after having the 50f2 for a couple of days , I can say I would bet it all that there was defintly something wrong with the 56 I had..
all I've heard about the 56 is that it is a sharp lens .
and my new 50f2 is more impressive than the 56 I had .. not that anyone was saying that the 50 was no good .. but even my 23f2 seemed sharper than the 56 , and while most reviews say the 23 is fine , there are more than one or two reports saying its sharpness is not that impressive.
had a portrait session that went well even though it went all kinds of wrong
wind wreaked havoc on my lighting as well as the models hair ..
but overall very satisfied with the results ..
my biggest complaint with sony was skin tones and how hard I had to work to get them to look satisfactory .. I know that getting them to look awesome is possible , as there are some very capable fellas on the sony lounge thread that do great work ...but I struggled , that was one of the reasons I bought the 80d
anyway so far with Fuji I've been happy with skintones, and after todays portrait session even happier
That's the beauty of Fuji .....skin tones is easy peasy
Sony is just more contrasty and vibrant. Every camera brand is different. For example I liked my olympus colours over my Panasonic when I used M43. Canon is simply a comfort zone for me so I just know how to work canon colour in post. I had a Tamron 15-30VC for a short duration of time and the colours from that lens was soooooo good to my eyes.