Viltrox Pro vs Fuji WR | Which 56mm F1.2 is Best?

0:00
[Music]
0:08
[Music]
0:10
When I began talking to Viltrox about
0:12
their upcoming 56mm f1.2 from their pro
0:16
series, one of the things that I was
0:17
most interested in is the ability to do
0:20
a head-to-head comparison with the
0:22
excellent Fujon XF 56mm f1.2 to WR
0:28
because it has been rare that I have had
0:30
lenses that are really so wellmatched in
0:33
terms of their their their build, their
0:36
features, their focal length, their
0:38
maximum aperture, all of those things.
0:40
So, it just made sense that it was a
0:41
very logical point of comparison. And
0:44
so, while I did do a review of the
0:45
E-mount version of the lens first, I did
0:48
want to review the Xmount version, which
0:50
I've recently done, and also to do this
0:52
comparison that I've done. Now, those of
0:54
you that have been around for my channel
0:55
for a while know that I've done lots of
0:58
these head-to-head comparisons.
0:59
Sometimes they're simple. There's one
1:01
lens that is easily in many ways
1:03
superior to the other. In some cases,
1:06
it's tough because there's either a lot
1:08
of give and take between the two lenses
1:10
or they are just so similar. This
1:13
comparison falls into that latter
1:15
category. as while there are some areas
1:18
that I can distinguish that I will
1:20
emphasize as a part of this comparison,
1:22
there is also far more areas where these
1:25
lenses overlap and are very similar in
1:28
their overall performance. And so at the
1:30
end of the day, there's going to be some
1:32
basic considerations that might decide
1:34
this for you, but you're going to be
1:35
surprised as we jump in today at just
1:38
how much more is similar than actually
1:41
is different. Sound interesting? Well,
1:43
let's dive in. Let's take a look. So,
1:45
let's start by talking about what is
1:47
similar between the two lenses. And that
1:50
list is surprisingly long. First of all,
1:53
obviously they have the same focal
1:54
length 56 mm and the same maximum
1:56
aperture of f1.2. And what's more, as is
2:00
not always the case, I felt like the
2:02
focal lengths behaved pretty much
2:04
identically. They both seem to have
2:05
whatever percentage they are in and
2:07
around 56 millimeter seem to be pretty
2:09
much identical. Both of them have a
2:11
maximum aperture of f1.2. And again, I
2:14
didn't feel like there was any real
2:15
differences there, any variation. They
2:18
both have at, you know, equal distances,
2:20
they have about the same size of
2:22
specular highlights. The aperture
2:24
behaves pretty much similarly. They
2:26
didn't always meter identically, but it
2:28
was always within essentially a fraction
2:31
of a stop difference. So, it was they
2:34
were very very close in all of those
2:35
ways. Both lenses have the exact same
2:38
feature set. In this case, that comes
2:40
down to having an aperture ring with 1/3
2:43
stop detents. Both of them have thorough
2:45
degrees of weather sealing starting with
2:47
a gasket at the lens mount, internal
2:50
seals, and coating on the front element.
2:53
And so, all similar there. I found that
2:55
they had surprisingly similar levels of
2:57
distortion, almost none. A minus one to
3:00
correct the tiniest amount of pin
3:01
cushion distortion for both. And then
3:04
yet, it was a plus 10 difference between
3:06
the two of them. And so, you know, a a
3:09
third of a stop at most. And so, very,
3:11
very similar. They both have roughly
3:13
similar levels of longitudinal style
3:15
chromatic aberration. And as you can see
3:17
here, when it comes to fringing on my
3:20
SLR test, they basically came out almost
3:23
identical. They both have 11 aperture
3:26
blades inside. They both have extremely
3:29
similar rendering. And so I mean I mean
3:33
when I say extremely similar rendering I
3:35
looked have looked at dozens of
3:36
comparisons at this point that I shot
3:38
between the two of them and I am really
3:40
hardressed to tell the difference
3:42
between the two and so they really are
3:44
very very close in a lot of these
3:46
levels. So if you are interested in that
3:48
you can look at some of those same
3:49
comparisons with me at the end of the
3:50
video and we will do a deep dive into
3:52
that. So there are a few areas however
3:55
where they do differentiate from each
3:57
other and so I'm going to delineate
3:59
those for you right now. We'll start by
4:01
taking a look at reasons to choose the
4:03
Viltrox Pro lens over the Fuji. The big
4:06
big thing here, big takeaway is price.
4:09
The Viltrox is priced at $580, but you
4:13
can get it even cheaper with a discount
4:14
code that's in the description. Whereas
4:17
the Fuji Lens retails for $1,200.
4:20
And so that is a more than 50% price
4:25
increase from the Viltrox to the Fuji
4:28
lens. That's a big big gap. And so
4:30
worthy of consideration, you know, you
4:32
could get this lens and also the Pro
4:34
Series 27 millimeter f1.2 for the price
4:38
of this lens. Now, that could be a big
4:40
consideration. This has the superior
4:42
autofocus motor, and it definitely has
4:45
the superior autofocus motor. It has got
4:47
their HyperVM
4:49
motor, which I mean at at the least
4:51
would be the equivalent of a Fuji
4:54
branded linear motor. But this lens,
4:56
unfortunately, does not have the linear
4:58
motor. It has more of a micro type motor
5:02
and and so as a byproduct, it is just
5:05
it's it's buzzier. It's rougher in
5:07
operation. It's not a smooth autofocus
5:09
motor. Whereas whereas this is a very
5:12
smooth autofocus motor and and so that
5:15
is one difference and that actually
5:16
leads to the the the next point of
5:19
distinction and the next advantage with
5:20
the Viltrox lens. The Viltrox lens is
5:23
much nicer to manually focus because it
5:26
has that superior autofocus motor and
5:28
because manual focus on mirrorless
5:30
lenses is actually a simulation where
5:32
the input from the focus ring routes
5:35
through the focus motor to actually move
5:37
focus. Because you've got a smoother,
5:39
more linear focus motor, it means that
5:42
when you manually focus, you get a more
5:44
linear experience. And so you can
5:46
actually move along instead of like
5:48
little stepping chunks, which is what
5:50
you end up with the Fuji lens when
5:53
you're manually focusing. It's not
5:54
really all that fun to manually focus
5:56
because if you're trying to hit a very
5:57
precise point, which happens at f1.2,
6:00
you know, it's it's like it falls one
6:02
side or the other and you can't just
6:04
like slowly just nail it into that
6:06
perfect spot. So I definitely preferred
6:08
manual focus on the Viltrox lens. I also
6:11
felt like in terms of my test charting
6:13
in particular that the sharpness was a
6:16
little bit more consistent that maybe in
6:18
a few situations head-to-head I felt
6:20
like it had very very very slightly
6:23
better micro contrast. Now, there was
6:26
some give and take, and I did feel like,
6:28
as you're going to see, that the Fuji
6:30
lens, it was actually stronger on one
6:32
side than the other. And so, it was hard
6:33
to get consistent results because
6:35
surprisingly of these two, I would say
6:36
if there's any centering variation, it's
6:38
actually in my more expensive Fuji lens
6:40
uh than it is in the Viltrox lens. But,
6:43
it's very, very minor. Not enough that
6:44
you'd really notice much in many
6:46
situations. However, um there was that
6:49
little bit of of variance there. I also
6:52
felt like the final thing for the
6:54
Viltrox is that up close though they had
6:56
the exact same level of magnification.
6:58
Another one of those similarities, they
7:00
had the same minimum focus distance and
7:02
the same maximum magnification that
7:04
maybe the Viltrox was a just a hair
7:07
higher contrast and a little bit better
7:09
resolving up close. And part of that is
7:11
because this does have floating elements
7:13
inside which does help with up close
7:16
performance. And so you could see that
7:18
it was just a little bit better up close
7:20
in the at least wide open sharpness of
7:22
up close results compared to the Fuji
7:25
lens. But of course there are some
7:27
compelling reasons to choose the Fuji
7:29
lens as well. Number one, it is smaller
7:32
and lighter. It is 130 grams lighter. So
7:36
that's significant. And uh and then it
7:38
is 16 millimeters shorter which is also
7:41
significant. And so if your goal is to,
7:43
you know, to get high in image quality,
7:44
but also to travel as light and and
7:47
compact as possible, well, the Fuji wins
7:50
on that metric. I also note that while
7:52
both of them have an aperture ring, the
7:55
Fuji does have one feature here. It does
7:58
have an iris lock that will allow you to
8:00
either lock into the manual focus ring
8:02
or out of the manual focus ring. So just
8:05
one extra feature there that the Viltrox
8:07
Lin lacks. While I've already noted that
8:10
the focus motor is not nearly as nice as
8:13
what the the uh Viltrox lens has, it's
8:18
clear that the Fuji lens does have
8:20
access to firstparty focus algorithms in
8:23
a way that the Viltrox lens does not.
8:26
And so, for example, I found that while
8:28
the it's clear that the Viltrox lens is
8:30
faster focusing, what I found is because
8:33
on Fuji, Fuji's autofocus is different.
8:36
And so what I find on Fuji is that often
8:39
there is the initial focus, you know,
8:42
kind of thrust moving forward or
8:44
backward and then there is a a
8:46
split-second pause and then there's
8:48
almost like a double clutch where it
8:49
then locks focus. Well, because of I
8:53
think the focus algorithms, the Fuji
8:55
lens, although it's slower on that
8:57
initial thrust phase, it is faster in
8:59
getting that final confirmation lock,
9:01
whereas the Viltrox lens gets there
9:03
faster and then it waits longer before
9:05
you get that final lock from it.
9:07
Likewise, when it comes to video work,
9:10
it's pretty pathetic on both, by the
9:12
way. And a lot of that has to do with
9:14
the Fuji hardware at this point, but I'm
9:16
not going to get into that rant at the
9:18
moment. But you could tell from the
9:19
focus algorithms that the Fuji lens is
9:21
able to do more with less, whereas the
9:24
Viltrox lens is doing less with more uh
9:27
with its better hardware, but it's on
9:29
the software side, it's not quite as
9:31
good. And so video AF, though it's it's
9:34
rough in both these instances, it can be
9:36
a little bit more confident on the Fuji
9:39
lens than it is on the Vtrox lens.
9:43
I also found that it had very slightly
9:47
better bokeh geometry. And so what I
9:50
mean by that is if you're looking at
9:51
specular highlights, um it's a little
9:54
bit less deformation near the edges. And
9:56
as you stop down by f2, it is pretty
9:58
close to flawless, you know, perfectly
10:00
circular speck of highlights across
10:02
frame. There's still a little bit of
10:04
clipping for the Viltrox lens at f2.
10:06
It's not again it's not a major make the
10:10
make or break kind of issue but it is it
10:12
does favor the Fuji lens a little bit.
10:15
So as I mentioned I mean there are a few
10:17
of these things that are big deals. A
10:19
lot of them are very much a nuance kind
10:21
of thing. So that leads me to my
10:23
conclusion and that is that the
10:24
performance of these lenses is so close
10:27
in so many ways. If people are asking
10:29
the question, oh you know which one has
10:30
the better image quality? Well, the
10:32
truth of the matter is is that I don't
10:33
think that either one of them has better
10:35
image quality than the other. I think
10:36
they have almost identically equal image
10:40
quality. Doesn't mean that it's it's
10:41
perfectly identical in every area of
10:43
lining up, but it is so close as to be
10:47
uh just not statistically relevant any
10:50
kind of difference between the two
10:51
lenses. So, I think it really boils down
10:53
to two considerations. Uh and one of
10:56
those I'll just delineate for each lens.
10:58
If size and weight are more of a
11:00
priority for you than price, go with the
11:03
first party Fuji lens. It's a great
11:05
lens. If price is more of a
11:07
consideration than size or weight, then
11:10
go with the Viltrox. You're going to get
11:11
exceptional performance from each lens.
11:14
And my hope is that future hardware
11:18
improvements, namely better cameras with
11:20
better autofocus in the future, it may
11:22
have the potential to unlock a little
11:24
bit more on the Viltrox because the
11:26
Viltrox we know has a great autofocus
11:28
motor cuz I saw it in the Sony E-mount
11:30
version. The Fuj lens, I don't know how
11:33
much potential it has to get better
11:35
because it will have its own hardware
11:36
limitation and that is its autofocus
11:38
motor there. But as things stand right
11:41
now, you get pretty equal performance in
11:43
terms of autofocus speed, in terms of
11:46
optical performance, and so there's very
11:48
little nuances you'll have to go to. And
11:51
of course, if price is a consideration,
11:53
Viltrox all day long. But if you say, I
11:56
mostly just want to keep the weight down
11:57
as much as possible, but I want that
11:59
f1.2 lens, then go Fuji.
12:02
Decisions, decisions. Maybe it will help
12:05
if you take a look at the deep dive with
12:07
me. Maybe that'll make something come
12:09
clear for you. Maybe it won't. But if
12:11
you're interested, let's dive into that
12:12
together. Okay, in this series of
12:14
comparisons, I'm going to keep the
12:15
Viltrox on the left, put the Fuji on the
12:18
right. Here you have a look at vignette
12:22
and distortion. You can see that both of
12:24
them have just the tiniest amount of pin
12:26
cushion distortion. Both of them have
12:28
some vignette in the corners. Very
12:30
slightly more for the Viltrox lens.
12:33
about a plus 10 additional to correct
12:36
for the vignette in the corners. So, I
12:38
reshot these optical comparisons
12:40
multiple times to make sure I was
12:42
getting accurate results. And so, here
12:44
we're looking at um 200% magnification
12:47
and this is on 40 megapixels and XH2.
12:50
You'll notice that in Lightroom it just
12:52
designates as 56 F1.2 XF whereas uh for
12:56
the Fuji lens it's SFXF 56 millm
12:59
F1.2RWR.
13:01
a little bit more specific. So, we can
13:03
see looking in the middle of the frame
13:05
that the Viltrox lens has ever so
13:08
slightly more detail and contrast. You
13:11
look here at the writing, it's more
13:12
crisply delineated. Um, on the Viltrox
13:15
lens here in the mid-frame, I also give
13:17
an advantage, at least on this side, and
13:19
I'll explain that in a moment. You can
13:21
see looking at this writing, it's
13:22
clearly better on the Viltrox as opposed
13:25
to the Fuji lens. down here into the
13:28
corner. The traditional places I look,
13:30
you can see that definitely more detail
13:32
is holding up until the end here.
13:35
However, if we go over to the other side
13:37
of the frame, it's now the Fuji that
13:39
looks better. The Viltrox is about
13:41
similar, but the Fuji is looking much
13:42
stronger on this side. That's very
13:44
obvious here. And even here, it looks
13:48
better. And up into this left corner,
13:50
you can see that it also looks better.
13:52
And so the the Viltrox is actually a
13:55
little bit more consistent in the
13:57
performance, but the Fuji it is it's a
13:59
little bit it's it's very strong on the
14:01
left side, less strong on the right
14:02
side. So as we stop the lenses down, I
14:05
feel like the contrast improves a little
14:07
bit more on the uh Fuji lens than it
14:10
does on the Viltrox. Now the center is
14:12
looking very strong looking here. They
14:14
are close. I still think that the text
14:17
is a little bit clearer on the uh
14:19
Viltrox lens, at least here on the right
14:21
side. But Fuji's contrast is looking
14:23
really, really good. Here on the left
14:25
side, it's again, it's close, but I
14:27
think there's an edge for the Fuji lens
14:30
there. Looking down here, uh again, it's
14:33
it's a little bit different, a little
14:34
bit give and take um between the two,
14:37
but you know, they're close. Looking
14:39
over here, again, very very close in
14:41
that comparison. in the upper left
14:44
looking close but with a little bit of a
14:46
contrast boost, a little bit more detail
14:48
for the Fuji lens. One more comparison
14:51
at f2.8. By this point, they're both
14:53
super super sharp and so you're getting
14:55
close to maximum performance. They look
14:57
very similar in the middle of the frame.
14:59
Uh not a lot to differentiate between
15:01
the two. in the mid-frame here. Both
15:03
looking really, really crisp. And and I
15:06
would say that at least on this side
15:08
that as far as detail, I think the
15:10
Viltrox wins. As far as contrast, I
15:12
think that the Fuji actually wins.
15:14
Moving over to this side and now they're
15:16
really, really close. And I would say
15:18
it's it's kind of a wash there between
15:20
the two of them. Looking down to this
15:22
zone, also a wash, though. Again, I
15:25
think just a hair more contrast for the
15:28
Fuji lens. And over on this side, kind
15:30
of a similar truth is what we've seen.
15:32
Similar pattern there. So, both of them
15:34
extremely sharp, but with some give and
15:36
take, kind of depending on where you
15:37
look in the frame. Now, both of these
15:39
have basically identical levels of
15:41
magnification as you can see here.
15:43
However, if we look in at the pixel
15:46
level, uh, 100% magnification. You can
15:48
see that in the area where they're both
15:50
in focus, that there's just more detail
15:53
and contrast rendered at f1.2 to on the
15:55
Viltrox than what there is on the Fuji
15:58
lens on the right. So definitely a win
16:00
for the Viltrox there. So now we get
16:02
into some of the comparisons where it's
16:04
harder to draw conclusions. And so I
16:06
could mix these up and I doubt you would
16:09
be able to tell the difference. The
16:10
color signature is basically identical.
16:12
The overall bokeh rendering very very
16:15
similar. Even if I look in here on the
16:17
point of of focus, both of them are
16:20
showing similar levels of micro contrast
16:22
here. the you know out of focus
16:24
highlights look very very similar. It's
16:26
remarkable how similar the two lenses
16:28
look. Likewise at this image if you look
16:31
at just the sum total of it both of them
16:33
have a similar swirl type effect at this
16:36
distance near the edge. Uh so producing
16:38
really similar looking bokecast
16:40
signature out of focus region looking
16:42
very similar. In this particular
16:44
instance, the Viltrox delivered a little
16:46
bit better micro contrast, but it could
16:48
also be a matter, as I mentioned
16:50
previously, the Viltrox is better to
16:51
manual focus than what the Fuji lens is.
16:54
And so, it could be just a tiny little
16:56
focus variation where I could focus that
16:58
precisely with the Viltrox that I
17:01
couldn't with the uh the Fuji lens. And
17:04
so, again, it's it's kind of give and
17:06
take on both. Another shot here. Again,
17:09
very complex scene, so a little bit, you
17:12
know, harder to render. And yet, both of
17:14
them have rendered pretty much
17:15
identically. And again, if you look just
17:17
at the kind of contrast, micro contrast,
17:20
I mean, they are very, very similar. I
17:22
think the Viltrox has a really slight
17:24
edge here, but again, if you didn't have
17:25
them side by side and at 100%, you would
17:28
not know the difference. Here's another
17:30
image where I was just kind of surprised
17:32
by how similar the two lenses looked.
17:34
And so if I look at the area of focus
17:36
and contrast, I mean, very similar. The
17:39
colors are just almost identical from
17:41
the lenses, which is really surprising.
17:44
And then the defocused area looks very,
17:46
very similar. I would say on this image,
17:48
if I were to just do a blind test, I
17:51
slightly prefer the rendering from the
17:53
Fuji lens. I feel like it's just a like
17:56
a percentage or two smoother than what
17:58
the Viltrox is. But you can see they're
18:00
extraordinarily close. I thought I was
18:02
going to get some great insights from
18:04
this image of an apple. As you can see,
18:06
I really, really don't. I mean, if I
18:08
look at them, the amount of detail and
18:10
contrast looks very similar. Saturation
18:13
level is very slightly deeper from the
18:16
Fuji lens, but it also metered just a
18:19
little faster. So, there's a tiny
18:20
difference of exposure. And I think that
18:22
that's really all that I'm seeing is
18:24
just an exposure difference. This is
18:26
another test that really surprised me
18:28
because if I looked in at the area of
18:30
focus, I mean, they look very similar. I
18:33
do think there's a bit better micro
18:34
contrast again because we're up close
18:36
here for the uh Viltrox lens. But as I
18:39
looked at this, like the fringing out of
18:41
focus area, I was just surprised again
18:44
how similar they look. Almost identical
18:46
levels of fringing. perhaps a a hair
18:49
more on the Viltrox, but so so similar
18:52
in all of these areas that again if you
18:54
didn't have them side by side, you would
18:56
not know the difference. One final image
18:59
here, the U Fuji lens, it metered a
19:01
little bit faster and so but it's
19:03
actually probably very slightly
19:04
underexposed. So I wouldn't say that was
19:06
an advantageous. Um, but as I'm looking
19:09
mostly here at the out of focus area and
19:11
as I look at these kind of repeating
19:13
lines up in this area, they just look
19:16
very, very similar. And so again, I
19:18
mean, my takeaway from this is that
19:19
these two lenses, there are very tiny
19:22
areas of differentiation, but I would
19:25
not use optical performance as a metric
19:28
for determining between them. They are
19:31
as close to identical as what I've seen
19:32
between two lenses before. So, thanks
19:35
for sticking around till the very end,
19:37
and hopefully somewhere in that optical
19:39
examination, you saw something that gave
19:41
you the clue that you're looking for. As
19:43
always, thanks for watching. Have a
19:44
great day and let the light in.

Viltrox Pro vs Fuji WR | Which 56mm F1.2 is Best?

Dustin Abbott

Viltrox SPARK Z3 26Ws Flash Review | A $55 Cyberpunk Gem

Welcome to the Dustin Abbott Channel!

Sigma 35mm F1.2 DG II | ART Review: Top of the Class at F1.2?

Supercharge Your Flows: Using Lightning Web Components as Flow Actions

Cybersecurity Threat: 20% of Global Solar Power at Risk

VSync vs G-Sync: Choosing the Best Solution to Eliminate Screen Tearing

🚨 Major Cyber Attack Hits Groundbreaking China-Based Tech Company DeepSeek! 🔥

The Long Tail: How MGAs are supercharging insurance

Shanghai's CRAZY Tech: Facial Recognition & Instant Fines! #shorts

travis reynolds: elbow dunk contest: windmill vs eastbay

Windswept - Official Gameplay Trailer | Top Hat Showcase 2025

Bitcoin's $1 Billion Liquidation Tsunami: Just Another Dip Or Is The Bull Run Over?

Up next in 10

Viltrox Pro vs Fuji WR | Which 56mm F1.2 is Best?

Dustin Abbott