Eventhe brand new Fujinon XF 50mm F1.0 WR lens that I just reviewed had a somewhat primitive focus system, which only adds to my feeling that the strength of the platform is maintaining a small, light, and portable form factor that also allows for nice image quality. The XF 50mm F2 has a quality build, with premium materials, internal weather Go to fujifilm 90mm f2 vs 56mm - your experiences? I’m considering getting either - both are similar price, the use case for both would be portrait, with the 90mm having extra reach for zoom that may come in handy. I already own a 23mm Has anyone used both of these lens and what is your experience? The 56mm has been raved about plenty and I have used the 56mm test shots so I know how good the bokeh is also how slow the AF can be as well But what about the 90mm? Haven’t used / tried the 90mm f2 yet. Feel free to post photos taken with it as well I feel like if the 90mm doesn’t work out for me I can probably flip it for the 56mm. I also plan to take either of these while traveling as well. Thank you. Edit changed 56mm to correct aperture of
50mm f1* OR *56mm f1.2 + 90mm f2* Discussion. cameras and lenses, and share gear news and rumors. Whether you love Fujifilm's X-Trans mirrorless cameras, GFX medium format cameras, their other digital cameras and DSLRs, or Instax instant film cameras - this is the place for you! 41.2k.
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.” However the Fuji XF 90mm f2 should be purchased at the same time or soon thereafter The Fujifilm Fujinon XF 33mm f/1 R WR lens is now listed at the Czech retailer Oehling with a price tag of approximately $3,100: The Fujinon XF 33mm f/1 R WR is expected to be the industry's first lens for non-reflex cameras with a maximum aperture of f/1 I don
SummaryThe XF 90mm f2 is another superb addition to the X-system and one which will delight portrait photographers, not to mention anyone who shoots close-range action or likes to capture tighter details on landscapes and buildings. It excels at subject separation with well-behaved bokeh, but is also one of the sharpest and fastest focusers in the range. If the 135mm equivalent coverage suits your style, it's an easy lens to Highly it now!Check prices on the Fujifilm XF 90mm f2 at Amazon, B&H, Adorama, or Wex. Alternatively get yourself a copy of my In Camera book or treat me to a coffee! Thanks! Fujifilm XF 90mm f2 review 25th January 2016 Written by VerdictVerdictIn depthQualitySamplesThe Fujifilm XF 90mm f2 is yet another superb quality lens for the X-system a bright telephoto prime that delivered excellent results across the board in my tests. Most commonly the 135mm equivalent focal length will be used for portraiture, at which the XF 90mm excels, capturing crisp and fine details of the subject with lovingly-rendered blurred backgrounds and well-behaved bokeh. But point it at a distant landscape or urban scene and you’ll notice the sharpness extends to the extreme edges and corners of the frame. Even with the aperture wide-open at f2, the XF 90mm is impressively sharp across the autofocus system is quiet and also the fastest in the X-system to date – couple it with a body sporting embedded phase-detection, like the XT1 or XT10, and it’s quite capable of being used for tracking close range sports and action. I also have no complaints with the build quality and am delighted weather-sealing is becoming a standard feature on XF of this is good news because there’s no alternative in the native X-series that delivers the same coverage with as bright an aperture. Sure there’s two zooms in the system which include the 90mm focal length, but neither has an f2 focal ratio. The XF 50-140mm comes closest but is larger, heavier, a stop slower and roughly 50% more expensive. The XF 50-140mm does however have one big advantage over the XF 90mm f2 beyond a variable focal length, and that’s the presence of optical stabilisation. The XF 90mm f2, like all Fuji primes to date, lacks optical stabilisation and I personally found this the biggest issue in use. I can cope with ensuring the shutter is fast enough to avoid camera shake, but if your hands are anything other than rock steady, you’ll notice wobbling as you compose your image. I find stabilisation most useful when composing precisely at longer focal lengths and really missed it is also one of the rarely-considered benefits of the XF 56mm over the XF 90mm f2. Neither have optical stabilisation, but the brighter aperture and shorter focal length of the XF 56mm simply make it a much more practical lens to handhold as light conditions grow for most photographers, the choice of a telephoto lens will be based on their preferred focal length and its ability to deliver attractive shallow depth-of-field effects. The XF 50-140mm is definitely a contender, especially if you can exploit it at the longer-end of its range, but for me it’s really a contest between the XF 90mm f2 and the XF 56mm especially as they cost essentially the thing to mention straightaway is weather-resistance as the XF 90mm f2 has it and the XF 56mm does not. So if you’re likely to be shooting a lot under inclement conditions and have a weather-sealed body to match, then the XF 90mm f2 will be obviously though, the longer focal length of the XF 90mm f2 lets you shoot portraits from a longer distance which is ideal if your subjects aren’t comfortable with you being too close, although conversely I find a better connection when you’re closer with lenses like the XF 56mm. The longer focal length of the 90mm also renders elements in the background larger, which makes it easier to isolate the foreground from distraction. You can see that in the portrait comparison of Emily below. Above left XF 90mm at f2, above right XF 56mm at you’re into bokeh-balls, they’ll also be larger on the XF 90mm f2 and in my tests were also more uniformly circular across the frame, avoiding the squashed cats-eyes and outlining seen on the XF 56mm when wide-open. Of course while the XF 90mm is optically more correct in this regard, it doesn’t make it preferable, as many seek-out the squashed ovals and outlines of the XF 56mm – it’s purely down to personal preference, see below. Above left XF 90mm at f2, above right XF 56mm at may find the bokeh a little creamier on the XF 56mm although I found it was also a tad less crisp in its focused areas than the XF 90mm f2. That’s not to criticise the XF 56mm which remains one of the sharpest lenses around, it’s just that the XF 90mm f2 is even crisper all round and some of that is reflected in the blurred areas too. Above left XF 90mm at f2, above right XF 56mm at you can see in the macro comparison above, they can perform very similarly under many circumstances, so if you can only afford to own one, then simply go for the focal length that better matches your preferred subject distance. If you’re a portrait photographer though, you’ll need little justification to own both lenses. If you don’t yet own the XF 56mm, you may also prefer to pair the XF 90mm with the APD version of the 56mm that has smoother bokeh characteristics, and provides greater differentiation between them. Ultimately the XF 90mm f2 is another superb addition to the growing X-system and one which will delight portrait photographers, not to mention anyone who shoots close-range action or likes to capture tighter details on landscapes and buildings. It excels at subject separation with well-behaved bokeh, but is also one of the sharpest and fastest focusers in the range. If the 135mm equivalent coverage suits your style, it’s an easy lens to Highly Recommend. PS – don’t forget to check out the other pages in this review, using the tabs above!Good points Superb quality across the frame even wide-open. Very well-behaved bokeh with uniform shapes. Fast and quiet focusing makes it practical for sports. Weather-sealed and comes with lens points No optical stabilisation, so hold steady. Tough competition from the XF 56mm Check prices on the Fujifilm XF 90mm f2 at Amazon, B&H, Adorama, or Wex. Alternatively get yourself a copy of my In Camera book or treat me to a coffee! Thanks!Pages 1 2 3 4
LensHood Fujifilm hood lensa Fuji XF 56mm F1.2 XF 90mm F2 XF 55200. Rp185.000. Jakarta Barat warungnenek64. Produk Terbaru. Fujinon XF 90mm F2 LM WR mulus fullset fujifilm lensa fuji 90. Rp7.800.000. Cimahi forgetfree. Produk Terbaru. Fujifilm XF 90mm f2 R LM WR Fuji XF90mm f/2 Garansi Resmi. Rp22.750.400.
The Fujinon XF 56mm f/ has long been one of the most popular lenses for the Fuji APS-C mirrorless system. It has a fast aperture, a lovely rendering for portraits and its size – while not the smallest in the line-up – fits most X-series cameras well. It would be my first recommendation to any serious portrait is however another more recent portrait lens that we must take into consideration the XF 90mm f/2. It has a state of the art autofocus motor and is as sharp as the other premium XF lenses. The obvious difference in focal length might be enough clinch the decision for some but for those of you who are hesitating or are simply curious to find out how these two prime lenses compare, we’ve compiled this complete comparison. We hope you find it useful!Ethics statement We were loaned these two XF lenses for review purposes. We were not asked to write anything about the lenses, nor were we provided with any sort of compensation. Within the article, there are affiliate links. If you buy something after clicking the link, we will receive a small commission. To know more about our ethics, you can visit our full disclosure page. Thank you![toc heading_levels=”2,3″]Main SpecsFujinon XF 56mm f/ RMount X-mountFormat coverage APS-CFocal length 56mmFocal length equiv. 35mm 85mmMaximum aperture aperture 16Number of aperture blades 7 circular bladesAngle of view focusing distance 70cmLens configuration 11 elements / 8 groupsSpecial elements 1 aspherical and 1 extra low dispersion elementsLens surface coating Yes Super-EBCMaximum image magnification Image Stabilizer NoDimensions x diamater 62mmWeight 405g excluding lens cap, lens rear cap, lens hoodFujinon XF 90mm f/2 R LM WRMount X-mountFormat coverage APS-CFocal length 90mmFocal length equiv. 35mm 137mmMaximum aperture 2Minimum aperture 16Number of aperture blades 7 rounded bladesAngle of view focusing distance 60cmLens configuration 11 elements / 8 groupsSpecial elements 3 extra low dispersion elementsLens surface coating Yes Super-EBCMaximum image magnification Image Stabilizer NoDimensions ø75mm x 105mmFilter diamater 62mmWeight 540g excluding lens cap, lens rear cap, lens hoodDesign and ease of useThe first difference regards the size and weight. As you can see below, the 90mm is longer and while both lenses have a similar diameter, the 56mm remains 135g lighter. Factor in the plastic hood and the total length extends quite a 90mm has a more robust construction with weather sealing the lens can stand up to moisture, dust and low temperatures of -10°C. The 56mm on the other hand is not weather sealed but has a solid metal construction. 56mm 90mmBoth lenses feature a clicking aperture ring that moves in 1/3 steps. The 56mm’s moves about a little more freely than the one of the we have two large “fly-by-wire” focus rings and here again the one on the 90mm feels a little more precise. Another nitpick is that on the 56mm, there is less space on the barrel to grab the lens when mounting or un-mounting it. The most space is found near the mount but it is uncomfortable to grab and turn the lens from final note concerning the XF 90mm when the camera is turned off, you can feel the lens elements moving around inside. This is because the 4 linear motors are linked to four magnets that remain disengaged when the power is off, so it’s no cause for and optical qualityField of viewThe difference in focal length can be a major factor when choosing between lenses. Here is one example that shows the difference in composition when shooting from the same distance. You will have the chance to see other examples in the sharpness and bokeh that for some tests, I varied the distance from the subject on purpose to produce a similar composition. Doing so gave me similar magnification areas to analyse and made it easier to spot the begin with the sharpness performance of the two lenses at a close distance. To make the side by side images easier to look at, I tried to create the same composition by backing up while using the imageThe 56mm has a faster maximum aperture than the 90mm and while the performance is really good at f/ and f/ peak sharpness is reached at f/2, which is the first aperture shared with the longer lens. The 90mm retains slightly more sharpness wide onward the results are more or less identical. Diffraction starts to kick in at f/11 but remains reasonably contained even at f/16, which is the smallest aperture available on both our second sharpness series, I took a landscape shot from the same distance so you can see how the field of view as well the 56mm appears softer up to f/2, whereas the 90mm retains a tiny advantage that is almost non-existent from onwards. Obviously we perceive more details with the longer lens since everything is won’t go into the corner performance too much but know that once stopped down, both lenses offer good results across the frame so they can serve other genres such as landscape photography very point to observe from the examples above is that the 56mm has less contrast than the 90mm. This doesn’t come as too much of a surprise to me because the 56mm is designed for portraits more than anything else, and like many other portrait lenses, the goal is to render smoother skin tones. The 90mm on the other hand can serve more purposes beyond strictly portraits so seeing more contrast in the results make sense. Of course, contrast is an aspect you can easily control in post of fieldWhen we talk about portrait lenses, bokeh, shallow depth of field and subject separation are always key selling points. Here again we have to consider the different focal lengths and this is a good opportunity to analyse how they I skipped examples at with the 56mm lens so as not to fill the article with too many images, especially considering that the rendering at and is I start by showing you two portraits taken at the fastest apertures and from the same distance, we can see that the field of view is different but the amount of background blur looks similar the fast f/ aperture of the 56mm compensates for the shorter focal length. The 90mm has larger bokeh balls but that is simply because it magnifies them 1/400, f/ ISO 200 – 56mmX-T2, 1/200, f/2, ISO 200 – 90mmHowever if I downsize the 90mm image to match the magnification of the 56mm picture, we can see that the latter has fewer in-focus details. For example, the hair around the head is blurrier in comparison to the 90mm version. It’s not a huge difference but it’s there and we can noticed that the 90mm delivers more sharpness as the 56mm, you can increase the depth of field a tiny bit by stopping down to which gives you slightly more sharpness as well. It is also worth noting that at f/ it is more difficult to set a precise focus point regardless of whether you use auto or manual focus as every micro movement of the subject can alter the result a little. Note that the camera was on a tripod for these examples.If I set the two lenses to the same aperture, it’s the 90mm that gives a shallower depth of field this time thanks to its longer focal length. Sharpness and detail in the face are much more 1/200, f/2, ISO 200 – 56mmX-T2, 1/200, f/2, ISO 200 – 90mmWhat happens if I change the distance to create the same composition? Well, with both lenses set at their respective fastest apertures, the background has a similar amount of blur but the 56mm has fewer details in focus on the subject’s face once again. As soon as I set them to the same aperture, it’s the 90mm that remains slightly 1/400, f/ ISO 200 – 56mmX-T2, 1/250, f/2, ISO 200 – 90mmX-T2, 1/200, f/2, ISO 200 – 56mmBelow is another example at 1/100, f/ ISO 200 – 56mmX-T2, 1/125, f/ ISO 200 – 90mmAnother example I took was a full body shot for which I kept the same composition by varying my distance from the subject once again. The 90mm compresses the image more because of the longer focal length but in terms of subject separation, the 56mm defends itself well at f/ although at that aperture the decreased sharpness becomes even more evident than in the previous examples. When both are set to f/2, sharpness is equal but the 90mm does a better job of separating the subject from the 1/160, f/ ISO 200 – 56mmX-T2, 1/80, f/2, ISO 200 – 90mmX-T2, 1/80, f/2, ISO 200 – 56mmBokehBy looking at all the previous images, you may have started to notice the bokeh characteristics of the two lenses which, to be honest, aren’t all that 56mm has a uniform rendering overall. At f/ and f/ we can see more oval shapes at the edges of the frame and a slightly swirly effect. At f/2 the bokeh balls start to lose their roundness and assume the heptagonal shape of the aperture diaphragm. This becomes more evident as you stop down. Aberrations as well as onion rings are well contained which contributes to the smooth and creamy 90mm rendering is really good too. The shapes at the edges remain similar to the centre with a uniform rendering while the roundness of the bokeh balls starts to disappear from f/ focus distanceThe 90mm not only has a longer reach but also a shorter minimum focus distance in comparison to the 56mm. This means that it also has a higher magnification ratio vs You can see a direct example below where I managed to get much closer to my 1/500, ISO 200 – 56mmX-T2, 1/500, f/ ISO 200 – 90mmChromatic aberrations, vignetting and flareYou can find traces of mild chromatic aberration at the fastest apertures especially from the 56mm but they are not too invasive and easily removable with a post production is almost non existent on the 90mm and well-contained at the largest apertures on the 56mm lens. Some ghost and veiling flares can appear when direct light hits the sensor but otherwise the resistance is pretty 1/6400, f/ ISO 200 – 56mmX-Pro2, 1/5800, f/ ISO 200 – 90mmAutofocus and manual focus performanceHere comes an important difference between these two lenses. The 90mm has been designed with a quad linear motor that makes it one of the fastest autofocus lenses in the Fujifilm X line-up. I tested it with moving subjects in both good and low-light conditions and I was always impressed by the quick and smooth 1/1000, f/ ISO 200 – 90mmThe 56mm doesn’t perform poorly by any means, especially when used on recent cameras such as the X-T2. In our side by side tests, we found that it actually holds up quite well against the 90mm. But overall the response is a little slower and the AF motor isn’t as smooth nor as quiet as the you are interested in manual focus, the focus ring on the 90mm is more precise in operation especially when trying to fine-tune a point. On the 56mm, it can be more difficult to focus on small details when using magnification and requires more trial and error, especially considering the shallower depth of field of the fastest XF 56mm f/ and the XF 90mm f/2 are both excellent portrait lenses and in addition to being priced similarly, are definitely the very best the system has to offer in terms of optical quality. There are many differences however, starting from the obvious the focal 56mm gives you the classic field of view of a portrait lens 85mm equivalent and is usually the portrait photographer’s weapon of choice. It is easier to work with in tight spaces whereas the longer reach of the 90mm 137mm equivalent can pose more of a challenge. For studio and indoor work, the 56mm is definitely the best choice and its fast aperture makes it a good companion for low light work in spite of the slightly slower AF 90mm is more versatile but for different reasons. For outdoor work or if you do lots of head-shots where you don’t go wider than the head and neck, it can be the perfect focal length to work with. Its higher magnification also allows you to get much closer if you want to hone in on a specific detail. Last but not least, it’s one of the fastest autofocus lenses from Fujifilm so it can be useful even with fast moving the XF 56mm f/ ifyou mostly work indoors and take various kinds of portraits from head shots to half-bodyyou want a faster aperture for low light workyou want a smaller lensChoose the XF 90mm f/2 ifyou mostly take head shotsyou like to work outdoors where you have more room to move about and get the composition you wantyou want a fast focusing lens capable of handling events and fast moving subjectsAdditional note concerning the 56mm lens there is a second version called APD whose anodisation element gives you a different bokeh rendering while sacrificing one stop of light. Personally I would always advise the normal 56mm because the difference is so subtle but if you are curious to know more, you can check out our quick comparison the price of the XF 56mm f/ onAmazon Amazon UK B&H Photo eBayCheck the price of the XF 90mm f/2 onAmazon Amazon UK B&H Photo eBayYou may also like the following lens comparisonFujifilm 50mm f2 vs 56mm vs 60mm – Complete comparisonFujifilm 56mm vs Samyang 50mm – Complete comparisonAdditional ImagesXF 56mm f/ 1/800, f/ ISO 200 – 56mmX-T1, 1/850, f/ ISO 200 – 56mmX-T1, 1/1250, f/ ISO 200 – 56mmX-T1, 1/2500, ISO 200 – 56mmX-T1, 1/750, f/2, ISO 200 – 56mmXF 90mm f/2X-Pro2, 1/1800, f/2, ISO 200 – 90mmX-Pro2, 1/950, f/ ISO 200 – 90mmX-Pro2, 1/680, f/2, ISO 200 – 90mmX-Pro2, 1/3000, f/ ISO 200 – 90mmX-T2, 1/125, f/2, ISO 3200 – 90mmX-Pro2, 1/450, f/8, ISO 200 – 90mm

Search Fuji 33mm F1 Cost. 4 L lens with adapter attached 6 out of 5 stars 37 CDN$51 4 size comparison; read here: Fuji Guy Billy explains the Fujinon XF 33mm f/1 4 costs $600 and the XF 35mm f/2R WR costs $400—but unless you need the faster aperture or the physical aperture ring, you can save even more The Fuji lens has the added advantage of a faster f/1 The Fuji lens has the added

08b0e0b50e 【一部予約！】 【明るい単焦点】 FUJIFILM XF 56mm R レンズ単焦点 SONY - SONY FE 90mm Macro G OSS - by ぶたぶたじぃ, 2023-04-27 さすがは一眼レフです。布団を捲ったところから少しの光は差すとは言え、真っ暗なこたつの中を撮ってこの高画質。いつか設定を使いこなして水族館などで魚を美しく撮りたい。 ミラーレスのことは最初グレードが低い、車で言うオートマかと思っていましたが、私のような素人はまずミラーレスを使いこなしてから欲を出した方がいいかも。 スマホをいじるように設定も変えられて、お手軽です。 富士フイルム - FUJIFILM XF56mm R WR. 2022年10月購入 - by aiyusana, 2023-05-26 以外とコンパクトで持ちやすく良かったです。 Nikon 単焦点レンズ AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/ - by ハンター6626, 2023-04-13 商品の案内に記載されていなかったので致し方ありませんが、 canonの保証書や箱が付いていません。当店の保証期間が1週間だけついています。 不安は残りますが、カメラ本体は大変綺麗でした。Aランク以上に見えます。 取り敢えず機能も問題ないようです。 SONY - Carl Zeiss Batis 2/40 CF SONY Eマウント - by まるまるがお, 2023-05-24 注文後、思ったより早く届きました。フィルムの一眼レフを昔使っていた事を考えると、ミラーレスのなんと軽い事。軽すぎて大丈夫かな、と思いますがよく考えれば当たり前ですが持ち運ぶ際も楽になるな、と思います。まだ実際に使いこなすまではいってませんが、出かける時に写真をとる習慣がつきそうです。 DL04 Mamiya Sekor Z 110mm W - by sketherz, 2023-03-30 レトロ感とコンパクトさで大変満足してます。 SIGMA - キャノン用 SIGMA 85mm DG HSM Art - by ちい6400, 2023-05-22 子供の誕生のタイミングで初めてのミラーレスカメラを購入。初心者ですが慣れるととても使いやすいです。 難点といえば若干バッテリーの持ちが悪く感じるのと、レンズカバーを外したときにカバーを無くしそうになるとこくらいです。 SONY - 【美品】SONY SEL24F14GM - by ごりごり６９, 2023-03-16 状態も良くいいくらいのカメラのサイズ感で満足。 Nikon - Nikon AF-S ED - by TAKA PAPA121, 2023-05-20 小さくて使いやすいミラーレス。 まだ本格的な撮影はしてませんが、期待できます。 Canon - ◆ EF 8-15mm F4 L USM - by ギガデリック829, 2023-03-02 E3 からの買い替えです。さらにミニマル化していいですね！ ボタンが少なくなって不便との声も聞きますが、ちまちま設定を変えるスタイルでもなし、設定したらあとはシャッターに集中せい、という潔さを感じます。 サブ機での導入ですが、E4持ち出すのは気軽でもあり、また露出の感覚を鍛えてくれるので気合も入ります。不思議なカメラですね。 【マクロ フジノン】 FUJIFILM XF 60mm MACRO - by yui118, 2023-05-18 予想以上に商品は綺麗でした。今まで大きな一眼レフだったので気軽に持ち歩けるサブ機として購入したのですが大満足です。発送も迅速丁寧で大変良かったです。 PENTAX - ペンタックス PENTAX FA 77mm ブラック - by めりけんＣＡＴ, 2023-06-01 とてもきれいな商品でした。もちろん機能は問題なし。軽くて使いやすいです。磨いてくださっているのか、色もきれいです。 FUJIFILM XF 56mm f/ R Lens 16418649 B&H Photo VideoFUJINON XF 56mm R WR 鏡頭規格、價錢及介紹文- XF 56mm APD R Review Photography BlogFujifilm XF 56mm R APD review Digital TrendsFujinon XF 56mm f/ R APD Fujifilm - Review / Test ReportXf 56 2023年6月 比價比個夠BigGoAmazon FUJIFILM X 交換レンズ フジノン 単焦点 中望遠 大口径 56mm
Pleaseread full description! Selling items as is. This Fuji bundle includes an X-T3 Mirrorless Digital Camera, a 16mm f1.4 lens with a filter, a 23mm f1.4 lens, a 56mm f1.2 lens with a filter, the original battery charger, 2 batteries (only 1 is fuji brand), and the original XT3 box. Everything works but looks far from new hence the heavily discounted price - please see images. The 56mm has a
Wegot some Fuji lenses in for testing! In anticipation of the 50mm f1, I got the 56mm f1.2 and 50mm f2 to see if that was a focal length worth having. I h .
  • 22jidb8i09.pages.dev/106
  • 22jidb8i09.pages.dev/22
  • 22jidb8i09.pages.dev/111
  • 22jidb8i09.pages.dev/146
  • 22jidb8i09.pages.dev/274
  • 22jidb8i09.pages.dev/174
  • 22jidb8i09.pages.dev/361
  • 22jidb8i09.pages.dev/216
  • 22jidb8i09.pages.dev/253

    • fuji 56mm f1 2 or 90mm f2