Fujifilm 23f/1.4 and 90f/2 vs Canon 35f/1,4L II and 135f/2L, has anyone shot with both alternatives?

Al Downie wrote:

I think it's the right decision for you Pierre - not only for the GPS thing (wouldn't have been a factor for me), but because if you're prepared to carry on carrying the DSLR and some brilliant Canon glass around with you, then you will get slightly better picture quality out of it, just because of the full frame sensor. The amazing Canon AF is another bonus - Fuji is getting there, but it's still not a patch on a good Canon with all its AF-C guns firing.

Regarding the choice between 100L and 135L, I'd say that the 135L has amazing, soft bokeh, and more of it than the 100; but it does have a bit of annoying chromatic aberration at the apertures where you'd want to exploit that bokeh. The 100L is also very, very impressive, but a wee bit more clinical.

Happy shopping!

Thanks Al,

After sleeping on it, my GAS is cured, I do not need the one stop faster primes.

I want to keep my normal travel kit under 3kg and no more than 3 lenses.

Today my kits weight is: FF DSLR 6D (770g), 16-35/4L IS (615g), 24-70/2,8 L II (805g) and 70-200/4L IS (760g) The total weight is 2950 gram.

Not bad for a very good FF camera and 3 high IQ lenses covering 16-200mm. This is a very versatile travel friendly kit and all I really need for my family photos.

For astro, I do not really need a Rokinon 14mm, I will use my 16-35f/4L IS for this.

For the odd wildlife and birding, I will get a Canon 400f/5.6L (1250g) on the used market.

My wish list is down to a single lens, a used 400f/5.6L. My wife and our family economy is happy

Happy shooting Al, and keep blogging!

Best

/Pierre