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.

As others have mentioned, the XC 50-230 is a great lens, especially for the price. It's also your 16-50's sister lens - I like using both!

You'll still miss the portrait prime, I know, so why not go the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 route? It's an excellent lens optically, and its AF is better than Fuji's 56 1.2 (mk 1 - don't know how the newer Fuji mk 2 compares to it).

These two lenses should cover your shooting needs, and are a great bang for the buck.