90/2.0 handheld?

Jared Willson wrote:

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.

Thanks, you make some valid points, certainly the bigger aperture will help. And I think the 56 is more versatile for my intended use, especially indoors. With the 90 I was thinking I'd have more reach so no need for more on the tele ens and relatively compact, but I rarely use >85mm on holiday or around the house. For that I have my Nikon 70-200E.

I'll test my 70-200 set at 135mm out and see what's what.

Thanks!