Marc G.

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

Trying to use the Fuji like it's a DSLR, to me, is a mistake people often make. It's a whole different system, so I need to relearn to shoot every situation I come across. I don't know whether a f/4 zoom is well suited as you're cutting ambient light and flash power. This is why I primarily use f/1.4/1.2 lenses and the 2.8 zoom with flash. With your 3-lens-setup you're missing a large aperture wide angle. May I suggest looking at the 16 1.4 for this purpose? For dancing portraits the 35 1.4 works a treat since firmware 4.0.

Which lens used? And sorry to say so, but if I was the groom and the photographer used the AF assist lamp on me, I'd kick his butt out right after the dance. That's a no-go. That being said, I find the AF on the 16, 23, 35, 90 and 16-55 2.8 to work brilliantly for wedding dances. My main combination is X-T1 with 16-55 2.8 and Nissin i40 on the left side and X-T1 with 35 1.4 on the right side (using a Holdfast Money Maker). Also, I don't use ttl or direct flash. Usually the ceiling can serve as a reflector so I just flash straight up.

Wrong.

Easy decision imo. 56 and 90 have AF and a superior optical formula. As you use the X-Pro1, I would have a closer look at the 56, since the 90 is harder to handle on the small x-pro body.

I called them because I was curious, not because I found it to be an issue. They let me ask the question, handed the phone to a technician and he answered me properly. So please don't try to interpret my actions without a proper understanding of why I did it. It's not you I have a problem with. But this pessimistic and negative way of interpreting certain hardware behavior is something I cannot understand. This all seems to me as if we lived in times where people believed the earth was a disc...

For it to be an issue, there has to be proof that it actually is an issue. Otherwise I can call any lens on the market faulty and just say "Absence of proof is no proof of absence." I myself called Fujifilm Germany when I got the 50-140 to make sure it is a non-issue. I'm terribly sorry I cannot provide an mp3 file of the call...

So much nonsense being written here... Whether the lens rattles or not just simply doesn't matter up to the point where there is proof that the rattling causes wear and tear inside the lens. There is not a single proof for that, so all you people do is rant about... nothing. There shouldn't be any dust inside the lens and the lens should work just as intended. As long as it does just that, the rattling might just be a nuisance for SOME people and a non-issue for most. The biggest problem is that people think their lens is broken/faulty due to the rattling. But it's normal and calming down should be advised at this stage.

New setup for me: 16/35/90. The 90 definitely changed my telephoto preference.

I got my 90mm last week and used it for a wedding last weekend. Well, I'll let numbers speak for themselves. Out of 880 images, 470 were shot with the 90. I had enough working space to use it that much and the images speak for themselves. The look of extremely sharp in focus and smooooooth out of focus just goes well with emotional story telling. AF worked pretty darn good, even at low light. Everybody who loves their 50-140 or 55-200 should probably have a little look at the 90. Might be worth it.

To me, it is the technically most perfect lens I have ever had. Of course, that's a bold statement without explanation. As the 90 "only" has f/2 and not f/1.4 the optical design has even less compromises than, say, an Otus has (optical aberrations become 7x more larger when enlarging the aperture 1 stop during design process. So it's a lot easier to design a near perfect f/2 lens than an f/1.4. Also, I never saw such MTFs. Not even with Leica lenses (I had to check with my Leica lens book). I had high expectations and they were excelled. This lens defines sharpness on a whole new level. The contrast, sharpness, out of focus rendering. It just looks right. I posted and will continue to post some sample pictures here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsphotog/sets/72157655613873165 Feel free to check them out but also look at the EXIF data. Most of them are taken at higher ISOs as I didn't manage to go out earlier due to university.

The Sony Zeiss 16-70 f/4 is, optically, a frickin joke. If you want a good 24-105 f/4 equivalent you should prepare for a bigger lens than what you wish for. Performance comes at a price, and usually it is weight. Simply cant beat physics.

For the sake of a complete system: 70mm f/1.4,1.8.2.0 (something like that), maybe macro 1:1 Slower 16/23/56mm options with 2.0 or 2.8 16-70 or 80 with constant f/4 and OIS 16 tilt/shift f/4 Telephoto primes: 200 2.8, 267 2.8, 400 4.0, something like that I think cheaper/slower primes with traditional focal lengths should be added next, the 35/2 WR being the starting point.

I already have the extraordinary 16-55 2.8 and don't really care for such a lens but I definitely see additional value for the system in a 16-70 or 16-80 with WR LM R OIS.

As wide angle lenses are used for getting up close, I think the practical IQ difference is quite important and I cannot support the statement "but for real shooting they are the same". Everytime I had to get close (e.g. for details) I had to stop down the X100 lens to f/5.6 to get an acceptable quality. The 23 1.4 offers a MUCH better close up quality. The X100 lens wide open and up close produces milky, soft results. Depending on the usage and the user it can be of utmost importance (e.g. for me) or of roughly no importance at all (probably Dis and many other users).

As others said already, the 23 XF 1.4 R is the optically superior lens. Sharpness, especially when focusing close, is so much better than the X100 lens can deliver. Stopped down to f/8 or even smaller the difference vanishes. You can make great pictures with both lenses but I far prefer the 23mm lens to the X100.

My conclusion: people like to go for fast lenses and often choose a good spread. Given the fact that the 16 is quite young and some people might choose the 14 because they already have it, it find it surprising the 16 actually beat the 14 by a small margin.

And it's fairly easy to prove, too. 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 gives you the physical opening of 400/5.6 which equates to 71.43mm physical opening of the lens. It does not matter whether the lens has to supply a fullframe or aps sensor. It's just simple math.

Wrong.

It's all internet buzz and bollocks. 1.3x crop is dead and would offer a MINIMAL increase in image quality but requiring a whole new lens lineup. There was a time where fullframe wasn't up to the challenge regarding speediness and 1.5/1.6x crop was too shabby in higher ISOs. Thats when 1.3x fit right in (Canon 1D series). Nowadays it wouldn't make any sense. The sensor would be very expensive (nobody else uses it -> low quantities -> high price). It just doesn't make any damn sense, which ever way you put it. Which is why I don't understand the rumors about such an obvious fake.

You miss a few points about the 16-55. The 16-55 is optically superior to the 18-55, no standard lens with a fast aperture has internal zoom and the AF of the 16-55 2.8 is MUCH better than any other Fuji lens with only the 50-140 being on par regarding speed and reliability.

The problem with the 35 1.4's AF speed is the construction of the lens. To focus, the motor has to move EVERY single lens element present in the 35. I think Fuji calls this ALG (All Lens Group) focusing. A lot of glass has to be moved, slowing down the AF speed.

I try to avoid flash at all. If the photographer is not careful, the flash destroys the whole mood (talking about the dance/party stuff). Flash during the ceremony, imo, is just way too annoying to waste a thought about it.

4 stops is bollocks. Only the OIS in the 18-135 and 50-140 give you 4-5 stops of benefit. The 18-55 has the older OIS generation built into it which barely delivers 3 stops, if at all. I found the older OIS to be unreliable and sometimes blurring shots when faster shutter speeds are use while OIS is turned on. The OIS does give a slight benefit but if you photograph people this benefit is neutralized by the need to shoot with a faster shutter speed anyway. I found the 16-55 to be a reliable and strong tool.

I also shoot weddings using Fuji. Gear: X-T1 x 2 (hanging on a Holdfast Money Maker) 16 1.4 (beautiful for wide shots and detail work) 23 1.4 (I'm not yet getting the 23mm focal length completely... on fullframe I was a 28/50 guy.. nevertheless very useful) 35 1.4 (love that FOV but hate the AF performance on this lens, especially when the light fades) 56 1.2 (my workhorse... most used lens BY FAR) (90 2.0 coming soon) 16-55 2.8 (workhorse lens, never disappoints, although I prefer prime look) (50-140 probably coming later this year for the reach) Nissin i40 (rarely used but taking it for safety) 11mm extension tube (ring shots, close-up details) Reflectors in different sizes Cards, batteries etc packed in a Compagnon Messenger. I had the 10-24 but sold it. No plans for a macro since the 16/90 are both close to macro lenses. My main combination for ceremony will be 16-55+90, currently I use 23+56. During portrait sessions I use 35/56. Details are shot with the 16 (and soon the 90).