Is the 90 f2 sufficient for me?

I don’t own the lens but I don’t think it’s a big deal to skip the 50/56.

I’m going to talk in ff terms bc it makes sense to me in my head....

I used to be more of a 35/85 shooter, but now I’m more of a 50/135 shooter. I think it’s a good combo. I personally think 50 is too close to 85...not that they aren’t different enough, just that there isn’t that urge enough to switch. If you have a bigger spacing you’ll know more when to use one lens or the other. I’ve grown to like more spacing between my lenses.

a 135 will make the background more unrecognizable in general than an 85 equiv even if the dof is similar, due to compression.

So basically you can shoot in a crappy location and still make it look like a watercolor like painting more easily.

jjz2 said:

I don’t own the lens but I don’t think it’s a big deal to skip the 50/56.

I’m going to talk in ff terms bc it makes sense to me in my head....

I used to be more of a 35/85 shooter, but now I’m more of a 50/135 shooter. I think it’s a good combo. I personally think 50 is too close to 85...not that they aren’t different enough, just that there isn’t that urge enough to switch. If you have a bigger spacing you’ll know more when to use one lens or the other. I’ve grown to like more spacing between my lenses.

Click to expand...

I can see why you say that. To begin with I too used the 50/90 FLs (FF). But with the excellent XF 35 f2 I now have I feel I can easily use it for indoor portraits. Granted the framing with be larger and the bokeh not as much as from the XF 50/56, but it should be good enough. And then the stepping up to the 90 f2 puts a good amount of FL distance.

Also for my street shooting the 90 seems to offer interesting possibilities. On this I wonder why there's no demand for a 105 f2 (FF) like they have it in other systems. Another FL that would seem to be quite versatile.

I don't find the 90mm f2 too long even for most inside shooting. It's also a natural accompaniment for the 16-55mm f2.8 as a very high quality all round shooting setup.

I use my 60mm f2.4 for street but I'm more likely to find it a little short than the 90mm too long but the 60mm is half the size of the 90mm.

Although there are some voices raised in favour of a 70mm fl, I think it unlikely that Fuji (in the near future), will add to the already crowded list of short tele primes between the current 50mm f2, 56mm f1.2, 60mm f2.4, 80mm f2.8 and 90mm f2. However, I agree that a 70mm f1.8 of good quality would be a more universal and compact portrait and street lens supplying a shallow DoF when needed.

Vic

Vic Chapman said:

I don't find the 90mm f2 too long even for most inside shooting. It's also a natural accompaniment for the 16-55mm f2.8 as a very high quality all round shooting setup.

I use my 60mm f2.4 for street but I'm more likely to find it a little short than the 90mm too long but the 60mm is half the size of the 90mm.

Although there are some voices raised in favour of a 70mm fl, I think it unlikely that Fuji (in the near future), will add to the already crowded list of short tele primes between the current 50mm f2, 56mm f1.2, 60mm f2.4, 80mm f2.8 and 90mm f2. However, I agree that a 70mm f1.8 of good quality would be a more universal and compact portrait and street lens supplying a shallow DoF when needed.

Vic

Click to expand...

Yes, I also want and would buy a 70 F1.4 - F2.0 lens. Currently 56 F1.2 is too close to 35 F1.4 while 90 F/2 is too far away from 35 F1.4

A 70mm lens would be perfect (same as classic FF 105 mm portrait equivalent) and a perfect lens trio for me would be: 16, 35, 70.

AMSOS said:

jjz2 said:

I don’t own the lens but I don’t think it’s a big deal to skip the 50/56.

I’m going to talk in ff terms bc it makes sense to me in my head....

I used to be more of a 35/85 shooter, but now I’m more of a 50/135 shooter. I think it’s a good combo. I personally think 50 is too close to 85...not that they aren’t different enough, just that there isn’t that urge enough to switch. If you have a bigger spacing you’ll know more when to use one lens or the other. I’ve grown to like more spacing between my lenses.

Click to expand...

I can see why you say that. To begin with I too used the 50/90 FLs (FF). But with the excellent XF 35 f2 I now have I feel I can easily use it for indoor portraits. Granted the framing with be larger and the bokeh not as much as from the XF 50/56, but it should be good enough. And then the stepping up to the 90 f2 puts a good amount of FL distance.

Also for my street shooting the 90 seems to offer interesting possibilities. On this I wonder why there's no demand for a 105 f2 (FF) like they have it in other systems. Another FL that would seem to be quite versatile.

Click to expand...

Yeah that pairing is the more "classic" pairing and is a bit more useful (with 105).

I'd say demand for that focal length has to be at least decent, considering Nikon came out with the 105 1.4 to update theirs, and Sigma came out with one as well.

If you aren't using that "gap" range much, maybe just get some brand's cheap nifty fifty with an adapter to fill in a gap if you ever need it.

I know some people who roll with only the Canon 35L and 135L (maybe b/c the 85L is so expensive compared to the 135) ... that to me is def too big of a gap, 50/135 is pushing it... but can be done.

I used to really not like 50 FOV and still think 35 FOV is more useful and versatile, it is a more natural focal length for me... I just like the images with a 50 better for people if possible.

When I do portraits they are usually staged, relaxed, and at an outdoor location, and of friends and family... If I was grabbing shots at an event or where I couldn't retake a shot, I'd want to fill the gap somehow.

Is it the right lens for you? Who knows?

"take 6 or 7 steps back and you’re good to go "

Sorry, but that is just as much trite rubbish now as it's always been.

Vic

colombiano said:

Vic Chapman said:

I don't find the 90mm f2 too long even for most inside shooting. It's also a natural accompaniment for the 16-55mm f2.8 as a very high quality all round shooting setup.

I use my 60mm f2.4 for street but I'm more likely to find it a little short than the 90mm too long but the 60mm is half the size of the 90mm.

Although there are some voices raised in favour of a 70mm fl, I think it unlikely that Fuji (in the near future), will add to the already crowded list of short tele primes between the current 50mm f2, 56mm f1.2, 60mm f2.4, 80mm f2.8 and 90mm f2. However, I agree that a 70mm f1.8 of good quality would be a more universal and compact portrait and street lens supplying a shallow DoF when needed.

Vic

Click to expand...

Yes, I also want and would buy a 70 F1.4 - F2.0 lens. Currently 56 F1.2 is too close to 35 F1.4 while 90 F/2 is too far away from 35 F1.4

A 70mm lens would be perfect (same as classic FF 105 mm portrait equivalent) and a perfect lens trio for me would be: 16, 35, 70.

Click to expand...

That is an appealing lens to me, too—especially at f/1.4. Its absolute aperture would be a bit bigger than the 90 (50 vs 45 mm), so I’d expect it to cost a bit more than the 90; a rough guess would be a factor of the square of the ratio of their max apertures (if the lens construction is similar), or (50/45)^2 ~ 1.23 times the price of the 90. One might hope for a 70/2 at about 60% of the price of the 90.

Digression: This price estimation method predicted the price of the 200/2 (without teleconveter) at $4700, not too far off the proffer of $6000 (with a teleconverter worth ~$500), and the IS on the 200 (which I would not want on a fast 70) accounts for part of the discrepancy, and the novel material and construction along with its niche market further contribute to the underestimation of the 200’s price.

But with the 60 and 80 (and 56 and 90) extant, and Fujifilm’s recent emphasis on zooms and GF, I don’t expect to see one soon.

I think a prime wider than 12 mm, a 135/2, and an affordable long lens like a 300/4 or 400/5.6 are more needed, but perhaps no more likely than a fast 70.

--
Chris
Selected photos at https://500px.com/ceedave
A couple of Fuji cameras and assorted X-mount and adapted primes

Vic Chapman said:

I don't find the 90mm f2 too long even for most inside shooting. It's also a natural accompaniment for the 16-55mm f2.8 as a very high quality all round shooting setup.

I use my 60mm f2.4 for street but I'm more likely to find it a little short than the 90mm too long but the 60mm is half the size of the 90mm.

Click to expand...

How do you use the 90 for street? It looks to me it'll allow me to get several shots that I wouldn't be able to take from up close.

Vic Chapman said:

Although there are some voices raised in favour of a 70mm fl, I think it unlikely that Fuji (in the near future), will add to the already crowded list of short tele primes between the current 50mm f2, 56mm f1.2, 60mm f2.4, 80mm f2.8 and 90mm f2. However, I agree that a 70mm f1.8 of good quality would be a more universal and compact portrait and street lens supplying a shallow DoF when needed.

Click to expand...

I can see what you mean by crowded, but then if Fuji is competing with the likes of Nikon and Canon to build a complete system of premium lenses, shouldn't there be space of the classic 70 mm FL prime?

As of now it's a choice between two zooms - either the good 55-200 or the excellent 50-140. The problem is the first doesn't have f2 and the second is bulky. A non OIS 70 mm FL prime could fit in nicely in this gap and give a lot of shooters great flexibility.

I wonder if there's some way to have people vote on this and take the result to Fuji )

Vic Chapman said:

Vic

Click to expand...

AMSOS said:

MarcV said:

AMSOS said:

MarcV said:

The 90mm f/2 is on top of my personal wish list. I had a rather cheap but excellent Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens back in the time I shot with my Nikon D200. It became one of my favourite lenses in no time. I currently miss this focal length as I only have the 18-55 kit lens for my XT20.

Click to expand...

That’s interesting. It looks like you used it for much more than head shoulder portraits. Can you elaborate on the kind of photography you did with the 90 mm FL? Did you also do street by any chance?

And if you were to choose between that and the 56 FL which one will you go for?

Click to expand...

I used it a lot to take close-up shots of flowers/plants and other stuff that catches my eye, and also for candid shots of people,

Click to expand...

That's really interesting. All I hear about is how you need a lot of space to use the 90. So were these candids of strangers on the street or your friends? I ask because the street is potentially an important application if I were to get this lens. You see, I really like using the 56 FL on the street and have got several nice shots with that length. The 90 will allow me to step back even more and the tighter framing will reduce the clutter of unwanted things in the frame too.

Click to expand...

The candids were from family members and friends/colleagues. But the distance needed is enough so you can point the lens at them without being noticed (that's why they are candids in the first place! )

AMSOS said:

AMSOS said:

and general short tele use. I'm not really a portret shooter. I had a nikkor 50mm f/1.4D also back then but I hardly ever used that lens, so for me the choice between the XF56mm and XF90mm is a no brainer. I actually pulled the trigger and ordered the 90mm today! ;-)

Click to expand...

One thing I can see - the love for the 90 is infectious! Just reading some of the comments here and in other posts on the 90 makes me want to get it right away ;p)

I've also wondered why Fuji doesn't release some more tele primes in this range. In particular a 70 f2 should do well. After all, the 105 was put to good use by several well-known photographers. What would convince Fuji to make as 70 f2 ? !

Click to expand...

Vic Chapman said:

"take 6 or 7 steps back and you’re good to go "

Sorry, but that is just as much trite rubbish now as it's always been.

Vic

Click to expand...

Not sure when or what you’re referring to. I haven’t posted about this before. I find it a good starting point for indoor portraiture with this lens. OP is coming from 35mm on apsc and doesn’t have a frame of reference for this lens.

Perhaps your wise and experienced but you come off as a bore.

Rail2trail said:

Vic Chapman said:

"take 6 or 7 steps back and you’re good to go "

Sorry, but that is just as much trite rubbish now as it's always been.

Vic

Click to expand...

Not sure when or what you’re referring to. I haven’t posted about this before. I find it a good starting point for indoor portraiture with this lens. OP is coming from 35mm on apsc and doesn’t have a frame of reference for this lens.

Perhaps your wise and experienced but you come off as a bore.

Click to expand...

Ahh, name calling, bravo, I'm sure you feel better.

I'm wise and experienced enough to know that changing focal lengths is not only get one closer or further away but on that point, try it at the Grand canyon or any landscape where the land changes height. Then again, go to Venice and see if you can walk forward without getting wet or back without hitting a wall. How about a city where you can't stand in the middle of the road?

Having said that - to treat different focal lengths as if the only reason or purpose for their use is to get closer or further away is simplistic in the extreme and shows a lack of knowledge and experience.

If I seem a bore it's because you're unwilling to learn.

Rubbish I said and rubbish I meant.

Vic

Try this. Mount this lens. Get a model. Stand next to model, now count the number of steps required you must walk to frame the full figure in your viewfinder. This is the scenario I responded to and you’ll find the calculus reasonably accurate.

Vic Chapman said:

Rail2trail said:

Vic Chapman said:

"take 6 or 7 steps back and you’re good to go "

Sorry, but that is just as much trite rubbish now as it's always been.

Vic

Click to expand...

Not sure when or what you’re referring to. I haven’t posted about this before. I find it a good starting point for indoor portraiture with this lens. OP is coming from 35mm on apsc and doesn’t have a frame of reference for this lens.

Perhaps your wise and experienced but you come off as a bore.

Click to expand...

Ahh, name calling, bravo, I'm sure you feel better.

I'm wise and experienced enough to know that changing focal lengths is not only get one closer or further away but on that point, try it at the Grand canyon or any landscape where the land changes height. Then again, go to Venice and see if you can walk forward without getting wet or back without hitting a wall. How about a city where you can't stand in the middle of the road?

Having said that - to treat different focal lengths as if the only reason or purpose for their use is to get closer or further away is simplistic in the extreme and shows a lack of knowledge and experience.

If I seem a bore it's because you're unwilling to learn.

Rubbish I said and rubbish I meant.

Vic

Click to expand...

Rail2trail said:

Try this. Mount this lens. Get a model. Stand next to model, now count the number of steps required you must walk to frame the full figure in your viewfinder. This is the scenario I responded to and you’ll find the calculus reasonably accurate.

Click to expand...

It doesn't require over 50 years as PRO and Am to know that the further away I get from a subject, the smaller it will appear. Your still simplistic answer shows that either you do not understand or you have discounted all other relationships between subject/background distance and focal length so here's just one example.


Short tele


Wide-ish angle

Vic

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002

Vic, you seem to be really invested in carrying on an argument. It also seems you have missed or misunderstood the query I responded to.

For clarity:

“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?”

The question is essentially, “how much space do I need to shoot a full body portrait indoors with the Fujinon 90mm?” This is the question I answered.

You’ll note the absence of concern about perspective, field of view, dof, distortion, foreground/background relationships or falling backward in to a canal. These are aspects to be decided with the lens mounted and camera in hand. .

Vic Chapman said:

Rail2trail said:

Try this. Mount this lens. Get a model. Stand next to model, now count the number of steps required you must walk to frame the full figure in your viewfinder. This is the scenario I responded to and you’ll find the calculus reasonably accurate.

Click to expand...

It doesn't require over 50 years as PRO and Am to know that the further away I get from a subject, the smaller it will appear

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, if you were a professional portrait photographer and didn’t know off the top of your head where you needed to stand in studio with a 135 mounted I would have serious concerns about your credentials.

Vic Chapman said:

. Your still simplistic answer shows that either you do not understand or you have discounted all other relationships between subject/background distance and focal length so here's just one example.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps simply that I read the question that was asked and assumed the op would decide for himself how to frame his own photographs.

There are a host of concerns that come in to play when making every photograph, obviously. However, the point of all this was to provide a frame of reference for the op.

My original post came as a direct result of using the 90mm as the op intended, indoors full length portraits. I think I’ve spent more than enough time clarifying this.

Feel free to carry on. There are many aspects of photography yet to address. Just know that you’ll be goin it alone at this point.

Vic Chapman said:

Short tele


Wide-ish angle

Vic

Click to expand...

AMSOS said:

MarcV said:

AMSOS said:

MarcV said:

The 90mm f/2 is on top of my personal wish list. I had a rather cheap but excellent Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens back in the time I shot with my Nikon D200. It became one of my favourite lenses in no time. I currently miss this focal length as I only have the 18-55 kit lens for my XT20.

Click to expand...

That’s interesting. It looks like you used it for much more than head shoulder portraits. Can you elaborate on the kind of photography you did with the 90 mm FL? Did you also do street by any chance?

And if you were to choose between that and the 56 FL which one will you go for?

Click to expand...

I used it a lot to take close-up shots of flowers/plants and other stuff that catches my eye, and also for candid shots of people,

Click to expand...

That's really interesting. All I hear about is how you need a lot of space to use the 90. So were these candids of strangers on the street or your friends? I ask because the street is potentially an important application if I were to get this lens. You see, I really like using the 56 FL on the street and have got several nice shots with that length. The 90 will allow me to step back even more and the tighter framing will reduce the clutter of unwanted things in the frame too.

Click to expand...

The 90 can be used on the street. Any lens can be used for a candid. You ability to get candid shots is more related to the photographer than the lens. If you keep the camera to you eye pointed at someone for a long duration - it won't be candid with any camera or lens.

The issue with the 90 on the street is the same issue you have with the 90 indoors - lots of space between you and the subject. It is really hard to get a shot with people walking through you sight line to your subject. At 6 to 8 steps we are talking 18 to 20 feet between you and the subject and on a moderately crowded street scene - you will miss more shots than you get as people wonder in and out of your sight line. For example in New Orleans - a great place for street shots - this lens would be a non starter on the street.

The other problem is, on the street, the photo can look like you are taking surveillance pictures for an investigator. Longer lens means less context.

This isn't quite the same, and I just snagged them from a Shutterbug vid that I remember had examples of real world framing...

Similar framing of model, way different backgrounds.

Should get idea why "moving with feet" isn't the same as lens choice.

jjz2 said:

The other problem is, on the street, the photo can look like you are taking surveillance pictures for an investigator. Longer lens means less context.

This isn't quite the same, and I just snagged them from a Shutterbug vid that I remember had examples of real world framing...

Similar framing of model, way different backgrounds.

Should get idea why "moving with feet" isn't the same as lens choice.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

The longer the lens the more axial magnification. This is often overlooked but is very important in how an image is rendered. This site is a great explanation of that




--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Truman Prevatt said:

AMSOS said:

MarcV said:

AMSOS said:

MarcV said:

The 90mm f/2 is on top of my personal wish list. I had a rather cheap but excellent Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens back in the time I shot with my Nikon D200. It became one of my favourite lenses in no time. I currently miss this focal length as I only have the 18-55 kit lens for my XT20.

Click to expand...

That’s interesting. It looks like you used it for much more than head shoulder portraits. Can you elaborate on the kind of photography you did with the 90 mm FL? Did you also do street by any chance?

And if you were to choose between that and the 56 FL which one will you go for?

Click to expand...

I used it a lot to take close-up shots of flowers/plants and other stuff that catches my eye, and also for candid shots of people,

Click to expand...

That's really interesting. All I hear about is how you need a lot of space to use the 90. So were these candids of strangers on the street or your friends? I ask because the street is potentially an important application if I were to get this lens. You see, I really like using the 56 FL on the street and have got several nice shots with that length. The 90 will allow me to step back even more and the tighter framing will reduce the clutter of unwanted things in the frame too.

Click to expand...

The 90 can be used on the street. Any lens can be used for a candid. You ability to get candid shots is more related to the photographer than the lens. If you keep the camera to you eye pointed at someone for a long duration - it won't be candid with any camera or lens.

Click to expand...

You're right. And that's one reason why I so like the Fuji f2 - 23 and 35. Other lenses may be somewhat better in terms of the technical performance, but these are discreet and small. I've often been able to bring the camera quickly up to my eye to get that candid moment.

Something like the 16-55 f2.8 of course has great IQ but then it's so conspicuous that I have stayed away from it so far.

Truman Prevatt said:

The issue with the 90 on the street is the same issue you have with the 90 indoors - lots of space between you and the subject. It is really hard to get a shot with people walking through you sight line to your subject. At 6 to 8 steps we are talking 18 to 20 feet between you and the subject and on a moderately crowded street scene - you will miss more shots than you get as people wonder in and out of your sight line. For example in New Orleans - a great place for street shots - this lens would be a non starter on the street.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see what you mean. With the 50/56 FL I am used to this was a much lesser issue. I have to say I really like that FL and find it flexible - I've used it for street and landscape, and of course portraits.

Maybe, the 55-200 is the solution? ;-)

AMSOS said:

Truman Prevatt said:

AMSOS said:

MarcV said:

AMSOS said:

MarcV said:

The 90mm f/2 is on top of my personal wish list. I had a rather cheap but excellent Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens back in the time I shot with my Nikon D200. It became one of my favourite lenses in no time. I currently miss this focal length as I only have the 18-55 kit lens for my XT20.

Click to expand...

That’s interesting. It looks like you used it for much more than head shoulder portraits. Can you elaborate on the kind of photography you did with the 90 mm FL? Did you also do street by any chance?

And if you were to choose between that and the 56 FL which one will you go for?

Click to expand...

I used it a lot to take close-up shots of flowers/plants and other stuff that catches my eye, and also for candid shots of people,

Click to expand...

That's really interesting. All I hear about is how you need a lot of space to use the 90. So were these candids of strangers on the street or your friends? I ask because the street is potentially an important application if I were to get this lens. You see, I really like using the 56 FL on the street and have got several nice shots with that length. The 90 will allow me to step back even more and the tighter framing will reduce the clutter of unwanted things in the frame too.

Click to expand...

The 90 can be used on the street. Any lens can be used for a candid. You ability to get candid shots is more related to the photographer than the lens. If you keep the camera to you eye pointed at someone for a long duration - it won't be candid with any camera or lens.

Click to expand...

You're right. And that's one reason why I so like the Fuji f2 - 23 and 35. Other lenses may be somewhat better in terms of the technical performance, but these are discreet and small. I've often been able to bring the camera quickly up to my eye to get that candid moment.

Something like the 16-55 f2.8 of course has great IQ but then it's so conspicuous that I have stayed away from it so far.

AMSOS said:

The issue with the 90 on the street is the same issue you have with the 90 indoors - lots of space between you and the subject. It is really hard to get a shot with people walking through you sight line to your subject. At 6 to 8 steps we are talking 18 to 20 feet between you and the subject and on a moderately crowded street scene - you will miss more shots than you get as people wonder in and out of your sight line. For example in New Orleans - a great place for street shots - this lens would be a non starter on the street.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see what you mean. With the 50/56 FL I am used to this was a much lesser issue. I have to say I really like that FL and find it flexible - I've used it for street and landscape, and of course portraits.

Maybe, the 55-200 is the solution? ;-)

Click to expand...

For me, the 55-200 was the second choice but I felt I would regret not going for the 90. I hardly ever need more than 90mm for my kind of shooting...