gavinlg
Veteran
Fuji 56mm f1.2 announced. $999us price.
56mm f1.2 fujinon announced!
- Thread starter gavinlg
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 53
- Views 7K
JRG
Well-known
Should have lots of customers lining up, pronto!
gavinlg
Veteran
price is better than I anticipated - was honestly expecting 1200! Also the weight is only 400g. Not a particularly large lens!
Spyro
Well-known
nice to have the option but I think I'm sticking with the 60/2.4... I'm not the bokeh type 🙂
btgc
Veteran
I'm surprised to see anything faster than f/1.8 in digital world. ISOs are good enough, so what this is - because Fuji can?
gavinlg
Veteran
Because a lot of people like the look a fast portrait lens gives.
elshaneo
Panographer
Nice!!! It looks like a dream come true for portraiture with dreamy bokeh look. I'm confident from what we all saw from the other Fuji XF lenses that this one will be awesome as well 😀
taemo
eat sleep shoot
wow price is really good!
everyone was speculating 1200+ for this lens but 1000 is a great deal!
thinking of selling the M9 now and going X-Pro1 + 56 1.2 now... hmmm
everyone was speculating 1200+ for this lens but 1000 is a great deal!
thinking of selling the M9 now and going X-Pro1 + 56 1.2 now... hmmm
willie_901
Veteran
Because: at equivalent perspectives (subject-to-lens distance) f 1.2 with an APS-C sensor is approximately equivalent to f 1.8 with a 24 X 36mm sensor for both subject isolation and signal to noise ratio performance.
So the lens is special because it is fast and relatively compact. And it is not special because there are dozens of nice f 1.8 lens with the same angle-of-view available for digital and film 24 X 36 mm media.
I'm placing my pre-order at my local camera shop this week.
btgc
Veteran
I'm buying DOF argument but signal-to-noise thing..isn't it purely dependable on sensor/processing?
jonasv
has no mustache
Mine is on pre-order.
For shallow DOF when I need it, and because of the speed. This whole "high ISO's are good enough with digital sensors" is purely dependent on what you shoot. Sometimes you don't want flash, you want a small camera (so no full-frame dslr high iso!) and you have to shoot in a relatively dark space with a shutter speed fast enough to stop motion. Then a 1.2 is still twice as fast as a 1.8, no matter how you look at it.
For shallow DOF when I need it, and because of the speed. This whole "high ISO's are good enough with digital sensors" is purely dependent on what you shoot. Sometimes you don't want flash, you want a small camera (so no full-frame dslr high iso!) and you have to shoot in a relatively dark space with a shutter speed fast enough to stop motion. Then a 1.2 is still twice as fast as a 1.8, no matter how you look at it.
domagojs
Established
Finally somebody sees it like it is! I initially read that idea by Ken Rockwell, and if he's the author it is one of the bigger misconceptions he promotes...
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Have you seen the coffee can-sized petal lenshade yet?
goamules
Well-known
I'm looking at it differently.
GaryLH
Veteran
Your point? I have seen plenty of them and owned my fair share from sigma and Nikon.
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
Nice lens.. Not interested mainly because I currently own the 60. If I did not own the 60, I would definitely get this instead.
Gary
Gary
f16sunshine
Moderator
Hmmm. I may give one a go. I owned the 60mm briefly. The IQ was super but I did not get on with the long Helical.
Not since the Contax G series 90mm have I owned an AF short tele and never one this fast.
I'm very curious how accurately this lens will focus quickly at wide open or even at f2 on XP1.
It's not a slam dunk by any means.
Early adopters please report!
Cheers
Not since the Contax G series 90mm have I owned an AF short tele and never one this fast.
I'm very curious how accurately this lens will focus quickly at wide open or even at f2 on XP1.
It's not a slam dunk by any means.
Early adopters please report!
Cheers
back alley
IMAGES
it's smaller than i thought it might be. that's a good thing…
i am very happy with my 60, actually should use it more than i do, so i am not too interested in the 56 even though an 85 used to be among my faves when i shot canon gear.
i am very happy with my 60, actually should use it more than i do, so i am not too interested in the 56 even though an 85 used to be among my faves when i shot canon gear.
N.delaRua
Well-known
This lens for concert/plays and other stage lighting performances would absolutely rock. f/1.2 with the Fuji's ISO 3200 performance... That would be awesome.
willie_901
Veteran
The maximum possible total analog signal level recorded when the shutter is open depends on the lens aperture and sensor surface area. So the increased glass surface area of a f 1.2 lens cancels the smaller surface area of an APS-C sensor. With identical sensor and data stream electronics, the noise could be identical for both sensor areas if the larger sensor has a f1.8 lens and the smaller sensor has a f 1.2 lens.
Post-processing can degrade the signal to noise, but it can never increase SNR for a single exposure. For example post processing noise reduction essentially averages pixels with more information (less noise) together with pixels with more noise. The total information content in the image remains constant. This why using excessive noise filtering is unproductive.
The raw file signal to nose ratio is best measured with software like Raw Digger that does not render an image but evaluates the SNR of the RGB channels.
Similar threads
