Which lens to buy after 35mm f2?

The 16mm 1.4 or the 50mm 2.0 

vinsentochan wrote:

I know I want to get in to both landscape and portraiture photography.

For many on here you can't do both with the same lens. LOL.

56mm is your best bet....or maybe the 16mm ????.....you can do both portraiture (environmental @ 16mm) and landscape with both. I like landscape work with a  56mm.

Buy the 18 mm instead and you can do street, portraiture, and landscape as well....and save yourself 500 euros.

27mm could work as well !!!

I do love my 35f2 very much! I also have the XF14f2.8, but I use it not really often. Third lens I got is the xf50f2 (instead of xf56) and I am really impressed! The xf50 is damn compact, light, really fast focussing and quiet as well. It is worth every Cent.

vinsentochan wrote:

I have the 18-55mm "kit lens" with the 35mm f2. Which lens should I buy next? I know I want to get in to both landscape and portraiture photography.

I was thinking either the 16mm f1.4 or the 56mm f/1.2. Or would you recommend another?

I think you have to decide which one. The 10-24 is great for landscapes and the 56/90 are good for portrait.

Landscapes also have options like the samyang 8 and 12mm which are manual focus, but land doesn't move so that may not be an issue.

If you go portrait you need to decide whether having a 56 1.2 is more important than focus speed. If you were doing child photography, then the 90 or 50-140 maybe be better.

vinsentochan wrote:

I have the 18-55mm "kit lens" with the 35mm f2. Which lens should I buy next? I know I want to get in to both landscape and portraiture photography.

I was thinking either the 16mm f1.4 or the 56mm f/1.2. Or would you recommend another?

THe 18-55 is fine for landscapes! Stop down to 5.6 or bigger enjoy the flexibility of a zoom and shoot away.

I know many people will contradict, but the 56 f1.2 is by no means a good general purpose portraiture lens. Get the fabulous 90mm/f2. It has better bokeh, depth of field is easier to handle, and resolution is a lot better.

-Armin

PSCL1 wrote:

To the OP: First, you need to decide which is your priority: landscape or portraiture. If landscape, given the zoom you own, then the 16mm f1.4 although you won't need the speed. If portraiture, I'd suggest the 60mm f2.4 macro. It is slow-focusing but, for portraits, you don't need the AF speed. Also, that would come closer to the 90mm Leica rangefinder-era classic portrait FL. It's also significantly longer than a 50 in my opinion and less expensive than the 56 f1.2.

Wow that is a very good explanation! Your point about the need for a larger aperture for landscape and focussing speed for portraits.

I will take a look at the 60mm f2.4 macro.

Thanks!

Dimac wrote:

I do love my 35f2 very much! I also have the XF14f2.8, but I use it not really often. Third lens I got is the xf50f2 (instead of xf56) and I am really impressed! The xf50 is damn compact, light, really fast focussing and quiet as well. It is worth every Cent.

I have been looking into the 14mm and its not the first time somebody has said they don't use it as much as other lenses. Makes me hesitant to get it if that's the general consensus..

Shockwave wrote:

vinsentochan wrote:

I have the 18-55mm "kit lens" with the 35mm f2. Which lens should I buy next? I know I want to get in to both landscape and portraiture photography.

I was thinking either the 16mm f1.4 or the 56mm f/1.2. Or would you recommend another?

I think you have to decide which one. The 10-24 is great for landscapes and the 56/90 are good for portrait.

Landscapes also have options like the samyang 8 and 12mm which are manual focus, but land doesn't move so that may not be an issue.

If you go portrait you need to decide whether having a 56 1.2 is more important than focus speed. If you were doing child photography, then the 90 or 50-140 maybe be better.

Very good advice thank you!

I have been looking into the 10-24 but I am planning to get a Lee big stopper which I hear gets some serious vignetting with this lens so that's the only thing holding me back.

I've been stuck between the 56 and 90 for as long as I can remember since I got obsessed with the Fuji brand. I'm leaning towards the 56 because I'm unsure how far back I can stand in practical situations such as indoors.

Samyang! I'll give those a look. Thanks!

Armin Hermann wrote:

vinsentochan wrote:

I have the 18-55mm "kit lens" with the 35mm f2. Which lens should I buy next? I know I want to get in to both landscape and portraiture photography.

I was thinking either the 16mm f1.4 or the 56mm f/1.2. Or would you recommend another?

THe 18-55 is fine for landscapes! Stop down to 5.6 or bigger enjoy the flexibility of a zoom and shoot away.

I know many people will contradict, but the 56 f1.2 is by no means a good general purpose portraiture lens. Get the fabulous 90mm/f2. It has better bokeh, depth of field is easier to handle, and resolution is a lot better.

-Armin

Thanks! It's a good idea to use my kit lens actually.. It didn't even cross my mind haha

Doesn't the 90mm seem a bit too long? I've heard that it's a nightmare to use indoors.. Is the trade off in quality and handling worth the impracticality of some situations?

PT wrote:

Samyang-Rokinon 12mm F2 for landscapes, auto focus is not needed due to wide DoF, once set you only really need to adjust focus for subjects closer than a meter which will not be many landscapes acts more like a point and shoot in that regard.

Ooh good idea! I'm noting this down now and I'll have a look at this lens later. Thanks!

I have the 35 and the 56 as a total kit. Doesn't work. Would rather have combined it with the 16 or 23.

JJ1983 wrote:

I have the 35 and the 56 as a total kit. Doesn't work. Would rather have combined it with the 16 or 23.

So 23 with 56? Or do you mean you would add 16 or 23 to your existing kit?

vinsentochan wrote:

Armin Hermann wrote:

vinsentochan wrote:

I have the 18-55mm "kit lens" with the 35mm f2. Which lens should I buy next? I know I want to get in to both landscape and portraiture photography.

I was thinking either the 16mm f1.4 or the 56mm f/1.2. Or would you recommend another?

THe 18-55 is fine for landscapes! Stop down to 5.6 or bigger enjoy the flexibility of a zoom and shoot away.

I know many people will contradict, but the 56 f1.2 is by no means a good general purpose portraiture lens. Get the fabulous 90mm/f2. It has better bokeh, depth of field is easier to handle, and resolution is a lot better.

-Armin

Thanks! It's a good idea to use my kit lens actually.. It didn't even cross my mind haha

Doesn't the 90mm seem a bit too long? I've heard that it's a nightmare to use indoors.. Is the trade off in quality and handling worth the impracticality of some situations?

Yes that's right, you need some space around your subject. But the quality is unmatched. If you want a shorter lens: The 35 1.4R is very good and has sufficient bokeh and shallow DOF. Even wide open the center is very sharp. I'd prefer the 35 1.4 over the 56 1.2 anytime.

Since you already have the 35mm F2 I would suggest get the 16mm first. It's the perfect complement to a 35mm.

16mm can do landscape/cityscape, interiors, low light and some macro. And the 35mm can do some portrait. You can do a lot with just this two lenses.