The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

XF56/1.2 XF 60/2.4 Macro vs. Zeiss Touit 50/2.8 Macro

4711

Member
Hi

did anybody compare the IQ of the Fuji 60/2.4 Macro with the Fuji 56/1.2 and/or Zeiss Touit 50/2.8 Macro at apertures of 2.8 until 5.6?

I have a X-E1 and the XF-18-55 Zoom. I am not that much delighted with the IQ of the zoom @50-55mm. So I am looking for a FFL around 50mm or 60mm (mainly for portraits).

I would not use it for macro work and I actually do not need apertures below 2.8. So I might save money with the macros.

But how is IQ and and how is AF?
 

archiM44

Member
I had the 60mm. The image quality both as short tele and in macro was stellar. But the AF was a disaster, even on my X-T1 when the light was low. In macro it often hunted even in decent light.
The image quality of the Zeiss when I compared the two (my dealer lent me the Zeiss) was slightly less (only visible at 100% and then barely) but the AF made me decide to trade my 60mm for the Zeiss.
 

4711

Member
so if the AF of the Fuji Macro is so bad, the questrion then would be: Which is optically better in the range of 2.8 up to 5.6.

The Fuji 56/1.2 or the Zeiss Touit 50/2.8?
 

Hauxon

Member
I want to step in to defend the 60/2.4. I was planning on selling it for the 56/1.2 when it would become available but don't feel like selling the 60. I have an X-T1 and it focuses just fine in average light and above, not a speed monster but good enough. So if you use the lens within it's limitatons it actually a beautiful lens, tack sharp from 2.4 up and creamy bokeh. I only wish it was 1:1 macro.
 

archiM44

Member
I want to step in to defend the 60/2.4. I was planning on selling it for the 56/1.2 when it would become available but don't feel like selling the 60. I have an X-T1 and it focuses just fine in average light and above, not a speed monster but good enough. So if you use the lens within it's limitatons it actually a beautiful lens, tack sharp from 2.4 up and creamy bokeh. I only wish it was 1:1 macro.
And its small size made it a joy to use. I miss that!
 

4711

Member
Here's a thread on FredMiranda about the Fuji mount Zeiss 50/2.8.
Zeiss Touit 50mm f/2.8 Macro Rolling Impressions - FM Forums
Thanks,

there are some really nice shots there. I would love to see the same portrait of the kid done side by side vs. the Fuji XF56/1.2.

I had the impression in the past, that the Fuji primes do have more problems with lens flare than the Zeiss primes for x-mount. At least I saw it significantly on images when comparing the Fuji 35/1.4 vs. the Zeiss Touit 32/1.8.

So I wonder whether this is also the case with the Zeiss 50/2.8 vs. Fuji 56/1.2...

Did anybody see direct comparisons of these two telelenses?
 

rayyan

Well-known member
If you want macro, the Zeiss is the way to go. It offers 1:1 magnification - the Fuji only half that.
So far so good. But there are limitations...1:1 ratio needs getting in very very close. With that lens hood on the Zeiss, it becomes worse.

There is no distance limiter switch. One does not want the lens to travel all the way forward and back; most likely acquiring focus at the back.

Macro ( generally needs ring or some sort of lighting ), and trying to light a Zeiss
macro subject is challenging to say the least.

I love Zeiss optics, and this is no exception from what I have seen online.

But with all it's shortcomings, I shall hold on for a better Fuji macro. The Zeiss
costs more.

Just my 0.2 riyals worth.

p.s. A Fuji 60mm macro owner.
 

woodyspedden

New member
so if the AF of the Fuji Macro is so bad, the questrion then would be: Which is optically better in the range of 2.8 up to 5.6.

The Fuji 56/1.2 or the Zeiss Touit 50/2.8?
Tough question because you now have two choices.The older 56 1.2, which I have is, in my opinion is a great lens and though not inexpensive is $600 cheaper than the recently released 56 1.2 with a spherics which i have not tried yet. I suspect that the older lens may be better with portrait because of the IQ wide open plus the creamy bokeh. The new one may, and I underscore "may" be a bit more analytical. So you need to choose based on the images you want to create. We will know more when folks who buy the new 56 1.2 begin to show some images.
 
Top