Jump to content

lens advice on primes


Virtuoso

Recommended Posts

Guys,

 

I currently have the Fuji 10-24mm, 18-55mm, 27mm and 50-230mm.  I know that I am covered almost throughout the range.  Recently I am caught by GAS and am looking at a prime for portraits.  Can you recommend what to get?  

 

My thoughts are 1)  I should have gotten the 23mm instead of the 27mm but its pancake size does make it useful for a smallish system.  Then again I should have gotten the 18mm pancake since i feel that the 27mm not wide enough for my everyday use.  2)  Should i get 35mm, although the 1.4f is said to be slow on focusing and the f2… ummm does the 1.4f give better bokeh?  3) Should i get the 56mm, although that will be 85mm which is mostly just a shoulder and up portrait lens.

 

Just confused hahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites

1)  I should have gotten the 23mm instead of the 27mm but its pancake size does make it useful for a smallish system.  Then again I should have gotten the 18mm pancake since i feel that the 27mm not wide enough for my everyday use.

10-24 for any angle and 27 for compactness. It's great. Consider 23/1.4 or 16/1.4 only if you need really low light ability. Otherwise F/stops are not that important at wide angle. My personal choice for portraits is fantastic X100s for it's leaf shutter.

 

 2)  Should i get 35mm, although the 1.4f is said to be slow on focusing and the f2… ummm does the 1.4f give better bokeh?

I'd say this 35/2 gives little bit better bokeh than 35/1.4. Nevertheless there was no side-by-side comparison yet so my opinion may change. On the other hand 35/1.4 gives you more background blur. But you should be ready to work with quite limited DOF. Again if you need low light ability go for 35/1.4. For WR go for new 35/2. And again my personal choice for 35mm is gorgeous X100s + TCL.)))

 

3) Should i get the 56mm, although that will be 85mm which is mostly just a shoulder and up portrait lens.

Depends totally on you. I usually use 56 for close-ups in studio. Outdoor use is medium height and full body portraits. For extreme closeups and outdoor reasonably close portraits 90/2 could be better choice. But you can use 50-230 for the last one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35 or the 56 would be my suggestion.  If you want a cheaper way out, you could snag the 60.  I just picked one up, but haven't had a ton of time with it yet, but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be a wonderful portrait lens.  I've shot a few street portraits with the 35 and it is by and far the lens that I reach for time and time again.  The size, the character, I just love it...In my opinion it is the must own Fuji lens for every X Photographer.  The ƒ2.o should be wonderful as well if you can wait until next year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of general usability, like for portraits during travel with family, which is the better lens - 35 or 56mm

35 is more versatile of course. For travel I usually take single X100s with fixed 23mm lens. This focal length is even more versatile to me. It allows me to shoot both portraits and landscapes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how about i go with 23mm f1.4 instead?

 

The size difference between the 35 and the 23 is very significant, especially when you account for a hood (I use a smaller than OEM hood on the 23, but it's still a large and heavy lens). I also don't like the 23mm perspective too much, but that is personal. I find it not very suited for "portrait". It's okay for "from the hip up" shots, great for full (or mostly full) body and in my personal opinion useless for head shots - but again, that's opinion. Some people like large noses.

 

So, it depends on how closely you want to frame someone in a "portrait". 

 

From a versatility perspective the 23 and the 35 are about the same in my opinion. What you gain in wider shots, you loose with perspective distortion and less bokeh when you try to frame tighter. Both are very useable focal lengths and giving a recommendation for one or the other will pretty much only be based on personal taste of the person recommending, so you should ignore it right away. 

 

Do this:

 

Go through the photos you have shot with the 18-55 and check which focal lengths you have used most. I know that zooms tend to be used mostly at the extremes, but still, give it a try - is it more in the low twenties or more in the mid thirties (if it is not right at 18 or 55 - which should give you a hint as well)? That could give you an idea of what focal length you prefer.

 

Otherwise, set the zoom to 23, use some electrical tape to tape the position down and go out and shoot for a day. Repeat on the next day with 35mm. Ignore the differences the aperture makes, just concentrate on the framing. Which one did you like better. If you buy a prime - you should buy YOUR preferred focal length first.

 

The next thing: go to a store and handle both lenses. The 23 is larger and heavier and has the manual zoom clutch (makes it only more cumbersome to use in my opinion, some people love it though) and the 35 isn't quite as solid feeling. Put both on your camera body and feel how they handle. Remember to put the lens hood on. 

 

THEN make your decision. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should i get the 56mm, although that will be 85mm which is mostly just a shoulder and up portrait lens.

 

My favourite focal length is 85mm FF. I have several lenses in this focal length including the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 APD and the Zeiss Otus 85mm. The Fuji is amazing. 

 

One thing I would say is that I get all sort of framing out of an 85mm focal length when I do model shoots. I can get close up head shots by stepping in close, but I find it easy to take a few step backs to get excellent full length shots. Outdoors you can get environmental perspectives out of the 85mm FF focal length. That said, for full length and slightly more environmental perspectives, I tend to pull out the XF 35mm f/1.4. If portraits with bokeh is what you are after then you should go straight for the 56mm f/1.2.

 

The biggest question you need to ask yourself is what sort of portraiture you want to do. You've indicated you're not trying to do headshot portraiture, which for me is a 135mm FF focal length task. The question is how environmental you want your shots. If you also want a couple of subjects in frame, then you should choose a 40-50mm FF view. As for the 35mm FF view, this isn't classically regarded as a mainstream portraiture length, but it is sometimes good for environmental portraiture. The shorter the focal length the less flattering it tends to be on facial features, with the nose being made to look bigger. 

 

As for the XF 27mm f/2.8, I think you've got yourself a great portraiture lens right there. The 40mm FF focal length is just that tad bit more flattering on facial features than the 35mm FF, and yet a touch more environmental than the 50mm FF focal length. I hear that the XF 27mm is a shockingly sharp lens with beautiful rendering, and if I didn't already own the XF 35mm f/1.4, I might be tempted to try it. Try mastering the XF 27mm for portraiture to see if you enjoy this focal length. You may already own your dream lens, though if there were one focal length to add to it, it would still be the XF 56mm.

 

But don't waste time looking at MTF plots and ask yourself what sort of portraiture you are planning to do, and choose the right lens for the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. The thing is I was never a portrait photographer Hahaha. I usually see the landscape shots and take time to compose for a good picture. However, now that I travel with family more often I'm thinking of learning more about portraiture. The lens that I'm looking for would be one that I can shoot portraits while traveling.

 

If I am to do strict portraiture in a controlled environment I'd most likely use my nikon system with my 85mm lens or 50mm 1.2f ais.

 

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any lens can shoot portraits while traveling. It's you who needs to decide what perspective, framing and look you want. There are people taking environmental portraits with the 14mm and others who insist that nothing below the 50-140 at the long end at f/2.8 works for portraits ... or that it has to be the 56 APD. But that's plain untrue. It depends on how you take portraits, what you mean by portrait and what the look you want to achieve is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The 23mm is the best all round prime you can get. But since you already have all the zooms as your all rounders - - grab the 35mm, no matter whether f2 or f1.4

 

If you do a LOT of portrait photography - get the 56mm.

I often use the 56mm for street. But that's a personal thing.

 

And just in case you can't decide between the 56mm and the 60mm: the 56mm is faster and overall better. But the 60mm has better bokeh and is super sharp (but slow as dead cat).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, that you already have a nice set up of lenses. You should only consider extra prime lenses if you need that extra background seperation and low light capability. At the beginning you should use your 18-55 for portraits. It's a georgous underated piece of a kit lens. Even at F4 you'll have a nice background seperation.

 

23mm F1.4?!

Nope, you have the 10-24 already. Or do you need that extra low light capability?!

 

56 F1.2?!

Nope, it's a portrait lens and not that versatile any more. Expensive as hell as well. You should only buy it if you are really into portraits or you have money to spend. And you mentioned that you have a nice Nikon set up for that kind of work already.

 

35 F1.4/F2

This would be my first prime lens suggestion for you. 35mm is still versatile and very nice for close up portrait work. The difference between F1.4 and F2.0 isn't that much. F1.4 has only a bit more blurry background. I wouldn't buy the old one anymore. I actually sold mine for the new one. The new one is a perfect fit for myX-T1. The AF is defintily faster, it's dead silent, at F2.0 it's as sharp as the F1.4 and it's smaller, cheaper and WR as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I have most of Fuji's primes.  I find when I only carry the 35 it is too tight for what I want to shoot.  When I only carry the 23 it is too wide.  I sold the 27 - I wish I had it back!

 

I have the 56 and used it lots before the 90 came out - haven't had it on the camera since!  If there is any way I can capture the shot with the 90, I will put it on - I may have to back up a mile, but what I capture is far and away above all the rest.  It is mesmerizing!  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this post is a little old now, so you may have already made up your mind. I would rule out the 56mm and 90mm for your usage. The 23mm and 35mm are both great. The 35mm is a fair amount smaller than the 23mm physically. You could put on your 18-55 and set it both focal lengths and see which you would prefer. My preference would go to the 35mm F1/4. The Focus has improved greatly with the firmware update on the X-T1 and would assume it also will improve with the firmware update on the X-E2. 

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...