56mm or 90mm ?

RogueOne wrote:

I've always eyed the 56mm f/1.2 and have expected to get it for my collection. However, recently I have been comparing the 90mm f/2 as well. I currently own the XF 50mm f/2. So my debate was if the 56mm would really benefit me, since I have a very similar focal length. Yes I know the rendering of the 56mm is different than the 50, but I'm not sure if it will be a big enough difference.

I really want a outstanding portrait lens. I don't expect to use it in inclement weather, so lack of WR on the 56mm isn't a big deal. And I'm not expecting to use it for fast moving subjects, so lesser focus speed on the 56 and my X-T2 also isn't a big issue.

I don't have a studio, so I don't expect to be doing many indoor/studio shots. I expect to be outdoors mostly when using it, so that would allow for the length of the 90mm.

So can anyone provide thoughts that have used, or own both lenses? I really enjoy the rendering on both of them. I am looking at used prices on MPB for the lenses, so they are really both in the same range.

I plan to pair either lens with my XF 35 f/1.4 if I need an 'environmental' portrait.

A couple of further points having reflected on some replies since my own - most of which I agree with.

The 50 is not the 56 and from what I have seen/read both render images quite differently. That said (and as others have mentioned) it depends what sort of rendering you are looking for. I still stand by the comment about keeping the 50 - it's just such a versatile little lens and will cover almost all eventualities including portrait shots in a pinch.

I would much prefer to combine it with the 90 - which is what I have been doing for the past 18 months or so. As I said I just wasn't getting the use out of the 90 any more.

To echo an above comment, the 90 is the only lens I've used on Fujifilm that can replicate that magical 70-200 f2.8 full frame look, without a doubt. So if that sort of compression is something you are thinking about then it's got you covered.

One thing I overlooked from your original post was your 35 f1.4. For me that is 'close enough' to 50ish (I emphaises for me). I had a 35mm but sold it after I bought the 50mm as I preferred the 50 and saw little to no benefit having the 35 also. I would caveat this by saying that I do have the Viltrox 23 f.14 which takes care of all my indoor portrait/family shots which again left the 35 surplus to requirements.

Bottom line I guess,I think 35,50 and 90 are an excellent prime lineup. The 90mm f2 is (for me) the absolute pick of the bunch. As long as you think you will get the use out of that focal length then it would be a superb pick.