56mm or 90mm ?

I've always eyed the 56mm f/1.2 and have expected to get it for my collection.  However, recently I have been comparing the 90mm f/2 as well.  I currently own the XF 50mm f/2.  So my debate was if the 56mm would really benefit me, since I have a very similar focal length.  Yes I know the rendering of the 56mm is different than the 50, but I'm not sure if it will be a big enough difference.

I really want a outstanding portrait lens.  I don't expect to use it in inclement weather, so lack of WR on the 56mm isn't a big deal.  And I'm not expecting to use it for fast moving subjects, so lesser focus speed on the 56 and my X-T2 also isn't a big issue.

I don't have a studio, so I don't expect to be doing many indoor/studio shots.  I expect to be outdoors mostly when using it, so that would allow for the length of the 90mm.

So can anyone provide thoughts that have used, or own both lenses?  I really enjoy the rendering on both of them.  I am looking at used prices on MPB for the lenses, so they are really both in the same range.

I plan to pair either lens with my XF 35 f/1.4 if I need an 'environmental' portrait.

I don’t own the 90mm f/2 but if I were to get my next portrait lens that would be it, it has some of the best out of focus rendering I’ve seen. The bokeh is beautiful and the lens is sharp.

I have the 56 and like it very much, but if you already have the 50, I’d definitely go for the better, but less versatile 90 over the 56. The 90 is probably the best lens Fuji makes (assuming the focal length works for you), and for outdoor portraits the 90 is ideal.

Hi ! I own both the 56 and the 90,and use them almost daily.

Both are excellent, there's no bad choice here.

As you already own the 50 mm f2, I think you have two options :

- keep the 50 and get the 90

- sell the 50 and buy the 56 instead (I don't see the point of owning both)

The longer focal lengh of the 90 makes it less versatile, but gives you a superb rendering. It's also WR, has beter AF and can focus closer than the 56.

The 56 is amazing in low light (F1. 2 !). Its focal lengh is perfect for all kind of portraits (full body, etc).

If I had to chose only one, I'd take the 56 which is my most used lens (wedding photographer). But you already own the 50 mm, so your situation is different.

Do you have the possibility to try them before making yoir decision ?

There aren't any shops around me that I could rent them from, so I'd have to do it online, which I've done a few times many years ago when I was on a Canon system.

I did think about selling my 50mm, however I do really enjoy it for its compactness and AF spee, and it's a sharp lens and has good contrast.  But that is another option

Yeah I was thinking about using my 55-200 at 90, but again if I'm outdoors I don't think the length would be a huge problem.  I am just curious about the background separation / rendering between the 90 and 56, because that isn't something I can replicate on my 55-200

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

I have the 56 and like it very much, but if you already have the 50, I’d definitely go for the better, but less versatile 90 over the 56. The 90 is probably the best lens Fuji makes (assuming the focal length works for you), and for outdoor portraits the 90 is ideal.

I struggled with the same question of 56 or 50 and also if I should get the 90.  This was after switching from Nikon and I had my old Nikon 50mm f1.4 that I had adapted and was using manual focus.  I played with the 50mm at f2.0 to see what the DOF was like and did not mind the slightly wider DOF and in fact this was better in many cases where f 1.4 was two shallow and produced sharp eyelashes and an out of focus subject.  That's a mistake I'd made for years.  I then tried both the 56 1.2 and 50 2.0 side by side at a show and found that at f 2.0 the rendering was nearly identical.  There will be occasions where the f1.2 will be an advantage yet having purchased the 50 f2 I can say I hardly run into them.  It will depend on situations.  I also purchased the 90 f2.0 and love this lens.  Sometimes I'll put one on each of my X-T3 bodies and switch for the look I want.  I feel you are best to add the 90 to your existing 50.  You can always trade the 50 for the 56 if you feel you want it later.

Morris

RogueOne wrote:

Yeah I was thinking about using my 55-200 at 90, but again if I'm outdoors I don't think the length would be a huge problem. I am just curious about the background separation / rendering between the 90 and 56, because that isn't something I can replicate on my 55-200

The 50-140 is worth considering as well. You will get significantly more subject isolation at 140mm and f/2.8 than you will with either the 56 or 90 wide open. If care is taken with the camera to subject to background equation, the bokeh can be very nice.

RogueOne wrote:

I am just curious about the background separation / rendering between the 90 and 56, because that isn't something I can replicate on my 55-200

Both give what I call "3d effect" : they make the subject stand out of the picture. I have prints on my wall taken with the 56, on which it feels like the person is in front of the photo and is real.

The 90 compresses the background more, which can be better or not, it's all about what you want.

By the way, there's a very gpod alternative to the 90,it.'s the Viltrox 85 f1.8.  It's much cheaper and almost as good (I had one).

Morris0 wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

I have the 56 and like it very much, but if you already have the 50, I’d definitely go for the better, but less versatile 90 over the 56. The 90 is probably the best lens Fuji makes (assuming the focal length works for you), and for outdoor portraits the 90 is ideal.

I struggled with the same question of 56 or 50 and also if I should get the 90. This was after switching from Nikon and I had my old Nikon 50mm f1.4 that I had adapted and was using manual focus. I played with the 50mm at f2.0 to see what the DOF was like and did not mind the slightly wider DOF and in fact this was better in many cases where f 1.4 was two shallow and produced sharp eyelashes and an out of focus subject. That's a mistake I'd made for years. I then tried both the 56 1.2 and 50 2.0 side by side at a show and found that at f 2.0 the rendering was nearly identical. There will be occasions where the f1.2 will be an advantage yet having purchased the 50 f2 I can say I hardly run into them. It will depend on situations. I also purchased the 90 f2.0 and love this lens. Sometimes I'll put one on each of my X-T3 bodies and switch for the look I want. I feel you are best to add the 90 to your existing 50. You can always trade the 50 for the 56 if you feel you want it later.

Morris

Thanks for your thoughts.  I was leaning towards the 90mm since I have the 50mm, and considered that maybe in the future to replace the 50 with the 56.  I don't see a use case for having both 50 and 56 unless I needed the WR capabilities, which really I don't find myself in.

Adoubeur wrote:

RogueOne wrote:

I am just curious about the background separation / rendering between the 90 and 56, because that isn't something I can replicate on my 55-200

Both give what I call "3d effect" : they make the subject stand out of the picture. I have prints on my wall taken with the 56, on which it feels like the person is in front of the photo and is real.

The 90 compresses the background more, which can be better or not, it's all about what you want.

By the way, there's a very gpod alternative to the 90,it.'s the Viltrox 85 f1.8. It's much cheaper and almost as good (I had one).

Yes, the 3D rendering seems pleasing.  I really want to have a amazing portrait lens for certain scenarios.

I'm concerned about Viltrox lenses being clickless on the aperture though.  I tried a Meike 35mm and because it was clickless, I kept finding the aperture would get changed too easily.  Really off putting for me.

Morris0 wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

I have the 56 and like it very much, but if you already have the 50, I’d definitely go for the better, but less versatile 90 over the 56. The 90 is probably the best lens Fuji makes (assuming the focal length works for you), and for outdoor portraits the 90 is ideal.

I struggled with the same question of 56 or 50 and also if I should get the 90. This was after switching from Nikon and I had my old Nikon 50mm f1.4 that I had adapted and was using manual focus. I played with the 50mm at f2.0 to see what the DOF was like and did not mind the slightly wider DOF and in fact this was better in many cases where f 1.4 was two shallow and produced sharp eyelashes and an out of focus subject. That's a mistake I'd made for years. I then tried both the 56 1.2 and 50 2.0 side by side at a show and found that at f 2.0 the rendering was nearly identical. There will be occasions where the f1.2 will be an advantage yet having purchased the 50 f2 I can say I hardly run into them. It will depend on situations. I also purchased the 90 f2.0 and love this lens. Sometimes I'll put one on each of my X-T3 bodies and switch for the look I want. I feel you are best to add the 90 to your existing 50. You can always trade the 50 for the 56 if you feel you want it later.

Morris

I almost always use my 56 at f/2 -f/2.8 for isolated subjects.

I’m not a portrait guy and went with the super versatile 50-140 over the 90. No regrets, but I have used the 90, and it’s a truly fantastic lens.

RogueOne wrote:

Adoubeur wrote:

RogueOne wrote:

I am just curious about the background separation / rendering between the 90 and 56, because that isn't something I can replicate on my 55-200

Both give what I call "3d effect" : they make the subject stand out of the picture. I have prints on my wall taken with the 56, on which it feels like the person is in front of the photo and is real.

The 90 compresses the background more, which can be better or not, it's all about what you want.

By the way, there's a very gpod alternative to the 90,it.'s the Viltrox 85 f1.8. It's much cheaper and almost as good (I had one).

Yes, the 3D rendering seems pleasing. I really want to have a amazing portrait lens for certain scenarios.

I'm concerned about Viltrox lenses being clickless on the aperture though. I tried a Meike 35mm and because it was clickless, I kept finding the aperture would get changed too easily. Really off putting for me.

I did a shout out of the Viltrox 85mm, Fuji 85mm, and the Fuji 90mm.  The Fuji 90mm has  charm to it's images that the others lack.  I did not have any issue with the Viltrox changing aperture as I operated it.  It might depend on how you hold it, my natural grip was fine.

Morris

Get the 90mm

I had the 56mm (2 copies over the course of 2 years) I recently picked up a used XT4 with less than 4K shots in amazing condition and sold a ton of gear to end up with a 90mm F2, 33mm F1.4 and the 18mm F1.4 (still waiting for the 18mm to ship) and this arrangement works for me. I also kept the 50mm F2.

the 90 is just mind blowing. Tack sharp and renders portraits super nicely. Great compression and bokeh … I thought I was going to dread the size and weight but to be honest I’m okay with it and haven’t regretted the purchase. I actually paid full price for this one not a used copy.

I don’t miss selling the 56mm F1.2 and even though it’s a step of light brighter than the 90mm F2 , the 90mm for me takes the cake.  I posted a thread about it and attached some sample pictures nothing crazy but I love the 90mm

if you are super torn between the 2 just rent them and figure out what works for you.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

I have the 56 and like it very much, but if you already have the 50, I’d definitely go for the better, but less versatile 90 over the 56. The 90 is probably the best lens Fuji makes (assuming the focal length works for you), and for outdoor portraits the 90 is ideal.

I struggled with the same question of 56 or 50 and also if I should get the 90. This was after switching from Nikon and I had my old Nikon 50mm f1.4 that I had adapted and was using manual focus. I played with the 50mm at f2.0 to see what the DOF was like and did not mind the slightly wider DOF and in fact this was better in many cases where f 1.4 was two shallow and produced sharp eyelashes and an out of focus subject. That's a mistake I'd made for years. I then tried both the 56 1.2 and 50 2.0 side by side at a show and found that at f 2.0 the rendering was nearly identical. There will be occasions where the f1.2 will be an advantage yet having purchased the 50 f2 I can say I hardly run into them. It will depend on situations. I also purchased the 90 f2.0 and love this lens. Sometimes I'll put one on each of my X-T3 bodies and switch for the look I want. I feel you are best to add the 90 to your existing 50. You can always trade the 50 for the 56 if you feel you want it later.

Morris

I almost always use my 56 at f/2 -f/2.8 for isolated subjects.

I’m not a portrait guy and went with the super versatile 50-140 over the 90. No regrets, but I have used the 90, and it’s a truly fantastic lens.

The 50-140 is defiantly a good alternative and I did think about it.  Every brand makes a few magical lenses and Fuji's 90mm f2.0 is one of them.  Nikon's 180mm f2.0 (all versions), there 300mm f2.8 and Canon's 135mm f2.8 are others I've had the pleasure to use.  Sigma's 200-500mm f2.8 is another yet you need a truck to carry it.

Morris

Cossio wrote:

Get the 90mm

I had the 56mm (2 copies over the course of 2 years) I recently picked up a used XT4 with less than 4K shots in amazing condition and sold a ton of gear to end up with a 90mm F2, 33mm F1.4 and the 18mm F1.4 (still waiting for the 18mm to ship) and this arrangement works for me. I also kept the 50mm F2.

the 90 is just mind blowing. Tack sharp and renders portraits super nicely. Great compression and bokeh … I thought I was going to dread the size and weight but to be honest I’m okay with it and haven’t regretted the purchase. I actually paid full price for this one not a used copy.

I don’t miss selling the 56mm F1.2 and even though it’s a step of light brighter than the 90mm F2 , the 90mm for me takes the cake. I posted a thread about it and attached some sample pictures nothing crazy but I love the 90mm

if you are super torn between the 2 just rent them and figure out what works for you.

The 90mm balances so nicely you don't feel the weight once attached to the camera and the mass makes up for the lack of stabilization.

Morris

First of all, don’t sell the 50 f2, it’s a gem of a lens and is super compact. I regularly use mine on my X-S10 as a walkabout lens and especially when I’m out with the family.

I own the 90 f2 - however it’s currently on eBay. As others have said the 90 f2 is just a special lens and I totally agree. My issue was it was getting less and less use and I also just picked up a 50-140 although this was purely because I was really starting to struggle with my 70-300 for my sports shoots here in the UK winter.

If I was a portrait photographer by trade I would absolutely have the 90mm in my arsenal but I don’t do that kind of work - the very odd time for a family or friend perhaps and for that reason I could no longer justify having a ~£600 lens sitting around gathering dust.

For the rare times I do want a good portrait lens I can more than compensate with my 50mm and my newly acquired 50-140.

Unfortunately I can’t offer any comment on the 56mm as I’ve neither owned nor used it but as I say, regardless off where your cards fall I would strongly advise you keep the 50 f2.

GMacF wrote:

First of all, don’t sell the 50 f2, it’s a gem of a lens and is super compact. I regularly use mine on my X-S10 as a walkabout lens and especially when I’m out with the family.

I own the 90 f2 - however it’s currently on eBay. As others have said the 90 f2 is just a special lens and I totally agree. My issue was it was getting less and less use and I also just picked up a 50-140 although this was purely because I was really starting to struggle with my 70-300 for my sports shoots here in the UK winter.

If I was a portrait photographer by trade I would absolutely have the 90mm in my arsenal but I don’t do that kind of work - the very odd time for a family or friend perhaps and for that reason I could no longer justify having a ~£600 lens sitting around gathering dust.

For the rare times I do want a good portrait lens I can more than compensate with my 50mm and my newly acquired 50-140.

Unfortunately I can’t offer any comment on the 56mm as I’ve neither owned nor used it but as I say, regardless off where your cards fall I would strongly advise you keep the 50 f2.

Appreciate the advise.  I do really enjoy my 50mm f/2 and didn't want to consider selling it right away, which is why I was debating if the 56mm would really give me that much difference from it.

I don't have the Fuji 90, but I do have the Viltrox 85. It gets extensive use. I love the focal length for tele landscapes, portraits, and shots where I want to throw backgrounds way out of focus. If I had the budget, I'd get the 90 over the Viltrox, but mostly for the weather sealing. I've been very please with the IQ out of the Viltrox. It's a great pairing with my 35 1.4. If you can swing the 90, I'd get it and not worry about the 56 too much. 1.2 is great, but how often would you really shoot at that aperture vs. the f2 of the 50 you have? And the Fujis hold up well at higher ISOs anyway. Just my $0.02