Jump to content

XF56 vs XF90 - Your thoughts apprecaited


Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

 

I've been saving up for the XF56 for a while now (eyeing the APD) and all of a sudden FUJI decides to throw in a curve by teasing the XF90. I'm at a crossroads and need your thoughts on what lens to buy first. I'll be using it predominately for portraits.

 

Thanks for all your thoughts in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You guys have seen this side by side?     https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/

If I may add to the conversation: I have shot entire weddings with the 56mm (non APD) for any shot of less than 3 individuals and all candids at a reception. I never felt the need to want "more bokeh"

This month I will do a practical comparison between the 35mm, 56mm, 56mm APD and 90mm as I have all of them in usage for weddings at the moment. I will test them for usability in fast-paced, slow-pace

Posted Images

At 90 (135) the focal length is a tad too long for what I normally shoot, which are usually somewhat crowded. Hard to get the required working distance for even a shoulder shot.

 

The 56 (85) is more versatile in that sense.

 

Bokeh wise, the 90 should be smoother than melting butter. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have the XF56 and I love it. But I'll try to get the XF90 too, since I like to have a certain distance to my objects. I hope the XF90 with WR shows a better build quality then the XF56 which collects a lot of dust inside after one year. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is really funny that so much attention has been dedicated to the fuji newborn, the 90mm, which, as it has been said by many, equals the 135mm on a FF or 35mm format camera.

 

I am old enough to remember everyone buying reflex camera with a 50mm  and then progressing to the 135mm and 28mm the holy trinity of photography when I was a kid. I too did that.

 

After buying it I found out that the 135mm was the most boring focal length that I could own. Neither fish, flesh, no good red herring!

 

Too long to be offering a good portrait lens and too short to be of any use for anything really far away.

 

Most bought it because it was affordable, small and relatively light efficient. Not many really ever used it a lot.

 

Who knows! Maybe after so many years photography has changed and now there are more and better reasons to use this kind of lens.

 

I really cannot see which though.

 

The 56 is a true portrait lens which brings you at a distance short enough to produce little “ visual compression” ( not in electronic terms but perspective ones) of the image. 

 

But, as always, to each his own!

Link to post
Share on other sites

sometimes I wonder why do they even bother to put an aperture in lenses these days since there is helluva lot of folks out there who never stop the lens down  :D

 

That's why they've stopped making bokeh monsters with 20+ aperture blades – why bother if most users shoot wide open anyway?…  B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still use it, but I am a dinosaur, I know.

That's not why and you know it. Lol. I got your point, it didn't fall on deaf ears. Eyes?

Just because you can shoot wide open doesn't mean you should. I stop down more often than don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^_^  cheers! Well, I suppose that since I was born in a time when the term “ bokeh” didn’t exist ( come to think of it, the term “ prime” didn’t exist either, we just had lenses, tout court, and zooms lenses ).

 

The use of selective focusing, outside the macro photographers who often used it mostly by necessity rather than choice, was very sparing back then. Few could afford the really ultra luminous lenses of the time. 

 

I remember the first lenses which made this aesthetic choice available to more photographers were, for example, the ultra luminous 85mm’s.

 

I was mainly a large format & studio photographer and in the ‘90 started taking portraits by means of wild twists of the front and back of the camera to achieve VERY selective focussing but on the whole what I trained hard to learn was to achieve maximum sharpness everywhere  by means of the camera movements.

 

I guess that that has created a “ forma mentis”.

 

 

post-106-0-59890200-1432278732_thumb.jpg

post-106-0-75108400-1432278739_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

^_^  cheers! Well, I suppose that since I was born in a time when the term “ bokeh” didn’t exist ( come to think of it, the term “ prime” didn’t exist either, we just had lenses, tout court, and zooms lenses ).

 

The use of selective focusing, outside the macro photographers who often used it mostly by necessity rather than choice, was very sparing back then. Few could afford the really ultra luminous lenses of the time. 

 

I remember the first lenses which made this aesthetic choice available to more photographers were, for example, the ultra luminous 85mm’s.

 

I was mainly a large format & studio photographer and in the ‘90 started taking portraits by means of wild twists of the front and back of the camera to achieve VERY selective focussing but on the whole what I trained hard to learn was to achieve maximum sharpness everywhere  by means of the camera movements.

 

I guess that that has created a “ forma mentis”.

 

If your photography can be forma mentis, then I'd say you're really on the right track!

 

You definitely have a very artistic way of looking at photography. Ol' skool and I've always liked photographers who can photograph that way. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant the WR. :D ...I was just taking a poke.

 

I'm surprised that the bokeh of the 90 wasn't creamier than the APD.....in some ways disappointed. However, every review I read says otherwise.....

 

:lol:

 

But I am not surprised. This is a direct example of the APD filter at work, if this was taken with the 'regular' 56mm it would look exactly like the 90mm and 50-140mm do in the comparison.

 

With 'normal' bokeh, where there aren't as many such highlights that create this specific kind of bokeh-situation the 90mm, 50-140mm, and regular 56mm are all equally creamy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that the bokeh of the 90 wasn't creamier than the APD.....

How could it be without APD? If the 90 mm was less well corrected for spherical aberration it would feature a creamy bokeh, but then it wouldn’t be as sharp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^_^  cheers! Well, I suppose that since I was born in a time when the term “ bokeh” didn’t exist ( come to think of it, the term “ prime” didn’t exist either, we just had lenses, tout court, and zooms lenses ).

 

The use of selective focusing, outside the macro photographers who often used it mostly by necessity rather than choice, was very sparing back then. Few could afford the really ultra luminous lenses of the time. 

 

I remember the first lenses which made this aesthetic choice available to more photographers were, for example, the ultra luminous 85mm’s.

 

I was mainly a large format & studio photographer and in the ‘90 started taking portraits by means of wild twists of the front and back of the camera to achieve VERY selective focussing but on the whole what I trained hard to learn was to achieve maximum sharpness everywhere  by means of the camera movements.

 

I guess that that has created a “ forma mentis”.

 

Milandro, your portrait here looks a lot like musician/recording engineer Steve Albini!  Like, if it's not, it could be his 1989 doppelganger!  Nice image!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kielinski ( why don’t we have a Thanks button?  :) )

 

It is not Mr. Steve Albini but a portrait of a fellow teacher at the Fotoacademie Amsterdam ( now he is a film producer and a photographer in Spain)  Mr. Dan Uneken .

 

It was a polaroid 55 P/N that I’ve shot many years ago (1999?) at one of the many “ open days” which the school did to promote its activities. I taught studio photography then and I shot tons of 4" x 5 " polaroid back then. 

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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...