Jump to content

Move from 56mm 1.2 to 60mm 2.4


joerg123

Recommended Posts

Hello Joerg, welcome to the fuji-x-forum, there are other specific threads on this forum already on the 60mm macro, also with examples, and perhaps it would have been better to continue one of those already ( I am a staunch defender of using the search function on any forum)  in order to stay to the point while not spreading information even thinner for future reference when someone else wanting to know something on the 60mm macro will have many threads to chose from and read instead od a more compact source of information.

 

However, you have opened another one so we might as well have this discussion here.

 

Of course the 56 does has a slightly more evident “ bokeh” ( I never cease to marvel at the fact that when I started photography not only this word didn’t exist, at least not applied to photography, but generally no one would have chosen a lens based on its  quality of image in the parts that aren’t sharp).

 

Whether this is more or less creamy, I don’t know. It is a matter of personal taste.

 

I made the conscious choice, at the time, to not buy the 56mm and preferred to buy the 60mm.

 

Part of my decision was economically driven, the 60mm back then was even more expensive than it is now, was 40% cheaper than the 56mm.

 

But the 60mm was very sharp ( where it is) had a nice “ bokeh” ( where it is not), allows you to get fairly close ( some argue that 1:2 reproduction ratio doesn’t qualify as “ macro” while it is plenty close for me) and it is very light.

 

The lens, it has to be said, is not a speed monster, but neither am I.

 

For any type of picture for which I would want to use this lens I am not likely to want to focus incredibly rapidly.

 

Initial negative comments on this lens were based on its use on the X-Pro-1 and X-E1, both cameras have a different sensor X-Trans-CMos instead of X-Trans-CMos II and processor,  EXR instead of EXR II .

 

 

With the new firmware there has been some small improvement with the performance of old lenses too and some debate whether this has affected positively the 60mm too.

 

I found that it is not so much the speed which became any better ( because the motor runs at the same maximum speed) but the accuracy has slightly improved ( with the exception of low light low contrast subjects).

 

But probably the 56mm would perform better than the 60 in terms of focussing speed but I find that the 60mm is absolutely NOT as bad as some folks say ( but they might have different expectations).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I've owned the 60mm macro lens and I am with Zack Arias (http://dedpxl.com/fuji-x-buyers-guide-part-2-lenses/) on this - I hate this lens. It really isn't that sharp in my experience, it seems bulkier than it needs to be for what it does, and its auto-focus behaviour is lamentable. I think the 18-55 zoom lens is a much better performer at the high end, and that's what I use now (I can't afford the 56mm 1.2, and anyway I'm hesitant about it because of its size, as you say) at the moderate telephoto end.

 

 

Ian.

--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on which is more important for you.

 

XF56 F1.2 Pros - Bokeh, Low Light, Portrait

 

XF60 F2.4 Pros - Closer (much closer) focus, Macro, Lightweight, all Rounder.

 

I'd consider the 56 to be specifically a portrait lens and the 60 to be a better all rounder that can do great portrait and close up portraiture.

 

I own the 56 and have been looking at getting the 60 due to the closer focus I can get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi!

Haven't use the 60 mil with anything new like XE-2/XT-1/XT-10

On my X-Pro 1 this lens is slow. No..I mean it is SLOW LIKE HELL in terms of focusing. I doubt you'd be happy with this lens if you own 56 mil.

But optically this lens is good and definately worth its money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have the 56mm,  I think it's too expensive and is a specialty lens.  I do have the 60mm and it's my favorite prime lens.   I like the focal length better then 

the 56mm.  The focus speed is fine for me with the new 4.0 upgrade on my X-T1.   I will some time spend the day out with the 60mm  on the X-T1 and my X-100s in my pocket.  I also see the 60mm is now on sale. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only briefly tested the 56mm. And sure, it's shallow DOF and the better AF speed is a plus compared to the 60mm. But I'd never prefer it to the 60mm, which was my very first X-lens almost 3 years ago. To me the 60mm wins in many aspects. Close focus obviously and low weight too. I also like the the quality of the bokeh better. I'd recommend that you check it out first, but I don't really see any reason why you wouldn't like this lens on your X-T10. 

Edited by flesix
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

yes, one of the worst things that internet has brought about is the fact that people substitute hearsay ( before it was “ I’ve heard it on the news”  now it is “ I’ve read it on the internet “ ....it must be true) to personal experience.

 

So the internet says the 60mm is slow ( it is) and because of this being ’slow" some people declare it unusable ...so a whole lot of people who have never used it ( despite the fact that few would ever need the “ speed” which this lens lacks!) discard it.

 

I paid €600 for this lens when I bought it and next to it there was the 56mm for €1000.

 

I decided to save the difference. If I would have bought it second hand from some of the people who sold it because they read on the internet that this lens was unusable I would have saved even more!)

 

I have tried both and considered the fact that I would have used it mostly for portraits and close up photography ( another myth is that this lens wouldn’t be classed as “ macro” because it only reaches 1:2 ratio  which is nonsense since plenty of “ legacy" macro lenses got to 1:2 and not to 1:1 or higher !) and that the 60mm is a lot small and lighter than the 56mm ( let alone stealthier, people put gaffer tape on the camera to not shout “ pro camera here!” but then they go around with a huge pice of glass hoping they are not noticed?).

 

I am sure that some people would prefer, on merits after using both, not on hearsay, the 56mm but some who have never tried both they simply don’t know what they are talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good comparison at fuji vs fuji:

 

http://www.fujivsfuji.com/60mm-f2pt4-vs-56mm-f1pt2/

 

Imho. go with the 56mm if you shoot available light and need the 1.2 and if you need faster AF. If you can live with a AF that can be a hassle ( much better now then when it came out ) and slower f-stops, go with the 60mm. Also i find that i like the rendering of the 60mm better then the 56mm. It has a warmer "zeiss" look with a lot of microcontrast, while the 56mm is pretty "muted".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

With my XT1 the 60mm was originally very slooowwww, however with FW 4.0 a couple month's back it is now much better. Its still not a speed demon, but its OK.

More importantly, I love the IQ from this lens - my copy is sharp, contrasty with beautiful rich colours (other people call it the 'Zeiss' look and I agree with them), and nice bokeh. In terms of overall IQ for my lens collection, I'd put it second behind the magic 35/1.4.

For me, I would only pay the extra for the 56/1.2 if I was sure I needed the faster aperture or was shooting in low light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have both the 60mm and 56mm lenses that I use with an X-E1. They are both excellent lenses. I wanted a portrait lens and at the time the only option was the 60mm lens. I also needed a close focusing (macro range) lens for product and detail photographs. 

 

The 60 mm lens worked very well for both product and portraiture. Shooting between f2.4 to f4 worked just fine and reveals beautiful results for portraiture. The lens is relatively slow, but that is the nature of all macro lenses and in the manner I used it there was no problem. For maximum sharpness, don't shoot any smaller an aperture than f11 or you will quickly see the results of diffraction. F11 was just fine for anything I needed for showing detail. Consider this equivalent to the Nikkor 105, which I have also used extensively. They are very similar in handling and results. 

 

The 56mm lens is the APS-C equivalent to the Nikkor 85mm f1.4. They are both exquisite lenses that can produce superlative portraits. Focusing is pretty fast and then sharpness is unsurpassed. It doesn't focus as close as the 60mm lens. Duh. Different lenses for different purposes. 

 

I will keep both lenses for their particular attributes. The 60mm worked as my stopgap portrait lens for about two years until the 56mm was available (and on sale). If I was going to go street shooting with this range of lens, the 56mm lens would be the obvious choice and works well. The 60mm would be too slow. The 60mm's  number one job is to be a macro lens, so that's the order of its priorities. 

 

You can't really lose by using either one as long as you understand their characteristics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The strength of the 56 is low light performance / speed and excellent peformance from the get go even wide open

The main flaw of the 56 is that the depth of field is so shallow that you now have to pay attention to depth of field to avoid missing a shot  (think close range profile shot: focus on nose with the lens wide open and miss both eyes - bummer)

An odd flaw is that the 56 has a loose plastic hood that amplifies focusing noices.

That yhe 56 is big and clumsy is a natural result of the 1.2 apature - considering the performance it is amazingly small.

 

The strength of the 60 is its excellent performance at any apature and closer than usual focusing and light weight (you need extension tubes to call it Macro).

The main flaw of the 60 is that the in-camera Macro Lock-Out (X-E1 & 2, and X-M1) does not work on this lens, so it frequently runs the whole focus range much like a squirrel runs up and down a tree looking for nuts (the workaround is to prefocus). Fucus is slower but not bad when it does not guess wrong.

An odd issue is that the cool precision metal hood will transfer most of the energy of a blow to the hood to the lens body.

 

The 60mm now sels for half of the 56 so the prices are reasonable in comparison.

 

What is needed is a 60 Mk II - with proper 1:1 Macro and a working focus limiter - that would make it a hard choice, and a much much better justification for having both.

 

If you need handheld Macro then the 18-135 is better than the 60 because of it's excellent stabilization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 56mm is my most used lens. I like the perspective of the focal length for human subjects (I shoot fashion and portraits). The focus is faster than the 60mm. Although in good light, it doesn't make that much of a difference.

 

The 60mm is a great lens. The slow part of the focus is when the lens decides to go through the entire range to acquire focus. That takes like 1-2 seconds it seems and is unacceptable if I need to capture a moment.

 

But the 60mm has its uses since it has a much closer focusing distance. I take it out if I need to shoot something close and still. So for beauty work and product, it works great.

 

I suggest the 60mm if you're shooting at a slower pace and need to shoot things close up. It's also much cheaper. Because of that, it is a very versatile lens. You can shoot a lot of different things with it from product, landscape, and portraiture. I wouldn't shoot anything that moves with it though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both but prefer the 60mm 2.4.

 

Advantages

- prefer the field of view (more 'compression') - yes it does make a difference to me

- lighter and smaller (less intrusive)

- close focus capability

- lovely metal hood

- relatively cheap now

 

Focus speed with original x-pro 1 firmware was slow. But.... with the X-t1 (any firmware version) or updated x-pro 1 it's just....

normal! Honestly - I find Fuji focussing not that speedy overall - even the 56mm is a bit laggy in my book. But the 60mm performs no differently from any macro lens I've used on Canon or Nikon. Macro lenses are never speed demons. But the 60 I use regularly for people photography and have no complaints.

 

You will not get quite as shallow depth of field as the 56mm - but personally "creamy bokeh" at the expense of composition never does it for me. You'll have to crank up the ISO a little more in low light. But consider that the f/ 2.4 is only half a stop short of the f/ 2.0 lenses we all love, including on the x100.

 

Try it out. Rent or borrow it. And decide for yourself. If you can't do that - look on http://fujifilm-x.com/photographers/en/#main to see what kind of images are possible to make with it and/or on Flickr etc. Ultimately they are two different lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both 1.2/56 (APD and non-APD,) as well as the 2.4/60. All three are slow to focus, even on X-T1, but 2.4/60 is the slowest. However, once it acquires focus it is normally precise. It has a long focus-ring throw--takes ages to move focus a small distance, I appreciate it during macro work but in other scenarios it is a pain in the wrist. I find the Macro Extension adapters (11mm and 16mm from Fujifilm) a good aid to compensate for 1:2 magnification. I use Cokin PURE Harmonie Ultra Slim filters to avoid vignetting when stacking UV with Cir Polarizer. I do think that 39mm filter thread is sort of an odd size. But since I can throw the same polarizer on 2.8/27 pancake, can't complain too much. Construction-wise, the lens is in alignment with the 1.4/35 or the 2/18.

 

From an image quality standpoint the 2.4/60 is almost perfect. Colors are bright and vivid with good DR contrast. Lots of details in RAW files for PP shadow recovery. However, I feel that it is a bit too clinical for portraits or 'creative-type' work--'sometimes.' Originally I had traded my 2.4/60 towards 1.2/56, but bought it back again after a few months. I don't use either of the three (2.4/60, 1.2/56, & 1.2/56 APD) as dedicated lenses but I do use them often enough that I can justify owning them. For my taste in portraits, either of the two 1.2/56 and the 2/90 are better suited.

 

I would suggest, if I may, that you add a 2.4/60 to your library. I am sure you can find a deal on eBay or Craigslist for one in excellent condition. I've seen some in mint condition listed for $300-$350 at my local camera store. Keep in mind that though the 1.2/56 is heavier than the 2.4/60, it is also stubbier; the 2.4/60 is a bit longer.

 

By the way, try the Metal Hand Grip on your X-T10. I find it useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found my own solution for this “ problem” albeit a very complex one.

 

 

 

The 60mm macro alternative to its HUGE lens hood required a complex arrangement including a B+W 39mm UV filter used as a spacer (otherwise the lens autofocus malfunctions) and a 39>52 adapter with a short ( normally used for a 35 or 50mm) 2 cm deep, cylindrical, with a front diameter of 58mm where I use a lens cap for this size. Complex but made this lens way more usable.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been pretty much said. Both lenses will give you nice images. I have the 60 and rented the 56 for a week. I decided not to buy the 56 as I don't do a lot of portraits or use that length as a walk around lens. I'm shooting with an X-T10.

 

The 56 is a bit sharper, but we're talking the difference between excellent and superb. 

The 56 is the choice if you want manual focus. The throw on the 60 is stupidly long.

The 56 is faster.

The 56 focuses faster

 

The 60 is lighter and smaller. 

The 60 focuses closer and with higher magnification.

The 60 is a lot less expensive.

 

For portraits, where super fast focusing isn't important, the 60 is fast enough, especially on the X-T1 or the X-T10. 

The 56 has a different color cast. I prefer the 60 but YMMV.

The 56 is a specialty lens. It does what it does beautifully, but unless you are making a lot of portraits, it may not be worth the cost.

The 60 is exceptional at nothing but decent as a macro or portrait lens.

 

I shot my last set of portraits with a Voigtlander 75mm f/1.8 on manual focus. Since I use studio lights or manual flash, I'm shooting manual exposure anyway. As Fuji does manual focus aids so well, focusing is a non-issue for me. I only add this to say that there is no one best lens and that each lens offers a different rendering. The only way to really know what you like is to try each of them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made the opposite change because I preferred the 56 as a portrait lens, but if the large aperture is not your priority and you don't mind somewhat slower focus the 60 is a good choice and has the benefit of better close focus. The focus speed is not as big a deal as it was with previous generation cameras and earlier firmware but the difference is still noticeable.

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...