90mm f2 or 55-200mm for travel photography?

Hey guys, one question...

I want to buy a new lens in addition to my 18-55mm and 35mm f2. Mostly for travel photography and some portraits with a nice bokeh.

I have the 90mm f2 and the 55-200mm in mind. What do you think of these lenses? Which one of these two would you buy?

I love prime lenses! But I also love to zoom a little, if needed. Tough decision. 😕

Thank you for your help!

I have both and mostly use 55-200mm for travel. But 90mm has better IQ but it's too special and too limited that you may lose some scenes, therefore I company the 55-200mm with 23/f2

For travels I got a 55-200 to go along with my 16mm 2.8 and a 27mm 2.8 and it's perfect.

I'm aware of the excellence of the 90mm, but for practicality's sake, you can't go wrong with the zoom. With the other primes, the shorter ones, normally you can walk closer / further to adjust for distance....but for things which are very far away, the zoom will give you more options.

Bokeh vs.flexibility. I wanted both, so I gave up both of them and went with the 50-140. If you're traveling more than shooting specific scenes requiring the 90mm's strengths, the zoom makes more sense.

I wouldn't buy either one for travel. I own the 55-200, and leave it home for most travel. It's small for what it does, but for me, it's too big for travel and I'd just leave it in the hotel because I wouldn't want to carry it. If I needed reach, I'd take it, but where I travel, I don't typically need reach.

The 90 is a portrait lens. You can use it for medium telephoto needs, but where I travel, I don't typically need that either. Again, for me, it's too large for travel.

If I was dead set on taking something telephoto, I'd take the 55-200 because it's more versatile.

dual12 wrote:

I wouldn't buy either one for travel. I own the 55-200, and leave it home for most travel. It's small for what it does, but for me, it's too big for travel and I'd just leave it in the hotel because I wouldn't want to carry it. If I needed reach, I'd take it, but where I travel, I don't typically need reach.

The 90 is a portrait lens. You can use it for medium telephoto needs, but where I travel, I don't typically need that either. Again, for me, it's too large for travel.

If I was dead set on taking something telephoto, I'd take the 55-200 because it's more versatile.

I second your opinion, especially after a two-week trip to yellowstone last week. I found most of the time I had to switch the 55-200 back to 23 in order to find a nice frame.

That's also why I am considering a Leica Q2 (with 28) to compliment my x-t30 with 23mm (equivalent to 35mm)

While I travel with a prime on my backup body (X-E1) and will often pack another depending on the environment, I really prefer zooms with OIS as my primary travel lenses.

Many times I wanted just a little more on the wide end, rather than more zoom, so I recently purchased the XF 10-24mm F4 OIS. I think this is going to work out as a good addition for me when shooting in tight places (think the alleys in a place like Shinbashi) and obviously good fit for architecture.

So don't snooze on the wide angle options.

The 90 delivers my absolute favorite pictures, but it is also my least used lens.  You have to have something specific in mind before you mount it to your camera.

So I can’t recommend it for general travel photography.

Lens selection is more about your style of photography, your vision and how you see shots. Some people wouldn't carry anything longer than 50mm and prefer a 28 or 35mm FoV or even wider for their vision. I see shots with compression and isolation of subjects and therefore always want a longer FL with me. For the way I shoot, the 90, though a gorgeous lens, would be far too limiting for my needs so hands down the 55-200.

The 50-140 would probably serve my needs too but only with the 1.4X otherwise it would be too short for me. When I was in my 30's and 40's it was 3 Canon f2.8L zooms but I was also a slave to my kit which is no fun on vacation and irritated my wife. One reason I switched from Canon to Fuji was for the smaller, lighter kit for travel and the 50-140 goes against the grain in that sense so no doubt the 55-200 for me which is a great value and a very good lens.

My travel kit is the 10-24, 18-55 and 55-200 with my X-T20 as the primary and my X-T2 as backup that stays at the hotel unless problems develop with the 20. For me it's all about small, light and unobtrusive not drawing attention to myself as much as possible when out shooting.

Bob

Justin9999 wrote:

The 90 delivers my absolute favorite pictures, but it is also my least used lens. You have to have something specific in mind before you mount it to your camera.

So I can’t recommend it for general travel photography.

I had the exact same experience....love the IQ of the 90 but it barely made it out of the bag. I just don’t take many pics using that focal length, I guess.

The 55-200 is sharp and versatile.  Highly recommended for travel.