Telephoto lens for casual city / travel photography (50-140mm or 90mm)

Hi,

I'm new to the forum My question is in bold below, the rest is just a bit of context.

When I'm out taking photos, I prefer walking around with just my X-H1 with the 16mm f/1.4. It's heavier than my old x-pro1 with my 23mm f/2, but much more comfortable to carry in my hand.

I always carry a backpack when taking photos. Not because I carry a lot of gear, but because I am fairly clumsy and want to put the camera/lens safely away when I have to take a crowded stairs or when I have to climb up a hill, etc.

I keep my 3 other lenses (23, 35 and 50 f/2) in my backpack, but rarely switch to them. I will still reach for the 50mm from time to time, but in all reality, it will typically not really allow me to zoom in sufficiently enough for what I want. So I tend to just accept the fact that I can't take all shots I want and stick to the 16mm focal length all day long. Pretty much similar to my x-pro1 days when all I had (and loved) was the 23mm f/2

I still think I eventually want to go for a longer lens as well though, just to be able to take those pictures I can't right now. Thinking I can simply leave my 23, 35 and 50mm lenses at home since I hardly ever take them out anyway, and just pack 1 useful telephoto in the backpack instead.

Would adding a 50-140mm f/2.8 as a second lens to my 16mm be a good choice or would you advise the 90mm f/2? My instinct says: 50-140mm. I learned to appreciate the extra stop the 16mm f/1.4 gives me over my old favorite 23mm f/2, but I assume it is less relevant for the telephoto?

I don't know much about photography yet, but I do know I want (1) weather-resistant lenses & (2) appreciate great low-light performance for my everyday lens. Knowing this, would you recommend the 50-140mm or the 90mm?

Peter

The XF 50-140 2.8 is a terrific lens but it doesn't exactly scream "casual city/travel" even when mounted on an X H-1. For the most part, I am using the XF 16-55 2.8 on my X-H1. This is a match made in heaven for me.

However, when going "casual" and lightening the load I am looking for maximum flexibility with ultimate IQ being the trade off. For me, the XF 18-135 is the current solution. I think the XF -16-80 f4 is an even better option (since I don't use the long end all that much) but I already have a sharp copy of the 18-135 that I purchased at a very good price. When used 16-80 prices drop, I will likely add that lens.

If you really do need the reach, nothing wrong with an 18-55/55-200 pairing as a relatively light, compact and very flexible combination.

I often carry my XH1 with the 16mm f1.4 on and the 55-200 for longer shots in the bag.  Whilst I really do want the 50-140 I think it is too big and heavy for non photography specific trips (at least thats what I keep telling myself), but then I have my eye on the 80mm macro as well so don't listen to me.

Homo erectus wrote:

Look at the size and weight differences. 2.2 lbs for the 50-140 vs 1.2 lbs for the 90. The 50-140 is 6.93 inches long while the 90 is 4.13 inches long (specs from B&H website).

I've carried the X-Pro 2 and 90mm with me nearly everywhere I've gone for the last few years. I don't even think about it, the camera and lens just live in the bag that I take everywhere. I don't think I'd carry the 50-140 unless I knew I specifically needed that lens for what I expected to shoot.

That's just my opinion though. I own the 90 and have rented and used the 50-140 for a week, once. Other people will have different opinions. To make the decision that's best for you, you should rent, or borrow, the lenses and form your own opinion based on your own experience.

Hope that helps.

Aperture can be very important with a longer lens.  They need faster shutter speeds to avoid blurring and also a faster aperture lens may produce nicer bokeh.   The 50-140 wins on versatility yet the 90mm f2 has magical bokeh and the 50-140 produces good bokeh.

Morris

Personally, I'll go for the 50-140 f2.8 over the  90 f2 for travel/city photography even though its heavier. It's a far more versatile lens allowing for a wider variety of shots.

For casual city and travel photography I recommend you buy the 50-230 or 55-200. The 50-140 is really heavy.

I sold the 90 and bought the 50-14. Never looked back. The lens is great optically, and not as heavy as some people would make it out to be.  The main advantage of the 90 is the "stealth" factor if you want to remain inconspicuous.

dccberry wrote:

I sold the 90 and bought the 50-14. Never looked back. The lens is great optically, and not as heavy as some people would make it out to be. The main advantage of the 90 is the "stealth" factor if you want to remain inconspicuous.

I'm in the same boat, BUT when I sold my 90, I was shooting with an X-T2, which, of course, does not have IBIS.  The OP is shooting with an X-H1 so that's not an issue here.

I do recall doing some city shooting with the 90 and it was fantastic.  But I love my 50-140.

To the OP, it sounds like you enjoy shooting with primes over zooms, in which case I'd suggest getting the 90.

But if that really isn't a driving force, and you don't mind the size/weight of the 50-140, then I agree with others - it's a much more versatile lens, and the compression you get at 140mm is really nice to have - opens up interesting compositional opportunities.

PeterPanSyndrome wrote:

Hi,

I'm new to the forum My question is in bold below, the rest is just a bit of context.

When I'm out taking photos, I prefer walking around with just my X-H1 with the 16mm f/1.4. It's heavier than my old x-pro1 with my 23mm f/2, but much more comfortable to carry in my hand.

I always carry a backpack when taking photos. Not because I carry a lot of gear, but because I am fairly clumsy and want to put the camera/lens safely away when I have to take a crowded stairs or when I have to climb up a hill, etc.

I keep my 3 other lenses (23, 35 and 50 f/2) in my backpack, but rarely switch to them. I will still reach for the 50mm from time to time, but in all reality, it will typically not really allow me to zoom in sufficiently enough for what I want. So I tend to just accept the fact that I can't take all shots I want and stick to the 16mm focal length all day long. Pretty much similar to my x-pro1 days when all I had (and loved) was the 23mm f/2

I still think I eventually want to go for a longer lens as well though, just to be able to take those pictures I can't right now. Thinking I can simply leave my 23, 35 and 50mm lenses at home since I hardly ever take them out anyway, and just pack 1 useful telephoto in the backpack instead.

Would adding a 50-140mm f/2.8 as a second lens to my 16mm be a good choice or would you advise the 90mm f/2? My instinct says: 50-140mm. I learned to appreciate the extra stop the 16mm f/1.4 gives me over my old favorite 23mm f/2, but I assume it is less relevant for the telephoto?

I don't know much about photography yet, but I do know I want (1) weather-resistant lenses & (2) appreciate great low-light performance for my everyday lens. Knowing this, would you recommend the 50-140mm or the 90mm?

Peter

I´ve got both the XF 16 (that you have) and the XF 90. And while I would call the highly praised XF 16 as versatile, for me the XF 90 is the one of the main reasons, maybe even the main reason itself, to shoot Fuji. To me there´s no better lens in Fuji lineup if overall image quality and look of the photos is your thing. Being weather sealed and fast focusing are great additions. It´s a pure joy to use this lens. Here are some of my samples (I know they are mostly animal oriented, but you get the point about the rendering ) :

mike

Yes, the 55-200.  You don't need WR, it is largely superfluous provided you've got a bag and casual and travel means not having a camera on show, at least for me.

I've always enjoyed a 70-200 equivalent lens, and Fuji's offering is out-standing - but you sure make an argument for the 90/2. And here I thought I was all set, no GAS or nutin'. . .

[g]

Bob Tullis wrote:

I've always enjoyed a 70-200 equivalent lens, and Fuji's offering is out-standing - but you sure make an argument for the 90/2. And here I thought I was all set, no GAS or nutin'. . .

[g]

LOL I was thinking the same thing.  Amazing photographs.

So many delightful photos at https://500px.com/mikepl500px
You sold the idea of a 90mm f/2 to me .. picking it up on Saturday !

Thank you.

My vote is for the 55-200. Not big and versatile. My copy works flawlessly, has reasonably fast AF and very good IQ.

I recently purchased a 90mm f2, while I'm getting used to it - the photos I've already captured are really wonderful. It's not really that large.

I'm not sure if I would define it for street photography, but as a portrait lens it is special.

I auditioned the 50-140 last year and absolutely loved it. It's still on my list but I just picked up the 90 f/2 -- got it used, I think I paid $597. It's a fantastic lens. Can't go wrong with either. One thing which deterred me from getting the 50-140, outside of price, is its size. I imagined I would be less inclined to take it out. The 90 f/2 isn't exactly "light" and with the lens hood on it's rather long but it definitely possesses a magnitude of portability over the 50-140. It's fun to compose within the constraints of a single long focal length. A welcome challenge. However, 50-140 may be more practical for event work.

georgehudetz wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

I've always enjoyed a 70-200 equivalent lens, and Fuji's offering is out-standing - but you sure make an argument for the 90/2. And here I thought I was all set, no GAS or nutin'. . .

[g]

LOL I was thinking the same thing. Amazing photographs.

Haha, thank you guys!