Portraits. Canon FF vs Fuji X trans.

[ozimax]

I think without a doubt that over the years the portraits I have enjoyed taking and looking at the most have come from the Canon 5Dii/70-200 2.8 combination. Having ditched all my heavy gear, I'm now using the exquisite Fuji 35mm F1.4. It is IMHO, one of the great lens. I need to get the missus to agree to another portrait session with the Fuji. I know it's not quite at the magic 85-105 portrait range, but it's good enough. When the Fuji 52mm hits the shelves next year, I shall be interested.

Canon 5Dii / 70-200 F2.8 IS

Robyn42 by Ozimax, on Flickr

Fuji XP1 / 35mm F1.4

Nick42 by Ozimax, on Flickr

[sirhc55]

Certainly a superb lens in the hands of an expert. Is the 2nd pic a selfie Ozi?

[ozimax]

Certainly a superb lens in the hands of an expert. Is the 2nd pic a selfie Ozi?

Funny you mention that Chris. My daughter said of our now 8 week old grandson; "He's looking more like his grandpa every day" which being interpreted means, "He's an ugly bald coot, isn't he!"

[aim54x]

The 2nd image has great colours/sharpness/exposure (he is a good looking little fella) and I love the sharpness in the eyes. However I am not a fan of the distortion introduced by the wide angle lens. The 1st image demonstrates the ability to capture an image in difficult light (and the close focus ability of the big 70-200L - I wish my Nikkor could focus a bit closer), the longer focal length makes gives you that compression that gives a portrait that little bit more.

Both great images, I prefer the 1st for the compression and lack of distortion, but it is hardly a fair fight with the differences in lighting and focal length. Good images both of them.

[ozimax]

The 2nd image has great colours/sharpness/exposure (he is a good looking little fella)

Cameron you are a man of immense perception, seeing this little blighter is related to me.

However I am not a fan of the distortion introduced by the wide angle lens.

Yes indeed, but the little 35mm is such a pleasure to carry, as opposed to the behemoth 70-200. Photographing fidgety 8 week old babies is one of photography's harder jobs, right up there with dragonflies. They never keep still. The V1 would perhaps have been a better choice, but it's not up to the low light capabilities of the Fuji.

[zafra52]

I don't think is a fair comparison the settings and
environment are not the same. Both pictures are
quite good in their own right.

[chrisk]

Not sure if this was meant to be a lens "comparison" in a pure sense, clearly not given the vast differences in the frame. Simply a vote of confidence in the 35/1.4. It is a cracking lens for sure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ozimax]

Correct and correct. I was basically saying that both lens are superb. The Canon 70-200 is legendary; the Fuji (despite it's obvious focal length portrait deficiencies) is becoming so.

I'm running out of photographic subjects. I think the missus is over being used as a portraiture guinea pig, so photos of the beautiful Mrs Young are now becoming rare.

At least there's plenty of frogs in Coffs at the moment, with all the rain we've had.