Jump to content

XF56 vs XF90 - Your thoughts apprecaited


Toon

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

Milandro, we must be of "an age" because I was thinking exactly the same thing.  I will say, though, that I used my 28mm a lot, and never learned to love a 35mm.  So, in the end we follow our own vision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers, Xorcist, :)! I too started loving wideangles since the buying of my first one ( it was a screw-mount  Pentacon 29mm for my Zenit ).

 

My mantras are  : “ there are many ways to skin a cat & to each his own”. So I really respect everyone’s preference for things different than the ones I use. We are all different for complexions, creeds and needs. So its hardly likely that we should all like the same lenses. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to get back to the OP's actual question...

Unless you're going to shoot the 56mm at f/1.2 all the time, forget the APD version. It's very slightly smoother at f/1.2 at the cost of nearly a third of a stop of light. For f/1.4 there is almost no difference and at f/1.6 onwards it looks no different to the regular 56mm and you're still losing a little light. If you ever talk to people from Fuji, even they will tell you the APD is pointless unless you're glued to f/1.2.

So, 56mm vs 90mm. Same as 85mm vs 135mm for 35mm sensors, I personally always wish 85mm lenses were a touch longer and 135mms were shorter, so I typically end up using 100mm-105mm lenses or their equivalents. Sadly, Fuji doesn't make a 100mm equivalent yet!
Generally, 90mm is going to be good for headshots and, if you're outdoors or in a really huge studio, you're going to be able to back up enough to get a waist-up shot. Don't bank on it for much else. And, if you do have that much space available, the 50-140mm f/2.8 gives you even more subject separation, anyway. I used to have a 135mmm lens on a full frame Canon body and I sold it pretty quickly because I found it was always either too long to use or, when I did have the space, the 70-200 zooms did a better job anyway.
The 56mm is good for waist-up and can do full-length if you have the space. For tight headshots it introduces a little distortion, so only risk that if your subject has very well-proportioned features. Your typical professional model is going to look fine in a 56mm headshot because they're probably going to have the features to get away with it. Your average family shot is going to be fine because nobody cares about a little distortion there. Anything between, it's going to be distractingly unflattering. Again, I wish Fuji would make a 100mm equivalent.

Really, the 56mm and 90mm are going to work best as a pair, or you just grab the 50-140 zoom. If you are only going to have one lens, the 56mm is more useful—lighter, smaller, can work with less light, and you can always shoot wider then crop in for a headshot—but it's definitely a tough call. What one person calls a portrait, another may say is too wide to be a real portrait, or they may complain it's too tightly-framed. If you like wider, the 56mm is definitely the way to go. If you like tight, the 90mm is worth considering but is still hard to recommend. Usually, the people with the space and career to make full use of the 90mm will be better off with the 50-140 anyway. That's not to say there aren't exceptions here and there, but, for most people in most situations, the 56mm is going to be the more useful of the two.

If you have an X-T1 or will be buying an X-T10 then I'd also consider the 60mm. It's just that fraction tighter than the 56mm, enough to make headshots not quite as unacceptable, while still being significantly wider than the 90mm. You're giving up a lot of speed to the 56mm but not much compared to the 90mm, and for most closer portraits you'll probably be stopping down, anyway. And it's still faster than any portrait zoom. The 60mm does focus slowly with other bodies, but on the X-T10 it's as fast as any other Fuji lens and the X-T1 will be getting a firmware update which, I would hope, will also bring the 60mm up to speed on that, too. I wouldn't bother looking at the 60mm if you have a X-Pro1 or X-E camera, though, as the focus is just too slow on those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the 60mm gets not too much love, without too many good reasons if you ask me (especially if the new software will improve its performance).

 

Even though I had ordered the 56mm, at the last moment I chose the 60mm over the 56mm because it costed a bit more than half than the 56mm ( and now less and there are lots of them offered secondhand)  because I am a cheapskate ( who had just bought a X-T1 and a 10-24mm though! ;)) and because the close up performance was important to me...rather more than the “ bokeh” of the 56mm ( the spelling checker doesn’t recognize the word! :rolleyes:  ) would be.

 

I don’t particularly agree that the 56mm would add any particular detrimental distortion, but I have made many portraits by using the 35mm too, so I am biased.. but as always to each his own.

 

If one can live with the limitation of adapted lenses you can find just about any focal length that you would wish to want to use. If you are a “ bokeh” lover...  <_< ...you can use adapted lenses at the maximum aperture and do not bother about anything else ( well except for manual focussing ) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a wedding photographer I would always choose the 56mm - 90mm gives great compression but the working distance is generally to great for normal use. You add the 90mm to an existing set of 23, 35, 56 rather than replacing any of them if your goal is general use and portraiture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to get back to the OP's actual question...

 

Unless you're going to shoot the 56mm at f/1.2 all the time, forget the APD version. It's very slightly smoother at f/1.2 at the cost of nearly a third of a stop of light. For f/1.4 there is almost no difference and at f/1.6 onwards it looks no different to the regular 56mm and you're still losing a little light. If you ever talk to people from Fuji, even they will tell you the APD is pointless unless you're glued to f/1.2.

 

So, 56mm vs 90mm. Same as 85mm vs 135mm for 35mm sensors, I personally always wish 85mm lenses were a touch longer and 135mms were shorter, so I typically end up using 100mm-105mm lenses or their equivalents. Sadly, Fuji doesn't make a 100mm equivalent yet!

Generally, 90mm is going to be good for headshots and, if you're outdoors or in a really huge studio, you're going to be able to back up enough to get a waist-up shot. Don't bank on it for much else. And, if you do have that much space available, the 50-140mm f/2.8 gives you even more subject separation, anyway. I used to have a 135mmm lens on a full frame Canon body and I sold it pretty quickly because I found it was always either too long to use or, when I did have the space, the 70-200 zooms did a better job anyway.

The 56mm is good for waist-up and can do full-length if you have the space. For tight headshots it introduces a little distortion, so only risk that if your subject has very well-proportioned features. Your typical professional model is going to look fine in a 56mm headshot because they're probably going to have the features to get away with it. Your average family shot is going to be fine because nobody cares about a little distortion there. Anything between, it's going to be distractingly unflattering. Again, I wish Fuji would make a 100mm equivalent.

 

Really, the 56mm and 90mm are going to work best as a pair, or you just grab the 50-140 zoom. If you are only going to have one lens, the 56mm is more useful—lighter, smaller, can work with less light, and you can always shoot wider then crop in for a headshot—but it's definitely a tough call. What one person calls a portrait, another may say is too wide to be a real portrait, or they may complain it's too tightly-framed. If you like wider, the 56mm is definitely the way to go. If you like tight, the 90mm is worth considering but is still hard to recommend. Usually, the people with the space and career to make full use of the 90mm will be better off with the 50-140 anyway. That's not to say there aren't exceptions here and there, but, for most people in most situations, the 56mm is going to be the more useful of the two.

 

If you have an X-T1 or will be buying an X-T10 then I'd also consider the 60mm. It's just that fraction tighter than the 56mm, enough to make headshots not quite as unacceptable, while still being significantly wider than the 90mm. You're giving up a lot of speed to the 56mm but not much compared to the 90mm, and for most closer portraits you'll probably be stopping down, anyway. And it's still faster than any portrait zoom. The 60mm does focus slowly with other bodies, but on the X-T10 it's as fast as any other Fuji lens and the X-T1 will be getting a firmware update which, I would hope, will also bring the 60mm up to speed on that, too. I wouldn't bother looking at the 60mm if you have a X-Pro1 or X-E camera, though, as the focus is just too slow on those.

"Sadly, Fuji doesn't make a 100mm equivalent yet!"

Excatly my thoughts, too! Back in the old days, I had the Nikon 105mm as my main lens, and really liked it. Now I have the Fuji 18-55, but I would like to add a small and light shiort tele to it, like a 70mm. I guess it will not happen in my time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Point taken. Would I be right to assume that the APD version of the 56 will be less sharp than the non APD?

Link to post
Share on other sites

: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.

I can see what you mean....and agree.

 

I always love the bokeh of the 135mm (FF) but never get a chance to use that focal length as usually I don't have that working space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Aswald, compliments appreciated.  :)

 

I am old school because that’s the school where I went to ( literally)!

 

I often day dream about how it used to be in the past.....especially on a hot, lazy Sunday afternoon. ^_^  ^_^ ^_^  

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to get back to the OP's actual question...

 

Unless you're going to shoot the 56mm at f/1.2 all the time, forget the APD version. It's very slightly smoother at f/1.2 at the cost of nearly a third of a stop of light. For f/1.4 there is almost no difference and at f/1.6 onwards it looks no different to the regular 56mm and you're still losing a little light. If you ever talk to people from Fuji, even they will tell you the APD is pointless unless you're glued to f/1.2.

 

So, 56mm vs 90mm. Same as 85mm vs 135mm for 35mm sensors, I personally always wish 85mm lenses were a touch longer and 135mms were shorter, so I typically end up using 100mm-105mm lenses or their equivalents. Sadly, Fuji doesn't make a 100mm equivalent yet!

Generally, 90mm is going to be good for headshots and, if you're outdoors or in a really huge studio, you're going to be able to back up enough to get a waist-up shot. Don't bank on it for much else. And, if you do have that much space available, the 50-140mm f/2.8 gives you even more subject separation, anyway. I used to have a 135mmm lens on a full frame Canon body and I sold it pretty quickly because I found it was always either too long to use or, when I did have the space, the 70-200 zooms did a better job anyway.

The 56mm is good for waist-up and can do full-length if you have the space. For tight headshots it introduces a little distortion, so only risk that if your subject has very well-proportioned features. Your typical professional model is going to look fine in a 56mm headshot because they're probably going to have the features to get away with it. Your average family shot is going to be fine because nobody cares about a little distortion there. Anything between, it's going to be distractingly unflattering. Again, I wish Fuji would make a 100mm equivalent.

 

Really, the 56mm and 90mm are going to work best as a pair, or you just grab the 50-140 zoom. If you are only going to have one lens, the 56mm is more useful—lighter, smaller, can work with less light, and you can always shoot wider then crop in for a headshot—but it's definitely a tough call. What one person calls a portrait, another may say is too wide to be a real portrait, or they may complain it's too tightly-framed. If you like wider, the 56mm is definitely the way to go. If you like tight, the 90mm is worth considering but is still hard to recommend. Usually, the people with the space and career to make full use of the 90mm will be better off with the 50-140 anyway. That's not to say there aren't exceptions here and there, but, for most people in most situations, the 56mm is going to be the more useful of the two.

 

If you have an X-T1 or will be buying an X-T10 then I'd also consider the 60mm. It's just that fraction tighter than the 56mm, enough to make headshots not quite as unacceptable, while still being significantly wider than the 90mm. You're giving up a lot of speed to the 56mm but not much compared to the 90mm, and for most closer portraits you'll probably be stopping down, anyway. And it's still faster than any portrait zoom. The 60mm does focus slowly with other bodies, but on the X-T10 it's as fast as any other Fuji lens and the X-T1 will be getting a firmware update which, I would hope, will also bring the 60mm up to speed on that, too. I wouldn't bother looking at the 60mm if you have a X-Pro1 or X-E camera, though, as the focus is just too slow on those.

 

 

Thanks for pointing out the limitations of the APD lens. I'm rarely at f1.4 so it makes more sense for me to avoid that extra cost for the lens. Something for me to think about more. Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

All an apodization filter does is darken the brighter, harsh edges of out of focus highlights, so it makes sense that the in focus areas are just as sharp. There's no reason to expect to it be sharper, other than the in focus areas may appear sharper in comparison to the slightly softer out of focus areas.

According to Damien Lovegrove, the APD is no more or less sharp than the regular 56mm, and his examples back that up. His examples don't include the 90mm, yet, but you can compare the other lenses and see for yourself what effect the APD lens has compared to the regular 56mm. http://www.prophotonut.com/2015/01/05/fuji-x-series-portrait-lenses-compared-inc-56-apd-50-140-zoom/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mind if I post a link to your article Jonas. I've just read it and even though I don't use that focal length, I'm nonetheless bowled over thanks to you! :D  :D  :D

 

Some very nice shots and lovely photos....and for the first time, we can now get "Leica" quality pics without paying Leica prices!

 

http://jonasraskphotography.com/2015/05/25/the-fujifilm-xf-90mm-f2-review/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own the 56APD and love it! For me, it is the perfect focal length for doing portraits and do prefer it over the 90mm. The APD is working great and I adore its smoothness. I also use the 35mm and 23mm, if I don't have the distance for the 56. So I don't see the 90 being that useful for studio portraits... Maybe for outside shooting sessions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 So I don't see the 90 being that useful for studio portraits... 

 

Neither can I but then again I hardly speak “bokeh “ which is the rage of these days.

 

When I owned a 135mm on a 35mm film camera, I thought it delivered boring pictures and I don’t see why I would reform my ( not anyone else’s  ;) ) opinion about this focal length.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 56mm which I love, but I'd like to see a side by side between the 90 and the 40-150 to compare the bokeh. I'm tempted by a telephoto but I don't like zooms very much and worried that the background is not too creamy at f/2.8

Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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" out of those shots. They were just right. I've also been able to shoot 250 shots  of a senior portrait session wide-open at 1.2 without ever feeling like it wasn't close enough, etc.

 

In my opinion, if you are a portrait photographer, the 56mm feels perfect in terms of giving your subject enough space to be comfortable without being too distant from them. Not that 90mm would be too distant, but unless you have the space, 135mm equivalent length is pretty tight for portraits of anything other than headshots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

: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.

 

That's a very interesting comparison, that makes me want the 56mm APD much more than ever before!

I still need to check comparison shots between the normal and APD though.

 

Aaahhh, creamy bokeh...

Link to post
Share on other sites

90 = 135 as, for example, a candid shot lens without OIS?   Now you need to shoot at 1/125 or more.

 

I understand, like Zeiss, that Fuji may not want to put OIS in lenses because they would be bigger, and perhaps it would affect IQ.  (Zeiss doesn't even want to put autofocus in, though they have in some cases.)  

 

But then ok, put it on the sensor!  If you need greater DOF and have to stop down, you need OIS.  Long lenses, which at least to me includes 135mm, need OIS, at least for those of us without rock steady hands.  In fact, I would be more tempted to buy the 16-55 F2.8 if it had OIS.  As it is, it's a throwback to my 24-70 F/28 Nikkor, which I love on a tripod, but would like much better for handholding with OIS.  The new Tamron competitor to that has IS and beats the Nikon in tests I've seen.

 

It would be interesting to see the IQ of the 56 or 90 and 16-55 compared to the 24-70 Nikkor as it behaves mounted on the Fuji.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people always yearn for IBIS. Yes, the olympus version is quite good. But it has downsides. Also, the bigger the sensor, the less effective the IBIS gets. While its supposed to have 5 stops benefit in M43 bodies, it only has about a 2 stop benefit on the A7II. Now 2 stops, that's not a lot and I can definitely pass on that if it costs more, which_it_will.

 

Only the 50-140 has OIS of all the XFs I have. I'm doing very fine without IBIS/OIS mostly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I be right to assume that the APD version of the 56 will be less sharp than the non APD?

No, the nice thing about employing apodization to improve the bokeh of a sharp, well corrected lens is that it will still be quite sharp within the plane of sharpness, yet produce a rather pleasant, creamy bokeh both in front and behind that plane.

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...