56mm 1.2 or 50mm 2.0 for portraits???

[GreenGuy33]

Ok, which lens should I get to shoot portraits?

[milandro]

both are perfect lenses for your portraits, so chose either one

[Nero]

I'd say it purely comes down to whether you're willing to pay the additional $500+ for the extra aperture. The weather sealing on the f/2 is nice, but never a deal breaker for me. You could debate about size/weight, but for a portrait lens I don't think it really matters as much as on a "normal" lens that you're shooting a lot of different things with. Just decide what your budget is and buy one based on that.

[Larry Bolch]

Just to confuse things further, add the 60mm f/2.4 to the mix. A lovely all-around short telephoto, extremely sharp with focusing down to 1:2. Highly praised for out-of-focus rendering though not as capable of focusing on the eye with the eyebrow out of focus if that is important to you. I prefer both eyes and the nose in focus. Light-weight and inexpensive. I personally like its 90mm equivalent focal length as my ideal for face shots. With its close focusing to infinity range, it was criticized on the X-Pro1. That was fixed with a firmware upgrade, though it still has to deal with the extreme focus range and may be a trifle slower than ordinary lenses.

[Phil]

It looks like the f/2 image quality is great, so it really comes down to: Do you want/need the extra stop and a bit? Without A/Bing photos, I don't think the f/2 one will look like it's missing anything, but that extra speed comes in handy in low light.

[timbo762]

Always get the most expensive lens you can afford. If you can afford the 56mm but settle for the 50mm, you'll always wonder what you're missing out on and sooner or later wind up buying the 56mm anyway. I managed a retail camera shop for over twenty years and saw this happen time and again. They are both great lenses and either will get the job done.

[petergabriel]

The 56 seems to be more dreamy whereas the 50 seems more saturated and contrasty. I believe the 56 is more flattering for portraits.

[Aswald]

I can't get used to the "compression" and background render of the F2. At some distance, it's confusing my perceptions. And that's at F2. First time I am experiencing this.....

[petergabriel]

Can you upload an example? @aswald

[Aswald]

I don't have pictures of my own as I didn't buy the lens at the end.

 

Some of the review pictures which made me somewhat convinced were these. Please, I'm not judging the pictures of these bloggers in any way. I'm saying the "compression" effect and the lack of real background separation, at some distances, is making me very confused to the point of finding them annoying. It may not be obvious for you or others. I speak for myself.

 

http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.my/2017/02/first-look-fujifilm-xf50mm-f2-r-wr.html

 

http://www.caveiraphotography.com/blog/getting-grainy-with-the-fujinon-xf50-f2-wr-and-xt-2-a-review-from-a-fella-in-oxford

 

These blogs were very helpful in helping me decide that I'd keep my 56 F1.2.

[MattXPhitographer]

It is not a real problem.. if you have bot problema for the cost.. buy the 56!!

[Dr.Nipun]

I am also in dilemma in between these 2 lenses. My purpose is traditional style wedding photography, not a documentary style. Does anyone have real experience in these sorts of situation? TIA

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Ranz]

I am also in dilemma in between these 2 lenses. My purpose is traditional style wedding photography, not a documentary style. Does anyone have real experience in these sorts of situation? TIA

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I shoot weddings and the 56mm would stay on the X-T2 100% of the time if it were feasible.

[Dr.Nipun]

I shoot weddings and the 56mm would stay on the X-T2 100% of the time if it were feasible.

Could u try the 50mm yet??? Thanks again.

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Ranz]

Could u try the 50mm yet??? Thanks again.

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I've had the 56mm since my X-T1 so I've never bothered with the 50mm.

 

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using Tapatalk

[AgentOrange]

The 56mm f1.2 is a special lens and is one of the finest portrait lenses I've ever used, I wouldn't part with mine :-)

[SpikeHK]

It really depends on your shooting style but I would say that if you're looking to really separate your subject from the background, going from F2 to F1.2 will make a difference. 

 

Attached are two portraits I shot today, Fuji X-T2 with the 56mm @ F1.2 - these were loaded into Lightroom, (a tiny bit of sharpening but no other adjustments) and exported out again, basically to resize them so they'd fit here. (My first time posting here!) 

 

I just bought this lens a week ago and all I can say is that I'm sorry I didn't buy it sooner!

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!

[hjalmarg1]

Ok, which lens should I get to shoot portraits?

Get the 56mm F1.2 if you can afford it

[GreenGuy33]

After looking at the images, the 56mm is a must have! I hope that Fujifilm runs a big sale soon.

[Sahib7]

It's not either/or but as well as

I have both and both have their individual merits.

 

56 f1.2 has the faster aperture but is also bigger and the AF is pretty slow compared to the 50 f2 (used on anX-Pro 2).

The 50 f2 is very good optically, is much smaller and lighter, has WR and the faster AF. It is also better for using with the OVF due to its size. And don't forget the angle of view is also a bit different (the 50 is a bit more all purpose, the 56 a bit more Tele for portrait).

 

It all boils down to this for me:

The 50 is the better every day lens. The 56 is the better special purpose lens for portraits.

Having both I do use the 50 more often than the 56.

[petergabriel]

What about the character of the lenses? I have read the 50mm is kind of warm.

[Jaco van Lith]

Portraits are made without any hurry. With an analog f/1,4 ( plus an adapter )it is great fun.

Or a analog 85, 90 or 100 mm. Saves a lot of money.

The old Fujinon 1 ;2,8 - 100 mm ( made in 1976 ) is better than the new 90 mm made in 2016.

Printed at 80 x 120 cm in black and white.

[Sluw]

Portraits are made without any hurry. With an analog f/1,4 ( plus an adapter )it is great fun.

Or a analog 85, 90 or 100 mm. Saves a lot of money.

The old Fujinon 1 ;2,8 - 100 mm ( made in 1976 ) is better than the new 90 mm made in 2016.

Printed at 80 x 120 cm in black and white.

If you're shooting in very controlled conditions or a studio it's great fun to try indeed. But if you want to shoot people who are slightly moving it's very hard to get them in good focus. 

 

And I definitely wouldn't say the fujinon 100mm f/2.8 is even close to the 90mm f/2.0. There are multiple tests online, one example http://forum.mflenses.com/quick-and-dirty-100mm-test-fujinon-pentacon-tamron-t25739.htmlhttp://forum.mflenses.com/quick-and-dirty-100mm-test-fujinon-pentacon-tamron-t25739.html.

[Jaco van Lith]

Not every photo of a human being is a portrait. Maybe a snap shot. Ever seen the photoos of Felix Nadar. Shot at 4 ( FOUR ) ISO.

Today's errand boy with a camera is not always a photographer.

Beware of Vloggers  and Bloggers who make you think they earn their living with a camera.A photographers gots no time to write.

 

Shooting moving people needs more DOF ! So forget wide apertures; stop down to f/11. And do not fear noise; 6400 ISO is no problem.

In the sixties and the seventies everybody thought Tri-X had a lot of grain. I have seen the Tri-X enlargements sized 200 x 300 cm, shot in

Vietnam with a Nikon and a Leica. At the World Press Photo Expo in the Netherlands.