This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

fuji 56 & 60

Discussion in 'Native X-Mount Lens Forum' started by joe aka back alley, Aug 12, 2017.

  1. joe aka back alley

    joe aka back alley Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,658
    Likes Received:
    361
    Location:
    true north strong & free

    -Return to Top-

    i spent quite a bit of time today looking (on the net) at images from the fuji 56/1.2 and images from the 60/2.4.
    it was obvious that both lenses are pretty darn good but i was surprised at how much 'pop' the 60 images had.
    ok, i can't describe 'pop' but hopefully you know what i'm trying to say.
    like the 56 had a smooth edge to what was focussed on compared to a crisp edge to the 60 images.

    anyone else notice this?

    also, i have to buy a 60 sooner or later....
     
  2. vague_logic

    vague_logic Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    Two similar focal length lenses with different purposes. 56 1.2 for portrait, shallowest depth of field and low light. 60mm 2.4 for landscape, macro, architecture and basically anywhere a short telephoto is required other than portrait and low light. I have been using the 60mm quite a lot recently and am still surprised by the resolution it delivers. Plus, on the X-trans III bodies the focus speed is much better than it was when I only had an X-E1.
     
    fatdeko likes this.
  3. F2Bthere

    F2Bthere Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,308
    Likes Received:
    1,156
    Location:
    Austin

    -Return to Top-

    I'm not sure I would agree about the 60 not being a good portrait lens when it comes to the images it creates.

    If your goal is razor thin depth of field, the 60 will not deliver that. But that is not necessary or even desirable in many portrait images. In fact, I would say it is a bit stylized.

    My personal hesitation with the 60mm for portraits is that I don't like the way it changes length when using AF. If it needs to cycle through it's close focus range, it can be distracting. But this is a personal thing and I don't see others complaining about it, so it's probably just my own quirk.

    I think portrait images taken with the 60mm look great.
     
    Viewfinder likes this.
  4. Viewfinder

    Viewfinder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    Cape Town South Africa

    -Return to Top-

    Extrem shallow DOF and overwhelming Bokeh are somewhat of a hype that people might sooner or later get tired of
     
  5. mnhoj

    mnhoj Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    453
    Location:
    los angeles

    -Return to Top-

    Both are great lenses and in most dof isolation situations there really isn't much of a difference.
    Headshots for example.
    In fact having more in focus usually provides a better picture.

    Moving back a few yards and adding a detailed background and the F1.2 then shows it's worth imo.

    I think it's an in and out kinda thing. At least for me.
    Never really substantial but it will always be there.
     
  6. ScottyMac

    ScottyMac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Colorado

    -Return to Top-

    There's probably some 'hype' to bokeh, and once the concept is saturated, there might be a swing back to broad DOF. When I shot commercially 'back in the day' of film, I can't remember anyone ever using the term bokeh. But we certainly analyzed the need for subject isolation to varying degrees. Sometimes the information in the background was vital, sometimes it was in the way. Sometimes a compromise was best. Who knows. Frankly, I like to isolate the subject when context is not important. So I love bokeh, though I couldn't pronounce the word not many years ago.
     
    Viewfinder likes this.
  7. F2Bthere

    F2Bthere Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,308
    Likes Received:
    1,156
    Location:
    Austin

    -Return to Top-

    I agree. We were not using the word Bokeh in the film days in English. But the Japanese were :).

    Bokeh is a Japanese term which showed up in a magazine article and was not, as far as I know, spoken of in English before that. But that isn't to say people were not thinking about it. When I first read the article standing around in a Barnes and Noble, I said to my wife that this finally explained the non-quantifiable difference between certain lenses. I'm sure I was not alone in feeling this way :)

    I think mostly this took the form of people gushing about the portrait lens they love, the Leica mystique, a 3-d quality, the quality of Zeiss lenses, how some Minolta lenses gave a special glow, etc. And the cinema world has certainly paid attention to how lenses rendered and the importance of using similar lenses in a production.
     
  8. ScottyMac

    ScottyMac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Colorado

    -Return to Top-

    Yeah...we were absolutely thinking about it. One of my two photo mentors taught me to approach every shot asking whether it was a DOF or shutter speed dominant shot. I had 28, 50, 85, and 105 Nikkor lenses. With ISO (ASA) at either 64 with Kodachrome, or 100 or 400 with black and white print, there wasn't always a lot of latitude in balancing aperture and shutter speed. Push processing was possible with the B&W, but only a stop or so.

    So bokeh is a good word...says a lot that would take too many words in English. :)
     
  9. Viewfinder

    Viewfinder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    Cape Town South Africa

    -Return to Top-

    Before the word related to photography about 15 years ago in Japanese it means "blurred or fuzzy" but it also stands for being mentally dazed or senile. And dazed thats exactly what I am when I look at the recent "bokeh" hype.
    Of course since early days photographers are aware of dof and of course every now and then it is appropriate to keep the background blurred. But nowadays it seems that every banal picture is blurred in a sticky "bokeh salsa" to make it supposedly somewhat "artistic.
    And lenses nowadays often seem to be judged rather by their blurriness than sharpness...
     
    saurama likes this.
  10. F2Bthere

    F2Bthere Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,308
    Likes Received:
    1,156
    Location:
    Austin

    -Return to Top-

    The Japanese word does, indeed, have those other meaning. "Fuzzy" or "blurry" is a good term. And for Japanese who are not photo-enthusiasts, that is all it means.

    As for "all this talk of Bokeh," I think it would be good to distinguish between two ways in which the word is used.

    1. How much of the image is blurry or outside of the DOF.

    2. How the part outside the DOF is rendered. How does the part which is not in focus look? How does the transition from in focus to out of focus look?

    There still seems to be much confusion between the two.

    I care a lot about how the lens renders and how that makes the picture look.

    I do not, in general, feel that most of a picture should be blurred. I think the photographer should make an intelligent choice based on how he or she wishes the picture to look.
     
    Viewfinder likes this.

Share This Page