Have you also sold your XF 90mm f2?

[petergabriel]

The reason I ask, is that I am interested in the lens for portraits, but it is by far the most sold Fujinon lens on the most popular used market site in my country, which makes me wonder why its not a keeper for so many people? Any ideas? It is supposed to be SHARP, but does it lack character or whar else might cause it?

[erwiurewurwehu]

I think it's just a very specialized lens. 90mm is quite long on APS-C.

[Tikcus]

90mm is too long for my tastes, I use he 35mm F/1.4 for environmental portraits or the 60mm F/2.4. 90mm puts me too far away from the model.

If you're shooting more than headshots, you need a lot of space to use the 90mm

[milandro]

When this lens was introduced I did say that I found strange that people were cheering so much a focal length with an angle very similar to what the 135mm had on 35mm cameras.

 

At the time when this was the most common long lens (it was my first lens other than the 50mm when I bought my first reflex camera, together with the 28mm they were always the most affordable lenses and ended up being characterized, right or wrong, as the amateur triplet 28, 50, 135 ) the universal complaint was that this was was neither fish nor fowl , too long for portraits (although I took many with it) and too short to be used for wildlife or sport or other such things.

 

(I wrote pretty much the same thing some time ago in this thread where others, also old dogs probably, agreed with me...)

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/1887-90mm-best-prime-2015-“no-debate-a-one-horse-race-fujinon-xf-90mmf2-–-new-king-of-sharpness”-–-imaging-resource/

 

Back in the day, once you were a bit more advanced with photography, you generally went with a 85mm or 90mm ( which in aps-c terms would be the 56mm) for portraits and a minimum of 200mm if not 300mm (but the latter tended to be very poorly light efficient and contrast until some brands came up with low dispersion glass for their lenses) but these lenses came at a price and huge dimensions and weight so they were still not for everyone .

 

But I never was long lens photographer and 300mm is the longest that I’ve ever really used.

 

I have to say that I don’t dislike the 90mm focal length (under certain circumstances) and in fact I use a quite similar one (85mm) for the very specialized Petzval that I have. But that is its own kettle of fish and very different it is from the 90mm one!

 

 

So, yes, it doesn’t surprise me at all that some people, past the honeymoon period with anything new, are finding out that this lens, sharp as it might be, is exactly, as the 135mm lens back in the day were, neither fish, nor fowl and you end up being too far from your subject, or never being able to get close enough (unless it is an animal confined in a cage).

[EddieX]

Heck no I'll never sell my 90mm. Although I don't use it as much when I do it reminds me why I hold on to it.

[milandro]

It is not unusual, even for me, to hang on to things for reasons that aren’t logic, but my sister has a rule of thumb about clothes that works with many other things too, if you haven’t used for a period of time it is time to get rid of it ( she is saying 3 years for clothes,  but for camera things, one year is way more than a good ndication that you aren’t using something...).

 

If you can afford keeping a lens that you have very little use for... why not? After all we have all seen people having cameras that they don’t use (or buying a new one for any other than they can afford it) and owning all the lenses possible and impossible, some even in multiple versions  for reason best know to themselves.

 

Erich Fromm wrote a great essay of the antinomy “ to have or to be?” both are used by humans to establish the fact that we exist in which he proposes that the sense of “ self” is linked for many to owning things.

 

I am not saying it is wrong, it is what it is.

 

On the other hand if you calculate how many times you’ve used it and how much it would have costed you renting the lens for the very few times that you’ve used it, as opposed than immobilizing the investment, you’ll probably find that you are keeping a depreciating capital in a drawer instead of the money in your pocket.

 

 

Last time I checked I had many uses for €1000 and renting would cost €25 or thereabouts a day.

Edited July 9, 2017 by milandro

[dfaye]

It is a truly superb lens in terms of image quality and the way it renders images, but I suspect that many who bought it on the basis of glowing reviews are later put off by its size and weight and the lack of OIS. I use mine a lot, mostly for garden photography and with extension tubes for near-macro shots. However when the long-awaited 80mm macro becomes available I will have to decide whether to sell my 90mm and buy the new 80mm instead in order to get full macro.

[Under Fire]

it is my best lens,  I'll never sell my 90mm

[petergabriel]

I like the images I have seen by it. When I used Nikon gear I could easily see in my library that I almost never used my 50mm f1.8, now I own the Fujinon 50mm f2 and use it all the time, so maybe the 90mm will surprise me. I will use it mainly for portraits. I am not a big fan of its size though. I have heard people using the 23mm f1.4 metal hood with it successfully, so that will help a bit length wise.

[Maksim]

This lens may get a free OIS upgrade when Fuji will make IBIS available in XT3.

 

Imagine taking pictures with XF 90mm at 1/60 second - this would be the perfect SS for most events (anything slower would introduce motion blur with moving people anyway).

[screenbyte]

Hi all.

I've only just gotr my XT2 this week and the 90mm.

Image quality is stunning.

I'm loving the combo but was wondering about the 90's focusing speed compared to the 50-140?

I don't need to go slow but is the zoom quicker.?

Edited July 10, 2017 by screenbyte

[Mervyn]

Optical and mechanical quality of the 90mm are near-perfect. And the 90 has a certain magical quality about it that's very addictive and hard to define. The 90 is optimal for headshots and outdoor portraits. But it's less flexible and is less practical to use; you'll need to adapt to it. Indoors you may bump into walls and outdoors you'll need to walk a lot more whilst composing the shot compared to shorter focal lengths. For indoor and low-light use the 56 is better and for flexibility the 50-140 zoom would be the better choice. However, the 90 is easier to focus with then the 56. And compared to the zoom it's rendering is better suited for portraiture; I find the zoom a bit bland compared to the 90. Also the 90 is much smaller, lighter and cheaper then the zoom.

 

For low light use the 56 is king. And the zoom has such incredible OIS that it easily beats the 90. For the 90 I usually use 1/250th or faster. With the zoom I can go as low as 1/15th, or with subject movement about 1/80th.

 

One other reason that people trade in their 90mm besides practicality and flexibility could be the rattling sound that it makes while it's off camera, or while the camera is switched off. This is by design and not a defect. It has to do with the autofocus motor which uses magnets. The magnets are not activated when they have no power, thus the rattling sound of the lens interior. Just don't worry about it, it will be fine. No, really! :-)

 

Personally I've sold my 56 and kept the 90. The 90 better complements my other two lenses (16-55 and 23f1.4).

 

One last word of advice: The 90 definitely is not a telephoto for photographing birds or other small animals. For that I find that even the 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter can occasionally be a bit short.

[screenbyte]

I'm 3 weeks in to my Fuji experience and have a few lenses to choose from and I must say that

I think the 90mm is one of the best lenses I have ever used on any system.

 

I do see the word "magical" being used and that's how I feel about it, I love it and love using it.

It's never going anywhere.

Edited July 31, 2017 by screenbyte

[Hermelin]

Still happy with mine. Bought it about 9 months ago. Fastest and sharpest fuji lens out there probably.

I did consider the 56 but the fast AF of the 90 and longer reach makes it more usefull fort sports / action shots
If they come out with a smaller 70 f/2.0 WR I would consider selling the 90 and buy that though,

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Hermelin

[Alex Cremers]

Indeed, 90mm (135mm) takes scenes like the one right above and brings them much closer to the eye while still keeping enough of the environment in the frame.

[petergabriel]

So, the 90mm is great for sports and portraits. What else might it be used for? Examples appreciated :-)

[Hermelin]

So, the 90mm is great for sports and portraits. What else might it be used for? Examples appreciated :-)

Wedding & candid shots. Took these of a friends wedding for fun last weekend. All SOOC

 

 

 

 

 

Even more suitable for outdoor because of the long focal lenght

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Hermelin

[roo7]

I just bought one.

 

It's more usable outdoor based on my short usage experience.

 

[Tommyboy]

I love my 90mm, though as has been pointed out, it's more specialized. The 56 is a better all-around portrait lens. You could use a 90 for sure, but it would be too long sometimes. I have both and use the 56 more often.

 

Below are three shots from my 90:

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2017 by Tommyboy

[petergabriel]

All great shots. But I am still not sure whether is too specialized for my needs and therefore will be used only seldom.

[Tommyboy]

All great shots. But I am still not sure whether is too specialized for my needs and therefore will be used only seldom.

You seem unsure. Why don't you rent one? You should know whether you want one or not after a few days.

[Hermelin]

All great shots. But I am still not sure whether is too specialized for my needs and therefore will be used only seldom.

What are your needs?

[RSH-Photography]

Great images, well done in every way.

[Hermelin]

Shots I took today with the 90. SOOC

 

DSCF0962 by Filip Hermelin, on Flickr

 

DSCF0975 by Filip Hermelin, on Flickr

DSCF0931 by Filip Hermelin, on Flickr