56 vs 90: Who is more versatile? Discuss.

atoniolin wrote:

Hi guys,

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.

Now, there has been debate about which lens is more versatile.

I'm leaning towards the 90 (90 vs 56) being more versatile:

+ shorter minimum focus distance (60cm vs 70cm)

+ larger magnification (0.2x vs 0.09x).

+ Weather Resistance

+ faster Linear Motor autofocus

+ photos have more contrast (but can be edited in PP)

- f2 is 1.3 stops slower than f1.2

From a few reviews from Damina Lovegrove, mirrorlesscomparison etc, I have concluded that bokeh and subject compression is similar between the two lenses (both very smooth round creamy bokeh).

In terms of shooting and output, it has been said that the 56 is more intimate with the model and the 90 is more distant. I think for a head and shoulder shot with a model I know (friends and family), it's not an issue. Plus, it's a bonus for street shooting since I don't have to get so close.

From the photos I've seen on flickr (I found this guy Francis Ho who's photos I really like https://www.flickr.com/photos/fh9449/), the 56 allows bust height photos due to the minimum focus distance issue. I've heard complaints that people but the 56 away simply because they can't fill the frame.

As for the 90, since the MFD is lower, one can step forward to take a headshot, or step backwards (assuming enough room) to take a full shot.

Overall, I think with my XF 16-55mm f2.8, the 90 is the step forward?

https://myfujilife.com/2018/03/24/my-two-lens-everyday-carry-solution/