Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 Review
The Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 is an astounding lens. With a focal length equivalent to around 85mm on full-frame cameras, it serves as a very useful portrait lens, as well as a short telephoto for general use. Its f/1.2 aperture makes it ideal for low light photography, where it can let in well over four times the amount of light as the fastest f/2.8 professional zooms, such as the Fujinon 16-55mm f/2.8. Not only is this lens excellent in low light, but it's also a cream machine, with that large aperture letting it throw backgrounds into lush, creamy bokeh.
For an overview of the Fujifilm X system, see my Fujifilm X System Guide. For other reviews of Fujifilm X System gear, click here to see my complete list of Fujifilm gear reviews.
Weighing in at almost 400g, this lens is one of the heavier Fujinon lenses, heavier than the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS and around as heavy as the 10-24mm f/4 OIS, both of which are quite large lenses by Fuji's standards. The reason for this weight is most definitely the f/1.2 aperture, which simply requires more glass. Optically and mechanically, the lens is superb, it feels great in the hand - much better than the Fuji zoom lenses and because of its heft, it feels much more solid and tough. Its construction is all metal, which is great compared to today's plastic lenses and it feels like a quality lens, with a nicely damped manual focus ring and real aperture ring. In terms of image quality, it is equal to Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 - one of Nikon's sharpest lenses of all time.
This optical and mechanical quality comes at a cost, however, with this lens being Fujifilm's most expensive lens (apart from the 56mm f/1.2 APD, which I'll touch on later). However, unlike camera bodies which depreciate like no tomorrow, lenses are great investments and often you can buy a lens brand new and use it for years and sell it at only a small loss. Even if you don't want to sell your lenses, they last forever, many people I know still have lenses from decades ago that are still working fine.
For an overview of the Fujifilm X system, see my Fujifilm X System Guide. For other reviews of Fujifilm X System gear, click here to see my complete list of Fujifilm gear reviews.
Weighing in at almost 400g, this lens is one of the heavier Fujinon lenses, heavier than the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS and around as heavy as the 10-24mm f/4 OIS, both of which are quite large lenses by Fuji's standards. The reason for this weight is most definitely the f/1.2 aperture, which simply requires more glass. Optically and mechanically, the lens is superb, it feels great in the hand - much better than the Fuji zoom lenses and because of its heft, it feels much more solid and tough. Its construction is all metal, which is great compared to today's plastic lenses and it feels like a quality lens, with a nicely damped manual focus ring and real aperture ring. In terms of image quality, it is equal to Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 - one of Nikon's sharpest lenses of all time.
This optical and mechanical quality comes at a cost, however, with this lens being Fujifilm's most expensive lens (apart from the 56mm f/1.2 APD, which I'll touch on later). However, unlike camera bodies which depreciate like no tomorrow, lenses are great investments and often you can buy a lens brand new and use it for years and sell it at only a small loss. Even if you don't want to sell your lenses, they last forever, many people I know still have lenses from decades ago that are still working fine.
The 85mm equivalent focal length is extremely useful in many shooting situations because it's long enough for you to be able to get a nice perspective on people and not exaggerate their features, as you would with a shorter lens, but at the same time, it's short enough that you won't have to be yelling at them from across the room, which would be the case if you were using, for example, a 200mm lens.
Personally, I use this lens mostly for portraiture. Whilst the recently released 50-140mm f/2.8 isn't actually that much more expensive than this lens, I would say that it would be the much more useful lens for most people. The 56mm f/1.2 is very much a specialist lens, made for portraiture and great low light performance. For most shooting situations, I find that this lens performs remarkably well, autofocusing reasonably quickly and working extremely well with my X-T1's face detection.
Personally, I use this lens mostly for portraiture. Whilst the recently released 50-140mm f/2.8 isn't actually that much more expensive than this lens, I would say that it would be the much more useful lens for most people. The 56mm f/1.2 is very much a specialist lens, made for portraiture and great low light performance. For most shooting situations, I find that this lens performs remarkably well, autofocusing reasonably quickly and working extremely well with my X-T1's face detection.
Specifications
What's In the Box
Unlike older Fujinon lenses, we don't get such a nice package anymore, sadly. The box is a pretty standard affair, containing:
- Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 lens itself
- Front and rear caps
- Plastic bayonet hood (not metal, unfortunately)
- Lens wrapping cloth
- Documentation and warranty slip
Samples
Have a look at the samples to check out how sharp the 56mm f/1.2 really is. Don't take my word for it. The amount of detail this lens can resolve is extraordinary. However, keep in mind that it is also a very expensive lens. Given the pictures it can produce, it's worth every penny of its asking price. Compared to other 85mm equivalent lenses, such as the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G which I owned, this Fuji is superior because it's just as sharp, whilst not exhibiting any of the other problems that the Nikon did, such as flare and chromatic aberration. This lens, being an f/1.2 lens, gives extraordinary low light performance.
The bokeh this lens is able to produce is great. Given that the depth of field of an f/1.2 lens on an APS-C sensor is the same as the depth of field of an equivalent f/1.8 lens, it performs remarkably well. The out of focus areas are rendered extremely smoothly and undistractingly and most importantly, this lens is critically sharp at f/1.2, so shooting wide open is no problem. Don't confuse this with the amount of light gathered, the intensity of light gathered on an f/1.2 lens is the same regardless of sensor size.
The bokeh this lens is able to produce is great. Given that the depth of field of an f/1.2 lens on an APS-C sensor is the same as the depth of field of an equivalent f/1.8 lens, it performs remarkably well. The out of focus areas are rendered extremely smoothly and undistractingly and most importantly, this lens is critically sharp at f/1.2, so shooting wide open is no problem. Don't confuse this with the amount of light gathered, the intensity of light gathered on an f/1.2 lens is the same regardless of sensor size.
Compared to 56mm f/1.2 APD
The 56mm f/1.2 APD has an extra filter in front of the aperture blades which helps make the bokeh softer. I have not shot with this lens, so I can't say first hand whether there is any noticeable difference in the quality of the bokeh or not, however, looking at samples online, whatever improvement there is doesn't justify the increased cost - as the APD version costs around 70% more (at least where I live, in Australia). The 56mm f/1.2 APD also loses the low-light benefit of the 56mm f/1.2 as the filter also reduces the transmission, making it effectively an f/1.8 lens at f/1.2. *
* Note that this refers to the transmission (or T-stop), not the physical aperture (or f-stop). Thus, the depth of field is as if it is an f/1.2 lens at f/1.2, it's just that there is some light loss, meaning that it only gathers as much light as an f/1.8 lens.
* Note that this refers to the transmission (or T-stop), not the physical aperture (or f-stop). Thus, the depth of field is as if it is an f/1.2 lens at f/1.2, it's just that there is some light loss, meaning that it only gathers as much light as an f/1.8 lens.
Compared to 60mm f/2.4 Macro
I own both of these lenses, that's because I actually need both of them for the stuff I do - the 56mm f/1.2 is great for portraits and shallow depth of field, as well as excellent in low light. The Fuji 60mm f/2.4 Macro is great for macro stuff, so for me, that's mostly product shots. The 56mm f/1.2 doesn't get close enough for product shots.
Both of these lenses are sharp. I tested them both at a common aperture of f/2.8 and found that they were practically indistinguishable and I could not pick them apart in a blind trial. That's an extrodinarily good performance from the 60mm f/2.4, as it's only stopped down slightly to f/2.8 compared to the 56mm f/1.2, which has been stopped down over two stops.
The strengths of the 60mm f/2.4 Macro are that it does macro, despite not being 1.0x reproduction, at 0.5x, it can still get five times closer than the 56mm f/1.2. This is a significant amount and it's impossible to crop in five times without a significant reduction in detail. That part is simple, if you need macro, you need the 60mm f/2.4. You can't make do with the 56mm f/1.2.
The strengths of the 56mm f/1.2 are equally clear. Its key strength is its aperture - f/1.2. You can do amazing things with f/1.2. You can create a wafer thin depth of field and isolate your subjects, turning your background into smooth, lush bokeh. The bokeh on the 56mm f/1.2 is amazing, and yes, you can completely tell the difference between f/1.2 and f/2.4 most of the time, so it is a noticeable advantage. On top of that f/1.2 is around two stops faster than f/2.4, allowing you to capture images in 4 times less light. This is equivalent to managing to get a shot at a clean ISO1600 rather than a muddy ISO6400, or even worse, the difference between getting a usable and unusable shot. That's where the 56mm f/1.2 shines. It's a portrait monster - it's a bokeh machine and it's a low-light machine.
This would be pretty simple if it weren't for cost, and to a lesser extent, weight. Whilst I would love to say get the 60mm f/2.4 Macro for macro and get the 56mm f/1.2 for portraits and general short telephoto use, the 60mm f/2.4 is actually half the weight and half the price of the 56mm f/1.2. That's actually quite a significant amount, meaning that there are people who might be more suited to the 56mm f/1.2, but are considering the 60mm f/2.4 because of that cost difference.
Personally, I would recommend the 60mm f/2.4 as the better choice for all-round photography. It's a great short telephoto lens. Even if you think about it, f/2.4 isn't slow. It's still faster than the fastest f/2.8 professional zooms and is more than fast enough for use in all but the dimmest of situations. On top of that, in daylight, we're mostly shooting stopped down anyway, at f/2.8 or higher, both of these lenses are equally sharp, so there's no benefit to going with the 56mm f/1.2 unless you want to use f/1.2 for the wafer thin depth of field. The 60mm f/2.4 Macro also adds, well, macro! So even if you don't intend to use it for macro, that's a nice feature to have. This makes the 56mm f/1.2 a very expensive specialty lens. It's a lens for portrait photographers who want a razor thin depth of field and a nice lens to use in low light - they pay for it though, it's expensive, especially compared to the excellent 60mm f/2.4.
Both of these lenses are sharp. I tested them both at a common aperture of f/2.8 and found that they were practically indistinguishable and I could not pick them apart in a blind trial. That's an extrodinarily good performance from the 60mm f/2.4, as it's only stopped down slightly to f/2.8 compared to the 56mm f/1.2, which has been stopped down over two stops.
The strengths of the 60mm f/2.4 Macro are that it does macro, despite not being 1.0x reproduction, at 0.5x, it can still get five times closer than the 56mm f/1.2. This is a significant amount and it's impossible to crop in five times without a significant reduction in detail. That part is simple, if you need macro, you need the 60mm f/2.4. You can't make do with the 56mm f/1.2.
The strengths of the 56mm f/1.2 are equally clear. Its key strength is its aperture - f/1.2. You can do amazing things with f/1.2. You can create a wafer thin depth of field and isolate your subjects, turning your background into smooth, lush bokeh. The bokeh on the 56mm f/1.2 is amazing, and yes, you can completely tell the difference between f/1.2 and f/2.4 most of the time, so it is a noticeable advantage. On top of that f/1.2 is around two stops faster than f/2.4, allowing you to capture images in 4 times less light. This is equivalent to managing to get a shot at a clean ISO1600 rather than a muddy ISO6400, or even worse, the difference between getting a usable and unusable shot. That's where the 56mm f/1.2 shines. It's a portrait monster - it's a bokeh machine and it's a low-light machine.
This would be pretty simple if it weren't for cost, and to a lesser extent, weight. Whilst I would love to say get the 60mm f/2.4 Macro for macro and get the 56mm f/1.2 for portraits and general short telephoto use, the 60mm f/2.4 is actually half the weight and half the price of the 56mm f/1.2. That's actually quite a significant amount, meaning that there are people who might be more suited to the 56mm f/1.2, but are considering the 60mm f/2.4 because of that cost difference.
Personally, I would recommend the 60mm f/2.4 as the better choice for all-round photography. It's a great short telephoto lens. Even if you think about it, f/2.4 isn't slow. It's still faster than the fastest f/2.8 professional zooms and is more than fast enough for use in all but the dimmest of situations. On top of that, in daylight, we're mostly shooting stopped down anyway, at f/2.8 or higher, both of these lenses are equally sharp, so there's no benefit to going with the 56mm f/1.2 unless you want to use f/1.2 for the wafer thin depth of field. The 60mm f/2.4 Macro also adds, well, macro! So even if you don't intend to use it for macro, that's a nice feature to have. This makes the 56mm f/1.2 a very expensive specialty lens. It's a lens for portrait photographers who want a razor thin depth of field and a nice lens to use in low light - they pay for it though, it's expensive, especially compared to the excellent 60mm f/2.4.
Compared to 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS
The 56mm f/1.2 is a very specialist lens, especially compared to these two zooms, which are much more general purpose lenses. The 16-55mm f/2.8 is Fuji's standard normal zoom, which covers a range from fairly wide to fairly long. Compared to the 56mm f/1.2, the 16-55mm f/2.8 loses over two stops of light (so it gathers less than four times the amount of light), but it gains the ability to zoom all the way out to 16mm. I feel that most people would be pretty clear cut in terms of which lens they need. The 16-55mm f/2.8 is a general event shooter's lens, it's built tough, it has great optical quality and it's reasonably fast, but it doesn't have the specialist f/1.2 aperture of the 56mm f/1.2 lens, meaning that for portraiture, you won't be able to use it in as dimly lit areas and you won't have the benefit of such a thin depth of field and the lush out of focus areas.
It is a similar comparison to the 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS. I've covered this recently in my Fuji Portrait Lens Showdown. Please do take a read of that, but generally, the gist is that if you're after a do-it-all style telephoto lens, then this will have you covered but if you're looking for more of a classic portrait length that will work better in low light and have nicer out of focus areas, go with the 56mm f/1.2.
Portrait shooters might be interested in the 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS because it can zoom out to 140mm, this is great for portraiture because it allows more compression of the facial features and of the background as well. This becomes a wash here - should you go with the 56mm f/1.2 or the 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS for portraiture? To be honest, it depends on what you're trying to do - the 56mm f/1.2 is a very classic half-body portraiture length - it probably won't be great for head shots, but for half-body to full-body shots, it's amazing. On the other hand, the 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS collects less than a quarter the amount of light, can't quite blow the backgrounds as out of focus, but it'll be better for headshots, it is also more versatile, as you'll be able to use it as a general telephoto for other purposes too.
It is a similar comparison to the 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS. I've covered this recently in my Fuji Portrait Lens Showdown. Please do take a read of that, but generally, the gist is that if you're after a do-it-all style telephoto lens, then this will have you covered but if you're looking for more of a classic portrait length that will work better in low light and have nicer out of focus areas, go with the 56mm f/1.2.
Portrait shooters might be interested in the 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS because it can zoom out to 140mm, this is great for portraiture because it allows more compression of the facial features and of the background as well. This becomes a wash here - should you go with the 56mm f/1.2 or the 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS for portraiture? To be honest, it depends on what you're trying to do - the 56mm f/1.2 is a very classic half-body portraiture length - it probably won't be great for head shots, but for half-body to full-body shots, it's amazing. On the other hand, the 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS collects less than a quarter the amount of light, can't quite blow the backgrounds as out of focus, but it'll be better for headshots, it is also more versatile, as you'll be able to use it as a general telephoto for other purposes too.