Shooting My Daughter’s Birthday with Two Fuji Portrait Lenses
Sofia’s just turned nine, and for her birthday she invited quite a few friends from school as well as some of her cousins to a pool party we hosted. As usual, I brought my camera. It’s become something of a role I’ve taken on the last few years — documenting her birthdays and building a catalogue of these times before they pass by for good.
But this year, I also had a secondary goal. I wanted to compare the Fujifilm 50mm f/2 and the 56mm f/1.2 WR lenses on my X-T5 . Not in a studio or under test conditions, but in the chaos of real life — a kids’ pool party. It wasn’t meant to be a clinical comparison. More of a personal experiment to help me understand whether the 56mm 1.2 WR was really worth the extra cost over the smaller, more affordable 50mm f/2. Could the 50mm hold its own in terms of output when the conditions were tough and the action unpredictable? Here are the best portrait lenses for Fujifilm. Normally for this kind of situation I would use and recommend a wider lens such as the 23mm 1.4WR, 33mm 1.4WR or 35mm f2. I tested out the Fuji 23mm 1.4WR against the X100VI here and the 35mm f2 vs 33mm 1.4WR here.
50mm f/2 vs 56mm f/1.2 WR – Specification Comparison
| Specification | Fujifilm 50mm f/2 R WR | Fujifilm 56mm f/1.2 R WR |
|---|---|---|
| Focal Length | 50mm (75mm equivalent) | 56mm (85mm equivalent) |
| Maximum Aperture | f/2 | f/1.2 |
| Minimum Aperture | f/16 | f/16 |
| Aperture Blades | 9 (rounded) | 11 (rounded) |
| Lens Construction | 9 elements in 7 groups | 13 elements in 8 groups (incl. 2 aspherical, 1 ED) |
| Minimum Focus Distance | 39cm (15.4 in) | 50cm (19.7 in) |
| Maximum Magnification | 0.15x | 0.14x |
| Filter Size | 46mm | 67mm |
| Dimensions (DxL) | 60.0mm × 59.4mm | 79.4mm × 76.0mm |
| Weight | 200g | 445g |
| Weather Sealing | Yes | Yes |
| Focus Motor | Stepping motor (not linear) | DC coreless motor |
| Release Year | 2017 | 2022 |
The adults at the party were mostly sitting around chatting. The party itself — as it should be — was all about the kids. I’d shoot for a while, watching over them and enjoying the atmosphere, then nip off to my studio to switch lenses before heading back into the mayhem. It let me get the shots I wanted while still being part of the day. And, to be honest, I’m not especially sociable, so having a camera in my hand gives me an excuse to step away from small talk. Photography is my way of being present while doing something useful — and enjoyable.
If you are looking for lens recommendations I put together this post of the best lens kits for the Fuji X-T5 but they apply equally to all Fuji X-series cameras.
From previous experience, I know that longer focal lengths are incredibly useful at these kinds of events. With so much going on, a tighter frame lets you cut through the background noise and isolate specific moments. That’s exactly why I chose these two lenses. Both let me hone in on the little interactions happening around the pool, but in different ways. I hadn’t shot either of them this extensively in such a chaotic, fast-moving scene before, so this was a good chance to see how they really performed.
Handling & Feel
I started with the 56mm 1.2 WR because I assumed it would give me the best images — and I wanted to get a few solid shots early before the party got too wild. I used it for 30–60 minutes before switching to the 50mm f/2. I didn’t switch because I wanted to — I was enjoying the results from the 56mm — but because I needed the comparison to be fair.
Looking for the best Fuji gear for storytelling and portraits? Check out my real-world Fuji kit.
People love to talk about the size and weight difference between these lenses. But in this setting, it just didn’t matter. The 56mm 1.2 WR is clearly larger and heavier, but not in any way that was an issue during use. I’m 43, and I could comfortably use either lens all day. This isn’t like comparing the 50mm f/2 to a GF 110mm f/2. The 56mm balances beautifully on my XT5, especially with the Smallrig L-grip, and I actually preferred the way it felt in the hand. It’s wide but not too long — I find that more stable and comfortable than narrow, longer designs like the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8. The aperture ring on the 56mm was easy to find without looking, and well damped. The 50mm f/2, while compact and lightweight, felt a little too small in comparison. The aperture ring was harder to locate and adjust by feel. Not difficult, just not as natural to me. Both lenses are built well and weather sealed.
Autofocus
Autofocus was something I was curious about. I expected the 50mm f/2 to be noticeably faster — it’s a compact design, and I figured it would easily outpace the 56mm. After all, the older version of the 56mm 1.2 had a reputation for being hesitant, often racking back and forth before locking on. But in reality, the WR version of the 56mm didn’t suffer in the same way. Despite having the same older-style AF motor with that familiar sound, it didn’t feel slow. I had initial doubts when I heard the noise, but in use, those concerns faded.
Neither lens was perfect in terms of autofocus. Both missed occasionally, especially when there was a lot of movement in the frame. Fuji’s AF still isn’t on par with Sony’s newer bodies. But I still got a solid number of keepers from both lenses. I’d say their success rate was pretty equal. The 23mm and 33mm f/1.4 WR lenses definitely focus faster than the 56mm 1.2WR, but that’s also because they’re wider and have deeper depth of field — it’s simply easier for those lenses to lock on in motion-heavy scenes. When you’re shooting at 56mm wide open, depth of field is razor thin, so you need to be more deliberate.
When I reviewed the images later, the differences between the two lenses became more obvious.
Hover over the below image to see how the 50mm f/2 performs with and without corrections.
Image Quality
The 50mm f/2 performed well — it gave me nice photos that tell the story of the day. But the images lacked that certain something. The bokeh, while smooth, wasn’t deep or soft enough to separate my subjects as much as I wanted. Too much background stayed in focus at f/2, especially in a chaotic scene where I couldn’t control where people stood or how far they were from walls, foliage, or other kids. The rendering was clinical — competent, but uninspiring. I never got the feeling from any of the photos that I’d captured a truly great shot. Just a set of decent ones.
Hover over the below 50mm f/2 image to see the photo with CA corrections applied. It is very subtle but pay attention to the forehead down to the eyelid where the sky and face meet.
I also noticed a few technical flaws. There was visible purple fringing in some highlights — especially where water reflected off skin or where bright sun hit foliage in the background. It wasn’t always easy to remove in Lightroom. There was also some slight chromatic aberration and more vignetting than I expected, though that’s not something I consider critical anymore as it can be fixed instantly in post.
In contrast, the 56mm 1.2 WR delivered images that felt more special. The shallow depth of field and creamier bokeh helped simplify the scenes and focus the eye exactly where I wanted. It gave the photos a polished, professional quality that was simply missing from the 50mm files. I didn’t see any chromatic aberration at all. The rendering had more clarity, more microcontrast, and more presence. It was subtle, but when I compared photos from both lenses side by side, the ones from the 56mm stood out immediately.
Hover over the below image to see how the 56mm 1.2 looks with Lightroom corrections applied.
Conclusion
Final Thoughts: Which One Should You Choose?
I’ve always liked trying to make the most out of budget gear. I enjoy finding lenses that punch above their weight. I still really like the 35mm f/2 from the same WR series — it suits my style. But in this case, even I have to admit: the 56mm 1.2 WR is in a completely different league. The images just had more depth, more life, and more impact.
That doesn’t mean the 50mm f/2 is a bad lens. It’s not. I’d happily take it travelling when size and weight matter, or use it for stopped-down street photography where depth of field isn’t a concern. It’s weather-sealed, discreet, and sharp. But if I’m shooting anything meaningful — portraits, family gatherings, special occasions — I wouldn’t reach for it. I’d use the 56mm every single time.
To be completely honest, the 50mm f/2 underwhelmed me in this environment. It wasn’t the right tool for the job. The slightly shorter focal length and smaller aperture just didn’t give me the subject separation I needed. The images are fine — they serve their purpose — but they lacked a wow factor.
And for that reason, if you’re someone who wants to make meaningful, memorable photos of people — especially your own family — I’d suggest skipping the 50mm f/2. Even if it means saving up a little longer, the 56mm 1.2 WR is worth it. It’s not just about sharpness or specs. It’s about the feeling the photos give you afterwards.
If I had to pick one of these lenses for a special occasion, it’s the 56mm. Every time.