90mm F2 vs 50-140mm bokeh?

[esanchez]

Does anyone have any samples or which lens has better bokeh. 90mm F2 vs 150mm @ 2.8.  I love the bokeh that my 6D and 70-200mm 2.8 @ 2.8 generates. I want to know which of these two lenses would give me the better bokeh.

[Dis]

Does anyone have any samples or which lens has better bokeh. 90mm F2 vs 150mm @ 2.8.  I love the bokeh that my 6D and 70-200mm 2.8 @ 2.8 generates. I want to know which of these two lenses would give me the better bokeh.

I don't have the samples but TO ME every single review of these lenses independently shows the same. 50-140 has neutral bokeh just like canon 70-200/4. Nothing like 70-200/2.8. XF 90 has wonderful bokeh just like canon 135/2. Thus if you are after creamy buttery bokeh, 90 is worlds better.

[Tom H.]

I still think my 56 APD has the better bokeh, but all is subjective The 50-140 is very neutral and crisp. The 90 samples I've seen do remind me of my old Canon 135 f2, but I haven't tried it myself.

[aceflibble]

(Disclaimer/background info: I gave both lenses a solid day of real-world testing, but as I decided neither suited me perfectly enough to justify the cost, I do not actually own either lens. As such, I do not have extensive samples to provide, 'lab' style testing, etc. I've used 'em, didn't keep 'em. People who have actually bought both lenses will have a better frame of reference for how they compare.)

 

It depends on how you're using them. The compression of the long end of the zoom provides more background/foreground separation than the 90mm can, even if you have the 90mm at f/2 and the zoom on f/2.8. That one stop only really makes a difference when the zoom is around the 90mm mark. This is true for all manufacturers' lenses of this type. If you want those really blown-out, completely blurred backgrounds, the longer focal length is almost always going to do a better job. 

However, you said you like what the 6D and 70-200 f/2.8 gives you. The problem there is that f/2 on a crop body (Fuji) looks like f/3 on a 35mm body (Canon 6D) and f/2.8 gives you a look like f/4.2. So, if you want to match the look of your Canon lens wide open, the zoom is going to struggle. In terms of the look of the image, it will always look as though it's one stop down compared to the Canon. The 90mm prime, on the other hand, more or less matches the look of the Canon zoom, if you compare the zoom at a similar focal length.

So what you basically have is a choice between not quite the same background blur but the same subject compression and flexibility (50-140mm), or roughly the same background blur but only at a specific range (90mm). In my own shooting (typically portrait of various types) I tend to find the difference in background style between f/2.8 and f/4 isn't that much, and though I'm usually a prime shooter, I find myself leaning toward the zoom in these cases. The Canon 135mm f/2L is in fact one of the very few <500mm L lenses I never liked, for this reason.

All that said, the bokeh of both lenses was close enough, when I was using them, that I wouldn't base a purchase on it. Most people are reporting the 90mm's bokeh is a little less busy, when you compare both lenses at the same focal length and aperture. In my use I found the zoom to look a little smoother and have less of a catseye effect, but I happily acknowledge that my use was entirely subjective and won't necessarily reflect the use of every other shooter out there in the world.

[Marc G.]

At the same distance to subject, the 50-140 2.8 at 2.8 and 140mm provides greater subject isolation, by a few.

 

At the same framing of the subject, the 90 2.0 provides greater subject separation, due to the smaller distance to subject.

 

So depending on your point of view, the 90 may or may not provide greater subject isolation.

[frod]

I like the zoom because besides maxing out the bokeh the amazing OIS gives you an alternative option to stop right down and compose with the background as well. The zoom range also helps here by allowing you to compose the perspective by zooming with your feet and reframing.

[uckdie]

I guess the bokeh depends largely on the distance to the subject.

 

Here is an example of the 90mm @5,6 with beautiful bokeh:

 

Wilhelma by Cruiser223, on Flickr

 

Whereas in the following picture @f2 I would have liked to see more subject separation:

 

Cadiz by Cruiser223, on Flickr

 

I guess the 50-140mm @140mm would have been better in this case.

[Dis]

I guess the bokeh depends largely on the distance to the subject.

 

It looks like you confuse bokeh with background blur. Bokeh is the rendering of background blur. There can be two lenses with same focal lengths and apertures but totally different bokeh. Also 140@2.8 is about the same as 90/2 in terms of background blur.

[hifimacianer]

 

 

I guess the 50-140mm @140mm would have been better in this case.

 

But I guess that wasn't possible in that scene because of the people around the dancer.

You would have to go back some meters to have the same framing @140mm, and then other people would hide the scene.

 

On the same spot you would have an other framing @140mm, so the comparison doesn't make a lot of sense.

[uckdie]

 

 

On the same spot you would have an other framing @140mm, so the comparison doesn't make a lot of sense.

Yes, I considered to zoom in a little closer. This is just the kind a freedom a zoom lens offers.

[jeremyclarke]

Considering their similar ability to blur the background, for me size is a big factor that is an obvious win for the 90mm. When I tried the 50-140mm at the store I was shocked at how huge it felt. Not as big as the Canon but way too big for the Fuji bodies unfortunately. If you need the zoom range then by definition it's worth carrying, but for me I know that I would rarely want to leave the house with it for both price and weight reasons. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

90mm

Weight 540 g   Diameter 75 mm   Length 105 mm

50-140mm

Weight 995 g   Diameter 82.9mm   Length 175.9mm

--

 

I would definitely be curious to see any side-by-side comparisons of these two lenses shooting the same subject, esp. at 90mm to see what you lose and 140mm to see what you gain from the zoom in terms of DoF. I'd also like to see how the bokeh flavor compares, since I've found the 50-140 to have unflatteringly stark blur for it's size/price, but it could be just poorly chosen subjects.