รีวิวเลนส์56mm f1.2 กล้อง Fuji X-T30 จบหลังกล้อง. รูรับแสง f2. รีวิวเลนส์ 56mm f1.2 กล้อง Fuji X-T30 จบหลังกล้อง. รูรับแสง f4. รีวิวเลนส์ 56mm f1.2 กล้อง Fuji X-T30 FUJIFILMXF 56mm F1.2 R / XF90mm F2 R LM Fujifilm XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR Review ,Fujinon XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR • Chromasia,Fujinon XF 56mm F1.2 R ,,The Fujifilm XF 90mm f/2 review - jonasrask ,Fujifilm XF90mmF2 R LM WR,Fujinon XF 56mm f1.2 R review ,Fujifilm X-T3 56mm F1.2 R ($2498) vs Fujifilm X-T2 90mm F2 WR ($1898) w/ @illmindofapril,Fujifilm 90mmf2. 200mm f2. Enhance your purchase . Brand: Fujifilm: Lens type: Standard: Compatible mountings: Fujifilm X: Camera lens description: 7: Maximum focal length: JJC Bayonet Dedicated Metal Lens Hood for Fuji Fujifilm Fujinon Lens XF 23mm F1.4 R,XF 56mm F1.2 R,Replaces Fuji LH-XF23 Lens Hood (Standard Version with a Hood Cap) IfI were to grab just one, go for the 56mm F1.2 (no APD preferably for a lower lens cost) My problem with the 90mm is the lack of OIS and weight. My problem with the 56mm is the poor AF performance. With the 90mm, I usually shoot at shutters of 1/120 upwards (mostly 1/160). This is a far-cry from the 56's 1/60. Fuji90mm f2 lens at f3.2 for 1/125s, ISO200 - Fujfilm X-Pro2. So overall the 56mm f1.2 is the more practical choice. It has the bragging rights of the f1.2 aperture for an instinctual appeal, that f1.2 aperture makes low-light photography easier short of stabilisation in either lens or the curent X-series bodies, and finally the 85mm s3qI. Quick Facts about the Fujifilm 90mm F2 LM WRWeight Grams Weather Sealed YesFilter Size 62mm Angle of View DegreesFocusing Distance feet/60 centimetersMax Aperture F2Minimum Aperture F16Image Stabilization NoMount System Fuji XPrice $949Maximum Magnification .2x Quick Facts about the Fujifilm 56mm WR Weight oz/445 Grams Weather Sealed YesFilter Size 67mm Angle of View DegreesFocusing Distance feet/50cmMax Aperture Aperture F16Image Stabilization NoMount System Fuji XPrice $999Maximum Magnification .14x Table of Contents Why compare the Fujifilm 90mm F2 and the 56mm WR? After testing almost every Fujifilm telephoto lens, I figured it was time to test, review, and compare the best options within this category. They are a similar price, both lenses are designed portrait-based photography, and their a renowned for their sharpness. However, these lenses are very different in one category, their release date. The 90mm F2 was released in 2015, and it is one of Fujifilm’s earliest lenses. Meanwhile, the 56mm WR is one of the newer Fujifilm lenses. Also known as Mark MK II or Fuji-luxesSo, let’s compare the 56mm WR and the 90mm F2, and see which lens is best for you. Who are both of these lenses for? People looking for a prime, telephoto lens that excels in sharpness are going to be satisfied with these lenses. So, wedding photographers are going to be extremely satisfied with their output. If they can deal with the compromises such as autofocus, and almost too much reach with the 90mm F2. In general styles of photography, I found that the 56mm WR excelled more often. If something was a bit too close, I would switch to a vertical plane. With that focal length, it paired nicely with a 35mm lens. Meanwhile the 90mm F2 is strictly focused on landscapes and portraits. I do believe that the focal length is limiting in regards to indoor photography such as weddings. However, if you can create more space between your subjects and the photographer, it might be alright. What other XF Portrait Lenses Exist? Fujifilm has now had over 10 years to develop their Fujifilm XF mount. This leaves us with numerous options such as…Primes Fujifilm 50mm F1 The F1. Bokeh-licious. Premium Price. Inconsistent autofocus. Fujifilm XF 50mm F2 The budget “Fuji-cron” version of the portrait lens, the 50mm F2 has fast autofocusing speeds and it is weather resistant. The 50mm F2 and the 23mm F2 make a formidable street combination. Fujifilm 56mm non-WR The first version of this lens is slow, but it can be found for less than $500 in a used state. Fujifilm 56mm ADP Something to do with smoother bokeh…Zooms Fujifilm 50-140 The jack of all trades for the telephoto zoom options, the Fujifilm 50-140 is the best-performing lens in regards to sharpness for a zoom. Build Quality Comparison For both lenses, the build quality is going to be excellent. I am not concerned with the long-term use of either of these lenses, especially as this 56mm refresh included weather-resistance! The outer-construction is metal, and it certainly is not cheap-quality, either. Upon examining the lens, I did not see any major build quality concern, and I would happily take both into a waterfall, sandstorm, or just Iceland in general. Dials, Knobs, Switches, and Feet OIS was omitted on 56mm WR and 90mm F2, so we do not have an optical image stabilization switch. Plus, the lenses are not too large, so there is no need for a tripood foot. They balance well on the larger bodies due to their optical size, they could be a bit front heavy on the X-T20. Finally, both have marked aperture rings. Sharpness Comparison In summary, the 56mm wins the sharpness category versus the 90mm F2. Although the sharpness is very similar, the biggest difference was in the corners at both F2 and F8. All around, I don’t expect anyone to complain about the sharpness of these lenses. At and the the 56mm WR is significantly sharper. So much so, some may even argue that you won’t even be able to use the 90mm F2 at these apertures. 😉At F2, this is where the actual comparison starts. I found both lenses to perform excellently. Despite it being the minimum aperture of the F2, the 90mm is going to hold-up well. There was a slight increase in performance with the 56mm WR in the top-left corner. However, you shouldn’t notice this too much in real-world around until about F8, both the 90mm F2 and 56mm WR performed extremely well. This is for both the center and corner sharpness. The 90mm F2 probably peaks in sharpness around and the 56mm performs the best around F4. Where the sharpness begins to change again is around F8. However, it’s only in the center sharpness remains the same. I felt like the 56mm WR has a slight-edge within this category, and it held up well for about five-stops. This isn’t to say that the 90mm F2 is lacking in regards to sharpness. As is customary with Fujifilm, both lenses usually are not used past F11 or so. Both the 90mm F2 and the 56mm WR have a maximum aperture of F16. Bokeh On a full-frame equivalent scale, these lenses are extremely popular. The 56mm translates to an 85mm and the 90mm F2 is the kind-of equivalent of the 135mm To me, the 56mm is everything I want in a portrait lens. You are still able to make out the background, but it certainly has the 3D pop of the subject. Meanwhile, the bokeh on the 90mm F2 is the awkward “starting to melt away too much.” Compression of the 56mm 85mm FF vs the 90mm 135mm FF Fujifilm 56mm Fujifilm 90mm F2 F2 – Bokeh Test Bokeh Balls However, in regards to the bokeh-balls, the 56mm WR wins in an easy competition. According to the specifications sheet, the 90mm F2 has only a 7-bladed aperture ring. Meanwhile, the 56mm WR contains an eleven bladed aperture ring. Fujifilm 56mm WR – Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 56mm WR – Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 56mm WR F2 – Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 90mm F2 F2 – Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 90mm F2 – Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 56mm WR – Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 56mm WR – Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 90mm F2 – Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 56mm WR F4 – Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 90mm F2 F4 – Bokeh Balls Because of this, the 56mm WR’s bokeh balls remain rounder, longer. This allows the corners to slowly get round-out too, which negates the cat’s eye affect in the 56mm I think it’s obvious from the photos above, the 56mm WR can be pushed up to F2 and if necessary. F4 might be a stretch. Meanwhile, there is a clear polygon shape with the 90mm F2’s bokeh balls by and it is unusable at F4. I always expect nice, pleasing bokeh balls across the frame. However, with every lens’s construction, this is rarely the case. The 56mm WR has the best bokeh balls out of any Fujifilm lens I have tested. Eye Autofocus Tracking One of the biggest disappoints within my time using the Fujifilm system was the announcement that Fuji had decided NOT to use linear motors in the 56mm WR. Every single lens in the past year or two has had quick, reliable motors that were only limited in accuracy by the Fujifilm body. So, the 90mm F2 actually wins in this category. It is noticeably quicker, and I was able to get smooth focus pulls that were quick. This fits my style of video, which is actually very limited… but still. Meanwhile, I feel like the 56mm WR can be used to create some cinematic shots that you see in movies, but you will want to be careful about the pull speed. It did show good tracking, however. Color Fringing Fujifilm 56mm WR – Color Fringing Fujifilm 56mm WR – Color Fringing Fujifilm 56mm WR – Color Fringing Fujifilm 56mm WR F2 – Color Fringing Fujifilm 56mm WR – Color Fringing Fujifilm 56mm WR – Color Fringing Fujifilm 56mm WR – Color Fringing Fujifilm 56mm WR F4 – Color Fringing Fujifilm 90mm F2 F4 – Color Fringing Fujifilm 90mm F2 – Color Fringing Fujifilm 90mm F2 F2 – Color Fringing There is going to be color fringing on both of these lenses, and it is both purple and green. I felt like I noticed it a lot more on something like the 50mm F1, than either the 90mm F2 and 56mm WR, though. Both of the photographs above were cropped by over 100% in post-production, but they were JPEG’s. Focusing Distance & Macro Performance 56mm WRFocusing / 50 F2 WRFocusing Distance. / 60 In regards to the minimum focusing distance, the 56mm WR wins this category. However, the 90mm F2 WR wins in the magnification ratio due to a longer focal length. Neither of these lenses will be as great as the 80mm or even the 30mm Fujifilm 90mm F2 F2 Fujifilm 56mm Sunstars/Starbursts Fujifilm 56mm WR – Sunstars – Sample Fujifilm 56mm WR – Sunstars – Sample Fujifilm 56mm WR F2 – Sunstars – Sample Fujifilm 56mm WR – Sunstars – Sample Fujifilm 56mm WR – Sunstars – Sample Fujifilm 56mm WR F8 – Sunstars – Sample Fujifilm 56mm WR F11 – Sunstars – Sample Fujifilm 56mm WR F14 – Sunstars – Sample Fujifilm 56mm WR F16 – Sunstars – Sample 90mm F2 Sunstars 90mm F2 Sunstars F8 90mm F2 Sunstars F11 90mm F2 Sunstars F13 90mm F2 Sunstars F16 The starbursts were not bad on either of the lenses, but I did find the 90mm F2 a bit bettter. However, the ghosting with the seven-bladed aperture did create a unique, annoying affect. The ghosts on the 90mm F2 were heptagon shaped. I can often deal with the ghosts, as there are ways to incorporate lens flare into the image. But with this in mind, I would constantly be careful about how I introduce external, uncontrolled light into the photograph. Why should I pick the 90mm F2 over the 56mm WR? You already own the 16-55mm am not going to lie, the 16-55 and the 90mm F2 produce a wonderful two-lens combination that will be great for both photo and video. Prior to the release of the 56mm WR, I think it’s probably the most useful combo. Video WorkI have watched some reviews that talk about the 90mm F2’s lack of autofocus in video mode. However, these videos were being tested with A an X-H2s B never revealed their autofocus settings. Which is slightly frustratingNow, I don’t think Fujifilm’s video autofocus is at their competitor’s level, yet. However, after using the 90mm F2, I feel much more confident the problem is within the autofocus algorithm, and not this specific lens. When the time comes, this lens will continue to hold its weight. Bokeh Due to the only 10cm difference in focusing distance, the 90mm F2 has probably a shallower depth of field in some situations. However, this type of bokeh can lend itself to busy-ness if you are not careful. Why should I pick the 56mm WR over the 90mm F2? You already own the 50-140 is point is kind of rhetorical, but there are more than two extra stops of light gained with the 56mm Image Quality To me, there is no question. The 56mm is going to produce great images. Therefore, any review taken that says it’s not good enough is lying. I would say this and the 23mm WR Mk II are the two sharpest Fujifilm lenses I have ever used. VersatilityI was able to use the 56mm WR indoors and outdoors. However, the 90mm F2 is just a bit too long for everyday photography. My Final Ratings Fujifilm 90mm F2 On the bright side, during the discounts, you can find this lens for $600 used. I think Fujifilm actually recognizes that this lens is overpriced, which is why you’ve seen the MSRP drop from $1050 to $949. Reliability 4/5-1 for the aperture blades impeding on the ghosting and bokeh balls. Functionality 4/5We lost an entre point due to not being able to rely on this lens indoors. I understand that some people are going to be aware of this attribute when they purchase it. Style 5/5Total 17/20 or about 85%I think most people are going to be happy with the results from this lens, once you know how to use it. The 90mm F2 is sharp across the entire frame, the fringing is expected, and the bokeh is normal. It’s just hard for me to give a specialized lens anything above a 85%. Fujifilm 56mm WR Price 5/5It’s worth the price, period. Sharpness and build quality are top-tier. Reliability 3/5I hate deducting two points, but I found the autofocus to just make things and life difficult. Fujifilm is not keeping up with their peers, and it’s starting to show in their lens construction, too. Functionality 5/585 millimeters is a highly functional lens. Does it create some unnecessary balance on smaller cameras? Yes. Are people going to notice it too much? No. Style 5/5Looks good. Total 18/20 or 90%For Fujifilm photographers, the only downside is the autofocus. Otherwise, this is a perfect lens by Fujifilm. That’s why we needed a MK II version!I loved my 56mm f/ I made some wonderful shot with it see below!. But I sold it, without any regrets. Why? The autofocus –the slow, goddamn slow– made me miss so many shots! No other lens made me miss more shots than the 56mm f/ I say that with a smile. It’s the best worst lens on the market the rendering is exceptional, and it’s just a beautiful piece of glass to hold. It makes you want to go shoot.... But if you are used to the 85mm f/ Canon or 85mm f/ Nikon… This lens will be extremely frustrating, to the point that you’d want to throw it at large in a lake. Yeah, that bad. If you’re new to the system, it will be fine. But if you’re an OG of photography, it won’t cut it. We all wanted a 56mm f/ Mark II, but Fuji delivered a 50mm f/ WR… I guess that will have to do? I carried a few cameras and lenses with me while travelling overland through the Americas… One of my first kit for the Alaska to Peru was the X-Pro1 with the 27mm f/ and 56mm f/ Many pictures here were taken by the D800E reviewed here or the X-Pro1. I hope the 50mm f/ will be fast enough to track kids and people running around! The 56mm f/ was still better than manual focusing… but for $1200 CAD, you’d expect the lens to be able to be usable for events. It wasn’t the 50mm f/2 is a much better lens if you need a short telephoto lens to cover an event. Or I’d just recommend a cheap Nikon D610 with a 85mm f/ AF-S or 85mm f/ AF-D. See the separation between the christmas tree and the cameras. Shot with a X-Pro1 and the 56mm f/ Below some sample shot of the 56mm f/ most of them wide-open, on the excellent Fuji X-Pro1! A snack in the Jeep. Yes, the Fuji 56mm f/ is a sharp lens with a crazy good bokeh. But it is also a lens that can be very frustrating the autofocus is much slower than anything on the market from Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic for the same telephoto range and, hell, even Fuji with the 50mm f/ and the new 50mm f/ has better options. Sometimes I think that I could pick up a second hand Nikon D610 for $600CAD and a 85mm f/ AF-S for $1400… literally the same price of a 50mm f/ I need to stop thinking, and go back as a busy Fuji fanboy zombie ;Cheers,JP Stay connected! Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates. We respect your privacy. Never sell anything to China. Boom. Thank you! Previous Fuji 27mm f/ Do we really need a MKII version? ReviewJean PascalSeptember 18, 2020Fuji x-pro1, fuji 27mm f/ review, review, fuji 27mm f/ in 2020 Next Quebec's descent into a communist state is completed Comply or die. Jean PascalSeptember 18, 2020 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.” 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 F2__8 Di Macro 11 VC USDTamron SP 85mm F1__8 Di VC USDSony FE 55mm F1__8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T*Tamron 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 F2__8 Di Macro 11 VC USDSony FE 55mm F1__8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T*Canon EF 85mm f/1__4L IS USMTamron SP 85mm F1__8 Di VC USDNikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm F1__4E EDCanon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USMCanon EF 70-200mm F/2__8L IS II USMSony FE 100-400mm f/4__5-5__6 GM OSSExibir tudo

fuji 56mm f1 2 or 90mm f2