Fujifilm 23f/1.4 and 90f/2 vs Canon 35f/1,4L II and 135f/2L, has anyone shot with both alternatives?

Hi,

I wish to add two fast primes to my 6D tree zooms kit. My priority is getting the best possible shots of my family activities, kid sports, people photography, at home, on shorter trips and longer vacations.

I was planning to buy a Canon 35f/1.4L II and a 135f/2L early spring next year to complement my three zooms but one Fujifilm option costing more or less the same money, is to buy a Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 and 23f/1.4 + 90f/2.

Option 1: Canon 6D, 16-35f4L IS, 24-70f/2.8L, 70-200f/4L IS adding a Canon 35f/1.4L II and 135f/2L.

Option 2: Canon 6D, 16-35f4L IS, 24-70f/2.8L, 70-200f/4L IS adding a Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 and 23f/1.4 + 90f/2.

Other than the obvious size, weight and dof FF/APS-C differences, how do these two Fujifilm and Canon fast primes compare optically when used wide open? Contrast, resolution, bokeh, CA?

I am very attracted by the smaller size, lighter weight and especially the traditional direct controls on X-Pro2 and X-T2 and the aperture ring on the Fujifilm lenses.

I mostly shoot manually, most often with my lenses wide open. The rendering, resolution, IQ, coma and CA of the lenses when used wide open are the most important factors for me. Shooting two systems is not a problem, I have done this many times.

Option 1, or option 2 and why?

/Pierre

Hi,

I shot the 35L and 135L and loved them both but there is one thing to consider. Fuji AF might be slower but it is much more reliable. You can shoot lenses wide open without hit and miss.

You loose a little "DOF play" but it should still be fine. The 35L I shot mostly at F2 anyway to increase sharpness, gain some DOF and reduce the risk of missing focus. The 135L on the other hand was really amazing at f2 for distance shots. For tight head shots I stopped it down to f2.8 or even better to f4 to have both eyes and the nose in focus.

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

I shot the 35L and 135L and loved them both but there is one thing to consider. Fuji AF might be slower but it is much more reliable. You can shoot lenses wide open without hit and miss.

You loose a little "DOF play" but it should still be fine. The 35L I shot mostly at F2 anyway to increase sharpness, gain some DOF and reduce the risk of missing focus. The 135L on the other hand was really amazing at f2 for distance shots. For tight head shots I stopped it down to f2.8 or even better to f4 to have both eyes and the nose in focus.

Thanks Joachim,

I have owned the old 35L, bokeh was very good but it was only really sharp in the center used wide open. Sadly the old 35L had to much CA and also very strong Coma smeared stars and city lights really badly so I sold it. Have you used the 35L II?

I regret selling the 135L f/2, I was really planning to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the faster 2.8L IS II version but I still have my trusty smaller, half weight and very sharp 70-200f/4L IS. I bring it everywhere and it is my second most used lens after my 24-70f/2.8L II.

/Pierre

statetaxman wrote:

Agree with Joachim's comments above. The Fuji AF is generally more accurate for me, although in really low light the 6D's ability to lock focus is remarkable using center point.

If travel is emphasized, the smaller size of my XPro2 kit is a huge advantage.

The only other comment I'd make is having moved recently from the 35L V1 to the V2, the updated 35L is amazing. Noticeably better than the V1 and frankly crushes the 23mm 1.4 (which I really do like and is generally glued to the XPro2).

I'm in the process of moving from Canon to Fuji at the current rate. Down to only 2 Canon lens that I find hard to give up - 35L ii and the 70-200 2.8 ii. Otherwise I love the Fuji kit for its combination of size, IQ, user experience etc. Just a lot more 'fun' of a kit to use for me. Do you lose some DOF and noise control vs FF - yes. Has it impacted my admittedly amateur/enthusiast photography - no.

Thanks statetaxman!

Wow, what is the most important ways you find the Canon 35L II is so much better that it "crushes" the Fujifilm 23f/1.4 R?

I have not found any direct comparisons on the net. Have you any photos to share comparing these lenses?

If I buy a X-Pro2 and 23f/1.4 and perhaps one more fast prime, my plan for it, is to complement my 6D and my trusty zooms.

/Pierre

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Hi,

I wish to add two fast primes to my 6D tree zooms kit. My priority is getting the best possible shots of my family activities, kid sports, people photography, at home, on shorter trips and longer vacations.

I was planning to buy a Canon 35f/1.4L II and a 135f/2L early spring next year to complement my three zooms but one Fujifilm option costing more or less the same money, is to buy a Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 and 23f/1.4 + 90f/2.

Option 1: Canon 6D, 16-35f4L IS, 24-70f/2.8L, 70-200f/4L IS adding a Canon 35f/1.4L II and 135f/2L.

Option 2: Canon 6D, 16-35f4L IS, 24-70f/2.8L, 70-200f/4L IS adding a Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 and 23f/1.4 + 90f/2.

Other than the obvious size, weight and dof FF/APS-C differences, how do these two Fujifilm and Canon fast primes compare optically when used wide open? Contrast, resolution, bokeh, CA?

I am very attracted by the smaller size, lighter weight and especially the traditional direct controls on X-Pro2 and X-T2 and the aperture ring on the Fujifilm lenses.

I mostly shoot manually, most often with my lenses wide open. The rendering, resolution, IQ, coma and CA of the lenses when used wide open are the most important factors for me. Shooting two systems is not a problem, I have done this many times.

Option 1, or option 2 and why?

/Pierre

You have the classic decision that most of us have already made. That is switching from Canon or Nikon Full Frame DSLR to Fuji. That decision should not be based on comparing a couple of lenses. It is a huge system change in size, weight, form and feel across the board.

The Fuji lenses are better than L across the whole lineup. The 90 especially. I have all the lenses you mention -- both Canon and Fuji.  I have not conducted a scientific comparison but I like the Fuji glass much better for many reasons.  Fuji glass is King.  But Canon L is very good too.  It is a system decision, not a lens decision.

Again, your decision should not be made on quality comparison between just these lenses, but the wide open quality of the Fuji lenses are as good or probably better than the Ls.  This is a huge system decision, lenses included.  Fuji changes your photography experience entirely.  In my opinion, and others on this forum, change to Fuji and you will not be sorry.

You may not think shooting two systems is a problem now, but just wait until you start buying every Fuji lens after you are hooked. You might not think that way for very long. Like with me, your Canon will sit on the shelf.  My 5D III and ten big L lenses sit there gathering dust in the closet while I carry my Fuji XT-2 everywhere in my sexy little Domke F803 bag.

Also, I forgot to mention, you will not miss the Canon (or Nikon) Full Frame sensor when you switch to the Fuji XT-2 and its wonderful APS-C, which hits the sweet spot and allows the Fuji to be what it is in terms of size, weight and overall ergo.  That is the most important thing about Fuji.  That is what you will love the most when you switch.

Get the Fuji XT-2 and 18-55, 16, 90, 23, 35, 56, 10-24, and the 50-140.....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

I shot the 35L and 135L and loved them both but there is one thing to consider. Fuji AF might be slower but it is much more reliable. You can shoot lenses wide open without hit and miss.

You loose a little "DOF play" but it should still be fine. The 35L I shot mostly at F2 anyway to increase sharpness, gain some DOF and reduce the risk of missing focus. The 135L on the other hand was really amazing at f2 for distance shots. For tight head shots I stopped it down to f2.8 or even better to f4 to have both eyes and the nose in focus.

Thanks Joachim,

I have owned the old 35L, bokeh was very good but it was only really sharp in the center used wide open. Sadly the old 35L had to much CA and also very strong Coma smeared stars and city lights really badly so I sold it. Have you used the 35L II?

I regret selling the 135L f/2, I was really planning to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the faster 2.8L IS II version but I still have my trusty smaller, half weight and very sharp 70-200f/4L IS. I bring it everywhere and it is my second most used lens after my 24-70f/2.8L II.

/Pierre

You are welcome. I never shot the 35L II. I had both the 70-200/4 and the 70-200/2.8 II which is a fantastic lens but big and heavy. It is great bot still no substitute for the 135L.

But now I changed completely to Fuji X since my focus is on traveling and I don't want to burden myself down with heavy gear. The Fuji X is a elegant and light solution and real world image quality is the same.

I would definitely look into the Fuji for face detection/eye focus alone and the trusty contrast AF. Makes things to much easier compared to shooting fast primes on a DSLR.

Greg7579 wrote:

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Hi,

I wish to add two fast primes to my 6D tree zooms kit. My priority is getting the best possible shots of my family activities, kid sports, people photography, at home, on shorter trips and longer vacations.

I was planning to buy a Canon 35f/1.4L II and a 135f/2L early spring next year to complement my three zooms but one Fujifilm option costing more or less the same money, is to buy a Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 and 23f/1.4 + 90f/2.

Option 1: Canon 6D, 16-35f4L IS, 24-70f/2.8L, 70-200f/4L IS adding a Canon 35f/1.4L II and 135f/2L.

Option 2: Canon 6D, 16-35f4L IS, 24-70f/2.8L, 70-200f/4L IS adding a Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 and 23f/1.4 + 90f/2.

Other than the obvious size, weight and dof FF/APS-C differences, how do these two Fujifilm and Canon fast primes compare optically when used wide open? Contrast, resolution, bokeh, CA?

I am very attracted by the smaller size, lighter weight and especially the traditional direct controls on X-Pro2 and X-T2 and the aperture ring on the Fujifilm lenses.

I mostly shoot manually, most often with my lenses wide open. The rendering, resolution, IQ, coma and CA of the lenses when used wide open are the most important factors for me. Shooting two systems is not a problem, I have done this many times.

Option 1, or option 2 and why?

/Pierre

You have the classic decision that most of us have already made. That is switching from Canon or Nikon Full Frame DSLR to Fuji. That decision should not be based on comparing a couple of lenses. It is a huge system change in size, weight, form and feel across the board.

The Fuji lenses are better than L across the whole lineup. The 90 especially. I have all the lenses you mention -- both Canon and Fuji. I have not conducted a scientific comparison but I like the Fuji glass much better for many reasons. Fuji glass is King. But Canon L is very good too. It is a system decision, not a lens decision.

Again, your decision should not be made on quality comparison between just these lenses, but the wide open quality of the Fuji lenses are as good or probably better than the Ls. This is a huge system decision, lenses included. Fuji changes your photography experience entirely. In my opinion, and others on this forum, change to Fuji and you will not be sorry.

You may not think shooting two systems is a problem now, but just wait until you start buying every Fuji lens after you are hooked. You might not think that way for very long. Like with me, your Canon will sit on the shelf. My 5D III and ten big L lenses sit there gathering dust in the closet while I carry my Fuji XT-2 everywhere in my sexy little Domke F803 bag.

Also, I forgot to mention, you will not miss the Canon (or Nikon) Full Frame sensor when you switch to the Fuji XT-2 and its wonderful APS-C, which hits the sweet spot and allows the Fuji to be what it is in terms of size, weight and overall ergo. That is the most important thing about Fuji. That is what you will love the most when you switch.

Get the Fuji XT-2 and 18-55, 16, 90, 23, 35, 56, 10-24, and the 50-140.....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Hi Greg, thank you for your time writing this answer to my questions I am sure many more than me finds it valuable. Loved your flicker album 20 days in Rome!

You are right, this is a system decision Canon FF vs Fujifilm APS-C, not easy at all and a lot of money is at stake. I have used many systems and using two system has always been a transition from one system to another.

Camera bodies come and go, lenses can last a long time. For me lenses are the most important. I value low/no CA, low distorsion, low/no coma, sharpness wide open and high micro contrast.

I prefer to own and carry as few lenses as possible. I really only need 4-5 lenses:

Ultra wide angle for astro, landscape and architecture.

35f/1.4 as my fast main everything lens.

70-200f/2.8 or 135f/2 or 100f/2.8 macro lens, mostly used for people and indoor sports.

100-400mm lens for outdoor sports, birding and wildlife.

Possible New Canon system next year: 6D, Rokinon 14f/2.8(for astro), 16-35f/4L IS, 35f/1.4L II, 100f/2.8L Macro IS or 70-200/2.8L II IS, 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II IS.

Possible new Fujifilm system next year: X-Pro2, 14f/f2.8, 23f/1.4, 90f/2, 100-400f/4.5-5.6.

Possible two systems next year: X-Pro2, 14f/f2.8, 23f/1.4, 90f/2, Canon 6D, Rokinon 14f/2.8(for astro), Canon 70-200/2.8L II IS, Canon 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II IS.

Decisions, decisions..

/Pierre

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

I shot the 35L and 135L and loved them both but there is one thing to consider. Fuji AF might be slower but it is much more reliable. You can shoot lenses wide open without hit and miss.

You loose a little "DOF play" but it should still be fine. The 35L I shot mostly at F2 anyway to increase sharpness, gain some DOF and reduce the risk of missing focus. The 135L on the other hand was really amazing at f2 for distance shots. For tight head shots I stopped it down to f2.8 or even better to f4 to have both eyes and the nose in focus.

Thanks Joachim,

I have owned the old 35L, bokeh was very good but it was only really sharp in the center used wide open. Sadly the old 35L had to much CA and also very strong Coma smeared stars and city lights really badly so I sold it. Have you used the 35L II?

I regret selling the 135L f/2, I was really planning to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the faster 2.8L IS II version but I still have my trusty smaller, half weight and very sharp 70-200f/4L IS. I bring it everywhere and it is my second most used lens after my 24-70f/2.8L II.

/Pierre

You are welcome. I never shot the 35L II. I had both the 70-200/4 and the 70-200/2.8 II which is a fantastic lens but big and heavy. It is great bot still no substitute for the 135L.

But now I changed completely to Fuji X since my focus is on traveling and I don't want to burden myself down with heavy gear. The Fuji X is a elegant and light solution and real world image quality is the same.

I would definitely look into the Fuji for face detection/eye focus alone and the trusty contrast AF. Makes things to much easier compared to shooting fast primes on a DSLR.

Thanks again Joachim, I really appreciate your help!

I love your travel/photo blog, and this blogpost: http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=5510 helped me decide to buy my Canon 16-35f/4L IS.

Best regards

/Pierre

I have just, in the last couple of weeks, traded in my Canon 5D3, 50L and 135L, for Fuji equipment including the X-Pro2 and the 90/2. I loved - REALLY loved - both of those Canon lenses. I lived and breathed the 50L for ideological reasons, and although I didn't use it very often, I loved the 135L because I'd never shot anything as sharp. It was really, really painful to let it all go, but in the end I was prepared to make some compromises in order to save bulk and weight. HOWEVER! I have to say, frankly, that I'm astonished by the Fuji 90mm. It's sharper than the 135L, and in combination with the X-Pro2 it completely out-resolves the 5D3/135. Smaller and lighter, but better. Amazing.

Al

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

I shot the 35L and 135L and loved them both but there is one thing to consider. Fuji AF might be slower but it is much more reliable. You can shoot lenses wide open without hit and miss.

You loose a little "DOF play" but it should still be fine. The 35L I shot mostly at F2 anyway to increase sharpness, gain some DOF and reduce the risk of missing focus. The 135L on the other hand was really amazing at f2 for distance shots. For tight head shots I stopped it down to f2.8 or even better to f4 to have both eyes and the nose in focus.

Thanks Joachim,

I have owned the old 35L, bokeh was very good but it was only really sharp in the center used wide open. Sadly the old 35L had to much CA and also very strong Coma smeared stars and city lights really badly so I sold it. Have you used the 35L II?

I regret selling the 135L f/2, I was really planning to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the faster 2.8L IS II version but I still have my trusty smaller, half weight and very sharp 70-200f/4L IS. I bring it everywhere and it is my second most used lens after my 24-70f/2.8L II.

/Pierre

You are welcome. I never shot the 35L II. I had both the 70-200/4 and the 70-200/2.8 II which is a fantastic lens but big and heavy. It is great bot still no substitute for the 135L.

But now I changed completely to Fuji X since my focus is on traveling and I don't want to burden myself down with heavy gear. The Fuji X is a elegant and light solution and real world image quality is the same.

I would definitely look into the Fuji for face detection/eye focus alone and the trusty contrast AF. Makes things to much easier compared to shooting fast primes on a DSLR.

Thanks again Joachim, I really appreciate your help!

I love your travel/photo blog, and this blogpost: http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=5510 helped me decide to buy my Canon 16-35f/4L IS.

Best regards

/Pierre

Thank you. Hope you have not regretted it so far. Just joking. The 16-35 is a great lens and I really enjoyed it. But the Fuji 10-24 is great too.

The only lens I miss is the 24-70 II. There is nothing like that from Fuji so far.

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

I shot the 35L and 135L and loved them both but there is one thing to consider. Fuji AF might be slower but it is much more reliable. You can shoot lenses wide open without hit and miss.

You loose a little "DOF play" but it should still be fine. The 35L I shot mostly at F2 anyway to increase sharpness, gain some DOF and reduce the risk of missing focus. The 135L on the other hand was really amazing at f2 for distance shots. For tight head shots I stopped it down to f2.8 or even better to f4 to have both eyes and the nose in focus.

Thanks Joachim,

I have owned the old 35L, bokeh was very good but it was only really sharp in the center used wide open. Sadly the old 35L had to much CA and also very strong Coma smeared stars and city lights really badly so I sold it. Have you used the 35L II?

I regret selling the 135L f/2, I was really planning to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the faster 2.8L IS II version but I still have my trusty smaller, half weight and very sharp 70-200f/4L IS. I bring it everywhere and it is my second most used lens after my 24-70f/2.8L II.

/Pierre

You are welcome. I never shot the 35L II. I had both the 70-200/4 and the 70-200/2.8 II which is a fantastic lens but big and heavy. It is great bot still no substitute for the 135L.

But now I changed completely to Fuji X since my focus is on traveling and I don't want to burden myself down with heavy gear. The Fuji X is a elegant and light solution and real world image quality is the same.

I would definitely look into the Fuji for face detection/eye focus alone and the trusty contrast AF. Makes things to much easier compared to shooting fast primes on a DSLR.

Thanks again Joachim, I really appreciate your help!

I love your travel/photo blog, and this blogpost: http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=5510 helped me decide to buy my Canon 16-35f/4L IS.

Best regards

/Pierre

Thank you. Hope you have not regretted it so far. Just joking. The 16-35 is a great lens and I really enjoyed it. But the Fuji 10-24 is great too.

The only lens I miss is the 24-70 II. There is nothing like that from Fuji so far.

Haha, no regrets Joachim! The 16-35f/4L IS is a great lens!

As much as I want the new 35f/1.4L II, I have already regretted even thinking of replacing my 24-70f/2.8L II the 35f/1.4L II will be complementing it.

The lens that I have had on my mind for the longest time (2010) is the 70-200f/2.8L II IS. One stop faster than my 70-200f/4L IS and twice the money and weight. Perhaps I will get 70-200f/2.8L II IS after all and adding a 2X teleconverter gets me to 400mm and the lens is so sharp to begin with that even adding the 2X the sharpness is still ok for casual use and I also get IS with It, something i really missed having on my otherwise old but still excellent 400mm prime.

Great review by Tony & Chelsea Northrup: Canon 100-400 vs 70-200 with a 2X Teleconverter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zWpihW8IE&list=PLwIVS3_dKVptwehgeGp33K69dzq3dNq-o&index=1

The two lenses I regret selling is the 135f2L and the 400f/5.6L, both very sharp and beautiful bokeh.

Regards

Pierre

Al Downie wrote:

I have just, in the last couple of weeks, traded in my Canon 5D3, 50L and 135L, for Fuji equipment including the X-Pro2 and the 90/2. I loved - REALLY loved - both of those Canon lenses. I lived and breathed the 50L for ideological reasons, and although I didn't use it very often, I loved the 135L because I'd never shot anything as sharp. It was really, really painful to let it all go, but in the end I was prepared to make some compromises in order to save bulk and weight. HOWEVER! I have to say, frankly, that I'm astonished by the Fuji 90mm. It's sharper than the 135L, and in combination with the X-Pro2 it completely out-resolves the 5D3/135. Smaller and lighter, but better. Amazing.

Al

Thanks AL,

I have seen your great work with the 50f/1.2L over the years and read your blog post on this lens: https://aldownie.me/2014/12/22/canon-50mm-f1-4l-hand-made-by-magic-photography-pixies/

I hope you kan make some time adding a blog post or two reviewing your experience with the Fujifilm X-Pro2 and your new Fujinon lenses compared to using 5D3 and Canon lenses.

You just helped me getting a bit closer to buy a X-Pro2 and one lens to test it out. I have read your "Buyer's remorse!!" post. If you had any time to test the 23mm before returning it, how did the 23f/1.4 R and 35f/1.4 R compare optically when used wide open?

I am starting to ask myself, if I get a X-Pro2, can Fuji be my only camera system? Or is it better to combine the best from two systems?

We love to travel, often far away for many weeks, a smaller & lighter kit is a big help. My priority is to get the best possible photos of my family, friends and my 13yo sons many and ever changing sports activities. Many are indoors in badly lit places forcing me to use 3200-12800 ISO to get a decent shutterspeed to stop action. Other intrests are lanscape, architecture, astro, wildlife and some birding.

I prefer small and fast primes over large zooms. The only Fuji zoom I think I really need is the 100-400 for outdoor sports, wildlife and birding. If the new Canon 100-400 II is in any way better I will get that instead.

Best regards

/Pierre

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

I prefer small and fast primes over large zooms. The only Fuji zoom I think I really need is the 100-400 for outdoor sports, wildlife and birding. If the new Canon 100-400 II is in any way better I will get that instead.

Best regards

/Pierre

this is where I am not totally sold on the X-T2...depending on the sport, the X-T2 doesn't seem to quite match up to DSLRs.  I really want the X-T2 to be "that camera" for me but I'm not seeing enough...there's always going to be tradeoffs but I spend 80% of my shooting on sports/action.  Not sure either of the new X bodies are ready to take up that workload...

Greg7579 wrote:

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Hi,

I wish to add two fast primes to my 6D tree zooms kit. My priority is getting the best possible shots of my family activities, kid sports, people photography, at home, on shorter trips and longer vacations.

I was planning to buy a Canon 35f/1.4L II and a 135f/2L early spring next year to complement my three zooms but one Fujifilm option costing more or less the same money, is to buy a Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 and 23f/1.4 + 90f/2.

Option 1: Canon 6D, 16-35f4L IS, 24-70f/2.8L, 70-200f/4L IS adding a Canon 35f/1.4L II and 135f/2L.

Option 2: Canon 6D, 16-35f4L IS, 24-70f/2.8L, 70-200f/4L IS adding a Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 and 23f/1.4 + 90f/2.

Other than the obvious size, weight and dof FF/APS-C differences, how do these two Fujifilm and Canon fast primes compare optically when used wide open? Contrast, resolution, bokeh, CA?

I am very attracted by the smaller size, lighter weight and especially the traditional direct controls on X-Pro2 and X-T2 and the aperture ring on the Fujifilm lenses.

I mostly shoot manually, most often with my lenses wide open. The rendering, resolution, IQ, coma and CA of the lenses when used wide open are the most important factors for me. Shooting two systems is not a problem, I have done this many times.

Option 1, or option 2 and why?

/Pierre

You have the classic decision that most of us have already made. That is switching from Canon or Nikon Full Frame DSLR to Fuji. That decision should not be based on comparing a couple of lenses. It is a huge system change in size, weight, form and feel across the board.

The Fuji lenses are better than L across the whole lineup. The 90 especially. I have all the lenses you mention -- both Canon and Fuji. I have not conducted a scientific comparison but I like the Fuji glass much better for many reasons. Fuji glass is King. But Canon L is very good too. It is a system decision, not a lens decision.

Again, your decision should not be made on quality comparison between just these lenses, but the wide open quality of the Fuji lenses are as good or probably better than the Ls. This is a huge system decision, lenses included. Fuji changes your photography experience entirely. In my opinion, and others on this forum, change to Fuji and you will not be sorry.

You may not think shooting two systems is a problem now, but just wait until you start buying every Fuji lens after you are hooked. You might not think that way for very long. Like with me, your Canon will sit on the shelf. My 5D III and ten big L lenses sit there gathering dust in the closet while I carry my Fuji XT-2 everywhere in my sexy little Domke F803 bag.

Also, I forgot to mention, you will not miss the Canon (or Nikon) Full Frame sensor when you switch to the Fuji XT-2 and its wonderful APS-C, which hits the sweet spot and allows the Fuji to be what it is in terms of size, weight and overall ergo. That is the most important thing about Fuji. That is what you will love the most when you switch.

Get the Fuji XT-2 and 18-55, 16, 90, 23, 35, 56, 10-24, and the 50-140.....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

I disagree
I have both system (10 years in Canon, and Fuji since the X100)
Canon is great, but its bigger heavier, and the ergonomic is different.
Fuji is sweat (especially the XT2) , light compact, and I love the ergonomic. IMHO, it only lack a sensitive screen.
Both system have advantages and cons, but the important point is you can take great pictures with both systems.
FF has still an advantage in term of small DOF (but in landscape it's rather the contrary) and real low light performance (because Fuji is optimistic with ISO)
Concerning lenses, Fuji line is great, but not as large than Canon . There is no equivalent in the Canon line , for the 14 mm F2,8, but there isn't big primes like the 300 from 800 mm white Canon lenses.
Some lenses like the 100-400 are still better with Canon. Same apply for the 70-200 2,8 LIS V2 : the 50-150 is great in the center, but not as good in the corners. The Canon 50 #,4 is obsolete by today standarts, but the Sigma 50 1,4 art, is way sharper than the sigma 35 1,4 ...
Perhaps the fujinon 90 mm is better than the Canon 135 L, but this last one, is an old design (but still working fine) and a new one is rumored to be on the way

I bought Fuji, because it"s great for vacations (size and weight) with great IQ, but sometimes my Canon gear can do better.
BTW, my first real numeric camera was a canon eos 10 D. Current gear is so much better now.
--
It's all about photography

I think you're looking for the impossible camera!

For family photos (including sports) with real '3D pop': Canon FF DSLR.

For wildlife and birding: Canon APS-C DSLR.

For general carry-around fun and a bit of everything: Fuji X.

I know I'll miss the DSLR in some circumstances, but for me it's more important to have a camera that I'll carry more often. The Fuji will miss some shots for sure, but not as many as the Canon will while it's sitting under the bed...

Thanks for your comments! Yes.. I need to do something with the blog again. Maybe the Fuji will kick some new life into it!

chile7236 wrote:

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

I prefer small and fast primes over large zooms. The only Fuji zoom I think I really need is the 100-400 for outdoor sports, wildlife and birding. If the new Canon 100-400 II is in any way better I will get that instead.

Best regards

/Pierre

this is where I am not totally sold on the X-T2...depending on the sport, the X-T2 doesn't seem to quite match up to DSLRs. I really want the X-T2 to be "that camera" for me but I'm not seeing enough...there's always going to be tradeoffs but I spend 80% of my shooting on sports/action. Not sure either of the new X bodies are ready to take up that workload...

My 6D with only 4,5 shots/s is no real speed monster but it is plenty fast enough for my spots/birding/wildlife needs. I only use the center point AF, and it works in near darkness, it is very accurate and instantly fast. My sons current sports are indoor tennis and floorball and outdoors football and tennis. In winter time slalom and cross country skiing.

For sports I use 24-70f/2.8L II and 70-200f/4L IS both are very fast, always spot on and never hunts enven in really bad light. For indoors sports the one stop faster 70-200f/2.8L II IS is number one on my wish list. The 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II is a close number two. Using a 2X teleconverter on the 70-200f/2.8L II gets me a degraded but still decent IQ at 400mm but it also and degrades AF and IS. It seems I can not avoid owning both these two zooms after all.

Regards

/Pierre

Al Downie wrote:

I think you're looking for the impossible camera!

For family photos (including sports) with real '3D pop': Canon FF DSLR.

For wildlife and birding: Canon APS-C DSLR.

For general carry-around fun and a bit of everything: Fuji X.

I know I'll miss the DSLR in some circumstances, but for me it's more important to have a camera that I'll carry more often. The Fuji will miss some shots for sure, but not as many as the Canon will while it's sitting under the bed...

Thanks for your comments! Yes.. I need to do something with the blog again. Maybe the Fuji will kick some new life into it!

All I want a FF with small and high IQ lenses like in the 100 year old Leica M system, but modern with fast and accurate AF like the X-Pro2, a 50 MP FF sensor with no AA filter and best possible DR, a X-Pro2 hybrid viewfinder with a X-T2 4K EVF for longer lenses, integrated GPS as in my 6D, a battery lasting +600 photos with internal GPS on for 18 hours and all this for 1600USD. Is this really to much to ask for? Oh I nearly forgot a fully articulated screen to for filming in 4K and the mandatory Facebook selfies. ;))

I will have a serious talk with my finance minister (Wife). Humbly hoping to get her most gracious approval to release some minor family funds needed for acquiring a small and elegant X-Pro2 and one or possibly two fast, small and elegant lenses for the purpose of a general carry-around, fun and a bit of everything camera as a complement to my pre historic kit of the soon to be extinct DSLR species of the old Triassic period named the Kwanon 6D and dinosaur like big and heavy zooms, haha

Regards

Pierre

dachshund7 wrote:

If I understand correctly, you don't have a Fuji system yet. I suggest getting an XT2, 23mm 1.4, and consider the 56mm. Forget adding to the Canon system until you've used the Fuji for a while. Its possible you'll forget about the Canon, which shocks me to say, but as much as I love my 6D I don't use it as much.

I still only have my Canon 6D, 20D, 16-35f/4L IS, 24-70f/2.8L II, 70-200f/4L IS.

I have used my 6D for nearly 4 years. I shoot every single day and I bring my 6D + 24-70f/2.8L II every where i go. When I need 2 cameras and have no time or do not want to to change lenses I use my trusty +11 year old 20D with the 70-200f/4L IS.

I love the 6D IQ and even my old 8MP 20D still have very good IQ at lower 100-400ISOs and they are both very rugged. Both have travelled the entire world and I have never had a single problem, they just work, in dusty Africa, in Death Valley desert extreme heat +50 Centigrade, in high 100% humidity and +30-35C heat in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, China, Hong Kong and Bali or in polar freezing even below -35C they still deliver and the now 4 and 11 year old original batteries still last for ever, even using GPS and shooting 300-500 shots in one full day the 6D battery almost always have 50% left when we get back to the hotel late in the evenings, I have never run out of power.

I like that the 6D is small and light (770g) for a FF DSLR and really love it for having integrated GPS. We travel a lot and GPS is fun and really invaluable when returning home with 4000-6000 photos to process it really helps knowing exactly when and where our photos were taken and the GPS also always keeps the clock on local time and saves a log of the entire route we made.

We had a long family talk this evening, and even if I really am very attracted to the X-Pro2 and small fast primes the fact that it has no GPS is a deal breaker for our needs. My wife is firm on that any new camera we get from now on simply must have GPS.

To satisfy my need for faster primes I will buy two Canon primes, 35f/2 IS and the 135f/2L or the 100f/2.8L Macro IS.

My hope is for Fujifilm to release a new X-Pro3 with GPS in 1-2 years from now and perhaps a new X100 with OVF and EVF, 36MP FF Bayer sensor, no AA, GPS and a 35mm f/1.4 lens.

Thank you all for your valuable advice!

Best regards

/Pierre