90/2.0 handheld?

stratman1976 wrote:

Jared Willson wrote:

The challenge with the ninety, especially for someone used to an 85mm on full frame, is that the focal length is just a bit too long to make it convenient. You’ll not only need a bit more working distance than with the 56, you’ll also need quite a bit higher shutter speeds —about two or three stops more between the smaller maximum aperture and the extra focal length.

If you are worried about bulk, the 56 seems like the obvious choice. If you aren’t too worried about bulk, the 50-150 would be a better solution, especially for the kids. Not practical to “zoom with your feet” when you are talking about action shots. Having OIS built in is nice, too.

I'm not worried about bulk when traveling to a destination, I have a backpack for that. It's more on day trips. I don't want to go bigger than my ThinkTank retrospective 5. So I usually bring for the day what fits in that bag. The 50-140 is just too big. The 90 would just fit.

So if the 50-140 is out, that leaves either the 90 or the 56. I find the 56 a much more convenient focal length for most subjects. Depending on how steady your hands are, assume you will need 1/125s for hand holding with the 90. That could drop to 1/60s with the 56. Add in the fact that the 56 is a stop and a half faster, and you are looking at needing to boost the ISO by, typically, 2 EV in order to use the 90mm instead of the 56.

I would say the 56mm is the better choice for your intended uses. The 90mm is optically the better lens--one of the best X-System lenses made--and the AF is faster, but that won't result in better pictures if you have motion blur or if you have to boost ISO too much, and it certainly won't result in better pictures if the focal length is just too long for your intended use. You are used to an 85mm on full frame. Stick with that unless you have a reason to change. Get the 56mm over the 90mm. Having an extra touch of micro contrast when making portraits is, frankly, not very important.