Xf 35mm f/2 or Xf 50mm f/2?

Be nice to see the EXIF

davidleunufna wrote:

hey guys! so i need a prime lens for my xt10, because its hard taking photos in indoor events with low lighting such concerts. i only had 18-55 f2.8 for now and was thinking to get either 35mm f2 or the newest 50mm f2. i never realky tried both of them, so maybe can someone give me recommendations which one should i choose.

i mostly gonna use them for streetphotography 20% ,indoor events 30%, sports 10%, candid/portrait 40%.

thnaks in advance!

Neither...I much prefer the 35 f/1.4 and 56 f/1.2

Perspective is about viewpoint, not crop or focal length.

dmaclau wrote:

I would suggest though that you consider the faster version of either lens. They're more costly but are quite a bit better optics. The trade off other than $$ is better low light performance vs better weather performance. You more often shoot in low light or in rain?

I would disagree with this when it comes to the 35 f2. I think it produces a better image than the faster version, which is rare when the f2 lens is better in the Fuji lineup.

The 50 f2 is a lens that I would not ever even consider buying. If you are going to shoot this somewhat limited FL, you may as well get the amazing 56 f1.2.

Steezus wrote:

dmaclau wrote:

I would suggest though that you consider the faster version of either lens. They're more costly but are quite a bit better optics. The trade off other than $$ is better low light performance vs better weather performance. You more often shoot in low light or in rain?

I would disagree with this when it comes to the 35 f2. I think it produces a better image than the faster version, which is rare when the f2 lens is better in the Fuji lineup.

The 50 f2 is a lens that I would not ever even consider buying. If you are going to shoot this somewhat limited FL, you may as well get the amazing 56 f1.2.

That last statement is a bit sensationalist. It really depends on what your needs are. I went with the 50 over the 56 for a few reasons, and that's not even factoring cost into the equation.

BaeckerX1 wrote:

Steezus wrote:

dmaclau wrote:

I would suggest though that you consider the faster version of either lens. They're more costly but are quite a bit better optics. The trade off other than $$ is better low light performance vs better weather performance. You more often shoot in low light or in rain?

I would disagree with this when it comes to the 35 f2. I think it produces a better image than the faster version, which is rare when the f2 lens is better in the Fuji lineup.

The 50 f2 is a lens that I would not ever even consider buying. If you are going to shoot this somewhat limited FL, you may as well get the amazing 56 f1.2.

That last statement is a bit sensationalist. It really depends on what your needs are. I went with the 50 over the 56 for a few reasons, and that's not even factoring cost into the equation.

Cost aside then, which to me is hard to ignore, what did you find better about the 50 over the 56.  Size?  I have the 56, but also suspect the 50 is an awesome lens.  But if you put size and cost aside, I am not sure what the other factors are that would put the 50 ahead of the 56, maybe equal at best.

laddsmith wrote:

BaeckerX1 wrote:

Steezus wrote:

dmaclau wrote:

I would suggest though that you consider the faster version of either lens. They're more costly but are quite a bit better optics. The trade off other than $$ is better low light performance vs better weather performance. You more often shoot in low light or in rain?

I would disagree with this when it comes to the 35 f2. I think it produces a better image than the faster version, which is rare when the f2 lens is better in the Fuji lineup.

The 50 f2 is a lens that I would not ever even consider buying. If you are going to shoot this somewhat limited FL, you may as well get the amazing 56 f1.2.

That last statement is a bit sensationalist. It really depends on what your needs are. I went with the 50 over the 56 for a few reasons, and that's not even factoring cost into the equation.

Cost aside then, which to me is hard to ignore, what did you find better about the 50 over the 56. Size? I have the 56, but also suspect the 50 is an awesome lens. But if you put size and cost aside, I am not sure what the other factors are that would put the 50 ahead of the 56, maybe equal at best.

It's mostly size and weight, the lack of which is what I bought the Fuji system for. I have 2 very large lenses with my other camera system so I don't need something bigger and bulkier. There's the water resistant aspect of it if you shoot outside a lot (my Fuji camera is not a WR body, though I imagine it could withstand a light drizzle with a WR lens, maybe with a cover). The 50mm has much closer focusing distance, which actually makes it better for product photos and can allow for similar portraits as the 56 when you get in a little closer.

I guess this is a cost factor, but I didn't see the need to pay extra for the F1.2 for my needs due to how shallow the depth of field is. If your subject is even slightly off axis and not head on, at F1.2 you can have one side of the face in focus and the other out of focus. I'm no pro, but most photographs I've seen with the 1.2 (and many video reviews) have it stopped down to F2 or lower anyway. I just thought that the extra size, weight, and cost didn't justify the expense when I wouldn't use it wide open that often. Cost is always a factor I guess, I merely meant I could afford the 56, but chose not to pay the extra expense.

Finally, I think the 50 is more useful in a wide range of conditions beyond just portrait photography. In practice the small focal length difference actually is more pronounced than you think. It's easier for shooting in tighter spaces and can even get some duty as a street lens. I've even read of some popular wedding photographers using it as their only lens for almost an entire wedding. The 56 is a phenomenal lens from what I've seen and read, but it definitely seems more of a specialty tool. I would buy this if I only wanted to shoot portraits with it, but that's just me. I can't see it being a longtime fixture on my camera, more something I'd pull out for specific scenarios, and I'm not someone who likes to do a ton of lens swapping. Some day the 56 might be a part of my kit, but I'll be playing with the 50 for awhile and really learning the ins and outs of this lens.

I'm no expert, I just made my decision based on all the data I had. Someone else might decide differently and that's fine. I just take issue with the fact that the 50mm is pointless. It's also a very sharp and excellent lens.

Also, skill is a factor. I'm not that good yet and I prefer landscapes. I'm really just getting into portrait photography. If I'm honest with myself, the 56 would be wasted on me.

Also, forgot to mention in my previous post that the 50 has faster AF if you care, though what that translates to in real world use on each body I couldn't say.

BaeckerX1 wrote:

laddsmith wrote:

BaeckerX1 wrote:

Steezus wrote:

dmaclau wrote:

I would suggest though that you consider the faster version of either lens. They're more costly but are quite a bit better optics. The trade off other than $$ is better low light performance vs better weather performance. You more often shoot in low light or in rain?

I would disagree with this when it comes to the 35 f2. I think it produces a better image than the faster version, which is rare when the f2 lens is better in the Fuji lineup.

The 50 f2 is a lens that I would not ever even consider buying. If you are going to shoot this somewhat limited FL, you may as well get the amazing 56 f1.2.

That last statement is a bit sensationalist. It really depends on what your needs are. I went with the 50 over the 56 for a few reasons, and that's not even factoring cost into the equation.

Cost aside then, which to me is hard to ignore, what did you find better about the 50 over the 56. Size? I have the 56, but also suspect the 50 is an awesome lens. But if you put size and cost aside, I am not sure what the other factors are that would put the 50 ahead of the 56, maybe equal at best.

It's mostly size and weight, the lack of which is what I bought the Fuji system for. I have 2 very large lenses with my other camera system so I don't need something bigger and bulkier. There's the water resistant aspect of it if you shoot outside a lot (my Fuji camera is not a WR body, though I imagine it could withstand a light drizzle with a WR lens, maybe with a cover). The 50mm has much closer focusing distance, which actually makes it better for product photos and can allow for similar portraits as the 56 when you get in a little closer.

I guess this is a cost factor, but I didn't see the need to pay extra for the F1.2 for my needs due to how shallow the depth of field is. If your subject is even slightly off axis and not head on, at F1.2 you can have one side of the face in focus and the other out of focus. I'm no pro, but most photographs I've seen with the 1.2 (and many video reviews) have it stopped down to F2 or lower anyway. I just thought that the extra size, weight, and cost didn't justify the expense when I wouldn't use it wide open that often. Cost is always a factor I guess, I merely meant I could afford the 56, but chose not to pay the extra expense.

Finally, I think the 50 is more useful in a wide range of conditions beyond just portrait photography. In practice the small focal length difference actually is more pronounced than you think. It's easier for shooting in tighter spaces and can even get some duty as a street lens. I've even read of some popular wedding photographers using it as their only lens for almost an entire wedding. The 56 is a phenomenal lens from what I've seen and read, but it definitely seems more of a specialty tool. I would buy this if I only wanted to shoot portraits with it, but that's just me. I can't see it being a longtime fixture on my camera, more something I'd pull out for specific scenarios, and I'm not someone who likes to do a ton of lens swapping. Some day the 56 might be a part of my kit, but I'll be playing with the 50 for awhile and really learning the ins and outs of this lens.

I'm no expert, I just made my decision based on all the data I had. Someone else might decide differently and that's fine. I just take issue with the fact that the 50mm is pointless. It's also a very sharp and excellent lens.

Very nice points, and many I did not think of.  The closer focusing distance is nice.  I mostly use the lens for portraits and so I guess that is why I made the choice.  It is a bigger lens, but I am a recent convert from Nikon D800E, so everything seems small to me!

laddsmith wrote:

BaeckerX1 wrote:

laddsmith wrote:

BaeckerX1 wrote:

Steezus wrote:

dmaclau wrote:

I would suggest though that you consider the faster version of either lens. They're more costly but are quite a bit better optics. The trade off other than $$ is better low light performance vs better weather performance. You more often shoot in low light or in rain?

I would disagree with this when it comes to the 35 f2. I think it produces a better image than the faster version, which is rare when the f2 lens is better in the Fuji lineup.

The 50 f2 is a lens that I would not ever even consider buying. If you are going to shoot this somewhat limited FL, you may as well get the amazing 56 f1.2.

That last statement is a bit sensationalist. It really depends on what your needs are. I went with the 50 over the 56 for a few reasons, and that's not even factoring cost into the equation.

Cost aside then, which to me is hard to ignore, what did you find better about the 50 over the 56. Size? I have the 56, but also suspect the 50 is an awesome lens. But if you put size and cost aside, I am not sure what the other factors are that would put the 50 ahead of the 56, maybe equal at best.

It's mostly size and weight, the lack of which is what I bought the Fuji system for. I have 2 very large lenses with my other camera system so I don't need something bigger and bulkier. There's the water resistant aspect of it if you shoot outside a lot (my Fuji camera is not a WR body, though I imagine it could withstand a light drizzle with a WR lens, maybe with a cover). The 50mm has much closer focusing distance, which actually makes it better for product photos and can allow for similar portraits as the 56 when you get in a little closer.

I guess this is a cost factor, but I didn't see the need to pay extra for the F1.2 for my needs due to how shallow the depth of field is. If your subject is even slightly off axis and not head on, at F1.2 you can have one side of the face in focus and the other out of focus. I'm no pro, but most photographs I've seen with the 1.2 (and many video reviews) have it stopped down to F2 or lower anyway. I just thought that the extra size, weight, and cost didn't justify the expense when I wouldn't use it wide open that often. Cost is always a factor I guess, I merely meant I could afford the 56, but chose not to pay the extra expense.

Finally, I think the 50 is more useful in a wide range of conditions beyond just portrait photography. In practice the small focal length difference actually is more pronounced than you think. It's easier for shooting in tighter spaces and can even get some duty as a street lens. I've even read of some popular wedding photographers using it as their only lens for almost an entire wedding. The 56 is a phenomenal lens from what I've seen and read, but it definitely seems more of a specialty tool. I would buy this if I only wanted to shoot portraits with it, but that's just me. I can't see it being a longtime fixture on my camera, more something I'd pull out for specific scenarios, and I'm not someone who likes to do a ton of lens swapping. Some day the 56 might be a part of my kit, but I'll be playing with the 50 for awhile and really learning the ins and outs of this lens.

I'm no expert, I just made my decision based on all the data I had. Someone else might decide differently and that's fine. I just take issue with the fact that the 50mm is pointless. It's also a very sharp and excellent lens.

Very nice points, and many I did not think of. The closer focusing distance is nice. I mostly use the lens for portraits and so I guess that is why I made the choice. It is a bigger lens, but I am a recent convert from Nikon D800E, so everything seems small to me!

Thanks. And like I said in my follow-up post, I'm not that good yet and trying to get better as a photographer instead of just buying the most expensive new toy and thinking it's gonna make me better. Maybe if I ever get side work as a portrait photographer (IT Security and Compliance by trade), I'll reward myself with the 56.

In test shots the bokeh you can get from this little lens is actually pretty impressive. I literally just got the 50 F2 so this is me playing. I'm no bokeh fanatic, but the narrow depth of field of this lens is pleasing to me.

Focused on the middle of this bush.

The problem with the 56 is the AF - slow and noisy.  It should be due for an update by Fuji.

lens choices are quite subjective.  When it's to the point of deciding between 2 lenses with the same field of view the choices are extremely subjective.

Fuji makes 3 lenses now with an f2 version and another faster more expensive version.  I've tried the f2's and just wasn't able to be impressed by them.  I wanted to, weather sealing and a great price...what's not to like.  The images though just didn't have the extra element I have come to expect from Fuji.   Of course this is a Completely subjective opinion and is only valid for me.

When I looked into this I found that the f2's are software corrected lenses (as very many manufacturers lenses are) but the faster versions are better optically corrected. Perhaps this is why they resonate with me.

Regarding the 35mm, users often claim better sharpness from the f2 vs the f1.4 but my tests showed that it's not sharpness but contrast that's different.  A slight uptick in the contrast adjustment in post processing and the 35mm f1.4 really sparkles...and I'm once again finding that subjective fuji magic.

absolute power corrupts...absolutely

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

davidleunufna wrote:

hey guys! so i need a prime lens for my xt10, because its hard taking photos in indoor events with low lighting such concerts. i only had 18-55 f2.8 for now and was thinking to get either 35mm f2 or the newest 50mm f2. i never realky tried both of them, so maybe can someone give me recommendations which one should i choose.

i mostly gonna use them for streetphotography 20% ,indoor events 30%, sports 10%, candid/portrait 40%.

thnaks in advance!

Neither...I much prefer the 35 f/1.4 and 56 f/1.2

I'm of the same opinion, Benjamin.  I guess I'll have to check your web pages