Fuji XF 50mm f/1.0 lens review with samples

[@Janet_Airlines802]

Whenever I want a unbiased review of a lens, I come to your channel Christopher. You have a video of about every lens I've ever looked at, and your reviews are always top notch. Thanks for your hard work.

[@k25studio]

I'm actually really surprised that no one else has pointed out that loud focusing motor and I've seen a dozen reviews about this lens already. Great review as always, Christopher!

[@datdudeinred]

Reviews I've seen have mentioned that.. Bigheadtaco, camerastore tv, Omar Gonzalez, chris photography etc

[@eagleeyephoto8715]

In a quite environment it is noticeable (is to expect when DC motor is in metal tube enclosure) but when used on street or reception/wedding you have a lot of other noise. What is interesting that very few people mentioned that you might need a 77 (at least two stop) ND filter when using outside to avoid electronic shutter and blooming of white source highlights.For aps-c lens and comparing to other options it is actually well priced if not cheap lens.The only one is the old Canon f1.0 L which cost few grand and nowhere near in the sharpness and contrast not to mention when something goes defect good luck with finding spare parts.

[@ivanguerra1260]

Yeah, what a fucking mistake !!

[@Magneira]

Cameralabs did.

[@JeanFrancoisTellier]

Christopher F has noticed! Listen his review. ;-)

[@wwjjss33]

Great Review (as always)! I love how--consciously or not--you manage to have the words 'lovely', 'beautiful', or 'gorgeous' when commenting on a lens quality but with your darling spouse in the frame (@ 8:47). I've noticed this in several videos 😊 👍 Thank You for your excellent content. Best Wishes for Health & Happiness for You & Family.

[@LohTec]

10:02 then he uses "Little Monster" Ah, love. :)

[@leonardbernardo2145]

I first subscribed to your channel back in 2018 or 2019 I think. I've referred a lot of other photographers to your channel. And it saddens me a bit that you are the most underrated lens reviewer. You deserve 100x more loyal subscribers. Even more than dp review or other review channels.

[@jeroenmeijer19]

I have the 50mm f2 and love it !! Cheap, light, small, fast, WR and razor Sharp !

[@blakeparry1983]

for me i'll keep the 56mm 1.2 - not that much different light gathering, slightly better compression to offset the bokeh advantage and seems a little sharper

[@kilometer750]

Happy that you could test the lens. The center sharpness is surely impressive at F1!

[@root9065]

To be honest here, for the asking price, you should get stellar optical quality at f/1.0, because this is what you are buying the lens for, otherwise you're just paying premium for a lot of heft and extra physical glass. Once the image straightens up at f/2.0, might as well buy the 50mm f/2.0 which has lightning fast auto-focus and truly remarkable optics and portability. Not to mention the cash you're saving. Let's be realistic Chris, not a whole lot of lenses cost $1500 outside the full frame territory and those that do, usually deliver. At this retail price, I'm not looking for "pretty usable". With how much this lens costs, can buy 3 x 50mm f/2.0 and still have cash left for a couple extra X-T3 batteries in your pocket. But when you look at all these kids taking portraits on KZbin 100% of the time at the maximum possible aperture, where only the eyelashes and the tip of someone's nose is in focus, then Fuji is doing their homework as far as marketing demographics goes.

[@leovanlierop4580]

If you don't need the 1.0 aperture, that's perfectly acceptable.

[@jan-martinulvag1962]

Boooooooooh Kaaaaaahhhhhh

[@westsenkovec]

The 50 f2 won't be as sharp or contrasty wide open so you have to stop it down. It's a rabbit hole.

[@tvurk]

@@westsenkovec Not true, the 50MM F2 is equally sharp and constrasty to the 50MM F1 at F2 wide open, stopping down isn't necessary to get better results, check his review on that lens. At F2 even the corners are a bit better than the 50MM F1 at F2

[@LuigiVN]

You’re forgetting F1 can be the difference between getting the shot and not getting it. Maybe you f2 or f1.8 will have a shutter speed of like 1/20 in some dim ass candle light. Not enough for reliable hand held shots to be sharp. Maybe you’ve already stretched your ISO as much as possible. Maybe the only thing that will bring your shutter speed to useable range is having a faster aperture. Or maybe you want to completely throw the background out of focus because you’re taking portraits at a small location and your f2 can’t produce the amount of bokeh you need. I see these as the scenarios where a f1.2 or a f1 will be necessary. It’s kind of a “break the glass if in an emergency situation” kind of measure. You will jot need it 95% of the time but if you do, it will be very handy. A local photographer does most of her portraits with an f1.2 50mm and I can see how she uses it to get her personal style going. Her photos wouldn’t be as nice if she was using a 1.8 lens wide open because even that won’t produce the bokeh quantity that she likes to use (and looks good because she uses it right).

[@dima1353]

I think if you are really deep in Fuji system this lens might have some sense, but if you not - this lens is good reason to think about full frame. If you need 85 1.4 - just buy full frame and 85 1.4. Moreover, now there is Sigma for $1100-1200 and even Samyang for $700. So you don't have to sell your house for bright portrait lens on FF nowadays.

[@SunnySoCal]

i’m shocked to see you do this review so early 😅 can’t wait to see how it does

[@Mowikan]

This is my standard studio lens. The quality is indeed very nice. Next lens i use is the 90f2. Also superb lens!

[@DrWaSaBe]

When you start focusing the lens goes like BRB bro, gotta fax these instructions

[@asnowboards1]

I got the lens a little over a week ago and was very interested how it tested on your wonderfully constant review setup (making it very easy to compare even between different systems). Nice to see that my general feeling about the lens until now seems accurate. Sharp where it counts on wider aperatures and perfectly useable at 1.0. As always thanks for the great reviews!

[@joseresendiz321]

I absolutely want that lens.

[@sclogse1]

I imagine, (I do a lot of that, it's free) that like the old days, if you can focus wide open and it only stops down during exposure, the increase in light will help get more shots in auto focus. Still, a topic open for discussion, though. What the best aperature for auto focus is...

[@zipp4everyone263]

Having tried the 50mm one thing i was constantly aware of was the strange shortness of the body. I think it could easily have been a bit longer, that in mind, the 33mm would probably have been perfect to be honest.

[@carlosc.639]

Amazing lens! It’s the next on my list

[@michaelm1]

I don't see much of a point of this lens. It's like the 56/1.2, only more expensive, heavier, larger but essentially the same or even slightly worse, including depth of field. Yes, the 56mm has shallower DoF wide open, though the difference is negligible. The images wide open from the 50/1 are not impressive with low contrast and CA all over them. The 56mm is definitely doing a much better job there. For 1500 USD, I expect a lot better than that. The only advantage is slightly larger aperture, but only slightly and at a huge cost (size, weight, price). I'm definitely sticking with my 56/1.2.

[@kilometer750]

I don’t have the 56, so I’ll go for the 50 f1. The fact that it’s a 76mm full frame equivalent makes it more useful for shots inside.

[@michaelm1]

@@kilometer750 Not by much. Why not try both in a store and compare? And if you do that, I suggest you also try the 50mm f/2. That one's on my To-Buy list given it's size, weight and close focus ability. Neither the 56/1.2, nor the 50/1 provide satisfactory close focusing distance to me, unfortunately.

[@ChimaChindaDev]

You're wrong. The 56 even with the slightly longer focal length doesn't have a shallower depth of field, the 50 does.

[@michaelm1]

@@ChimaChindaDev I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but you provided no evidence. If you care to do DoF calculations, you'll find that on APS-C sensor at 3m focusing distance, the 56@1.2 has DoF of 12.9cm, while the 50@1 has DoF of 13.5cm. And since 12.9 is less than 13.5, the 56/1.2 has shallower DoF. It's a negligible difference, but in favor of 56/1.2 nonetheless.

[@michaelm1]

@They Caged Non Using the same calculator, which you can try yourself if you wish (dofsimulator), the 75/1.4 on full frame would yield 12.7cm of DoF. However, DoF calculations highly depend on how you define 'acceptable shaprness' (or circle of confusion), which I'm not sure is an exact science. However, in APS-C vs FF debate, I'd say it's mainly about availability of DoF equivalent lenses. For Fuji, you have 56/1.2, which is FoV+DoF equivalent of 85/1.8 (roughly). But on FF, you've got 85/1.2, the equivalent of which doesn't exist on APS-C. It would have to be 56mm f/0.79 and nobody makes that. You can get budget Samyang/Rokinon MF 85/1.4 for FF for peanuts, and there is no equivalent for it in APS-C lenses either. That would have to be 56/0.92. Worse still, some popular FF lenses such as 70-200mm f/2.8 are crippled by keeping the aperture at f/2.8, making them the equivalent of 70-200mm f/4.3 on FF in terms of DoF, yet charging ridiculous price. Nobody makes 46-131mm f/1.83 for APS-C, which would be true equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 on FF.

[@GertDHoll]

Hi Christopher, how would you compare this lens at f2.0 against the 50mm f2.0 at f2.0?

[@KingFiercer_zip]

You can compare it yourself with his review of f2.0. f2 version has slightly more color fringing and flaring effect, but that's all, same sharpness, maybe even sharper, bokeh is nice too, close up quality is even better. It is also worth considering the quiet autofocus and light weight.

[@GertDHoll]

​@@KingFiercer_zip Thanks, I don't care about the color fringing. From what I know so far, the f2 version looks almost perfect.

[@patrick.771]

the F2 is very good, even at F2 :) If you don't need something below F2 I would go for that lens.

[@D3lor34n]

Long shot here, do you have any idea where you got that paper roll holding sheep from? 9:39

[@jcblum1507]

amazing review as always !!! beauty pics

[@ChimaChindaDev]

I sold my 56 1.2 for this. Spectacular lens.

[@chrisogrady28]

Finally they are making proper apertures! Although it's still not as bright as an 85 1.4 on full frame. I really want to see a 33mm f/0.95 to compete against the new 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 lenses on FF systems. FYI, it would be about the same size, weight, and production cost as a 50 1.4. You can even cheat by essentially designing a FF lens with a speed booster built into the housing.

[@chrisogrady28]

@M Tech yeah I know I don't mess around with the small sensors myself

[@divyangkundaliya3584]

Plz review the 7 artisan 35mm 0.95

[@ZXH88]

I see many comments blaming the autofocus motor, the not perfect IQ at 1.0 and the price. This is not an everyday lens but it was designed specifically for portraits, where you don't need a silent or lightning fast AF, for videomaking please see elsewhere. The sharpness is perfect for portraits, I have the 90 f2 and that's sometimes too sharp and you can see al the imperfections on the face of your subject. The price is fair for a 1.0 lens Canon and Sony have similar lenses at a much higher price point. This was designed as the successor of the the 56 1.2 to show what the current optic technology can achieve

[@AugmentedGravity]

RWR? Radar Warning Receiver?

[@Ark7760]

Amazing review, as usual.

[@darkprofile]

I was waiting for your review to make decission between 56mm 1.2 and 50mm 1.0 And after this review i decided to stick with 56mm 1.2. 1.0 is charming about low light performance but 1.2 is alot sharper even from f1.2 So if someone is not shooting night portraits or indoor low light stuff 1.2 offer more details across the frame. And about bookeh 1.2 is not much worse. So when I see your lens chart tests I realise why companies dont dare to try very high speed lenses because you loose image quality for more light. 50mm f2.0 is razor sharp, 56mm f1.2 is very sharp but this 50mm f1.0 is just okay about sharpness.

[@ChimaChindaDev]

the 50mm f1.0 is said to be marginally sharper than the 56 f1.2 but it has less contrast.

[@darkprofile]

@@ChimaChindaDev In Christopher’s test chart what I saw was, 56mm is sharper across the frame. To get same sharpness on 1.0 we need to stop down to f2.0. Razor thin depth of view sounds tempting but for that price I can buy second hand canon fullframe and 50mm 1.2 and the result would be better. 50mm f1.0 is kind of 75mm f1.4 in fullframe. So price performance of this lens is not suitable for amateurs. If you earn money from photographing of course it gives you more light and tolerates low light conditions.

[@jeffrydemeyer5433]

love that paper towel holder!

[@rdog77]

I love Chris's reviews. Thank for all your work this is fantastic. How about a review on the X-T3?

[@christopherfrost]

I might do a short video...I'm a bit pressed for time though. Suffice to say it's awesome and a big step up from my Fuji X-T20 (I much prefer the colours on the X-T3)

[@NotnaRed]

Nice job (as always) on also converting the aperture for the full-frame equivalent 1:27

[@vikmanphotography7984]

My only criticism is on the "benefits to low light performance over a FF 1.4 lens" (paraphrasing of course) Assuming the same number of pixels and the comparable gain technology, a 1.4 lens on FF will deliver the same low light performance at the same ISO as a 1.0 lens on APS-C. The stop scale measures light per square area- not the amount of light per pixel (which of course changes as you increase resolution of a given format or decrease imaging area while maintaining the same resolution)

[@NotnaRed]

@@vikmanphotography7984 that is correct.

[@christopherfrost]

@@vikmanphotography7984 That's correct, but the difference in high ISO quality is a camera issue, not a lens issue, and I'm here to test the lens, rather than comment on difference s between different sensor formats

[@vikmanphotography7984]

@@christopherfrost My comment was just providing background for why 'faster shutter speeds' aren't really a benefit for an equivalent lens on APS-C vs full frame. Of course assuming comparable tech, you'd be able to crank the ISO one stop faster on a FF camera to achieve the same dynamic range, therefore achieving the same shutter speed on each camera. Set both cameras as the same settings and... A pixel twice the area has twice the light and twice the base signal, therefore needing less gain and introducing less noise/loss of dynamic range. Having a lens a stop faster does overcome this limitation but only achieves parity.

[@christopherfrost]

@@vikmanphotography7984 Like I said: that is a camera issue, and this is a lens review

[@johnger850305]

Fuji all the way 😻😻

[@CWReace]

Maybe this will drive down prices on the 56mm/f1.2 to the point where I'll consider buying that. :)

[@elise3455]

See if you cant get ahold of some older more affordable vintage lenses with bright apertures, like the Nikon 50/1.2 Ai-S, Canon FD 50/1.2 L, or Super-Takumar 50/1.4, etc. Would love to see how they compare with today. Usually they're much simpler in design so I'd expect more CA, flaring, etc.

[@dch2896]

I love those fuji colors

[@stanleeger4711]

This AF motor sounds like the one on the Samyang AF 50/1.4, which is a fine lens but much less than $1500. I would expect a little better at this price.

[@pyotrpig]

i'd say i would expect much lower price for what this lens is))) 1500 and that's even without stab!

[@gator2279]

@@pyotrpig Its F1 why would it be cheap ?

[@TechnoBabble]

@@gator2279 Because it's objectively worse in every way than the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN on full frame, while costing several hundred dollars more.

[@gator2279]

@@TechnoBabble how is worse it lets more light in than 1.4 :)? and definitely not worse than sigma.

[@brunofalcone9979]

A 50mm F1.0 APS-C lens is equivalent to a 76mm F1.4 Full Frame lens. This has been discussed at length by the likes of Fstoppers and Tony Northup if you're interested. So this lens will provide equivalent low light performance and bokeh than an F1.4 Full Frame lens.

[@fellowcitizen]

DOF envelope = f/1.5 Light envelope = f/1.0

[@TechnoBabble]

@@fellowcitizen Not when your camera produces double the noise at every ISO. An f/1 lens on APS-C gathers about the same light as an f/1.5 lens on full frame, assuming perfect light transmission.

[@eliaspap8708]

Been waiting for your review on this lens, Your testing chart is a super consistent method, I have seen a lot of other reviews some saying it’s not sharp wide open some saying it’s sharper than the 56mm f1.2 wide open? Don’t know what to believe. But I think we can trust a method like yours as it doesn’t change. . Would you say it’s sharper then the 56mm?

[@kilometer750]

Same for me. The video convinced me to buy it over the 56mm lens.

[@OxKing]

His testings would be even better if he would stick with a corner, instead of changing them all around.

[@eliaspap8708]

@@OxKing for me i don’t care about sharpness in the far corners! My subjects are always placed near the centre mass or thereabouts.

[@christopherfrost]

My impression is that the 56mm lens is a little sharper, yes (but it's an easier lens to design)

[@christopherfrost]

@M Tech No, not normally, unless you're talking about extreme close focus (which I test later in the video)

[@patrick.771]

The Fuji F2 primes should give you the same image quality at F2 if you don't need wider appertures. Do you plan to do a Fuji X-T3 review? Would be interested if your opinion on the Fuji colours has changed :) thanks!

[@silasstruss4317]

Is there a review coming up for the 85mm GM?😉

[@just_eirik]

Ignoring price, would you choose this or the 56 1.2?

[@youmustmonthebiff]

For speed of focus and weather sealing, yes. For image quality, no.

[@christopherfrost]

Ignoring the price, definitely the 50/1.0. I love that brighter aperture and slightly wider angle

[@TechKasco]

Wait, you can read in Korean? Did you take any Korean lessons back when you were there? Cheers!

[@jamesborley4579]

Awesome review as always Christopher 👍 I know you get loads of review requests, will you be reviewing the Fujifilm 100-400mm with or without the tele-converter?

[@Aksunkuvat]

Grats for X-T3, also firmware 4.0 is amazing now.

[@D3v1LC10n3]

Great review. Thank you. I hope they update their 56mm version soon. I prefer 85mm focal lenght too.

[@heinzawlatt6452]

Waiting for your review , thanks .

[@prashannajungthapa9994]

Dose it also support on Fujifilms xt 30.

[@stefanoavolio8100]

A Bible in greek? Great improvement in your test harness!

[@peterjones4935]

I really enjoy using my XT3 although I can’t afford this kind of lens. I get great photos using the 55-200 and sometimes the 2mm F2. There are so many wonderful settings to choose from too, you can even bracket by film type to get 3 different photos of the same scene...I could go on 🤪 Love your videos, keep up the great work 👍👍👍

[@Garbid]

xt4+50 f1.0 or a7iii+sigma 85 1.4?)

[@shawnzhu9027]

I would say XT3+56 f1.2, which is a full-frame equivalent of 85 f1.8. This combination saves a LOT of money and gives you the same image quality with unnoticeable less bokeh

[@NotnaRed]

I'd go for the A7 and the sigma. FF and IBIS wins it for me.

[@eliaspap8708]

@@NotnaRed XT4 has better IBIS then Sony. Another option to consider XT4 +50 f1

[@burritobrosvideos8060]

Sony all the way

[@NotnaRed]

@@eliaspap8708 in the end they are probably eqal and I'd go for whatever system I'm already invested in. A 50mm f1 is probably not the first lens you're gonna buy I guess.

[@zaneclone]

Darn... the AF motor sounds like the printing system used for the first Mars surface image- taken from the viking mission !!

[@gator2279]

This is sound how fullframe bois cry when they dont have F1 modern AF lenses.

[@zaneclone]

@@gator2279 Nah- it's how someone with a mechanical background gets nervous when they hear noises that indicate a propensity for wear. The 56 1.2 is quieter and the 50 2.0 is silent !

[@gator2279]

@@zaneclone there are different type of motors used dc coreless liner and stepping all work fine just difference in noise fujinon engineers know what they making they are not breaking any time soon. Its a fujinon lens not a viltrox, night and day difference in engineering and manufacturing quality.

[@zaneclone]

@@gator2279 I'm well aware of the different types of motors... and noisy ones never inspire confidence... I guess as it would unlikely be an "everyday" lens- prob' not a huge issue... except for video of course !

[@gator2279]

@@zaneclone its mind block tbh if it block confidence i had all kind of lenses wide angle tokina some canons noisy lenses also have that xf 56 1.2 and xf 35 1.4 they haven't blocked my mind in photography in any way really newer focused on any noise they made they are just working tools. Would really need to hear 50 f1 in real life to judge what level of noise it makes instead microphone next to it what pick ups every single noise your ears would not. Quiet ones are nice but not necessary at least for me ur mileage may vary.

[@downtofun]

Hey Chris, love your reviews, they inform my photography purchases in a big way. Thanks for everything! Could you comment on the wide open quality vs. The Mitakon f/0.95 wide open? I have no qualms with manual focus whatsoever so I’m only really concerned with sharpness and bokeh quality. Thanks again!

[@christopherfrost]

The Mitakon 50mm f/0.95? Check out my review of it, I think I included a test on APS-C in that video. This Fuji lens will be a LOT sharper, though.

[@downtofun]

@@christopherfrost Hey thanks for getting back to me. Actually I was thinking the 35mm f/0.95 Speed Master Mark II for X-Mount. They're pretty different focal lengths but I was just wondering what you thought about overall image quality between the two.

[@christopherfrost]

@@downtofun The Fuji has much sharper picture quality in its corners. Take a look at my review of that lens for more info :-)

[@just_eirik]

Now that Venus Optics has made a 33mm f0.95 I’m not sad that Fuji didn’t make a 33mm. Though the Laowa does not have auto focus ofc.

[@frijin490]

Review the venerable fuji 90mm.

[@eriksvensson7631]

Like you said, you get faster shutter time with fuji 50mm 1.1 vs a full frame 76mm 1.5. But it does not matter, because you can have higher iso and get the same image quality on a full frame camera.

[@onegrapefruitlover]

Ugh, more Northrup regurgitation

[@TechnoBabble]

@@onegrapefruitlover Huh, did Tony invent physics? It's literally how the cameras work, there's no advantage to this lens over an 85mm f/1.4 (The Sigma DG DN version of which is actually less expensive than this Fuji lens).

[@gr4y1nu]

cool review, shows exactly what to expect. very niche product, i still love my mitakon 35mm f/0.95 for 1/4 of price

[@ikeahloe]

so different but good lens

[@future62]

This lens is a strange one for me. Seems you'd have to be seriously committed to the Fuji X system, AND unsatisfied with the 1/3 cheaper 56 1.2. Glad to see it has performance that warrants the price to a degree though.

[@fellowcitizen]

One thing I like about the F1 is that has the 75mm FOV - which is good for indoors and with more opportunity for contextual, storytelling elements than a portrait lens. A small difference from the typical 85mm FOVs, but a nice distinction. I think that a fair number of photographers who began during the digital sensor era will enjoy the 75mm FOV since so many 50mm lenses were adapted to APS-C. Walter Mandler, the famous Leitz lens designer, favoured the 75mm Summilux which is akin to this lens.

[@josecolon8143]

I don’t think is all that. The Purple fringing, softness until F4, and the ridiculous price keeps me away from it. Sigma could have deliver a much better lens than this. I’ll stay with me 56F1.2

[@StymyParsley]

Hey Chris, is that Ancient Greek at 9:15? In modern Greek I know it to be “always” instead of “all things”. Interesting to know how ancient and modern Greek differ.

[@christopherfrost]

It is ancient, koine (not classical) Greek. It's the beginning of the Gospel of John

[@StymyParsley]

@@christopherfrost Ah that's funny, that's where I'm reading from right now actually.

[@francoisdarfeuille8258]

Thank you for the review. Fuji did an excellent job with this lens. Considering its characteristics, I would not say that it is expensive but rather that it represents a nice sum of money. The difference is subtle but real.

[@vhateg]

Isn't cheaper to buy a full-frame camera and a 85mm f1.8? 😬

[@opalyankaBG]

The Fuji will still be faster when equivalency is taken into the equation.

[@vhateg]

@@opalyankaBG yes. I was wrong. Still, Sigma makes a 85mm f1.4 for FF Canon that is a bit cheaper than this lens. But, of course, this doesn't really matter because they are different systems. If the price difference was higher, then yes, it wouldn't be that good of a deal to get the Fuji one.

[@fellowcitizen]

Fuji don't have any FF cameras so it's a moot point ;)

[@TechnoBabble]

You can definitely get a full frame camera and a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 for about the same price as an X-T4 and the 50mm f/1. The FF system would have better low light performance and the lens would be WAY sharper.

[@ghas4151]

@@TechnoBabble the low light performance will be very similar, as the f1 will allow for use of lower ISO, and I personally MUCH prefer the rendering of this lens over the sigma you talk about. Sharpness is way down on the list for a portrait lens, as long as it’s sharp enough, which this lens definitely is.

[@secardive1]

Will Fujifilm get the 33mm f1.0 lens one day? If this happen, less people gonna buy full frame for nice bokeh and for low light capacity, obviously with some 16+ DR and clean Native Dual ISO 6000 Apsc-C Camera.

[@CodeTravelwithRizwan]

Very nice. Christopher can you pls review tamron 28-200mm for sony e mount. Thanks.

[@AugmentedGravity]

F 1.0 on APS-C is equal to what on FF?

[@christopherfrost]

In terms of the intensity of light hitting the sensor, f/1.0. In terms of depth of field, f/1.4-1.5

[@AugmentedGravity]

@@christopherfrost Yeah about what i thought, but also at the same time, ghe amount of light coming through might be the same, but since the sensor itself is smaller that means a lesser percentage of light gets absorbed than say FF.

[@AugmentedGravity]

@They Caged Non exactly, which is why FF cameras inertly absorb more light.

[@AugmentedGravity]

@They Caged Non Ehm....

[@AxCYeR]

I don't understand why they keep releasing lenses with way-too-loose aperture rings and this strange manual focus behaviour, it really is a pain to use and kinda has you stuck in S all the time. Mhh. Edit: glad I got the 56/1.2 used for around 500 quid, that'll do.

[@SpeedyNeo]

The 56 is great but the 50/1.0 is in a different league I think.

[@AxCYeR]

Well it would be a shame if it wasn't, but for people on a tighter budget who want a smaller lens that still has 1.2, a used 56 is the best choice imho. the next one for fujifilm should be a classic 50/1.4 WR that's small and sharp with good AF/MF abilities and a proper aperture ring. this would sell like crazy. anyway, if one is looking to buy a new lens, even i would get the 1.0 over the 1.2, i've got to admit.

[@josecolon8143]

yikes what’s wrong with you! You must be full of hate! I sent you bacon bcs bacon makes most people happy! I wish you the best kid!

[@chromaticvisuelle]

WTF 500 usd ???

[@AxCYeR]

well around 500 euro, so a bit more than 600 usd i think.

[@Anarki2U]

If I had a Fuji camera, then I would choose the Fuji 50mm 2.0 or Sigma 56mm 1.4 !

[@burritobrosvideos8060]

No sigma on fuji

[@trisken2]

Very nice review. It'll be great if could compare this Fuji lens with the Kamlan 50mm 1.1 mkII :)

[@M3huehue]

I hope you review the Tokina F2.8 Macro ATX-i

[@peterjunbalcita7543]

Can it be mount on SONY? APSC?

[@simonsimpson4695]

Another request Christopher, can you do the 10--24 Fujinon at some point? I'm sure it would be popular. Tough at this time of course. Best regards to everyone who reads this during these most difficult times.

[@TrueKyanite]

4:33 PLEASE, someone tell me that THAT doesn’t sound like the goose from “Untitles Goose Game”

[@ggreyshade]

i bet fuji could've made the 33mm f1.0 but i think they backed off due to size. if sigma could pull off a super sharp 20mm f1.4 on full frame, surely you could trade some fov for aperture here

[@anthonyweston2376]

Many thanks for posting this thorough and informative review Christopher! I've been using the XF56mmF1.2 R on my XT-3 for portrait photography for about a year now and so I am naturally very interested in the F1.0 lens. With the F1.2 lens I encounter a mysterious problem: it photographs lightly skinned models rather poorly (lots of weird grey/brown skin discolouration in some images) but it works smashingly well with darker skinned models. I do not understand the phenomenon at all. If you have any suggestions I'd be most grateful to hear them. - tony

[@RTReview.]

Because of the Higher contrast of the Models = easier to Focus for the camera :)

[@dr.sommer5069]

Spectacular price for a 75 mm f1.5 füll frame equivalent. And smaller sensors need more light.......

[@dr.sommer5069]

@They Caged Non oh I think that 95 % of the photography community cares. Otherwise Fuji would have more than 5% market share.

[@dr.sommer5069]

@They Caged Non you are way too aggressive. Have a nice day.

[@karlbromm6500]

@They Caged Non The argumentation of dr. sommer makes perfect sense to me but I think you are too much of a fuji fanatic to understand that.

[@TechnoBabble]

The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN is less expensive and technically gathers more light on a full frame sensor... Oh, and it's actually sharp at f/1.4.

[@SuperLisandro86]

The 56mm f1.2 is better at that aperture that the 50mm is at f1.0. I dont see a reason to buy this over the 56mm (heavier, more expensive and not much faster). Add that the 56mm is actually a 85mm and not a 75mm like this one, that compensates a bit the shallower dof of the 50mm. Again, definitely not worth it, specially with that rdiculous focusing motors.

[@michaelwhiles5282]

Love FUJI and their glass (on the whole) however if it was my £1500 I wouldn't spent it here. Overall a tad disappointing - the 50 F2 is simply fantastic and the 56 1.2 whilst older isn't bad if you have to have a faster F stop. Quite common 2nd hand too, so loads cheaper...

[@pcphotography9108]

50f2, 56f1.2, 50f1.0...I may go for a used 50f2 until the rumored 56f2mk2 comes true.

[@вованчикс]

Nice review 👍

[@Robin_Polarstern]

I‘m shocked buy the image quality! Thanks for your test Christopher ! When I’m looking for a new lens … first I check our our Chanel

[@ghas4151]

A good or bad shock?

[@Robin_Polarstern]

Bad

[@07SATS]

@@Robin_Polarstern I Agree, I dropped my purchase as soon as I saw this review and saved my money.

[@agapitojuliano5517]

Review: Top notch Lens: mmm... Ok.

[@mianshams]

Thanks dear

[@smiff9577]

What would be the sharpest landscape Fuji lens you’ve reviewed to date? Also that lens sounds like a big ole choo choo train.

[@christopherfrost]

Gah, I don't know. I like both the 16-55 and 18-55 for their sharpness - the 18-55 would be a good choice for landscape I think

[@fwiffo]

Weird that the only two f/1.0 autofocus lenses are both manual-focus-by-wire. Also weird that the 30 year old one does a much better job at it.

[@kian8382]

That sounds like a diesel AF motor in there.

[@asystole_]

Cracking up at the mental image of having to crank-start your lens' AF motor followed by a bunch of black smoke billowing out

[@GiovanniBausC]

The narration while comparing this to the Sony 85mm f1.4 is not entirely correct. The Fuji by no means transmits twice as much light to the sensor. It does so per square inch - but illuminates only approx. half the surface. So a Fujifilm APS-C with this (beautifully made btw.) lens performs just like a full frame with a 75mm f1.4.

[@r3vo811]

This lens seems strange with regard to price and size, but when you mount it on the camera, you get an incredible performance. And to those, wo say that you can have the same lens for less money with Full Frame: Name a 75mm lens with f1.0 that is nearly in the price range and quality of the Fuji. It is all metal, it has a dedicated aperture ring and it balances nicely despite its size. BTW: your lens seems to be quite loud, mine is nearly as silent as the XF35f2. I was never satisfied with the AF Performance of the XF56, but now I am. The 50f2 is still faster with focus acquisition, but considering the huge amount of glass, this lens is fast and fast :-) As always, nice review, Christopher!

[@Kobrar44]

There is sigma 85mm 1.4 which I believe is actually cheaper. You forgot to apply the crop factor to the aperture so the equivalent is 75mm/1.5.

[@TheFalkingFive]

i own many fuji lenses and like the system very much. own the xe1, x-t2, x-t4... but i have to say, i dont see the point in this lens. its too big heavy for the small bodies and quite expensive. u get better balance with a full frame camera and a 50mm 1.4... i liked the system because its small lightweight and stylish. i wouldnt bring this lens anywhere...

[@michajovanovic3554]

Nice book that you’re reading ❤️🙏

[@Chilled_Wombat]

I rather have a normal 50 mm f/1.8. Enough for my creativity.

[@nickbakis1553]

You can have the Fuji 50mm f2 then

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

Buy the f2 then.

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

@M Tech no it’s not🙄🙄

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

@M Tech that’s nice for you, but DSLRs are old and antiquated, F2 is fast enough, and there are 1.4 alternatives, DSLRs are like a cars from the 60s and mirrorless is like a Tesla. All the manufacturers are switching to mirrorless as they are better.

[@Tritlo]

I would have liked a few more low light tests! But an amazing lens nontheless, I wish I had a Fuji system!

[@christopherfrost]

Do you mean pictures taken in darker situations? There were a lot of nighttime and indoors sample pictures in this review :-)

[@Tritlo]

@@christopherfrost yeah! I'm not too experienced, so it would have been nice to see a "here it is at 1.0 vs. here it is at 1.4 or 1.8" to get a feel for how much brighter it is than a regular lens.

[@christopherfrost]

@@Tritlo I see. Maybe I can do a bokeh comparison test in the future. But the rule is that f/1.0 is twice as bright as f/1.4, which is twice as bright as f/2

[@Tritlo]

@@christopherfrost thanks! I guess the main thing is that I don't know how the dark shots in the video would have looked otherwise!

[@fellowcitizen]

​@@christopherfrost It's interesting that the lens parameters are exotic enough to warrant new lens tests/illustrations. To me, it's a sign of a good philosophy when they're experimenting like this.

[@pdebie1982]

If you're a professional I would understand buying this lens, but as an amateur the 56 1.2 or even the 50 f2 are far better choises!

[@nnix]

A "little bit" of purple fringing? lol.

[@saidnidahmed4538]

hello christopher !! next give away must goes to me hahaha

[@chiemiburgess1073]

Chris, congratulations on your photography award. Great image. Please tell us more about your image; camera, lens, settings etc.

[@christopherfrost]

My photography award?

[@christopherfrost]

@They Caged Non Oh yeah I saw that. It's an amazing picture. But not mine I'm afraid! It's by a guy who lives in Dorset who's a far better photographer than me

[@datdudeinred]

1:49 how will fuji will have more light hitting the sensor? That f1 will be equivalent to 1.5 in full frame so in reality it'll be less light or almost equal amount of light.(compared to that f1.4 Sony. Again if you want near f1 in full frame you have to spend ATLEAST $8k or in leica world $12K THIS THING IS JUST $1.5K..

[@daveboyle5751]

f1 is f1 regardless of sensor size they both let in exactly the same amount of light, my light meter has never asked me what sensor size i'm metering for. DOF is the only difference.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@daveboyle5751 ISO is the reason your light meter doesn't ask. The entire point of ISO is to normalize exposure on digital cameras, the smaller the sensor the less signal there is compared to the noise. Therefor in low light you get more noise on smaller sensors, and this Fuji f/1 gives you WORSE low light performance than an 85mm f/1.4 on a full frame camera.

[@EFFTEEZEE]

Stop down to F1.4.

[@Gnievv]

WR refers to the world record :D

[@mixeddrinks8100]

so you went from the cheap fuji lens to the beastly priced lens. hahah

[@robertcudlipp3426]

An expensive lens, presumably for those with specialist needs. The. Fuji X 50/2 adequately caters for my needs.

[@christopherfrost]

Horses for courses :-)

[@aliefabdurrahman3302]

Fujifilm XT3 is that your new Camera Christ?

[@wellwhatthen10101]

Not if he can muster more donations from subscribers

[@budthecyborg4575]

The Viltrox 75f1.2 makes this lens almost completely obsolete.