90mm Best Prime 2015 “No Debate: a one-horse race: Fujinon XF 90mmF2 – New King of Sharpness!” – Imaging Resource

[Patrick FR]

not surprised http://www.fujirumors.com/best-prime-2015-no-debate-a-one-horse-race-fujinon-xf-90mmf2-new-king-of-sharpness-imaging-resource/

[Marc G.]

Not surprised here either... the only downside of the 90 is the niche focal length. Now Fuji needs to come out with other primes with the same performance in other focal lengths.

[milandro]

When I was young in the ’70, the first lens that anyone would buy, past the 50mm normal focal lens, would be, in most cases, a 135mm because it was the most affordable, together with the 28mm wideangle , of the lenses.

 

Most people had the holy trinity, the magic triplet of lenses, 28mm, 50mm and 135mm.

 

That’s what I did too.

 

After some time one found out ( I wasn’t the only one at the time to make this discovery and you will find this comments both in the press of the time or still on line now) that the focal length of 135mm was neither fish nor fowl.

 

A little too long to be giving a nice feel with portraits ( an effect that you best got with the 85mm)  and a little too short to be bringing things closer that were not close enough ( something that started working from 200mm onwards ).

 

So, you can imagine my surprise a few years after to discover the excitement with which people seem to react to a 90mm which, an a APS-C camera works out to be just a little longer  than the 135mm of my youth.

 

Something is not quite computing, for me, but the press is pressing and pushing us to believe that there are new realities about good old fashioned ways.

 

So, they would want us to embrace this focal length now. 

 

I am not buying it.

 

Literally!

 

Of course there would be those who will disagree and they are free to spend their money as they please, exactly as I’m free to save as I want. So if you disagree with my stance on this, you are welcome to do so without any hatred, if you can. No hatred was expressed on my side. I am simply explaining my point.

 

I have been toying with this lens in the shop and I found it extremely heavy and cumbersome and found, in that, another reason ( for me, not for you 90mm lovers!) to stick to my (other) guns.

[Tom H.]

When I was young in the ’70, the first lens that anyone would buy, past the 50mm normal focal lens, would be, in most cases, a 135mm because it was the most affordable, together with the 28mm wideangle , of the lenses.

 

Most people had the holy trinity, the magic triplet of lenses, 28mm, 50mm and 135mm.

 

That’s what I did too.

 

After some time one found out ( I wasn’t the only one at the time to make this discovery and you will find this comments both in the press of the time or still on line now) that the focal length of 135mm was fish nor fowl.

 

A little too long to be giving a nice feel with portraits ( an effect that you best got with the 85mm)  and a little too short to be bringing things closer that were not close enough ( something that started working from 200mm onwards ).

 

So, you can imagine my surprise a few years after to discover the excitement with which people seem to react to a 90mm which, an a APS-C camera works out to be just a little longer  than the 135mm of my youth.

 

Something is not quite computing, for me, but the press is pressing and pushing us to believe that there are new realities about good old fashioned ways.

 

So, they would want us to embrace this focal length now. 

 

I am not buying it.

 

Literally!

 

Of course there would be those who will disagree and they are free to spend their money as they please, exactly as I’m free to save as I want. So if you disagree with my stance on this, you are welcome to do so without any hatred, if you can. No hatred was expressed on my side. I am simply explaining my point.

 

I have been toying with this lens in the shop and I found it extremely heavy and cumbersome and found, in that, another reason ( for me, not for you 90mm lovers!) to stick to my (other) guns.

 

Same for me, I think it's a gorgeous lens, but same feeling on the focal length. I love my 56mm APD for it's versatility. I'm looking forward to the 120mm Macro though. I loved using my Canon 135 f2 on my crop Canon body before.

[milandro]

I understand the rationale of the 120mm macro, although I anticipate that it will be a very large lens and therefore, not of any interest for me.

 

Downsizing ( for me) is the word.

[Tom H.]

I understand the rationale of the 120mm macro, although I anticipate that it will be a very large lens and therefore, not of any interest for me.

 

Downsizing ( for me) is the word.

 

Yes, for occasional use only, or nature shots when I take a big backpack. Or studio use, where weight is not really an issue. Can't see myself putting it in my workbag every day.

[Maurice]

Maybe, but doesn't that make the shots that you DO take with it extra special ? Less is more.

[quincy]

I agree that the XF90 is a wonderful lens, but this year, there were many beautiful primes, the most astonishing and technically advanced being the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM, in my eyes. You may think of Canon what you want, but that lens is gorgeous. Wonder why it is not even listed.

 

 

A little too long to be giving a nice feel with portraits ( an effect that you best got with the 85mm)

The thing is: "it depends". When shooting a upper body portrait with an 85 mm lens, you are about 1,7 m away from your subject. As we know, the distance is deciding for the look of the portrait. If you stay at 1,7 m and put the 135 mm lens on, you get a tight portrait crop with the same look as the upper body shot had with the 85 mm lens. So yes, it is kind of a speciality lens, but the decision between the XF56 and the XF90 should depend on your desired result. (full body / upper body / face portrait)

And I have seen beautiful portraits shot with the canon 135/2.

 

and a little too short to be bringing things closer that were not close enough ( something that started working from 200mm onwards ).

Fully agree with that.

[milandro]

the feelings about the 135mm being too long for portraits were widely shared by the photographers of my generation, things, apparently have changed since then.

 

Despite having embraced new ideas in many fields, I have not changed my mind about this.

[Marc G.]

Can't fault the lens for the focal length. That's a personal decision.

 

Yet, technically is better than both 56s in every regard. It's as simple as that: Fuji's show-off lens, the masterpiece.

 

When it comes to portraits, it depends on my mood. I either use just the 56 or 35+90. But the 90 is not only just a portrait lens.

 

Due to the sharpness and the lack of optical aberrations it's also for brilliant for technical photography like landscapes, architectural details and is one of my most loved wedding lenses.

[vman]

I had a Canon 135 f/2 that produced spectacular results if I used it. I sold it after hanging on to it for seven years thinking I'll be a portrait photographer some day. Never happened. This Fuji lens despite the latest accolade can be rented if I so desire so I'll just do that if I get the itch. For now the versatility of the 50-140 suits me fine.

 

To each his own. Just my two cents.

[umad?]

Thing is: there is so much more than portrait you can do with 135mm.

 

It opens up new perspectives. Landscape, Street - just keep an open mind.

 

And if you give this a try  - the 90mm Fujinon is probably the 135mm (FoV) lens to get. Incredibly sharp, no matter if wide open or stopped down. Same goes for contrast. And optical aberrations are more or less none existing. Furthermore it focuses fast and is weather resistent?

 

 

And for all those who might think, that all those nice numbers (incredible MTFs, no aberrations) mean just another sterile lens - nope. The 90mm has character - the bokeh ist contrast rich and what could be described as near perfection. 

[frod]

I think the hoopla around this lens is more related to the incredible sharpness and focussing speed rather than anything particular about its focal length. I don't think it's the place of reviewers and awards to decide what focal length we should or should not be using. It's certainly not what I've read into the hype surrounding this lens; pure performance plaudits.

[Malsam]

I've used for many years, the Canon 85 f1.2 and 135 f2. I tend to stick to the 85 f1.2 most of the time for both indoors and outdoors and I like this focal length and the 3D look it produces. However, occasionally when I use the 135 f2, it never amazes me that it can produce very outstanding looks as well!

 

When I switch to Fuji, 90 was not out yet so a 56 was one of the first lens I bought. I sold it after a month of trying because I don't really find it similar to my Canon equivalent. I tried the 90 when it was launched and I tested it in my local Fuji showroom and I like the AF speed as well as the results. Nevertheless I feel that the lens is a bit too "huge" for Fuji standard which is one of the reasons why I wanted a smaller and lighter setup. I may eventually still get it as portraitures are almost the only thing I shoot nowadays.