These were raw that were processed with Capture One -- using their Velvia curve present under Base Characteristics on import into the catalog. Then a bit of individual tweaking.

mw02veg wrote:Love the lens, small light great for the streetHey great photos, a little off topic but in the first photo I’d crop the left portion of the frame and emphasize more on the trio. Perhaps a 16:9 aspect ratio. Thanks for sharing!

Ulrik Christiansen wrote:I shot a few portraits and other things with the 50. The 56 did take over the portraits later, but I still have the 50 and find it a really nice, small, fast lens - good for many different subjects and situations. Not leaving my bag.Portrait of a former UNHCR photographer. He was a neighbor to a late uncle of mine. We used to sit in the garden and the stories he would tell were just incredible.Love this one.

There is most likely a group for this particular lens on Flickr if you do a search over there. Probably hundreds of photographs in that group.

Jonathan https://www.flickr.com/photos/jtr27/

To dismiss an F2 lens as just "nice" because it isn't an F1.2 lens is like saying a hammer is just "nice" because it isn't a screwdriver.  They are different tools for different purposes.  But obviously, not everyone gets this.The F2 is an excellent lens, as shown by the numerous excellent photographs on this thread and elsewhere.  The truth is, many Fuji camera owners could buy one and take and sell photographs with it for an entire lifetime, and never, ever miss F1.2.They might never be bothered about the evil twin hobgoblins of "onion skin bokeh" and "software correction," about which we are warned so often on this forum, without any actual examples ever being shown.

Well, I just bought it, and took a couple photos right away and it put a smile on my face, it’s pretty sharp wide open. I’m sure I’m going to have fun with this lensthanks for all your moral support

I use my Fuji kit for shooting travel features and the 50mm is a really useful, versatile lens for that kind of thing: landscapes, portraits, plus it focuses close enough for food shots too.I tried the 50mm alongside the 56mm f1.2 before buying. Although the 56mm is lovely for portraits when wide open, the background is not as nice  (in my opinion) as the 50mm when stopped down to f2, probably as it has only 7 aperture blades compared to 9.  I'm more likely to shoot at f2 for portraits to keep the whole face in focus so it made sense for me to get the 50mm. It was also smaller, cheaper, faster to focus and weather sealed, so the choice was fairly easy.Enjoy yours!Colin

Excellent little lens.

I think it's an incredibly sharp lens and pairs well with my just acquired X-E3. I just picked up this hobby again after a leave of more than 12 years. I used to shoot Pentax with mainly primes and I have to say things have really improved in the last decade.Amsterdam Central Station

I've not used the lens much but here's 3 of my better pics. This was the 2nd time i'd used the camera and i'm still learning about iso, shutter speed and f numbers. I had it in aperture priority mode and using af-s focusing. i think maybe the photos of the female mallard could have done with a different f number like 2.8?

jtr27 wrote:To dismiss an F2 lens as just "nice" because it isn't an F1.2 lens is like saying a hammer is just "nice" because it isn't a screwdriver. They are different tools for different purposes. But obviously, not everyone gets this.The F2 is an excellent lens, as shown by the numerous excellent photographs on this thread and elsewhere. The truth is, many Fuji camera owners could buy one and take and sell photographs with it for an entire lifetime, and never, ever miss F1.2.They might never be bothered about the evil twin hobgoblins of "onion skin bokeh" and "software correction," about which we are warned so often on this forum, without any actual examples ever being shown.Hold on there partner - got up on the wrong side of a bad hangover?  Bottom line - yep that image I showed could not have been taken with my 50 f2 because I needed f1.2 to get it.  The back ground was just too ugly to shoot at f2 (even on the 56 because I also shot it at 56 and know).  The bokeh issues with the 50 f2 and specular reflections in the background - the 50 would have been worse.No one is calling your 50 f2 "baby ugly."  Hell I have it and use it so why would I call it ugly.  To your tool analogy - absolutely agree the 50 f2 is a nice tool but it has limitations. To you hammer analogy - the 50 f2 is a good general purpose medium weight hammer.  Descent all around but no one in their right mind would use such a hammer to drive upholstery tacks in fine leather nor would anyone replace their heavy framing hammer.The 56 f1.2 and 50 f1 can do things the 50 f2 is incapable of.  There are a lot of scenes I would not use my 50 f2 for because of its limitations.  Does that mean it is a bad lens?  No.  It means it was a lens designed to a set of design constraints and goals - a reasonably cost compact 50 mm f2 lens to go with the similar 23 and 35 compact f2 lenses.  That the optics are somewhat distorted and need S/W correction is a result of the design trades.  The fact it required a significantly large aspherical elements (compared to the 50 f1 and f6 f1.2, just look at the specs on the Fuji site) - a result of the compact size with the downside that aspherical elements produce inferior bokeh - particularly onion rings.  But Fuji more than accomplished their goal - a high quality compact 50 mm lens at a good price with the compromises that come with such design constraints.  Of the three compact f2 Fuji lenses, 23, 35 and 50, the 50 is the best optically.At half to 1/3 the price of the 56 and 50 f1 respectively it is a pretty damn good value.  However, there are situations I will not use my 50 f2 because I know its warts and limitations.

A lot of hot horse wind has been dispensed here, all in the name of pointing out (again) that an F2 lens is not an F1.2 lens. Kind of obvious, one would think, without a repetitive 800 word treatise on the fine points of out of focus rendering, accompanied by the same single photograph, every time somebody asks the question. And yet, here we are, again.I have no doubt that the F1.2 is a spectacular lens, and am not knocking it. Yeah, you couldn't have taken that 56mm F1.2 photograph at 50mm F2, and just as obviously, you couldn't have taken it at 300mm F4 either - I am just not sure that anyone else considers this to be the thunderbolt of photographic enlightenment that you do, or that taking a photograph like the one that you keep posting is important to them.