I was able to test the Fuji 50mm F1.0 & the Fuji 56mm F1.2 WR in a side by side comparison. My observation was that the 56mm was much sharper wide open than the 50mm. The 50mm had very noticeable LOCA when shot at F1.0, purple fringing was quite pronounced. The 56mm also has a better MFD. The larger size of the 50mm did not bother me as I found it balanced well on my XT3 with a battery grip. In short, I enjoyed shooting with both lenses, but I decided to keep only one, that being the 56mmF1.2. Thank you for your thorough review, Dustin. I enjoy your channel. Best wishes to you & your family.
Thank you for a thorough, thoughtful and honest review. As a long-time Fuji shooter I really wanted this lens to be great, but it does seem that to deliver the headline 1.0 aperture some very major compromises had to be made. The Fuji community can be quite passionate about their brand, so thanks for being objective regardless of any heat you might feel in the comments section!
Relative to the other autofocusing F1.0 (Canon EF 50mm F1.0L), this lens is very good optically. But unfortunately there are a lot of less extreme lenses to choose from that deliver better sharpness and almost as nice of bokeh.
Again an excellent review, Dustin. Thanks for that. Although I’ve stopped using my Fuji’s for professional work, I keep using the wonderfully compact x-pro2 for personal work. I’ve ran a short trail run with the 50/1.0 a month ago and my conclusion was more or less the same. Considering the price relative to the platform, the lens should have been great and it is obviously not. It’s very much a one trick (bokeh) pony with much less versatility compared to the 56/1.2, the 50/2.0 or even the 60/2.4! My test copy also suffered from loca and was quite prone to flare and a little bit ghosting. Based on your comments I’ve revisited the jpeg files. I usually work with raw only as the vast majority of the target audience for this lens will do. I must say that the jpegs are indeed better to look at, also due to the extreme sharpening that Fuji uses in their jpeg engine. I personally use Capture One, but a colleague using LR came to the same conclusions after editing the same files. Compared to lenses like the 85 GM, the Sigma 85/1.4 DN and the Nikkor 85/1.8 Z-mount, this Fuji lens is amongst the most expensive, but simply can’t keep up. It’s sad because I really like Fuji cameras. I wish they’d dropped the gimmicky f1.0 target and just created a good successor for the 56/1.2.
I don't understand why your channel is so underrated and the clicks so low. I really appreciate your work and the in-depth reviews. Thanks a lot, keep up the good work and stay healthy. Greetings from Germany
8:12 Set the AF point mode to "ALL" and use the rear dial to go from smallest AF point, via zone all the way to wide/tracking and recent Fuji cameras will sample from across the frame just fine. I've used it for birds in flight with no problem, and the rear dial interface is very intuitive to set up.
Now that was useful. I've never heard that before, and it works. Not necessarily intuitive (I've asked this question directly to my Fuji contacts before without getting the answer you gave), but I'm glad this exists.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I always set my Fujifilm cameras to ALL and then leave it there, no idea what that's not the factory default. Incidentally I also set my video button to "face select" as that helps to both turn face AF on and off, and also put the camera in a mode where I can select which face to pick in a group setting. That's an awkward idiosyncracy of the "historically grown" firmware (aka poor software design) that could benefit from improvement.
I do wish they had made this an f1.2 or f1.4 and used their linear motors as they have been doing on their excellent new primes. That being said, there is something about the images from this lens that are just gorgeous and really draw me in.
Hi ! As you get better details/performances using jpeg, you may suffer from the ACR penality. Maybe you could gie a it another chance with CaptureOne. Regards
Hi Nicolas, I do own CaptureOne, but I've tested a number of images side by side in times past and couldn't see a meaningful difference. I treat all gear similarly; I use the industry standard editing software for all of them
Capture One gives noticeably better details on high frequency detail like leaves, fur, gras etc...on faces or more flat areas the differences are not as visible...I tested it and Capture One gets even more detail out of the raw then the jpgs straight from camera...
but sure, if you set Lightroom as your one and only developing tool fuji is in a quite severe disadvantage in my opinion...actually for me it is a reason to switch away from fuji to something that is nicely editable in Lightroom...
@@aceflibble I tested the enhance detail feature in ligtroom when it became available and at that time capture one still gave me better results with less artifacts...perhaps now the enhance feature became better in newer versions. I will check that when I have some time, thx!
17:25 I understand that portraits are hard to do during Covid but I would test a portrait lens at portrait distances. At close up distances, I can use an F2.8 macro lens and get just a tiny bit closer to get arbitrary amounts of blur. This lens is all about a single subject at 2m to 5m away with a background slightly behind or further behind the subject.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes but what is discussed in any detail on the portraits is the background LoCA, not the subject itself (only that it's "sharp enough").
Hi Dustin, congrats on the spectacular review, as always. In my opinion I find that plastic hoods are better than metal just because when you drop a lens(it happens) the plastic hood can bend and break, absorbing a lot of the shock while the metal one just breaks the lens as well. I never dropped a lens before, but I’ve seen a few saved by their plastic hoods. AF performance, even with updates, I don’t think Fuji will match the Canon or Sony soon. I own an x-t4 and by far my favourite lens is the 90mm f.2. Kudos on the review.
Unfortunately AF seems to be the place where Fuji lags - often both in cameras and lenses. I would love to see them really catch up in that area, though at this stage a lot of their catalog lenses need a refresh.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I really like their new attitude towards letting third parties have access to the code for native AF performance. Followed some rumours that have Tamron and Sigma in line for x-mount lenses. Even though Tamron are just Viltrox rebranded.
lol Dustin I am glad I watched this one for sure as I have this lens in my cart, but not for long- thanks again I shot Sony, Nikon and canon, and I have a always want to try Fuji for there color since. Which x Fuji crop camera would you say is worth the money?
I do like my X-H2, but that high resolution 40MP sensor is pretty brutal on anything less than perfect lenses. It's still my favorite Fuji camera body in general, though.
Great review 👌 this is the worlds 1st apsc F1 lens known as the ONE . and I believe it’s a niche lens , specialised lens, also portrait lenses aren’t great if they are too sharp and this lens I believe is a lens that has a lot of character at F1
I shoot fashion and make-up portraits for a living. I often hear that these lenses don’t need to be sharp and contrasty because it would not be flattering. However, as a professional you’d like to get the soft and dreamy look out of your editing software (where you can control it) and not out of your lens...
@@jacobh5817 I think the people that claim to want a more “dreamier” look are using it for other aspects as wedding photography. Some just don’t want to spend too much time on editing, so it’s more of a niche. Just as many choose Canon just because they prefer the “colour science”, and would prefer to edit less. Also, it can sometimes be challenging to replicate the rendering, not just the softness or smothness of the image, or the so-called “dreamy” look. For studio portraits, you mostly stop down anyway, both to get more in focus and more details. I agree that it’s better to have a sharp lens, whereas you can soften the image if desired when editing, no matter if you do portraiture or not. But some just prefer the opposite. I use the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, for instance, as it already takes full advantage of the Sony a7R IV’s sensor in the center wide open, and is still very sharp all over the frame.
@@carbon6372 , the Sigma and the A7RIV is indeed a stellar combination. You’re so right that there are different preferences when it comes to color science and character. I’ve been using Canon DSLRs for a long time just for the sake of skin tones. However, with the capabilities of presets and styles (we use Capture One) making fast adjustments is reduced to importing the raw files and some minor editing. For both wedding photographers as well as studio work having a consistent look across the entire shoot is of great importance. Regardless of whether you use your 35, 50, 85 or 105.
@@jacobh5817 Sorry for a long and messy message. True. Consistently in output is very important in portraiture and so on. It might not matter as much to me, as I’m more in to architecture, landscapes and some wildlife, whereas the lighting always changes anyway, and I can get very similiar results with just a bit of editing. But many won’t notice, or many don’t want to spend that extra time, so it’s understandable that some stick to very certain brands or a certain lines of lenses. But no matter what, it isn’t possible to get the exact same results but you can narrow down variance to some degree, especially when you use your own set of light sources and so on. But we all choose certain factors over others, and something will always be optimised or compromised. To me, I’m not so sure how much colour between each brand matters. I was just happy with Canon, as well as I am with my a7R IV. That was not the case with previous models. Once comparing them side to side, I will probably be more picky. Sometimes, I consider DSLR just for the ergonomics and build quality. Also the versatility compared to the price, as you can get many options for a lot less than modern mirrorless offerings. But I’m not so sure how much the differences matter. At first, I only chose gear upon reaching the highest resolution at the lowest price. Now, I’m still doing so, but I’m also considering ergonomics, versatility other aspects as well, whereas I before only used primes and had many gaps. Still, it’s hard for me to fill my kit without compromises. For example, I want to get my hands on the Sony 200-600mm again for birds, but I also want a 100-400mm for landscapes. For that, the RF 100-500mm makes more sense, but I find it too overpriced for what it is. The 100-400mm II can be bought for half of the price, but I need more reach. I could use an adapter and an extender, but I’m not so sure if I want to move to the R system just to adapt a lot of lenses. I know which EF lenses are great and all, and I know they will work just fine, but I also care about the looks of the setup, and I just think it looks bad with a bunch of adapted lenses, hehe. Also, the EF would be quite a bit heavier. I got the Sigma 14-24mm DN for architecture, but I prefer my Voigtländers for landscapes, and I prefer my Sigmas (85mm DN and hopefully a future 35mm f/1.4 DN) for ‘street’. My ultimate kit would probably be a zoom that goes from 14 to 30 or 35mm, a wide aperture 20 or 24mm, a 50mm, a 100mm or 135mm, and a 100-500mm with maybe a light but slow 800mm. I think Canon will make all of this, so I might choose them later on. I’m just an young enthusiast for now, after all. In the end, you will end with a lot of expense and equipment to carry if you long for perfection in every aspect you photograph. At the same time, I’m a bit of a gear nerd. If I could, I would probably own a bit from each brand. I don’t care which brand, but there’s just no brand that covers everything for me.
I have this lens in use now for several weeks.I must admit it is not the sharpest Fuji lens , but the micro contrast is very nice. Wide open , the lens is more than sharp enough!The rendering is beautiful.I must admit it is not a typical modern lens which are mostly conceived for digital sharpness.My sigma DGDN for Sony is sharper but has less character and microcontrast and delivers less attractive pictures.This lens reminds me of the old Nikon 58/1.4 lens which was not received open arms either.
This is a dream lens. However, I'll be happy to suffice for my lowly but effective KamLan 50mm F1.1 II to use with an XE-3. That lens, along with the excellent KamLan 28mm 1.4 - as well as an incoming Fujifilm XF 16-80 - have all been purchased in part thanks to your reviews. The 50 1.1 definitely helped with some client work this year and is fine for my hobbyist needs / price range.
Dustin, speaking of sharpness, would you say the Fujinon 90mm F2 would be a better buy than this one? I bought the 50-140 but it’s just too soft for my taste, should have listened to you before I made that purchase, now I’m going to sell the lens and try to get sharpest telephoto available for the Fuji system (except the 200 F2, that’s not an option for me)
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you Dustin, yes, I’m thinking for wedding photography, out of the 56mm, 50mm, the 50-140 and the 90mm, Ive found through research that the 90mm really stands out from the crowd when it comes to sharpness, would you agree?
Great review! How would to compare this lens to some FF competition (like Sony 85 1.4, Samyang 85 1.4 or Sigma 85 1.4),since they produce similar end result in terms of FoV and DoF/bokeh? Is it true that this lens has some magic rendering/bokeh or is all that magic about getting FF look on APS-C?
The 85mm f/1.4 lenses on full-frame gives a slightly deeper blur, as they in theory are 10mm longer. The difference is not too noticeable, though. I think they use the term “magic” as in they finally achieved nearly equivalent blur to full-frame on APS-C, at least in terms of 85mm f/1.4 lenses. It can also refer to it being a bit “dreamy” in its rendering, which some might prefer for portraits. When lenses are dreamy, they tend to be less sharp and contrastry but have subjectively more attractive blur. I doubt this lens is any better overall, as it isn’t sharper, nor faster, or blurs more. But it surely is a nice option for Fuji users, as they now can achieve similiar results in terms of blur in the 85mm range compared to full-frame. Out of the three lenses you mentioned, the Sigma DN is clearly the superior lens in terms of optical qualities. It does however suffer heavily from distortion, and I’m not so sure if there’s a correction for that yet in Lightroom or other programs, and the blur can sometimes be a bit busy, as the lens is more optimised towards being optically superior, compact and light. The Samyang is also excellent in terms of optical qualities, but it’s not quite at the level of the Sigma. Both are great even on the a7R IV. The strengths of the Samyang is price and a more dreamy rendering but still being very sharp. Both tend to be a bit warm. I do not know too much about Fuji, but I wouldn’t choose APS-C over full-frame just for that lens. I would only get it, if I already had APS-C, or if there were several factors that made me choose APS-C, and not just this lens. Both the Sigma and Samyang are cheaper and overall better alternatives if you were to choose between APS-C and full-frame, beside maybe a more dreamy look. Some might prefer the build of the Fuji as well. Both the Sigma and Fuji got an aperture ring, but the Sigma got a lock. For what it is, I think it’s overpriced, and I would rather get the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 at a much lower price. It’s also a lot lighter, more compact, and the deepness of the blur is quite similiar, but the 50mm f/1 has a slight advantage (75mm f/1.5 vs 84mm f/1.8). The 50mm f/1 is more dreamy. You can visualise the difference in blur graphically by comparing them on the site ‘howmuchblur’. But of course it won’t be the same as comparing them in hand. Overall, I think the 50mm f/1 is appealing if use Fuji and want a bit more of a dreamy look and more blur.
My personal experience is that both the 85 GM and the Sigma 85/1.4 but also the Nikkor 85/1.8 Z-mount are way way better than this lens. The DoF is fairly similar, but the usability of the largest apeture on the aforementioned lenses is much greater. Simply said, these lenses can be used wide open with good sharpness and beautiful contrast, whereas the Fuji needs to be stopped down to achieve those results (if at all). The bokeh on all these lenses is very nice. Surprisingly (for an f1.8) the Nikkor has the most beautiful and consistent transition from sharp to out-of-focus.
I think that both Carbon and Herco have added some solid points. The biggest strength of the Fuji is that the quality of the background blur is extremely nice, but I personally wouldn't reach for it over, say, the Sigma 85mm F1.4 DN.
Excellent review! I’ve been trying to rent the lens to test it before buying to no avail. Thank you for your professional opinion, test, and unbiased review (as usual). I’ll happily accept this review, it is fascinating to find Jpegs better than raw’s but like you said “Fuji corrects all flaws very well” (paraphrasing). Also, the closest focusing distance is a possible hurdle for close ups (without cropping). Do you think this is another overpriced Fuji lens? How do you compare it against the 56 1.2 (I know it’s a different focal length)? Thank you for the info and blessings!
I would check out the text review if you haven't, as I try to explore the nuances a bit more. I think the rendering is more special on the 50mm F1.0 than the 56mm, though that lens is obviously much lighter and less expensive.
I would really appreciate if these reviews could cover some of the more recent Nikon lenses. Especially, how these compare to their Canon RF counterparts. Seems like a very disappointing Fuji lens...
@@DustinAbbottTWI absolutely makes sense. Still, I cannot help thinking that somehow Fuji is an outlier here. Seeing the same quality, unbiased, in-depth reviews of Nikon gear would be fantastic, if that opportunity ever comes. Thanks for the reviews, it is a joy to watch them.
Hi Dustin, how can you compare this lens with a Canon EF50/1.2 on Fuji body via mount as far as image quality is concerned? Will there be any big difference?
Hmmm, that's not a combination I've tested. Interesting question, though. It's been too long since I reviewed the EF 50L to give you an informed opinion.
Hi Dustin you are great reviewer but you don't know how to handle Fuji file. Give us link to original RAF file and then we can process image. I promise you that image going to be lovely and sharp with plenty of contrast
And there is the flaw in your argument. If only a few people can properly process the images to get maximum performance (including a photographer known around the world like myself), then you've got a problem. I don't show examples where I've heavily processed them to get them to look right, as then the review is more of my ability to process files and not about the performance of the lens. And, by the way, I haven't seen ANY reviewer claim to get "plenty of contrast" at wide apertures out of this lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Great! Always interested in your reviews, no matter the brand, lens or camera. I already got a Sony a7R IV, and a handful of lenses, which I can’t complain about, but if money was no concern, I would probably use many brands for different uses, and as I’m generally just a bit of a gear enthusiast, as well as a photography enthusiast. It’s always interesting to look in to the camera industry from different perspectives (brands and types of gear), just as you do. Anyway, happy New Year when you and your fellows get to it!
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks a lot man. Keep it up your reviews are some of the best and most thorough I’ve seen on you tube. Very helpful as well you’ve helped me make my mind up a few different times. Take care! 🤙
I did have some technical issues on this review with my audio transmission. Ironically I did the standard review about 15 minutes later with the same audio setup, and the sound is fine.
I personally think Fuji hasn't made this lens to shoot landscapes but that this is mainly a "1- trick pony": Portraits with an almost FF look. Nobody wants clinical sharpness and detail with a portrait lens. One can wonder whether portraits wide open are worth 1,5k (specially if you already own the 56/1,2) - all the other considerations will not lead to a satisfying result. For comparision, the Canon RF lenses cost a thousand bucks more...
I did have some technical issues. I'm using a new audio transmitter, but something didn't go right and I still don't quite know why. The standard review was filmed about 15 minutes later with the same setup and was fine.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Technical glitches, the bane of any production. As to the review, glad you went into so much detail. Seems to be an incredibly popular lens for Fuji but reviews have been all over the place. Some praise it highly, others are far less impressed. I wonder if there are wide sample variations with this lens?
It may also be a reviewer's approach. I show and evaluate files with minimal processing, and also look at them pretty deep. If a reviewer is more about "feel" and tend to process their images before evaluating them, that may lead to a more charitable view of performance.
Review is very thorough but very uncreative, ofcourse I'm biased because I use this lens. Everything said in review is true just the comments section is ridiculous.. "I had it in pre order but now I will not buy it" why? Look up other f1 lenses in which regard they are better? its the cheapest f1 auto focus lens there is. It's like a super car, it's not practical, not comfortable, expensive but it's fun to use it when you push it to limit, using it at dusk or somewhere where lithing is dim is when this lens can show it's power.
@@DustinAbbottTWI first of all sorry for being a bit rude. I think people need to let go of looking for the perfect lens, or for example not buy a lens because he can hear focus motor, wast majority of camera owners are amateurs and they just need to experiment, and try all the lenses there is.
I'm an avid Fuji shooter but even I wouldn't buy this lens! It's just too large for comfortable use. I do have the 56mm f/1.2, which is much smaller, but it still provides an excellent choice for portraits. But for the money, I'd recommend the 50mm f/2 lens. It's small, razor sharp & not very expensive.
This lens proves what's evident, and even Fuji itself knows that, APS-C can't fully compete with full-frame, as sensor size must be compensated with enormous optics, which leads to many compromises in lens design.
What enormous optics are you talking about. Most Fuji glass is quite compact and even this f 1.0 is quite manageble compared to full frame glass from sony, canon and nikon... i switched from Nikon because the kit was to damn big:))
10:45 are the corner sharpness tests focused on the corner? If focused in the center, all you're measuring is field curvature, see article by Roger Cicala: Understanding field curvature for fun and profit, Dec 24 2020 on DPReview.com
That might be true for a test chart, but when you get the same result at infinity, field curvature is no longer relevant. Depth of field more than cancels out any field curvature.
@@DustinAbbottTWI This comment is hard to understand. I have seen landscape photographers struggle with field curvature, as it makes consistent hyperfocal focusing harder. For portrait, typically you'd focus in the middle distance, with a single subject, and field curvature can serve to enhance subject separation.
Autofocus performance of eye/face tracking in video mode completely missed in this review( This is the one of the most important point for this lens especially for video shooters. For example 56 1.2 was completely unusable for video with autofocus.
Hi Konstantin - I am rarely impressed with the performance of any Fuji lenses/cameras in this regard relative to Canon or Sony. Focus is pretty crude for video; I don't think this is a great lens for video work even though you can get beautiful footage with it.
The only Fuji lens I use for video is the 18-55:))...the only one. I also set a focus range limiter and that way you take out the hunting on other lenses as well. Unless Fuji updates the glass across their entire lineup for video..it won’t do as well as Sony or the newer Canons. I do love Fuji colors and F-log is quite easy to grade. 10 bit 4.2.0 is quite good with the all-i option.
Special thanks and respect to your daughter for beeing your model in almost every review.
She's the real hero! Looking fab for lens tests no matter how cold it gets.
That's so true. She's a real sport. My reviews are going to go downhill when she grows up and moves away!
I was able to test the Fuji 50mm F1.0 & the Fuji 56mm F1.2 WR in a side by side comparison. My observation was that the 56mm was much sharper wide open than the 50mm. The 50mm had very noticeable LOCA when shot at F1.0, purple fringing was quite pronounced. The 56mm also has a better MFD. The larger size of the 50mm did not bother me as I found it balanced well on my XT3 with a battery grip. In short, I enjoyed shooting with both lenses, but I decided to keep only one, that being the 56mmF1.2. Thank you for your thorough review, Dustin. I enjoy your channel. Best wishes to you & your family.
Thank you for a thorough, thoughtful and honest review. As a long-time Fuji shooter I really wanted this lens to be great, but it does seem that to deliver the headline 1.0 aperture some very major compromises had to be made. The Fuji community can be quite passionate about their brand, so thanks for being objective regardless of any heat you might feel in the comments section!
Relative to the other autofocusing F1.0 (Canon EF 50mm F1.0L), this lens is very good optically. But unfortunately there are a lot of less extreme lenses to choose from that deliver better sharpness and almost as nice of bokeh.
Again an excellent review, Dustin. Thanks for that. Although I’ve stopped using my Fuji’s for professional work, I keep using the wonderfully compact x-pro2 for personal work. I’ve ran a short trail run with the 50/1.0 a month ago and my conclusion was more or less the same. Considering the price relative to the platform, the lens should have been great and it is obviously not. It’s very much a one trick (bokeh) pony with much less versatility compared to the 56/1.2, the 50/2.0 or even the 60/2.4! My test copy also suffered from loca and was quite prone to flare and a little bit ghosting. Based on your comments I’ve revisited the jpeg files. I usually work with raw only as the vast majority of the target audience for this lens will do. I must say that the jpegs are indeed better to look at, also due to the extreme sharpening that Fuji uses in their jpeg engine. I personally use Capture One, but a colleague using LR came to the same conclusions after editing the same files. Compared to lenses like the 85 GM, the Sigma 85/1.4 DN and the Nikkor 85/1.8 Z-mount, this Fuji lens is amongst the most expensive, but simply can’t keep up. It’s sad because I really like Fuji cameras. I wish they’d dropped the gimmicky f1.0 target and just created a good successor for the 56/1.2.
Some solid points there, Herco. And yes, the 56mm F1.2 is due an update
I don't understand why your channel is so underrated and the clicks so low. I really appreciate your work and the in-depth reviews. Thanks a lot, keep up the good work and stay healthy. Greetings from Germany
My channel is more factual than hype, so it doesn't fit the usual UA-cam paradigm.
Hi Dustin , thank you for your review and happy new year to you and your family.
Happy new year!
looking really good there mr Abbott! Merry christmas and happy new year to you!
Thank you very much!
A “lens that favors the experts”.
Well summarized.
Thank you. Reviewing a lens like this is challenging because there are few comps.
8:12 Set the AF point mode to "ALL" and use the rear dial to go from smallest AF point, via zone all the way to wide/tracking and recent Fuji cameras will sample from across the frame just fine. I've used it for birds in flight with no problem, and the rear dial interface is very intuitive to set up.
Now that was useful. I've never heard that before, and it works. Not necessarily intuitive (I've asked this question directly to my Fuji contacts before without getting the answer you gave), but I'm glad this exists.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I always set my Fujifilm cameras to ALL and then leave it there, no idea what that's not the factory default. Incidentally I also set my video button to "face select" as that helps to both turn face AF on and off, and also put the camera in a mode where I can select which face to pick in a group setting. That's an awkward idiosyncracy of the "historically grown" firmware (aka poor software design) that could benefit from improvement.
I do wish they had made this an f1.2 or f1.4 and used their linear motors as they have been doing on their excellent new primes. That being said, there is something about the images from this lens that are just gorgeous and really draw me in.
Definitely agree on the linear motor front.
Hi !
As you get better details/performances using jpeg, you may suffer from the ACR penality. Maybe you could gie a it another chance with CaptureOne.
Regards
Hi Nicolas, I do own CaptureOne, but I've tested a number of images side by side in times past and couldn't see a meaningful difference. I treat all gear similarly; I use the industry standard editing software for all of them
Capture One gives noticeably better details on high frequency detail like leaves, fur, gras etc...on faces or more flat areas the differences are not as visible...I tested it and Capture One gets even more detail out of the raw then the jpgs straight from camera...
but sure, if you set Lightroom as your one and only developing tool fuji is in a quite severe disadvantage in my opinion...actually for me it is a reason to switch away from fuji to something that is nicely editable in Lightroom...
@@aceflibble I tested the enhance detail feature in ligtroom when it became available and at that time capture one still gave me better results with less artifacts...perhaps now the enhance feature became better in newer versions. I will check that when I have some time, thx!
17:25 I understand that portraits are hard to do during Covid but I would test a portrait lens at portrait distances. At close up distances, I can use an F2.8 macro lens and get just a tiny bit closer to get arbitrary amounts of blur. This lens is all about a single subject at 2m to 5m away with a background slightly behind or further behind the subject.
With all due respect, there are a number of portraits shown in this review between 2m and 5m - despite COVID and winter...
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes but what is discussed in any detail on the portraits is the background LoCA, not the subject itself (only that it's "sharp enough").
How did I miss this. Thanks for the review
You're very welcome.
18:38 That looks really sharp. The in-camera corrections seem to do a really good job.
Exactly. That's something Fuji does very well.
If possible rent the Len and try it out for yourself ,everyone has an opinion but your opinion is just as good as anyone else.
Hi Dustin, congrats on the spectacular review, as always. In my opinion I find that plastic hoods are better than metal just because when you drop a lens(it happens) the plastic hood can bend and break, absorbing a lot of the shock while the metal one just breaks the lens as well. I never dropped a lens before, but I’ve seen a few saved by their plastic hoods. AF performance, even with updates, I don’t think Fuji will match the Canon or Sony soon. I own an x-t4 and by far my favourite lens is the 90mm f.2. Kudos on the review.
Unfortunately AF seems to be the place where Fuji lags - often both in cameras and lenses. I would love to see them really catch up in that area, though at this stage a lot of their catalog lenses need a refresh.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I really like their new attitude towards letting third parties have access to the code for native AF performance. Followed some rumours that have Tamron and Sigma in line for x-mount lenses. Even though Tamron are just Viltrox rebranded.
lol Dustin I am glad I watched this one for sure as I have this lens in my cart, but not for long- thanks again I shot Sony, Nikon and canon, and I have a always want to try Fuji for there color since. Which x Fuji crop camera would you say is worth the money?
I do like my X-H2, but that high resolution 40MP sensor is pretty brutal on anything less than perfect lenses. It's still my favorite Fuji camera body in general, though.
Great review 👌 this is the worlds 1st apsc F1 lens known as the ONE . and I believe it’s a niche lens , specialised lens, also portrait lenses aren’t great if they are too sharp and this lens I believe is a lens that has a lot of character at F1
I do agree that it has a lot of character.
I shoot fashion and make-up portraits for a living. I often hear that these lenses don’t need to be sharp and contrasty because it would not be flattering. However, as a professional you’d like to get the soft and dreamy look out of your editing software (where you can control it) and not out of your lens...
@@jacobh5817
I think the people that claim to want a more “dreamier” look are using it for other aspects as wedding photography. Some just don’t want to spend too much time on editing, so it’s more of a niche. Just as many choose Canon just because they prefer the “colour science”, and would prefer to edit less. Also, it can sometimes be challenging to replicate the rendering, not just the softness or smothness of the image, or the so-called “dreamy” look. For studio portraits, you mostly stop down anyway, both to get more in focus and more details. I agree that it’s better to have a sharp lens, whereas you can soften the image if desired when editing, no matter if you do portraiture or not. But some just prefer the opposite. I use the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, for instance, as it already takes full advantage of the Sony a7R IV’s sensor in the center wide open, and is still very sharp all over the frame.
@@carbon6372 , the Sigma and the A7RIV is indeed a stellar combination. You’re so right that there are different preferences when it comes to color science and character. I’ve been using Canon DSLRs for a long time just for the sake of skin tones. However, with the capabilities of presets and styles (we use Capture One) making fast adjustments is reduced to importing the raw files and some minor editing. For both wedding photographers as well as studio work having a consistent look across the entire shoot is of great importance. Regardless of whether you use your 35, 50, 85 or 105.
@@jacobh5817
Sorry for a long and messy message.
True. Consistently in output is very important in portraiture and so on. It might not matter as much to me, as I’m more in to architecture, landscapes and some wildlife, whereas the lighting always changes anyway, and I can get very similiar results with just a bit of editing. But many won’t notice, or many don’t want to spend that extra time, so it’s understandable that some stick to very certain brands or a certain lines of lenses. But no matter what, it isn’t possible to get the exact same results but you can narrow down variance to some degree, especially when you use your own set of light sources and so on. But we all choose certain factors over others, and something will always be optimised or compromised. To me, I’m not so sure how much colour between each brand matters. I was just happy with Canon, as well as I am with my a7R IV. That was not the case with previous models. Once comparing them side to side, I will probably be more picky. Sometimes, I consider DSLR just for the ergonomics and build quality. Also the versatility compared to the price, as you can get many options for a lot less than modern mirrorless offerings. But I’m not so sure how much the differences matter. At first, I only chose gear upon reaching the highest resolution at the lowest price. Now, I’m still doing so, but I’m also considering ergonomics, versatility other aspects as well, whereas I before only used primes and had many gaps. Still, it’s hard for me to fill my kit without compromises. For example, I want to get my hands on the Sony 200-600mm again for birds, but I also want a 100-400mm for landscapes. For that, the RF 100-500mm makes more sense, but I find it too overpriced for what it is. The 100-400mm II can be bought for half of the price, but I need more reach. I could use an adapter and an extender, but I’m not so sure if I want to move to the R system just to adapt a lot of lenses. I know which EF lenses are great and all, and I know they will work just fine, but I also care about the looks of the setup, and I just think it looks bad with a bunch of adapted lenses, hehe. Also, the EF would be quite a bit heavier. I got the Sigma 14-24mm DN for architecture, but I prefer my Voigtländers for landscapes, and I prefer my Sigmas (85mm DN and hopefully a future 35mm f/1.4 DN) for ‘street’. My ultimate kit would probably be a zoom that goes from 14 to 30 or 35mm, a wide aperture 20 or 24mm, a 50mm, a 100mm or 135mm, and a 100-500mm with maybe a light but slow 800mm. I think Canon will make all of this, so I might choose them later on. I’m just an young enthusiast for now, after all. In the end, you will end with a lot of expense and equipment to carry if you long for perfection in every aspect you photograph. At the same time, I’m a bit of a gear nerd. If I could, I would probably own a bit from each brand. I don’t care which brand, but there’s just no brand that covers everything for me.
I have this lens in use now for several weeks.I must admit it is not the sharpest Fuji lens , but the micro contrast is very nice.
Wide open , the lens is more than sharp enough!The rendering is beautiful.I must admit it is not a typical modern lens which are mostly conceived for digital sharpness.My sigma DGDN for Sony is sharper but has less character and microcontrast and delivers less attractive pictures.This lens reminds me of the old Nikon 58/1.4 lens which was not received open arms either.
Lenses like this are a little complicated to classify, as rendering is harder to scale than something like sharpness.
This is a dream lens. However, I'll be happy to suffice for my lowly but effective KamLan 50mm F1.1 II to use with an XE-3. That lens, along with the excellent KamLan 28mm 1.4 - as well as an incoming Fujifilm XF 16-80 - have all been purchased in part thanks to your reviews. The 50 1.1 definitely helped with some client work this year and is fine for my hobbyist needs / price range.
It's definitely a nice budget alternative.
Really helpful review!
Glad it was helpful!
Dustin, speaking of sharpness, would you say the Fujinon 90mm F2 would be a better buy than this one? I bought the 50-140 but it’s just too soft for my taste, should have listened to you before I made that purchase, now I’m going to sell the lens and try to get sharpest telephoto available for the Fuji system (except the 200 F2, that’s not an option for me)
The 90mm is definitely sharper. Whether it is a better buy really depends on what focal length you need.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you Dustin, yes, I’m thinking for wedding photography, out of the 56mm, 50mm, the 50-140 and the 90mm, Ive found through research that the 90mm really stands out from the crowd when it comes to sharpness, would you agree?
I do agree.
Great review! How would to compare this lens to some FF competition (like Sony 85 1.4, Samyang 85 1.4 or Sigma 85 1.4),since they produce similar end result in terms of FoV and DoF/bokeh? Is it true that this lens has some magic rendering/bokeh or is all that magic about getting FF look on APS-C?
The 85mm f/1.4 lenses on full-frame gives a slightly deeper blur, as they in theory are 10mm longer. The difference is not too noticeable, though. I think they use the term “magic” as in they finally achieved nearly equivalent blur to full-frame on APS-C, at least in terms of 85mm f/1.4 lenses. It can also refer to it being a bit “dreamy” in its rendering, which some might prefer for portraits. When lenses are dreamy, they tend to be less sharp and contrastry but have subjectively more attractive blur. I doubt this lens is any better overall, as it isn’t sharper, nor faster, or blurs more. But it surely is a nice option for Fuji users, as they now can achieve similiar results in terms of blur in the 85mm range compared to full-frame. Out of the three lenses you mentioned, the Sigma DN is clearly the superior lens in terms of optical qualities. It does however suffer heavily from distortion, and I’m not so sure if there’s a correction for that yet in Lightroom or other programs, and the blur can sometimes be a bit busy, as the lens is more optimised towards being optically superior, compact and light. The Samyang is also excellent in terms of optical qualities, but it’s not quite at the level of the Sigma. Both are great even on the a7R IV. The strengths of the Samyang is price and a more dreamy rendering but still being very sharp. Both tend to be a bit warm. I do not know too much about Fuji, but I wouldn’t choose APS-C over full-frame just for that lens. I would only get it, if I already had APS-C, or if there were several factors that made me choose APS-C, and not just this lens. Both the Sigma and Samyang are cheaper and overall better alternatives if you were to choose between APS-C and full-frame, beside maybe a more dreamy look. Some might prefer the build of the Fuji as well. Both the Sigma and Fuji got an aperture ring, but the Sigma got a lock. For what it is, I think it’s overpriced, and I would rather get the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 at a much lower price. It’s also a lot lighter, more compact, and the deepness of the blur is quite similiar, but the 50mm f/1 has a slight advantage
(75mm f/1.5 vs 84mm f/1.8). The 50mm f/1 is more dreamy. You can visualise the difference in blur graphically by comparing them on the site ‘howmuchblur’. But of course it won’t be the same as comparing them in hand. Overall, I think the 50mm f/1 is appealing if use Fuji and want a bit more of a dreamy look and more blur.
My personal experience is that both the 85 GM and the Sigma 85/1.4 but also the Nikkor 85/1.8 Z-mount are way way better than this lens. The DoF is fairly similar, but the usability of the largest apeture on the aforementioned lenses is much greater. Simply said, these lenses can be used wide open with good sharpness and beautiful contrast, whereas the Fuji needs to be stopped down to achieve those results (if at all). The bokeh on all these lenses is very nice. Surprisingly (for an f1.8) the Nikkor has the most beautiful and consistent transition from sharp to out-of-focus.
I think that both Carbon and Herco have added some solid points. The biggest strength of the Fuji is that the quality of the background blur is extremely nice, but I personally wouldn't reach for it over, say, the Sigma 85mm F1.4 DN.
Excellent review! I’ve been trying to rent the lens to test it before buying to no avail. Thank you for your professional opinion, test, and unbiased review (as usual). I’ll happily accept this review, it is fascinating to find Jpegs better than raw’s but like you said “Fuji corrects all flaws very well” (paraphrasing). Also, the closest focusing distance is a possible hurdle for close ups (without cropping). Do you think this is another overpriced Fuji lens? How do you compare it against the 56 1.2 (I know it’s a different focal length)? Thank you for the info and blessings!
I would check out the text review if you haven't, as I try to explore the nuances a bit more. I think the rendering is more special on the 50mm F1.0 than the 56mm, though that lens is obviously much lighter and less expensive.
I would really appreciate if these reviews could cover some of the more recent Nikon lenses. Especially, how these compare to their Canon RF counterparts.
Seems like a very disappointing Fuji lens...
I'm afraid I don't have time nor money to invest in Nikon as well. This isn't my main job; I also have a full time job besides reviews.
@@DustinAbbottTWI absolutely makes sense. Still, I cannot help thinking that somehow Fuji is an outlier here. Seeing the same quality, unbiased, in-depth reviews of Nikon gear would be fantastic, if that opportunity ever comes. Thanks for the reviews, it is a joy to watch them.
Hi Dustin, how can you compare this lens with a Canon EF50/1.2 on Fuji body via mount as far as image quality is concerned? Will there be any big difference?
Hmmm, that's not a combination I've tested. Interesting question, though. It's been too long since I reviewed the EF 50L to give you an informed opinion.
I really wanted this lens until I watched this but I still want it a little lol love your channel the light is in, Jesus
Yes HE is!
Nice
Thanks
Let’s pick up one of the largest x mount lenses paired with one of the smallest x mount bodies 😂 (just joking).
Lovely video tho.
Hi Dustin you are great reviewer but you don't know how to handle Fuji file.
Give us link to original RAF file and then we can process image.
I promise you that image going to be lovely and sharp with plenty of contrast
And there is the flaw in your argument. If only a few people can properly process the images to get maximum performance (including a photographer known around the world like myself), then you've got a problem. I don't show examples where I've heavily processed them to get them to look right, as then the review is more of my ability to process files and not about the performance of the lens. And, by the way, I haven't seen ANY reviewer claim to get "plenty of contrast" at wide apertures out of this lens.
What are those silver looking lenses on the canon body in the background?
Viltrox lenses for mirrorless APS-C cameras. The left one is the 56mm f/1.4, and the right one is the 35mm f/1.4, I think. They also got a 23mm f/1.4.
Carbon (almost) got it - the Viltrox AF 33mm and 56mm F1.4 for Canon EF-M. I'll be doing a review on them together in the next week.
@@DustinAbbottTWI
Great!
Always interested in your reviews, no matter the brand, lens or camera. I already got a Sony a7R IV, and a handful of lenses, which I can’t complain about, but if money was no concern, I would probably use many brands for different uses, and as I’m generally just a bit of a gear enthusiast, as well as a photography enthusiast. It’s always interesting to look in to the camera industry from different perspectives (brands and types of gear), just as you do.
Anyway, happy New Year when you and your fellows get to it!
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks a lot man. Keep it up your reviews are some of the best and most thorough I’ve seen on you tube. Very helpful as well you’ve helped me make my mind up a few different times.
Take care! 🤙
audio is somewhat broken in this vid (noises)
I did have some technical issues on this review with my audio transmission. Ironically I did the standard review about 15 minutes later with the same audio setup, and the sound is fine.
I personally think Fuji hasn't made this lens to shoot landscapes but that this is mainly a "1- trick pony": Portraits with an almost FF look. Nobody wants clinical sharpness and detail with a portrait lens. One can wonder whether portraits wide open are worth 1,5k (specially if you already own the 56/1,2) - all the other considerations will not lead to a satisfying result. For comparision, the Canon RF lenses cost a thousand bucks more...
No, definitely not to shoot landscapes. While it's true that the RF lenses are much more expensive, they are also at a whole other level optically.
Sound seems really poor in this video?
I did have some technical issues. I'm using a new audio transmitter, but something didn't go right and I still don't quite know why. The standard review was filmed about 15 minutes later with the same setup and was fine.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Technical glitches, the bane of any production. As to the review, glad you went into so much detail. Seems to be an incredibly popular lens for Fuji but reviews have been all over the place. Some praise it highly, others are far less impressed. I wonder if there are wide sample variations with this lens?
It may also be a reviewer's approach. I show and evaluate files with minimal processing, and also look at them pretty deep. If a reviewer is more about "feel" and tend to process their images before evaluating them, that may lead to a more charitable view of performance.
Review is very thorough but very uncreative, ofcourse I'm biased because I use this lens. Everything said in review is true just the comments section is ridiculous.. "I had it in pre order but now I will not buy it" why? Look up other f1 lenses in which regard they are better?
its the cheapest f1 auto focus lens there is.
It's like a super car, it's not practical, not comfortable, expensive but it's fun to use it when you push it to limit, using it at dusk or somewhere where lithing is dim is when this lens can show it's power.
Lenses like this are always a little more niche, but for those who love them they are the most special.
@@DustinAbbottTWI first of all sorry for being a bit rude. I think people need to let go of looking for the perfect lens, or for example not buy a lens because he can hear focus motor, wast majority of camera owners are amateurs and they just need to experiment, and try all the lenses there is.
I'm an avid Fuji shooter but even I wouldn't buy this lens! It's just too large for comfortable use. I do have the 56mm f/1.2, which is much smaller, but it still provides an excellent choice for portraits. But for the money, I'd recommend the 50mm f/2 lens. It's small, razor sharp & not very expensive.
Hi John, I do have the F2 lens on hand. It's actually not as sharp as F1.0 at equivalent apertures, but yes, it is incredible small by comparison.
This lens proves what's evident, and even Fuji itself knows that, APS-C can't fully compete with full-frame, as sensor size must be compensated with enormous optics, which leads to many compromises in lens design.
This does allow you to have full frame type results on APS-C, but yes, it does come with some compromises.
What enormous optics are you talking about. Most Fuji glass is quite compact and even this f 1.0 is quite manageble compared to full frame glass from sony, canon and nikon... i switched from Nikon because the kit was to damn big:))
10:45 are the corner sharpness tests focused on the corner? If focused in the center, all you're measuring is field curvature, see article by Roger Cicala: Understanding field curvature for fun and profit, Dec 24 2020 on DPReview.com
That might be true for a test chart, but when you get the same result at infinity, field curvature is no longer relevant. Depth of field more than cancels out any field curvature.
@@DustinAbbottTWI This comment is hard to understand. I have seen landscape photographers struggle with field curvature, as it makes consistent hyperfocal focusing harder. For portrait, typically you'd focus in the middle distance, with a single subject, and field curvature can serve to enhance subject separation.
Autofocus performance of eye/face tracking in video mode completely missed in this review(
This is the one of the most important point for this lens especially for video shooters.
For example 56 1.2 was completely unusable for video with autofocus.
Hi Konstantin - I am rarely impressed with the performance of any Fuji lenses/cameras in this regard relative to Canon or Sony. Focus is pretty crude for video; I don't think this is a great lens for video work even though you can get beautiful footage with it.
The only Fuji lens I use for video is the 18-55:))...the only one. I also set a focus range limiter and that way you take out the hunting on other lenses as well. Unless Fuji updates the glass across their entire lineup for video..it won’t do as well as Sony or the newer Canons. I do love Fuji colors and F-log is quite easy to grade. 10 bit 4.2.0 is quite good with the all-i option.
@@andreimicle I would say 16-55 with X-T4 works perfect especially in terms of autofocus!
Yes it does. I own the x-t4 and it works great. Love the image quality and the film profiles.