XF90mm or 80mm Macro?

roytempest · Oct 29, 2018

Both of these seem to be excellent lenses, but I am keen to hear from anyone who owns both or who made a decision to buy one over the other.

In the old days of Canon shooting, I had the 100mm Macro 2.8, which I used mainly for actual macro photography and occasionally for portraits.

Since making the switch to Fuji I sometimes miss the macro lens, but these days have less free time and tend to take mostly family photos/portraits.

So, knowing that it would be most likely 80% used for family shooting (though it would be nice to do some macro photography), which would be the better choice?

Considerations:

- How much bigger is the 80mm than the 90mm?

- How much nicer is the bokeh on the 90mm than the 80mm?

- Are the assumptions that underpin these questions even correct?

- Anything else to consider?

Cheers

biza43 · Oct 29, 2018

If you plan to shoot (any) macro, the choice is obvious.

Advent1sam · Oct 29, 2018

roytempest said:
Both of these seem to be excellent lenses, but I am keen to hear from anyone who owns both or who made a decision to buy one over the other.

In the old days of Canon shooting, I had the 100mm Macro 2.8, which I used mainly for actual macro photography and occasionally for portraits.

Since making the switch to Fuji I sometimes miss the macro lens, but these days have less free time and tend to take mostly family photos/portraits.

So, knowing that it would be most likely 80% used for family shooting (though it would be nice to do some macro photography), which would be the better choice?

Considerations:

- How much bigger is the 80mm than the 90mm?

- How much nicer is the bokeh on the 90mm than the 80mm?

- Are the assumptions that underpin these questions even correct?

- Anything else to consider?

Cheers

I think this might help

Fujifilm XF 80mm f/2.8 vs 90mm f/2 – The complete comparison - Mirrorless Comparison

If you are a photographer whose affection is torn between portraits and macro, I can bet you’ve asked yourself at some point: does it make more sense to use a single macro lens for both portraits and macro work, or invest in a dedicated portrait lens? On one hand, macro ... Read more

mirrorlesscomparison.com

I am planning on the 80mm as it has ois and takes the 1.4xtc too, so its a 115 f4 macro too, nice and ois, even nicer. The bokeh looks better on the 90mm though, but I have the 56 1.2 already and the macro lens is what I want anyway, so for me the 80mm is the way to go

Morris0 · Oct 29, 2018

You might want too add the 90mm + extension tube to your options

Morris

JayPhizzt · Oct 29, 2018

roytempest said:
Both of these seem to be excellent lenses, but I am keen to hear from anyone who owns both or who made a decision to buy one over the other.

In the old days of Canon shooting, I had the 100mm Macro 2.8, which I used mainly for actual macro photography and occasionally for portraits.

Since making the switch to Fuji I sometimes miss the macro lens, but these days have less free time and tend to take mostly family photos/portraits.

So, knowing that it would be most likely 80% used for family shooting (though it would be nice to do some macro photography), which would be the better choice?

Considerations:

- How much bigger is the 80mm than the 90mm?

- How much nicer is the bokeh on the 90mm than the 80mm?

- Are the assumptions that underpin these questions even correct?

- Anything else to consider?

Cheers

I haven't tested the 90mm, but I have the 80mm macro and it's the best lens I've ever owned and used. Extremely sharp, super high contrast and a beautiful bokeh. Add to that fast AF, great OIS, weather sealing and of course Fuji's typical sturdy build quality

The only minor downside I feel is the weight. I would have preferred it to have been 150-200g lighter.

What makes you think the bokeh is nicer on the 90mm? The look of the bokeh is quite subjective anyway. I love the bokeh on the 80mm, but the 90mm seems to have a really nice one as well

roytempest · Oct 29, 2018

Advent1sam said:
roytempest said:

Both of these seem to be excellent lenses, but I am keen to hear from anyone who owns both or who made a decision to buy one over the other.

In the old days of Canon shooting, I had the 100mm Macro 2.8, which I used mainly for actual macro photography and occasionally for portraits.

Since making the switch to Fuji I sometimes miss the macro lens, but these days have less free time and tend to take mostly family photos/portraits.

So, knowing that it would be most likely 80% used for family shooting (though it would be nice to do some macro photography), which would be the better choice?

Considerations:

- How much bigger is the 80mm than the 90mm?

- How much nicer is the bokeh on the 90mm than the 80mm?

- Are the assumptions that underpin these questions even correct?

- Anything else to consider?

Cheers

Click to expand...

I think this might help

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/

I am planning on the 80mm as it has ois and takes the 1.4xtc too, so its a 115 f4 macro too, nice and ois, even nicer. The bokeh looks better on the 90mm though, but I have the 56 1.2 already and the macro lens is what I want anyway, so for me the 80mm is the way to go

Thanks - that link is really useful!

I too have the 56, so the 80mm could indeed be the way to go.

cilucia · Oct 29, 2018

compared to the 80mm which has more of a cateye or swirly looking bokeh wide open

I think the comparison link someone else posted shows the difference. When you see the 80mm bokeh, it looks nice, but then compared to the 90mm it’s definitely better.

OP, I chose the 90 over the 80 because the 90 is already quite large to me (and looks bigger with the hood as well!) and I am just photographing my son (and no time for macro fun shots anyway). I do have a macro extension tube but haven’t actually tried it with the 90 yet (I think I have the 16 tube so total mag is about 0.4x with the 90mm lense)

JayPhizzt · Oct 29, 2018

cilucia said:
compared to the 80mm which has more of a cateye or swirly looking bokeh wide open

I think the comparison link someone else posted shows the difference. When you see the 80mm bokeh, it looks nice, but then compared to the 90mm it’s definitely better.

OP, I chose the 90 over the 80 because the 90 is already quite large to me (and looks bigger with the hood as well!) and I am just photographing my son (and no time for macro fun shots anyway). I do have a macro extension tube but haven’t actually tried it with the 90 yet (I think I have the 16 tube so total mag is about 0.4x with the 90mm lense)

Personally I like the swirly bokeh

You basically only get it wide open, though.

I LOVE the bokeh on the 80mm, but if I weren't shooting macro I'd probably go with the 90mm instead. You have to keep in mind that depth of field is also determined by distance and when shooting at short distances you get a very shallow depth of field so you usually use smaller apertures anyway. If you never shoot at such short distances however the 90mm might be the way to go.

Gibbosa · Oct 29, 2018

Morris, I trust that the OP will allow an adjunct question in the post? You suggest extension tubes for the 90mm - which I happen to own. As I understand it, Fuji does an 11mm and a 16mm. Are these like extenders: the bigger the number, the more image degradation?

My mercenary query is because I need to replace a Nikon 105mm 2.8 in the armoury - in your opinion, would a 90mm + either of the Fuji extension tubes do the trick?

Mods - Jerry-Astro, Bobs-Your-Uncle - if you think I'm hijacking the the thread, please say and I'll re-post a fresh thread.

Best to all.

Chris

stevo23 · Oct 29, 2018

roytempest said:
Advent1sam said:

roytempest said:

Both of these seem to be excellent lenses, but I am keen to hear from anyone who owns both or who made a decision to buy one over the other.

In the old days of Canon shooting, I had the 100mm Macro 2.8, which I used mainly for actual macro photography and occasionally for portraits.

Since making the switch to Fuji I sometimes miss the macro lens, but these days have less free time and tend to take mostly family photos/portraits.

So, knowing that it would be most likely 80% used for family shooting (though it would be nice to do some macro photography), which would be the better choice?

Considerations:

- How much bigger is the 80mm than the 90mm?

- How much nicer is the bokeh on the 90mm than the 80mm?

- Are the assumptions that underpin these questions even correct?

- Anything else to consider?

Cheers

Click to expand...

I think this might help

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/

I am planning on the 80mm as it has ois and takes the 1.4xtc too, so its a 115 f4 macro too, nice and ois, even nicer. The bokeh looks better on the 90mm though, but I have the 56 1.2 already and the macro lens is what I want anyway, so for me the 80mm is the way to go

Click to expand...

Thanks - that link is really useful!

I too have the 56, so the 80mm could indeed be the way to go.

If I were facing this choice, 80mm all the way. When I bought my 90mm, I also bought the 60mm and I love them both.

But having the 80mm that is also a macro lens would not only cover for two lenses, I think the macro shots from the 80mm look fantastic. This being said, the 60mm is a great little lens that isn't very large and the 90mm is extraordinary. But the 80mm would still be my choice today.

I've just described three excellent lenses, so you're really just choosing between excellent number one and excellent number 2.

rwbaron · Oct 29, 2018

Advent1sam said:
roytempest said:

Both of these seem to be excellent lenses, but I am keen to hear from anyone who owns both or who made a decision to buy one over the other.

In the old days of Canon shooting, I had the 100mm Macro 2.8, which I used mainly for actual macro photography and occasionally for portraits.

Since making the switch to Fuji I sometimes miss the macro lens, but these days have less free time and tend to take mostly family photos/portraits.

So, knowing that it would be most likely 80% used for family shooting (though it would be nice to do some macro photography), which would be the better choice?

Considerations:

- How much bigger is the 80mm than the 90mm?

- How much nicer is the bokeh on the 90mm than the 80mm?

- Are the assumptions that underpin these questions even correct?

- Anything else to consider?

Cheers

Click to expand...

I think this might help

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/

I am planning on the 80mm as it has ois and takes the 1.4xtc too, so its a 115 f4 macro too, nice and ois, even nicer. The bokeh looks better on the 90mm though, but I have the 56 1.2 already and the macro lens is what I want anyway, so for me the 80mm is the way to go

Good comparison article and thanks as I too have been contemplating buying either the 80 or 90. I had the Canon 100f2.8 macro but didn't do much with it mostly because it didn't have IS so it required a tripod for serious macro work. Having OIS the 80 would be much simpler to use and work with as I don't have an X-H1. I like the fact that the 80 has the 9 circular blades as I see the shape of the 90's rounded aperture from f4 on in the OOF specular highlights in the sample photos. I have the 56 but almost never shoot below f2 as the DoF is just too shallow for most any subject and my guess is I'd rarely shoot the 90 at f2 for the same reason so I like that the 80 is better at f2.8 and 4 than the 90 for close to mid distance work.

Decisions, decisions but I always keep mindful that these are first World problems.

Bob

KirkV · Oct 29, 2018

roytempest said:
- Anything else to consider?

Cheers

Hello,

I own both lenses. Depending on your macro needs you can use the extension tubes on the 90mm and do some level of macro (not sure if you can get 1:1). The links below are some good references.

Fuji XF90mm f2 + MCEX tubes, still good? - http://jasonpitcher.com

Want to know what the XF 90mm does with extension tubes? This post looks at the Fuji extension tubes on the XF90mm with the X-Pro1.

jasonpitcher.com

Macro Photography with the XF 90mm F2 & MCEX-11

Let’s make it clear: macro is not our long suit, neither it is our favourite genre of photography. However, given that we got our hands on the Fujifilm’s Macro Extension Tube, MCEX-11, we decided t…

olafphotoblog.com

Please note the Jason Pitcher website was down when I posted this, but if it comes back up his article includes results when you stack the mcex-11 and mcex-16 at the same time.

Kirk

cilucia · Oct 29, 2018

probably because 1.2 on the 56 is more shallow than 2.0 on the 90? (I’ve always wondered how you compare the shallowness of DOF at different FL; there’s probably some technical way that I’m way too an amateur to understand)

here’s a pic of my son on the 90 wide open that I seem to post all the time here!

I love the 90mm almost as much as I love my son

or maybe I just love the lens because it gets me lovely pics of the kiddo!

--

Daughter Lao Ye

an Opinionated Homebody

www.daughterlaoye.com

stevo23 · Oct 29, 2018

cilucia said:
probably because 1.2 on the 56 is more shallow than 2.0 on the 90? (I’ve always wondered how you compare the shallowness of DOF at different FL; there’s probably some technical way that I’m way too an amateur to understand)

here’s a pic of my son on the 90 wide open that I seem to post all the time here!

I love the 90mm almost as much as I love my son or maybe I just love the lens because it gets me lovely pics of the kiddo!

With most lenses, I tend to shoot stopped down a bit to eliminate aberrations and it's a compromise. But for the 90mm, I only shoot based on the DOF I desire. Wide open is not an issue with this lens!

rwbaron · Oct 29, 2018

cilucia said:
probably because 1.2 on the 56 is more shallow than 2.0 on the 90?

Yes you are correct but they're both still quite shallow. Moving the camera to provide the same relative subject size in the frame yields for the 90 @15 feet f2 0.66 feet and for the 56 @8 feet f1.2 0.29 feet or about half the DoF. The very nice pic of your son is straight on and not a tight shot of his face where in my experience the DoF at f2 would be too shallow to have all his features in focus.

I also concur with Steve23 and typically like to shoot slightly stopped down to eliminate aberrations and get the lens into it's sharpest aperture.

cilucia said:
(I’ve always wondered how you compare the shallowness of DOF at different FL; there’s probably some technical way that I’m way too an amateur to understand)

It's quite simple actually by using the comparator on this site.

cilucia said:
here’s a pic of my son on the 90 wide open that I seem to post all the time here!

I love the 90mm almost as much as I love my son or maybe I just love the lens because it gets me lovely pics of the kiddo!

--

Galleries by Robert W. Baron

www.pbase.com

cilucia · Oct 29, 2018

Thanks for the link!

Morris0 · Oct 29, 2018

Gibbosa said:
Morris, I trust that the OP will allow an adjunct question in the post? You suggest extension tubes for the 90mm - which I happen to own. As I understand it, Fuji does an 11mm and a 16mm. Are these like extenders: the bigger the number, the more image degradation?

My mercenary query is because I need to replace a Nikon 105mm 2.8 in the armoury - in your opinion, would a 90mm + either of the Fuji extension tubes do the trick?

Mods - Jerry-Astro, Bobs-Your-Uncle - if you think I'm hijacking the the thread, please say and I'll re-post a fresh thread.

Best to all.

Chris

An extension tube has no glass and simply lets the lens focus closer. This could result in some distortion in the corners yet likely not be noticeable. As it sounds like OP wants to do mostly portrays, then the 90 might provide a more pleasing look and the tube macro distance focusing. I don't have experience with these lenses yet plenty of experience using tubes on other systems.

A teleconference is a totally different device. It includes glass lenses that magnify the image and will have some effect on IQ though quality ones on quality lenses can produce great results.

Morris

roytempest · Oct 30, 2018

cilucia said:
probably because 1.2 on the 56 is more shallow than 2.0 on the 90? (I’ve always wondered how you compare the shallowness of DOF at different FL; there’s probably some technical way that I’m way too an amateur to understand)

here’s a pic of my son on the 90 wide open that I seem to post all the time here!

I love the 90mm almost as much as I love my son or maybe I just love the lens because it gets me lovely pics of the kiddo!

Great shot - and this really shows the "pop" you can get from it... thanks for sharing.

ViMa · Oct 30, 2018

The 80mm looks sexy AF with it's OIS and focus limiter. Having said that, unless you really want to do a lot of macro, the 90mm is probably going to be the best option. It's smaller, lighter and unless you only take pictures in a studio, the weight and size difference are going to matter.

I very recetnly just got an XF60mm with the extension tubes to try out macro photography. Unless I end up becoming a dedicated macro photographer, my next lens is going to be the 90mm.

Truman Prevatt · Oct 30, 2018

roytempest said:
Both of these seem to be excellent lenses, but I am keen to hear from anyone who owns both or who made a decision to buy one over the other.

In the old days of Canon shooting, I had the 100mm Macro 2.8, which I used mainly for actual macro photography and occasionally for portraits.

Since making the switch to Fuji I sometimes miss the macro lens, but these days have less free time and tend to take mostly family photos/portraits.

roytempest said:
So, knowing that it would be most likely 80% used for family shooting (though it would be nice to do some macro photography), which would be the better choice?

I had the Nikon 105 f2.8 macro. Since I wasn't all that interested in macro - I soon traded it in for the Nikon 105 f2 DC. The non-macro had more pleasing rendering and it was a stop faster. I don't think you can beat the Fuji 90 for its ability to isolate and it's rendering. Secondly it is a stop faster than the 80. You can check the weight and size in on B&H. However, the 90 is not a large lens for the equivalent focal length.

So it gets down to how important macro us to you and only you can answer that.

roytempest said:
Considerations:

- How much bigger is the 80mm than the 90mm?

- How much nicer is the bokeh on the 90mm than the 80mm?

- Are the assumptions that underpin these questions even correct?

- Anything else to consider?

Cheers

XF90mm or 80mm Macro?

Active member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Active member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts