Xf 35mm f/2 or Xf 50mm f/2?

BaeckerX1 wrote:

laddsmith wrote:

BaeckerX1 wrote:

Steezus wrote:

dmaclau wrote:

I would suggest though that you consider the faster version of either lens. They're more costly but are quite a bit better optics. The trade off other than $$ is better low light performance vs better weather performance. You more often shoot in low light or in rain?

I would disagree with this when it comes to the 35 f2. I think it produces a better image than the faster version, which is rare when the f2 lens is better in the Fuji lineup.

The 50 f2 is a lens that I would not ever even consider buying. If you are going to shoot this somewhat limited FL, you may as well get the amazing 56 f1.2.

That last statement is a bit sensationalist. It really depends on what your needs are. I went with the 50 over the 56 for a few reasons, and that's not even factoring cost into the equation.

Cost aside then, which to me is hard to ignore, what did you find better about the 50 over the 56. Size? I have the 56, but also suspect the 50 is an awesome lens. But if you put size and cost aside, I am not sure what the other factors are that would put the 50 ahead of the 56, maybe equal at best.

It's mostly size and weight, the lack of which is what I bought the Fuji system for. I have 2 very large lenses with my other camera system so I don't need something bigger and bulkier. There's the water resistant aspect of it if you shoot outside a lot (my Fuji camera is not a WR body, though I imagine it could withstand a light drizzle with a WR lens, maybe with a cover). The 50mm has much closer focusing distance, which actually makes it better for product photos and can allow for similar portraits as the 56 when you get in a little closer.

I guess this is a cost factor, but I didn't see the need to pay extra for the F1.2 for my needs due to how shallow the depth of field is. If your subject is even slightly off axis and not head on, at F1.2 you can have one side of the face in focus and the other out of focus. I'm no pro, but most photographs I've seen with the 1.2 (and many video reviews) have it stopped down to F2 or lower anyway. I just thought that the extra size, weight, and cost didn't justify the expense when I wouldn't use it wide open that often. Cost is always a factor I guess, I merely meant I could afford the 56, but chose not to pay the extra expense.

Finally, I think the 50 is more useful in a wide range of conditions beyond just portrait photography. In practice the small focal length difference actually is more pronounced than you think. It's easier for shooting in tighter spaces and can even get some duty as a street lens. I've even read of some popular wedding photographers using it as their only lens for almost an entire wedding. The 56 is a phenomenal lens from what I've seen and read, but it definitely seems more of a specialty tool. I would buy this if I only wanted to shoot portraits with it, but that's just me. I can't see it being a longtime fixture on my camera, more something I'd pull out for specific scenarios, and I'm not someone who likes to do a ton of lens swapping. Some day the 56 might be a part of my kit, but I'll be playing with the 50 for awhile and really learning the ins and outs of this lens.

I'm no expert, I just made my decision based on all the data I had. Someone else might decide differently and that's fine. I just take issue with the fact that the 50mm is pointless. It's also a very sharp and excellent lens.

Very nice points, and many I did not think of.  The closer focusing distance is nice.  I mostly use the lens for portraits and so I guess that is why I made the choice.  It is a bigger lens, but I am a recent convert from Nikon D800E, so everything seems small to me!