Fujifilm XF 50mm f1 REVIEW vs f2 vs 56mm f1.2 

Thanks, I put a lot of work into it!

Thanks, it's not just the shooting, but the captioning takes ages too!

It is good, but the other two are nice too, so there's something at all price points!

Thanks, glad you found it useful!

Thanks for sticking around so long!

Cheers! Yes, there's a real difference between their styles...

You're welcome!

Thankyou Ruaan, I try to make the kind of reviews I would like to watch and I'm just pleased there's a few others who are interested too!

Cheers! I was a bit grumpy looking but they served their purpose!

You're very welcome!

Thankyou Tony!

56mm gets very close for half the size, which makes a huge diff in real world.

I love the close focusing of the f2!

Double that recommendation for the casual videographer. ;)

You're very welcome!

Glad to be of service!

Thanks Ken!

You're very welcome!

Thanks!

You're very welcome!

You're welcome, it's a fantastic lens!

Thanks, glad you found it useful!

Cheers!

thanks!

It is a great choice - I've reviewed it at cameralabs.com

You're very welcome! It's quite a long lens for vlogging though - presumably you'll have it on a tripod a bit away?

@@cameralabs Yes, for low light indoor tripod shots. On XH2 8K, well that's my plan. Some crazy potrait focused sort of footage. LOL I hope I am doing this right. The rig would cost a lot but I am all game for it

@@donglemadness it'll certainly produce a dramatic effect!

Thanks! I wish more people would watch them

How do you feel about their respective rendering, or is it similar for your subjects? I must say, I also noticed how the ISO remained refreshingly low even as it approached dusk!

@@cameralabs it is about the same for me, though I'll be comparing the lenses wide open in brighter situations to compare their color fringing again. Im using Capture One and the corrections seem to be more subtle than I would like. Seems easier to correct this in Lightroom.

I think that would be interesting, but who would it be important for? People are unlikely to switch systems if a lens for a different system is outperforming theirs. And finding out you have the worst one won't make you feel good either!

@@cameralabs I for one am looking for an entirely new system and I find it very hard to find the right compromise between portability and image quality. My guess is that a Nikon Z6 with 85mm f1.8 might be just as good as the Fuji f1.0 or even better, quieter, sharper wide open. The Nikon combo is actually cheaper and lighter. I wonder if a lens like the f1.0 doesn't stretch APS-C too far. Thanks a lot anyway, I really do appreciate your work and have been following you for many years.

Yes, the buildings were close to infinity which is why I choose that location. Most people don't test / compare the long distance performance of lenses because it's hard to do. I did portrait and closer tests too in the video.

50mm on APSC is equivalent to 75, so it's perfect for portraits of two people, and fine for singles too, albeit a bit closer.

Thankyou!

If you want a lens twice the size, for 10% better bokeh.

I did the trade and I'm happy with the 50 f1.@@phoenixkiula9554

You're welcome!

Nice choices!

Softer and warmer than the 50mm f/1.0?? You need to watch more reviews lol, that's where it stands out in.

I wouldn't worry too much about sensor size, crops and equivalences. They're of course useful to understand and make comparisons, but ultimately it's about the end result, and being able to identify a problem and know which way you'll need to go to improve or resolve it. Those f1.8 DSLR lenses are very affordable and while soft in the corners unless closed-down, they deliver sharp subjects in the centre and enough blurring for most of us - fantastic entries into primes and shallow DOF effects. Annoyingly most mirrorless systems lack a truly affordable prime like this (for example the Fujifilm XF 50mm f2 isn't exactly cheap).

It does

Thanks!

Sorry it's been returned, but in the EXIF data it's reported as 76A15721. Why do you ask?

​@@cameralabs thank you very much! interestingly enough, the Christopher Frost's copy of lens might be better, but I really don't know, at least according to his review of 50mm f/2 it seems more sharp (serial starts with 75, which not that different I guess)

@@quite1enough in isolation it may look great, but when compared against something sharper, you'll see the difference.

I actually have the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN right now, but sadly there was no overlap when I had the Fujifilm on test. I'd also be interested in seeing them compared, but it goes beyond sensor size. The thing to remember is some people simply prefer shooting with one type of camera in terms of the design, controls, menus, processing, versus another. Some are simply loyal to a brand, and won't swap even if an alternative is proven to be cheaper and or technically superior. For example, I simply like the design of the Fujifilm cameras and for what I do, I like the output from them more than most rivals, regardless of sensor size. It's about the experience and how it makes you feel as much as the end result, and again if someone prefers the style and processing of Fujifilm's cameras, then they will be looking for the right XF lens for them and rightly couldn't care less about other systems.

@@cameralabs Good points well made as always. I very much look forward to see what you make of the Sigma 85mm, I don't think I need it, but doesn't stop me wanting it, we'll see! What I am also curious about is whether they manage to do the same weight saving magic when they create the DN version of the 50mm F1.4. You are absolutely spot on when you talk about the look of the images, your excellent Straight Out of Camera book really drove that home to me and yes, Fuji have a particularly warm spot for me with the film simulations and the ability to tweak settings to get the look you want without Photoshop. Anyway I could talk about Camera's all day, but must get back to work. Keep up the excellent work.

I'll look again! The camera did move a little during the video clips.

Yeah, i'd like to include that too, but there's a limit to how many tests I can do, especially when these videos earn so little. I may do a patreon option in the future with more tests.

@@cameralabs Touche!

I've not tested the APD version, sorry!

I had regular 56mm and have APD version. APD is almost 20% sharper at f1.2.

Thankyou, that means a lot to me!

I'd personally find it a bit big for an XT30, but if you hold the lens more than the camera, it may be ok. Beware if you use a big tripod plate as it may not fit.

I'll compare them in a future review. I suspect the 56 might be sharper, but that the 50 will deliver different rendering. But that's just speculation, I'll have to test to see,

It's a lovely lens!

I just bought the x-h2s and as a first lens the 90mm f/2.0 (both will be delivered tomorrow). It was hard to choose between that lens and the 50m f/1.0, honestly i now think the 50 might have been more for me since it's more intimate, better in low light, and has a signature look.. do you own both?

Since they have just done a WR version of the 10-24, I wouldn't be surprised if the 56 gets a WR Mark II version next year.

Yes, I'd have found it more useful, but as you know, they reckoned it would have been too big and heavy.

Thoinks!

@M Tech they wouldn't. There's no competition in the APSC market. Sony is your best choice and their a6600 isn't as good as the xt4, while their lens selection is poor. Forget the useless Canon M too.

I think Fuji has some fun features that add to the value proposition, such as film simulations and the retro ergonomics. I’m not familiar enough with their pricing structure to comment much on the value proposition (I’m assuming it’s not as insane as Olympus’ recent swan song), but I believe they were doing ok financially as of recently - compared to Nikon let’s say. So if people actively want to buy their gear then I don’t see much problem with that, I just wish there was more truth in advertising when it comes to crop gear. The full frame comparisons need to be done away with to reduce misinterpretation of what people are actually buying.

That's a funny comment, considering how stubbornly you defend MFT - a system that's a lot more overpriced than Fuji. Both are indeed less cost efficient than full frame, but at least Fuji has a future. MFT is obviously dead, making an investment into the system even less economically sound.

@@ofmetalphilosophy4837 What you conveniently forgot to mention is that body and lenses are much more powerful on the Fuji side of your comparison. As always, you fail to take crop factor into account properly. MFT glass needs to be one stop faster than APS-C glass to be comparable. Doing crop factor conversion correctly quickly reveals that MFT is, in fact, the least cost efficient system on the market. Of course you won't acknowledge obvious facts like this, just as you still don't admit that MFT is, for stills photography, absolutely dead.

@M Tech I believe Fuji is pretty outrageously priced as well, and lack of third party support certainly isn't helping. However, they at least offer a unique user experience, which tends to be a strong argument with hobbyists. Their analog control style is something a lot of people seem to enjoy, and strategically speaking it sets them apart from full frame offerings. MFT on the other hand is just a less capable alternative that feels like every other system. Being small isn't as much as an argument since the advent of mirrorless APS-C, particularly by Sony, and smartphones. Olympus didn't realise that their market niche was disappearing in time so they died, while Panasonic moved to full frame - too bad they're shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to finally develop a phase detect af system to replace their unreliable, outdated contrast based solution.

But I';m talking about out of focus lights which become blurred balls, so I feel the term still works. When I speak to Japanese lens engineers, they often talk about bokeh meaning the quality of the blur, or its style, rather than the sheer amount. So again i'm happy to use it to refer to the character of blur.

This is a 1.0 lens equivalent to a 1.5 only in bokeh, in shutter speed for good exposure it is much faster than a 1.5 lens.

But the other 75mm f1.5 on the market is from Leica, and it’s a manual lens

Comparably priced to a Canon or Nikon 85 f/1.4.

@@matthewwells1606 valid argument. But for me the point is for a lets say canon rf camera I can also buy a sigma or samyang 85 mm 1.4 which are also very good at a much lower price point. In the fuji system this isnt possible.

@@dr.sommer5069 You mean you can adapt a Sigma EF lens for RF? Knock yourself out. Third party isn't a winning argument for me. I wouldn't touch Sigma with the shit end of a stick. But there is no cheaper native lens for RF or EF (or F or Z) at this price, aperture, and focal length or the "full frame" equivalent. And even if I held my nose and bought a Sigma, it's $1200 when not on sale, so I'd still be only saving a few hundred bucks for a plastic lens with acrylic elements.

Equivalent, not actual, and I stated the equivalence in the video so why do you feel the need to post it here?

@80 80 The Fuji 50mm F1.0 lens can expose at f1.0 and faster shutter speeds in low light. If you're implying that a "75mm f1.5" full frame lens has equivalent exposure wide open, you need to do more studying about photography.

I think what drives these comments is it annoys people how the companies producing these lenses market them somewhat disingenuously. At least that’s what bothers me. Such as Olympus’ ridiculous ads that overlaid the 300mm F4 onto a silhouette of a full frame 600mm F4 to create the representation that the results were equivalent.

@They Caged Non they do, yes, you can see an example in the promo for this lens on their RU-vid channel. Perhaps not as egregiously as Olympus, but their promo and marketing material focus prominently on the lens being F1.0, while at the same time leaning into the 75mm equivalence. If they go out of their way to mention 75mm equivalence then they should mention DOF equivalence to maintain integrity. If they assume people can’t convert focal length themselves then the same is true of F-ratio, and the opposite is true if they argue that people can convert F-ratio themselves- it makes mentioning the 35mm equivalence unnecessary. The implication is that it’s a 75mm lens that functions at F1, not a 50mm F1 lens with a 50% crop. Which is something virtually all crop manufacturers are guilty of (pretty much any company that’s ever put a lens on anything, camera, phone, whatever.) I don’t find it especially useful to call people tools, etc, especially because they might not understand what’s truly going on with optics. Partially because as mentioned corporations try to confuse things to their greatest benefit. The only tool in my mind is the camera and lens, and in my view the suspected ill intent of other commenters (people) are best met with good intent and clarifying information. (Note: as a human I’m also susceptible to bouts of comment section weakness so I don’t mean to imply anything to the detriment of you or any other individual)

@They Caged Non I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with you here, Bokeh and depth of focus are two completely different things. DOF is the region that is acceptably in focus, Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus regions. Only two things directly account for depth of focus/field (99% of it anyway): distance to the subject, and entry pupil diameter. This Fuji lens ostensibly has a 50mm entrance pupil, and will give you the same DOF as any other lens with a 50mm entrance pupil as long as your distance to your subject remains the same (not subject framing). This is a weakness of crop-system marketing in my opinion: instead of being treated as its own thing with the trade offs being easily understood and widely known, 35mm equivalence is invoked to create the best possible marketing sheen. Most people who buy a crop body will never pick up a full frame camera in their lives, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to reference anything in terms of 35mm equivalence. The target market largely doesn’t know what any of it looks like in practice anyway, there is just a common conception that full frame is better in some nebulous way that the average, say, Canon Rebel owner is completely unfamiliar with.