56 vs 90: Who is more versatile? Discuss.

I'm still in the process of debating which portrait lens to get (to complement the 16-55). I've eliminated the 50-140 because of it's price, bulk and weight but mostly because I don't think I really need it right now; most comments here suggest that 50-140 is more for sports / indoor action and wedding/event reportage, which I don't do much. I want to focus on friends and family portraits, so I'm choosing between the XF 56mm F1.2 R and XF 90mm F2 R LM WR.

I have both and I were to pick one for portraits, it would be the 56 for a couple of reasons.  First is the focal length - it's just better for portraits.  Not too close, not too far - just right in my opinion.  Second, f1.2 - it is much more adaptable than the 90 with respect to light - I don't use a flash.   The 90 needs more light and that isn't always possible for portraiture, especially for people like me who can't be bothered to use a flash.

I will add that I find the 90 to be more versatile, for me.  I do use it for portraiture, when the lighting permits.  But I primarily use it for sports where it excels.  Ice hockey, soccer, canine agility, water skiing - the 90 is amazing and is by far my most used lens in the summer.

If I know that I'm shooting people/portraits, the 56 comes out!  It has a bit more of a "clinical" look to it and boy oh boy, is it sharp!   Attached is an uncropped sample taken indoors, wide open, with no flash.

I love my Fuji primes!