Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Fujinon 55mm f1.8 or f2.2 ?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Returning to my own topic just to tell you my experience with the Fujinons.
I had the Fujinon 55mm f/1.8 (Non EBC) just for a short time.
It was too soft and too glowy for my taste.
Well, at least my copy. I had to stop down to f/4 to see some improvement.

Then I picked up a Fujinon 55mm f/2.2 and it is way much better.
Sharpness at f/2.2 is very acceptable and stopped down to f/2.8 is sharp enough for me.
It is only a little bit glowy at f/2.2 (but not bad), and stopped down to f/2.8 contrast is good.

The bokeh seams to me more interesting than the one from the Fujinon 1.8.
Where's an example.
Merry Christmas to everyone by the way.

Merry Christmas ! by Jaime Silva, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1

Nicely done! Merry Christmas to you too!


PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks good, congrats.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jrsilva wrote:
Returning to my own topic just to tell you my experience with the Fujinons.
I had the Fujinon 55mm f/1.8 (Non EBC) just for a short time.
It was too soft and too glowy for my taste.
Well, at least my copy. I had to stop down to f/4 to see some improvement.

Then I picked up a Fujinon 55mm f/2.2 and it is way much better.
Sharpness at f/2.2 is very acceptable and stopped down to f/2.8 is sharp enough for me.
It is only a little bit glowy at f/2.2 (but not bad), and stopped down to f/2.8 contrast is good.

The bokeh seams to me more interesting than the one from the Fujinon 1.8.
Where's an example.
Merry Christmas to everyone by the way.

Merry Christmas ! by Jaime Silva, on Flickr



Yes, you have made a good choice for the bubble bokeh - the 2.2 is wonderful at it as you have shown.
Great shot.
The 1.8/55 has much less pronounced bubble bokeh but does have some lovely rendering and can be quite sharp as well when you want it to be.
If you don't mind Jamie, I will post a few piccies here from mine. It is the EBC version 1.8/55 M42.
OH


#1


#2


same picture - different aperture
#3


#4


#5


PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thomas, these are great pictures !


PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:
Thomas, these are great pictures !


Thanks Oliver.
We are spoilt for choice with lenses aren't we.
Like 1 small


PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I shall have to try the 2.2 again, the bubbles are very good.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fujino 55 / 2.2 Wide open, distance about 2.5 metres.

In focus on the lights


Max out of focus - infinity


approx 0.8 metres


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:

Yes, you have made a good choice for the bubble bokeh - the 2.2 is wonderful at it as you have shown.
Great shot.
The 1.8/55 has much less pronounced bubble bokeh but does have some lovely rendering and can be quite sharp as well when you want it to be.
If you don't mind Jamie, I will post a few piccies here from mine. It is the EBC version 1.8/55 M42.
OH


Very nice creamy bokeh!!
Your pictures look very good and sharp. Thank's for sharing.
Maybe I didn't give my 1.8/55 a better chance, but I think the EBC must be better than the non EBC, or my sample simply was not a good one.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
Fujino 55 / 2.2 Wide open, distance about 2.5 metres.

Max out of focus - infinity



Looks like your copy of the 2.2/55 have the same problem as mine:
There is a misalignment on the blades at f/2.8
My old Fujinon 1.8/55 had the same problem.
I suspect that this may be a common problem on the Fujinons.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you all for this wonderful thread comparing these lenses and demonstrating their abilities, much appreciated by me and this is probably one of the most overlooked and quickly discounted lenses there is... I think it should be compared to a Tessar however, just my opinion only.

Within the sticky, Lens Diagrams, the Fujinon 55/2.2 is listed as an Fujinon-type Unar, the aperture is placed between the 1st and second elements.....interesting is that it seems to be a one-of-kind lens, a hybrid Unar design more than likely reverse engineered by Fuji at the time. I have absolutely no idea what Fuji's intentions were and would rather not assume and rather give them credit because it sure seems like a serious lens with serious intention behind it.

The Fuji 55/1.8 is a Biotar/Xenon assymetric planar type, just like the Zeiss Biotar, Pancolar, Meyer/Pentacon, Schneider Xenon and Helios... 50mm-58mm types. I was actually looking over lens designs and comparing lenses that shared designs when I noticed the unique singularity of the 55/2.2 and as a result searched info about this lens and then discovered your helpful thread here so I thought I'd add this bit fyi....

Within this thread it also seemed practical to me in considering the Helios 44-2 since a Fuji 55/1.8 was also being considered, but to say that the 44-2 is the least sharp of the Helios models is to not know the nature of these lenses regarding the special/select samples that do exist, 00 or 000 serial numbers that were hand selected special makes, that make a considerable difference as if some other manufacture made them compared to the common find 44-2....say KMZ made both samples, but it can be night and day difference in IQ with a 00 or 000...

The CZ Biotar 58/2 aluminum 50's sample I have is a remarkable close up lens with striking colors, and it's a chore to find an old Biotar that delivers great My 55/1.8 non-ebc m42 isn't in the same class. Shooting these 3 (44-2, Biotar, and Fujinon 55/1.8 in mid long landscapes places the 55/1.8 Fuji in the lead and with far distance details my select Helios pulls into the lead. The Meyer Optik and Pentacon just don't compare, the Pancolar zebra I have is just uniquely different and I don't compare it at all to anything even though it shares a common design. Yes, I have samples and yes I'm too lazy to dig them up and post them...

What's important to note here more than anything I've said is the very real, unique, odd, and one-of-kind design the 55/2.2 is and is capable of..... 55/2.2 samples are not without issues and I account for this because they seemed to be very heavily mass produced and very inexpensive kit lenses commonly packaged by Fuji... knowing this makes it reasonable for me to believe sample variation is uncommonly high and finding just the right 55/2.2 may be frustrating .... just to emphasize having a bad experience with one lens is no reason to ever give up on a lens model or reason in considering your one experience as the rule for all.

The bubble effect is just one unique result created and it's pretty darn nice at just that....but I can't help think there's even more and thanks to your post here I see that potential very clearly. So if lens A is better or lens B is sharper then the one thing lens A or lens B is not is, "unique" and that's what my point is, unique is unique.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here are some shots taken with my Fujinon 55mm f1.8, on Kodak Ektar 100 film





PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are the optics the same in the M42 & X-Fujinon versions of the 55/2.2?


PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Photo I like most with my Fujinon 1.8/55mm non EBC and Canon Eos 40D :


PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What a gorgeous cat.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you. Happy Cat


PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wildlight images wrote:
Thank you all for this wonderful thread comparing these lenses and demonstrating their abilities, much appreciated by me and this is probably one of the most overlooked and quickly discounted lenses there is... I think it should be compared to a Tessar however, just my opinion only.

Within the sticky, Lens Diagrams, the Fujinon 55/2.2 is listed as an Fujinon-type Unar, the aperture is placed between the 1st and second elements.....interesting is that it seems to be a one-of-kind lens, a hybrid Unar design more than likely reverse engineered by Fuji at the time. I have absolutely no idea what Fuji's intentions were and would rather not assume and rather give them credit because it sure seems like a serious lens with serious intention behind it.

The Fuji 55/1.8 is a Biotar/Xenon assymetric planar type, just like the Zeiss Biotar, Pancolar, Meyer/Pentacon, Schneider Xenon and Helios... 50mm-58mm types. I was actually looking over lens designs and comparing lenses that shared designs when I noticed the unique singularity of the 55/2.2 and as a result searched info about this lens and then discovered your helpful thread here so I thought I'd add this bit fyi....

Within this thread it also seemed practical to me in considering the Helios 44-2 since a Fuji 55/1.8 was also being considered, but to say that the 44-2 is the least sharp of the Helios models is to not know the nature of these lenses regarding the special/select samples that do exist, 00 or 000 serial numbers that were hand selected special makes, that make a considerable difference as if some other manufacture made them compared to the common find 44-2....say KMZ made both samples, but it can be night and day difference in IQ with a 00 or 000...

The CZ Biotar 58/2 aluminum 50's sample I have is a remarkable close up lens with striking colors, and it's a chore to find an old Biotar that delivers great My 55/1.8 non-ebc m42 isn't in the same class. Shooting these 3 (44-2, Biotar, and Fujinon 55/1.8 in mid long landscapes places the 55/1.8 Fuji in the lead and with far distance details my select Helios pulls into the lead. The Meyer Optik and Pentacon just don't compare, the Pancolar zebra I have is just uniquely different and I don't compare it at all to anything even though it shares a common design. Yes, I have samples and yes I'm too lazy to dig them up and post them...

What's important to note here more than anything I've said is the very real, unique, odd, and one-of-kind design the 55/2.2 is and is capable of..... 55/2.2 samples are not without issues and I account for this because they seemed to be very heavily mass produced and very inexpensive kit lenses commonly packaged by Fuji... knowing this makes it reasonable for me to believe sample variation is uncommonly high and finding just the right 55/2.2 may be frustrating .... just to emphasize having a bad experience with one lens is no reason to ever give up on a lens model or reason in considering your one experience as the rule for all.

The bubble effect is just one unique result created and it's pretty darn nice at just that....but I can't help think there's even more and thanks to your post here I see that potential very clearly. So if lens A is better or lens B is sharper then the one thing lens A or lens B is not is, "unique" and that's what my point is, unique is unique.


I agree with you about sample variation.
I have an Helios 44-2 and my sample is very sharp.
The serial number says it was manufactured on 1983 and it is my best manual focus lens at the moment.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jrsilva wrote:
wildlight images wrote:
Thank you all for this wonderful thread comparing these lenses..... and demonstrating their abilities, much appreciated by me


I agree with you about sample variation.
I have an Helios 44-2 and my sample is very sharp.
The serial number says it was manufactured on 1983 and it is my best manual focus lens at the moment.


I compared your Flickr "Di" 44-2 image with your "Di" 2.2 image and I am most impressed with the 2.2 in your well done portrait samples, both lenses handled skin tones and had orange backgrounds all bubbly looking. However your Caita 44-2 image has this pronounced 3d feel to it with improved tones over your Di 44-2 image.

To me personally it's the "feel". I'm no portrait photographer and more a landscape photographer so no critic and just expressing what I see in differences/similarities that I notice. The Fujinon 2.2 though, I see so much potential seriousness though and with an improved understanding of the designs and how they can effect scenes uniquely I must have one. Uniqueness more than optimum anything is more important with me. I get a little deep ended I know, but I need to know what I'm looking through to feed my brain how any particular lens was designed ... I guess so I can rationalize that "yes" it is different and here's why. Sharpness to me is critical, but not as much as sparking my intrigue, and it doesn't make a lens better.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The best lens is the one I left home thinking I had it all planned just right


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wildlight images wrote:

I compared your Flickr "Di" 44-2 image with your "Di" 2.2 image and I am most impressed with the 2.2 in your well done portrait samples, both lenses handled skin tones and had orange backgrounds all bubbly looking. However your Caita 44-2 image has this pronounced 3d feel to it with improved tones over your Di 44-2 image.

To me personally it's the "feel". I'm no portrait photographer and more a landscape photographer so no critic and just expressing what I see in differences/similarities that I notice. The Fujinon 2.2 though, I see so much potential seriousness though and with an improved understanding of the designs and how they can effect scenes uniquely I must have one. Uniqueness more than optimum anything is more important with me. I get a little deep ended I know, but I need to know what I'm looking through to feed my brain how any particular lens was designed ... I guess so I can rationalize that "yes" it is different and here's why. Sharpness to me is critical, but not as much as sparking my intrigue, and it doesn't make a lens better.



The "Di" Fujinon 2.2 image had far more PP in Photoshop than the 44-2 one, mainly to increase contrast and had a bit more sharpening.
Usually I don't need much PP with the 44-2.
I found that for portrait close-up the 2.2 is capable of acceptable results even wide open.
But it is more critical to get it in perfect focus. It have more white glow than the 44-2. Stopped down to just f/2.8 it gets better, but the bokeh highlights loose their rounded shape.
Anyway, I've picked up each of these lens because of their character and I'm learning to overcome their weaknesses. The 2.2 will be used not only for portrait work but also in any situation here I want to include the bokeh highlights as the main part of the picture.
I'm a fan of sharp pictures (as you can see on my portfolio), but for these close-up portraits I'm willing to loose some sharpness in trade of a very distinctive look.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3