56mm or 90mm ?

OK, I'll add another branch to the optical briar patch...:-)

For several years I owned the 56. When I used it, I liked it very much. But I only used it for foreseen portrait applications. I am a documentary/street shooter not a portrait guy.

For me, the 56 was not a casual "take with me and see what happens today" lens.

I recently sold the 56 and bought the 50 f2. It is more suited to MY photo interests and easy to grab as a walkabout lens. I am very happy with the 50's size, weight, AF, WR and IQ.

No surprise---it also does quite well with portraits!                                                                          It joins my 12mm 2.8 Zeiss, 16mm Fuji 1.4, 35mm Fuji 1.4 and two X Pro2 bodies.            Nice.

Canyongazer wrote:

OK, I'll add another branch to the optical briar patch...:-)

For several years I owned the 56. When I used it, I liked it very much. But I only used it for foreseen portrait applications. I am a documentary/street shooter not a portrait guy.

For me, the 56 was not a casual "take with me and see what happens today" lens.

I recently sold the 56 and bought the 50 f2. It is more suited to MY photo interests and easy to grab as a walkabout lens. I am very happy with the 50's size, weight, AF, WR and IQ.

No surprise---it also does quite well with portraits! It joins my 12mm 2.8 Zeiss, 16mm Fuji 1.4, 35mm Fuji 1.4 and two X Pro2 bodies. Nice.

I would say if anything the 56mm is better for documentary due to that slight added reach.

Canyongazer wrote:

OK, I'll add another branch to the optical briar patch...:-)

For several years I owned the 56. When I used it, I liked it very much. But I only used it for foreseen portrait applications. I am a documentary/street shooter not a portrait guy.

For me, the 56 was not a casual "take with me and see what happens today" lens.

I recently sold the 56 and bought the 50 f2. It is more suited to MY photo interests and easy to grab as a walkabout lens. I am very happy with the 50's size, weight, AF, WR and IQ.

No surprise---it also does quite well with portraits! It joins my 12mm 2.8 Zeiss, 16mm Fuji 1.4, 35mm Fuji 1.4 and two X Pro2 bodies. Nice.

This is sort of along my thinking, I'm not a portrait guy either. So for me, I see the 50 f2 as a walkaround do-it-all lens that can do portraits should the rare need arise more-so than the 56 (being a bona fide portrait lens) can turn into a general all purpose lens - if any of that makes sense!

So many good points and observations in this thread!

I owned the 50 f/2,. 56 f/1.2, and 90 f/2. Everyone who says that the 56 and 90 are special is absolutely right. But then, the 50 f/2 is also special, because it's so small. This means that it can be a just-in-case lens—you can keep it in your jacket pocket just in case. When I got the 50 f/2, I thought, I'll use this all the time, because I'll take it everywhere.

But ultimately, looking through my Lightroom, I took way more photos with the 56 f/1.2 than with either the 50 f/2 or the 90 f/2. I think this was because I often used it at night and indoors. I made many great portraits of my family members in the evenings, in dim light, from across the living room or in the kitchen. There was a clear use-case for the lens. If the light was right, and I was in the right frame of mind, I knew that I could take a certain kind of photo with the 56, and I really enjoyed using it.

Out and about, the field of view of the 50 f/2 was just a little too close to that of my beloved 35 f/1.4; I found the 35 more versatile, and the 56 more of a useful contrast. And the 90 f/2 was fantastic outdoors, but I didn't enjoy being so far away from my subjects. I like my photos to have a less telephoto, more intimate feeling. To my surprise, I also fell out of love with the look—I took a lot of pictures with beautiful bokeh and then got tired of bokeh. Meanwhile, I discovered that the 56, stopped down, worked well for landscapes and other shots.

If I were to do it all over again, I'd buy the 56 and only the 56. But that's not a normative statement about lens quality—just an observation about my own preferences.

A few years back, I jonesed for the 56 but after trying a friend's 90, I bought one for myself,  Paid full price for it which irked me at the time as Fuji occasionally discounted them but I don't regret the purchase one iota.  It balances really well on on my X-t2 and the autofocus speed is a big help when shooting moving objects indoors.  If you can swing it and your work / style can use it, do it!

JoshuaR wrote:

So many good points and observations in this thread!

I owned the 50 f/2,. 56 f/1.2, and 90 f/2. Everyone who says that the 56 and 90 are special is absolutely right. But then, the 50 f/2 is also special, because it's so small. This means that it can be a just-in-case lens—you can keep it in your jacket pocket just in case. When I got the 50 f/2, I thought, I'll use this all the time, because I'll take it everywhere.

But ultimately, looking through my Lightroom, I took way more photos with the 56 f/1.2 than with either the 50 f/2 or the 90 f/2. I think this was because I often used it at night and indoors. I made many great portraits of my family members in the evenings, in dim light, from across the living room or in the kitchen. There was a clear use-case for the lens. If the light was right, and I was in the right frame of mind, I knew that I could take a certain kind of photo with the 56, and I really enjoyed using it.

Out and about, the field of view of the 50 f/2 was just a little too close to that of my beloved 35 f/1.4; I found the 35 more versatile, and the 56 more of a useful contrast. And the 90 f/2 was fantastic outdoors, but I didn't enjoy being so far away from my subjects. I like my photos to have a less telephoto, more intimate feeling. To my surprise, I also fell out of love with the look—I took a lot of pictures with beautiful bokeh and then got tired of bokeh. Meanwhile, I discovered that the 56, stopped down, worked well for landscapes and other shots.

If I were to do it all over again, I'd buy the 56 and only the 56. But that's not a normative statement about lens quality—just an observation about my own preferences.

I would agree with this...35mm f1.4 and 56 1.2 are my go to lenses...and the X100V.