XF56 APD F1.2 for Free

[Aswald]

If you had a chance to trade your XF56 F1.2 to the XF56 APD F1.2 for almost next to nothing..........would you? Why?

[Sakini]

I would not trade it - the APD version has a creamier bokeh, but not always and when the situation is not ideal the bokeh can be very nervous and ugly. The "normal one" is more stable in this, I had the same chance but stayed with the classic version.

[Maurice]

I don't think that's true. If the bokeh is nervous due to a difficult background then the non-APD version would be nervous too. There is no lens on the planet that is always perfect. But it is impossible for the APD filter to 'add' any nervousness, all it does is soften edges of the 'circle of confusion' in very specific conditions. Any remaining nervousness is due to the background conditions only.

[aceflibble]

Even Fuji staff will tell you, the APD version is only worth using if you know you'll be shooting at f/1.2, or near to it, all of the time. Otherwise the regular version will actually do a better job. The 'creamier' APD comes at the cost of some light. If smoother background blur is what you want, you should really be looking at longer focal lengths. 85mm (equivalent), at any aperture and APD or otherwise, is never going to give you as smooth a background as a 135mm equivalent. (I.e. the 90mm or 50-140mm lenses.)

[Maurice]

Again, not true. What the APD filter does cannot be solved with a longer focal length.

 

As said, it requires specific conditions all coming together to benefit from it. With indeed shooting at F1.2 being one of them, but that is all part of the deal, and most people that buy such a fast lens will want to use it wide open! I'm not saying everybody should get the APD version if they could, more like the opposite. Only do it if you understand its perks! But as to the reasons why, there is just too much false information going around, clearly.

 

 

https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/

[Aswald]

So to my question, can I take as....

 

Maurice - yes.

aceflibble - no

 

and

sakini - no

[Maurice]

Well i would take it, but it depends on what you want of course. It becomes a more difficult question when you also have the 90/2 or 50-140mm and a price difference to consider, but since it's "for free", personally i would take the APD. But that doesn't mean you should. Because it is possible that you just don't like that ultra-smooth background when it 'happens', some people say it looks like photoshop blur.

 

Cons:

Trouble with phase detect (allegedly!)

Tiny loss of light (who cares, DoF unchanged)

More expensive (does not apply here)

 

Pros:

More valuable (fact)

Different (if you like that kind of thing)

Sometimes it *can* produce bokeh like nothing else (like it or not)

[Patrick FR]

This might help: http://www.fujirumors.com/xf-56mm-apd-vs-xf-56mm/

[Trenton Talbot]

If you had a chance to trade your XF56 F1.2 to the XF56 APD F1.2 for almost next to nothing..........would you? Why?

 

If you have an unlimited supply of APD lenses for your rolling deal – sure, why not? I'd trade my non-APD for your APD, sell it, buy a non-APD, and repeat the transaction until I have both lenses on hand – "for almost next to nothing"!   

[Aswald]

If you have an unlimited supply of APD lenses for your rolling deal – sure, why not? I'd trade my non-APD for your APD, sell it, buy a non-APD, and repeat the transaction until I have both lenses on hand – "for almost next to nothing"!   

 

Haha....now why didn't I think of that?  There's about 5 sets available for direct swap. I'm scratching my head as I really love the XF56 F1.2 but have very little experience with the APD version. I'll be it out over the next few days when it arrives. Will update for sure....

[Aswald]

This might help: http://www.fujirumors.com/xf-56mm-apd-vs-xf-56mm/

 

Thanks! This helps!

 

Funny as the APD does have a deeper DOF. A bit of a trade off when it comes to blurring the background. Most unusual indeed.

[Aswald]

Well i would take it, but it depends on what you want of course. It becomes a more difficult question when you also have the 90/2 or 50-140mm and a price difference to consider, but since it's "for free", personally i would take the APD. But that doesn't mean you should. Because it is possible that you just don't like that ultra-smooth background when it 'happens', some people say it looks like photoshop blur.

 

Cons:

Trouble with phase detect (allegedly!)

Tiny loss of light (who cares, DoF unchanged)

More expensive (does not apply here)

 

Pros:

More valuable (fact)

Different (if you like that kind of thing)

Sometimes it *can* produce bokeh like nothing else (like it or not)

 

Thanks for your feedback.

 

My main concern is the Phase detection AF. I'll have a chance to try it out the next few days. Will update for sure.

[aceflibble]

Again, not true. What the APD filter does cannot be solved with a longer focal length.

 

You're confusing depth of field, specular diffusion and bokeh. Apodization filters only remove the harsh edge of out of focus highlights. The highlights themselves can still be harsh due to the angle of view, distance between the subject, the foreground, the background and the lens, and the simple nature of whatever it is being thrown out of focus. A person in drab clothes standing 15' in front of a tree? Okay, yes, an APD filter is going to smooth out that background a little. Now put that person in something sparkly and stand them 5' in front of a pebbledash wall at an angle and the filter isn't going to achieve anything that the basic 56mm f/1.2 lens wouldn't also do; a busy background is still going to look busy. The 90mm, on the other hand, is going to at least give you a bit more compression so things get blown out just that tiny bit more. (Okay, maybe not at just 5' separation. That's an exaggeration. But you get the idea.)

 

Using a longer focal length—at a wide aperture, of course—can smooth out both instances. If I may nick a couple of examples from prophotonut:

http://www.prophotonut.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/XF50-140mmF2.8-R-at-140-mm-at-f-2.8-Close-shot-L.jpg

http://www.prophotonut.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/XF56mmF1.2-R-APD-at-f-1.2-Close-shot-L.jpg

140mm f/2.8 followed by the 56mm f/1.2 APD. Both wide open. Same subject, angle of view changed to compensate for the difference in focal length. 

Same degree of diffusion and neither shows any hard edges to the out of focus highlights, but the longer lens successfully blows out the background more because it's doing that and giving you more compression.

 

I'm not saying that the APD is utterly useless in all situations or that the 90mm will magically give you smoother backgrounds only because it's longer. You do have to know what you're doing with each lens and you do have to change how you shoot with the longer lens to actually see the effects. I'm simply highlighting that if somebody is really, really focused on smooth backgrounds, using a longer lens is going to be a better fit for them in the vast majority of circumstances. The 56mm f/1.2 APD is as situational a lens as a tilt-shift or super-macro.

 

 

Oh and just to be more helpful to the actual issue at hand: you can get separate apodization filters and various highlight halation filters which will do the same thing as the APD. They're incredibly expensive, but they do exist and have done for decades. You can also make your own with a medium format film camera. So it's not technically accurate to say the 56mm APD produces images "like nothing else"

[Maurice]

Sorry Ace, but i'm not confusing anything. It seems to me you're confusing size of the bokeh, with smoothness of the bokeh. I was responding to your claim that "If smoother background blur is what you want, you should really be looking at longer focal lengths. 85mm (equivalent), at any aperture and APD or otherwise, is never going to give you as smooth a background as a 135mm equivalent. (I.e. the 90mm or 50-140mm lenses.)" which is still false.

 

While it seems that you do understand what's going on. You're looking at it the wrong way round. Of course the APD filter does not solve anything in a situation where any lens with decent background separation already produces a smooth background. In your example the non-APD version looks the same, and even the 55-200mm looks great. Point is, it may be rare that the APD filter can show its strength to smooth out hard edges when there are any, but it is ONLY an APD filter that can solve this kind of 'problem' the way it does, anytime it needs to, when nothing else can. So yes like nothing else.

 

Using a long focal length might give you bigger highlights, but it does not soften any edges. You may argue that if those two lenses were on the table, one would benefit more from the 'bigger' bokeh 'all the time', than the more rare occasion that highlights become a problem, and indeed i would rather have the 90mm myself for many reasons (it's cheaper, and has way more diverse applications for me), but that was not the question !! That's what the other topic is for.

 

By the way, here is a graph that shows the theoretical blur disk size of the Fujinons. The 56/1.2 still 'beats' the 90/2.

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/203-theoretical-background-blur-in-fujinon-lenses-incl-90mm-f2/

[aceflibble]

Smoothness and 'size', as you put it, are not independent. Or, at least, they do not have to be. The apodization filter dulls the harsh edges of out of focus highlights whereas more compression enlarges them. Up to a point, enlarging background highlights is going to make those edges more obvious, if anything, but beyond that you're compressing the background so far that out of focus highlights get completely blown out; you don't need to darken the harsh rings because there simply aren't any left, they've been destroyed by the ridiculous compression.

It's past 2am here, and I'm not sure how well this is getting through, so if you'll excuse me a very simple and extreme example: look up a 200mm f/2, an 85mm f/1.2 and then compare with the 56mm f/1.2 APD. Again, I am not saying the APD in any way fails to do its job, but it is highly situational while considerably longer and faster lenses do you get you the same or better results in 99.99% of situations. The one and only circumstance I can think of where the 56mm APD would manage to smooth out a background when a longer lens couldn't would be if you were so restricted on space that you couldn't change your angle of view at all and the longer lens simply couldn't frame the image to begin with. That, I would concede, would be the one and only instance in which the APD would be doing a better job than changing to a longer focal length. (Not counting: not knowing how to use either lens, framing a shot exceptionally poorly, etc.)

 

And, again, an apodization filter can be bought (If you've got about £150/$300 to spare) or even made, very simply (a medium format film camera is all you need), for any lens, and there are other methods of OOF highlight softening which do achieve the same thing in slightly different ways. (Typically working on the basis of feathered focus.)
So the APD is, categorically, not the only thing that can do this "like nothing else". Fuji did not invent apodization filters and apodization filters themselves have historically not been a very popular method of smoothing backgrounds because of the drawbacks of light loss and the fact there are other methods of smoothing things out which still allow the same light through at any distance and are effective at all apertures, not just the widest. Feathering focus is an easier, cheaper and more effective method of achieving the gaussian blur look, and has been for decades. Combine it with a long lens shooting to a large transparency and you'll find the 56mm APD's look most certainly is not at all unique. Or I mean, hell, thanks to Photoshop you can literally run a gaussian blur filter on whatever you want.
The one area where an apodization filter genuinely is the only viable option is precision beam operation, such as laser eye surgery and optically-guided motion tracking or cutting. You don't want inconsistent light to cause any unwanted motion and you want everything centered, so you use apodization filters to even out the beam pattern and ensure the center of the beam is the clearest. But unless you're planning on using your 56mm lens to track someone's pupils for motion control, this isn't of much use to us!

 
edit: and your graph is incorrect, but I'll respond to that there 

[Tom H.]

I have the 56 APD. It has been sent back twice for servicing. First time they replaced the entire autofocus mechanism. When it came back, it seemed even less able to focus correctly, so I sent it back again. Second time they replaced the entire optical assembly, so now I have a whole new lens, apart from the barrel... This seems to have fixed any issues I had with lack of sharpness and focus problems...

 

I like how it renders, but I never used the regular 56 1.2. It's not the sharpest lens I've ever owned, but neither was the Canon 135 f2 L, and I liked that one too just for the rendering. This comes very close to how I felt about that one.

[Aswald]

I have the 56 APD. It has been sent back twice for servicing. First time they replaced the entire autofocus mechanism. When it came back, it seemed even less able to focus correctly, so I sent it back again. Second time they replaced the entire optical assembly, so now I have a whole new lens, apart from the barrel... This seems to have fixed any issues I had with lack of sharpness and focus problems...

 

I like how it renders, but I never used the regular 56 1.2. It's not the sharpest lens I've ever owned, but neither was the Canon 135 f2 L, and I liked that one too just for the rendering. This comes very close to how I felt about that one.

 

Ok....that's worrying.....most dealers tell me that the APD version is slow moving but they didn't say why.....

 

You must have some pretty sharp lenses that makes you say the 56 and 135 wasn't sharp.

[Maurice]

 

 

Aaand again, completely missing the point. Nothing needed correcting or whatever you're doing. And talking long enough about it won't change it either, we'd just be going in circles.

 

Ok....that's worrying.....most dealers tell me that the APD version is slow moving but they didn't say why.....

 

You must have some pretty sharp lenses that makes you say the 56 and 135 wasn't sharp.

 

First time i'm hearing it. And i'm always skeptical with such claims because it could be a million things that makes one say that, especially with such big apertures lenses .. and xtrans.

[Patrick FR]

photozone just published its review... they say you buy magic with money and the bokeh is as smooth as silk. They therefore recommend it over the regular 56mmF1.2 (which they say is already a great lens btw).

 

http://www.fujirumors.com/you-buy-magic-for-money-bokeh-is-mostly-as-smooth-as-silk-56mmapd-review-at-photozone-save-125-on-it/

[Marc G.]

Not I would never do that. The 1 stop loss of light is just too much of a hassle for me. I often shoot in very low light (weddings) and losing 1 stop of light makes the difference between a picture and crap.

 

I also dislike the fact that you lose PDAF.

 

Besides, I write that, knowing that the 56 1.2 R is my most used lens, by far.

[Tom H.]

Ok....that's worrying.....most dealers tell me that the APD version is slow moving but they didn't say why.....

 

You must have some pretty sharp lenses that makes you say the 56 and 135 wasn't sharp.

 

Slow moving is mostly because it's a large hunk of glass I'm guessing... And because you don't have PDAF.

 

My 16 1.4 and 50-140 are both crazy sharp wide open. The 56 APD not so much, it's sharp as hell as from f2.8 onwards. It's no slouch though a bigger apertures, it's just not as sharp as some of the other glass I own or used to own, including Olympus and Canon. It's sharp enough at f1.8, below that I find it's rather soft, only for use in very low light for my taste.

[umad?]

Personally (if there weren't the price difference) I would have gone for that APD. 

 

It's my portrait lens and I have no light problems there (so the loss of light due to the filter doesn't matter), but the bokeh is nicer.

 

But for a difference for 500€ - that's more than half the 90mm!

[Aswald]

A quick update. I did a very quick (and I mean very quick) test at the vendor's shop and I found out one more thing which affects the XF56APD lens. The color balance is "warmer" on the APD version. In difficult lighting this can translate to a "yellower" pic. When I attempt to correct the WB on the APD pic, it translate to a slightly "colder" pic compared to the WB corrected standard 56 version. So, apart from the known differences, I'm adding color balance to the list of differences. Here's a preliminary conclusion. All pics SOOC (except for WB corrected), reduced in PS.

 

XF56 APD F1.2 compared to standard XF56 version

1. Dimmer by 1 stop of light

2. Slight better contrast

3. Warmer color balance in some lighting conditions

4. Smoother bokeh

5. Slightly deeper DOF. Noticeable in most shots.

6. Perceivably "Sharper" due to better contrast. Although this may just a visual illusion.

 

I truly apologize for the sub standard pics but what do you guys think?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Aswald]

2nd pic is the WB "corrected" version by clicking on the same spot in the picture.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Aswald]

At this point, I can live with most things about the XF56 APD. My only concern now is the WB produced by it.

 

All opinions are greatly appreciated.