A great review, raw, spontaneous and funky and......gets straight to the point, without babbling for eight minutes without touching the item being reviewed. Thanks. 😊
@@ericrjennings reviews with the reviwer as the main point of attention are a complete waste of time. I just saw this one and have not managed to wiev your other videos. Do you mostly shoot with Fuji gear?
Those both look great, yo could also through the Sigma 56 1.4 in there for good measure. I know it doesn't have a aperture ring, but its still a nice lens
I was about to pull the trigger on an mint used 50 f2 because the 56mm even used was too expensive for me. But, I ended up stumbling on someone dumping all his stuff to get into the new XH-2 and the new 56. I got the V1.0 56 lens for the price of a new 50 and he had just purchased it back in spring. Even the V2.0 56mm is fantastic. I have an XT-3 and it just takes some sweet images with the 56 on in it. The other big difference between the 50 and the 56 is how the longer focal length brings the background forward. That just looks so nice. Thanks for the comparison and have a great weekend.!
The GAS makes me want to go for the fancy new 56 but realistically for carrying it around with me hiking and street photos the 50 is probably a better choice. But the dreamy portraits and super low light abilities do seem really nice for the 56
If you’re going to use it with older bodies, it’s just not worth it. Yes it’s a bit more confident, maybe a touch faster than older version, but with older bodies it’s just not optimised for them. Different story with h2’s. I use it with xs10, and it hunts… so skip it.
Good stuff. In a recent bout of full-frame FOMO I went to DPReview and downloaded a ton of RAWs from different cameras and lenses. My favorite out of the whole pile was a shot from the 50/2 on, I think, an X-T2. Just goes to show ya… I think I paid $285 or $300 for a minty 50. Don’t get me wrong, I want the 56 and if I were a pro I’d have it for sure. But for the price/size/features/quality, the 50/2 is a freaking steal.
From somebody who shot with both lenses, the old version of the 56 1.2 versus the 50 F2. I like both lenses, but the 56 1.2 is much slower for auto focusing, but is unparalleled for sharpness and bokeh. If you’re going to photograph with the old 56 1.2, make sure you put it on limit focus so it won’t hunt as much.
@@caesarisestube I just put the lens on my XT4 and tried focusing manually, and it was very easy! I put the red for highlighting the image, and It works very well. As far as the long throw, if you mean, is it smooth, yes it’s very smooth.
For people who can't afford these beautiful lenses, I recommend buying a vintage lens and using in manual mode for portraits. I use a SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.7 (with adaptor for my XT-1) for portraits. It has impressive depth of field and lovely results These lenses were created for film cameras in low light situations and couldn't really be used wide open in bright light. But, with modern digital camera speeds, these vintage lens can be used wide open with no problems.
the Sigma 56 lens is fantastic. the lack of an aperture ring isn't even a professional downside (if we're being honest aperture rings are a novelty). the only professional shortcoming in that lens is the increased chromatic aberration compared to Fuji's offerings
Both are great lenses although I went a different route and got the Viltrox 56mm f/1.4 second hand. The Viltrox is an exceptional lens especially as I got it second hand for £240 (around $275). Also the Viltrox has an aperture ring which is always a bonus. As for the Fuji's you can't go wrong with either lens.
Hello. I actually looking for a portrait lens and choosing between viltrox 56 and fujis 50 f2. Would appreciate if you can tell me how is viltrox handles the front light? Is it that bad or acceptable? And how about the sharpness? Did anything changing after a firmware update?
@@12scarz9 I love my Viltrox 56mm. Very sharp even wide open and the extra stop off light is already nice. It's not a big lens but it's definitely bigger than the Fuji 50 f2 and the 50 f2 also feels better build. However, for the money and especially the price I paid, the Viltrox is definitely the right choice for me.
you wouldn't shoot either wide open as you suggest for a portrait. Stopping down is advisable. You can see parts of your head (ears, hair) are out of focus.
Yeah, that's kind of the point. A lot of portrait photographers are after the extremely shallow depth of field look and that's primarily why they are buying wide aperture lenses. The idea is to draw attention mainly to the eyes of the subject. Obviously some people, like studio headshot photographers, are often aiming for greater depth of field, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with shooting wide open.
This ☝🏼 No truer words have been spoken! The only reason you want that f/1.2 is in the situation where you have very poor lighting conditions. Even with this f/1.4 and f1.2 lens I still found myself comfortable on f2. Fuji cameras are notoriously known for being bad focusing camera. If you have a body like sony or canon then go for the the shallowest lens you can buy! But please never on fuji 😂 I’ve been a fuji user since I started my photography.
The focal length doesn't actually make any difference in depth of field, if/when you move to reframe the subject the same. That is to say, in this example, if you were to shoot both 50mm and 56mm at f/2, when you step back with the 56mm to get the same subject framing, or if you step forward with the 50mm, you're changing the focus distance exactly the amount to get the same depth of field, aka same amount of background blur. Given a subject with exactly the same framing, the only variable on depth of field is the aperture. Changing the focal distance to compensate the framing for the difference in focal length exactly cancels out the depth of field difference the 2 lenses had when focused at the same distance. (Of course different focal lengths change the amount of environment included/excluded, aka the POV, for the same framing, but that's a different issue.)
50 adn 56 are close enough that there is still a notable DoF difference. a simple way to think of it is to take the ratio between the focal length and aperture. 50/2=25 and 56/1.2=46.7. so at a given similar distance the 56 has nearly double the bokeh. if you adjust the distance to match the focal length you're only adjusting about ten percent and even if you hedge the numbers very much in the 50/2's favor you still end up with a ratio of about 30. the 56 still has a noticeably shallower DoF. now if you were to compare the 50/1 and the 56/1.2 then everything you're saying is right on the money and the DoF difference becomes negligible and very difficult to tell the difference.
@@AJ-em2rb I think I failed to make my point clearly. To put it another way, if you get a 90mm/2 to a get shallower DOF than a 50mm/2, after you back up with the 90mm to get the same framing, thus increasing the focal distance, you'll have the same DOF as you had with the 50mm. To get a shallower DOF for a given framing, you must get a faster (lower aperture number) lens. Example: 50mm/2 focus at 2m, DOF is 0.12m; 100mm/2 focus at 4m, DOF is 0.12m. (2x focal length means 2x focus distance for same framing.)
What about portraits with that m10 and cron! Or adapt the cron to the Fuji. 🎉 maybe no need to buy native glass if adapting and enjoying manual focus. ❤
I’m in the market for the new 56 do you think it’s really bad to pair with the Xe4? That’s my main camera and I was going to buy the grip to go with it do you think this would be better than buying a different bigger body?
@@ericrjennings exactly what I was thinking, I was caught between the grip or just getting an XT5 but I’d really like the grip and the new 56 and it would save me money
@@bourbon_sketcher It doesn’t really matter. Those original lenses people have owned for years and they’ve been through severe weather and they’re still working fine.
@@bourbon_sketcher the 56f1.2 was one of their original lenses long ago. So it wouldn’t be WR. The 35f1.4, 18f2 and 56f1.2. Those lenses have been through hell and back over the years. Especially the 35 and 56. They built Fuji on those lenses.
I really think, if the XT5 had a flip screen, I’d make that my camera for 2023 …. Add a 16/1.4, keep the 23/2,27/2,8,&50/2…. And maybe a longer lens for nature stuff.
@@bourbon_sketcher when I shot fuji I had the 16f1.4. I loved the IQ but I didn’t keep it long. Too wide. Too heavy. The best every day Fuji lens I ever used was the 23f2. It was my only lens for 2 years and it stayed with me until I sold all my Fuji stuff. And don’t listen to RU-vidrs saying it’s soft at 3 inches away. Those guys don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. The 23f2 is one of fuji’s best lenses. That guy Evan Ranft made a video saying he had to return it because he was getting subpar images and he didn’t buy Fuji for that. I told him he was crazy. What he was saying made no sense. That he would regret it. He banned me. Then later he rebought the lens. 😅 Same with Omar Rodriguez. Got on the same bandwagon. I told him the same. He banned me. Then he made a video a few months later saying how he had to rebuy it because there was nothing like it.
