Is the 90 f2 sufficient for me?

Started 2 months ago | Questions thread
Flat view
AMSOS Regular Member • Posts: 435
Is the 90 f2 sufficient for me?

I've often read members talk about the 90 f2 not being useful indoors because that FL needs more space to work with. But are there members who use only this lens for all their outdoor portrait needs - full body, head/shoulders, torso?

I am thinking of jumping from my 35 f2 to the 90 f2 and ignoring the 50 f2 / 56 f1.2. I am not considering the slower focusing 60mm.

I am guessing that outdoors the 90 will make for even more interesting full body portraits than the 50 / 56 because of the shallower DOF that FL and aperture combo permits.

I am also a fan of using the short tele range to shoot distant (often mountain) vistas. And I am also planning to shoot some action - kids, and birds that allow you to get near.

My other obvious choice is the well regarded 55-200 that has a similar weight/size.

But a) I do really want to keep being a prime shooter!

b) Depending on members feedback I may not have to worry about the 50-56 FLs.

c) I wonder if the 90-200 FL range is really that useful for my current uses - portraits, distant mountains/scenery, fast moving kids?


 AMSOS's gear list:AMSOS's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2S Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR
This question has not been answered yet.
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow