Fuji 56mm F1.2

[paulga]

I already have the 90mm F2 and uses it to shoot wildlife/portraiture, very satisfied with the IQ, sharp in focus and creamy bokeh out of focus. During a trail I constantly need to switch between the 10-24 mm and 90mm lens. 

I'm considering adding one lens. 56mm is highly praised for portraiture shooting and its samples are stunning. But would the 56mm kind of redundant when I already have 90mm even though it's faster at F 1.2? 

 

[merlin]

I have both, and only rarely use the 56 since I got the 90 three years ago.   But I do not shoot many portraits, mostly landscapes, nature, flowers, cats, and headshots.  I also have the 18-55, and paired with the 90 it is perfect for my hikes.

Edited September 11, 2018 by merlin

[Nero]

I have the 56mm and love it, but when people ask me about buying one, I always try to throw the 55-200mm out there as a second option to consider for a smaller budget. While the 56mm is my first choice for portraits, the 55-200mm has decent bokeh when shot wide open, is fairly versatile for longer focal lengths, and you can find a good used copy of it for under $500. 

[paulga]

56mm is out of question for now Because i dont shoot indoor portraiture a lot. then both 16 1.4 and 23 1.4 come to eyes. both are good lens. the samples from the both are stunning. which is the one to pick?

[Nero]

The 23mm f/1.4 is one of my top 2 lenses, but it does overlap with your 10-24mm. If you're thinking you'd like another prime lens and you don't want it to be redundant, I'd say look at the 35mm.

[cug]

I wouldn't call 3 stops of light difference an overlap. But that might just be me.

[paulga]

4 hours ago, Nero said:

The 23mm f/1.4 is one of my top 2 lenses, but it does overlap with your 10-24mm. If you're thinking you'd like another prime lens and you don't want it to be redundant, I'd say look at the 35mm.

i already have 35mm. here is what i thought. i would take a wide for senery (10-24) and a tele for wild life (90) in my trip. 

23mm 1.4 is large. though it can create some magic that 10-24 cannot, most probably i will not carry both in travel. 10-24 is more essential for landscape.

16mm 1.4 can shoot some interesting photos due to its fast aperture. maybe i can pick it instead of 10-24mm in a travel because 16mm is more versatile.