Jump to content
ishrios

Xf55-200 vs Xf 50-140

Recommended Posts

ishrios

Hey everyone,

for those of you who have used both can you let me in on some insight. 

Im debating on picking up the 55-200 or the 50-140..

Besides the price difference and the constant 2.8. Does the image quality different between the two?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robthebruce

I can't comment about the image quality between the two as I only use the 50-140. I chose it because I need the faster f2.8 capability which is important for me when shooting at 140 mm. It is about twice the price of the 55-200 whether in the USA or in Australia where I live. Some things to consider:

I also chose it because it's weather sealed. 

It has the bracket on its base for tripods and it can allow the lens to rotate so that you don't have to adjust the tripod head to shift from landscape to portrait.

The downside, apart from the cost, is it weight. It is about twice as heavy as the 55-200 at 995 gms. It is also large with a 72 mm filter at the front lens and then add the hood and its huge.

Both have image stabilisation however and the same number of diaphragm blades.

I sometimes find that due to its bulky size and weight, that I am reluctant to take it out for an afternoon's shooting. But when its needed, it does the job really well. The slightly shorter lens at 140 mm is also frustrating when taking pictures of birds, whereas the 200 mm reach of the other lens would work better and judging by the results I've seen online, would cover the size birds I am interested in on the majority of occasions. As a result of the 50-140 being shorter, I'm now waiting for the 1.4x tele-converter to be released by Fujifilm in Oct - Dec this year. See here.

I also use the lens for landscapes. Examples of the lens for both subjects can be found here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ishrios

Thank you rob for the reply.. I really think that the extra reach of the 200 will be what I will be needing. 

I do like the constant 2,8 but not so much the weight. 

I appreciate you taking the time to reply.. And great photos btw. Thanks for sharing :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
franco

Interesting question. I own the 55-200, and while I don't use it a lot (I do mainly street) when I do I am consistently impressed by the results. Pin sharp, and with fantastic compression for portraits.

Interestingly, I downloaded the latest edition of the Fuji X magazine (its free, you should check it out) and I read about a chap called Pascal Bourguignon who took the 55-200 (with the XT-1's) to Antarctica. Not only were the results absolutely superb, but I was impressed at how hardy the 55-200 was in such extreme conditions...

Cant comment on the 50-140 - Im sure its wonderful - but to me, the 55-200 seems to tick a lot of boxes. All the best.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poppa-D

I have used both.

I went to the Galapagos Islands before the release of the 50-140mm but just couldn't bring myself to commit to the 55-200mm primarily because of the slower (and sliding) aperture).  So I bought the 55-200mm for the trip and sold it when I got home.  I was shocked at how sharp the lens was and how well the IS worked.  Here is a blue footed booby (bird) I took using this lens:  https://500px.com/photo/73326713/blue-footed-booby-by-darren-stevenson

Now, having since purchased the 50-200, I am very glad to have f/2.8 and the same great image stabilization.  Images are also tack sharp.  And I must admit the tripod collar is worth a mint if you plan on doing any tripod work with a long lens.  Yes it's heavy; yes it's awesome.  And the build quality on the 50-200 just is so much more solid (good thing) but also a part of the additional weight.

I miss the extra throw of the 55-200 but the pros of the 50-140 just outshine for me and having fixed 2.8 is gold.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phrehdd

I have used both.

I went to the Galapagos Islands before the release of the 50-140mm but just couldn't bring myself to commit to the 55-200mm primarily because of the slower (and sliding) aperture).  So I bought the 55-200mm for the trip and sold it when I got home.  I was shocked at how sharp the lens was and how well the IS worked.  Here is a blue footed booby (bird) I took using this lens:  https://500px.com/photo/73326713/blue-footed-booby-by-darren-stevenson

Now, having since purchased the 50-200, I am very glad to have f/2.8 and the same great image stabilization.  Images are also tack sharp.  And I must admit the tripod collar is worth a mint if you plan on doing any tripod work with a long lens.  Yes it's heavy; yes it's awesome.  And the build quality on the 50-200 just is so much more solid (good thing) but also a part of the additional weight.

I miss the extra throw of the 55-200 but the pros of the 50-140 just outshine for me and having fixed 2.8 is gold.

Thanks for sharing your images. I rarely find myself smiling through an entire lot shared on line but your offering shows a nice blend of technical craft and a keen eye. Again thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MediumFormat

The price at first place tells you something about the lens, but the price is not about image quality. Fuji made sure all lenses in their XF line have superb imaging quality. So I wouldn't worry about and that to cut the story short, either you need a fast lens at f2.8 all time so you can have nice thin division line. at all lengths. Or you need it only at good light like a travel lens with far reach up to 200mm.
I went with 55-200 because I needed the extra reach but honestly I could not afford 50-140mm anyway :) but I do all my tasks, maybe at poor light, but what is good about it is the IS and in 55-200 works fantastic.
You can go hand held even at slow shutter speeds like 1/15 and it still makes perfect sharp images stretched at 200mm. Will I get the 50-140 now? Well, I would If I could afford. And would keep both lenses. A 55-200 is a must for traveling. It gives you extra reach sometimes needed.  I would use 50-140 for portraits at f2.8, and other subjects/objects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recommended Discussions



×
×
  • Create New...