35 f2, 35 f1.4 or 60 f2.4 for portraiture/general

[tuck4x4]

I use an X-E2 and have a little bit of money to spend.

 

Currently I've got the 18-55 kit lens, a 55-200 xf, a Pentax Takumar 55 f2, SMC 28 f3.5 and an SMC 135mm f2.

 

I find myself using the manual focus Pentax Takumar 55mm f2 90% of the time because the depth of field is amazingly fun to work with and I love the way the background looks at large apertures.

 

What Im looking for is advice on getting a Fuji lens in the sub $400 range that would give me what I get with my $39 Takumar.

 

Having never used the 35 1.4 or the f2, and them being a bit wider than what Im using now, im at a loss.

Could someone please make a recommendation for me?

 

Im also about to sell my wife's Nikon D3300 and pick up a used Xpro1 because she hates carrying the Nikon.

 

My usage: I shoot as a hobby but have done favors for friends and family for years. I'm not doing this for sustenance but do take on odd photo jobs a few times a year. Lighting is 90% ambient.

 

Here is my 500px:

https://500px.com/sdszilva

[bjorke]

pick the photos you've shot that you like and wish you had more of.

[frankinfuji]

All the lenses in your list are very good (when used with the latest body and lens firmware), but looking at your excellent photos I noticed that the portrait shots tend to be head and shoulders or waist up, rather than tbe longer distance full body 'fashion photoshoot' style. Your shots of the Enfield Bullet are also quite close up. This makes me think tbat either of the 35mm lenses would be better for you than the 60mm. And if you do want a head to toe portrait with an out of focus background, then your 55-200 at 55mm and wide open will work well enough.

 

There's a lot of debate about which is the best 35mm Fuji lens, but as your X-E2 is not weather resistant, and as wide aperture / narrow depth of field is important to you, then go for the 35mm f1.4.

 

You will not be disappointed with this lens, and it adds a look to portraits that the 18-55 and 55-200 cannot match.

[Nero]

I would second the recommendation of considering the the 35mm f/1.4 for another lens. I love my copy and it's on my camera more often than any other lens I own. With the Fuji discounts, it can get close to your price range new, but I'm sure there are a lot of used copies in great condition out there from people switching to the f/2 model. I think both versions are great lenses, but I personally prefer the f/1.4.

[Gatopardo]

Looking at your lens-line-up, we have to mention that in the 50-60mm focal length you are quite well equipped with the TAK 55 and the Fujinon Zooms, whereas there is only the 18-55 at the focal length of 35mm.

 

Go for the 35/1.4 would be my recommondation too! That's just a magical piece of glass, you won't regret it...

[tuck4x4]

pick the photos you've shot that you like and wish you had more of.

um, what?

[Tom H.]

I shoot portraits with all my lenses. Depends mostly on your framing which one you should pick.

 

16-18mm range: environmental portraits, full body shots with some framing going on.

23mm: street shots, reportage style

35mm: street shots, reportage style, general purpose everyday lens

56-60mm: headshots, posed portraits, need for more shallow dof

50-140: kids, or anything that moves

[tuck4x4]

Thanks for replying everyone.

 

I can only get one right now and have narrowed it down to either the 35 1.4 or 60 2.4.

 

I think the 60 most replicates what I do, but if im quick i can get the 35 1.4 for about $300.

[mdm]

Good price for 35 1.4 and by the time you find another $300 60 2.4 might be much more cheaper as it's successor 80 2.8 macro should arrive soon.

[tuck4x4]

Your logic causes me issues because it is logical

[kimcarsons]

The 56/1.2 is pretty similar in performance to the 50/1.4 and 55/2 Takumar (but bigger, heavier, and more expensive.)

 

The 35/F2 is good, but isn't going to give you the same subject isolation. It's much sharper than the takumars, but has severe barrel distortion and is soft as pudding for subjects closer than 2 feet or so (the former can be corrected in software, the latter cannot.)

 

I haven't tried the 35/1.4, but it might be a better match for you. 

 

However, you might just want to wait for the 50mm/F2... It'll be a much closer match to your 55/2.

[bjorke]

um, what?

 

Lenses are tools. Do you prefer a hammer, or a screwdriver?

 

What matters is what you're building, and not the price of the hammer vs the price of the screwdriver.

 

If you're not sure, go for the 35 because in a pinch you can always crop to a smaller frame but not crop to a larger one.

[mdm]

um, what?

 

bjorke said that if you want to hammer in nails with your lenses go and get 100-400...