Jump to content

which lens to buy


ljgent

Recommended Posts

That's quite a wide pick, it's like deciding if you prefer apples or watermelons more...

 

Both lenses don't serve the same purpose, the XF 90mm is clearly the sharpest of both, but you really need enough space to use it fully, the shots are really coming out tight.

 

The 35mm is a more all generalist lens, you can do a bit of everything with it. It doesn't really matter if you prefer the F1.4 or the F2.0 version, the differences are an f-stop and WR. Between the both, you just need to check if you prefer something usable in low light or rather have a lens on a X-T1 that can take some wet weather conditions.

 

If you have an X-T10 then, then it's just low light consideration. 

 

I haven't had the chance to test the 35mm F2 yet, but from the tests seen, the F2.0 is a tad bit sharper but you really need to go into pixel peeping to see the differences. The WR could be an argument for me since I do travel to tropical countries and having a trusty 35mm WR could be handy at times instead of always using the 18-135.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't know yet, I would go for the 35mm. It is a very useful focal length, and not as specialised as the 90mm.

 

I would go for the extra stop of light, and the optically corrected lens, but I'm sure the f/2 will suit you well too.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm asking myself similar questions about what prime to get - 23, 27, 35. Since I have an 18-55 kit lens I was able to preset the zoom (with help from a piece of electrical tape) at, for instance, 23mm and take photos only at that focal length for a day or two. Then I did  the same for the other focal lengths I was considering.

 

While it didn't help me compare size, weight, and wide open f-stop performance of those various primes, it did help me get used to the various view angles and which came closest to the type of photos I want to make. I know that won't help you with your 90mm decision, but maybe you could lock down at 35mm for a couple of days and see how you like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 90 (to me) is 90% portrait lens - the other 10% is when I need some telephoto assistance (ie, bird watching, nature, etc).  I find it very limiting in everyday use as it is equivalent to 135mm in 35mm format which is pretty close up - most of the time I don't have room to walk backwards enough to get all I want in the photo - and then generally when I do get back far enough, there is something in the way that prevents me from getting just what I want in the picture.  That said, it remains on my camera a lot more than most other lenses.

 

The 35mm lens (either 1.4 or 2.0) is a more general purpose lens.  It is wide enough to get lots of territory into a frame.  With the 35 one can get up close and lock in on a specific target (a face for example) or wide enough to shoot a landscape.  In addition, either of the 35's are fast enough to shoot in low light  - A very general, all-purpose lens!! 

 

But I might suggest you also look into the 18-135 lens - while it is not particularly fast, I find it does a very good job - especially when traveling where one might be limited in changing lenses, yet, the environment might require fast changes for close up to very telephoto.  This zoom can handle close up and far away with plume.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with this. The 35mm is a lot more versatile than the 90mm, unless you are very specifically needing a telephoto length for sport or portraiture only. 

 

 

If you don't know yet, I would go for the 35mm. It is a very useful focal length, and not as specialised as the 90mm.

I would go for the extra stop of light, and the optically corrected lens, but I'm sure the f/2 will suit you well too.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 90mm lens is an absolutely stunning lens, but its not the first prime to buy unless you are 100% a portrait guy, and even then I would buy the 35mm first as it does a good job at portraiture but its versatile as you can use it for street. Its also a great indoor lens. The 90 is bright enough for indoors but unless you regularly hang out with people who own mansions you are never go to have enough space for it to be working at its best. Even if you manage to not crop someones face, you are not going to have enough depth to get the compression and bokeh that makes that lens so outstanding. Outdoors is where that lens belongs (or in a big studio)

 

I would buy the 35mm 1.4 no questions, its a bit older, but on a X-Trans 2 sensor (X-E2/T1/T10) its plenty fast enough. Its a magical do everything lens and if I had to sell all my lens and only keep one it would be the 35mm 1.4

 

 

ps although on reflection I have high hopes for the 33 F1.0 lens, we will see, but if that is coming out this year ,mayb that is the only reason to buy the 90mm because you are waiting for the 33, but to my mind thats just another good reason to buy the 35mm F1.4 first you can get used to it, and second hand its very reasonable and you will probably shift it for what you paid. The F2 version not so much as it has not market corrected yet and is still enjoying new kid on the block status.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you have experience and a need for shooting at 90mm (~135mm equiv mainly for portraits), one of the 35mm is likely you're best choice. 90mm is very tight, so if you are not used to that it will be a challenge. 

 

Or buy both online from someone with a good return policy and keep one. Better yet, find a local dealer and try a few. 

 

I had both the 35mm f2 and f1.4, but I sold both just because I dont shoot 50mm equiv very often. Both lenses are very good.

 

If I only could buy one lens it would be the 35mm f1.4 (assuming you don't shoot sports and don't need weather sealing).

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.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • X Raw Studio works with image files on your computer - not the image files on the camera card
    • Hello. Thankyou,now Is all more clear: I have take some time in your link. Let tell you. I has totaly forget this machine have "compress picture option" and not Only "compress lossless" anyway not change the experiment. RAW  and this last two format look like same result about Number of recording picture. Can tell all results in this: in raw you can make 17 pictures for second. Is wrong. Is about One single Press and wait buffer. Full 30/20/10/8 not change. After 17 Need Press again. You not can Press before "redgreen light recording Is on".   With preshot you can have 25  are more 7 pictures . The story change Only in jpg shot only. In jpg at 30 you have 30 picture but redgreen light off very Fast so you can shot very quicly. At 20 shot Is about start look like infinite shot. 60. So the best performance are this last One  about Speed and recording picture after camera working witout big limit. I want take a shot about Italy cyclet Just for passion. I think i Will use this last setting.  After Need check when battery not are full change and ambient temp.  Anyway my cam look like exactly specific about you link. Im Happy my cam working perfectly.
    • I do not use Flickr, so I do not know what their BB code is. All I did was copy the second link you provided, (starting at https: and ending at  _k.jpg — leave off the [img] and [/img] tags) and pasted it into the message. After a moment, a message popped up asking if I wanted to paste it as the image or as a plain link. I did this twice, the first time I had it paste in as the image and the second time as a link. Nothing fancy or tricky.
    • So do I just copy the BB code from flickr and paste it anywhere on the page like other forums or is there some other trick I need to perform to get it to post?
    • All software is the latest between camera and app. All settings are correct on camera. I have both lossless and uncompressed RAW files on the card in the camera. I have been up and down every reddit thread to no avail and am losing my mind… I’m doing all of the right things. It even sees my camera. It just doesn’t create the “drive” for it (see attached image screenshot).  Please Help! 

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

×
×
  • Create New...