56 vs 90: Who is more versatile? Discuss.

Hi guys,

I'm still in the process of debating which portrait lens to get (to complement the 16-55). I've eliminated the 50-140 because of it's price, bulk and weight but mostly because I don't think I really need it right now; most comments here suggest that 50-140 is more for sports / indoor action and wedding/event reportage, which I don't do much. I want to focus on friends and family portraits, so I'm choosing between the XF 56mm F1.2 R and XF 90mm F2 R LM WR.

Now, there has been debate about which lens is more versatile.

I'm leaning towards the 90 (90 vs 56) being more versatile:

+ shorter minimum focus distance (60cm vs 70cm)

+ larger magnification (0.2x vs 0.09x).

+ Weather Resistance

+ faster Linear Motor autofocus

+ photos have more contrast (but can be edited in PP)

- f2 is 1.3 stops slower than f1.2

From a few reviews from Damina Lovegrove, mirrorlesscomparison etc, I have concluded that bokeh and subject compression is similar between the two lenses (both very smooth round creamy bokeh).

In terms of shooting and output, it has been said that the 56 is more intimate with the model and the 90 is more distant. I think for a head and shoulder shot with a model I know (friends and family), it's not an issue. Plus, it's a bonus for street shooting since I don't have to get so close.

From the photos I've seen on flickr (I found this guy Francis Ho who's photos I really like https://www.flickr.com/photos/fh9449/), the 56 allows bust height photos due to the minimum focus distance issue. I've heard complaints that people but the 56 away simply because they can't fill the frame.

As for the 90, since the MFD is lower, one can step forward to take a headshot, or step backwards (assuming enough room) to take a full shot.

Overall, I think with my XF 16-55mm f2.8, the 90 is the step forward?

atoniolin wrote:

+ shorter minimum focus distance (60cm vs 70cm)

As for the 90, since the MFD is lower, one can step forward to take a headshot, or step backwards (assuming enough room) to take a full shot.

What do you think you get in frame with a 90mm at 60cm or so, and how is that an advantage for portraits?

The 56 has a wider field of view, so you will get more in frame at shorter distances.

For use indoors, I would certainly prefer the 56mm, as with 90mm you often don't have the room to move away enough. Outdoors, it matters less of course.

Since you already have a lens that (more or less) has the 56m field of view, you could experiment if this is what you want (but with a wider aperture), or if you want a longer lens.

There's no right or wrong, and 90mm is a very sweet focal length on a Fuji.

I’ve had both, sold both (used different system for professional portraits), and been contemplating picking up the 56 again recently. While both great, they render differently, and overall I preferred the 90s crispness and compression, but it’s a big lens (when I go Fuji I like going small) and I never got over the disengaged magnets sliding back and forth all the time when moving around outside. If you think that may bug you also, it’s worth considering.

For versatility though, I’d give it to the 56 due to size and FL.

I bought the 90. Great lens, but I found it too narrow for most things indoors, and often outdoors. Sold it and bought the 56, and love it. IMHO it’s far more versatile, and unless you need huge prints, you can crop to get a 90 effect. 56 balances nicely on XT-1 size bodies.

Sjak wrote:

atoniolin wrote:

+ shorter minimum focus distance (60cm vs 70cm)

As for the 90, since the MFD is lower, one can step forward to take a headshot, or step backwards (assuming enough room) to take a full shot.

What do you think you get in frame with a 90mm at 60cm or so, and how is that an advantage for portraits?

The 56 has a wider field of view, so you will get more in frame at shorter distances.

For use indoors, I would certainly prefer the 56mm, as with 90mm you often don't have the room to move away enough. Outdoors, it matters less of course.

Since you already have a lens that (more or less) has the 56m field of view, you could experiment if this is what you want (but with a wider aperture), or if you want a longer lens.

There's no right or wrong, and 90mm is a very sweet focal length on a Fuji.

+1

It doesn't matter "what is said" about each of these lenses, what matters is THE application for one's personal shooting needs and style. Both lenses are great and versatile in their own way but both also very different.

That is almost what I was going to say - it depends what focal length you want. Nothing more.  There isn't a huge gain adding the 56mm to the 16-55.  You've got the focal length already though you will gain two stops of light and background blur.  I don't think that would add as much as a longer lens would.

To simply complement the 16-55, the 90 makes a lot of sense, especially on an X-H1 with IBIS. However, after owning both, I prefer the 56 for portraits, and sold the 90. Although I have the 80 if I really need a tighter head shot with more MFD than the 56 can deliver. So if you aren't primarily a portrait shooter, the 80 is another consideration if you do any close-up work, but for a single portrait lens, the 56 is the one.

I find that mine are very different lenses.

StuartBell wrote:

I bought the 90. Great lens, but I found it too narrow for most things indoors, and often outdoors. Sold it and bought the 56, and love it. IMHO it’s far more versatile, and unless you need huge prints, you can crop to get a 90 effect. 56 balances nicely on XT-1 size bodies.

I fully agree with Stuart.

I have used the 90mm during a 2 week city trip in Boston, NY, Philly & Washington.

Image quality & rendering of this lens is amazing but....

In some situations i just didn't have enough space to capture my subject.

I sold the 90mm and was planning to buy a used 56mm f1.2. I think i wait till the 16-80mm lens arrives and wait for sample images and reviews. I know the 16-80mm is a f4 lens but if this lens delivers it's gonna be versatility multiplied by 2

I'm still in the process of debating which portrait lens to get (to complement the 16-55). I've eliminated the 50-140 because of it's price, bulk and weight but mostly because I don't think I really need it right now; most comments here suggest that 50-140 is more for sports / indoor action and wedding/event reportage, which I don't do much. I want to focus on friends and family portraits, so I'm choosing between the XF 56mm F1.2 R and XF 90mm F2 R LM WR.

I have both and I were to pick one for portraits, it would be the 56 for a couple of reasons.  First is the focal length - it's just better for portraits.  Not too close, not too far - just right in my opinion.  Second, f1.2 - it is much more adaptable than the 90 with respect to light - I don't use a flash.   The 90 needs more light and that isn't always possible for portraiture, especially for people like me who can't be bothered to use a flash.

I will add that I find the 90 to be more versatile, for me.  I do use it for portraiture, when the lighting permits.  But I primarily use it for sports where it excels.  Ice hockey, soccer, canine agility, water skiing - the 90 is amazing and is by far my most used lens in the summer.

If I know that I'm shooting people/portraits, the 56 comes out!  It has a bit more of a "clinical" look to it and boy oh boy, is it sharp!   Attached is an uncropped sample taken indoors, wide open, with no flash.

I love my Fuji primes!

atoniolin wrote:

Overall, I think with my XF 16-55mm f2.8, the 90 is the step forward?

I think many of the comments miss the point about complimenting the 16-55mm f2.8.

This is the main kit for many of us. There is very little it can't do. It's also my main holiday kit. Best bokeh of all Fuji lenses and the only lens with faster, quieter AF than the 16-55mm f2.8 - if it's possible to judge that is.

Vic

No experience with Fuji's lenses yet, but when I shot APSC (Canon) I had a 50 and a 85mm lenses (full frame equiv of 80mm and 136mm).

I found that the Canon 85mm lens (on APSC) was too long for me. Indoor, most of the time it was useless. Outdoor it's fine, but still had to keep.some distance from the subject. I seldom use it, I tried to like it, but  after 4 or 5 months I sold it. The 50mm however, was used often.

Right now I have Zeiss 50mm and Nikkor 85mm that I have tested on my XT20. After several shoots I still prefer the 50mm to 85mm.

So, to me personally, the 56 would be more versatile and would be my choice for portrait.

Vic Chapman wrote:

I think many of the comments miss the point about complimenting the 16-55mm f2.8.

Vic

Agree, though it's really to compliment focal length or compliment size & weight. The 90 helps with FL, but as The Brick is so big and heavy, the 56 would better help on light days. Suppose it comes down to where and which situtions you shoot your portraits.

In 35 mm (FF) portrait lenses are considered from 85 (56 on APS-C) through 135 (90 on APS-C). The sweet spot and what most who shoot portraits with a Nikon consider the optimal fl is 100 to 105 and maybe the best portrait lens Nikon has ever made the 105 f2 DC. The defocus control (DC) ring allows you to control the out of focus area which is a plus.

A 90 is a long lens with a lot of compression and it can make portraits flat. The 56 will require you to work closer but if you are intimate with the subject that is a plus not a minus. Fuji does not make an equivalent to the Nikkor 105 f2 DC or any fast lens in that focal length (say a 75 f1.4) and the only options in Fuji are the 56 or 90.

If you are taking images of subjects you are intimate with - I would suggest trying the 56. For street the 56 will work better because it requires less space. The problem with the 90 is you working distance is often so large - the venue will not support it and if it does people keep walking between you and your subject.

But it is a personal preference. If you can try out both and see which you like. I have both and both are fine lenses. Funny thing is I use the 90 primarily for equestrian sports.

56 f1.2

90 f2

You can always crop an image from the 56 to a 90mm perspective.  Can't do that in reverse though.

Scott

1. Take a portrait with the 90mm wide open

2. Do not move, just change lens to a 56mm, shoot the same subject wide open.  Use the same ISO and shutter speed.

3. Crop the pic taken with the 56mm to look like 90mm.

4. Post and discuss about the 2 pictures.

Theoretically, the pictures would look very similar apart from the number of pixels.

If the loss of pixels and quality is not significant, I'd say the 56 is the more versatile one if you shoot wide.

The 90 allows even further cropping, so if that's your thing the 90 might be more versatile.

But you can crop a 90mm to a 135mm perspective.

Doing it on the 56mm will lose too many pixels.