Are 35 & 50 too close together?

Been trying to have a 3 prime light lens set for my X-T2.

The bigger picture here is I had to rationalise (aka release some cash) in order to buy into GFX.

My thinking was to simplify my X series lenses to 2 sets:

The 'do most things superbly well' zoom set

• 16-55
• 50-140

The compact, light 3 primes 'this is why I got into X series' set

• 16 f/2.8
• 35 f/1.4
• 50 f/2

Here's the problem: 35 & 50 feel too close together for me. So do I:

• Take one or the other, but not both, with the 16
• Ditch the 50, replace with the 90 (heavy, expensive)
• Ditch the 50, replace with the Viltrox 85 (heavy, but probably close to cost neutral to change)
• Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

Any other light, economic AF prime options >60mm?

They are and they aren't... depends on user. They are totally different, but if they are worth having in your kit if you aren't going to reach for one or the other, is a different question.

I prefer bigger spacing between primes so you definitely know when to switch or not.

I have a similar set up right now after dumping a bunch of my kit and will likely get the 90mm... I think I'd rather have a 70mm though.

Snap Happy wrote:

Been trying to have a 3 prime light lens set for my X-T2.

The bigger picture here is I had to rationalise (aka release some cash) in order to buy into GFX.

My thinking was to simplify my X series lenses to 2 sets:

The 'do most things superbly well' zoom set

• 16-55
• 50-140

The compact, light 3 primes 'this is why I got into X series' set

• 16 f/2.8
• 35 f/1.4
• 50 f/2

Here's the problem: 35 & 50 feel too close together for me. So do I:

• Take one or the other, but not both, with the 16
• Ditch the 50, replace with the 90 (heavy, expensive)
• Ditch the 50, replace with the Viltrox 85 (heavy, but probably close to cost neutral to change)
• Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

Any other light, economic AF prime options >60mm?

For a long time my base kit with my Nikon 35 mm was 28 mm, 50 mm and 105.  I had a 75 for my Leica.  With the Leica I had a 28, 50 and 75.  At first I felt the 75 and 50 were too close together but over time I learned to appreciate the 75 as a partner with the 50.

Personally I feel that there is a big hole in the Fuji lineup - that being a 75 mm f2 similar to the compact design of the 50 f2.  Jumping from a 35 APSC to 85 or 90 (APSC ) leaves too big of a hole.

My XPro lens line up is 18 f2, 23 f2, 35 f1.4, 50 f2.  I had the 90 in from time to time which I use mostly on the H1.  In many situations I have learned to like the 50 as a supporting lens for the 35 f1.4.

For me personally, yes.   I'd rather have a 35 and 85/90, or if you prefer the 50, swap out the 35 for a 23.

Snap Happy wrote:

Been trying to have a 3 prime light lens set for my X-T2.

The bigger picture here is I had to rationalise (aka release some cash) in order to buy into GFX.

My thinking was to simplify my X series lenses to 2 sets:

The 'do most things superbly well' zoom set

• 16-55
• 50-140

The compact, light 3 primes 'this is why I got into X series' set

• 16 f/2.8
• 35 f/1.4
• 50 f/2

Here's the problem: 35 & 50 feel too close together for me. So do I:

• Take one or the other, but not both, with the 16
• Ditch the 50, replace with the 90 (heavy, expensive)
• Ditch the 50, replace with the Viltrox 85 (heavy, but probably close to cost neutral to change)
• Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

Any other light, economic AF prime options >60mm?

I would recommend bullet #1. There is nothing wrong with just taking two of your three primes for the day. Your 35 & 50 are very different in other aspects of image quality besides focal length. They are very complimentary and should not be broken up.

Ditching the 50 for any of the other lenses you mention would be a sad mistake in my opinion. If you insist on ditching the 50 the only logical choice would be the 56/1.2.

Snap Happy wrote:

Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

The Canon 85 f/1.8 combination hasn't worked out well for me with the Fringer adapter (even though I've been happy using it with other Canon lenses).

At that aperture/focal length combination I'd always go for the Fuji 90 f/2.

JayPhizzt wrote:

Why not Fuji's 60/2.4?

Had one before, still think it's a bit short plus AF a bit slow.

Very sharp though.

Yeah, I agree if Fuji could make a light compact 70 or 75, even if f/2.8 that would be perfect for me.

Greybeard2017 wrote:

Snap Happy wrote:

Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

The Canon 85 f/1.8 combination hasn't worked out well for me with the Fringer adapter (even though I've been happy using it with other Canon lenses).

At that aperture/focal length combination I'd always go for the Fuji 90 f/2.

Really? I've tried that combo and thought it was pretty good. What didn't you like about it?

Cagey75 wrote:

For me personally, yes. I'd rather have a 35 and 85/90, or if you prefer the 50, swap out the 35 for a 23.

The 23 might be worth thinking about, thanks.

Snap Happy wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

For me personally, yes. I'd rather have a 35 and 85/90, or if you prefer the 50, swap out the 35 for a 23.

The 23 might be worth thinking about, thanks.

I've not owned either of the 23 variants, but I have owned the 35 F2 and 1.4, and the 50 F2 - the difference between the 35 offerings and the 50 is really just a few steps tbh.  I would feel it a waste to have both.   The 50F2 is a sweet lens though, incredibly sharp and it's pretty sweet for portraits.   The 35 1.4 is also nice, but I personally think it's over-rated [I've actually owned 2 copies] - it's not the sharpest at 1.4, and if you end up using it mostly at F2 then you're better of with the 35 F2.   I have heard/read that the 23 F2 is a bit soft wide open also, the main reason i never tried it, but if you're good with 2.8 and you don't tend to close focus much it'll be a cracker for all else.

Snap Happy wrote:

Greybeard2017 wrote:

Snap Happy wrote:

Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

The Canon 85 f/1.8 combination hasn't worked out well for me with the Fringer adapter (even though I've been happy using it with other Canon lenses).

At that aperture/focal length combination I'd always go for the Fuji 90 f/2.

Really? I've tried that combo and thought it was pretty good. What didn't you like about it?

Maybe it’s my copy of the Canon lens but I’ve never managed to get anything close in sharpness to images taken with the Fuji 90mm

Another possible “fix” if you are happy with the 50 more than the others would be to back up the other two...

soemthing like a 14 /2.8, 23 1.4/2 then the 50.

not as bunched up that way.

but if you’re doing most of your work with the 35 1.4... then yeah prob want something a touch longer or at least in addition to the 50. I wouldn’t want it as my longest lens.

• Ditch the 50, replace with the Viltrox 85 (heavy, but probably close to cost neutral to change)

Snap Happy wrote:

Yeah, I agree if Fuji could make a light compact 70 or 75, even if f/2.8 that would be perfect for me.

I think I may have said this on a different post but the 35 and 50 (50 and 75 FF) comes from the Leica rangefinder world.  Those of us that grew up on the street with a Leica in our hands - this is a good combination.  In the 35 mm SLR world the 75 became the 85 with a 100/105 between the 85 and 135.

Being I cut my teeth on the street with my M4 and cut my teeth in the back country with a 4x5 ( different story) I actually like the 50 f2 because I developed the feel for that focal length.  Nikon and Canon (which is the 56 in APSC land)  thought it too short.  Personally I find the 85 in no man's land.   That non withstanding Fuji has a hole it is at the classic 100/105, (70/75 on APSC) focal length.

Come on Fuji - time to up your game.

Snap Happy wrote:

Been trying to have a 3 prime light lens set for my X-T2.

The bigger picture here is I had to rationalise (aka release some cash) in order to buy into GFX.

My thinking was to simplify my X series lenses to 2 sets:

The 'do most things superbly well' zoom set

• 16-55
• 50-140

The compact, light 3 primes 'this is why I got into X series' set

• 16 f/2.8
• 35 f/1.4
• 50 f/2

Here's the problem: 35 & 50 feel too close together for me. So do I:

• Take one or the other, but not both, with the 16
• Ditch the 50, replace with the 90 (heavy, expensive)
• Ditch the 50, replace with the Viltrox 85 (heavy, but probably close to cost neutral to change)
• Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

Any other light, economic AF prime options >60mm?

If simplifying the lenses is the ultimate goal and you don't care about the weight of the setup and loss of fast aperture of the primes, then I would say Option one ( go zoom).

Picture quality ( micro-contrast, sharpness and color)  of the 16-55 is equally good or better  than the f/2 primes at f/2.8. I didn't really compare the focus speed but it feels a little faster than the f/2 primes. The only weakness to me of the 16-55 is that distortion on the extremes FL are quite noticeable. But that can be corrected more in PP.  With that lens you basically got covered for 16, 23, 35, 50 with just one lens... The 35/1.4 still have a bigger advantage as it is f/1.4 and it's color rendering is more pleasing to my eyes.

To 50-140 or not, it's up to your need. Personally, I don't want to lug around the big heavy lens that I know I don't use much.  I would choose the 90/2 to cover any mid tele purpose. I would also pair the 90/2 with 35/1.4 for the shadow FOV, low light and portrait needs.

With the 16-55/2.8 and 35/1.4 and 90/2, I don't think you will miss the 50/2 much.

Snap Happy wrote:

Been trying to have a 3 prime light lens set for my X-T2.

The bigger picture here is I had to rationalise (aka release some cash) in order to buy into GFX.

My thinking was to simplify my X series lenses to 2 sets:

The 'do most things superbly well' zoom set

• 16-55
• 50-140

The compact, light 3 primes 'this is why I got into X series' set

• 16 f/2.8
• 35 f/1.4
• 50 f/2

Here's the problem: 35 & 50 feel too close together for me. So do I:

• Take one or the other, but not both, with the 16
• Ditch the 50, replace with the 90 (heavy, expensive)

How does the Fuji 90/2 fit under the 'Compact, light 3 primes' and 'why I got into X series' category? It sounds like you actually want a third category of 'fast (but heavy) mid telephoto'.

• Ditch the 50, replace with the Viltrox 85 (heavy, but probably close to cost neutral to change)

Ditto.

• Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

Ditto. And you've got to buy the Fringer as well

Any other light, economic AF prime options >60mm?

There aren't any.  The 60mm would be a longer step from the 35mm and is optically good, but you've discounted it.  I agree with Truman and others that a compact AF lens around 70-75/2 would be a nice addition to the range - it would be an equivalent to the old 100/105mm primes that were popular in the days of film. It would be nice if it had OIS at that FL too.

Other than the 90mm, zooms are your only Fuji AF option for FLs longer than 60mm (ignoring the 200/2 which doesn't meet your 'economic' criteria.)   You already have the highest grade option in the 50-140.

Left field thought..... (Don't stop reading too soon.....) Keep the 50/2. You already own it. It's a sharp and modestly fast lens. Now.... The 50-230 is not a prime, and as slow as a wet week, but it is an extremely light zoom at 375g. It might be Fuji's el cheapo plastic offering, but it's flexible, the IQ is surprisingly good, the AF is OK in reasonable light, and the OIS is effective.  I have the 55-200 which weighs about 600g with the caps on.  I kept leaving it at home and so bought a used copy of the 50-230 just for travel. It's a much lighter lump in the day-pack. They're cheap new at the moment or you could pick up a used one for next to nothing.  You could take your three small primes plus the 50-230 just for the longer shots with you when you're not taking your 50-140.  Food for thought?

Cheers, Rod

nonicks wrote:

If simplifying the lenses is the ultimate goal and you don't care about the weight of the setup and loss of fast aperture of the primes, then I would say Option one ( go zoom).

Picture quality ( micro-contrast, sharpness and color) of the 16-55 is equally good or better than the f/2 primes at f/2.8. I didn't really compare the focus speed but it feels a little faster than the f/2 primes. The only weakness to me of the 16-55 is that distortion on the extremes FL are quite noticeable. But that can be corrected more in PP. With that lens you basically got covered for 16, 23, 35, 50 with just one lens... The 35/1.4 still have a bigger advantage as it is f/1.4 and it's color rendering is more pleasing to my eyes.

To 50-140 or not, it's up to your need. Personally, I don't want to lug around the big heavy lens that I know I don't use much. I would choose the 90/2 to cover any mid tele purpose. I would also pair the 90/2 with 35/1.4 for the shadow FOV, low light and portrait needs.

With the 16-55/2.8 and 35/1.4 and 90/2, I don't think you will miss the 50/2 much.

Not sure that I agree about the 16-55/2.8. In terms of sharpness it's about equal to the primes up to 23mm. At 35mm I find the 35/F2 to be a little sharper and at 50-55mm the primes are noticeably better. The difference between my 56/1.2 and 16-55/2.8 @55mm is huge IMO and I guess it's the same for the 50/2.

.lars
https://www.flickr.com/photos/larsrost/