Fuji 50mm f/1 Review & Sample Images by Ken Rockwell
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 ноя 2024
- Fujifilm Fujinon 50mm f/1.0 Review & Sample Images by Ken Rockwell
Written Review & Sample Image Files www.kenrockwel...
I'd get mine at www.bhphotovid...
or at www.adorama.co...
or used at rover.ebay.com...
How to Win at eBay www.kenrockwel...
77mm Tiffen ND Filter www.bhphotovid...
Fuji XF 56/1.2 review www.kenrockwel...
Fuji XF 56/1.2 APD review www.kenrockwel...
Canon EF 50mm f/1 L review www.kenrockwel...
Nikon Z 58/0.95 review www.kenrockwel...
LEICA M 50/1 www.kenrockwel...
LEICA M 50/0.95 www.bhphotovid...
I get all my gear at www.kenrockwel...
When you click on the links above to various merchants and make a purchase, this can result in me earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Contribute at www.paypal.me/...
Audio recorded with one Senal SCM-660 microphone set to figure-of-eight www.kenrockwel...
with Auray PFNY-6 Pop Screen www.kenrockwel...
and captured on my TASCAM DR-100 Mk II Recorder www.kenrockwel...
set to M gain with AGC and later audio processing
Ken Rockwell® is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.
I like most the fact you really know what you talk about.
Thanks! It helps.
@@KenRockwellTV I can't remember how many reviews I read on your site.
He does
I already got this lens 3 weeks ago and just finished testing it out..
it's amazing, only 1499 i was wicked surprised, i thought to myself this has to a be a bad lens at 1499 for 1 F1.0..
but i picked it up, and what is great about this lens is i was able to shoot my sons birthday party indoors with out using a flash and use the ambient light and get razor sharp pictures
with my X-T4.
I do a lot of video and this lens worked amazing and keeping focus on my subject while i was panning the camera around..
the auto eye focus stayed on the eyes like glue it's unreal.
Not to mention i use to have the Canon 1.2 lens and it was poor in sharpness the only thing that stayed sharp at 1.2 was directly in the center of the lens and anything beyond that was wicked soft,
example i took a portrait head shot and the subjects eyes was sharp but when you got to the nose or ears it was way out of focus.
this lens doesn't do that that which came to my surprised the entire face and head was razor sharp.
to tell you the truth, i would have expect to have paid at least 4k for a lens like this at least 4k i have to say fujifilm has done it again, they make a great product..
As far as the aperture ring being able to move i had that problem when i was shooting video, and hit it and knocked it off the A so what i did was tapped the Aperture ring to the base so it wouldn't move that is the best advice i would give any one so you don't have to worry about it while you shoot...
i would agree with Ken get this lens it's a steal, for the price, this is amazing i would never dream that i could get a lens like that for 1,499.00 i never thought a lens that good at F1.0 would be in my price range ever. until i stumbled on this lens B & H, i was in NY city and every time i go to NYC i go in B &H to check out what they got, and they had this lens sitting there in the fuji lenses counter and i had to double look to see if i what i saw was what i thought i saw when i saw F1.0 and then 1,499.00 i thought to myself this has to be a crappy F1.0 for this price but then the man let me put this on my X-T4 and check it out and when i used the view screen and zoomed in i was amazed, i told him i'll take this lens LOL
and to tell you the truth i told my girl friend when we got in the car i said maybe they messed up on the price here and didn't realize it LOL but no it's the correct price..
Full report www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-mount-lenses/50mm-f1.htm Thanks!
I thought this lens was so huge it would be impossible to mount it on our little XT-30. Glad to see you did it!
Works great. The camera is small and the two work great together. Thanks!
Thanks, Ken. You are always my go to for lens reviews.
Thank you!!!
Mostly PR driven product, the optics itself is great, no doubt about that, but actually if you take it as 1500 dollars for a 75mm f/1.5 to full-frame equivalent,
then the lens doesn't sound so flashy.
In this case you will need to buy another (bigger) body with different lens mount, bigger bag, etc. This lens is for those who has Fuji camera.
Still the best way to set-up to the f/1.0 club. Thanks!
f1.0 is f1.0
@@jeffreyvelasco5900 Sure, that is, if you're a physicist, who doesn't care about the results which formula provides in real-world photography, or moneybags, who can't care less about the price-performance ratio.
@@GinoFoto Imagine having the option to use higher shutter speed at night or dark venues compared to a f1.5 lens. Is that real-world enough?
ANOTHER great review from the master gear head. I put this on my BH wish-list. Thanks Ken.
Thank YOU!
I just ordered the 56mm 1.2. Now I'm wondering if I should have purchased the 1.0 instead.
They are very similar. Do you need bigger than 1.2? Probably not, and the 1.0 is much bigger and more expensive unless you really do use f1
Real life photography professor - also most entertaining.
Heh heh, thanks!
Great review!!, but please, let me ask you for portraits which one would you choose? 90mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.0??. Thanks a lot!
Easy: 90/2. It's all about needing to shoot from about 15' or 5 meters for the best perspective rendering. see also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/portrait-lenses.htm
@@KenRockwellTV Thank you!! :-)
Suppose you could carry 3 primes for everyday purposes. What would those be? I just found your channel, after reading your name on Fuji dedicated websites. I am a new Fuji convert, and I must say I loooove the system. Thank you for this clear and information full review. 🙏🙏
On full frame I tote 21mm, 35mm and 85mm. That’s 14mm, 23mm and 56mm on Fuji APS-C.
I thought so! Thanks for confirming my suspicions. As great as the 1.0 might be, I think I’ll wait to see if they update the 56. Cheers!
We’ll see. Thanks!
Thank you for the review!
Do you know how many lenses you've tested in your life so far? Must be a lot ...
And are there really lenses made in mongolia? :D
Plenty. Not sure what brands are popular in Mongolia. Thanks!
Ken you are a legend
Only because of great people like you. Thanks!
“Timbuktu 7”....gotta love Ken!
Thank you!! I’m so bad.
Excellent detailed review, as all of your reviews are. Click! Subscribed! One question though: Any idea why Fuji decided to produce 50mm lenses for crop sensor instead of just updating their 56 or, if 1.0 was the goal, make a 35 1.0? A 75mm FF equiv seems like an oddball focal length. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe any camera manufacturer has ever made a 75mm prime lens. An 85 or, my favorite, a 105 (coming from my Nikon film days) are just right for beautiful head and shoulder portraits. A wider 75 would not produce as flattering portraits of adult faces. As a general walk around lens, a 75 would be too narrow. Could it be that 50mm is the only focal length that Fuji’s optical engineers could make into a 1.0?
1.0 is a Holy Grail. You do it because you can. For crop sensor it’s much easier to make a 50mm (80mm eq.) than a 35mm (50mm eq.) and it’s much much harder to make a 23mm (35mm eq.), so they made a 50mm because it was the easiest way to get into for f1.0 club.
We all human; nobody is cheap….. the location where it manufactured doesn’t judge the quality of the lens. Nice reviews 🙏
But it does show the quality of the company and its commitment to its own people, to all human rights and respect for its own culture and traditions. Thanks!
Minimizing the importance and use of Eye Auto Focus, is the most Ken Rockwell thing I've ever heard lol. Maybe it originally being a Sony thing is upsetting?
And people have been doing this to the point where I have no idea what to expect to do that it would probably not work for you or do I have a lot time for me a lot to see if I could do that for a couple days and then you have a time for you and I will have a lot to talk about the other day that you’re not doing that to work in a little I know that I can help. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV If theres ever been a case to show the value of EAF.... its shooting with the razor thin depth of field found in a f/1.0 aperture. This argument reminds me of some very old film photography professors complaining that auto focus was unnecessary and only for amateurs.
@@jasonn4397 Autofocus kinda sucked till fairly recently. So it was once true.
Great video. It will be nice if you could do a comparison video between this and your Canon 50 F1 (sharpness, bokeh, contrast etc).
Very different. Different formats The Canon is optically inferior when shot on APS-C, but the Fuji can’t cover full frame so the Canon is superior on full frame. Not much to compare. Thanks!
Simplicity, absolutely great review
Thank you!
Very good review. It’s direct to the point
Thanks for noticing. I try to keep it all real with no BS.
Why wouldn't this lens be consider a 1.5 on full frame? For it's true aperture?/light transmission in.
It’s a true f/1.0 regardless of format. Only its apparent picture angle changes between formats solely due to crop factor, and that’s it. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/crop-factor.htm Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV Thank you for clearing that up and more information on the subject.
@@KenRockwellTV I read your article and I like the bottom line: “don’t worry about it, just shoot.” Sage advice.
@@KenRockwellTV Shouldn't forget the equivalent depth of field as well. This is definitely not the EQ of 50 f/1.0 on full frame. You can easily compare it with Canon's 1.0 monster (on FF, of course) and show us both pictures 🤘😎 And if you do, please, if possible, make 75mm f/1.5 full frame shot as well 😇 Three pictures in a row will put everything in place and leave all argues aside 🧐
In terms of light gathering it is equivalent to f/2.25 as the area of a FF sensor is 2.25 larger
If you adapted the Canon EF 50mm f/1.0 to this aps-c camera the little sensor would receive only 0.44 as much light as a FF sensor
For some unknown reason, I find this lens to render so flat, ie, no depth perception of the backgrounds (just like the sigmas). Is that the micro-contrast? In comparison, the EF 50mm f1.0, (and many Canon & Nikon lens) have strong 3D pop, and can render depth even with a strong bokeh. Could you please do a side by side comparison to check this?
There is no such thing as micro contrast. There’s a phrase invented by consumers who don’t shoot every day. Depth is created in a photo by lighting and the photographer’s skill, not a lens. Only thing a lens can do is be super sharp when in focus and super sharp out of focus to exaggerate a difference in texture, but the scene and how the artist lights it is more important. Oh - focal length matters. The EF lens is full frame and thus the Fuji is 75 equivalent, which adds telephoto compression which of course makes it look flatter. Does this help at all?
@@KenRockwellTV thanks, got it.
WOW - so much great gear to choose form nowadays!
Yes! Thanks!
Great Scott! Great again, thanks!
Thanks!
Whoa, the A to f/16 is a serious issue.
And I thought I was the only one who noticed. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV On some Panasonic Leica 1.2-1.4 lenses, I've knocked A to ~2.8 and I was mortified when I looked at the pictures I took with little to no subject separation. This is far worse, and it looks like it turns more easily.
Great review Ken, New Jersey
Thanks, Ralph!
I have questions: 1. Why is it so big? My Olympus OM f1.4 and f1.2 50mm lenses from the 80’s were tiny. If they’d made a 1.0 it would have been much smaller. Even an f1.8 Zuiko 75mm OM lens is small. 2. Why are other reviewers saying the Fuji is not sharp at f1.0?
It’s big because everything needs to have twice the diameter of an F2 lens. Maybe other reviewers aren’t very good photographers if they can’t get sharp shots, or if they don’t shoot and only look at specs. Most reviewers are only reviewers, handing out empty opinions based solely on manufacturers specs. Those reviewers aren’t seasoned full-time career photographers. That’s for sure. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm Thanks!
Cant believe you talk that fast but understandable. This lens is not so huge as I thought at all. Just one question Ken. Which camera you suggest to a sexy photographer like me? Pro3 perhaps? 🤔
What? I don’t recommend Fuji unless all you shoot are people pictures and like the skin tones. I prefer Canon. Thanks!
Find the settings gear icon, select Playback speed, then try 0.75x or 0.5x. Fixed!
Ken Rockwell why Canon?
Ken Rockwell Ken Rockwell:
"For carrying everywhere, for photographing people under any and every available lighting condition, for silent shooting and for macro, there is no camera that compares with the Fuji X100F."
this guy make the other reviewers look like incoherent blabbers. Great job Ken!
Thank you!!!
I'm wondering if Ken's son has already shown enterpreneurial qualities like his father has. Usually kids of great parents start their businesses at a very young age.
My daughter was picking pebbles off the ground of the playground at age five, and selling them on the same playground. She cleared five buck reselling dirt! That’s American innovation.
This lens looks incredible. I wonder how much larger it would have been if it had had to cover full frame?
Between lenses like this and the new super-compact Canon 50mm f/1.8 RF, I'm really left scratching my head about who's in charge of Nikon's optics department. I can see why Nikon would want to make the lenses they've made from an engineering standpoint, but in terms of producing practical lenses, they're really missing the mark.
The Nikon F1.8 is super sharp from corner to corner even at F1.8 - the Canon and most other similar primes not. To get this sharpness the lens must be bigger.
But I agree. They also need to make compact prime lenses.
Look at history. We aren’t shooting Crown Graphics or Miranda cameras anymore, either. Nikon was hot in the 60s and 70s, and so were wide ties. Like rotary phones, Nikon isn’t very few ant anymore even if they still work today. Thanks!
wow i dont know you on tube ，i read your review site all the time
Because my kids insisted! Correct; my website has more information and is more up to date and faster to read - but tomorrow’s generation doesn’t read. Thanks!
Like your reviews! However I do do feel you need better thumbnails, Ken. The white backdrop ones you use now seem very stock photo-ish and people may miss out on your great videos.
I like the white. It stands out. Other thumbnails seem too messy and all like each other. Tell me more. Thanks!
'Timbukseven' lol
Exactly. Thanks!
Who else Googled "Timbukt Seven"😂
Eh? Thanks!
I hope that didn't come off as offensive, Ken. I'm a huge fan of yours. You've helped me a lot with making decisions on equipment over the years. Keep up the great work. Thank you!
Everything was great until the "I don't shoot raw" part. As much as I appreciate your deep knowledge and experience, not sure if you can legitimately review a lens if you don't shoot raw. These "camera corrections" on the jpeg are post-work, same as putting an image and correcting it in Photoshop. Of course people shoot raw when they are on the group that spends $1500 for a lens, and also use "non Fuji software" like Lightroom and Capture One. They will have to deal with what the lens can offer without the jpeg corrections. JPEG image inspections don't really mean much, if they mean anything at all.
See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm Those who can shoot, shoot. Those who can't, shoot raw. Raw is for learners, not full-time pros who have to get out product. Of course it's all personal preference. Here's the problem with raw for comparing lenses: raw is just data, not images. Raw data doesn't become a n image until its processed in software, and that's the problem: every piece of software is differente and worse, often changes as revised. Therefore its impossible to compare raw files (since you can't see them unprocessed). Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV Hey Ken, I appreciate the reply.
"Those who can't shoot raw", thats a bit condecending statement. You know that almost all professionals shoot raw, so no need act like this isn't the reality... Raw gives you 16 bit of data vs 8-bit on the jpeg, it's not sensible to throw that data away, I'd even consider it irresponsible to do so. You can shoot both JPEG and RAW simultaneously so the argument that you can't use your camera immediately is not really valid. As for making comparissons difficult, you can compare lenses with raw out of the same software, it's not that complicated.
This lens is in the same class as any 75mm or 85mm f/1.4 lens on full-frame. It's not in the same class as those expensive 50mm f/1.0 or f/0.95 on full-frame.
Yes, but if you’re stuck on APS-C this is what you have. Thanks!
6:04 wait you shoot a f1 lens in auto aperture mode(shutter priority mode for those who will cry 😂) ?? Seriously are you kidding me?? Whyyy?? Please explain what I'm missing here...the only reason you'll need other than f1 in this lens is if you are shooting something that is very critical & not low light & you need perfect comma & LCA ALL AT SAME TIME.
other than that epic review.
I agree. This is also a swell general purpose lens. Thanks!
Hi Ken, another nice video about a wonderful product but really this lens is not equivalent to a FF f/1.0 in terms of light gathering as the aps-c sensor is 0.44 the surface area so if you adapted your Canon 50 f/1.0 to this camera most of the light would miss the sensor with only 0.44 being collected so for low light conditions your FF lens and FF camera will dramatically out perform this aps-c combination.
This is technically an f/1.0 aps-c lens but equivalent to FF f/2.25 in terms of actual light gathering by the sensor.
Funny how camera companies talk about focal length for crop sensor in terms of FF equivalence but never aperture in terms of FF equivalence and just state the crop sensor f value ?
Still a wonderful lens but not remotely equivalent to a FF f/1.0 in terms of performance.
I wonder if Canon will bring out an RF 50mm f1.0 lens ?
Thanks
Noel
It give the same exposure at any given point. Thanks!
There is no "equivalent" light gathering, because "light gathering" is not a thing in photography. There is equivalent exposure, not light gathering. And your numbers are way off. There is no meaningful or practical way in which this lens is "equivalent" to an f/2.25 lens of full frame. Not "technically" or otherwise. You keep repeating this nonsense, but it's still not true. Please don't cite Tony Northrup, because he has zero authority on this topic.
@@stanleeger4711 interesting that you don't think light gathering is a factor.
I was not talking about exposure , what I was talking about was the fact that a small sensor needs a much faster aperture than a large sensor to perform the same especially in low light so the idea that this crop sensor f/1.0 lens and crop sensor camera can perform as well as a FF sensor camera and f/1.0 is pretty laughable especially in low light which is why people buy extremely expensive lenses like the amazing Canon 50mm f/1.0 which gives results which can't be achieved using lessor set ups like this Fuji lens and camera.
Perhaps you'd learn something if you watched Tony's videos and you could certainly try comparing things yourself if you have doubts instead of automatically dismissing his careful analysis because you've swallowed the nonsense from camera companies' marketing divisions about a crop sensor system gives more reach for focal length but mysteriously can also give the same aperture and sensor performance as much larger FF systems but I suspect you're not interested in learning and just want to 'Troll' anyone who doesn't agree with your beliefs but have fun with your photography and I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore as I'm bored with your ranting
Thanks
@@noelchignell1048 I'm very glad you won't be replying anymore. Clearly you've run of things to say. To your point: a small sensor doesn't "need" a much faster aperture "to perform the same". That's because a smaller sensor *does not* perform "the same". There is no "equivalence" across sensor sizes, no matter which lens you use. Each sensor and each lens has it's own characteristics. Photographers choose different sensors and different lenses for a variety of reasons, not to match some uniform measure of "light gathering performance" that can be made "equivalent" across sensor sizes. Different-sized sensors that can be made to "perform the same" because of "light gathering" is a thing on Tony's channel. It may sound clever - he certainly sold you on it - but it has no application in real world photography.
Once again: there is no meaningful or practical sense in which this f/1.0 lens is "equivalent" to an f/2.25 lens on a full frame sensor. In terms of exposure, this f/1.0 lens is equal to any other f/1.0 lens. Just check any light meter. In terms of shallowest depth of field, it's similar to a 75mm f/1.5 lens on full frame. Just check any depth of field calculator. To get "equivalent light gathering" to f/2.25, ... hmmm ... I guess you use some Tony-meter?
@@noelchignell1048 Stan is correct, if a lens is designed to have an aperture of f1.0 then it is f1.0, sensor size has nothing to do with it. How do you think a hand held light meter works, does it know what size sensor is in your camera? The only person ranting is you, read a book on the subject instead of fawning over Mr Northrup.
First 😂
Thanks!!!!!!