Help - 55-200 vs 56 1.2

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 own the original 56f1.2, 55-200 and the 50f2.

The 55-200 is a very good lens and punches above its weight. Very sharp, good for what it. Likewise, for the 50f2. Very sharp lens, quick to focus. Both are capable of very nice images.  The 56f1.2 is in whole other league imho. It creates beautiful images. It has that special magic.  But it is a more specialized lens. It's ok for candid moments with xt3 or newer AF, but you may miss some shots. It's slow to focus with the older cameras and maybe not so good for quick candid shots. Just my opinion.