fuji 35 1.4 or 56 1.2

[Fujishooter1970]

Hi all, I hope you can help me...

I am thinking of buying a fast prime for Fuji to use in low light for my Xt3. Right now I have a 16 55 and a 50 140...I want to do more portraits, product photography, street stuff where i want to use the fast prime for..mainly portraits..

The 35 is more versatile off course. The 56 is magic...allthough thats also said about the 35. Right now there is a nice cashback for the 56...so i can buy the 56 for 749 euro..

Anyone a good suggestion what to do?

NB i will buy a godox flash also ...and I like Bokeh...

 

[jrscls]

You can't go wrong with either. If it is mainly for portraits, then I would get the 56mm, but if you want a more general purpose lens that can also be used for portraits, then the 35 f/1.4.

 

[ViMa]

Hi all, I hope you can help me...

I am thinking of buying a fast prime for Fuji to use in low light for my Xt3. Right now I have a 16 55 and a 50 140...I want to do more portraits, product photography, street stuff where i want to use the fast prime for..mainly portraits..

The 35 is more versatile off course. The 56 is magic...allthough thats also said about the 35. Right now there is a nice cashback for the 56...so i can buy the 56 for 749 euro..

Anyone a good suggestion what to do?

NB i will buy a godox flash also ...and I like Bokeh...

Brushing off the 'magic' statement - we've already had enough arguments about this for february on this forum - I would suggest you get the 35mm f1.4. It's cheaper, smaller, lighter, and a great lens. Especially on the X-T3 it's going to work wonders.

 

[NickHolmes]

I should be picking up my first fuji body and lenses tomorrow, and whilst I would never presume to tell anyone what is best, I do fully understand the anguish of temptations surpassing budgets (first world problems, I guess).

I was struggling to chose between the 35 f/1.4 and the 90 f/2. In the end, being honest with myself made the choice easy: Whichever I get now, I'm pretty sure that temptation will keep knawing away at me until I get the other. As you mention with the 56. the 90 also has a cashback at the moment (effectively, -20%), so that tipped the balance for me.

Nick.

 

[Justin Cider]

I own both and love both. The benefit of the 35 is that you can zoom in and out with your legs where as the 56 is less flexible. They are both in their own right. If you take more of your shots tight to the subject than go for the 56 as it's the superior lens IMO. If you like to get more environment in the shot grab the 35. FWIW I purchased both mine used. With no more than a week of persistence on eBay I paid $500 for the 56 and $325 for the 35. The 56 was in dead mint condition and the 35 was in fantastic condition as far as the lens but the hood had a couple scuffs. If you go used, you could likely have both for $825 or less so something to consider. There are plenty of debates on the 35 1.4 vs 35 2 and I won't hash out the details but even though I prefer the 1.4 after owning both, there are plenty of people who like to argue the f2 cousin is better, even if in different ways. I mention this because you will find quite the opposite when it comes to the 56 where it's widely accepted without debate that if you do any portraiture what so ever that it's a must own lens. I couldn't agree more. Let us know what you end up going with and how you like it.

 

[jjz2]

Hi all, I hope you can help me...

I am thinking of buying a fast prime for Fuji to use in low light for my Xt3. Right now I have a 16 55 and a 50 140...I want to do more portraits, product photography, street stuff where i want to use the fast prime for..mainly portraits..

The 35 is more versatile off course. The 56 is magic...allthough thats also said about the 35. Right now there is a nice cashback for the 56...so i can buy the 56 for 749 euro..

Anyone a good suggestion what to do?

NB i will buy a godox flash also ...and I like Bokeh...

I'd go with the 50/56/60/90... if portraits are your main thing...

It's not all about speed, it's about distance to subject and making people look good... longer, to an extent (mostly in the 75-135 range), is generally better.

 

[ViMa]

Hi all, I hope you can help me...

I am thinking of buying a fast prime for Fuji to use in low light for my Xt3. Right now I have a 16 55 and a 50 140...I want to do more portraits, product photography, street stuff where i want to use the fast prime for..mainly portraits..

The 35 is more versatile off course. The 56 is magic...allthough thats also said about the 35. Right now there is a nice cashback for the 56...so i can buy the 56 for 749 euro..

Anyone a good suggestion what to do?

NB i will buy a godox flash also ...and I like Bokeh...

I'd go with the 50/56/60/90... if portraits are your main thing...

It's not all about speed, it's about distance to subject and making people look good... longer, to an extent (mostly in the 75-135 range), is generally better.

If we're talking of a one lens solution here, then the 50 would be the best of the bunch, I think.

I'd be very happy with having just a 35mm but I realise that for portraits something more tele would work better. The 60mm is my personal favourite but I'm not sure I'd like it as my only lens. The 90mm is far too long and heavy and big so again I wouldn't get it. The 50mm is small, WR and super fast but it also is wide enough to work with some street shots and enviromental portraits.

 

[jrk]

Just get them both, you know you want to! ;-)

 

[Escaping]

I tend to think of my optimal set being 14 - 23 - 56, so the 56 is not a stand alone lens to me. Since you already have the 16-55 and the 50-140, I would think that the 56 becomes a special situation lens for you, a piece in the range of FL's.

If I don't have any lens at all, and I can only pick the 35 or the 56, I would go with the 35 because it is a better general purpose FL.

You can not go wrong with either lens.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Hi all, I hope you can help me...

I am thinking of buying a fast prime for Fuji to use in low light for my Xt3. Right now I have a 16 55 and a 50 140...I want to do more portraits, product photography, street stuff where i want to use the fast prime for..mainly portraits..

If you have the space - the 56 is a wonderful "street lens." If you don't have a lot of space or if there are a lot of people, the 35 will work better on the street.

But you can't go wrong with either. Given what you say and the price is right - I suggest you get the 56.

You can even get a sports shot or two with the 56.

Or also the 35

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 

[Fujishooter1970]

I own both and love both. The benefit of the 35 is that you can zoom in and out with your legs where as the 56 is less flexible. They are both in their own right. If you take more of your shots tight to the subject than go for the 56 as it's the superior lens IMO. If you like to get more environment in the shot grab the 35. FWIW I purchased both mine used. With no more than a week of persistence on eBay I paid $500 for the 56 and $325 for the 35. The 56 was in dead mint condition and the 35 was in fantastic condition as far as the lens but the hood had a couple scuffs. If you go used, you could likely have both for $825 or less so something to consider. There are plenty of debates on the 35 1.4 vs 35 2 and I won't hash out the details but even though I prefer the 1.4 after owning both, there are plenty of people who like to argue the f2 cousin is better, even if in different ways. I mention this because you will find quite the opposite when it comes to the 56 where it's widely accepted without debate that if you do any portraiture what so ever that it's a must own lens. I couldn't agree more. Let us know what you end up going with and how you like it.

Thanks a lot for you and others response, yes I will definitely let you know...and yes buying used is absolutely an option!

 

[Fujishooter1970]

Thanks for the pictures and your response! Much appreciated!

 

[Fujishooter1970]

Just get them both, you know you want to! ;-)

Haha yes...

 

[Fujishooter1970]

Thanks! Yes I overlooked the 50mm!

 

[Fujishooter1970]

Thanks Vittorio.....I learned Photography with a Pentax ME Super and 50mm lens....and the 35mm for that reasons calls my name....however the 56 is such a masterpiece as well...still doubting though..

Cheers!

 

[ikaika777]

Hi all, I hope you can help me...

I am thinking of buying a fast prime for Fuji to use in low light for my Xt3. Right now I have a 16 55 and a 50 140...I want to do more portraits, product photography, street stuff where i want to use the fast prime for..mainly portraits..

The 35 is more versatile off course. The 56 is magic...allthough thats also said about the 35. Right now there is a nice cashback for the 56...so i can buy the 56 for 749 euro..

Anyone a good suggestion what to do?

NB i will buy a godox flash also ...and I like Bokeh...

A lot of professional photographers love the 50-140 OIS WR for portraits. And you can see here why:

Loading…

www.lovegrovephotography.com

 

[Fujishooter1970]

Hi all, I hope you can help me...

I am thinking of buying a fast prime for Fuji to use in low light for my Xt3. Right now I have a 16 55 and a 50 140...I want to do more portraits, product photography, street stuff where i want to use the fast prime for..mainly portraits..

The 35 is more versatile off course. The 56 is magic...allthough thats also said about the 35. Right now there is a nice cashback for the 56...so i can buy the 56 for 749 euro..

Anyone a good suggestion what to do?

NB i will buy a godox flash also ...and I like Bokeh...

A lot of professional photographers love the 50-140 OIS WR for portraits. And you can see here why:

https://www.lovegrovephotography.com/fujifilm-xf-50-140mm-f2-8-r-lm-ois-wr/

Thanks, yes Damian is an excellent photographer using the fuji system

I thought of buying the 35 1.4 yesterday but postponed my decision...thanks everybody for your support!

 

[Hello Newman]

Just wondering now, would the 55 - 200 zoom work just as well for portraiture? Haven't given it any thought until now. Has anyone tried and can show pics? Thank you.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Just get them both, you know you want to! ;-)

When I go to the track to stalk the "animals" on the front side - I have the 56 and 35 with me.

Show me the money. :-D

When I go in the mornings to stalk the galloping horses, I have the 50-140 with me.

Easy gallop

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 

[jjz2]

Because you can quickly switch from popular equivalent lengths like 85/135/200 and still get an aperture of 2.8 and equiv DoF of F4.

The biggest hindrance is size and if you need to shoot below 2.8, some like a blown out background, others like complimenting backgrounds.

If you're shooting towards the 135/200 distances, even at 2.8, and assuming the model isn't standing 3 feet from a wall, you can still easily blow out the background... if that's your thing.

NM... thought you were talking about the 50-140...

I don't have it, but wouldn't think the slower aperture and probably not as sharp from the get go would be great for portraiture. You could probably make it work at the longer end and playing with subject/background distance.

I made nice portraits before with a 55-200 kit on Nikon, but it isn't what I'd grab first.