50-140 or 16-55?

[pixmedic]

im pretty sure one of those will be my next lens.
just not sure which one yet.
i already have the 18-55 f2.8-4, but a constant f2.8 would be cool, and i dont really need that much reach anymore.
on the other hand, the 50-140 would make a convenient portrait lens.

anyone have the 16-55?

 

[Gary A.]

*Gary raises his hand*

 

[Gary A.]

I have the 50-140 also.

 

[smoke665]

I agree the constant f/2.8 is nice, but I absolutely love the SMC DA 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 as a carry round, for it's focal flexibility.

 

[pixmedic]

I agree the constant f/2.8 is nice, but I absolutely love the SMC DA 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 as a carry round, for it's focal flexibility.

Considered that one.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[pixmedic]

I suppose what im looking for is a comparison between the 16-55znd 18-55.
Is it worth the upgrade? If not by much I would probably be more inclined to go with a different lens

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[Fujidave]

I suppose what im looking for is a comparison between the 16-55znd 18-55.
Is it worth the upgrade? If not by much I would probably be more inclined to go with a different lens

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Of what I have heard, there is not really much in it between the 16-55mm and 18-55mm. Of the 50-140mm I have heard great things.

 

[Gary A.]

The most immediate and obvious difference is size. The constant f/2.8 requires a significant size to handle all that light streaming in. I found the 16-55 to be superior in all categories especially is the smaller details like micro contrast and bokeh. If you don't need the extra speed, WR, and slight difference in IQ ... then go for the 50-140. For what I shoot and how I shoot, the 50-140 would be at the top of my list. I tend to stay away from 'normal' lens lengths (around 50mm FF). To me photography is about capturing and telling a story. Generally for me, the lens lengths are like adjectives. The closer the lens length is to normal, the less expressive the adjective. The further away from normal the more expressive the adjectives. Depending on the story and how I desire to tell the story, dictates what lenses I use.

It took a long time for Fuji to deliver the 50-140. The lens is everything I would wish for. My photography improved with my acquisition of the 50-140.

 

[pixmedic]

for a long while I had considered the 90mm f2 and the 56mm f1.2, but now im not really sold as much on either.
i would probably get the 90 over the 56 only because would likely never shoot at f1.2 and the 85mm practically lived on my spare D600.
the 70-200 was pretty much a permanent attachment on the other D600, which makes the 50-140 the seemingly obvious choice.
the only thing keeping it from being the definitely obvious choice is that we dont do the work we used to. now that we are no longer doing event work, the 70-200mm that used to be our staple lens isn't really as necessary as it once was. for portrait work, prime lenses work just fine since we can pretty much stage the camera at the distance we need.
this initially made me think the 90mm or 56mm fuji offerings would be the optimal candidates.

buuuuuuut....theres just something about the versatility of the 70-200 f2.8 that I always loved. maybe its the convenience factor of zooms. I imagine the 50-140 to be no different in that regard. I rarely do shallow DOF portrait work so i dont feel i really NEED a super fast lens, and a zoom lens gives me a lot of leeway for quick framing adjustments without having to move the camera/tripod.

that being said, one might wonder why i was considering the 16-55mm at all...
the short answer is that its the range of focal lengths i use most often now. the long answer is, i suppose in some respects i had just become so accustomed to constant apertures that a variable aperture lens bugs me just a little so i felt it might be worth the upgrade just to be able to zoom around at f/2.8 instead of having to make adjustments in other areas to compensate.

the wrench in the 16-55mm works is that i have the 35mm f2 and 60mm primes so im already doubling down on a lot of focal range, which again puts the 50-140 in the "better choice" category.

I dunno...i have heard some good things about the 90mm too so i might have to take another look at that lens. it might come down to the 90mm or the 50-140.
i wish the camera store wasnt so far from me. they have a great selection of fuji gear but i hate driving an hour just to get there and browse.

 

[Gary A.]

I have the 90mm also. I am moving away from zooms to primes. I tend to use zooms either racked-in or racked-out. A zoom represents two lenses to me ... and sometimes I appreciate that convienance. But primes deliver just a bit more and they are easier to harmonize. Unfortunately, zooms act differently at different focal lengths. The sharpness differs, bokeh differs, just a lot of little differences which may/can add up and change the image from what I wanted at 85mm to something different at 130mm.

The 90mm is so sharp that the lens comes with a box of bandaids.

 

[Fujidave]

Think I read the 90mm is the sharpest out of all the Fuji lenses

 

[pixmedic]

I have the 90mm also. I am moving away from zooms to primes. I tend to use zooms either racked-in or racked-out. A zoom represents two lenses to me ... and sometimes I appreciate that convienance. But primes deliver just a bit more and they are easier to harmonize. Unfortunately, zooms act differently at different focal lengths. The sharpness differs, bokeh differs, just a lot of little differences which may/can add up and change the image from what I wanted at 85mm to something different at 130mm.

The 90mm is so sharp that the lens comes with a box of bandaids.

i shoot more primes now than the zoom, but my content has changed so ive had to adapt for that.
the 90mm is a lens i have been looking at since it came out, but ive always been afraid its a bit of a niche lens, kinda like the 56mm f1.2 is. (in my opinion anyway)
maybe too long for indoor portraits depending on the setup, and i dont know what i would use it for otherwise. the 50-140 always hovered around as a better option just for the versatility. there was a time where I thought the decision for my next lens was going to be over the 90mm and the 56mm, mainly for portraits, but...im still kinda stuck in that old work mindset that you need that 70-200 fast zoom in your bag.
ive heard the AF on the 56mm is slow, but i guess for portraiture it doesn't matter as much.
maybe i should re-examine the 90 and 56 as possible options.

im feeling now like im going to skip the 16-55 this time around.

 

[Gary A.]

When I was working the 85mm, 28mm and 180mm were my most used lenses (in that order). I didn’t get the 56mm due to the focus and because I had the Fujinon 60mm and the Zeiss 50mm. I am much more comfortable with an FF 85mm focal length ... but the FF 135mm focal length is just a slight adjustment of a step or so.

 

[jcdeboever]

The 50-140 makes beautiful lines and the oof areas are stunning. It really does a great job of isolation as well. It is a very nice lens. It renders way different than all the others, it has a distinct character. It is a tad heavy but who cares when it delivers wonderful images. It is an amazing lens for just about anything really.