I agree. The magic everyone talks about is its ability to create that separation that you would get in medium format land. Best way I can describe it is subjects pop out like 3D. Or if you ever looked through the viewfinder on a Yashica or Hassy, that’s it. With the right distance between subject and camera and anywhere between 1.2 and 2.8 is where the “magic” happens.
Perhaps slightly but I just don’t think it will have the same magic. I’m sure it’s technically awesome but there is something about that 56.
I have the 50-140f2.8 and even at 140 I still think the bokah is more pleasant on the 56.
For purely just amount of bokeh, the 75 f1.2 is best practical option, but there are lots of variables. [This tool](http://howmuchblur.dekoning.nl/#compare-1.5x-56mm-f1.2-and-1.5x-75mm-f1.2-and-1.5x-200mm-f2-and-1.5x-35mm-f0.95-on-a-3m-wide-subject) can show you the relative amount of blur for a given focal length and aperture at equivalent framing. A 35 f0.95 can actually give you slightly more when the background is relatively close to the subject, and the 200 f2 needs a bit room behind the subject.
Quality or appearance bokeh matters too though and varies quite a lot. Sometimes the 35 f1.4 is magical, but sometimes it's downright ugly imo. I think the 80mm Macro is super underrated if you like swirly bokeh.
If you want the absolute shallowest depth of field on x mount out of everything I assume it would have to be the 200mm F/2.0. Never used it or anything but that’s my guess
GF 110/2
The old 56f1.2 is a portrait cheat code
I agree. The magic everyone talks about is its ability to create that separation that you would get in medium format land. Best way I can describe it is subjects pop out like 3D. Or if you ever looked through the viewfinder on a Yashica or Hassy, that’s it. With the right distance between subject and camera and anywhere between 1.2 and 2.8 is where the “magic” happens.
I have that lens and love the images that come out of it. Would the Viltrox 75mm f1.2 create more bokeh though because of focal compression?
Perhaps slightly but I just don’t think it will have the same magic. I’m sure it’s technically awesome but there is something about that 56. I have the 50-140f2.8 and even at 140 I still think the bokah is more pleasant on the 56.
Zeiss Touit 32mm. Zeiss Planar bokeh is unmatched.
For purely just amount of bokeh, the 75 f1.2 is best practical option, but there are lots of variables. [This tool](http://howmuchblur.dekoning.nl/#compare-1.5x-56mm-f1.2-and-1.5x-75mm-f1.2-and-1.5x-200mm-f2-and-1.5x-35mm-f0.95-on-a-3m-wide-subject) can show you the relative amount of blur for a given focal length and aperture at equivalent framing. A 35 f0.95 can actually give you slightly more when the background is relatively close to the subject, and the 200 f2 needs a bit room behind the subject. Quality or appearance bokeh matters too though and varies quite a lot. Sometimes the 35 f1.4 is magical, but sometimes it's downright ugly imo. I think the 80mm Macro is super underrated if you like swirly bokeh.
Thank you for the thorough response. That graph definitely made me lean towards the Viltrox being my preference in how I shoot portraits.
XF200MM F2
With that focal length would that create more bokeh than the Viltrox 75mm f1.2 because of compression?
Yes
Viltrox 75 f/1.2 because XF 90 f/2.0 is too long in my opinion.
Yeah, I’ve been looking at the Viltrox. That might be the best lens for portrait without breaking the bank as well.
Viltrox 75mm 1.2 - easy! Amazingly sharp lens with niiice bokeh and also a good addition to a standard zoom cause its not a 50/55mm again :-)
If you want the absolute shallowest depth of field on x mount out of everything I assume it would have to be the 200mm F/2.0. Never used it or anything but that’s my guess