Help - 55-200 vs 56 1.2

bowportes wrote:

I sold my 55-200 because I rarely carried it due to it's size and weight. The 56mm is shorter and lighter and has better subject isolation. I still use it for portraits, but decided I preferred the 50-230 to the heavier 55-200.

I guess the 50-230 is ok if you're happy with f/4.5-6.7 maximum aperture and you shoot in bright conditions. Otherwise, as I found, it needs a good contrasty target to focus on, or you experience focus "hunting" ..

https://www.matthewstorerphotography.com/blog/post/fujifilm-xf-55-200mm-vs-xc-50-230mm

I ordered a ttartisan 50mm f1.2.  It was way cheap and from all the discussion here - you pretty much have to manual focus the Fuji 56 anyway.  I has not arrived yet - but all the reviews say it is good - not quite as good as the Fuji 56 - but also - for $100 a good deal.  With that - I can also get the 50-230 or stretch to get the 55-200

brownie314 wrote:

I ordered a ttartisan 50mm f1.2. It was way cheap and from all the discussion here - you pretty much have to manual focus the Fuji 56 anyway. I has not arrived yet - but all the reviews say it is good - not quite as good as the Fuji 56 - but also - for $100 a good deal. With that - I can also get the 50-230 or stretch to get the 55-200

If you finally decided for portrait lens, very good option is Sigma 56mm f1.4. If you are not used to manual focusing, it will not be easy with f1.2 lens. Nevertheless enjoy your new lens!

brownie314 wrote:

I ordered a ttartisan 50mm f1.2. It was way cheap and from all the discussion here - you pretty much have to manual focus the Fuji 56 anyway. I has not arrived yet - but all the reviews say it is good - not quite as good as the Fuji 56 - but also - for $100 a good deal. With that - I can also get the 50-230 or stretch to get the 55-200

The old xf56 focuses just fine on my xt3. Just don't plan on it for sports. I think the "issues " are a bit over blown. It's slower on my xe3. More of an issue with the older cameras.

Clive99 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

I ordered a ttartisan 50mm f1.2. It was way cheap and from all the discussion here - you pretty much have to manual focus the Fuji 56 anyway. I has not arrived yet - but all the reviews say it is good - not quite as good as the Fuji 56 - but also - for $100 a good deal. With that - I can also get the 50-230 or stretch to get the 55-200

The old xf56 focuses just fine on my xt3. Just don't plan on it for sports. I think the "issues " are a bit over blown. It's slower on my xe3. More of an issue with the older cameras.

I am right on the border of 'older camera'.  I have an x-t2 body.  My understanding with AF is - 'better than x-t1, but light years behind x-t3'.

brownie314 wrote:

Clive99 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

I ordered a ttartisan 50mm f1.2. It was way cheap and from all the discussion here - you pretty much have to manual focus the Fuji 56 anyway. I has not arrived yet - but all the reviews say it is good - not quite as good as the Fuji 56 - but also - for $100 a good deal. With that - I can also get the 50-230 or stretch to get the 55-200

The old xf56 focuses just fine on my xt3. Just don't plan on it for sports. I think the "issues " are a bit over blown. It's slower on my xe3. More of an issue with the older cameras.

I am right on the border of 'older camera'. I have an x-t2 body. My understanding with AF is - 'better than x-t1, but light years behind x-t3'.

My XE3 is the same generation as your XT2. As i said above - the XF56 focusses much better on the x-trans IV (XT3/XT4/XE4) generation than on the x-trans III (XT2/XE3) generation.

brownie314 wrote:

Clive99 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

I ordered a ttartisan 50mm f1.2. It was way cheap and from all the discussion here - you pretty much have to manual focus the Fuji 56 anyway. I has not arrived yet - but all the reviews say it is good - not quite as good as the Fuji 56 - but also - for $100 a good deal. With that - I can also get the 50-230 or stretch to get the 55-200

The old xf56 focuses just fine on my xt3. Just don't plan on it for sports. I think the "issues " are a bit over blown. It's slower on my xe3. More of an issue with the older cameras.

I am right on the border of 'older camera'. I have an x-t2 body. My understanding with AF is - 'better than x-t1, but light years behind x-t3'.

I wouldn’t say that at all. I’d say the X-T2 is light years beyond the X-T1, and the X-T3 is a little better. I have no trouble whatsoever focusing the old 35 and 56 on my X-T2.

Well, as I said - I ordered the ttartisan 50/1.2.  I got it yesterday and shot it today.  It is pretty good.  Not bitingly sharp at f1.2 - but that is to be expected.  The manual focus - I think it is about as good as manual focus can be.  The focus peaking helps a lot.  I was able to get most images in good focus.  When stopped down to f2 and beyond, the sharpness goes way up and the focus gets more forgiving.  I do find I miss autofocus.  But - for $100 - I think I can live with manual focus.  And since it was so cheap - I think I can stretch just enough to get a used 55-200.

I have to say - I have had the x-t2 for a while now with just the 16-50 lens.  I have been somewhat underwhelmed with that combination (yeah, I know - predictable).  But - the x-t2 with the fast near tele prime - it is a really really great combo.  As long as things are not moving too fast - this combo makes some really nice images.

brownie314 wrote:

I ordered a ttartisan 50mm f1.2. It was way cheap and from all the discussion here - you pretty much have to manual focus the Fuji 56 anyway.

I've got both lenses. The TTAritisan 50mm f/1.2 is an incredible value. But if anyone told you it was in the same class as the Fujifilm 56mm f/1.2 R, they misled you. It is not. And there is no problem with autofocus of the 56 R. Newer lenses focus quicker, but that does not mean that the 56 has a problem.

Regards,

Sol

I also now have the 55-200 on order.  I know many here have said the 50-230 is probably as good and less expensive - but I am indoors a lot and I will need all of the aperture I can get

brownie314 wrote:

I also now have the 55-200 on order. I know many here have said the 50-230 is probably as good and less expensive - but I am indoors a lot and I will need all of the aperture I can get

Really, 55-200 for indoor shooting? I would say that both lenses are slow for that. Also is 200mm needed for indoor? 🤔

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.

56 mm isa portrait lens , the other is a zoom. The zoom can do portrait, at the wide end It's a sharp zoom, not as good as the 50-140 but still a great performer.

If you just practice portrait the 56 is fine, but if you want a more versatile lens , the zoom is the way to go

Martin_99 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

I also now have the 55-200 on order. I know many here have said the 50-230 is probably as good and less expensive - but I am indoors a lot and I will need all of the aperture I can get

Really, 55-200 for indoor shooting? I would say that both lenses are slow for that. Also is 200mm needed for indoor? 🤔

maybe you don't know that volleyball, swimming, gymnastics - all happen indoors?

I also feel like - since this is a fuji x forum - there is a bias towards prime lenses - more so than there would be in, say - a Canon R mount or Nikon Z mount forum.  I am coming from Nikon F mount DX.  So, while not prime lens level IQ - I am sure the 55-200 will be more than what I was used to on Nikon F mount with the plastic 55-200 lens (although it wasn't that bad either).

The 55-200 has a linear motor it I am not mistaken. It focuses much faster and more confidently than the 56/1.2. The latter uses a DC motor and has to move a lot of glass. Under circumstances where it matters, the difference is very noticeable.

brownie314 wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

I also now have the 55-200 on order. I know many here have said the 50-230 is probably as good and less expensive - but I am indoors a lot and I will need all of the aperture I can get

Really, 55-200 for indoor shooting? I would say that both lenses are slow for that. Also is 200mm needed for indoor? 🤔

maybe you don't know that volleyball, swimming, gymnastics - all happen indoors?

I saw no mention about indoor sport in your post, I expected outdoor use. I shoot indoor sport only rarely, but I think, that lens with faster aperture would be certainly better, as there is often not much light.

From my example of table tennis shot, you can roughly calculate what parameters you would need to use with 55-200 in the same conditions.

Shutter speed is set to 1/500 (reasonable minimum)

Aperture f1.4, lets say, that you would use f4, it means...

...that instead of ISO 800 you would have ISO6400, which is usable, but far from optimal on apsc sensor.

I would recommend to rather buy 50-140f2.8 or 90mm f2 for this purpose (or maybe even Sigma 56f1.4 as me).

f1.4, 1/500s, ISO800

Martin_99 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

I also now have the 55-200 on order. I know many here have said the 50-230 is probably as good and less expensive - but I am indoors a lot and I will need all of the aperture I can get

Really, 55-200 for indoor shooting? I would say that both lenses are slow for that. Also is 200mm needed for indoor? 🤔

maybe you don't know that volleyball, swimming, gymnastics - all happen indoors?

I saw no mention about indoor sport in your post, I expected outdoor use. I shoot indoor sport only rarely, but I think, that lens with faster aperture would be certainly better, as there is often not much light.

From my example of table tennis shot, you can roughly calculate what parameters you would need to use with 55-200 in the same conditions.

Shutter speed is set to 1/500 (reasonable minimum)

Aperture f1.4, lets say, that you would use f4, it means...

...that instead of ISO 800 you would have ISO6400, which is usable, but far from optimal on apsc sensor.

I would recommend to rather buy 50-140f2.8 or 90mm f2 for this purpose (or maybe even Sigma 56f1.4 as me).

f1.4, 1/500s, ISO800

I plan to use the 50mm f/1.2 manual focus lens for high shutter speed indoor sports.  I know it isn't ideal - but if you can anticipate where the action will be - it can work out.  I tested it outdoors with my erratically running daughter - I kinda knew she would be running to a certain location and focused on that location - and when she got there - I took the shot mid-run.  It worked out well in that situation.  I imagine for table tennis it might work out too - since the action will likely be kinda predictable.