Help - 55-200 vs 56 1.2

brownie314 wrote:

britcam wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

OK - I know - WTH right? Why even compare these two - they are apples and space ships.

OK - I am on a limited budget. I have an x-t2 and a 16-50 (not 16-55). I am making my first major lens investment in Fuji.

I don't have a tele option on my x-t2. I really miss that option from my Nikon days.

I also don't have a really great portrait lens. I also miss that from my Nikon days.

Photography is definitely a hobby for me - a hobby that has been sidelined for a few years now. I mostly just shoot candid images of my family (wife, kids, extended families). I do some studio head shots (I have some strobes and triggers).

The 56 would be great and match my style of taking candid shots of people as they do things. But - man - I really miss being able to throw on the tele and go out and get some really great people and landscape shots with a very versatile lens.

The other reason I am comparing these two is I can get either of them for around the same price (used of course).

Biting fingernails here - don't know which way to go.

I began my Fuji journey with an XE2 in 2014 - it came with the 18-55 kit lens. I grew up in the 70's with Konica Autoreflex SLR film cameras, and apart from the standard 40 & 57mm standard lenses, I always had a 24mm & 135mm lens with me.

As soon as I had the XE2 I bought a 10-24 and the 55-200 to cover all my needs .. both are superb lenses, and I have them to this day to use on my recently acquired XS10 and XT2.

A few years later, I was tempted by the 50-230 as it had excellent reviews and I was tempted by the lighter weight. I spent some time using the 55-200 & 50-230 side by side, and subsequently sold the 50-230 - it was too light & insubstantial next to the 55-200, slower in performance, and I saw differences in image quality ...

For a quality portrait prime I bought the 60mm macro - wonderful image quality, and very reasonably priced when bought used, as is the very sharp 55-200.

Hope that helps ..

Thanks - this helps. Yes - I also read how much lighter the 50-230 is - and in my book - that was no a pro for the 50-230. Great lenses are more substantial - they are made of metal. I am willing to lug around a few extra ounces to get this.

Put the two lenses side by side, feel the heft and solidity of the 55-200, and I can guarantee you'll walk away from the 50-230 ...  I'm sure a case can be made for the 50-230 especially for hikers wanting a really lightweight backpack, but as a daily use lens the 55-200 is frankly all that is needed.  I once looked at the 70-300, but I don't do long focal length wildlife photography, and a 55mm focal length starting point is perfect for me ...