For those still undecided about which primes to buy... (Fujis portrait primes - comparison)

Thanks for the nice summary. also very nice photos!!!

i just purchased the XT 2 with 16, 23, 35, 56, and 90 primes. coming from the DSLR world.

excited about this system and what it has to offer.

i did not even know about the other 56. will have to check it out.

slimandy wrote:

For me the 50 is showing a little of the perspective distortion I want to avoid. The 100mm shot is about ideal, or the 70-135 range. That ties in with what I already experienced. If I had a time for portrait from Fuji it would be the 90, though I actually use a 50-140.

That said your shot above at 35mm shows you can still get an excellent portrait with good composition and lighting. I'd be happy with that result.

Thanks for your feedback! In fact I would be first in line to buy a 105mm equivalent lens as I love that focal length for portraits.

Xylence wrote:

I wrote an article on all Fuji primes that are suitable for "classic" portraiture - the 35mm, 56mm, 56mm APD and 90mm. I tell about my findings and what I decided to use in the end - from the perspective of someone who photographs weddings. For those of you who still can't decide or who are considering to try something else - chime in.

http://museandmirror.de/fineartblog/fuji-portrait-lenses-comparison-primes

Also I'd love to hear about your own experience and what you prefer.

Fujifilm 35mm 1.4

that nose hair is crying out for a Photoshop intervention

JamesF168 wrote:

Xylence wrote:

I wrote an article on all Fuji primes that are suitable for "classic" portraiture - the 35mm, 56mm, 56mm APD and 90mm. I tell about my findings and what I decided to use in the end - from the perspective of someone who photographs weddings. For those of you who still can't decide or who are considering to try something else - chime in.

http://museandmirror.de/fineartblog/fuji-portrait-lenses-comparison-primes

Also I'd love to hear about your own experience and what you prefer.

Fujifilm 35mm 1.4

that nose hair is crying out for a Photoshop intervention

Cute comment. It's a septum ring.

Powerdoc wrote:

Thanks for this test

I have already the 35 1,4

The APD seems to be a very specialised lens. The 56 1,2 is more versatile (it's a very fast lens for low light situation, like concert) and the 90 mm is the the best Fuji lens IQ wise, with fast AF , WR ..., but lack stabilisation and is only F2.

Yes, it is a back and forth when thinking about it. In fact I think the APD is superior to the 90mm in terms of pure optical quality. It is razorsharp (same as the 90), but is able to maintain a smooth background where the 90 background gets busy.
All of those lenses beautifully melt the background / foreground. I'm just talking about the toughest of situations to render a smooth background.

tonyreidsma wrote:

Very impressive essay. Thanks for posting.

Your images are wonderful to look at, and rather timely for me.

Currently I'm shooting SONY, ranging from A7, A7S, A6000, etc... with the 85 G master, along with an assortment of lenses.

Every 3 years I update my gear, and it's coming close, so I'm exploring my options, and I'm going to be getting into weddings, which is why the 85 g master....

The FUJI is very intriguing, and I love the aesthetics, but what's really drawing me to FUJI is the lens lineup. I'm really wanting a 135 prime, and I currently use a legacy 135 olympus, which is fine but I don't always have the luxury of asking people to stand still while I manually focus.

How's the EYE AF with the FUJI?

The eye AF sucks. I would just move the focus point to the eye and focus myself instead of the camera trying to figure out which eye to focus on.

Very nice article, well done.  Thank you.  I have gotten sucked into the Fuji Love thing and am building a triad of lens (other than the 2 zooms I now have) starting with the 35mm f1.4 which is a really sweet lens.  I see myself going for the 56m f1.2 and/or the 23 f1.4 or maybe the 16mm f1.4 before the current Fuji sale is over.  Since I have gotten the Fuji, I haven't touch my Canon FF stuff, don't ask me why!

slimandy wrote:

Xylence wrote:

JamesF168 wrote:

Xylence wrote:

I wrote an article on all Fuji primes that are suitable for "classic" portraiture - the 35mm, 56mm, 56mm APD and 90mm. I tell about my findings and what I decided to use in the end - from the perspective of someone who photographs weddings. For those of you who still can't decide or who are considering to try something else - chime in.

http://museandmirror.de/fineartblog/fuji-portrait-lenses-comparison-primes

Also I'd love to hear about your own experience and what you prefer.

Fujifilm 35mm 1.4

that nose hair is crying out for a Photoshop intervention

Cute comment. It's a septum ring.

t.b.f. there is an issue that some of it is lost in highlight. Or you could argue the ring is a spoiler anyway!

i wasn't being cute, it looks like 2 big black nose hairs. if the ring blown out i would edit the black bits out.

i agree - may be a ring, but looks like nose hair.

Fotoloco wrote:

i agree - may be a ring, but looks like nose hair.

I can see the ring form on my screen. Whatever

Dave Jaseck wrote:

Very nice article, well done. Thank you. I have gotten sucked into the Fuji Love thing and am building a triad of lens (other than the 2 zooms I now have) starting with the 35mm f1.4 which is a really sweet lens. I see myself going for the 56m f1.2 and/or the 23 f1.4 or maybe the 16mm f1.4 before the current Fuji sale is over. Since I have gotten the Fuji, I haven't touch my Canon FF stuff, don't ask me why!

Thanks Dave! I think that the 35mm 1.4 can do it all! Fantastic lens. I really thought about doing a wedding with a 35mm 1.4 alone. But so far I didn't dare to experiment with that.

I would surely buy one of the longer lenses, if the rest is covered with your zooms. The wide aperture in combination with a longer focal length makes the images really distinguishable (is that a word?) from the zoom lenses.

I mean one lens on a camera for a entire wedding. I left the wedding stuff decades ago, but for a long while used just a Rollieflex with a standard 75mm lens, a Graphlex strobe with a 510volt battery pack and a pocket full of 120 film, ended that phase of my life with 2 Nikon F3's with drives, 4 lenses, speedlites with quick recycle battery packs, posing stools and table, backdrop stand, backdrops, soft boxes with studio lights, stands,, umbrellas, enough extension cords to maybe go half way to the moon...already I'm tired just thinking back. But the wedding business has sure evolved in a marvelous way utilizing the technology now available. However the one lens idea is certainly an interesting one. Let us know if you ever do one OK. Here is a little show I put together for my son-in-laws son as a gift. The photographer was gracious enough to let me use her files for the show, but the point of my mentioning it at all is that checking the data, she shot the almost the entire wedding with one lens, albeit a zoom, Canon 5D III, 24 to 70mm 2.8. Here is a link to the show, if you choose to view it try full screen with sound on, about 16 minutes I recall, pretty much the sequence of the wedding went:

David and Alicia Wedding:

https://vimeo.com/147247646