# Should i consider getting the Fujifilm 56mm f1.2 R?



## d_animality

Hi guys i own the X-T2, im very new in this photography and as for portraits i have the Rokinon 135mm, Its a very wonderful lens but the focal length is quite far..i need to stand myself away from the subject to take good picture... other than that im also ordering the Fujinon 23mm f2 which will be coming to me soon (thinking maybe its enough for the focal length so i dont need to get the 56mm)... so im wondering do i still need the 56mm for my camera? i love to take portraits, family photo, street, landscape and astro photography... so i have rokinon 12mm for my wide lens  so hoping to get your recommendations soon


----------



## Solarflare

Most Fujifilm X lenses are pretty good.

Personally I would prefer a Nikon G to Fujifilm X adapter plus Voigtländer "Nokton" 58mm f1.4 SL II "S" (or the predecessor "N" or the predecessor of that, all three versions are optically identical) over the 56/1.2. It cheaper - even more so if buying used - and optically superior.

Even inside the system, the 60/2.4 macro lens is as good if not better optically and available very cheap as a used lens. And its a 1:2 macro lens on top of that.

Of course theres also the upcoming XF 80mm f2.8 WR OIS macro which is 1:1. Its only on the official map so far, though, not announced yet.


----------



## jaomul

I can't talk specifically for that lens (though I know it gets good press), but 56mm should be a very good portrait length on a crop camera due where it positions you in relation to subject. 23mm on the other hand is not really considered a good length for portrait


----------



## d_animality

Solarflare said:


> Most Fujifilm X lenses are pretty good.
> 
> Personally I would prefer a Nikon G to Fujifilm X adapter plus Voigtländer "Nokton" 58mm f1.4 SL II "S" (or the predecessor "N" or the predecessor of that, all three versions are optically identical) over the 56/1.2. It cheaper - even more so if buying used - and optically superior.
> 
> Even inside the system, the 60/2.4 macro lens is as good if not better optically and available very cheap as a used lens. And its a 1:2 macro lens on top of that.
> 
> Of course theres also the upcoming XF 80mm f2.8 WR OIS macro which is 1:1. Its only on the official map so far, though, not announced yet.



Ok yes i have read about this macro lens, but i want a portrait lens instead of a macro lens.. are they can be used for the same purpose?


----------



## d_animality

jaomul said:


> I can't talk specifically for that lens (though I know it gets good press), but 56mm should be a very good portrait length on a crop camera due where it positions you in relation to subject. 23mm on the other hand is not really considered a good length for portrait



Ok im getting:

1) the 23mm for my prime lens as i read good reviews about it better for a group photo, street photography and landscape than the 35mm

2) the 56mm for my portrait lens

so atleast i have 23mm, 56mm and 135mm... thus i dont need to buy the 90mm since i already have the 135mm... i think i have almost everything for my everyday use right


----------



## Derrel

I would rather have the Fuji 56mm than ANY NON-native adapted manual or autofocusing lens!!!! "Optically superior" means one thing if the lens is focused dead-on; ot the focus is off by 4 inches, the optically superior lens becomes rubbish, but the dead-on autofocusing lens becomes the shining example.

I have heard good things about the 56mm, and it yes,it is expensive, but it's also a lifetime grade lens. Good lenbses in NATIVE, autofocvusing mounts are worth a ton. Adding adapters to make things function is one thing...havking a lens that bayonets on perfectly,precisely, etc.. worth ther added expense to get the EXIF info, the right back-focus distance, etc..


----------



## d_animality

Derrel said:


> I would rather have the Fuji 56mm than ANY NON-native adapted manual or autofocusing lens!!!! "Optically superior" means one thing if the lens is focused dead-on; ot the focus is off by 4 inches, the optically superior lens becomes rubbish, but the dead-on autofocusing lens becomes the shining example.
> 
> I have heard good things about the 56mm, and it yes,it is expensive, but it's also a lifetime grade lens. Good lenbses in NATIVE, autofocvusing mounts are worth a ton. Adding adapters to make things function is one thing...havking a lens that bayonets on perfectly,precisely, etc.. worth ther added expense to get the EXIF info, the right back-focus distance, etc..



Thank you very much that is why im getting this 56mm lens... The press, feedbacks and the compliments about is too much.. Its considered old lens but the hype still maintains until today.. Even the latest 50mm is no match..


----------



## astroNikon

@Gary A.  and @jcdeboever  are Fuji fanatics .. they should have good input.  But I would think too that Fuji lens will be superior to another lens plus adapter.


----------



## Gary A.

I don't have the 56mm, largely because it focuses a bit slowly because of the very large and very heavy 1.2 front element.  I think as a portrait lens the slow-ish focus would not be noticed.   But everything I've seen from it is world class.  I have used the 60mm as a portrait lens for the few portraits I've shot.






Fujinon 60mm

Lately, I have been giving the 56mm a renewed interest.


----------



## jcdeboever

I thing the 60mm macro is the best bang for the buck. Outstanding image quality. 

If I were really into portraits, I would buy the 50-140 f/2.8. It has excellent image stabilization and super fast focus acquisition. I borrowed the lens and frankly, didn't want to give it back. Looking at the portraits from this lens are unique and outstanding. On top of that, down the road, your could add a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter to it to expand it's usefulness. 

I think the 56mm is a useful lens in low light, so it does have its place.


----------



## d_animality

Gary A. said:


> I don't have the 56mm, largely because it focuses a bit slowly because of the very large and very heavy 1.2 front element.  I think as a portrait lens the slow-ish focus would not be noticed.   But everything I've seen from it is world class.  I have used the 60mm as a portrait lens for the few portraits I've shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fujinon 60mm
> 
> Lately, I have been giving the 56mm a renewed interest.



Oh wow that is so wonderful portrait.. i need to learn how to take that kind of shot soon! and thank you very much for your feedback... i didnt expect 60mm to do portraits so that is why it wasnt in my bucket list.. but ur photo is stunning and i already ordered the 56mm, it is on its way i really hope i dint make huge mistake investing on it..



jcdeboever said:


> I thing the 60mm macro is the best bang for the buck. Outstanding image quality.
> 
> If I were really into portraits, I would buy the 50-140 f/2.8. It has excellent image stabilization and super fast focus acquisition. I borrowed the lens and frankly, didn't want to give it back. Looking at the portraits from this lens are unique and outstanding. On top of that, down the road, your could add a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter to it to expand it's usefulness.
> 
> I think the 56mm is a useful lens in low light, so it does have its place.



Yes i have seen that lens and it is way too big for my travel companion and too expensive for me... and yea ive seen the images sample from it but the price made me think a lot..lol!


----------



## Gary A.

I am absolutely convinced that you will not be disappointed. Enjoy and don't worry.


----------



## Solarflare

I fail to see the issue with manual focus on the Fuji X system, since it has every feature thinkable of to support it - focus peaking, magnification, AND digital split screen.

I also see no reason why I would need autofocus speed on a portrait lens.

And yes the 56/1.2 is 1.2, while the 60/2.4 is "only" 2.4. However the reason I consider a lens a portrait lens is its rendering, and the 60/2.4 renders better than the 56/1.2.

And yes all Fujifilm lenses are at least decent. Some are exceptional. Most are good or very good. Compared to what other companies have to offer.


----------



## jcdeboever

Gary A. said:


> I am absolutely convinced that you will not be disappointed. Enjoy and don't worry.


I agree 100%.


----------



## d_animality

Okay thank you very much i really cant wait for the lens to arrive... Im excited already!!


----------



## d_animality

I got the lens and omg im so in love with it! its like everything that came out of it is perfect!! thank you very much for your suggestions and tips!! this is a very wonderful lens and its my fav for now


----------



## Gary A.

Congrats.


----------



## d_animality

Thank you!!.. anyway im looking forward to get ND filters for some of my lenses... since i want to take that "foggy" look of waterfall but the day is so bright that using slower shutter and minimum aperture are not helping!

i dont know if i need to use this thread or create a new one but here are my questions:

1) is there any affordable ND filter that "one size fits all" my lenses? or if they aren't
2) which lenses is more suitable to get the ND filter? max is 2 and here are my lenses
      a) Rokinon 12mm f.2  << im *considering to get the ND for this* as this is the wide lens i always use for landscape
      b) Fujinon 56mm f1.2 << as u all know my fav now for portrait! i *might* need ND during bright daylight
      c) Fujinon 23mm f2.0 << im pretty sure im gonna use this more lens than anything else ... its coming to me soon so yea..
      d) Fujinon 18-55 << well i rarely use this lens as my other primes are more powerful so no ND for this
      e) Rokinon 135mm f2 << well this is my 2nd fav portrait after 56mm but i dont think i need ND for this...

So to summarise.. its either the 12mm, 23mm or the 56mm << amongst these lenses which will benefit more the ND filter if i plan to take picture of someone standing near the "foggy look" waterfall during bright sunny day and also when i plan to take picture of nature with blue skies.. im confused to get it for the 12 or 23 (for landscape) or between 23 or 56 (for portrait) 

from this option it sounds clear that i should buy it for the 23mm since i can use it for landsape and even portrait but i still welcome your suggestions... ugh i talk too much sorry and thank u in advance


----------



## jcdeboever

d_animality said:


> Thank you!!.. anyway im looking forward to get ND filters for some of my lenses... since i want to take that "foggy" look of waterfall but the day is so bright that using slower shutter and minimum aperture are not helping!
> 
> i dont know if i need to use this thread or create a new one but here are my questions:
> 
> 1) is there any affordable ND filter that "one size fits all" my lenses? or if they aren't
> 2) which lenses is more suitable to get the ND filter? max is 2 and here are my lenses
> a) Rokinon 12mm f.2  << im *considering to get the ND for this* as this is the wide lens i always use for landscape
> b) Fujinon 56mm f1.2 << as u all know my fav now for portrait! i *might* need ND during bright daylight
> c) Fujinon 23mm f2.0 << im pretty sure im gonna use this more lens than anything else ... its coming to me soon so yea..
> d) Fujinon 18-55 << well i rarely use this lens as my other primes are more powerful so no ND for this
> e) Rokinon 135mm f2 << well this is my 2nd fav portrait after 56mm but i dont think i need ND for this...
> 
> So to summarise.. its either the 12mm, 23mm or the 56mm << amongst these lenses which will benefit more the ND filter if i plan to take picture of someone standing near the "foggy look" waterfall during bright sunny day and also when i plan to take picture of nature with blue skies.. im confused to get it for the 12 or 23 (for landscape) or between 23 or 56 (for portrait)
> 
> from this option it sounds clear that i should buy it for the 23mm since i can use it for landsape and even portrait but i still welcome your suggestions... ugh i talk too much sorry and thank u in advance



I'd start a new thread in the beginners forum to get more of a response. That 18-55 is a fine lens. Great in low light where you need OIS. I use it on the street as well. Sharp and contrasty.


----------



## Gary A.

To answer #1- No.

Typically, for expensive filters, the photog purchases a filter which covers the largest lens diameter, which in this case is most likely is the 56mm or the 12mm, then use 'Step Up' rings in order to adapt the smaller lens diameters to the larger diameter of the filter.

Another and more expensive method is to use a filter system (kit).  The filter system consists of a filter holder which is adaptable and fits over most/all/many of your lenses.  The filters are square and come in a few different sizes.  The larger the lens the larger the filter.  A typical size filter holder is 4"x4".

Lee is considered one of the better systems.  If you're interested in going this route, let me know and I'll share some cost saving tips and some things to be aware.

Good Luck and Good Shooting,
Gary


----------



## Derrel

I would look into the 4 x 4 inch filters "systems", like those made and sold by Lee Filters, or other brands. This type of slide-in filter that goes into a slotted filter holder which itself has been slipped onto the front side of a screw-in lens mounting ring is the way to go for landscape filter uses, like for graduated neutral density filters,etc..


----------



## sashbar

I am using it with XT1, it is a wonderful lense, albeit not the most forgiving.  It is very sharp and I would say, even analytical in its rendition. If you are familiar with the popular 35 1.4 lense (which I call "romantic"  because of its colour palette and how it treats sharpness), compared to that the 56 1.2 is kind of a reality check for an aspiring photographer. But if you nail the shot, it is simply stunning.


----------

