Help - 55-200 vs 56 1.2

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’ve heard the xc 50-230mm is underrated.  Maybe that and the 50mm f2?

HaroldC3 wrote:

I’ve heard the xc 50-230mm is underrated. Maybe that and the 50mm f2?

Yes - I have also heard the 50-230 is a great lens. But - I want a really, really great lens - I have never owned one. Not even in my Nikon days. I rented a great lens once - a Canon 70-200/4 - way, way, WAY back in my Canon days. That lens was fantastic - and I still admire images I took with it 15 years ago.

***EDIT****

What I mean is - a top shelf lens.  Top of the line.  Both of these lenses I am considering were the top shelf lenses when they were released - and are still stellar lenses.

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 ..

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.

brownie314 wrote:

Yes - I have also heard the 50-230 is a great lens. But - I want a really, really great lens - I have never owned one. Not even in my Nikon days. I rented a great lens once - a Canon 70-200/4 - way, way, WAY back in my Canon days. That lens was fantastic - and I still admire images I took with it 15 years ago.

***EDIT****

What I mean is - a top shelf lens. Top of the line. Both of these lenses I am considering were the top shelf lenses when they were released - and are still stellar lenses.

So the 56/1.2 R was top line 10 years ago. It is still great. I just bought one with cashback.

The 55-200 is great, especially between 55 and 135 mm. It is really very good, I keep mine, but I would not call it a top line lens. The red badge zooms are Fujifilm's top line zooms.

The 56/1.2 and the 55-200 are made for very different purposes. The former is a portrait lens with incredible bokeh, the latter is a tele zoom but not a bokeh lens.

The 50/2 is much more affordable than the 56/1.2 (especially the new one) and incredibly sharp. Not so much a bokeh lens, though.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Martin

Rightsaidfred wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

Yes - I have also heard the 50-230 is a great lens. But - I want a really, really great lens - I have never owned one. Not even in my Nikon days. I rented a great lens once - a Canon 70-200/4 - way, way, WAY back in my Canon days. That lens was fantastic - and I still admire images I took with it 15 years ago.

***EDIT****

What I mean is - a top shelf lens. Top of the line. Both of these lenses I am considering were the top shelf lenses when they were released - and are still stellar lenses.

So the 56/1.2 R was top line 10 years ago. It is still great. I just bought one with cashback.

The 55-200 is great, especially between 55 and 135 mm. It is really very good, I keep mine, but I would not call it a top line lens. The red badge zooms are Fujifilm's top line zooms.

The 56/1.2 and the 55-200 are made for very different purposes. The former is a portrait lens with incredible bokeh, the latter is a tele zoom but not a bokeh lens.

The 50/2 is much more affordable than the 56/1.2 (especially the new one) and incredibly sharp. Not so much a bokeh lens, though.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Martin

well - I think of the 55-200 as the analog to Canon (or Nikon) 70-200 f/4 lenses.  The f/2.8 zooms were the pro lenses - but the f/4 versions were just as sharp  - just missing the range from f/ 2.8 - 4.

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 ...

The 55-200 is a very versatile lens and it oven delivers nice portraits of you know how to treat it well. Its weight is limited and it balances well too. Great travel option, also because of OIS.

The 56/1.2 I have as well and it is a totally different beast. It is not particularly heavy, but it is hefty. It is a good few stops faster too, but i don't like the AF very much. It renders great images, but the hit rate may be subpar.

So i can understand your dilemma in one way, but on the other hand the two aren't comparable at all. Neither one will be a bad choice, but you need to look at the use cases you want to fill in.

Are you ok with one or two areas where a lens really excels, or do you prefer more versatility. I would go after a good deal for the 55-200, but that is with the limited info you gave so far.

sir_c wrote:

The 55-200 is a very versatile lens and it oven delivers nice portraits of you know how to treat it well. Its weight is limited and it balances well too. Great travel option, also because of OIS.

The 56/1.2 I have as well and it is a totally different beast. It is not particularly heavy, but it is hefty. It is a good few stops faster too, but i don't like the AF very much. It renders great images, but the hit rate may be subpar.

So i can understand your dilemma in one way, but on the other hand the two aren't comparable at all. Neither one will be a bad choice, but you need to look at the use cases you want to fill in.

Are you ok with one or two areas where a lens really excels, or do you prefer more versatility. I would go after a good deal for the 55-200, but that is with the limited info you gave so far.

I think I could almost live with all of the compromises of a prime - if the AF speed was high (enough) on the 56.  I do a lot of indoor candid snaps where the light isn't guaranteed to be the best.  I don't usually pose them - so I only have a few seconds to lock good focus.  My understanding is that this is the exact situation where  the 56 might not be so good - as the focus might be a bit slower.  I mean - it isn't indoor action - but still - I would like to lock focus in less than a second - or two at the most.

If so, for me it would tip the scales to the 55-200.  I own the 55-200 and have used the 56.

My travel kit consists of the X-E3, 18-55 and 55-200. I'll usually add the 16mm f1.4.

Speaking of travel, I was in Pittsburgh on business. I was at the city overlook and ran into two girls doing selfies.  I helped them out, then asked if I could take their portraits with my newly acquired 55-200.  This is at 135mm. You can see it does a pretty good job at portraits as well. For general photography, I think it would be more versatile.

New friend Bri, XF 55-200 @135mm wide open. Finished in PS and Portrait Pro

Sounds like you want the 50-140 f/2.8. Pricey and hefty, but definitely the best really nice all-purpose tele/portrait option, IMO. The old 56 is a better portrait lens (way better than the 55-200), but requires careful technique for optimal focusing - absolutely do-able, but it’s more finicky than most. The new 56 looks amazing and easier to focus at wide apertures.

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.

I did some blues festival in my town back in the summer. Most are with my 50-140, but the later ones in the album contain shots i did with the 56 and the 35/1.4.

https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjA8Jj3

For example https://flickr.com/photos/castones/52387008245/in/album-72177720302419190/

The 56 is certainly capable and great when it nails the shot. In low light i find AF to be unreliable though. Sometimes it's confirming focus, but in fact it is slightly off. Just enough to not see it until home. Other moments it nails focus, but just as you want to fully press the shutter, it starts to hunt.

On my xt1 it was very difficult to use low light AF, so I often used manual. The XT4 is much, much better but still has nasty surprises. Bottom line: set the camera to CL and shoot plenty of images. You will be rewarded. You just need practice and a bit of luck.

I have older galleries of the same festival, where i have used the 55-200, i only got my 50-140 this year. I made some great concert images with my 55-200.

For example https://flic.kr/s/aHsm7dJf7Y check the BW images at the end, e.g. https://flickr.com/photos/castones/50079689283/in/album-72157688051631004/

The OIS really helps a lot, but when it gets very dark you need faster lenses like the 56 or the 50-140

Clive99 wrote:

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.

Fully agree.

Bought the old 56/1.2 recently with 300 € cashback. Yes it has "the magic"

Cheers Martin

Rightsaidfred wrote:

Clive99 wrote:

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.

Fully agree.

Bought the old 56/1.2 recently with 300 € cashback. Yes it has "the magic"

Cheers Martin

Original 56F1.2 is a really good deal right now both new and used. One of my favorite lenses.

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.

Hi,

Versatility versus specialization. The zoom offers flexible FLs from 55mm - 200mm and OIS. The 56mm offers apertures from f1.2-3.5 that the zoom doesn't, but zero performance from 57mm - 200mm. And no OIS.

I had the 55-200 it's really an excellent lens especially from 55mm out to about 180mm. I only sold it to get the 70-300 because I do use the extra reach. It's otherwise much the same in IQ. I also bought the 50-230 just for travel, because 600g is a bit of a lump in the day pack when you're wearing it for weeks on end. The 55-200 is very slightly better, but the difference is incremental - you won't see it unless you're printing fairly large.

I also wouldn't overlook the 50mm or 60mm as less expensive prime portrait options. Both are very sharp. Both have nice bokeh, but it's obviously less developed that the 56/1.2 due to the smaller maximum apertures. The 50mm has faster AF and is sealed. The 60mm has noticeably more reach than the 50mm and first gen AF, which is a bit slower, but portraits are not exactly demanding of AF at f2.4. There's something nice about the 60's rendering.

Enjoy whatever you decide.

Cheers, Rod

brownie314 wrote:

sir_c wrote:

The 55-200 is a very versatile lens and it oven delivers nice portraits of you know how to treat it well. Its weight is limited and it balances well too. Great travel option, also because of OIS.

The 56/1.2 I have as well and it is a totally different beast. It is not particularly heavy, but it is hefty. It is a good few stops faster too, but i don't like the AF very much. It renders great images, but the hit rate may be subpar.

So i can understand your dilemma in one way, but on the other hand the two aren't comparable at all. Neither one will be a bad choice, but you need to look at the use cases you want to fill in.

Are you ok with one or two areas where a lens really excels, or do you prefer more versatility. I would go after a good deal for the 55-200, but that is with the limited info you gave so far.

I think I could almost live with all of the compromises of a prime - if the AF speed was high (enough) on the 56. I do a lot of indoor candid snaps where the light isn't guaranteed to be the best. I don't usually pose them - so I only have a few seconds to lock good focus. My understanding is that this is the exact situation where the 56 might not be so good - as the focus might be a bit slower. I mean - it isn't indoor action - but still - I would like to lock focus in less than a second - or two at the most.

I don't find the AF to be especially slow at all, just quirky. The lens doesn't hunt, and rarely takes more than a split second to focus for me in any light with the right technique. I always use AF-S single point with an appropriately sized AF box (not too small in poor light) and a full=press of the shutter button (no pause at a half-press first) with the 56 and typically get a very high hit rate - including in very low light, at very wide apertures, and with moving subjects. In my experience, this is the only truly reliable AF methodology with the 56 if you're working with a limited DOF and/or in crap light (it also focuses manually very nicely too).

As a fellow ex-Nikon shooter, I can symphatize. I too, miss some of my Nikon glass after switching to Fuji.

I've owned the non-APD, first version of the 56 1.2. It's not quite Nikkor 85 1.4D territory despite the 1.2, it's more like an 85 1.8D. The AF felt rough - maybe not as rough as the screwdriven AF-D's but it's not as smooth as Fuji LM lenses. Bokeh felt nervous at times.

I've never used a Fuji 55-200.

I now have (and love) the Fuji 90 f/2. To me it feels and renders like the old Nikkor 180 2.8D, but with fast AF and much sharper. This is my go-to telephoto and portrait lens. This might be in line with your budget since you can get a used one for around $500.

The only lens in the Fuji system that came close to a Nikkor 85 1.4 on FX rendering is the Fuji 50 f1. It is a little pricy and huge though. I really liked mine.