. 56mm f/ f/8 – click to enlarge Interestingly, by f/8, the 60mm f/ closes the gap almost entirely. I’m seeing a little bit of diffraction setting in on the 56mm f/ at f/8 while the 60mm f/ has gotten sharper. I call it a tie at this aperture. This test confirms that for maximum sharpness at large apertures, the 56mm f/ is your lens. However, if you’re looking to shoot up into f/8 and f/11 for more depth of field or even landscapes, the 60mm f/ is definitely worth looking at. 60mm f/ Macro vs. 56mm f/ – Buildings This test is an excellent gauge to see what aperture for each lens delivers maximum sharpness, and where diffraction starts to set in. It stands to reason that it would be at smaller apertures on the 60mm f/ given it is a macro lens, but it’s remarkable how far the lens can be pushed before diffraction gets too ugly. It can be a little tough to make out because of the difference in focal length—the 60mm f/ brings things closer, and that makes them seem more clear—but at f/8, the 56mm f/ is holding more detail. Check the tops of the buildings, the cone peaks, the grill satellite dishes to their left, and the maintenance ladder a little further left. They’re all just a little bit crisper with the 56mm f/ Here are a couple cropsI guess one could call this “micro contrast.” The larger details in the images from the 60mm f/ Macro appear to have more contrast, but when you inspect closely, the 56mm f/ seems to hold more fine detail. This could explain why at f/8 the Angry Birds appear sharper. By f/11, diffraction starts to make itself seem on the 56mm f/ while the 60mm f/ is reaching maximum sharpness. At f/16, the 56mm f/ starts getting soft. Diffraction makes a bit of an appearance on the 60mm f/ and sets in heavier by f/22. 60mm f/ Macro vs. 56mm f/ – Infinity This next round of images was shot from the 27th floor of a condo. The buildings in the very most background are actually the buildings from the previous set of images. This small group is to give you an idea of how the lenses perform at infinity. I’ve added the FUJINON XF 18-55mm f/ in for good measure and only shot at f/ and f/8. These are very detailed images so the file size it quite large. Click the enlarge. It’s a bit of an unfair fight between the zoom and the primes. The edge to edge sharpness of both primes is astounding. This is getting to be unsurprising for Fujifilm as at least the FUJINON XF 35mm f/ and FUJINON XF 14mm f/ have performed just as well right out the the edges. The 35mm f/ also blew the 18-55mm out of the water in my comparison of those lenses. With the zoom out of the way, the 56mm f/ once again is holding more detail overall at f/ but the 60mm f/ isn’t too far behind. By f/8, the 60mm f/ closes the gap, but the 56mm f/ still appears sharper, again those fine details. The 18-55mm gets a little bit better, but it’s still noticeably softer, especially towards the edges and corners. Bokeh! and rendering This is probably where most of you scrolled to, but before we get to bokeh, I just want to mention the rendering of each lens. The 60mm f/ appears to render images a little bit warmer than the 56mm f/ does. I first noticed it on the green of the pig up in the Sharpness tests. If you’re shooting RAW, this isn’t a big deal, but for the JPEG shooters out there, the warmth of the 60mm f/ is worth noting. Just a small note though. Ok, on to bokeh. 60mm f/ Macro vs. 56mm f/ – Bokeh Test 1 Unfortunately the poor weather hasn’t let up so I’ve had to be crafty with finding suitable test subjects around the house. I hope to add more outdoor scene as the weather permits. The first test is a series of 5 candles. Focus is on the wick of the second candle from camera. The background is a dining room table with a wine bottle on it. First, the 56mm f/ at f/ and f/ For some reason, with the lens set at f/ I find the camera underexposes slightly. In addition, to my eye, the bokeh at f/ is actually slightly smoother. I don’t detect a significant difference in sharpness between the apertures, up, the 56mm f/ at f/ vs. the 60mm f/ Macro at f/ The combination of the slightly smaller aperture and the slightly wider focal length of the 56mm f/ is adding up to smoother bokeh on the 60mm f/ Macro when shooting from these f/ vs. 60mm f/ Macro at f/ f/4, and f/ More of the same. It appears that at the same focus distance, the 60mm f/ Macro actually produces smoother bokeh in this instance. The 56mm f/ also has more heptagonal bokeh ballsSpeaking of bokeh balls, here’s a quick comparison of the two lenses plus the 18-55mm defocused to get bokeh balls of roughly the same size. The 18-55mm is pretty brutal so we’ll take it out of the conversation. Beyond that there is little doubt that the 56mm f/ produces superior bokeh & SunstarsAs mentioned, the 56mm f/ is significantly more prone to flare because of that huge, exposed front element. Let’s have a quick too at how the flare from each lens is rendering by shooting directly into the sun. For these images I shot each at f/ as well as their smallest apertures for maximum sunstar goodness. Click to enlarge. There’s not a huge difference to my eye, with the exception of a couple more light blobs on the 60mm f/ Macro at f/22. The sunstar produced by the 56mm f/ at f/16 is more distinct and pleasing. At the very bottom of the frame, you can make out a nice secondary sunstar from the specular highlight on the car too. Portraits What’s a portrait lens comparison without any portrait shots? Fortunately, my beautiful wife was patient enough with me as we tried to find decent backgrounds for her to stand in front of in this hopelessly grey and dreary season that’s masquerading as spring. So, not unlike the bokeh tests, we found some places around the home. I did a couple options standing in the same place while switching lenses to give an idea of how framing changes, and then one where I moved to reframe the images similarly. In some cases, the lead eye is intentionally not the eye in focus to make the crops better, but one thing I did learn is that at f/ and f/ the 56mm f/ has extremely narrow depth of field at it’s closest focusing distance. Eyeballs can be in perfect focus with eyelashes out of focus. This is one thing that can’t be achieved with the 60mm f/ until you get into macro distances. Portrait 1 – Reframed These images show the 56mm at f/ and f/ first, followed by the 60mm wide open at f/ to give you an idea of the difference the larger aperture makes. The answer is quite a bit. Now again, the reason for showing both f/ and ƒ/ is aside from the extra light gathering the extra ⅓ stop gives you, there seems to be very little benefit to shooting wide open. As we saw earlier, the bokeh is actually slightly smoother. Both have smoothed out that crappy background much better than the 60mm f/ has. We’re seeing that warmer rendering of the 60mm f/ coming through again too. In this case, I prefer how the 56mm f/ has handled my lovely model’s skin are 100% crops. Click to enlarge. Next we’ll compare the lenses head to head at the widest aperture they both share, f/ followed by crops. You’ll start to see a little noise coming in on these images as they were shot indoors and auto ISO was pushing things up to 1,250 in order to keep the shutter speed fast enough. I do find the 56mm f/ is a bit sharper as we’ve seen in the other tests, but it seems less obvious and less critical in a portrait session. The bokeh is ever so slightly smoother on the 56mm f/ as well, but one thing this exercise has shown me is I prefer the compression of the 60mm f/ over the 56mm f/ It’s just a little more flattering. Portrait 2 – Same positionOnce again, the 56mm f/ at f/ and f/ followed by comparisons. Click to enlarge. You get a really good sense of how much closer the 60mm f/ Macro gets you. This comparison also illustrates the slightly cooler rendering of the 56mm f/ 3 – OutdoorWe managed to get one decent set of outdoor shots before the heavy coat had to go back on. This comparison shows a very busy, messy background and how much it melts away with the two lenses. Unfortunately the camera grabbed focus just behind my wife’s eye in the first 60mm f/ Macro image. It’s clear that the larger aperture of the 56mm f/ allows for much greater separation from the background, even from the same shooting distance. And again, the warmth of the 60mm f/ Macro is coming to the FUJINON XF 18-55mm f/ a few people have asked how the 56mm f/ compares to the 18-55mm at maximum aperture. I’ve been intending to capture a better example, but the images below illustrate how much more background separation can be achieved at f/ compared to f/4. Note that this background is only about a half a meter away. Close Focus The results of this section should be readily apparent, but it’s still almost comical how bad the 60mm f/ beats the 56mm f/ Any lens with the name “Macro” in its name should perform fairly well in close focusing, and yes, the FUJINON XF 60mm f/ Macro takes the 56mm f/ to school in this category. If you want to focus close, the choice is pretty clear. It’s pretty close... I guess. Aberrations Overall, this stuff is less important to me since a good amount can either be fixed in camera, or in post. I thought it might still be of interest though and there’s at least one comparison where things can’t be repaired in post. We’ll start with that one. Coma This is the effect wide apertures often have on smaller points of light. They can smear. I added the 18-55mm to this test as the power of primes is really evident here. I’ve shown two images per lens, wide open and stopped down to f/8 where the points of light should sharpen right up and maybe even create nice little stars. These were shot from the 27th floor of a condo, focus was towards the bottom of the frame, but we’re well into infinity territory here except maybe the 56mm f/ Click to enlarge. Wide open it’s sort of a toss up as far as the lights are concerned. It’s interesting that the 56mm f/ has rendered Fluorescent lights a cooler blue colour whereas the 60mm f/ and 18-55mm have rendered them green as we’d expect. I’m not sure how to explain that. As far as sharpness is concerned, the 56mm f/ gets the nod wide open for me, followed closely by the 60mm f/ which is then closely followed by the 18-55mm. The humble kit lens holds its own, but can’t keep pace with the primes. Again we notice the slightly cooler rendering of the 56mm f/ compared to the warmer 60mm f/ The 18-55mm is cooler still. And finally, the pincushion distortion of the 18-55mm is readily apparently in these images. The primes show very little distortion; that horizon is kept very straight. By f/8, the prime advantage becomes clear. Sharpness follows the same order here with the 56mm f/ being the sharpest and most contrasty. The more noticeable advantage with the primes is the lights are rendered with beautiful starbursts while the zoom lens still shows balls of light. My preferences is the more distinct starbursts of the 56mm f/ but the 60mm f/ isn’t bad. The 18-55mm is quite poor. Here are closer crops so you can get a better idea of how much nicer the primes render the lights at f/8. Chromatic AberrationThis is much less important in my opinion, but let’s have a look at how the lenses handle CA anyhow. Click to enlarge the gallery for a much better look. I’ve followed a similar order here as with the sharpness tests. The 56mm at f/ and f/ followed by the 56mm f/ and 60mm f/ Macro at f/ and f/ respectively, then each lens at f/ and f/ first thing I notice is just how different the lenses are rendering the blue, grey clouds and sky. The 56mm f/ is far more saturated and cool. I can’t quite get over the difference to be honest. Keep in mind that these images were shot within minutes of each other—seconds between the last 56mm image and the first 60mm—using the exact same camera with the exact same far as chromatic aberration is concerned, things are pretty much what I expected aside from hoping the 56mm f/ would perform a little better. At f/ and the fringing is fairly pronounced, and it cleans up nicely by f/ and up. The 60mm f/ Macro performs much better wide open, but slightly worse than the 56mm f/ at ƒ/ Even at f/4, there’s still a small amount of CA on the 60mm f/ Macro. The 56mm f/ wins this test. Conclusion While these lenses are fairly close in focal length, they are clearly built for different purposes. I’ve been waiting for a portrait lens for almost a year now, ever since I sold my Nikon 85mm f/ AF-D. The FUJINON XF 56mm f/ fills that void admirably aside from the true focal length difference, and is actually usable out to the edges of the frame unlike the Nikon. Finally I can get back to portrait work. The FUJINON XF 60mm f/ Macro seems built for carefully considered images and precise focusing. It was always sort of a stop gap for Fujifilm shooters wanting a flattering portrait lens, and it still is the prime to beat for most flattering focal length in my view. It’s a very good lens and does what it does well, but it’s not a dedicated portrait lens, nor was it ever intended to be. I always figured I’d borrow a 60mm f/ for this comparison, but with the support of my awesome readers, I was able to afford to buy one, and I’m happy to have it. Not only so I can continue testing and adding to articles like these, but macro work is something I haven’t had a chance to do much of and the 60mm f/ is a great starting point. I can also see myself packing it instead of the 56mm f/ for landscape shooting since it’s so much lighter and very sharp edge to edge. 39mm filters aren’t exactly expensive either. So which should you get? Well, if you want to shoot a lot of portraits, need fast focusing, or you’re a shallow depth of field nut, the answer is obvious, you want the 56mm f/ If you want a more versatile, lighter, smaller lens that is a little slower in every way, but costs just over half as much, the FUJINON XF 60mm f/ Macro is an excellent option. It’s truly a really tough call. The 56mm f/ is a better lens in almost every way, but at $400 more, you could just about add a second lens for that. I’d be tempted to take the 60mm f/ Macro and the 18mm f/2 or 35mm f/ over the 56mm f/ for not much more money. It also depends which camera you have. I would want the focusing speed of at least an X-E2 in order to get on with the 60mm f/ Macro. Otherwise it would definitely get frustrating unless precision macro work is your reason for buying it of course. The FUJINON XF 56mm f/ will be the lens I pack for the limited portrait work I do for now. The added light gathering, sharpness, and focus performance is enough for me to reach for it over the 60mm f/ Macro when I’m on the clock. When I’m traveling light or want to get close, the 60mm f/ Macro will be with me. So I guess the answer to my own questions is really “It depends.” Go to fujifilm 50mm f1 OR 56mm + 90mm f2 I'm currently getting into wedding photography and I own the 90 f2. Wonderful lens with great performance however there are many times where it's just too long to use and I find myself backing up against walls. I'm considering getting the 56 to have a little less reach and more like gathering. HOWEVER I'm also looking at selling the 90 f2 and just going in on the 50 f1 and having the great performance of the 90 and even better light gathering than the 56. Would love to know people's thoughts on using the 56 and 90 as a pair for is the 50 f1 is worth the jump over to it. I'm also a prime shooter who's using the 18 f and 35 f

fuji 56mm f1 2 or 90mm f2