From Sony to maybe Fuji in the very near future but question about lens..

[jdam21]

Hello Fuji people,

 

Im not a expert or pro I’m just a guy who like to take picture of his kids and like cameras. I’m hoping for some lens advice.

 

I’m currently on the Sony A6000 with a 30mm 2.8 and a 50 1.8 and a 60 2.8. Looking to move to Fuji , I hear great things about their cameras , jpegs and LENES (Where Sony does not support Crop sensors lens at all, that’s how I fell).

 

I have been saving and waiting for the up coming Fuji X-T2. I take a lot of kid shots and maybe 95% of my pics are of my kids. A lot of head shots (belly button to head) as i like to blow out hte back ground.  After reading reviews I’m going to buy the 35 2, and a lens for the majority of my shots which would be portrait lens. Again I take a lot of half body to head shots etc…. I really can’t not pick either the 90 or the 56. I have researched dozens of  sites that recommend the 56 for being awesome and universal. But the same reviews go off on the 90 mm is the “BEST LENS ever”.  So I get but which one should I get..??? I was also looking to round it off with the 18 to 135 that way I have some nice ranges between the 35 and which ever lens’s I go with either the 56 or 90. Any thoughts? Currently in Canada the 90 is $100 cheaper then the 56.

Any help would be great. I read up and think ok I’m going with the 56 based on reviews and pictures. Then I’ll read up on the 90 mm and it sounds like if I don’t get that I’m an idiot. 

 

Thank you , Thank you, Adam

[Mike G]

Definitely the Fujinon 56mm, f1.2 R!

[JRphoto]

Hi jdam21!

 

Maybe other information regarding these lens can be useful in deciding. So, I would say:

 

XF90mm:

     Good points

        - WR

        - Fast and precise AF

        - More magnification (2x more than the XF56mm)

    Weak point

        - Needs more working space for portraits

 

XF56mm:

     Good points

        - Smaller and lighter

        - More versatile

        - Low light capability

     Weak point

       - AF in low light

 

So, running subjects (kids and pets) in the yard with raining possibilities, I would go for the 90mm.

Indoor portraits, more static subjects and better all-around possibilities, I would buy the 56mm.

 

 

I think this site makes a fair analysis:

http://toolsandtoys.net/reviews/a-review-of-the-fuji-xf-56mm-f1-2-xf-90mm-f2-0-lenses/

 

Some photo comparison here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_90mm_f2_R_LM_WR/verdict.shtml

[jdam21]

So, running subjects (kids and pets) in the yard with raining possibilities, I would go for the 90mm.

Indoor portraits, more static subjects and better all-around possibilities, I would buy the 56mm.

 

Good points and sites

 

I would say almost all my pics are outside at a park, in a wooded area or beach.  Don't really shoot indoors unless it's a birthday party. 

Edited May 28, 2016 by jdam21

[darknj]

I would like to offer the 60mm macro instead of the 56, almost same fov but a lot cheaper, the F2.4 is good enough with a bit of light and macro part does come in handy at times.

 

The 90 is really one of the sharpest lens on the current line up, but you really need a lot of room otherwise be stuck with only portraits. Get one of the F1.4 lenses (16, 23, 35) for low light and like you said, the 18-135 to add more flexibility. Or at least the 18-55 if you don't need the extra range.

[Naddan28]

What about the 50-140mm? Gets your WR and a huge amount of flexibility in shooting running children. I love the 56mm but it's a real speciality lens for me.

 

When shooting portraits of my 3yr old nephew, it's the 56mm for the in-laws conservatory, where his movement is constrained and he's playing more calmly with cars etc but when we step into the garden it's 40-150mm all day long. The flexibility can't be matched, even if you loose a couple of stops.

[darknj]

What about the 50-140mm? Gets your WR and a huge amount of flexibility in shooting running children. I love the 56mm but it's a real speciality lens for me.

[...]

The 50-140 is rather expensive, I could easily get the 35 F1.4, the 18-135 and the 60mm for the price of that single lens.

 

And when you have kids running around, you want something smallish for agile movements, the 50-140 is big and heavy. I would hate if I had to lug that huge piece of glass around every time I want to take a quick snap of my children.

[Naddan28]

The 50-140 is rather expensive, I could easily get the 35 F1.4, the 18-135 and the 60mm for the price of that single lens.

 

And when you have kids running around, you want something smallish for agile movements, the 50-140 is big and heavy. I would hate if I had to lug that huge piece of glass around every time I want to take a quick snap of my children.

Each to their own, I just thought I'd throw it in as an option to consider, given the flexibility it offers and the OPs intention to use it on fast moving children in outdoor spaces.

 

Your're correct in absolute pricing terms it's clearly not cheap but you could argue when compared to buying the 56mm, 90mm and any pending c120mm in the pipeline it's a bargain!

 

The OP could always rent a couple of lenses and make his decision then. Similarly don't forget to consider the CAF implementation on varying Fuji X cameras!

[jdam21]

What about the 50-140mm? Gets your WR and a huge amount of flexibility in shooting running children. I love the 56mm but it's a real speciality lens for me.

 

When shooting portraits of my 3yr old nephew, it's the 56mm for the in-laws conservatory, where his movement is constrained and he's playing more calmly with cars etc but when we step into the garden it's 40-150mm all day long. The flexibility can't be matched, even if you loose a couple of stops.

 What makes you " I love the 56mm but it's a real speciality lens"? I have very limit expereice with lens maybe 3 to 5 lens for my sony and Olympus . I might be leaning towards 35 2., 56 1.2 and the 18 to 135 that way i aviod wider lens and I'll have that range for wide 18 and up plus some reach t 135,

[Naddan28]

Sure. So the 56mm for me is a semi formal/formal portrait lens. Ie I use it when I know I'm taking portraits and in the case of my nephew, he's going to be reasonably still &/or confined to an area which means the focal length is correct.

 

In those situations it beats my 40-150mm hands down. Being able to open up to f1.2 etc on a relatively static subject produces beautiful images, it's hard to describe the difference but it's a softer & smoother image.

 

However when he's playing outside, running around etc the 56mm often goes in the bag and out comes to 40-150mm. It provides so much flexibility in framing and focal lengths whilst still being fast at f2.8 & to be honest with the current CAF options in the XT1 you probably wouldn't want to be shooting at f1.2!

 

Typically what that flexibility gives me, is the ability to put some distance between me and my subject, off to one side & capture more candid shots of him interacting with other family members as he forgets I'm there. Sure you could do it wth the 56mm but running around the garden behind him to keep the focal length appropriate, makes you part of the scene not an observer.

 

I like both lenses but for my style (and someone who wouldn't describe themselves as a "portrait photographer") the 40-150mm is the 4x4 practical SUV, whilst the 56mm is a caterham or ariel atom. Super fun, does a particular job brilliantly, had its place and I love it but not the family workhouse for school runs etc.

[aceflibble]

For shots of the kids, I'd go for the 56mm. It's not a good lens for adult headshots—a bit too wide—but for kids it's really appropriate. The 90 obviously requires more light and if you've not used a 135mm (equivalent) before, you'll be surprised at how tight the framing is. The 56mm will give you fewer problems in terms of room and light, and it's still long enough for some significant subject/background separation.

That said, the 56mm is a weird beast. Some people treat it like it absolutely has to be used at f/1.2 at all times, but other people will tell you to always stop it down to f/2.8 or f/4 to actually get the sharpness out of it, which is what it's become more famous for. Some people will tell you 85mm is too wide for even kids' portraits, other people will tell you 85mm is too long for practical use outside of a studio/stilted portrait environment. The 56mm is absolutely beloved by some people, but then other people doing the same kind of shooting will use it and think it's a bit pointless. 85mm came along as a portrait focal length because it is more casual than the old standard of 105mm but more intimate than a 50mm, but not everybody was happy with that compromise.

Personally, I've had four copies of the 50-140mm, two 56mms, and one 90mm. In terms of objective image quality, they're all equal; the 56mm is noticably softer wide open than the 90mm, but that's the price you pay for a-stop-and-a-third more light. For sake of equality, if you stop them all down to f/4, they're all the same. There is no objective reason to pick one over the other. Your own preferences for a certain focal length are all that matters.

You have a 50mm and 60mm on your Sony system, which has the same crop factor (1.52x). Look at your photos with those two lenses and see if you're happy with that ballpark, because the 56mm is obviously in the middle of those two.