This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

How much can you crop the 90 and 90vs55-200

Discussion in 'Fuji X-Mount Lens Forum' started by Kartoon, Mar 14, 2017.

  1. Alanbill99

    Alanbill99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Peak District, England

    -Return to Top-

    I was starting to think that!!!! Funny...
    You remind me of some of my running friends. I've got one pair of shoes - offroad. That's it! Then they ask me "what kind of run is it?" I have to describe in as much detail as I can be bothered endless facts which take away from the underlying thrill of running on new trails. They end up bringing the wrong shoes. I've always got the right shoes....
    You've got wide
    You've got mid
    You need long.
    56mm isn't long!
     
  2. Kartoon

    Kartoon Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Norway

    -Return to Top-

    Point taken. Thank's .... I think ... ;) The whole thing made me rethink my needs. I started questioning if what I want/need is a tele or a medium/short tele. I feel the 35 is to short sometimes. But I'm not sure if I need either 90 or 200. I will find out. Thanks for all the input and opinions :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
  3. Kartoon

    Kartoon Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Norway

    -Return to Top-

    Yes, that's what made me rethink if I should go for the 90 or the 56/50? Think I need to go to my local camera shop and test them.
     
    CerealKiller likes this.
  4. TheEmrys

    TheEmrys Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    78

    -Return to Top-

    First some background on my shooting. I came from a full frame Sony/Minolta system. The Minolta 100/2 lens is one of my all time favorite lenses. It works quite well for just about any portrait. The best advice I got for portraiture was this:

    Square faces with the shorter length to give them a bit of roundness.

    Round faces with the longer length to give a bit of squareness.

    100/2 when I can't decide.

    So then, I would love it if Fuji made a 66/1.4. I would be perfectly happy with a 70/1.4. I would probably prefer a 66mm, just so the filter can be smaller.

    Now then, for my portrait work, I have the 56/1.2, a Speedbooster and a Minolta MD tele-Rokkor 135/2.8 (4/4). Why a manual focus lens on a speedbooster? Because the 90/2 is a 135/2.8 equivalent for DOF. I have an excellent 135mm for $70. The Speedbooster was $350 ish, IIRC.

    The one thing that keeps me out of the 90/2 is its incompatibility with the teleconverters. If I could slap the 1.4x t/c on it, making it a 128/2.8. I could also have a 190/4 equivalent, but with the light gathering of an f/2.8.

    Its a rare misstep for Fuji. They generally think things through better than this. But for me, while I don't use the 55-200 much, it is excellent when I want it.
     
  5. Kartoon

    Kartoon Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Norway

    -Return to Top-

    To make matters worse: I went to the local camera shop and tested the 56, the 90 and the 50-140 . The 90 is out of the picture. I don't think it's versatile enough. And I don't think I will be happy with a lens of that sort without OIS. But the 50-140 suprised me. It's big, but still felt nice! A couple of test shots with the 56 also convinced me that its a brilliant lens. BUT, if I will keep to the minimalistic approach to lenses the I feel 23, 36 and 56 is one to much. So now I just have to decide between the 55-200 and 50-140 (I think I know which I will end up with) ;)
     
  6. Kartoon

    Kartoon Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Norway

    -Return to Top-

    And so it ended up.   I realized that I really didn't really feel comfortable with the 16 FOV. I held on to it because everybody was praising it so highly. But after testing it side by side with the 23 1,4 I found out that for me the 23 is where I feel comfortable. So I ended up selling it and bying the 56 1,2. I was really close buying the 50-140, but in the end I thought about why I left Nikon in the first place, and came to that it's just to big. So now the lens line-up is 23 1,4, 35 F2 and the 56 1,2. And for more reach I decided to wait for the 80 macro in stead of getting the 90. As far as I can se the 80 is supposed to have both OIS and WR. So not as planed. But I thing I will really like the 56! ;)
     
    Alanbill99 likes this.
  7. Alanbill99

    Alanbill99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Peak District, England

    -Return to Top-

    Glad u reached a conclusion. Good luck with the 56mm. I found photos from it truly popped. Must dig it out again...when I manage to get that darn XF90 off!!
     
    Kartoon likes this.
  8. Dirk Offringa

    Dirk Offringa Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2013
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    200
    Location:
    France

    -Return to Top-

    +1 on this. I'm practically considering getting a IBIS body only for my adapted lenses, like an Olympus or something. I'm really crossing fingers for the X-T3 to come out with IBIS....
     

Share This Page