G'day, welcome to the Making Images forum. Please register, it will make things even better! Read this page for some suggestions as to how to bet the most out of your time here.




90/2
Author Message
Simon Offline



Uncle Bob
UK

Posts: 84
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #1
90/2
 
mmmmm - not convinced yet

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N...487535033/

18-May-2015 06:40
posts reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #2
RE: 90mm ???
 
http://www.kevinmullinsphotography.co.uk...mm-f2.html

18-May-2015 10:33
posts www reply
Simon Offline



Uncle Bob
UK

Posts: 84
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #3
RE: 90/2
 
Shame it wasn't a real bride ..... still not convinced on anything other than a dark background

18-May-2015 11:29
posts reply
Sheldon N Online



MegaloMooMoo
Vancouver, WA

Posts: 53,201
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #4
RE: 90/2
 
Not sure about the bokeh on that yet, doesn't look amazing, at least not in 135L territory.

Sheldon | I like camera gear | Flickr
18-May-2015 15:36
posts www reply
FJ Love Online



Iditarod pig racer
who lives in a pigloo

Posts: 9,361
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #5
RE: 90/2
 
(18-May-2015 15:36)Sheldon N wrote:  Not sure about the bokeh on that yet, doesn't look amazing, at least not in 135L territory.

that would be pretty hard Icon_wink

18-May-2015 17:16
posts reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #6
RE: 90/2
 
Looks like a mighty appealing optic to me:

http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2015/05/...-r-lm.html

Not saying it's the bokeh equal of the 135/2L (which I owned) but, damn, it looks sharp and contrasty with an impressive lack of CA.

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
18-May-2015 20:48
posts reply
FJ Love Online



Iditarod pig racer
who lives in a pigloo

Posts: 9,361
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #7
RE: 90/2
 
(18-May-2015 20:48)Tetrode wrote:  Looks like a mighty appealing optic to me:

I have to agree Icon_cool

19-May-2015 05:56
posts reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #8
RE: 90/2
 
(18-May-2015 20:48)Tetrode wrote:  http://bjornmoerman.blogspot.ae/2015/05/...-r-lm.html
quote:Just like the 56mm prime, the brand-new 90mm, which becomes 135mm on a X-series body
I really wish people would stop saying this crap. Makes them look stupid.

19-May-2015 06:32
posts www reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #9
RE: 90/2
 
But yes, it's definitely looking better than the 50-140, that's for sure.

19-May-2015 06:33
posts www reply
Simon Offline



Uncle Bob
UK

Posts: 84
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #10
RE: 90/2
 
(19-May-2015 06:33)juice wrote:  But yes, it's definitely looking better than the 50-140, that's for sure.
That's not hard Icon_smile

19-May-2015 23:11
posts reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #11
RE: 90/2
 
It's a low bar, that's for sure.

Gotta laugh at all the nuffies who rave about it on the FB pages - they've clearly never used a 70-200//2.8mkII.

20-May-2015 00:28
posts www reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #12
RE: 90/2
 
Another enthusiastic preview:


"Conclusion

The XF 90mm f/2 is the highest performing lens I have ever mounted onto my X-series cameras. I beats all previous XF series lenses in just about every image quality aspect. Its the royal deluxe model of a portrait lens, and if you are a portrait or fashion photographer using the Fujifilm X-series you cannot pass this lens up. For the system it is quite large, but it is what it is.

I’m not even a portrait photographer, but I definitely will add this lens to my arsenal. It really is an amazing lens!"


from jonasraskphotography.com.

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
27-May-2015 00:48
posts reply
FJ Love Online



Iditarod pig racer
who lives in a pigloo

Posts: 9,361
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #13
RE: 90/2
 
"The XF 90mm f/2 is the highest performing lens I have ever mounted onto my X-series cameras." gives us something to hope for Icon_biggrin

27-May-2015 04:16
posts reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #14
RE: 90/2
 
(27-May-2015 04:16)FJ Love wrote:  "The XF 90mm f/2 is the highest performing lens I have ever mounted onto my X-series cameras." gives us something to hope for Icon_biggrin
The samples did look pretty good.

27-May-2015 07:56
posts www reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #15
RE: 90/2
 
http://thedigitaltrekker.com/2015/05/fuj...summers-2/

Good samples.

29-May-2015 11:07
posts www reply
DJ Offline



Can I buy a vowel?
Minnesota

Posts: 36,997
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #16
RE: 90/2
 
(27-May-2015 04:16)FJ Love wrote:  "The XF 90mm f/2 is the highest performing lens I have ever mounted onto my X-series cameras." gives us something to hope for Icon_biggrin

He had me at Royal Deluxe.




29-May-2015 14:57
posts reply
Sheldon N Online



MegaloMooMoo
Vancouver, WA

Posts: 53,201
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #17
RE: 90/2
 
That looks like a very nice lens. Bokeh looks good too.

Probably not on my list since it's bigger/heavier and I like the Fuji kit to be small. Plus I already have the 5D III and 135L which I don't use enough.

Still very tempting. Icon_smile

Sheldon | I like camera gear | Flickr
29-May-2015 16:17
posts www reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #18
RE: 90/2
 
(29-May-2015 14:57)DJ wrote:  He had me at Royal Deluxe.

That sounded like a brand of toilet tissue to me.

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
29-May-2015 16:24
posts reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #19
RE: 90/2
 
http://www.bokeh-monster.com/blog/fujifi...nese-steel

07-Jul-2015 08:52
posts www reply
Simon Offline



Uncle Bob
UK

Posts: 84
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #20
RE: 90/2
 
Mmmm .. There is still a look to the busy background OOF areas that just doesn't seem quite right ....

07-Jul-2015 09:03
posts reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #21
RE: 90/2
 
Geez, even I think it looks pretty good Icon_smile

But no, it's still no 85/1.2 Icon_smile

07-Jul-2015 09:20
posts www reply
Sheldon N Online



MegaloMooMoo
Vancouver, WA

Posts: 53,201
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #22
RE: 90/2
 
Looks decent, would like to see some normal non-stylized photos to really judge.

Sheldon | I like camera gear | Flickr
07-Jul-2015 13:30
posts www reply
Rudi Offline



iRenaissance Man
Outback

Posts: 2,450
Joined: Aug 2012

Post: #23
RE: 90/2
 
(07-Jul-2015 09:03)Simon wrote:  Mmmm .. There is still a look to the busy background OOF areas that just doesn't seem quite right ....
Agreed. Not quite there, there's a little harshness (for lack of a better word) in some of the OOF areas. That could be because they chose some pretty busy backgrounds, but still - it's there!

How much is this lens? ???

Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
07-Jul-2015 15:03
posts reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #24
RE: 90/2
 
(07-Jul-2015 15:03)Rudi wrote:  How much is this lens? ???

949 USD, Rudi. Looks to be around 1273 AUD (DigiDirect).

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
07-Jul-2015 15:09
posts reply
FJ Love Online



Iditarod pig racer
who lives in a pigloo

Posts: 9,361
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #25
RE: 90/2
 
(07-Jul-2015 09:03)Simon wrote:  There is still a look to the busy background OOF areas that just doesn't seem quite right ....

remind you of the 50-140 ?

07-Jul-2015 15:28
posts reply
Rudi Offline



iRenaissance Man
Outback

Posts: 2,450
Joined: Aug 2012

Post: #26
RE: 90/2
 
(07-Jul-2015 15:09)Tetrode wrote:  
(07-Jul-2015 15:03)Rudi wrote:  How much is this lens? ???

949 USD, Rudi. Looks to be around 1273 AUD (DigiDirect).

So... a massive $23 AUD cheaper than the stellar EF 135mm f/2, which is what it would be replacing. That is a little disappointing. I know the Canon lens is a bargain for what it does, but still... Icon_frown

Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
07-Jul-2015 15:37
posts reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #27
RE: 90/2
 
No one ever said the Fuji XF lenses were cheap, Rudi. They aren't. However, build quality is generally exceptional and optical quality is very high across the range. Really, it's only the bokeholics who take issue (usually justifiably) with the optical characteristics of Fuji glass.

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
07-Jul-2015 16:13
posts reply
Rudi Offline



iRenaissance Man
Outback

Posts: 2,450
Joined: Aug 2012

Post: #28
RE: 90/2
 
I didn't mean to come across all critical of the lens - the samples look quite impressive! I was just mentioning that the bokeh had some harshness to it. And I guess they were trying to keep the size down since they stuck to f/2, and on crop that isn't going to be the same as f/2 on FF. The shorter focal length just compounds the problem.

So are Fuji lenses generally a little harsh in the OOF areas? You mention "Fuji glass", so is this a system-wide characteristic? A fair generalisation?

Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
07-Jul-2015 16:30
posts reply
Simon Offline



Uncle Bob
UK

Posts: 84
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #29
RE: 90/2
 
(07-Jul-2015 15:28)FJ Love wrote:  
(07-Jul-2015 09:03)Simon wrote:  There is still a look to the busy background OOF areas that just doesn't seem quite right ....

remind you of the 50-140 ?
Yes !

07-Jul-2015 18:24
posts reply
Simon Offline



Uncle Bob
UK

Posts: 84
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #30
RE: 90/2
 
(07-Jul-2015 16:30)Rudi wrote:  I didn't mean to come across all critical of the lens - the samples look quite impressive! I was just mentioning that the bokeh had some harshness to it. And I guess they were trying to keep the size down since they stuck to f/2, and on crop that isn't going to be the same as f/2 on FF. The shorter focal length just compounds the problem.

So are Fuji lenses generally a little harsh in the OOF areas? You mention "Fuji glass", so is this a system-wide characteristic? A fair generalisation?
As sharp and as well built as they are - I do think there is a characteristic to the lenses that isn't pleasing in their rendering

It's not a sensor size issue IMO as Oly seem to get better "smoothness" from some of their offerings ??

07-Jul-2015 18:26
posts reply
Rudi Offline



iRenaissance Man
Outback

Posts: 2,450
Joined: Aug 2012

Post: #31
RE: 90/2
 
(07-Jul-2015 18:26)Simon wrote:  It's not a sensor size issue IMO as Oly seem to get better "smoothness" from some of their offerings ??
Understood. All I was saying is that having the OOF area closer to focus than it would be with a longer focal length on FF, that wouldn't help with the harshness at all - quite the opposite.

Olympus have a long tradition of making lenses with great bokeh rendition.

Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
07-Jul-2015 19:21
posts reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #32
RE: 90/2
 
Yes, the emergence of mirrorless has certainly caused OM-era Olympus glass to skyrocket in value. An extreme example is the 100mm f/2:

[Image: Olympus_100mm.jpg]

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
07-Jul-2015 19:39
posts reply
Sheldon N Online



MegaloMooMoo
Vancouver, WA

Posts: 53,201
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #33
RE: 90/2
 
Yes, but have any sold at that price?

Sheldon | I like camera gear | Flickr
07-Jul-2015 19:43
posts www reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #34
RE: 90/2
 
(07-Jul-2015 19:43)Sheldon N wrote:  Yes, but have any sold at that price?

Sometimes they get close ...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-100mm-F2...4637ff7075

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
07-Jul-2015 19:48
posts reply
Ralphbro Offline



Agalmatophiliac
Imagining My Jewels

Posts: 1,085
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #35
RE: 90/2
 
I like the OOF rendering of the 56mm, not sure about the 90mm from what's been posted.

Mankins are lumps of cold, dead plastic. But that doesn't mean they don't turn me on.
With friends like these, who needs mankins? I do, that's who.
I love pinging my junk with a rubber band. Dr Snip taught me how.
I lead an underworld cult of mankin people.
WTFWJD?

07-Jul-2015 19:59
posts reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #36
RE: 90/2
 
http://olafphotoblog.com/2015/07/13/the-...tographer/

19-Jul-2015 06:52
posts www reply
Sheldon N Online



MegaloMooMoo
Vancouver, WA

Posts: 53,201
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #37
RE: 90/2
 
That's the kind of review I like to see. Lens does look good.

Sheldon | I like camera gear | Flickr
19-Jul-2015 14:13
posts www reply
Ralphbro Offline



Agalmatophiliac
Imagining My Jewels

Posts: 1,085
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #38
RE: 90/2
 
Who's gettin' one?

Mankins are lumps of cold, dead plastic. But that doesn't mean they don't turn me on.
With friends like these, who needs mankins? I do, that's who.
I love pinging my junk with a rubber band. Dr Snip taught me how.
I lead an underworld cult of mankin people.
WTFWJD?

19-Jul-2015 14:32
posts reply
Sheldon N Online



MegaloMooMoo
Vancouver, WA

Posts: 53,201
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #39
RE: 90/2
 
Nope, too big. Bastard stepchild focal length.

I need to shoot my Canon 135 more. Icon_smile

Sheldon | I like camera gear | Flickr
19-Jul-2015 14:56
posts www reply
Ralphbro Offline



Agalmatophiliac
Imagining My Jewels

Posts: 1,085
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #40
RE: 90/2
 
Hi Sheldon

I'll bet it's nice being a yacht owner and cruising the river with weather like we're having. It was still over 80 at 9:30pm last night.

Mankins are lumps of cold, dead plastic. But that doesn't mean they don't turn me on.
With friends like these, who needs mankins? I do, that's who.
I love pinging my junk with a rubber band. Dr Snip taught me how.
I lead an underworld cult of mankin people.
WTFWJD?

19-Jul-2015 15:02
posts reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #41
RE: 90/2
 
(19-Jul-2015 14:56)Sheldon N wrote:  Nope, too big. Bastard stepchild focal length.

??

It is disappointingly long for a 90mm lens but still shorter and thinner than the 135/2L. It's also 7.5 ounces lighter than the Canon lens. But what makes it a "bastard stepchild focal length"?

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
19-Jul-2015 15:46
posts reply
Rudi Offline



iRenaissance Man
Outback

Posts: 2,450
Joined: Aug 2012

Post: #42
RE: 90/2
 
Clearly, it's the focal length that Sheldon plans to use on his bastard stepchildren eventually. I'm guessing he's planning ahead. Icon_wink Icon_cheesygrin

Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
19-Jul-2015 15:58
posts reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #43
RE: 90/2
 
(19-Jul-2015 15:58)Rudi wrote:  Clearly, it's the focal length that Sheldon plans to use on his bastard stepchildren eventually. I'm guessing he's planning ahead. Icon_wink Icon_cheesygrin


Silly me! I forget we have to take Sheldon's comments literally.

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
19-Jul-2015 16:06
posts reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #44
RE: 90/2
 
(19-Jul-2015 14:32)Ralphbro wrote:  Who's gettin' one?
Me, probably. Sold my 23 a while back.

19-Jul-2015 19:50
posts www reply
Ralphbro Offline



Agalmatophiliac
Imagining My Jewels

Posts: 1,085
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #45
RE: 90/2
 
(19-Jul-2015 19:50)juice wrote:  Me, probably.

Hurry up so we can find out what you think.

Mankins are lumps of cold, dead plastic. But that doesn't mean they don't turn me on.
With friends like these, who needs mankins? I do, that's who.
I love pinging my junk with a rubber band. Dr Snip taught me how.
I lead an underworld cult of mankin people.
WTFWJD?

19-Jul-2015 20:39
posts reply
juice Online



Minister for Outrage
in Curmudgestan

Posts: 15,189
Joined: May 2012
Facebook Flickr Twitter

Post: #46
RE: 90/2
 
Won't be soon, though. No rush.

19-Jul-2015 20:40
posts www reply
Tetrode Online



This Space for Rent
The Land of Gorch

Posts: 9,249
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #47
RE: 90/2
 
Simon, perhaps?

I demand a second opinion! According to that STUPID test I'm 50% hipster.
19-Jul-2015 21:27
posts reply
Sheldon N Online



MegaloMooMoo
Vancouver, WA

Posts: 53,201
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #48
RE: 90/2
 
(19-Jul-2015 15:02)Ralphbro wrote:  I'll bet it's nice being a yacht owner and cruising the river with weather like we're having. It was still over 80 at 9:30pm last night.

Yep, camped on the river Friday night with Ashlyn, then spent all afternoon yesterday on the beach. Great way to beat the heat.

[Image: Camping%202_zpshznefxz4.jpg]

[Image: Camping_zpsoc6qcr25.jpg]


(19-Jul-2015 15:46)Tetrode wrote:  It is disappointingly long for a 90mm lens but still shorter and thinner than the 135/2L. It's also 7.5 ounces lighter than the Canon lens. But what makes it a "bastard stepchild focal length"?

Not so much the global size, but rather the relative size/weight compared to the X-T1 body and kit.

I've always found 135mm equivalent to be an odd duck focal length. Too long for a lot of general purpose shooting other than headshots, too short for sports stuff, has a very narrow "working range" in terms of distance that is a bit too far away for good subject interaction. Really nice images, just not my first choice of focal length.

I did get a nice picture with the 135L last month though...

[Image: _MG_2169_zpsskytc1fz.jpg]

Sheldon | I like camera gear | Flickr
19-Jul-2015 21:31
posts www reply
FJ Love Online



Iditarod pig racer
who lives in a pigloo

Posts: 9,361
Joined: Jul 2012

Post: #49
RE: 90/2
 
(19-Jul-2015 21:31)Sheldon N wrote:  I did get a nice picture with the 135L last month though...

nice one, that's the thing with the 135, it renders great photos but it is kind of an awkward focal length, i really liked it best on the 1Dmk4, i may still get the Fuji 90 though, i sold a couple of lenses to make room already Icon_wink

19-Jul-2015 22:22
posts reply
Ralphbro Offline



Agalmatophiliac
Imagining My Jewels

Posts: 1,085
Joined: Sep 2012

Post: #50
RE: 90/2
 
(19-Jul-2015 21:31)Sheldon N wrote:  then spent all afternoon yesterday on the beach. Great way to beat the heat.

I remember being in Hood River many years ago when it was 107. We sat in our lawn chairs in the river. Way to freeking hot.

It's f**king 97 at Boeing field (King County Airport). F**k this crap.

Nice photos with the 135.

My dentist is hiring me to reshoot his staff for their web page. Head shots, so probably the 135.

Mankins are lumps of cold, dead plastic. But that doesn't mean they don't turn me on.
With friends like these, who needs mankins? I do, that's who.
I love pinging my junk with a rubber band. Dr Snip taught me how.
I lead an underworld cult of mankin people.
WTFWJD?

19-Jul-2015 23:50
posts reply


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)