Jump to content

90mm f/2 vs 85mm f/1.4 vs ???


jamesbernard

Recommended Posts

Hey there friends, I am a long time Nikon shooter and a very new Fuji X convert.

 

I am currently working with a x pro 1 and a 35mm and an x100t with a TCL, but as a portrait photographer I need something with some more reach. The 56mm is definitely on my radar buy I'm also looking to purchase a 90mm f/2 or a Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4. I have used the 85 on my Nikon D3s and I love it, but if anyone has any experience with both lenses and wants to offer some advice or shiw a comparison it would help me out greatly. Thanks so much for reading and I look forward to getting to know all of you in the FXF community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 56mm is definitely on my radar buy I'm also looking to purchase a 90mm f/2 or a Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4. 

That's strange to compare 56 vs 90. I need both for different purposes. So choose the focal length first and consider 56 STD (unofficial standard version name) vs 56 APD or 90 vs 85. Better both). IMO even 56mm STD and APD versions are different purpose. If I have a load of money I would have both. APD is better for stills outdoors in daylight while STD is better for fast shooting and low light scenarios. I have STD due to it's versatility.

 

For long reach I use Nikkor 105/2 DC. It's great lens but I have hard times not to waste my frames with out of focus pictures as the DOF is really shallow. With an AF lens I usually refocus quite often to be sure to be in focus all the time but with MF lens I forget to do this sometimes. Moreover even though my X-T1 features large EVF and great MF assistance, it's not that easy to focus that precisely. X-Pro1 is even worse due to worse MF assistance and smaller EVF. Thus with a long fast lens like these I would recommend to take an XF 90/2 due to it's AF ability. I've tried it in a local store and have seen many samples and I'm sure it's a fantastic lens. I can't sell my Nikkor until march 2016 but as soon as this date comes I'll switch to 90/2 immediately.

 

One guy have told me that he prefers Rokinon/Samyang 85mm T/1.5 Nikon F mount cinema lens over f/1.4 version for Fuji-X via an adapter due to it's superior ergonomics. Personally I can tell nothing about this lens but if you choose to go MF you should probably consider this option too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that since you are considering the Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4 that you would like to save some money and ok with manual focus. If so why not pick up a Nikon g to Fuji adapter? Much cheaper still and your Nikon is great glass.

 

If you want AF then your options narrow down to the Fuji 90/2 or 50-140/2.8. Both are great lenses and it's a trade off on cost, size, a stop, bokeh to an extent, and versatility.

 

But...due to the Fuji crop sensor the equivalent to an 85mm on your full frame Nikon is the Fuji 56mm. The 90mm on the Fuji is effectively a 135mm on full frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If image quality is your priority, either the 85mm or the Fuji 50-140mm are the way to go. The faster aperture of the 85mm gives you the chance to keep your shutter speed higher, which is really important with these longer lenses and the pixel pitch of the Fuji sensor; obviously it also gives you a chance to keep the ISO lower if you ever find yourself shooting in lower light, too. The 50-140mm is a big and expensive lens, but optically it seems to be sharper than the 90mm—though I've not had as much time with the 90mm as I'd like—it gives you more compression and subject/background separation, backgrounds are smoother and it has image stabilisation effective enough to give you more light and less shake than the 90mm's one-stop faster apeture gives you.

 

edit: just remember that the 85mm—and for that matter, the 90mm—isn't going to look like it did on your D3s. They're going to be more like a 128mm and 135mm lens would be on the D3s, respectively, but with a depth of field similar to about a stop and a third slower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 50-140mm is a big and expensive lens, but optically it seems to be sharper than the 90mm—though I've not had as much time with the 90mm as I'd like—it gives you more compression and subject/background separation, backgrounds are smoother

 

If you see sharpness difference between 90 and 50-140 you're crazy pixel peeper. They are both super sharp.

Backgrounds on 50-140 are not smoother. It's 1.5 times longer at 140mm but 1.5 times slower thus background smoothering is about the same. But 50-140 has pretty neutral bokeh while 90's one is positive so I'd say 90mm bokeh is a little bit smoother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What can I say, I've used them both and the images I got out of the 50-140 seemed sharper than the 90mm's files. I don't see how "I took photos with them both and one looked sharper than the other" can be "wrong", unless you're suggesting my eyesight is somehow, in opposition to all human physiology, selectively disingenuous.

 

I did not say that the 90mm isn't sharp. Of course they are both sharp. But the 50-140's photos, as far as my own use of the lenses has indicated, have been sharper.

As for the bokeh, the 90mm only provides more separation at f/2. With the 90mm at f/2.2 they should be, if my maths is correct, virtually the same at medium distances, with the 90mm having a slightly more dramatic effect at very short distances and the 140mm end of the zoom having a more pronounced effect at further distances. At f/2.5 the 90mm will have a noticably larger depth of field, at most distances, than the 140mm at f/2.8, and the background is noticably harsher. By the time you take the 90mm to f/2.8, of course the zoom's extended range gives you much stronger separation and smoother backgrounds.

Of course the zoom also gives you more compression for more flattering portraits, and, as I said before, the IS is efficient enough that, when light becomes a problem, the zoom can lower the shutter by more than three stops to let in more light while remaining shake-free, while the prime lens is pretty much stuck at adding just one stop via the aperture.

As a prime user myself, I personally would still put the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 forward as the top choice for image quality; the fact it's another stop faster is really just a bonus. The Samyang kind of makes the 90mm irrelevant unless you really can't do without autofocus, and jamesbernard already said the only thing they're worried about is image quality, not cost or focusing. But that's why I brought up the zoom. The 90mm is rendered pointless in this particular situation, so the zoom is the only remaining relevant choice* compared to the Samyang.

 

 

*not counting adapted lenses

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 90mm is rendered pointless in this particular situation, so the zoom is the only remaining relevant choice* compared to the Samyang.

IMHO 50-140 bokeh is so bad, OK, neutral, I would never take it for an outdoor portrait while this new 90 is wonderful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 90 doesn't have OIS and I don't know about your hand-holding ability. To test objectively I put both lenses on a sturdy tripod (lack of OIS is likely to soften images if a required shutter speed isn't used) and took shots with selftimer. The 90 is sharper than the 50-140 at 90mm, which, to me, is the only valid point of comparison. I wouldn't compare the 56 to the 50-140 at 140mm either. It's just a whole different focal length. If you don't trust me, there will soon be lab tests around to confirm my findings. Other than that, the MTFs speak the same language.

 

90mm is the weak spot of the zoom, as it's sharpest at 50 and 140mm. I suppose 'weak spot' is a bit exaggerated, it's just not as good as on the extreme ends. The 90, though, is stunningly sharp, way more so than the zoom.

 

To add to the extreme sharpness the 90 delivers, the look the lens produces is more pleasing than the zoom. The out of focus rendering and the sharpness transition just looks way smoother.

 

I also bought the 85 1.4 and sent it back after 2 days. CA and sharpness wide open wasn't up to the level of the Fujinons (at the time the 56 and 50-140 were my main comparison lenses).

 

If image quality is one's concern, it simply doesn't get any better than the XF 90. Technically, it surpasses all the other Fujinon lenses (including the highly praised 56, 23, 16, 2.8 zooms). Not only in terms of sharpness but also in terms of vignetting, CA and in overall look.

 

Practically speaking, the 90 lacks OIS and the zoom range the 50-140 offers. But it's just not the fault of the lens, just as it isn't the fault of the 135 L it lacks OIS and zoom range of the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Zoom vs prime is a whole different issue, each user has to deal with by himself.

 

Now, the 50-140 may prove to be the superior lens to quite a few users, simply by offering an outstanding performance, paired with weather sealing, OIS and the zoom range. But the 90 is just a tad better, optically.

 

edit: And there's the proof: the XF 90mm sets a new resolution record on the X-Trans sensor, outperforming the Zeiss 50 2.8 macro, and of course, the 50-140, too:  http://www.lenstip.com/446.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_90_mm_f_2_R_LM_WR_Image_resolution.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I will say that in my subjective use with each lens, the zoom has performed better. I tend to keep the shutter above 1/400th and IS off, so no, I know camera shake isn't to blame. I don't have MTF data to back that up, like I said, I simply used them both and the images from the zoom came out sharper to my eye. Maybe one of them is a dodgy unit. Maybe I shifted the camera 0.2mm forwards after locking focus. All I know is, in real-world use, for me, the zoom won the sharpness war.

 

 

IMHO 50-140 bokeh is so bad, OK, neutral, I would never take it for an outdoor portrait while this new 90 is wonderful.

Well this is where we get really subjective, but for me, the 90mm's bokeh is very clumpy and distracting, even at the apertures where it should have an advantage over the zoom. (And assuming you use the zoom at around 90mm for an even comparison.) It's a lot like when you look at the 56mm vs the 60mm, where sure, the 56mm goes faster, but once you stop it down to the same aperture, the bokeh of the 60mm is smoother. With primes this still puts the advantage toward the 56mm, but in the case of the 90 vs the 50-140, the one stop aperture advantage really isn't so great; it's not a big leap to the zoom's aperture and the compression the zoom can offer can compensate if you don't mind/can go longer.

 

But hey, some people think the Canon 85 1.2's bokeh is the best on the planet and other people think it's a horrific nightmare of haloed catseyes. Some people think portraits should always be taken with the lens wide open and others always stop down either to a certain point for every photo or a different amount depending on the subject context. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO 50-140 bokeh is so bad, OK, neutral, I would never take it for an outdoor portrait while this new 90 is wonderful.

I've found the 50-140 to produce mediocre bokeh. But it basically depends from your viewpoint. If you, like me, are used to large aperture primes (35 1.4, 56 1.2, even 90 2.0) the 50-140's bokeh is mediocre, at best. Doubled-edged, contrasty bokeh which I wasn't used to. It makes up for it with its other features, but for pure look of the final picture, primes rule supreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found the 50-140 to produce mediocre bokeh. But it basically depends from your viewpoint. If you, like me, are used to large aperture primes (35 1.4, 56 1.2, even 90 2.0) the 50-140's bokeh is mediocre, at best. Doubled-edged, contrasty bokeh which I wasn't used to. It makes up for it with its other features, but for pure look of the final picture, primes rule supreme.

That's exactly what's called neutral bokeh). (I've written bad as I'm used to positive creamy bokeh and neutral is already bad for me).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. But I suppose you can't expect pretty much more of the 50-140 as it is already an excellent lens. It get's the job done but anyone wanting a creamy look is probably going for primes anyway.

I was expecting it to have great bokeh as Canikon 70-200/2.8 lenses do. Instead 50-140 bokeh looks like Canikon 70-200/4 lenses. I think Fuji did this on purpose but I can't understand why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bokeh on the sample pics I saw for the 50-140 put me off buying it. Some of the examples made me feel dizzy. I had the money in the bank ready to go.

 

I have just got the 90mm, the images really pop out the frame and I can really see how this is going to become my 2nd favourite lens (after the 35mm)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...