Actually, in years gone by, the 135mm was a very traditional landscape lens, it is only in more recent years that we equate landscape with wide angle. The 90mm is a killer lens, I think you will really enjoy it in your set up.
The reason you are seeing 135mm as a landscape lense is because they were working with large format cameras. A 135mm lense on a large format camera gives a wide angle close to what we get from a 28-35mm lense gives us with full frame. Landscapes have always been shot with wider angle lenses. Large format cameras were completely different monsters that regularly used lenses that are over 200mm. A 250mm lens on a 8x10 camera gives a perspective similar to what we get from an 80mm lens for us currently with full frame.
I'm really enjoying your videos. You're really well spoken, and it feels like you're just a normal person talking about photography without being pretentious. Keep em coming :)
Thank you so much!! Just hoping to share my hobby so I'm glad it comes across. I've got a full time job and other responsibilities so photography has always been a way to reset/refresh myself mentally.
Thank you for the details you give us. It is a good help to make my choice. The fact that the zoom is not important, but the movement to compose the frame is, is fundamental to me. It's full of common sense !
Arianna, I recently put on order the 90 f2 so I'm looking forward to seeing how well it pairs with the Fuji cameras I own. It matches my favorite film camera lens, the 135 f3.5 Nikkor which I use primarily for candid portraits and when I want to narrow the field for landscapes. It also fits nicely into my collection of Fujinon f2 primes. I prefer primes because of their wider aperture, lighter weight and smaller size. That really makes a difference when you are out hiking, especially if you are at high altitude. It will be nice to see some of the pictures you take with the 90.
You made a great choice! That 90 is very versatile, fast, good close focus, not obnoxiously heavy, reasonably compact. Makes perfect sense. Most my zooms are gathering dust these days
This was the first video of yours that I watched. I also watch videos of many other channels, so I want to say that I really found some special things in this one. Please keep this channel going. I will watch too. And I'm glad I subscribed while you have very few subscriber yet :)
After not touching my camera for almost 2 years, I've picked it up again as I had to shoot some portraits of my niece. I own the XF14 2.8 , XF35 1.4 and the XF 18-135. However I borrowed my friend's XF 16-55 2.8 for the shots and am glad I did. The primes stayed in the bag as the 16-55 is plenty sharp! Anyway, I want to start using my camera more again, and I figured I really need a good portrait lens, something that gives good subject/background separation and creamy bokeh: enters the XF90. Now, since we're 2022 and I'm still using my XT-1 I got in 2015, would you say it's better to upgrade the body or just go ahead and get the 90mm. The XT4 has ibis which is cool and all, but my XT1 is still doing great.
I have both the 55-200 and the 90. If I had to give up one of them I would keep the 90. It’s a fabulous lens and more versatile than most people think. I do have the 70-300 on preorder to be used when I need the extra reach for wildlife photography.
I decided to get this because it really did well in portraits. Not sure why, but when I was shooting portraits with an ff, I always preferred the 135mm. Subject separation.
Dear Arianna, When I changed from Nikon to Fuji, I had a number of manual focus non-ai Nikon lenses. I purchased an adapter to allow my Fuji to use the Nikon lenses. You must go into the menu system and choose “shoot without lens” and the Fuji does the rest. The camera and lens combination brings me back to my original 35mm days of Fujica ST 705. The best of today combined with yesterday. I enjoy your RUclips videos. Thanks.
I have just purchased the 90mm over the 50-140 for similar reasons to you I am also basically a prime shooter and reviews have consistently said the 90mm is sharper than the 50-140 under f4. As you say the build quality of all Fuji lenses are high. I usually carry 2 lenses so will use the 16-55 and the 90 and just have the 70-300 when I am shooting wildlife. I initially bought the 18-135 but traded that to buy the 90
I agree with you. I bought the 50-140 and sent it back. Too bulky for my taste and would have lived in the safe. I just got the 90 yesterday and it is coming in the mail! I got it on sale right now. It is a steal at the current price of $799. I also own the 16-55 2.8 fuji and it is the perfect all around lens and sharp and gorgeous. I also own the 35 1.4 and that lens is magical. So I think with this combo I have most bases covered. I too have been eying the 70-300 and may eventually get one. I dont shoot a lot of wildlife so that is my only hesitation.
You made an interesting remark at 1:20. I feel dejected knowing that an Iphone can take a similar landscape photo as my 23mm. I've used the 90mm for street photography rather than traditional portrait because it helps me tell a story within the frame. The 90mm is so obvious when taking it on the street, but some of my best street photos come from it. Not being a traditional street photography lens, I still consider it an amazing story-teller for the street.
Also loved this comment. Iphone photos whilst vibrant ad wide still dont look great even when uploaded to IG, there is a defiitive loss of detail. Cant beat a telephoto shot in any instance these days
With time you get to develop a preference in images. You develop a framing inclination! Most of the time you have an idea of the shots you are after or susceptible to encounter before going out. I find that I rarely use wider focal lengths. So no need to swap that much. On APSC, you can shoot pano hand held easily. Since you are shooting a 90mm to produce a 135mm frame, you benefit of a lens that can be shot much more open to get the same depth of field. You gain about 1 1/3 stop of light over the Full frame. That means you end up shooting most stuff hand held. Not possible with full frame. If ever you need to shoot a focus stack, you can make it automatically over a range of focus distance on a monopod. Since every shot have a deeper depth of field then on a full frame, you end up with a stack just as quick as the fully closed full frame largest depth of field of f16 or f22. I carry all my lenses in a messenger bag. Not a backpack like full framer have to. So when ready to shoot I extend my hand and see what lens fit best for the shot I see fit. If I made the proper choice for that day, the proper lens is already on the camera when I swing the bag to the front. If not, Then I dig in the bag, prepare the targeted lens, and remove the one on the camera to make a quick swap within the cover of the whether resistant messenger bag. Using smaller sensor and lenses reduce the chance of infiltration of dust during this risky procedure. Once lens and framing are decided, I then seek what are the most interesting subject in that scenery. Then I look at the farthest one's distance with a range finder and the distance of the background needed sharp. I then use a chart of the far depth of field shot on this specific nice subject and match the brightest aperture so that at this distance and focal length, I still have the background sharp. That define my aperture. Then I double check that at this aperture I have the first closest object of interest covered by this aperture at the set focus distance. If it does, then I could shoot just that one frame. But if not or if I want to guide the observer through the all scene front to back, then I may operate at this aperture an auto focus stack from the first subject to the farthest one, most of the time hand held and in any other case on a monopod. Since I most of the time shoot 16:9 for the internet, then to shoot 2:3 on a wide angle lens to crop the top and bottom is not really a good practice. So by doing two shots turned 1/3 horizontally and then making it a pano make the 16:9 I intend to use. If I also stitch 5 vertical frames overlapped in the middle and shot also horizontally, I also end up with a 16:9. So this allow me one more trick not to get another lens off the bag and make me gain resolution instead of loosing some. Stitching is not always possible due to moving subjects, yet in many of these cases their is go around options. But when considering routine stitching option the choice of focal lengths in the bag can be considerably reduced to cover the all spectrum that heavy, costly and slow zoom lenses do! I came to conclude that the angle of view of the 23mm (36mm FF equivalent) is enough blue sky and soil for my taste most of the time. Phones do good enough for everything larger, they are as light as it gets and need no lens swap. Then my choice of another focal length ended on the 50mm (76mm FF equivalent). Reason is that if I was to do a pano with it of 5 vertical frames it would still be a smaller frame then one shot made with the 23mm. In this same idea the 90mm produce a stitching smaller then the 50mm do in one shot. Obviously I use this stitching strategy for other size of frames like 4X5, 1X1. That allow me with my little camera to match full frame resolutions and minimize lost of resolution due to cropping. Most importantly it allows me a little compact, complete set of camera gear easy to travel that gives me room in the plane to bring my 150-500mm (225-750mm FF equivalent) with me in the passenger seat. Just making sure folks don't carelessly throw it up and down! Alternative options are much more costly on FF. Most important consideration with using primes in landscape is that they can shoot wide open more often. These lens are built sharper but also sharper when open. Zoom lens are improving but are not to be compared in this regard. Even if the strategy mentioned above could benefit zoom lens photographers, they are loosing much of its interest for multiple reasons: depth of field for fractional focal length unavailable, sharpness mtfp chart for the in use focal length inexistent, need to carry a range finder... So none of these practice get to be put in use by zoom lens photographers. And in the case of a full frame shooter, the absolute necessity of a tripod make the all idea completely useless considering the need to close the aperture for any landscape shot. Otherwise the photographer would need to shoot in high ISO, and that is a no go for anyone investing so much in hiking and camera gear. I find that APSC high resolution sensors are changing the old practices in photography. Few years ago full frame was still superior, but considering everything now, I think they are not benefiting of their expensive lens capabilities due to their need to close the aperture to gain depth of field. Sure they have a big sensor and lots of resolution, but they either loses it to motion blur, noise or bokeh. The APSC have the capability to shoot much more open and this way keeps the ISO and shutter speed down. Yet one advantage the Full Frame have is in portraiture. Wide open the bokeh they produce can not be match by smaller sensors. And that is of interest for wildlife photography and models photography. Although when considering shooting humans and tamed animals, many options of lighting, background set up and post processing techniques are more and more available. The advantage Full Frame have on the blurred background they gain on the wild animals they capture is lost through the size of lens they need to carry around to get the same size of subject in the frame. If a Full Frame shooter was to shoot 750mm at a brighter then f6 like I do, he would certainly get a much more pleasing shot. Yet this type of lens are at least 20 times more rare and expensive and two times heavier then my Tamron one (which is designed for Full Frame). And right now this can also be achieved only with the use of a teleconverter on a supertelephoto prime lens.
I kinda went the same route with the 80mm 2.8 on my x-pro 2, the ois makes up for the lack of ibis on the x-pro 2. I am curious about the new 70-300mm coming out. I've only used primes, but the relatively small size and long reach seem appealing. Waiting to hear reviews of it.
One more thing that this lense would not serve to me as telephoto lense is that mostly when travelling I mostly restricted in movements so can't just keep swapping my lenses. So to me its question which to add to collection of my primes, 16-55 or 50-140 or go crazier and get 150-600 which a bit overkill for travelling really 😅
Still loving the 90 for landscape? Doing a similar soul searching look at what kind of photographer I am and might explain why I haven't been meshing with the 70-300 as my tele option. I spend too much time fiddling with the zoom range and not enough about composition, and usually the result is in the 70-100 ish close range anyway. Besides I'm used to 135mm on my Minolta kit anyway. Okay I'm sort of selling myself on it hah, but would still be reassuring to hear how you've gotten along with it.
Yes 100%!! I haven't gotten to shoot a ton this year due to things in my personal life taking time away, but i have had absolutely 0 regrets about the 90 over any zoom lenses and it has totally satisfied my "craving" for a telephoto. I'm VERY happy with it.
Having same dilemma, the bigest problem wirh this lense in landscape or especially travelling is that restriction of focal length, I recently travelled long distances and I can't imagine in the middle of your activities changing your lenses. Ideally I would like newer version of kind 50-200 or even 300 red badge lense but seems like 50-140 is the only lense available, with your advice I could go to 90mm as well but in this case you need a second body for sure which cancels the idea saving weight and money
With time you get to develop a preference in images. You develop a framing inclination! Most of the time you have an idea of the shots you are after or susceptible to encounter before going out. I find that I rarely use wider focal lengths. So no need to swap that much. On APSC, you can shoot pano hand held easily. Since you are shooting a 90mm to produce a 135mm frame, you benefit of a lens that can be shot much more open to get the same depth of field. You gain about 1 1/3 stop of light over the Full frame. That means you end up shooting most stuff hand held. Not possible with full frame. If ever you need to shoot a focus stack, you can make it automatically over a range of focus distance on a monopod. Since every shot have a deeper depth of field then on a full frame, you end up with a stack just as quick as the fully closed full frame largest depth of field of f16 or f22. I carry all my lenses in a messenger bag. Not a backpack like full framer have to. So when ready to shoot I extend my hand and see what lens fit best for the shot I see fit. If I made the proper choice for that day, the proper lens is already on the camera when I swing the bag to the front. If not, Then I dig in the bag, prepare the targeted lens, and remove the one on the camera to make a quick swap within the cover of the whether resistant messenger bag. Using smaller sensor and lenses reduce the chance of infiltration of dust during this risky procedure. Once lens and framing are decided, I then seek what are the most interesting subject in that scenery. Then I look at the farthest one's distance with a range finder and the distance of the background needed sharp. I then use a chart of the far depth of field shot on this specific nice subject and match the brightest aperture so that at this distance and focal length, I still have the background sharp. That define my aperture. Then I double check that at this aperture I have the first closest object of interest covered by this aperture at the set focus distance. If it does, then I could shoot just that one frame. But if not or if I want to guide the observer through the all scene front to back, then I may operate at this aperture an auto focus stack from the first subject to the farthest one, most of the time hand held and in any other case on a monopod. Since I most of the time shoot 16:9 for the internet, then to shoot 2:3 on a wide angle lens to crop the top and bottom is not really a good practice. So by doing two shots turned 1/3 horizontally and then making it a pano make the 16:9 I intend to use. If I also stitch 5 vertical frames overlapped in the middle and shot also horizontally, I also end up with a 16:9. So this allow me one more trick not to get another lens off the bag and make me gain resolution instead of loosing some. Stitching is not always possible due to moving subjects, yet in many of these cases their is go around options. But when considering routine stitching option the choice of focal lengths in the bag can be considerably reduced to cover the all spectrum that heavy, costly and slow zoom lenses do! I came to conclude that the angle of view of the 23mm (36mm FF equivalent) is enough blue sky and soil for my taste most of the time. Phones do good enough for everything larger, they are as light as it gets and need no lens swap. Then my choice of another focal length ended on the 50mm (76mm FF equivalent). Reason is that if I was to do a pano with it of 5 vertical frames it would still be a smaller frame then one shot made with the 23mm. In this same idea the 90mm produce a stitching smaller then the 50mm do in one shot. Obviously I use this stitching strategy for other size of frames like 4X5, 1X1. That allow me with my little camera to match full frame resolutions and minimize lost of resolution due to cropping. Most importantly it allows me a little compact, complete set of camera gear easy to travel that gives me room in the plane to bring my 150-500mm (225-750mm FF equivalent) with me in the passenger seat. Just making sure folks don't carelessly throw it up and down! Alternative options are much more costly on FF. Most important consideration with using primes in landscape is that they can shoot wide open more often. These lens are built sharper but also sharper when open. Zoom lens are improving but are not to be compared in this regard. Even if the strategy mentioned above could benefit zoom lens photographers, they are loosing much of its interest for multiple reasons: depth of field for fractional focal length unavailable, sharpness mtfp chart for the in use focal length inexistent, need to carry a range finder... So none of these practice get to be put in use by zoom lens photographers. And in the case of a full frame shooter, the absolute necessity of a tripod make the all idea completely useless considering the need to close the aperture for any landscape shot. Otherwise the photographer would need to shoot in high ISO, and that is a no go for anyone investing so much in hiking and camera gear. I find that APSC high resolution sensors are changing the old practices in photography. Few years ago full frame was still superior, but considering everything now, I think they are not benefiting of their expensive lens capabilities due to their need to close the aperture to gain depth of field. Sure they have a big sensor and lots of resolution, but they either loses it to motion blur, noise or bokeh. The APSC have the capability to shoot much more open and this way keeps the ISO and shutter speed down. Yet one advantage the Full Frame have is in portraiture. Wide open the bokeh they produce can not be match by smaller sensors. And that is of interest for wildlife photography and models photography. Although when considering shooting humans and tamed animals, many options of lighting, background set up and post processing techniques are more and more available. The advantage Full Frame have on the blurred background they gain on the wild animals they capture is lost through the size of lens they need to carry around to get the same size of subject in the frame. If a Full Frame shooter was to shoot 750mm at a brighter then f6 like I do, he would certainly get a much more pleasing shot. Yet this type of lens are at least 20 times more rare and expensive and two times heavier then my Tamron one (which is designed for Full Frame). And right now this can also be achieved only with the use of a teleconverter on a supertelephoto prime lens.
Hey Arianna, pretty sure I watched this video back when it first was posted, but now I'm researching the 90mm and found it again. Thanks for the info. Interestingly, I want it for the same reasons you mentioned. I want something for portraits, landscape and some sports. I rented the 56 f1.2 recently to shoot some portraits for a HS grad and was blown away. But, as an amateur I need to spend my money on something that can do several things. From all accounts it's a beautiful piece of glass. Now, I just need to save some money or maybe sell a kidney! LOL! Hope all is well wit you. Have a great weekend.
Update: Hi Arianna! Haven't heard from you in a while here. Hope you and your family are well. Amidst all of the frenzied selling of old equipment recently due to the release of the new Fuji bodies and lenses, I was able to buy both the XF56mm and the XF90 at fantastic prices. And, both are in mint condition. The 56 was bought new back in spring. The 90 was barely used by the original owner. I just love the 90 for it's sharpness. So nice. Well, again hope you are well. Take care and have a great holiday season!!
I think the 90mm is definitely a great lens for both portrait and landscape. that being said, it's definitely not the most versatile. I personally loved my 35mm f/2 as my first lens (beautiful portraits and landscapes as well, just a different focal length). If you're interested in a "unique" perspective, the 90 is great, but like i said, not the greatest in most situations - especially if you want environmental portraits or wanting to include more in a wider landscape shot. Hope that helps! I love both lenses in my kit, but my personal shooting style uses the 35 f/2 far more!
I sold my 90mm 3 days ago, but my buyer brought it back saying when he moved the spot focus to areas other than center, he got out of focus shots. Face/eye detection off, etc. I now have the lens, testing it with the spot focus dead center, first setting it to manual, defocussing and then flipping it to S and letting the lens change focus, and got fine results. My top dial is in S mode. No issues with ibis, tripod, etc. But moving the spot focus to upper left and using the same technique, I got poor focus. Face Eye detect off, boost mode on, etc., etc. Any ideas?
Always difficult to decide which lens to buy. I own the 14mm, 23f2 and 35f2 primes and the 16-55mm and plus 55-200 zooms. For travel the 16-55 is too big and heavy so the16-80mm seems handy to me also because of the OIS. Like you I also do a lot of research on the internet which makes it even harder to decide, so many choices. The 90mm shines for image quality, that is a big plus. And with extension tubes it can be used for macro as well. For landscape, when you need something wider, you can always stitch multiple photos together. I see a lot of good reviews of using it as a portrait lens, but then maybe I need a body with IBIS. The X-T3 that I own does not have IBIS. So, now I am thinking of trading in my X-T3 for a X-T4 and maybe also trade in my 14mm and 35mm which I hardly use. So, a lot of things to consider. Arianna, thanks for your insight. Frank (The Netherlands)
It is a great lens. Probably Fuji's best. I used the XF 90mm f/2 for landscapes too. Got some great shots. 2 things I don't like about the lens. Lack of IS (would be so much better if it had it) and oversized focusing ring. I have large hands and I need to hold the lens properly without bumping the focusing ring, and there's just not enough room...
Not being a landscape photographer I can't say for sure but I think teles are a better choice over wide angle lenses for landscape photography. Maybe even zooms would be even better.
I don't use my 50-140mm a lot but there's no way in hell I'd sell it. I'm struggling to not buy the 90mm f2 but after purchasing the 50mm f1.0, I need to give my Amex time to breath!
not at all! But i actually do shoot purely landscapes with this lens/camera combo so I can't say how it would do in a portrait setting. I'll have to give it a shot.
Interesting choice. Did you also consider the 80mm macro? Almost the same length but a little more versatile because of the macro and with ois. Considering the 80mm or 90mm myself, but first have to save some money
I did come across the 80 but didn't do much research into it just because of the extra length I'd get in the 90. Probably a bad reason haha but the truth! I don't know too much about the 80 macro at all so I'd definitely still look into it if you haven't made a decision already.
Curious if you ended up getting any other telephoto lenses or kept with the 90. I’ve been loving it but sometimes want longer and sometimes want shorter, thinking about the 50-140 but idk if it’s worth having both lenses
The 90mm is so good! It’s great for “almost macro” shots too. Love this lens! Edit: btw, how is the lens hood for your 90mm holding up? I’ve had to replace mine ones because the little taps that locks it in place when you attach it broke off. (And they’ve broken off on the replacement too…) Edit2: I don’t use any of my lenses for portraits even though “portrait lenses” is all I own. I use them for subject photography. And the subjects range from any kind of interesting things I find in nature to cars, basically. Lenses don’t care what the light that goes through them reflected off of. Point them at anything you want! I think I choose “portrait lenses” because I like longer lenses 50 and up (on crop) AND I like subject separation/bokeh.
So far lens hood is fine but I also am pretty careful with it so that may not be the best comparison haha. Love your point about subject photography as well!
As a fairly newcomer to Fuji, the 90 f/2 is also on my list of considerations for street photography. Been using the Sigma 18-35 adapted, and the 35mm f/2, and the Helios 44M mounted on a Viltrox speedbooster. You gotta try the Helios 44 if you can with a speedbooster. A little soft, but swirly bokeehhh + Fuji recipes = awesome stuff. Kinda keen on getting the 16-55 too, if only I had money :'
Yes! I haven't shot my Xpro2 too much in the summer months since i've been shooting a lot of film instead, but I have not had a single instance where I regretted this purchase or wished that i had the 50-140 instead.
I have both the 50-140 and the 90, not the best choice for my wallet though 😂 If the 90 had stabilization I probably could’ve just went with that alone. Like you said for indoors or poor light, the prime doesn’t excel vs the zoom. Maybe when I upgrade to a body with ibis I can consider selling the 50-140. It’s not fun to carry around in my messenger for quick hikes.
@@azizzbulut they are both great lenses. It all depends on whether you like primes or zooms. I think the 90mm is a better portrait lens but the focal length can make it awkward to use indoors. You will have to step far away from the subject. The 50-140 is more versatile and focuses a little quicker, but it lacks the special look of the 90mm (bokeh, colors, etc are better IMO on the 90).
Well the xt4 is the best apsc camera you can buy. It just depends on what you need. The EOS RP is a great camera. If you dont shoot sports keep the RP and invest the money you are willing to spend on the xt4 on a nice travel destinatiom and take as many dope photo's 👌😁
There's basically one reason I switched to Fuji (I have an XT-2) and would not trade this camera for the world. I used to shoot with film cameras initially (Nikon 2000) and so I was used to having physical buttons for all settings. Once the digital cameras came out, that went away and I hated having to use menus instead. So I switched to Fuji simply because of the ergonomics as well as a viewfinder I can see clearly. I finally now enjoy photography again-so much I am doing a Master's degree! That the quality of the photos is top notch, and I would say well above Nikon, is just icing on the cake. Fuji is really a gem.
You're what an influencer is! Lol! Sold! ... and subscribed! Seriously - I never thought of this lens being used for landscape which now you gave good point. I've been wanting to get this lens but only with the consideration of portrait. I even now think that I could use this for street photography for distant shooting since I feel embarrassed shooting strangers closely :)
I didn't consider it during my search but have been expanding my overall view to lenses outside of just Fuji XF ones. I'll keep this in mind especially with the f/1.8.
Tons of them on my Instagram! Each is also tagged with hashtags of which lens I used. I'm sure I'll be doing a follow-up video in the future on this lens where I will definitely include examples!
Feedback noted :). I filmed this video when I first got the lens but there are tons of 90mm pics throughout my videos and instagram. you're more than welcome to check them out!
Actually, in years gone by, the 135mm was a very traditional landscape lens, it is only in more recent years that we equate landscape with wide angle. The 90mm is a killer lens, I think you will really enjoy it in your set up.
I never knew this! The more you know...I've been really loving both the focal length and lens itself so far. Thanks for the comment!
@@Arianna-zx1ro Yeah, if you look in old lens catalogues, and they promoted the 135mm as a great landscape lens
The reason you are seeing 135mm as a landscape lense is because they were working with large format cameras. A 135mm lense on a large format camera gives a wide angle close to what we get from a 28-35mm lense gives us with full frame. Landscapes have always been shot with wider angle lenses. Large format cameras were completely different monsters that regularly used lenses that are over 200mm. A 250mm lens on a 8x10 camera gives a perspective similar to what we get from an 80mm lens for us currently with full frame.
@@orion7741 No, I mean if you look at old catalogs for Leitz Barnack’s, they refer to the 135mm as a mountaineering landscape lens.
I use the 90mm mostly for landscapes; I really like to bring out small details in nature scenes!
I'm really enjoying your videos.
You're really well spoken, and it feels like you're just a normal person talking about photography without being pretentious.
Keep em coming :)
Thank you so much!! Just hoping to share my hobby so I'm glad it comes across. I've got a full time job and other responsibilities so photography has always been a way to reset/refresh myself mentally.
Thank you for this video. Its so good to hear your reasoning behind the purchase. It has help me to realise what i am looking for.
I fully agree - best choice - the telezoom landscape photos are a kind of - little boring - the 90 mm is fabulous
Yes i love it still!
Thank you for the details you give us. It is a good help to make my choice. The fact that the zoom is not important, but the movement to compose the frame is, is fundamental to me. It's full of common sense !
thank you!! i still LOVE this lens so much to this day!
Arianna, I recently put on order the 90 f2 so I'm looking forward to seeing how well it pairs with the Fuji cameras I own. It matches my favorite film camera lens, the 135 f3.5 Nikkor which I use primarily for candid portraits and when I want to narrow the field for landscapes. It also fits nicely into my collection of Fujinon f2 primes. I prefer primes because of their wider aperture, lighter weight and smaller size. That really makes a difference when you are out hiking, especially if you are at high altitude. It will be nice to see some of the pictures you take with the 90.
You made a great choice! That 90 is very versatile, fast, good close focus, not obnoxiously heavy, reasonably compact. Makes perfect sense. Most my zooms are gathering dust these days
Thank you! I've bene loving it.
This was the first video of yours that I watched. I also watch videos of many other channels, so I want to say that I really found some special things in this one. Please keep this channel going. I will watch too. And I'm glad I subscribed while you have very few subscriber yet :)
thank you so much!!
After not touching my camera for almost 2 years, I've picked it up again as I had to shoot some portraits of my niece. I own the XF14 2.8 , XF35 1.4 and the XF 18-135. However I borrowed my friend's XF 16-55 2.8 for the shots and am glad I did. The primes stayed in the bag as the 16-55 is plenty sharp! Anyway, I want to start using my camera more again, and I figured I really need a good portrait lens, something that gives good subject/background separation and creamy bokeh: enters the XF90. Now, since we're 2022 and I'm still using my XT-1 I got in 2015, would you say it's better to upgrade the body or just go ahead and get the 90mm. The XT4 has ibis which is cool and all, but my XT1 is still doing great.
Love this!!
I have both the 55-200 and the 90. If I had to give up one of them I would keep the 90. It’s a fabulous lens and more versatile than most people think. I do have the 70-300 on preorder to be used when I need the extra reach for wildlife photography.
Good to know I made a good choice! I have also been eyeing the 70-300. I'll be looking forward to hearing peoples' thoughts on it!
I decided to get this because it really did well in portraits. Not sure why, but when I was shooting portraits with an ff, I always preferred the 135mm. Subject separation.
The Olympus 75 f1.8 is a gem for this same scenario.
Ooh good to know!
Has lots of CA unfortunately wide open. But absolutely beautiful otherwise.
Dear Arianna,
When I changed from Nikon to Fuji, I had a number of manual focus non-ai Nikon lenses. I purchased an adapter to allow my Fuji to use the Nikon lenses. You must go into the menu system and choose “shoot without lens” and the Fuji does the rest. The camera and lens combination brings me back to my original 35mm days of Fujica ST 705. The best of today combined with yesterday. I enjoy your RUclips videos. Thanks.
I need a short telephoto for some indoor sport photography. I also like landscape photography so I'm pleased too here what you ve said 👍
If it were me, I’d choose the 90mm for that as well!
@@Arianna-zx1ro great too hear... Nice channel really informative and watchable x
Excellent choice! I’ll be doing a video next week about this lens 👍🏻👍🏻
Awesome!
I have just purchased the 90mm over the 50-140 for similar reasons to you I am also basically a prime shooter and reviews have consistently said the 90mm is sharper than the 50-140 under f4. As you say the build quality of all Fuji lenses are high. I usually carry 2 lenses so will use the 16-55 and the 90 and just have the 70-300 when I am shooting wildlife. I initially bought the 18-135 but traded that to buy the 90
I agree with you. I bought the 50-140 and sent it back. Too bulky for my taste and would have lived in the safe.
I just got the 90 yesterday and it is coming in the mail! I got it on sale right now. It is a steal at the current price of $799. I also own the 16-55 2.8 fuji and it is the perfect all around lens and sharp and gorgeous. I also own the 35 1.4 and that lens is magical. So I think with this combo I have most bases covered. I too have been eying the 70-300 and may eventually get one. I dont shoot a lot of wildlife so that is my only hesitation.
hi, i use this lens for landscape with the new x-h2 and it’s perfect for someone kind of shoot
You made an interesting remark at 1:20. I feel dejected knowing that an Iphone can take a similar landscape photo as my 23mm. I've used the 90mm for street photography rather than traditional portrait because it helps me tell a story within the frame. The 90mm is so obvious when taking it on the street, but some of my best street photos come from it. Not being a traditional street photography lens, I still consider it an amazing story-teller for the street.
You're totally right, the 90 is definitely not subtle but it takes such amazing photos that it's 100% worth it to me!
Also loved this comment. Iphone photos whilst vibrant ad wide still dont look great even when uploaded to IG, there is a defiitive loss of detail. Cant beat a telephoto shot in any instance these days
With time you get to develop a preference in images. You develop a framing inclination! Most of the time you have an idea of the shots you are after or susceptible to encounter before going out. I find that I rarely use wider focal lengths. So no need to swap that much. On APSC, you can shoot pano hand held easily. Since you are shooting a 90mm to produce a 135mm frame, you benefit of a lens that can be shot much more open to get the same depth of field. You gain about 1 1/3 stop of light over the Full frame. That means you end up shooting most stuff hand held. Not possible with full frame. If ever you need to shoot a focus stack, you can make it automatically over a range of focus distance on a monopod. Since every shot have a deeper depth of field then on a full frame, you end up with a stack just as quick as the fully closed full frame largest depth of field of f16 or f22.
I carry all my lenses in a messenger bag. Not a backpack like full framer have to. So when ready to shoot I extend my hand and see what lens fit best for the shot I see fit. If I made the proper choice for that day, the proper lens is already on the camera when I swing the bag to the front. If not, Then I dig in the bag, prepare the targeted lens, and remove the one on the camera to make a quick swap within the cover of the whether resistant messenger bag. Using smaller sensor and lenses reduce the chance of infiltration of dust during this risky procedure.
Once lens and framing are decided, I then seek what are the most interesting subject in that scenery. Then I look at the farthest one's distance with a range finder and the distance of the background needed sharp. I then use a chart of the far depth of field shot on this specific nice subject and match the brightest aperture so that at this distance and focal length, I still have the background sharp. That define my aperture. Then I double check that at this aperture I have the first closest object of interest covered by this aperture at the set focus distance. If it does, then I could shoot just that one frame. But if not or if I want to guide the observer through the all scene front to back, then I may operate at this aperture an auto focus stack from the first subject to the farthest one, most of the time hand held and in any other case on a monopod.
Since I most of the time shoot 16:9 for the internet, then to shoot 2:3 on a wide angle lens to crop the top and bottom is not really a good practice. So by doing two shots turned 1/3 horizontally and then making it a pano make the 16:9 I intend to use. If I also stitch 5 vertical frames overlapped in the middle and shot also horizontally, I also end up with a 16:9. So this allow me one more trick not to get another lens off the bag and make me gain resolution instead of loosing some. Stitching is not always possible due to moving subjects, yet in many of these cases their is go around options. But when considering routine stitching option the choice of focal lengths in the bag can be considerably reduced to cover the all spectrum that heavy, costly and slow zoom lenses do! I came to conclude that the angle of view of the 23mm (36mm FF equivalent) is enough blue sky and soil for my taste most of the time. Phones do good enough for everything larger, they are as light as it gets and need no lens swap. Then my choice of another focal length ended on the 50mm (76mm FF equivalent). Reason is that if I was to do a pano with it of 5 vertical frames it would still be a smaller frame then one shot made with the 23mm. In this same idea the 90mm produce a stitching smaller then the 50mm do in one shot. Obviously I use this stitching strategy for other size of frames like 4X5, 1X1. That allow me with my little camera to match full frame resolutions and minimize lost of resolution due to cropping. Most importantly it allows me a little compact, complete set of camera gear easy to travel that gives me room in the plane to bring my 150-500mm (225-750mm FF equivalent) with me in the passenger seat. Just making sure folks don't carelessly throw it up and down! Alternative options are much more costly on FF.
Most important consideration with using primes in landscape is that they can shoot wide open more often. These lens are built sharper but also sharper when open. Zoom lens are improving but are not to be compared in this regard. Even if the strategy mentioned above could benefit zoom lens photographers, they are loosing much of its interest for multiple reasons: depth of field for fractional focal length unavailable, sharpness mtfp chart for the in use focal length inexistent, need to carry a range finder... So none of these practice get to be put in use by zoom lens photographers. And in the case of a full frame shooter, the absolute necessity of a tripod make the all idea completely useless considering the need to close the aperture for any landscape shot. Otherwise the photographer would need to shoot in high ISO, and that is a no go for anyone investing so much in hiking and camera gear.
I find that APSC high resolution sensors are changing the old practices in photography. Few years ago full frame was still superior, but considering everything now, I think they are not benefiting of their expensive lens capabilities due to their need to close the aperture to gain depth of field. Sure they have a big sensor and lots of resolution, but they either loses it to motion blur, noise or bokeh. The APSC have the capability to shoot much more open and this way keeps the ISO and shutter speed down. Yet one advantage the Full Frame have is in portraiture. Wide open the bokeh they produce can not be match by smaller sensors. And that is of interest for wildlife photography and models photography. Although when considering shooting humans and tamed animals, many options of lighting, background set up and post processing techniques are more and more available. The advantage Full Frame have on the blurred background they gain on the wild animals they capture is lost through the size of lens they need to carry around to get the same size of subject in the frame. If a Full Frame shooter was to shoot 750mm at a brighter then f6 like I do, he would certainly get a much more pleasing shot. Yet this type of lens are at least 20 times more rare and expensive and two times heavier then my Tamron one (which is designed for Full Frame). And right now this can also be achieved only with the use of a teleconverter on a supertelephoto prime lens.
Thanks Arianna, I’ve been considering this lens. I would like to incorporate it in shooting our granddaughters wedding. What do you think?
New subscriber. Glad I found your channel. Nice video....been eyeing the 90mm
I kinda went the same route with the 80mm 2.8 on my x-pro 2, the ois makes up for the lack of ibis on the x-pro 2. I am curious about the new 70-300mm coming out. I've only used primes, but the relatively small size and long reach seem appealing. Waiting to hear reviews of it.
I'm veeery curious about the 70-300 as well, which is another reason why i went with a prime for now. i'm in the same boat!
One more thing that this lense would not serve to me as telephoto lense is that mostly when travelling I mostly restricted in movements so can't just keep swapping my lenses.
So to me its question which to add to collection of my primes, 16-55 or 50-140 or go crazier and get 150-600 which a bit overkill for travelling really 😅
Still loving the 90 for landscape? Doing a similar soul searching look at what kind of photographer I am and might explain why I haven't been meshing with the 70-300 as my tele option. I spend too much time fiddling with the zoom range and not enough about composition, and usually the result is in the 70-100 ish close range anyway. Besides I'm used to 135mm on my Minolta kit anyway. Okay I'm sort of selling myself on it hah, but would still be reassuring to hear how you've gotten along with it.
Yes 100%!! I haven't gotten to shoot a ton this year due to things in my personal life taking time away, but i have had absolutely 0 regrets about the 90 over any zoom lenses and it has totally satisfied my "craving" for a telephoto. I'm VERY happy with it.
Having same dilemma, the bigest problem wirh this lense in landscape or especially travelling is that restriction of focal length, I recently travelled long distances and I can't imagine in the middle of your activities changing your lenses.
Ideally I would like newer version of kind 50-200 or even 300 red badge lense but seems like 50-140 is the only lense available, with your advice I could go to 90mm as well but in this case you need a second body for sure which cancels the idea saving weight and money
With time you get to develop a preference in images. You develop a framing inclination! Most of the time you have an idea of the shots you are after or susceptible to encounter before going out. I find that I rarely use wider focal lengths. So no need to swap that much. On APSC, you can shoot pano hand held easily. Since you are shooting a 90mm to produce a 135mm frame, you benefit of a lens that can be shot much more open to get the same depth of field. You gain about 1 1/3 stop of light over the Full frame. That means you end up shooting most stuff hand held. Not possible with full frame. If ever you need to shoot a focus stack, you can make it automatically over a range of focus distance on a monopod. Since every shot have a deeper depth of field then on a full frame, you end up with a stack just as quick as the fully closed full frame largest depth of field of f16 or f22.
I carry all my lenses in a messenger bag. Not a backpack like full framer have to. So when ready to shoot I extend my hand and see what lens fit best for the shot I see fit. If I made the proper choice for that day, the proper lens is already on the camera when I swing the bag to the front. If not, Then I dig in the bag, prepare the targeted lens, and remove the one on the camera to make a quick swap within the cover of the whether resistant messenger bag. Using smaller sensor and lenses reduce the chance of infiltration of dust during this risky procedure.
Once lens and framing are decided, I then seek what are the most interesting subject in that scenery. Then I look at the farthest one's distance with a range finder and the distance of the background needed sharp. I then use a chart of the far depth of field shot on this specific nice subject and match the brightest aperture so that at this distance and focal length, I still have the background sharp. That define my aperture. Then I double check that at this aperture I have the first closest object of interest covered by this aperture at the set focus distance. If it does, then I could shoot just that one frame. But if not or if I want to guide the observer through the all scene front to back, then I may operate at this aperture an auto focus stack from the first subject to the farthest one, most of the time hand held and in any other case on a monopod.
Since I most of the time shoot 16:9 for the internet, then to shoot 2:3 on a wide angle lens to crop the top and bottom is not really a good practice. So by doing two shots turned 1/3 horizontally and then making it a pano make the 16:9 I intend to use. If I also stitch 5 vertical frames overlapped in the middle and shot also horizontally, I also end up with a 16:9. So this allow me one more trick not to get another lens off the bag and make me gain resolution instead of loosing some. Stitching is not always possible due to moving subjects, yet in many of these cases their is go around options. But when considering routine stitching option the choice of focal lengths in the bag can be considerably reduced to cover the all spectrum that heavy, costly and slow zoom lenses do! I came to conclude that the angle of view of the 23mm (36mm FF equivalent) is enough blue sky and soil for my taste most of the time. Phones do good enough for everything larger, they are as light as it gets and need no lens swap. Then my choice of another focal length ended on the 50mm (76mm FF equivalent). Reason is that if I was to do a pano with it of 5 vertical frames it would still be a smaller frame then one shot made with the 23mm. In this same idea the 90mm produce a stitching smaller then the 50mm do in one shot. Obviously I use this stitching strategy for other size of frames like 4X5, 1X1. That allow me with my little camera to match full frame resolutions and minimize lost of resolution due to cropping. Most importantly it allows me a little compact, complete set of camera gear easy to travel that gives me room in the plane to bring my 150-500mm (225-750mm FF equivalent) with me in the passenger seat. Just making sure folks don't carelessly throw it up and down! Alternative options are much more costly on FF.
Most important consideration with using primes in landscape is that they can shoot wide open more often. These lens are built sharper but also sharper when open. Zoom lens are improving but are not to be compared in this regard. Even if the strategy mentioned above could benefit zoom lens photographers, they are loosing much of its interest for multiple reasons: depth of field for fractional focal length unavailable, sharpness mtfp chart for the in use focal length inexistent, need to carry a range finder... So none of these practice get to be put in use by zoom lens photographers. And in the case of a full frame shooter, the absolute necessity of a tripod make the all idea completely useless considering the need to close the aperture for any landscape shot. Otherwise the photographer would need to shoot in high ISO, and that is a no go for anyone investing so much in hiking and camera gear.
I find that APSC high resolution sensors are changing the old practices in photography. Few years ago full frame was still superior, but considering everything now, I think they are not benefiting of their expensive lens capabilities due to their need to close the aperture to gain depth of field. Sure they have a big sensor and lots of resolution, but they either loses it to motion blur, noise or bokeh. The APSC have the capability to shoot much more open and this way keeps the ISO and shutter speed down. Yet one advantage the Full Frame have is in portraiture. Wide open the bokeh they produce can not be match by smaller sensors. And that is of interest for wildlife photography and models photography. Although when considering shooting humans and tamed animals, many options of lighting, background set up and post processing techniques are more and more available. The advantage Full Frame have on the blurred background they gain on the wild animals they capture is lost through the size of lens they need to carry around to get the same size of subject in the frame. If a Full Frame shooter was to shoot 750mm at a brighter then f6 like I do, he would certainly get a much more pleasing shot. Yet this type of lens are at least 20 times more rare and expensive and two times heavier then my Tamron one (which is designed for Full Frame). And right now this can also be achieved only with the use of a teleconverter on a supertelephoto prime lens.
Hey Arianna, pretty sure I watched this video back when it first was posted, but now I'm researching the 90mm and found it again. Thanks for the info. Interestingly, I want it for the same reasons you mentioned. I want something for portraits, landscape and some sports. I rented the 56 f1.2 recently to shoot some portraits for a HS grad and was blown away. But, as an amateur I need to spend my money on something that can do several things. From all accounts it's a beautiful piece of glass. Now, I just need to save some money or maybe sell a kidney! LOL! Hope all is well wit you. Have a great weekend.
Update: Hi Arianna! Haven't heard from you in a while here. Hope you and your family are well. Amidst all of the frenzied selling of old equipment recently due to the release of the new Fuji bodies and lenses, I was able to buy both the XF56mm and the XF90 at fantastic prices. And, both are in mint condition. The 56 was bought new back in spring. The 90 was barely used by the original owner. I just love the 90 for it's sharpness. So nice. Well, again hope you are well. Take care and have a great holiday season!!
Superb video, very honest and help myself a lot... thanks
Thinking of getting 90mm as my first lens for my X-T4. For portrait and landscape photography. Would that be a great idea?
I think the 90mm is definitely a great lens for both portrait and landscape. that being said, it's definitely not the most versatile. I personally loved my 35mm f/2 as my first lens (beautiful portraits and landscapes as well, just a different focal length). If you're interested in a "unique" perspective, the 90 is great, but like i said, not the greatest in most situations - especially if you want environmental portraits or wanting to include more in a wider landscape shot. Hope that helps! I love both lenses in my kit, but my personal shooting style uses the 35 f/2 far more!
I sold my 90mm 3 days ago, but my buyer brought it back saying when he moved the spot focus to areas other than center, he got out of focus shots. Face/eye detection off, etc. I now have the lens, testing it with the spot focus dead center, first setting it to manual, defocussing and then flipping it to S and letting the lens change focus, and got fine results. My top dial is in S mode. No issues with ibis, tripod, etc. But moving the spot focus to upper left and using the same technique, I got poor focus. Face Eye detect off, boost mode on, etc., etc. Any ideas?
Always difficult to decide which lens to buy. I own the 14mm, 23f2 and 35f2 primes and the 16-55mm and plus 55-200 zooms. For travel the 16-55 is too big and heavy so the16-80mm seems handy to me also because of the OIS. Like you I also do a lot of research on the internet which makes it even harder to decide, so many choices. The 90mm shines for image quality, that is a big plus. And with extension tubes it can be used for macro as well. For landscape, when you need something wider, you can always stitch multiple photos together. I see a lot of good reviews of using it as a portrait lens, but then maybe I need a body with IBIS. The X-T3 that I own does not have IBIS. So, now I am thinking of trading in my X-T3 for a X-T4 and maybe also trade in my 14mm and 35mm which I hardly use. So, a lot of things to consider.
Arianna, thanks for your insight.
Frank (The Netherlands)
It is a great lens. Probably Fuji's best. I used the XF 90mm f/2 for landscapes too. Got some great shots. 2 things I don't like about the lens. Lack of IS (would be so much better if it had it) and oversized focusing ring. I have large hands and I need to hold the lens properly without bumping the focusing ring, and there's just not enough room...
I’m also in your situation thanks for the video I’m liking the xf90mm f2 and the xf80mm f2.8 OIS and by little the xf50mm f2
Actually I also want this lens for hiking
Nice video 😊, I am still confused which one to buy the 90mm or the 50-140mm. Not an easy decision
I totally get you! I love the 90 still and have had no regrets about my decision over the 50-140.
really informative video , i agree when hiking having this kind of lens is really usefull .
Thank you! It's been a good one to have for sure
Not being a landscape photographer I can't say for sure but I think teles are a better choice over wide angle lenses for landscape photography. Maybe even zooms would be even better.
I prefer the creativity they offer! I also have my eye on the 70-300 coming out from Fuji so that would be a very cool one to have
Sooner or later, you can also choose the XF70-300 as well😏
Definitely have my eyes on that one!
I don't use my 50-140mm a lot but there's no way in hell I'd sell it. I'm struggling to not buy the 90mm f2 but after purchasing the 50mm f1.0, I need to give my Amex time to breath!
Hahaha so hard not to want every Fuji XF lens!!
Good video thanks. Has the lack of OIS in this hindered you during shoots?
not at all! But i actually do shoot purely landscapes with this lens/camera combo so I can't say how it would do in a portrait setting. I'll have to give it a shot.
I must ask I also shoot XPro2. Do you find it challenging using the 90 mm lens without stabilization?
Really useful thanks 😊
Mmmm i wonder if she should look at the 70-300!
Good recommendation! Although I definitely heavily favor prime lenses. I had 1 zoom lens in my Fuji kit and ended up selling it earlier this year.
I wish I could afford that 90mm right now. I really want a telephoto lens for my camera.
Definitely worth saving up for!
Interesting choice. Did you also consider the 80mm macro? Almost the same length but a little more versatile because of the macro and with ois. Considering the 80mm or 90mm myself, but first have to save some money
I did come across the 80 but didn't do much research into it just because of the extra length I'd get in the 90. Probably a bad reason haha but the truth! I don't know too much about the 80 macro at all so I'd definitely still look into it if you haven't made a decision already.
"ECOSYSTEM...ACQUISITION " All in the first 10 seconds. Millennials certainly learn the game quickly.
It's helpful video. 👍
Curious if you ended up getting any other telephoto lenses or kept with the 90. I’ve been loving it but sometimes want longer and sometimes want shorter, thinking about the 50-140 but idk if it’s worth having both lenses
Nope I've stuck with the 90! Genuinely never felt the itch to look into another telephoto lens.
The 90mm is so good! It’s great for “almost macro” shots too. Love this lens!
Edit: btw, how is the lens hood for your 90mm holding up? I’ve had to replace mine ones because the little taps that locks it in place when you attach it broke off. (And they’ve broken off on the replacement too…)
Edit2: I don’t use any of my lenses for portraits even though “portrait lenses” is all I own. I use them for subject photography. And the subjects range from any kind of interesting things I find in nature to cars, basically. Lenses don’t care what the light that goes through them reflected off of. Point them at anything you want!
I think I choose “portrait lenses” because I like longer lenses 50 and up (on crop) AND I like subject separation/bokeh.
So far lens hood is fine but I also am pretty careful with it so that may not be the best comparison haha. Love your point about subject photography as well!
As a fairly newcomer to Fuji, the 90 f/2 is also on my list of considerations for street photography. Been using the Sigma 18-35 adapted, and the 35mm f/2, and the Helios 44M mounted on a Viltrox speedbooster. You gotta try the Helios 44 if you can with a speedbooster. A little soft, but swirly bokeehhh + Fuji recipes = awesome stuff. Kinda keen on getting the 16-55 too, if only I had money :'
how's the autofocus?
Top of the line
Actually I picked up the viltrox 85mm/1.8 just because of the price ... ergonomics aren’t as good as the 90/f2, but the sharpness is awesome
I've been hearing such good things about the Viltrox!
Still enjoying this lens? I'm considering selling the 50-140 and getting this instead. The 50-140 is just too big for me.
Yes! I haven't shot my Xpro2 too much in the summer months since i've been shooting a lot of film instead, but I have not had a single instance where I regretted this purchase or wished that i had the 50-140 instead.
The f90 is brilliant for all the right reasons EXCEPT it’s slow to focus, which I find quite annoying.
How about the new 70-300mm f4
heavily considering it!
I have both the 50-140 and the 90, not the best choice for my wallet though 😂 If the 90 had stabilization I probably could’ve just went with that alone. Like you said for indoors or poor light, the prime doesn’t excel vs the zoom. Maybe when I upgrade to a body with ibis I can consider selling the 50-140. It’s not fun to carry around in my messenger for quick hikes.
I am thinking to buy 50 140 or 90mm. I have xt4. Which one do you sıggest?
@@azizzbulut they are both great lenses. It all depends on whether you like primes or zooms. I think the 90mm is a better portrait lens but the focal length can make it awkward to use indoors. You will have to step far away from the subject. The 50-140 is more versatile and focuses a little quicker, but it lacks the special look of the 90mm (bokeh, colors, etc are better IMO on the 90).
Why do people say 137 mm? - Fuji is 1.5 crop = 135 mm :)
I was actually thinking about upgrading Fujifilm XT-4 from Canon RP...is that a good move?
Sorry, I wouldn't be a good person to ask about this since i'm not at all familiar with Canon and only know about Fuji lenses, not the X-T4 itself!
Well the xt4 is the best apsc camera you can buy. It just depends on what you need. The EOS RP is a great camera. If you dont shoot sports keep the RP and invest the money you are willing to spend on the xt4 on a nice travel destinatiom and take as many dope photo's 👌😁
@@Michaeltje2.0 Thank you!!
There's basically one reason I switched to Fuji (I have an XT-2) and would not trade this camera for the world. I used to shoot with film cameras initially (Nikon 2000) and so I was used to having physical buttons for all settings. Once the digital cameras came out, that went away and I hated having to use menus instead. So I switched to Fuji simply because of the ergonomics as well as a viewfinder I can see clearly. I finally now enjoy photography again-so much I am doing a Master's degree! That the quality of the photos is top notch, and I would say well above Nikon, is just icing on the cake. Fuji is really a gem.
@@nanoulandia appreciate ya
You're what an influencer is! Lol! Sold! ... and subscribed! Seriously - I never thought of this lens being used for landscape which now you gave good point. I've been wanting to get this lens but only with the consideration of portrait. I even now think that I could use this for street photography for distant shooting since I feel embarrassed shooting strangers closely :)
Haha nice! Yes - I've actually seen people use it for street photography as well, gives a very cool perspective! Thanks for the sub and support!
Wonderful review. What type of photographer are you...I think you are a PRIME candidate for the 50mm 1.0. This 50 would go nicely with your 90. ✌👉🆒
Haha PUNny!
Viltrox 85mm 1.8 mk2?
I didn't consider it during my search but have been expanding my overall view to lenses outside of just Fuji XF ones. I'll keep this in mind especially with the f/1.8.
Photos you have taken?
Tons of them on my Instagram! Each is also tagged with hashtags of which lens I used. I'm sure I'll be doing a follow-up video in the future on this lens where I will definitely include examples!
@@Arianna-zx1ro what is your Instagram then?
@@robertoposa1120 @adventuringarianna, always linked in the description!
I want this lens... I almost have enough money to get it.
you got this! definitely worth the money in my opinion!
👍
don't sleep on that xf60...
no 90mm pic to be seen......
Feedback noted :). I filmed this video when I first got the lens but there are tons of 90mm pics throughout my videos and instagram. you're more than welcome to check them out!
Thumbs down bc no sample footage
I've included photos I took with the lens!