Fuji XF35mm 1.4 vs XF56mm 1.2

[Warwick]

I mainly shoot people, and I like to get close-up to my subject and to get a sense of action and interaction in my pics. I find long-lens photography a bit distancing, and a bit voyeuristic, like the viewer is looking at something he or she isn't part of. My 2 favourite lenses are the underrated 18mm on my X-T1 and the 23mm on my X100s. I also have a couple of wider lenses for close-up sport photography - the 14mm and the Samyang fisheye.

But sometimes I like to make a change, and to isolate my subject with a narrow depth of field. I've had the 35mm for a year or two, and I recently bought the 56mm. Which is lovely. But it's bulky, too, and I think twice before taking it out with me. It's not the sort of thing you can put on the camera, sling it over your shoulder and forget about it.

A question - if you wanted one lens for occasional portraits and shallow depth of field pics, which would you keep - the 35 or the 56?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Luke]

I find the isolation with the 35mm sufficient, but if you want full exploitation of shallowness, there is no comparison. Of course, there is no comparison between the cost of the two lenses either. It sounds like (for you) that it is an occasional use lens. For me, that would be too much dough tied up in a lens not being used frequently, but cost may not be a decider for you. Everyone is quite different about money. I have no qualms blowing tons of cash on something, but only if I'll actually put it to use.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[KillRamsey]

I haven't gotten my 56 in yet, but the 35 is here. So I'll have an opinion in a week or two, I guess.

 

[Kay]

I'd say it totally depends on your preferred type/style of portraits ... more isolated, more contextual, ... whatever preferences you might have today though, they might change at any time and so will your selection of lenses. I'm personally 100% happy with the 1855, haven't taken it off in 4 or so months, however that's about my ideosyncratic preferences and doesn't have to mean anything to anybody else. Shot fully open at longer FLs it gives me all the necessary background separation I need without letting the background drown in bubbly cream nirvana, but then I stopped shooting anything posed some time ago. If that's your thing though, perfectly fine by any means, you'd get relatively more separation/isolation with the 56mm but IMHO 23mm or 35mm on APS-C are far more versatile. I've travelled for years with nothing but a 35mm/f2.8 on my Nikon F3 without missing too much. YMMV.
Decisions, decisions ...

One from the 1855 - 55mm@f4 ...
View attachment 20072

 

[KillRamsey]

I think I can comment on this one safely now that I've had both the 35 and 56 for awhile. The answer is the 35, and easily. It's just so much more versatile a lens, so much more portable, and so much cheaper that it wins, no contest. I'll never give up the 56, and I carry it with me often. When you need what it does, it DOES it like few other lenses. But the 35 is slowly becoming my most-used lens. If I had to keep only one, it's no contest.