56 vs 90?

[back alley]

i have the 56 and think it's a pretty good lens...the (85) fov seems well suited for portrait work...
the 90 seems even better when one takes into account the fov and the dof that can be achieved with it.
i really like the images that i have seen from the 90.

how would others (you) describe the differences in the lenses...have you picked one over the other? did you have a 56 and add or exchange for a 90?

 

[jsrockit]

How many portraits do you do? Will a 135mm be used as much as an 85mm?

 

[back alley]

very few portraits...but longer lenses don't have to be only/mostly for portraits.
i use the 56 on the street and some of the street shots that i've seen from the 90 are excellent.

 

[GaryLH]

For me the 90 (135 fov) is a nice head or head and shoulder portrait lens in terms of portrait work. I use the 135 or 180f2 fov has always been what I use for a fast general purpose tele when I don't want to carry something as heavy as a 70-200f2.8 or 200f4. There was a time I wanted the 90..but after thinking about how I current use it, I decided I use the Fuji more in terms of 21 to 90 fov and anything longer I tend to go to something like my Nikon dlsr or similar. The Fuji system was not fast enough in terms of af lock for what I tend to use a 135fov for. The xp2 may eventually change my mind on that (what others have said about the af improvement), but I decided to skip this generation and wait for the xp3.

The 35f2 and the rumored 23f2 are the lenses currently on my radar.

Gary

 

[jsrockit]

very few portraits...but longer lenses don't have to be only/mostly for portraits.
i use the 56 on the street and some of the street shots that i've seen from the 90 are excellent.

Got ya... I use a 85mm on the streets sometimes too and like it. Not sure if I'm ready for 135mm though. I guess that's my point... are you ready for 135mm for the stuff that you do? Is it practical or GAS?

 

[back alley]

Got ya... I use a 85mm on the streets sometimes too and like it. Not sure if I'm ready for 135mm though. I guess that's my point... are you ready for 135mm for the stuff that you do? Is it practical or GAS?

well, it's for sure partly gas...
and i'm thinking it might force me into the corners more...i love the 16 and often carry it with the 56...so i'm thinking 16/90 and spin my head a bit!

 

[geertvn]

I've shot a few concerts with the 90. It's a wonderful lens, focus is quick and accurate (even on the X-pro1), with nice rendering. Best Fuji lens I own.

 

[segedi]

Let me know if you want to sell the 56 🙂

 

[back alley]

Let me know if you want to sell the 56 🙂

it would be hard to sell...i'd rather keep both!

if i got the 90...

 

[Darthfeeble]

I'm no portrait shooter, but I've used the 90 for Macro and it's pretty good there. I think if I were to use a tele for street work that I'd probably prefer the 56. I've use a 75 on my M9 to my satisfaction.

 

[back alley]

I'm no portrait shooter, but I've used the 90 for Macro and it's pretty good there. I think if I were to use a tele for street work that I'd probably prefer the 56. I've use a 75 on my M9 to my satisfaction.

do you use the fuji extension tubes?

 

[narsuitus]

how would others (you) describe the differences in the lenses...have you picked one over the other? did you have a 56 and add or exchange for a 90?

I use three of the four lenses you use (16/23/56). When I was looking for a focal length longer than the 56 to use on my X-Pro1 primarily for portraits and stage work, I considered the following lenses:

90mm f/2 Fujinon
135mm f/2 Rokinon
135mm f/2 Nikon with adapter
135mm f/2 Zeiss with adapter
50-140mm f/2.8 Fujinon

1. The 90mm was great for portraits but not long enough for my stage work.
2. The Rokinon was the least expensive but I did not like the way the manual focus ring rotated in a direction opposite to my other lenses.
3. For portraits and stage work, the image quality of the Nikon was very good but the Zeiss image quality was a little bit better.
4. The Nikon was not a big as the Zeiss.
5. The Fujinon zoom was not as fast as the other lenses but the variable focal length was very useful for stage work.
6. The Fujinon zoom was bigger than the other lenses.
7. The 90mm and the Fujinon zoom were fully automatic (focus and exposure).
8. The three 135mm lenses were all manual focus.
9. Under studio portrait conditions, the Fujinon zoom replaces my 56mm Fujinon, 85mm Nikon, 105mm Nikon, and 135mm Nikon lenses so I do not need to change lenses.
10. When shooting under low-light conditions, if I did not need the extra stops of light gathering, the Fujinon zoom could replace the 56mm.

I have not yet reached a final decision. I am still testing the Nikon, the Zeiss, and the Fujinon zoom. Last weekend, I photographed a concert and used in descending order: the Fujinon zoom, the 56mm when the lighting was too low for the zoom, and the 23mm. I did not take the Nikon. I never used the Zeiss, even though I had it with me.


135mm f/2 Manual Focus Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[back alley]

I use three of the four lenses you use (16/23/56). When I was looking for a focal length longer than the 56 to use on my X-Pro1 primarily for portraits and stage work, I considered the following lenses:

90mm f/2 Fujinon
135mm f/2 Rokinon
135mm f/2 Nikon with adapter
135mm f/2 Zeiss with adapter
50-140mm f/2.8 Fujinon

1. The 90mm was great for portraits but not long enough for my stage work.
2. The Rokinon was the least expensive but I did not like the way the manual focus ring rotated in a direction opposite to my other lenses.
3. For portraits and stage work, the image quality of the Nikon was very good but the Zeiss image quality was a little bit better.
4. The Nikon was not a big as the Zeiss.
5. The Fujinon zoom was not as fast as the other lenses but the variable focal length was very useful for stage work.
6. The Fujinon zoom was bigger than the other lenses.
7. The 90mm and the Fujinon zoom were fully automatic (focus and exposure).
8. The three 135mm lenses were all manual focus.
9. Under studio portrait conditions, the Fujinon zoom replaces my 56mm Fujinon, 85mm Nikon, 105mm Nikon, and 135mm Nikon lenses so I do not need to change lenses.
10. When shooting under low-light conditions, if I did not need the extra stops of light gathering, the Fujinon zoom could replace the 56mm.

I have not yet reached a final decision. I am still testing the Nikon, the Zeiss, and the Fujinon zoom. Last weekend, I photographed a concert and used in descending order: the Fujinon zoom, the 56mm when the lighting was too low for the zoom, and the 23mm. I did not take the Nikon. I never used the Zeiss, even though I had it with me.


135mm f/2 Manual Focus Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

i'm guessing that you are a fairly meticulous worker. detailed in your assessment...me, not so much!
my choices would be automatically be more narrowed as i only use fuji lenses, want that af and complete connection to the body...and i prefer primes to zooms and what i shoot really doesn't require zooms.

if my pocketbook would allow then i would have both...i may buy the 90 and keep the 56 if they are different enough...since buying the 16 i have not used my 23...the 16 does so much that i like it has pretty much replaced the 23...but the 23 is so damn good that i don't want to sell it off...and knowing me someday soon i'll realize all over again why i got it in the first place.

 

[twopointeight]

Without a tripod, consider that the 90mm should be used with at least 1/250, a limitation IMO. The lowly 55-200 can be handheld steady at 1/40, but subject motion might be an issue? And the optics of the 55-200 are not as crisp. Third reason I didn't go for the 90 (yet) is I would only use it about 5% of the time, so not worth the weight. So all depends on what you shoot.

 

[back alley]

i shoot mostly street in the daytime...i would likely put the 90 on an xe2 and walk around with just that kit...maybe a second body with the 16...

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I like the 60 best. On the X-T1 it focusing quickly enough for street photography. And you get the macro feature as well. Image quality is excellent. I decided that there's really no need for spending all that $$ on the 56 or 90. My prime lens kit now is the the 16, 35/2, and 60 for use not the X-T1. I keep the 27 on the my old X-Pro1.

 

[13Promet]

i shoot mostly street in the daytime...i would likely put the 90 on an xe2 and walk around with just that kit...maybe a second body with the 16...

In this case you might consider the 70s Leica or Minolta 90 f/4 with adapter.
Very sharp, small, light and cheap.

 

[jsrockit]

In this case you might consider the 70s Leica or Minolta 90 f/4 with adapter.
Very sharp, small, light and cheap.

He said Fuji auto focus only...

 

[narsuitus]

...i only use fuji lenses, want that af and complete connection to the body...and i prefer primes to zooms...

Consider waiting for the Fujinon 120mm f/2.8 macro which is scheduled for release later this year.

 

[back alley]

Consider waiting for the Fujinon 120mm f/2.8 macro which is scheduled for release later this year.

i have been thinking along those lines also...worried about size and cost of a longer lens though.