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.

The 56mm/f1.2 is a very unique lens in the Fuji lineup and quite a bit expensive especially if you buy it brand new. Apart from the fantastic IQ and thin DOF, it is big, heavy and very slow focusing for anything moving.

On the other hand there are smaller and cheaper alternatives such as the Fuji 50/f2 (around 300-400Euros used), the Viltrox 56/f1.4 (250Euros used) and the Sigma 56/f1.4 (around 300-400Euros used). All great for portraits...

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.