56 vs 90: Who is more versatile? Discuss.

Greg7579 wrote:

atoniolin wrote:

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?

That is what this camera equipment forum is for. It is for OPs to come on here and agonize about which lens to buy and for us to reassure you and help you think about a decision.

These are great portrait lenses for vastly different framing. Both have world-class IQ. The 90 is along with the Mighty 16, the best Fuji Prime and the 56 is right in there with them. You can't go wrong. But the 56 angle of view is probably more overall versatile in general. You already know the differences. The 56 is the older generation focusing motor but does pretty well, and is faster for that magical separation and bokeh. I have both lenses. They are both awesome.

But I also have the 50-140, which is a fabulous portrait lens. You were wrong about that. 70-210 equivalent is used by portrait pro's the world over, especially outside the studio. It gives you endless framing options at all the longer classic portrait lengths, wonderful OIS and the best IQ imaginable for a lens like that. Get the 50-140. My gut feel is that is the one for you. Quite frankly, we should all have that lens.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Portrait lenses need to be fast since you need to be able to spotlight you subject and eliminate any distractions - especially out of the studio.  A have all three, 56, 90 and 50-140.  The 50-140 is a nice lens but it is almost two stops slower than the 56 and one slower than the 90.  It (50-140) also requires owning a pack mule to transport it ;-)!

stevo23 wrote:

wy2lam wrote:

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.

What you're proposing is to bypass the relative strength of the 56mm which is the ability to get in a little tighter and achieve shallower DOF. What we need is to see each at it's best distance and treatment for the same scene.

The 56 focuses at 70cm with a magnification of 0.09x and the 90 focuses at 60cm with a magnification of 0.2x.  So if one of these lenses can get in a little tighter it would actually be the 90mm.

It does make the 90mm more versatile in this measure.

wy2lam wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

wy2lam wrote:

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.

What you're proposing is to bypass the relative strength of the 56mm which is the ability to get in a little tighter and achieve shallower DOF. What we need is to see each at it's best distance and treatment for the same scene.

The 56 focuses at 70cm with a magnification of 0.09x and the 90 focuses at 60cm with a magnification of 0.2x. So if one of these lenses can get in a little tighter it would actually be the 90mm.

It does make the 90mm more versatile in this measure.

"Getting in a little tighter" didn't imply minimum focus capability. It implied the same thing that using an ultra wide implies which is to get in tighter and still retain more of the surrounding scene. Not that it's wide, but it's wider.

Photos-Mike wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

atoniolin wrote:

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?

That is what this camera equipment forum is for. It is for OPs to come on here and agonize about which lens to buy and for us to reassure you and help you think about a decision.

These are great portrait lenses for vastly different framing. Both have world-class IQ. The 90 is along with the Mighty 16, the best Fuji Prime and the 56 is right in there with them. You can't go wrong. But the 56 angle of view is probably more overall versatile in general. You already know the differences. The 56 is the older generation focusing motor but does pretty well, and is faster for that magical separation and bokeh. I have both lenses. They are both awesome.

But I also have the 50-140, which is a fabulous portrait lens. You were wrong about that. 70-210 equivalent is used by portrait pro's the world over, especially outside the studio. It gives you endless framing options at all the longer classic portrait lengths, wonderful OIS and the best IQ imaginable for a lens like that. Get the 50-140. My gut feel is that is the one for you. Quite frankly, we should all have that lens.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

I agree, I've owned all three and now only have the 50-140.

However, if you're determined to stick to a prime, you could also consider the 80mm macro. Bokeh is slightly less smooth, but I think it's the sharpest lens out there. The big thing though is the stabilisation, which is just superb.

If you are determined to stick to the 56 or 90 I'd choose the 90. Quicker to focus, and you can get close. The minimum focus distance of the 56 is not great at all, I'm not so sure it's as you quote it above.

The problem with the 50-140mm f2.8 is that to get that marvelous bokeh you're shooting at near max zoom and that is the argument used against the 90mm being too long for inside use. In spite of this, Greg is right, many pro portrait shooters use the 70-200mm FF focal length which makes nonsense of the 90mm f2 comments,

Since the OP has the 55mm fl covered at f2.8 with their 16-55 f2.8, it makes sense (to me) to consider the 90mm f2.

Vic