DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Help - 55-200 vs 56 1.2

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
brownie314
OP brownie314 Senior Member • Posts: 2,139
Re: Top line
2

Rightsaidfred wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

Yes - I have also heard the 50-230 is a great lens. But - I want a really, really great lens - I have never owned one. Not even in my Nikon days. I rented a great lens once - a Canon 70-200/4 - way, way, WAY back in my Canon days. That lens was fantastic - and I still admire images I took with it 15 years ago.

***EDIT****

What I mean is - a top shelf lens. Top of the line. Both of these lenses I am considering were the top shelf lenses when they were released - and are still stellar lenses.

So the 56/1.2 R was top line 10 years ago. It is still great. I just bought one with cashback.

The 55-200 is great, especially between 55 and 135 mm. It is really very good, I keep mine, but I would not call it a top line lens. The red badge zooms are Fujifilm's top line zooms.

The 56/1.2 and the 55-200 are made for very different purposes. The former is a portrait lens with incredible bokeh, the latter is a tele zoom but not a bokeh lens.

The 50/2 is much more affordable than the 56/1.2 (especially the new one) and incredibly sharp. Not so much a bokeh lens, though.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Martin

well - I think of the 55-200 as the analog to Canon (or Nikon) 70-200 f/4 lenses.  The f/2.8 zooms were the pro lenses - but the f/4 versions were just as sharp  - just missing the range from f/ 2.8 - 4.

 brownie314's gear list:brownie314's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
xtm
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow