Fuji XF 50mm f/1.0 lens review with samples 

Reviews I've seen have mentioned that.. Bigheadtaco, camerastore tv, Omar Gonzalez, chris photography etc

In a quite environment it is noticeable (is to expect when DC motor is in metal tube enclosure) but when used on street or reception/wedding you have a lot of other noise. What is interesting that very few people mentioned that you might need a 77 (at least two stop) ND filter when using outside to avoid electronic shutter and blooming of white source highlights.For aps-c lens and comparing to other options it is actually well priced if not cheap lens.The only one is the old Canon f1.0 L which cost few grand and nowhere near in the sharpness and contrast not to mention when something goes defect good luck with finding spare parts.

Yeah, what a fucking mistake !!

Cameralabs did.

Christopher F has noticed! Listen his review. ;-)

10:02 then he uses "Little Monster" Ah, love. :)

The Fuji will still be faster when equivalency is taken into the equation.

@@opalyankaBG yes. I was wrong. Still, Sigma makes a 85mm f1.4 for FF Canon that is a bit cheaper than this lens. But, of course, this doesn't really matter because they are different systems. If the price difference was higher, then yes, it wouldn't be that good of a deal to get the Fuji one.

Fuji don't have any FF cameras so it's a moot point ;)

You can definitely get a full frame camera and a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 for about the same price as an X-T4 and the 50mm f/1. The FF system would have better low light performance and the lens would be WAY sharper.

@@TechnoBabble the low light performance will be very similar, as the f1 will allow for use of lower ISO, and I personally MUCH prefer the rendering of this lens over the sigma you talk about. Sharpness is way down on the list for a portrait lens, as long as it’s sharp enough, which this lens definitely is.

If you don't need the 1.0 aperture, that's perfectly acceptable.

Boooooooooh Kaaaaaahhhhhh

The 50 f2 won't be as sharp or contrasty wide open so you have to stop it down. It's a rabbit hole.

@@westsenkovec Not true, the 50MM F2 is equally sharp and constrasty to the 50MM F1 at F2 wide open, stopping down isn't necessary to get better results, check his review on that lens. At F2 even the corners are a bit better than the 50MM F1 at F2

You’re forgetting F1 can be the difference between getting the shot and not getting it. Maybe you f2 or f1.8 will have a shutter speed of like 1/20 in some dim ass candle light. Not enough for reliable hand held shots to be sharp. Maybe you’ve already stretched your ISO as much as possible. Maybe the only thing that will bring your shutter speed to useable range is having a faster aperture. Or maybe you want to completely throw the background out of focus because you’re taking portraits at a small location and your f2 can’t produce the amount of bokeh you need. I see these as the scenarios where a f1.2 or a f1 will be necessary. It’s kind of a “break the glass if in an emergency situation” kind of measure. You will jot need it 95% of the time but if you do, it will be very handy. A local photographer does most of her portraits with an f1.2 50mm and I can see how she uses it to get her personal style going. Her photos wouldn’t be as nice if she was using a 1.8 lens wide open because even that won’t produce the bokeh quantity that she likes to use (and looks good because she uses it right).

I don’t have the 56, so I’ll go for the 50 f1. The fact that it’s a 76mm full frame equivalent makes it more useful for shots inside.

@@kilometer750 Not by much. Why not try both in a store and compare? And if you do that, I suggest you also try the 50mm f/2. That one's on my To-Buy list given it's size, weight and close focus ability. Neither the 56/1.2, nor the 50/1 provide satisfactory close focusing distance to me, unfortunately.

You're wrong. The 56 even with the slightly longer focal length doesn't have a shallower depth of field, the 50 does.

@@ChimaChindaDev I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but you provided no evidence. If you care to do DoF calculations, you'll find that on APS-C sensor at 3m focusing distance, the 56@1.2 has DoF of 12.9cm, while the 50@1 has DoF of 13.5cm. And since 12.9 is less than 13.5, the 56/1.2 has shallower DoF. It's a negligible difference, but in favor of 56/1.2 nonetheless.

@They Caged Non Using the same calculator, which you can try yourself if you wish (dofsimulator), the 75/1.4 on full frame would yield 12.7cm of DoF. However, DoF calculations highly depend on how you define 'acceptable shaprness' (or circle of confusion), which I'm not sure is an exact science. However, in APS-C vs FF debate, I'd say it's mainly about availability of DoF equivalent lenses. For Fuji, you have 56/1.2, which is FoV+DoF equivalent of 85/1.8 (roughly). But on FF, you've got 85/1.2, the equivalent of which doesn't exist on APS-C. It would have to be 56mm f/0.79 and nobody makes that. You can get budget Samyang/Rokinon MF 85/1.4 for FF for peanuts, and there is no equivalent for it in APS-C lenses either. That would have to be 56/0.92. Worse still, some popular FF lenses such as 70-200mm f/2.8 are crippled by keeping the aperture at f/2.8, making them the equivalent of 70-200mm f/4.3 on FF in terms of DoF, yet charging ridiculous price. Nobody makes 46-131mm f/1.83 for APS-C, which would be true equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 on FF.

I might do a short video...I'm a bit pressed for time though. Suffice to say it's awesome and a big step up from my Fuji X-T20 (I much prefer the colours on the X-T3)

My only criticism is on the "benefits to low light performance over a FF 1.4 lens" (paraphrasing of course) Assuming the same number of pixels and the comparable gain technology, a 1.4 lens on FF will deliver the same low light performance at the same ISO as a 1.0 lens on APS-C. The stop scale measures light per square area- not the amount of light per pixel (which of course changes as you increase resolution of a given format or decrease imaging area while maintaining the same resolution)

@@vikmanphotography7984 that is correct.

@@vikmanphotography7984 That's correct, but the difference in high ISO quality is a camera issue, not a lens issue, and I'm here to test the lens, rather than comment on difference s between different sensor formats

@@christopherfrost My comment was just providing background for why 'faster shutter speeds' aren't really a benefit for an equivalent lens on APS-C vs full frame. Of course assuming comparable tech, you'd be able to crank the ISO one stop faster on a FF camera to achieve the same dynamic range, therefore achieving the same shutter speed on each camera. Set both cameras as the same settings and... A pixel twice the area has twice the light and twice the base signal, therefore needing less gain and introducing less noise/loss of dynamic range. Having a lens a stop faster does overcome this limitation but only achieves parity.

@@vikmanphotography7984 Like I said: that is a camera issue, and this is a lens review

This is sound how fullframe bois cry when they dont have F1 modern AF lenses.

@@gator2279 Nah- it's how someone with a mechanical background gets nervous when they hear noises that indicate a propensity for wear. The 56 1.2 is quieter and the 50 2.0 is silent !

@@zaneclone there are different type of motors used dc coreless liner and stepping all work fine just difference in noise fujinon engineers know what they making they are not breaking any time soon. Its a fujinon lens not a viltrox, night and day difference in engineering and manufacturing quality.

@@gator2279 I'm well aware of the different types of motors... and noisy ones never inspire confidence... I guess as it would unlikely be an "everyday" lens- prob' not a huge issue... except for video of course !

@@zaneclone its mind block tbh if it block confidence i had all kind of lenses wide angle tokina some canons noisy lenses also have that xf 56 1.2 and xf 35 1.4 they haven't blocked my mind in photography in any way really newer focused on any noise they made they are just working tools. Would really need to hear 50 f1 in real life to judge what level of noise it makes instead microphone next to it what pick ups every single noise your ears would not. Quiet ones are nice but not necessary at least for me ur mileage may vary.

@M Tech yeah I know I don't mess around with the small sensors myself

DOF envelope = f/1.5 Light envelope = f/1.0

@@fellowcitizen Not when your camera produces double the noise at every ISO. An f/1 lens on APS-C gathers about the same light as an f/1.5 lens on full frame, assuming perfect light transmission.

i'd say i would expect much lower price for what this lens is))) 1500 and that's even without stab!

@@pyotrpig Its F1 why would it be cheap ?

@@gator2279 Because it's objectively worse in every way than the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN on full frame, while costing several hundred dollars more.

@@TechnoBabble how is worse it lets more light in than 1.4 :)? and definitely not worse than sigma.

Same for me. The video convinced me to buy it over the 56mm lens.

His testings would be even better if he would stick with a corner, instead of changing them all around.

@@OxKing for me i don’t care about sharpness in the far corners! My subjects are always placed near the centre mass or thereabouts.

My impression is that the 56mm lens is a little sharper, yes (but it's an easier lens to design)

@M Tech No, not normally, unless you're talking about extreme close focus (which I test later in the video)

@They Caged Non oh I think that 95 % of the photography community cares. Otherwise Fuji would have more than 5% market share.

@They Caged Non you are way too aggressive. Have a nice day.

@They Caged Non The argumentation of dr. sommer makes perfect sense to me but I think you are too much of a fuji fanatic to understand that.

The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN is less expensive and technically gathers more light on a full frame sensor... Oh, and it's actually sharp at f/1.4.

You can compare it yourself with his review of f2.0. f2 version has slightly more color fringing and flaring effect, but that's all, same sharpness, maybe even sharper, bokeh is nice too, close up quality is even better. It is also worth considering the quiet autofocus and light weight.

​@@KingFiercer_zip Thanks, I don't care about the color fringing. From what I know so far, the f2 version looks almost perfect.

the F2 is very good, even at F2 :) If you don't need something below F2 I would go for that lens.

Ugh, more Northrup regurgitation

@@onegrapefruitlover Huh, did Tony invent physics? It's literally how the cameras work, there's no advantage to this lens over an 85mm f/1.4 (The Sigma DG DN version of which is actually less expensive than this Fuji lens).

so different but good lens

No sigma on fuji

The Mitakon 50mm f/0.95? Check out my review of it, I think I included a test on APS-C in that video. This Fuji lens will be a LOT sharper, though.

@@christopherfrost Hey thanks for getting back to me. Actually I was thinking the 35mm f/0.95 Speed Master Mark II for X-Mount. They're pretty different focal lengths but I was just wondering what you thought about overall image quality between the two.

@@downtofun The Fuji has much sharper picture quality in its corners. Take a look at my review of that lens for more info :-)

One thing I like about the F1 is that has the 75mm FOV - which is good for indoors and with more opportunity for contextual, storytelling elements than a portrait lens. A small difference from the typical 85mm FOVs, but a nice distinction. I think that a fair number of photographers who began during the digital sensor era will enjoy the 75mm FOV since so many 50mm lenses were adapted to APS-C. Walter Mandler, the famous Leitz lens designer, favoured the 75mm Summilux which is akin to this lens.

I don’t think is all that. The Purple fringing, softness until F4, and the ridiculous price keeps me away from it. Sigma could have deliver a much better lens than this. I’ll stay with me 56F1.2

The 56 is great but the 50/1.0 is in a different league I think.

Well it would be a shame if it wasn't, but for people on a tighter budget who want a smaller lens that still has 1.2, a used 56 is the best choice imho. the next one for fujifilm should be a classic 50/1.4 WR that's small and sharp with good AF/MF abilities and a proper aperture ring. this would sell like crazy. anyway, if one is looking to buy a new lens, even i would get the 1.0 over the 1.2, i've got to admit.

yikes what’s wrong with you! You must be full of hate! I sent you bacon bcs bacon makes most people happy! I wish you the best kid!

WTF 500 usd ???

well around 500 euro, so a bit more than 600 usd i think.

I would say XT3+56 f1.2, which is a full-frame equivalent of 85 f1.8. This combination saves a LOT of money and gives you the same image quality with unnoticeable less bokeh

I'd go for the A7 and the sigma. FF and IBIS wins it for me.

@@NotnaRed XT4 has better IBIS then Sony. Another option to consider XT4 +50 f1

Sony all the way

@@eliaspap8708 in the end they are probably eqal and I'd go for whatever system I'm already invested in. A 50mm f1 is probably not the first lens you're gonna buy I guess.

A good or bad shock?

Bad

@@Robin_Polarstern I Agree, I dropped my purchase as soon as I saw this review and saved my money.

f1 is f1 regardless of sensor size they both let in exactly the same amount of light, my light meter has never asked me what sensor size i'm metering for. DOF is the only difference.

@@daveboyle5751 ISO is the reason your light meter doesn't ask. The entire point of ISO is to normalize exposure on digital cameras, the smaller the sensor the less signal there is compared to the noise. Therefor in low light you get more noise on smaller sensors, and this Fuji f/1 gives you WORSE low light performance than an 85mm f/1.4 on a full frame camera.

the 50mm f1.0 is said to be marginally sharper than the 56 f1.2 but it has less contrast.

@@ChimaChindaDev In Christopher’s test chart what I saw was, 56mm is sharper across the frame. To get same sharpness on 1.0 we need to stop down to f2.0. Razor thin depth of view sounds tempting but for that price I can buy second hand canon fullframe and 50mm 1.2 and the result would be better. 50mm f1.0 is kind of 75mm f1.4 in fullframe. So price performance of this lens is not suitable for amateurs. If you earn money from photographing of course it gives you more light and tolerates low light conditions.

Cracking up at the mental image of having to crank-start your lens' AF motor followed by a bunch of black smoke billowing out

Because of the Higher contrast of the Models = easier to Focus for the camera :)

For speed of focus and weather sealing, yes. For image quality, no.

Ignoring the price, definitely the 50/1.0. I love that brighter aperture and slightly wider angle

It is ancient, koine (not classical) Greek. It's the beginning of the Gospel of John

@@christopherfrost Ah that's funny, that's where I'm reading from right now actually.

In terms of the intensity of light hitting the sensor, f/1.0. In terms of depth of field, f/1.4-1.5

@@christopherfrost Yeah about what i thought, but also at the same time, ghe amount of light coming through might be the same, but since the sensor itself is smaller that means a lesser percentage of light gets absorbed than say FF.

@They Caged Non exactly, which is why FF cameras inertly absorb more light.

@They Caged Non Ehm....

You can have the Fuji 50mm f2 then

Buy the f2 then.

@M Tech no it’s not🙄🙄

@M Tech that’s nice for you, but DSLRs are old and antiquated, F2 is fast enough, and there are 1.4 alternatives, DSLRs are like a cars from the 60s and mirrorless is like a Tesla. All the manufacturers are switching to mirrorless as they are better.

Do you mean pictures taken in darker situations? There were a lot of nighttime and indoors sample pictures in this review :-)

@@christopherfrost yeah! I'm not too experienced, so it would have been nice to see a "here it is at 1.0 vs. here it is at 1.4 or 1.8" to get a feel for how much brighter it is than a regular lens.

@@Tritlo I see. Maybe I can do a bokeh comparison test in the future. But the rule is that f/1.0 is twice as bright as f/1.4, which is twice as bright as f/2

@@christopherfrost thanks! I guess the main thing is that I don't know how the dark shots in the video would have looked otherwise!

​@@christopherfrost It's interesting that the lens parameters are exotic enough to warrant new lens tests/illustrations. To me, it's a sign of a good philosophy when they're experimenting like this.

Gah, I don't know. I like both the 16-55 and 18-55 for their sharpness - the 18-55 would be a good choice for landscape I think

My photography award?

@They Caged Non Oh yeah I saw that. It's an amazing picture. But not mine I'm afraid! It's by a guy who lives in Dorset who's a far better photographer than me

Horses for courses :-)

There is sigma 85mm 1.4 which I believe is actually cheaper. You forgot to apply the crop factor to the aperture so the equivalent is 75mm/1.5.

Not if he can muster more donations from subscribers

@They Caged Non Well done. Could have even even better on a bigger sensor at no more cost and no more bulk, apsc has had its time.

@They Caged Non You could afford a GFX! The comment sections on youtube sites are for a quick thought on whats being discussed, this lens doesnt make sense as you could buy a 85mm 1.4 full frame for better effect. If someone comments and hurts your feelings over equipment insecurity then perhaps you would be better off not reading them, instead of having a strop like a big baby

@They Caged Non I just feel its a con on potential new buyers the money would be better spent elsewhere, I sold a XT3, XH1 and XPro2 and havent missed them for a moment Fuji started with the apsc sensor as that was the only practical choice at the time, now FF is easily produced they cant change without their fanbase going berserk they are stuck with it. Ive shot 102mp GFX on a tripod no IS with a cable release the results are almost beyond belief, no that that is practical yet but thats where we should aspire, not on older sized sensors. in my opinion

@They Caged Non I found my 26mp apsc fuji files very disappointing they didnt take any kind of scrutiny on screen theres a marked improvement with sony files