Help - 55-200 vs 56 1.2

To the OP:

When looking at such radically different lenses, I think you need to step back and ask yourself how you'll use the new lens and let that drive your decision. Those are such different lenses in almost every way, that the open question is sort of like asking, "should I get a truck or a sports car?" It depends.

I had the 55-200mm lens at one time. It has its pluses and minuses, and it is well suited to some kinds of use and not so well suited to others. First, the...

PLUSES — Inexpensive. Packs very small. Covers a fairly large focal range. Gets out to quite long at 200mm, the angle-of-view equivalent to 300mm on FF. Has IS.

MINUSES — It isn't the most solidly constructed lens. When I had it, there were sometimes issues getting it to AF successfully at 200mm with low-contrast subjects. Because of the variable aperture design, you don't have many useful apertures between "wide open" and the onset of diffraction blur at 200mm.

Who is it for? It can be a fine lens for travel, where you often want to get maximum coverage from smaller and lighter lenses, and this one packs quite small. It pairs well with lenses like the 18-55mm kit lens.

The 56mm f/1.2 is about as different a lens from that as you can imagine, excepting that its focal length is within (barely) the range of the zoom. I do not own the lens, so my thoughts are based on what I know about it and experience with similar lenses.

PLUSES: The lens is well constructed. It obviously will do well in low light with that huge maximum aperture. It can control depth of field and produce narrow DOF.

MINUSES: It isn't cheap, though I think it may be on sale right now. It it is regarded as being a bit slow to AF — though so is the 55-200. It is a pretty big and heavy prime. Obviously, it doesn't have the functional flexibility of the zoom.

Who is it for? People looking to closely replicate the function of the large aperture 85mm "portrait" lenses on FF systems. Possibly for people photographing handheld in very low light.