Zeiss Touit 50mm/f2.8 Makro is a better Alternative if you are looking for one, and by far better than any other out there. This lens is highly under rated, it is: 1- much lighter at 280g only 2- Macro ratio of 1:1 at closest focusing distance. 3- Extremely sharp like all other Touit lens from Zeiss and proven here is comparisons 4- Auto-focus for a change by Zeiss 5- Near Zero distortion 6- Lens elements | groups are 14 | 11 resulting in legendary bokeh, ghosting and flare control
As if that was not enough 7- Best part it is almost half the price
Robert John
October 7, 2022 11:16 am
The reluctance of Nikon to produce a Z90 does make me think about the Fuji X-H2. That with the 16-80, 100-400 (and 1.4 TC) and this lens would be a pretty good kit. I’d be very tempted if the 100-400 can AF as well as my Nikon 70-200/f4, which is the Nikon lens I’d miss the most.
eric
August 5, 2019 2:09 am
i would say the bokeh effect of 56mm 1.2 is similar to a 85mm 1.8 on a crop sensor (considering the Fuji 90mm F2.0). the 85mm 1.8 used on a full frame should have “one more stop” of bokeh effect.
Stig Bang-Mortensen
April 3, 2018 1:11 pm
“Just to repeat what many others have said, although this 56/1.2 lens will be F1.2 from a light gathering perspective, it will have depth of field and bokeh characteristics similar to a 85/1.8 lens (when they are used on an FX body).”
I don’t understand why the DoF characteristisc changes just because you only register part (with an APSC) of what lens sees. At a specific distance the DoF must be the same with a lens on either a FF or cropped sensor.
It’s just a crop of the framing, but the angle is similar. However, you might notice subtle differences in the shapes of faces, because the 56 is closer to what the eye actually can see at and the 85 is a bit different from real world perspective.
A 56mm f1.2 has comparable DoF effects to an 85mm f1.8 at a given camera-subject distance even if both are shot on full frame (or the format of your choice). DoF for a lens is mostly independent of the format. An 85mm f1.4 wide open shows the same DoF at the same camera-subject distance on m43 as it does on 33x44mm GFX Mini-MF.
The format doesn’t matter. You get shallower DoF at a given camera-subject distance by using a longer focal length or a wider aperture, or both.
The reason for the equivalence is because a 56mm on 1.5x crop APS-C has a similar field of view as an 85mm on 135 format FF.
sceptical1
February 23, 2018 6:44 am
Then the cameras and lenses would be heavier for a small improvement in potential image quality. Many shooters don’t want full frame, including me. Fuji’s system is becoming more and more compelling.
Elizabeth, I’m a little bit surprised you say “the edges of the frame exhibit very little, if any, loss of sharpness” when the graph below seems to show a significant loss of sharpness at most apertures, especially wide open. Mind you, I’ve had the lens for some years and never noticed a problem with edge sharpness.
The 80mm f2.8 macro, though, is a whole other ballgame, with incredible edge-to-edge sharpness.
I didn’t have the MTF charts when I wrote the article, Nasim added those in before it was published. I, like you, was going by what I had experienced first hand with my images.
I was able to try the 80mm at a Fuji sponsored event late last year. I am saving my pennies as we speak!
A P
February 20, 2018 6:37 pm
This is subjective, of course, but the bokeh overwhelms the subject in some test images.
Václav Bacovský
February 20, 2018 4:44 pm
OMG – that bookeh is lovely! Alse credit to you, Elizabeth, for the creative shots you made! I just scanned through the review and I do not read any further to prevent my gear acquisition syndrom getting activated :) Vaclav
Thank you, Václav! I can’t take all the credit for the photography, Nasim added some of his and I assume Lola’s to the review too after I submitted the review. Any of the shots taken with an X-Pro2 or X-T1, and the more traditional portraits are theirs. I will have to get him to add their names to the photo credits!
Burghclerebilly
February 20, 2018 1:35 pm
Thanks for the article Elizabeth.
Just to repeat what many others have said, although this 56/1.2 lens will be F1.2 from a light gathering perspective, it will have depth of field and bokeh characteristics similar to a 85/1.8 lens (when they are used on an FX body). Since the latter full-frame [35mm] remains the reference for photography characteristics, it is more realistic to compare the Fuji 56/1.2 to CaNikon 85/1.8 lenses. This can clearly be seen in your portrait shots, whereas a ‘true’ F1.2 lens typically wouldn’t have enough DoF to have the whole face in focus. That’s just for clarification, and not a criticism of the lens. In my experience F1.8-2.8 (full frame equivalent) is the best range for most portraits.
Therefore, the Fuji 56/1.2 is actually quite expensive compared to the F1.8 relatives. An APS-C lens that presented equivalent photographic characteristics to a 85/1.2 full frame lens, would be a 56/0.8, and correspondingly complex and expensive to produce as the CaNikon F1.2s.
Similarly, various 1-inch sensor superzoom F2.8 lenses, actually have DoF and bokeh performance like an F11 full-frame lens (i.e. not generally desireable for portraits). There remain no short-cuts in optics!
“Just to repeat what many others have said, although this 56/1.2 lens will be F1.2 from a light gathering perspective, it will have depth of field and bokeh characteristics similar to a 85/1.8 lens (when they are used on an FX body).”
I don’t understand why the DoF characteristisc changes just because you only register part (with an APSC) of what lens sees. At a specific distance the DoF must be the same with a lens on either a FF or cropped sensor.
Ed
February 20, 2018 10:22 am
Great review. Understand why some are complaining about comparing 1.2/1.4 lenses designed for full frame to a 1.2 lens designed specifically for APS-C; not really an apples to apples comparison for comparing size/weight. Not sure if there is a direct comparison to the Fuji 56, but the closest would probably be the Canon 50 1.2L, which is still slightly bigger/heavier despite being a slightly shorter focal length. In any case, really enjoy your Fuji reviews.
Also curious what strap you’re using on your X-T2. Looks great.
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate you taking the time to comment. It is hard to review Fuji lenses, since they can only be used on Fuji camera’s! In the DSLR market, there are a lot more choices! You don’t see reviews of DSLR lenses ever being compared to mirrorless “equivalents” though! As I said above, I was trying to mention just a few DLSR options that I thought were optically as good. I’m sure the Canon 50mm f/1.2 is a great lens, but it is an FX lens. With the right DX body, I’m sure it would be very comparable. So many combinations now!
The strap is actually one I made! For the right price, it can be yours!
Zeiss Touit 50mm/f2.8 Makro is a better Alternative if you are looking for one, and by far better than any other out there. This lens is highly under rated, it is:
1- much lighter at 280g only
2- Macro ratio of 1:1 at closest focusing distance.
3- Extremely sharp like all other Touit lens from Zeiss and proven here is comparisons
4- Auto-focus for a change by Zeiss
5- Near Zero distortion
6- Lens elements | groups are 14 | 11 resulting in legendary bokeh, ghosting and flare control
As if that was not enough
7- Best part it is almost half the price
The reluctance of Nikon to produce a Z90 does make me think about the Fuji X-H2. That with the 16-80, 100-400 (and 1.4 TC) and this lens would be a pretty good kit. I’d be very tempted if the 100-400 can AF as well as my Nikon 70-200/f4, which is the Nikon lens I’d miss the most.
i would say the bokeh effect of 56mm 1.2 is similar to a 85mm 1.8 on a crop sensor (considering the Fuji 90mm F2.0). the 85mm 1.8 used on a full frame should have “one more stop” of bokeh effect.
“Just to repeat what many others have said, although this 56/1.2 lens will be F1.2 from a light gathering perspective, it will have depth of field and bokeh characteristics similar to a 85/1.8 lens (when they are used on an FX body).”
I don’t understand why the DoF characteristisc changes just because you only register part (with an APSC) of what lens sees. At a specific distance the DoF must be the same with a lens on either a FF or cropped sensor.
It’s just a crop of the framing, but the angle is similar. However, you might notice subtle differences in the shapes of faces, because the 56 is closer to what the eye actually can see at and the 85 is a bit different from real world perspective.
A 56mm f1.2 has comparable DoF effects to an 85mm f1.8 at a given camera-subject distance even if both are shot on full frame (or the format of your choice). DoF for a lens is mostly independent of the format. An 85mm f1.4 wide open shows the same DoF at the same camera-subject distance on m43 as it does on 33x44mm GFX Mini-MF.
The format doesn’t matter. You get shallower DoF at a given camera-subject distance by using a longer focal length or a wider aperture, or both.
The reason for the equivalence is because a 56mm on 1.5x crop APS-C has a similar field of view as an 85mm on 135 format FF.
Then the cameras and lenses would be heavier for a small improvement in potential image quality. Many shooters don’t want full frame, including me.
Fuji’s system is becoming more and more compelling.
Thanks for your comments!
Elizabeth, I’m a little bit surprised you say “the edges of the frame exhibit very little, if any, loss of sharpness” when the graph below seems to show a significant loss of sharpness at most apertures, especially wide open. Mind you, I’ve had the lens for some years and never noticed a problem with edge sharpness.
The 80mm f2.8 macro, though, is a whole other ballgame, with incredible edge-to-edge sharpness.
Hi Murray,
I didn’t have the MTF charts when I wrote the article, Nasim added those in before it was published. I, like you, was going by what I had experienced first hand with my images.
I was able to try the 80mm at a Fuji sponsored event late last year. I am saving my pennies as we speak!
This is subjective, of course, but the bokeh overwhelms the subject in some test images.
OMG – that bookeh is lovely! Alse credit to you, Elizabeth, for the creative shots you made!
I just scanned through the review and I do not read any further to prevent my gear acquisition syndrom getting activated :)
Vaclav
Thank you, Václav! I can’t take all the credit for the photography, Nasim added some of his and I assume Lola’s to the review too after I submitted the review. Any of the shots taken with an X-Pro2 or X-T1, and the more traditional portraits are theirs. I will have to get him to add their names to the photo credits!
Thanks for the article Elizabeth.
Just to repeat what many others have said, although this 56/1.2 lens will be F1.2 from a light gathering perspective, it will have depth of field and bokeh characteristics similar to a 85/1.8 lens (when they are used on an FX body). Since the latter full-frame [35mm] remains the reference for photography characteristics, it is more realistic to compare the Fuji 56/1.2 to CaNikon 85/1.8 lenses. This can clearly be seen in your portrait shots, whereas a ‘true’ F1.2 lens typically wouldn’t have enough DoF to have the whole face in focus. That’s just for clarification, and not a criticism of the lens. In my experience F1.8-2.8 (full frame equivalent) is the best range for most portraits.
Therefore, the Fuji 56/1.2 is actually quite expensive compared to the F1.8 relatives. An APS-C lens that presented equivalent photographic characteristics to a 85/1.2 full frame lens, would be a 56/0.8, and correspondingly complex and expensive to produce as the CaNikon F1.2s.
Similarly, various 1-inch sensor superzoom F2.8 lenses, actually have DoF and bokeh performance like an F11 full-frame lens (i.e. not generally desireable for portraits). There remain no short-cuts in optics!
Thanks for your comments, Burghclerebilly! I appreciate you taking the time to help clarify!
“Just to repeat what many others have said, although this 56/1.2 lens will be F1.2 from a light gathering perspective, it will have depth of field and bokeh characteristics similar to a 85/1.8 lens (when they are used on an FX body).”
I don’t understand why the DoF characteristisc changes just because you only register part (with an APSC) of what lens sees. At a specific distance the DoF must be the same with a lens on either a FF or cropped sensor.
Great review. Understand why some are complaining about comparing 1.2/1.4 lenses designed for full frame to a 1.2 lens designed specifically for APS-C; not really an apples to apples comparison for comparing size/weight. Not sure if there is a direct comparison to the Fuji 56, but the closest would probably be the Canon 50 1.2L, which is still slightly bigger/heavier despite being a slightly shorter focal length. In any case, really enjoy your Fuji reviews.
Also curious what strap you’re using on your X-T2. Looks great.
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate you taking the time to comment. It is hard to review Fuji lenses, since they can only be used on Fuji camera’s! In the DSLR market, there are a lot more choices! You don’t see reviews of DSLR lenses ever being compared to mirrorless “equivalents” though! As I said above, I was trying to mention just a few DLSR options that I thought were optically as good. I’m sure the Canon 50mm f/1.2 is a great lens, but it is an FX lens. With the right DX body, I’m sure it would be very comparable. So many combinations now!
The strap is actually one I made! For the right price, it can be yours!