Jump to content

Sharpness 56mm 1.2


jabecker85

Recommended Posts

[...]

 

Then set clarity to about +10

 

[...]

 

I personally do not like to use LR Clarity setting, specially when there is foliage, it usually mess up quite badly in there.

 

Plus, LR plays kind of bad with RAF files on any version before 6.x. I had some major chromatic aberrations that were corrected by just upgrading versions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't own a Fujifilm 56mm f/1.2, I have shot with one for a while and I don't really have any complaints about its sharpness.

 

This is a full-size 16 MP OOC JPEG shot with X-T1 and 56mm at f/1.2: http://photo.torba.com/images/pavel.urusov/f/gI5QLQoLCnsuemLMrod5.jpg

 

As you can see, it's sharp. Maybe even too sharp because it shows all the pores etc.

 

This one was also shot at f/1.2 and converted in Lightroom, and it's extremely sharp: http://photo.torba.com/images/pavel.urusov/f/e5rz4Eayund6m2g7Udyc.jpg

 

I think you have a misfocusing issue. The eyebrow in your shots looks sharper than the eye itself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing the test shot and especially the OOC JPG (the 3rd) I also will try another Raw converter to further test the 56. To my eyes both Capture One and Raw Therapee do a very good job and RT is free. [emoji1]

 

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I'd try another raw converter, I'd first of all update the raw converter I already use to the current version and second use it with working values. Gets much more mileage out of the tools than blindly using the default conversions of other converters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I received my 56mm f1.2 yesterday.

This is the first shot out of the box, mounted on the X-Pro1 @ f1.2.

 

Jpeg out of camera no PP.

 

This is probably the sharpest lens wide open I've seen, sharper than my Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH.

EDIT: After uploading the image here, it's not really apparent in the uploaded file, but please take my word on this lens.

 

Initial opinion- this lens is impressive.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I too have the same issues with XF56 1.2. I am taking approx. 7-8 shots to get 1 sharp with the camera at the same settings? I am using portrait focus with eye detection on, It is me who is not doing something as the camera takes the same shot at the same settings!! I shoot mainly indoor with natural light and I am always struggling to get pin sharp photos, when focus is missed it looks like my ISO is 12000 or higher? What is the minimum shutter speed I should be using handheld (although I am getting some in focus??)

 

Here is a link to a couple of in focus photo's I took this weekend:

 

https://500px.com/photo/202366213/b-w-portrait-by-jamie-morton?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=19297835

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/142235583@N04/33233690971

 

Any feedback on how to solve my issue will be most welcome.

 

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that producing pictures beyond motion blur has proven difficult at times. Film was very much more forgiving (or I was younger)

 

I don’t own the 56mm though but I have used the 60mm and similar focal lengths with manual focussing , let alone the Petzval 85mm ( where you really better shoot on a monopod under all circumstances)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also consider that we are pixel peeping here at its finest!

 

I shoot this lens a lot recently and I noticed that 1.2 is 'sharp' but the jump to 1.4 or 1.6 is so noticable. Going through a set of pictures the ones done with 1.4 or 1.6 just pop a little more. Pictures with 1.2 are a littler 'softish, softer'. But once you compare it to a Nikon 85 1.4 wide open or stoped down to 1.8, the 56 is stellar at 1.2. It is absolutely normal that the lens is just a little softer full open but compared to other lenses out there it is amazing! Same applies to the 35 1.4 it just starts to shine at 1.6 but is still really good at 1.4. (I don't care the sharpnesslos on the 35, it has its own magic.)

 

You tests are tying to be 'objective' and indicate the 85 1.8 is the sharper lens, we should not neglect, that the barcode image has a strange rendering too. It has more contrast yes apart from that I don't see a 'much better' lens. (No, I am not biased at this point!)

Edited by Styp
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, thank you for your ideas and recommandations. Although all shots were done from a sturdy tripod with manual focus (both) zoom (both) and focus peaking (Fuji) to focus the eye, I can't rule out the possibility that a) my model moved (this is the reason for the different resolution, but shouldn't have influenced the sharpness because I used a flash to light the model) and B) that my Focus was perfect. That's why I will do some shots of static things this week and post the crops here :)

 

Interesting read here.  First of all, I returned my 56mm about two days after I purchased it because of slow focusing issues.  Maybe it was the lens, because ti certainly was not the subject. You also mentioned you manually focused.  Last weekend I photographed for stock use a box and a bunch of Cuban Cigars. I used manual focus for some, and auto focus for others;  35mm 1.4, Tripod, remote.  Each and every one of the manual focus images taken with the 35 and the x-T2 were rejected for lack of sharpness/focus.  Whereas the autofocus ones were approved for sale.   Weird.  I'll have to re-shoot the images this coming weekend with all on autofocus and see what happens.  Just my .02 cents...  Though not totally relevant except for the manual focus part.  Oh, I used the LCD, and the red highlight when manual focusing....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I think DOF at 1.2 is so small that it is easy to move away from focus point during hand holding the camera. I hardly ever shoot at 1.2 and prefer f2. Ive made too many mistakes at 1.2. If you can keep your camera on a tripod and focus shift at 1.2 i think you will get more consistent results

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

For most of my portraits, I use either the 35mm f/1.4 or the 55-200mm. Neither have ever let me down and you can buy both of them used in near perfect condition for the price of the 56mm, or less. I know people who love the 56mm and whatever works for them, great. But for me it's unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think motion blur is a factor at wide apertures. I don't think it's the movement itself causing the issues if over 1/60, but the slight chamge in focus distance.

 

Even with my 35 f1.4, I need to use higher shutter speeds and concentrate of keeping the focus point steady. For the same reason, face detection is not accurate enough, and we tend to use small focus points ot manual with wide apertures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...