FXF Member Toon triggered off a hot discussion at the new FXF – 56mm(APD) or 90mm for potraits?
_ _ _
Is the XF 90mmF2 WR Fuji’s Best Lens in terms of IQ? I had this impression reading the review and especially looking at the tons of samples in Rico’s XF 90mmF2 WR First Look.
Now also jonasraskphotography confirms that it is the best XF lens in terms of IQ. And the inevitable question now is: XF 56mm (APD) or XF 90mm for portraits? A hot debate aroused on the FXF.
Here is an excerpt of what Jonas Rask thinks about it in his First Look:
“The XF 90mm f/2 is the highest performing lens I have ever mounted onto my X-series cameras. It beats all previous XF series lenses in just about every image quality aspect. It’s the royal deluxe model of a portrait lens, and if you are a portrait or fashion photographer using the Fujifilm X-series you cannot pass this lens up. For the system it is quite large, but it is what it is. I’m not even a portrait photographer, but I definitely will add this lens to my arsenal. It really is an amazing lens!
MUST READ: X-T10 First Look / XF 90mmF2 WR First Look
XF 90mmF2 WR: USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama EU: AmazonDE / AmazonUK / AmazonFR / WexUK / Cameraworld / PCHstore / AUS: Camerapro
X-T10 (body + kit): USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama EU: AmazonDE / AmazonUK / AmazonFR / WexUK / Cameraworld / PCHstore / AUS: Camerapro
image courtesy: jonasraskphotography
Hot Topic at the new FXF: 56mmAPD vs 90mm
58 Responses
Isn’t this much the same question as the u43 one regarding the diminutive 45mm against the rather larger 75mm, yes both are very good at shooting portraits but they are different with a differing perspective on the subject, the longer lens will always give a flatter finish to a portrait (plus point) against the greater distance from the subject (minus point).
So 56mm or 90mm, both extremely fine lenses you pays your money and takes your choice, though with todays fashion for severe cropping, ie chopping tops of heads off, perhaps the longer lens no longer has that disadvantage of needing to shoot from further away.
45 and 75 are both 1.8. Comparison advantages the 75 in terms of bokeh
The bokeh is of far less importance to me than the assumed working distance, I am beginning to worry about the way so many photographers today seem more concerned about the out of focus areas than the in focus areas, very strange.
Maybe for you but 56 1.2 vs 90 f2 could render similar images at max apertures and difference is only about angle of views. 45 and 75 at the same aperture renders very different pics because of OOF areas. If you mind or not.
In which case, strap a 20mm tele onto your iPhone and get the same perspective, but with everything in focus. And you get that lovely f/2,2 aperture!
Bliss!
That’s all PR talk. Which lens can seriously challenge the 27mm? 🙂
Now we got basically the same situation that Canon users have: the 56 being the speed king (Canon: 85 1.2 L) and the 90 offering astounding performance, just like the 135 2.0 L. Kinda like that.
Except the 135L is significantly cheaper than the 85L.
The 90 is still cheaper than the 56. Not by such a large percentage as the 135L and 85L but still.
56 APD. 56 is below $850 these days in US.
I’m not calculating with the street price but the list price which is 999€ for 56 and 899 for 90.
Then why brought up the price in the first place. I quote my numbers from a major dealer.
So did I but I live in Europe. Of course, I take local prices here as a comparison point.
I do not need this lens, I do not need this lens LOL
at this point, you can only lose the battle 😉
I don’t think anybody ever had any doubts about its sharpness or rendering. The main questions are whether it balances well with any body other than the X-T1 and what it really offers that the 56mm doesn’t. (Given that most people looking at the 90mm probably already bought a 56mm.) For me, on my 35mm SLRs and DSLRs and 6×7 medium format, I always found 135mm (and the mf equivalent) just a fraction too long for everything and stuck to 100mm and 105mm, and the various 100-105mm lenses tend to be just that little bit lighter and less imposing, too. I think if I were to put up with the larger size and go for a longer lens, I’d just grab the 50-140.
So, the 90mm may well prove to be a great lens in short review periods, but for me it’s a tough sell as a lens for long-term, regular use.
Actually … I have not bought the 56mm because I find it too short for the type of photography that I do where I need serious OoF background. The 90mm is definitely a better focal length for me. Plus the “WR” … well, depending on just how WR is WR.
Well, if “serious OoF background” is what you want, the 56mm actually gives you more blur.
http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5x-56mm-f1.2-and-1.5x-90mm-f2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
I’d agree that, generally, the 90mm is the better choice for this because of the compression, but it’s not as much of an advantage as it first seems!
Agree. I would grab 50-140 for that. With OIS and versatility, it makes more sense to me.
In general, to paraphrase Grumpy Smurf: “I HATE ZOOMS.”
OK, not entirely, I really like the 55-200mm lens. I looked at that 50-140mm lens and it’s going to be a hard sell over the 55-200mm. Now, if it was a 35-140mm lens, oh boy!
There are places you shouldn’t take your 55-200 to. WR has its benefits.
I know. I just can’t see myself owning a “sunshine” and a “rainy” lens in basically the same focal length. Also, the 90mm is WR’ed, whereas the 56mm isn’t.
Indeed, I personally would skip 90 definitely. I intend to only buy WR lens.
There’s an advantage to first testing things out using “cheap” manual focus lenses: NIKKOR 50mm f/1.2, ROKKOR 58mm f/1.4 and Takumar 85mm f/1.8 all give a somewhat similar comparison.
The howmuchblur is nice. Generally my subjects are between 25~50 metres away, and the background that needs blurring more than 150 metres. According to the chart there’s very little difference between the two lenses regarding the background, but the 90mm let’s you get more of the foreground in focus.
People who switched and loved a 135 on fullframe are going to like the 90 XF, too. Those people know that a portrait lens tends to be heavy. It’s probably not a light allround lens. But I wouldnt want it to be just that.
Well, sure, but as I said, if you’re going in for a bigger and heavier lens anyway, why not just get the 40-150? Covers more range, the extra compression gives you almost the same separation (less for closer subject & backgrounds, more for subjects further from the background) and the OIS more than compensates for the one stop slow aperture.
The 90mm just seems like one of those lenses where people force themselves to use it because other people don’t/can’t, or they like it so much in theory that, come hell or high water, they’re going to use it as much as possible for everything because nobody likes to get hyped for something and then find out that actually, in reality, it’s not as useful as they had thought it was going to be.
Again, I used a 135mm f/2L for a moderately long time (and the 6×7 equivalent) and it was very nice at first, but in day-to-day use the simpler 100mm and the more versatile 70-200mm had it beaten. The old 135mm f/2.8, which is what this 90mm is imping, was notoriously unpopular compared to the 105mm of the time. I don’t doubt that there are a few people out there who make their name with 135mm lenses and their equivalents, but for most cases I see it as being a tricky sell in the long-term.
But the 135 L isn’t tricky either, is it? 135 FOV isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, thats for sure. And the 70-200 vs 135 (or equivalents) debate isnt anything new either. I know I will have good use for all 3 lenses (56, 90, 50-140) but in the end I prefer primes and only grab zooms if the situation dictates this. The Oly 75 1.8 isn’t selling bad either although its a 150mm equiv.
The reason I have ordered the 90 mm and passed on the 50-140, I already have the 55-200, is that it isn’t just a little larger than the 90 mm, it is much bigger. The 90 mm is only 60% of the length and 55% of the weight of the 50-140.
I own 50-140 2.8…and i can take a pics at 90mm 1/15…handheld instead 1/125.
for this reason I prefer my 50-140 and passed on the 90 😉
I’d like a compact 70mm f2.8 to go along with pancake 27mm….
Wow, beautiful images! This dude has some serious talent.
Incredible photography, that’s for sure.
Images look wonderful but I fail to see the Leica/Zeiss comparisons. I really don’t see the resemblance with my Leica images. Finally Fuji is working on getting more micro contrast.
The 90 mm f2 is the lens that has finally persuaded me to sell what’s left of my Nikon outfit, D700, 28-105 f3.5-4.5, 85 mm f1.4 D and 105 f2 DC. Like some other posters I always thought that the compression of the 135 f2 DC was too much, the resulting broadening of the face could be unattractive and the depth of field was in fact too shallow.
However in this case the crop sensor and the much discussed ‘equivalence’ works in my favour because, although the angle of view is that of a 135 mm lens, the depth of field and compression effect are that of a 90 mm lens.
The compression comes from the angle of view and the 90 f/2 WR R has the compression of the 135 DC Nikkor (Nikkor used on fullframe, Fujinon on X body) as it has the same angle of view/field of view as the Nikkor.
You are almost right! One can add that compression actually is only dependent to the distance of the subject to the imaging device and not the sensor size or lens type used. From a fixed position either using a wide angle lens and cropping to the middle or using a longer lens and filling the frame will result in the same amount of compression.
Long distance to subject = strong compression
short distance to subject = low compression + geometric distortion
You’re mixing up compression and perspective. Perspective is actually dependant on distance to subject. But I get what you mean. Still, the 90 Fujinon shares the same compression as the Nikkor, given the same distance to subject of course.
Don’t worry, I’m not mixing up:) Compression is linked to perspective and vice versa and not dependent on the lens used. And I agree with your Nikon comparison. I wish Nikon would make an afs 135 2.8 vr, I am still using my ais version and the 105 1.8 and loving these lenses
90mm on crop has the same compression as 135mm on FF. This is not called the angle of view, though, because angle of view is fixed, it’s a property of the lens. Field of view is after you crop. You may take a wide-angle shot, digitally zoom (crop) into a tiny rectangle in the center, and it’ll have a compression like a telephoto. So cropping changes the apparent angle or effective angle, but technically speaking it’s not called the angle of view, which is the same, regardless of how much you crop. Therefore the angle of view alone doesn’t determine the compression, the field of view does.
If the 135mm f2 is too long for you, I would wait until fuji releases something 70mm f2ish. Seeing what lenses already came, I am 100% sure that there will be one.
I’m a little concerned about AF accuracy. Shallow DOF like this could end up with missed focused photos. I hope the new firmware will prove me wrong.
If the Fuji system excels at one thing, it’s AF accuracy. The AF slows down/pumps sometimes in low light but if it hits, it really hits. I never experienced these near-misses that SLR AFs are famous for.
Its very accurate. On the new firmware 4.0 its even more so 🙂
Are you referring to eye detection?
No, its the new subdivision of the focus area into smaller areas, that gives you much more precise focus.
I am more interested in eye detection. It is quite useful when taking portrait photos. But when using lens with DOF this shallow, it could yield a problem. My hands shaking, people are moving a bit. AF results might be unsatisfying, especially Fuji does not have very good AF tracking right now.
The Eye detection works really well. I did test shots on my kids on the XT10 with it. I used the 56mm at f/1.2 The eye focus is spot on, even though the kids do NOT sit still at all. So theres definitely something for you to look forward to. Even with the shallow DOF.
Thanks for the info. I am happy to learn this.
Come on Fuji, I just sold a kidney for the 16 1.4!
…anyone know if lugging the 90mm and a dialysis machine is too burdensome?
Hahaha. You can just start Peritoneal Dialysis. then you can lug all the lenses you want 😛
the 56mm shot looks smoother in the highlights to me. (no I wont use the “B’ work)
Looks like a beauty…
That’s why you should not use a “portrait” lens for the scenes where an out of focus background are, in fact, human faces:
https://jonasraskphotography.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/xt129956.jpg
That woman to the far right….They call it “the bokeh smile” …. nice and soft! 😉
I call it “bokeh piglets”, which is merely a case of noodling that involves a human background. The “old” XF 60mm macro was especially prone to that phenomenon.
Hmm. Well except maybe with atheletes.
Considering your examples, you obviously don’t see what I see. When faces in a background are turned into abstract blobs, that’s totally ok for any occasion, not just sports. But when faces are just enough out of focus to be blurry, yet each individual facial feature has its own blob… That might look funny, scary, spooky, you name it. But it’s always distracting.
That’s why long zooms are always preferred for the crowd work.
Maybe or maybe not, it depends on various limitations, space being one.
I was refering to the statement “portrait lenses should not be used where out of focus background are faces are in the background”.
Exactly which portrait lenses are you refering to not use anyhow?
The term “portrait lens” doesn’t explicitly define a specific type of
lens. That is, lenses aren’t generally listed as “portrait lenses”
here’s what Canon & Nikon consider sometimes their people/portrait lenses
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/People-and-Events/index.page
https://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/app_portrait.html
That facial effect can be obtained while using a long zoom also. Crowds or faces can occur anywhere, locker rooms, duggouts, sidelines, not just in the middle of stadiums.
Always distracting? It depends who the subject is.