The 90mm f/2.0 was too good. So I returned it. Locked

Heck, the 90mm f/2.0 is a gem of a lens.

It was... too good? Too clinical? I remember judging camera reviewers for saying that.

It's a thing. Not kidding.

The lens lacked a soul, as opposed to the 56mm f/1.2 or 35mm f/1.4 or even 16-55 2.8 (yes, this lens has a soul I swear).

Check out my review. https://themostbeautifulworld.com/blog/review-90mm-fuji

Anybody else thought the same?
It's a typical discussion on the Fuji forums... 56mm f/1.2 or 90mm f/2 ?

56mm f/1.2 every single time!

themostbeautifulworld wrote:

Heck, the 90mm f/2.0 is a gem of a lens.

It was... too good? Too clinical? I remember judging camera reviewers for saying that.

It's a thing. Not kidding.

The lens lacked a soul, as opposed to the 56mm f/1.2 or 35mm f/1.4 or even 16-55 2.8 (yes, this lens has a soul I swear).

Anybody else thought the same?
It's a typical discussion on the Fuji forums... 56mm f/1.2 or 90mm f/2 ?

56mm f/1.2 every single time!

I have only seen imagery from it that has depth, detail, excellent color rendering and that certain quality that you really can’t describe. Clinical? I love that term.

But, I am very glad for you that you found that a piece of equipment you had didn’t meet your needs so you moved on from it. Resolve and acceptance are two very challenging qualities in the world of GAS.

Good luck and please post some of your clinical images so I will have an understanding as to what you are saying - hard to grasp the concept. Thanks!

So after getting it wet, you returned it for a full refund?

themostbeautifulworld wrote:

Heck, the 90mm f/2.0 is a gem of a lens.

It was... too good? Too clinical? I remember judging camera reviewers for saying that.

It's a thing. Not kidding.

The lens lacked a soul, as opposed to the 56mm f/1.2 or 35mm f/1.4 or even 16-55 2.8 (yes, this lens has a soul I swear).

Check out my review. https://themostbeautifulworld.com/blog/review-90mm-fuji

Anybody else thought the same?
It's a typical discussion on the Fuji forums... 56mm f/1.2 or 90mm f/2 ?

56mm f/1.2 every single time!

Hmmmm... these shots in this link have a lot of “soul” to me. I guess it depends on who’s behind the lens that really counts.

https://www.lovegrovephotography.com/fujifilm-xf-90mm-f2-lens/

I understand your logic concerning the soul of a lens, but as I just tested for myself the 90 vs the 56, and to my great surprise, the 56's soul was hit and miss.

When I could get the 56 to focus on the correct object, it was magical. But then (for me- so it could have been operator error) I missed a more than a fair number of shots because the lens was focused especially at 1.2 and 1.4 on something other my intended focal point or it took an inordinate amount of time to focus correctly. That situation never came up with the 90. I never took an "off- focus" shot. I would hasten to say that I realize 1.2 shots must be done with some acumen and practice. My photography needs lend themselves to more spontaneous shots. It seems to me the 56 is much better suited for static or posed objects/people.

At 2.0, I could not tell any difference between the lenses. Even the Bokeh looked the same at 2.0. Each 90 shot was sharp, and was quick to focus. Sadly, I lost confidence with the 56 in a number of shots.

As others have said- each to his own. I, for one, took the 90 over the 56.

10 image attachments max per post, please, per DPR rules. I want to avoid editing posts to enforce that rule but at some point, I may end up doing that.

Speaking as a former clinician "clinical" means that the cause is guesswork, the proposed solution is not certain to make things better or will produce its own issues and someone else will give you an entirely different appreciation of the problem and suggest different solutions.  So although the first two don't transfer freely to imaging the last one is spot on.  It obviously applies to the 90mm.

I am sorry, but after reading things like:

"it’s just that the focus hunts too much on a Fuji X-Pro2"

"And so while this lens is great, it isn’t the pinnacle of optics. Don’t worry: it’s good enough for 99% for the majority of the users. I’m just not satisfied by anything but the best."

And then the link goes to a car?

And all that follows is ridiculous.

I have only tested the 56mm for a couple of weeks but my impression is the opposite. I prefer the 90/2 over both the 56/1.2 and 50/2. I am not sure "clinic" is the word I would use though.......I think it has more to do with preferred focal length and compression.

.lars

themostbeautifulworld wrote:

Heck, the 90mm f/2.0 is a gem of a lens.

It was... too good? Too clinical? I remember judging camera reviewers for saying that.

It's a thing. Not kidding.

The lens lacked a soul, as opposed to the 56mm f/1.2 or 35mm f/1.4 or even 16-55 2.8 (yes, this lens has a soul I swear).

Check out my review. https://themostbeautifulworld.com/blog/review-90mm-fuji

Anybody else thought the same?
It's a typical discussion on the Fuji forums... 56mm f/1.2 or 90mm f/2 ?

56mm f/1.2 every single time!

What a cute way to get some attendance on your website

No. I don't see anything clinical in the rendering.

themostbeautifulworld wrote:

Heck, the 90mm f/2.0 is a gem of a lens.

It was... too good? Too clinical? I remember judging camera reviewers for saying that.

It's a thing. Not kidding.

The lens lacked a soul, as opposed to the 56mm f/1.2 or 35mm f/1.4 or even 16-55 2.8 (yes, this lens has a soul I swear).

Check out my review. https://themostbeautifulworld.com/blog/review-90mm-fuji

Anybody else thought the same?
It's a typical discussion on the Fuji forums... 56mm f/1.2 or 90mm f/2 ?

56mm f/1.2 every single time!

In the article you say:

"The autofocus is quick, but slower than the 16-55mm f/2.8 Fuji (reviewed here). The autofocus is not the best and I would not feel comfortable shooting a wedding with this lens."

All other reviews and user comments say its the fastest Fuji lens, and from the dog photos posted it must be very fast and accurate.

Jerry-astro wrote:

10 image attachments max per post, please, per DPR rules. I want to avoid editing posts to enforce that rule but at some point, I may end up doing that.

10 is already way too many, imho

Seems like you are just trying to drive traffic to your website by a "controversial" but not really informative post.