Deciding which lens to buy

Hey, few weeks ago I bought 16-55, but it was damaged ( rear element was loose) and it affected sharpness and couldn't properly measure distance while focusing, so sent it back. It didn't bother me about the size and weight but having zoom lens is not my cup of tea. Now I will travel through some cities in US and was wondering which lens to buy. Right now i have only 18f2, 35f1.4 and was thinking about 56 or 90mm. I usually do some landscapes but mostly street photography. And later on thinking about doing some reportage/press projects. Which lens would best suit me? I really like the reach/sharpness and wr of 90mm, but still never used this long lens. Maybe you could help me deciding?

Thank for your answers !!

It would definitely be the 90 if it was me. I'd prefer the extra reach for portrait use and I'd also want the extra reach for candid street shots. I've got some nice shots with my 60 macro on the street but I did sometimes wish for more reach and so use a cheapo 50~230 as well. I don't have the 90 because I'm happy with the 50~140, but that's a bit big for street for my liking - a tad heavy and a bit conspicuous.

virzintas wrote:

Hey, few weeks ago I bought 16-55, but it was damaged ( rear element was loose) and it affected sharpness and couldn't properly measure distance while focusing, so sent it back. It didn't bother me about the size and weight but having zoom lens is not my cup of tea. Now I will travel through some cities in US and was wondering which lens to buy. Right now i have only 18f2, 35f1.4 and was thinking about 56 or 90mm. I usually do some landscapes but mostly street photography. And later on thinking about doing some reportage/press projects. Which lens would best suit me? I really like the reach/sharpness and wr of 90mm, but still never used this long lens. Maybe you could help me deciding?

Thank for your answers !!

To be honest, you can't go wrong with either. They're Fuji lenses after all

When you do landscapes, street and press photography though, most pictures will (usually) be in the 14-55 range, so I'm not sure if the 90mm is of great added value (even though it's a terrific lens).

In my opinion, the 56mm would best suit your current 18mm and 35mm kit.

For your purposes, don't overlook the 60mm f/2.4. It is not so long that zone focus is ruled out. Very sharp at f/5.6 and still usable at f/11, making quite a deep zone—very useful for street photography. Since it has such a great range of focus, it can take a bit longer to focus than most. With the long range, of course, comes the ability to do close-up photography. If you actually need paper thin depth of field, then the 56mm f/1.2 is the obvious choice. However, people are frequently praising the look of out-of-focus areas with the 60mm as their preference.

Since it has such a great range of focus, it can take a bit longer to focus than many lenses. With the long range, of course, comes the ability to do close-up photography. If you actually need paper thin depth of field, then the 56mm f/1.2 is the obvious choice. However, people are frequently praising the look of out-of-focus areas with the 60mm as their preference. The 60mm is roughly half the weight and just 2/3 the price.

It really depends on what you want. However, the X 90 f2 is probably the top of the Fuji line. Fully corrected corner to corner at f2. F2 is also quite fast for a lens at a 135 in a 135 from equivalent.

The 56 f1.2 is absolutely top notch fully corrected even wide open. The 35 f1.4 is a great fast lens for the street. I have those three plays the 23 f1.4 and don't see the need for anything else unless Fuji comes out with f1 lenses.

As far as landscape. It depends on the type of landscapes you take. Do you consider landscape something like wide expanses of boring scenery that goes on a postcard or the fantastic tightly composed images of Ansel Adams? Adams used a slightly longer than normal lens for most of his landscapes.

I find the 23 is about as wide as I need for landscape and tend to do a lot with the 35.

Below is a shot taken with a 127 mm on my 6x7 film camera. A 127 mm on a 6x7 is equivalent to about a 60 on a 135 format camera or 40 on an ASPC. So it all depends on what you want.

Can you wait for the new 23 F2? MUCH smaller and more portable than the current 23 and my next purchase.

Vernon Church wrote:

Can you wait for the new 23 F2? MUCH smaller and more portable than the current 23 and my next purchase.

I don't buy Nikon second tier f1.8 lenses - I buy the f1.4 lenses. Weight difference we are talking about 4 oz, about 1/3 of a small woman's Tee shirt.  Size about 1/2 inch.  The 23 f1.4 is a top of the line fully corrected lens.  The f2 version if anything like it's counter part the 35 f2 - not even close to being corrected required S/W to do it.  Take a look a photozone and see how bad the distortion really is.

If the 23 f2 does it for you - fine by me.  However, in general the fastest versions of a lens is the best design and built be it Nikon, Canon or Fuji. Of course they cost more but more often than not you get what you pay for.

To each his own.

I traded my 35 1.4 for the 2.0 and couldn't be happier.  That said I'm not a professional, pixel peeper, nor do I print to large size. I find the bokeh on the 2.0 and speed fine for my needs. I love how the tapered lens respects the OVF on the X-PRO2.

I had the current 23mm and thought it was WAY too big. For me, the beauty of a mirrorless system is the small size and hence portability. If you are using big glass, you might as well get an slr and call it a day as performance, in general, has until very recently been better.

It's kind of like buying a large screen TV. In the store you can drive yourself crazy with side by side comparisons. But once you bring it home and it's the only one you have hanging on the wall they are all mostly great. Comes down more so to what you want to spend and how heavy an object you ant hanging on your wall.

Vernon Church wrote:

To each his own.

I traded my 35 1.4 for the 2.0 and couldn't be happier. That said I'm not a professional, pixel peeper, nor do I print to large size. I find the bokeh on the 2.0 and speed fine for my needs. I love how the tapered lens respects the OVF on the X-PRO2.

I had the current 23mm and thought it was WAY too big. For me, the beauty of a mirrorless system is the small size and hence portability. If you are using big glass, you might as well get an slr and call it a day as performance, in general, has until very recently been better.

A big package is a D800 with a 70-200 f2.8 ;-)! I've spent 45 years off and on on the street with my trusty Leica and in the woods with my RB and 4x5. I know small and I like small. However, at the end of the day if the trade off for small is image quality - then small is not worth that trade.

As Ansel Adams often said - your work is just beginning after you develop the negative. In the digital world that would compare to downloading your raw file. Or to quote W. Eugene Smith.

“Negatives are the notebooks, the jottings, the false starts, the whims, the poor drafts, and the good draft but never the completed version of the work… The print and a proper one is the only completed photograph, whether it is specifically shaded for reproduction, or for a museum wall.”

In order to get the best final print - one has to start with the highest quality raw capture.

Back when I was teaching - students would often ask advice about what camera and/or lens to buy. My advice was simple.  Get the best lens you can afford and build around that. It is truly amazing given the GAS we witness today - how many photographers produce truly amazing work with a small kit of a single camera and one high quality lens.

I remember in the late '70's attending a gallery opening in Washington, DC for Robert Adams. Adams was an incredible artist that explored the Western US landscape - not like Ansel but the interface between man's impact on the land and the reaction of the land.  His "The New West" is an incredible look of the scars that man has put on the land.

Later when I lived in Colorado I had the pleasure to meet Adams again and have a long talk with him at an exhibition in Denver. I also had a few prints hanging in that gallery.

Adams only owned two lenses - a 50 f1.4 and 35 f2, both Nikon and two Nikon bodies. He also owned a Rolliflex and an 80 mm lens.  He roamed the western prairie for 45 years with a camera and two lenses and TriX.  Like W. Eugene Smith who brought us his unique perspective of the WWII - through the 50 mm lens of his Leica - Robert Adams was less concerned about gear and more concerned about his vision and passion.

If you asked either of these artist they would tell you - get the best glass you can afford and work around that. That is the reason that in the mid 1970's I spent a whole lot more money than I really should have on a Leica M6 and a the wonderful Leica Summilux 50 f1.4.  Although Leica has produced several updates of this classic lens - I would not trade my Summie in for any of them.  However, that investment of the best lens I could afford - although I couldn't really afford it at the time - was the best investment I ever made;-). Interestingly enough my Summilux weights 10 oz - the same as the X 23 f1.4.  Leica put a lot of metal in those suckers.

It's kind of like buying a large screen TV. In the store you can drive yourself crazy with side by side comparisons. But once you bring it home and it's the only one you have hanging on the wall they are all mostly great. Comes down more so to what you want to spend and how heavy an object you ant hanging on your wall.

There is a lot to be said for that.  Get what makes you happy, learn it inside and out so it can disappear between you and your subject and help you realize your vision.

Cheers,

Truman

-- hide signature --

Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

virzintas wrote:

Hey, few weeks ago I bought 16-55, but it was damaged ( rear element was loose) and it affected sharpness and couldn't properly measure distance while focusing, so sent it back. It didn't bother me about the size and weight but having zoom lens is not my cup of tea. Now I will travel through some cities in US and was wondering which lens to buy. Right now i have only 18f2, 35f1.4 and was thinking about 56 or 90mm. I usually do some landscapes but mostly street photography. And later on thinking about doing some reportage/press projects. Which lens would best suit me? I really like the reach/sharpness and wr of 90mm, but still never used this long lens. Maybe you could help me deciding?

Thank for your answers !!

For standard use the 90 is on my xpro2 80% of the time. Before I had it, it was the 50-140. I'm still looking on getting a decent wide lens for when the X-T2 arrives. I was thinking the 16, 10-24, or the 16-55 even but after what you said it kinda backs me off of that one.

uniball wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Vernon Church wrote:

To each his own.

I traded my 35 1.4 for the 2.0 and couldn't be happier. That said I'm not a professional, pixel peeper, nor do I print to large size. I find the bokeh on the 2.0 and speed fine for my needs. I love how the tapered lens respects the OVF on the X-PRO2.

I had the current 23mm and thought it was WAY too big. For me, the beauty of a mirrorless system is the small size and hence portability. If you are using big glass, you might as well get an slr and call it a day as performance, in general, has until very recently been better.

A big package is a D800 with a 70-200 f2.8 ;-)! I've spent 45 years off and on on the street with my trusty Leica and in the woods with my RB and 4x5. I know small and I like small. However, at the end of the day if the trade off for small is image quality - then small is not worth that trade.

As Ansel Adams often said - your work is just beginning after you develop the negative. In the digital world that would compare to downloading your raw file. Or to quote W. Eugene Smith.

“Negatives are the notebooks, the jottings, the false starts, the whims, the poor drafts, and the good draft but never the completed version of the work… The print and a proper one is the only completed photograph, whether it is specifically shaded for reproduction, or for a museum wall.”

In order to get the best final print - one has to start with the highest quality raw capture.

Back when I was teaching - students would often ask advice about what camera and/or lens to buy. My advice was simple. Get the best lens you can afford and build around that. It is truly amazing given the GAS we witness today - how many photographers produce truly amazing work with a small kit of a single camera and one high quality lens.

I remember in the late '70's attending a gallery opening in Washington, DC for Robert Adams. Adams was an incredible artist that explored the Western US landscape - not like Ansel but the interface between man's impact on the land and the reaction of the land. His "The New West" is an incredible look of the scars that man has put on the land.

Later when I lived in Colorado I had the pleasure to meet Adams again and have a long talk with him at an exhibition in Denver. I also had a few prints hanging in that gallery.

Adams only owned two lenses - a 50 f1.4 and 35 f2, both Nikon and two Nikon bodies. He also owned a Rolliflex and an 80 mm lens. He roamed the western prairie for 45 years with a camera and two lenses and TriX. Like W. Eugene Smith who brought us his unique perspective of the WWII - through the 50 mm lens of his Leica - Robert Adams was less concerned about gear and more concerned about his vision and passion.

If you asked either of these artist they would tell you - get the best glass you can afford and work around that. That is the reason that in the mid 1970's I spent a whole lot more money than I really should have on a Leica M6 and a the wonderful Leica Summilux 50 f1.4. Although Leica has produced several updates of this classic lens - I would not trade my Summie in for any of them. However, that investment of the best lens I could afford - although I couldn't really afford it at the time - was the best investment I ever made;-). Interestingly enough my Summilux weights 10 oz - the same as the X 23 f1.4. Leica put a lot of metal in those suckers.

It's kind of like buying a large screen TV. In the store you can drive yourself crazy with side by side comparisons. But once you bring it home and it's the only one you have hanging on the wall they are all mostly great. Comes down more so to what you want to spend and how heavy an object you ant hanging on your wall.

There is a lot to be said for that. Get what makes you happy, learn it inside and out so it can disappear between you and your subject and help you realize your vision.

Cheers,

Truman

Yet you choose the Nikon 50/1.4 and don't consider the 1.8 version. The latter happens to out resolve the 1.4. Pretty well established knowledge. Pardon me if I see a lapse in credibility here.

35 years shooting Nikon up to a D800.

And you know which version of the 50 I have? I actually don't use a Nikon 50 any longer - haven't basically since I got my Leica M6 in the mid 70's.  If I shoot 50 I shoot my Leica and now the Pro2. So I haven't kept up on the ramblings of Nikon's normal primes. I pretty much gave up on Nikon when I got my Mamiya 645 - much preferring that and the format size to the Nikon.  But in the 70's and 80's Nikon prided itself in high end fast glass. At some point they stopped improving their primes concentrating on their zooms. The only Nikon lens I really use any longer is an is the 180 AFD - a fine lens with one wart, the 70-200 f4 VR4 and the 24-70 (Tamron) which is pretty much marginal - although better than the Nikon version I tried and of course the wonderful 135 f2 DC.  In reality since I got the Pro2, my Nikon D800E has been sitting on the shelf.  I don't even use it at the Track any longer - although I probably will from time to time.  The Pro 2 with the 90 does a great job on gallop horses.

I did borrow a 50 f1.8 back early on when it came out and and wasn't impressed.  It was cheaply made and worthless wide open.

BTW photozone doesn't have as high a regard for the 50 f1.8 as you seem to have.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/623-nikkorafd5018ff?start=2

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/442-nikkorafd5014ff?start=2

Actually photozone doesn't really like either of the AFD versions and not much more impressed with the AFG versions.

-- hide signature --

Fuji XP1, XE2, XF-16, 18, 23, 27, 35/1.4, 60, XC16-50

In regards to your questions about the 90mm, it's an absolutely awesome lens. It really does produce jaw dropping IQ and is arguably Fuji's best lens.....which is why I thought I just had to have it. Now that I've shot with it for awhile I'm realizing what a specialty lens it really is. If you do a lot of fairly tight portrait work, especially well lit portrait work, then this is the lens for you. If I shot a lot of portraits in a studio with good lighting or even senior pics on bright afternoons then I would get a lot of use out of this lens.

However, at 90mm with no OIS, if you're going to hand hold, you need to shoot this lens at a SS of at least 1/180s to get good sharp shots. It get's more consistent at 1/250s or better yet 1/500s. So, even though it's pretty fast at f/2, you often need that wide aperture to keep SS up. So, if you're used to shooting street photography at f/5.6 or f/8 for decent depth of field, don't assume you're going to go into dimly lit areas and shoot at that aperture and still get good sharpness handholding a 90mm lens. You might have the technique to do it, but it's tricky.

Given all of the above, I purchased the OIS 50-140mm and am selling the 90mm, but that's really just about my personal needs and preferences. The 90mm is a fantastic lens on it's own terms, just know what it's going to be used for.

Ambulater wrote:

In regards to your questions about the 90mm, it's an absolutely awesome lens. It really does produce jaw dropping IQ and is arguably Fuji's best lens.....which is why I thought I just had to have it. Now that I've shot with it for awhile I'm realizing what a specialty lens it really is. If you do a lot of fairly tight portrait work, especially well lit portrait work, then this is the lens for you. If I shot a lot of portraits in a studio with good lighting or even senior pics on bright afternoons then I would get a lot of use out of this lens.

However, at 90mm with no OIS, if you're going to hand hold, you need to shoot this lens at a SS of at least 1/180s to get good sharp shots. It get's more consistent at 1/250s or better yet 1/500s. So, even though it's pretty fast at f/2, you often need that wide aperture to keep SS up. So, if you're used to shooting street photography at f/5.6 or f/8 for decent depth of field, don't assume you're going to go into dimly lit areas and shoot at that aperture and still get good sharpness handholding a 90mm lens. You might have the technique to do it, but it's tricky.

Given all of the above, I purchased the OIS 50-140mm and am selling the 90mm, but that's really just about my personal needs and preferences. The 90mm is a fantastic lens on it's own terms, just know what it's going to be used for.

The 90 is by far the best lens in the Fuji stable. However if are having to shoot at 1/250, then maybe you need some practice. This lens is not only good for portraits it works for all tightly composed compositions including street and even landscapes.

A typical racehorse is traveling between 35 to 40 mph these were no exceptions. No problem shooting them at 1/500. However I know how to work and move the camera to pull it off.  A lot comes with practice.

The 90 could use IS - many woul appreciate it. However, if the OIS version was not as optically good as the current version -I'll pass.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-35mm-f1-4-vs-fuji-35mm-f2/

Kali108 wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Ambulater wrote:

In regards to your questions about the 90mm, it's an absolutely awesome lens. It really does produce jaw dropping IQ and is arguably Fuji's best lens.....which is why I thought I just had to have it. Now that I've shot with it for awhile I'm realizing what a specialty lens it really is. If you do a lot of fairly tight portrait work, especially well lit portrait work, then this is the lens for you. If I shot a lot of portraits in a studio with good lighting or even senior pics on bright afternoons then I would get a lot of use out of this lens.

However, at 90mm with no OIS, if you're going to hand hold, you need to shoot this lens at a SS of at least 1/180s to get good sharp shots. It get's more consistent at 1/250s or better yet 1/500s. So, even though it's pretty fast at f/2, you often need that wide aperture to keep SS up. So, if you're used to shooting street photography at f/5.6 or f/8 for decent depth of field, don't assume you're going to go into dimly lit areas and shoot at that aperture and still get good sharpness handholding a 90mm lens. You might have the technique to do it, but it's tricky.

Given all of the above, I purchased the OIS 50-140mm and am selling the 90mm, but that's really just about my personal needs and preferences. The 90mm is a fantastic lens on it's own terms, just know what it's going to be used for.

The 90 is by far the best lens in the Fuji stable. However if are having to shoot at 1/250, then maybe you need some practice. This lens is not only good for portraits it works for all tightly composed compositions including street and even landscapes.

A typical racehorse is traveling between 35 to 40 mph these were no exceptions. No problem shooting them at 1/500. However I know how to work and move the camera to pull it off. A lot comes with practice.

The 90 could use IS - many woul appreciate it. However, if the OIS version was not as optically good as the current version -I'll pass.

While you may be that rare bird with vise like hands....MOST will find 1/250 to be the minimum SS for reliably sharp images.

If you can't hand hold this lens at 1/250 I would suggest taking shooting (hand gun) lessons. Shooting this lens at 1/100 is no different than hand hold a FF 50 or ASPC 35 at 1/30. You should be able to do both although that is probably the limit.

Shooting a camera is identical to shooting a hand gun. Some can't even hit the target but many can put a very small pattern in the center of the target. With developing the right technique most people can learn to do a decent job hitting the target.  It is all in the technique to insure your body and hands are quiet when you pull the trigger. It's a function of concentration and practice.

A OIS only buys you a couple of stops - it doesn't solve the underlying problem. It means in the hand gun analogy means you only miss the target by a little maybe even hitting it once - instead of completely missing it.

In reality it is not "vise like hands" it is relaxed hands and upper body with synchronized breathing. Most of the time camera shake comes from people tensing up right before the shot. And you don't "press the shutter" no more than you "pull the trigger." You lightly squeeze both.

Below the first one is Nikon D800E with 180 AFD 2.8 shot at 1/150 second. The second is D800E with Tamron 24-70 f2.8 (with VR off) at 56 mm and 1/30 seconds.  It is easily doable - with the right technique.