Am I crazy for not loving the 90mm?

[Spazmaster]

Picked up a 90mm for a good price, taken some shots with it and I just dont love it. though I havent done any extensive sessions with it.

Its sharp, fast focus, good bokeh, but Its just not jiving. The focal length I think makes people look to flat due to the compression.

Considering selling it and grabbing a 56mm. Does anyone have any input?

 

[TRIODEROB]

any input ? - yes I disagree

here are 3 of my 90 mm images

post 3 of your own and lets talk about them

 

[Spazmaster]

Beautiful images, unfortunately I dont feel comfortable sharing any of the portraits I have taken as they are of family. Here is three I have taken, though this lens was bought mainly aimed at portraits.

It seems like most of your shots with it are shoulder up / headshots, where mine are more full body. Perhaps I need to get closer.

 

[TRIODEROB]

they look flat because of your photographic technique - not the lens.

would you care for me to go into detail on my above statement ?

 

[deednets]

Picked up a 90mm for a good price, taken some shots with it and I just dont love it. though I havent done any extensive sessions with it.
Its sharp, fast focus, good bokeh, but Its just not jiving. The focal length I think makes people look to flat due to the compression.
Considering selling it and grabbing a 56mm. Does anyone have any input?

Flat you think? ;-)

Deed

 

[Spazmaster]

Yeah I dont mean flat as in color or pop, but facial features, especially with heavier subjects. Beautiful shot by the way!

 

[jjz2]

Picked up a 90mm for a good price, taken some shots with it and I just dont love it. though I havent done any extensive sessions with it.
Its sharp, fast focus, good bokeh, but Its just not jiving. The focal length I think makes people look to flat due to the compression.
Considering selling it and grabbing a 56mm. Does anyone have any input?

I have the viltrox 85mm 1.8 and considering the same for similar reasons... Plus I just don't like the bigger size on x t20... 56 is kind of big compared to my other primes, but doable...

I'm still on the fence though.

Might just add back in 60mm 2.4 in that slot for travel and studio, and keep 85...

Like you, I'm also using it for half or full body, not headshots...i generally never shoot headshots like that, maybe 5%, as I'm usually focusing on the wardrobe and or location as well. I do like that I can make dreamy backgrounds on outdoor shots though at will due to the compression/speed.

a 70f2 would be better for me I think...

As for the flattened facial features on heavier subjects... this is why most portrait pros have an 85/135 plus a 70-200, as each body type/facial shape is going to look more flattering at a different length.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The classic focal length for head and shoulder portraits was 80 to 100mm on 35mm film. A little outside this the effects are subtle and not disasterously bad, not photo ruining, certainly not a trifle longer - You've got 135mm equivalent and a lot of people like head and shoulders portraits shot at that focal length. Are you filling the frame with your head and shoulder shots? If not you are too far away and it is of course distance that determines perspective not the lens.

 

[biza43]

A lens may be very good, but its main characteristic is still focal lenght. Give it a little more time before deciding.

 

[mike lix]

Picked up a 90mm for a good price, taken some shots with it and I just dont love it. though I havent done any extensive sessions with it.
Its sharp, fast focus, good bokeh, but Its just not jiving. The focal length I think makes people look to flat due to the compression.
Considering selling it and grabbing a 56mm. Does anyone have any input?

Yes, it does make people look flat. Unless you know how to exploit the look, you will be better off with a shorter FL. That´s why most people shoot portraits with 50-85mm equivalents - it´s easier to work with, hovewer they´re less exciting FLs too.

 

[Phil1]

I use the 90mm for events in very low light. Reach, large aperture and sharpness are huge advantages in this situation. One of my favourite lenses! But if you're in less space it may be too long for you.

With the 56mm you may need to stop down a little to get best sharpness and to minimise focussing errors due to the very small dof.

Phil

 

[yayatosorus]

+1 on that. As time goes on I find myself trying out more and more tele FL for portraits, as they are more challenging and rewarding to shoot with then say a standard 85mm FL.

To the OP:

First of all great images. Give it time. A new FL always requires to rethink the way you're shooting so that you get the most out of it. I now personally love to use the 135mm to 200mm FL for portraits, love the compression, which wasn't the case at the start. When I first got my 135mm I tried using it to get the same shots I was getting with my 50mm, which didn't really work. I then tried to shoot with it for many many weeks and well... I'm still learning how the get the most of it, even after all this time. Tele/Super-tele FL lenses are like wide/ultra wides - they're tough to use, but they can also create some rather special images.

I really recommend checking out this group on Flickr - the 90mm is used very creatively. I'll leave off with links to a couple of great shots I've spotted on there:

1. Darko Stojanovski - Quarantine comforting thoughts XV
2. Libervitae - Thaxted at Dawn
3. labrossephotography - June_2020_XT30342
4. Budgetographer- Windtower ®
5. Brice L - XE3B8795-M
6. John B Fotografía - Leaves of Autumn

Good luck.

 

[hyperfuzz]

I guess you need to use light and shadow more with the 90mm to add dimension. Here's a quick SOOC from a while back when I was testing.





--
say hi over at http://instagram.com/faz.io

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

It simply comes down to what image types you like and what you need. If you don't find the lens appealing, then in time it may be the right decision for you to sell it. OTOH, you've only had it five minutes, so I would recommend exploring its uses a bit longer before making that decision. Look at others' posts and see what you can learn.

I sold mine. The 90mm is a brilliant lens - as sharp as people say it is across the frame and through the aperture range. However, it's a heavy addition to a light kit, and for me it proved to be a lens I didn't use often. I don't take a lot of images of people, and for the sheer reach of a telephoto lens, I prefer a zoom. Zooms are slower and don't offer the subject separation of the 90mm at f2, but for me they prove much more versatile. When you're looking for reach you often can't change position, or at least not far enough and/or quickly enough to use a prime. I'm content without it.

Regards, Rod

 

[lexvo]

I agree what some others already said: give it some time to get used to it.

When I bought the 135/2 for my Canon I certainly needed some time to get myself familiar with the FL, and also to get consistent sharp images at f/2.

It all clicked for me when shooting a concert (where I only brought the 135/2). From that moment it became my favorite lens


Taken with the 135/2 and the Canon 1D classic

 

[mike lix]

+1 on that. As time goes on I find myself trying out more and more tele FL for portraits, as they are more challenging and rewarding to shoot with then say a standard 85mm FL.

To the OP:

First of all great images. Give it time. A new FL always requires to rethink the way you're shooting so that you get the most out of it. I now personally love to use the 135mm to 200mm FL for portraits, love the compression, which wasn't the case at the start. When I first got my 135mm I tried using it to get the same shots I was getting with my 50mm, which didn't really work. I then tried to shoot with it for many many weeks and well... I'm still learning how the get the most of it, even after all this time. Tele/Super-tele FL lenses are like wide/ultra wides - they're tough to use, but they can also create some rather special images.

I really recommend checking out this group on Flickr - the 90mm is used very creatively. I'll leave off with links to a couple of great shots I've spotted on there:

1. Darko Stojanovski - Quarantine comforting thoughts XV
2. Libervitae - Thaxted at Dawn
3. labrossephotography - June_2020_XT30342
4. Budgetographer- Windtower ®
5. Brice L - XE3B8795-M
6. John B Fotografía - Leaves of Autumn

Good luck.

Exactly. For example it took me about half a year to improve my XF 16/1.4 photos enough to make them somewhat presentable. And after two years with it, I feel I can already reasonably work with it, though I am still no master of the FL.

Every FL needs to be learned first, judged afterwards. And wideangles and teles can take a long time.

If the OP doesn´t have the patience or is not willing to go through the learning curve, then there are several other lenses between 35-56mm that will serve just fine.

--
www.instagram.com/michal.placek.fotograf
www.facebook.com/michal.placek.fotograf
500px.com/mikepl500px

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

Picked up a 90mm for a good price, taken some shots with it and I just dont love it. though I havent done any extensive sessions with it.
Its sharp, fast focus, good bokeh, but Its just not jiving. The focal length I think makes people look to flat due to the compression.
Considering selling it and grabbing a 56mm. Does anyone have any input?

I think it must be a personal thing - people have different preferences as to how they shoot. Technically it is top notch, but that doesn't really matter if you don't find you get anything useful out of it. I can only suggest to try all kinds of images with it. I have used mine for landscape, portraits, sports and studio and have always liked the result. I think it is very versatile and will never part with mine, if possible.













--
Best regards,
Ulrik Christiansen

Ulrik Christiansen’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

https://www.instagram.com/ulrikchristiansen42/

 

[jjz2]

Lexvo and Ulrik. Perfect examples! Definitely more of the “look” I’m into and what this lens is capable of. The one with the woman by the tree has that dreamy compression to it that a shorter length wouldn’t be able to do.

The one with the accordion and guitar are also stellar.

 

[jjz2]

Picked up a 90mm for a good price, taken some shots with it and I just dont love it. though I havent done any extensive sessions with it.
Its sharp, fast focus, good bokeh, but Its just not jiving. The focal length I think makes people look to flat due to the compression.
Considering selling it and grabbing a 56mm. Does anyone have any input?

Yes, it does make people look flat. Unless you know how to exploit the look, you will be better off with a shorter FL. That´s why most people shoot portraits with 50-85mm equivalents - it´s easier to work with, hovewer they´re less exciting FLs too.

It’s definitely harder to visualize the result from what you see with your eyes. With the 35 1.4 it’s easy to visualize the look I’ll get shot wide open before I take it.

with my viltrox 85 (or sub any 135 equiv) sometimes I’ve thought it would be a good shot and turns out not so much, but then you get the right angle, lighting and scene and it’s more of a wow shot than the 35 1.4 or even the 56 1.2 can be, IMO...

same goes with shooting with my 14... it’s definitely easier to compose with my 18-55... but when the scene calls for it and is properly exploited, the 14 will produce a more wow shot due to the focal length.

35/50/85 are in general the easiest to work.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

I mean...if you don't like the XF90 then get a different lens.