For landscapes I'd say the 55-200 is better. It's half the price with far more reach. And for all intents and purposes, image quality is the same. Sure the 50-140 is faster at f/2.8, but you're not shooting lanscapes at 2.8. As far as weather sealing, not a big deal. If you must shoot while it's raining etc. just buy one of those cheap plastic camera/lens covers. Problem solved. Now if you plan to do other types of photography like sports or portraits, I'd consider the 50-140, though 2.8 on a crop sensor equates to f/4 dof/bokeh. For portraits the 56 1.2 or 90 f/2 is much better, or the upcoming 50mm f/1.0. For sports the 200mm f/2 is king.
Great comparison thank you. Having tested a few examples of both lenses in a variety of situations and contrast ranges my conclusion is. It is possible to get a variance in quality with different models of the 55-200. When you get a good copy it is magnificent, so never sell it. However the 50-140 has been superb with every copy I have tested and sometimes the results are phenomenal. There is a weight difference but the balance of the 50-140 means you are not so aware of this. The extra quality of the rendering of images means you can crop heavily so the focal range matches each other. Don’t buy the 1.4x tele-convertor as the standard zoom cropped by 40% is just as good. Despite the weight I had to make the 50-140 one of my must have lenses for landscape photography and with the new 16mm f2.8 and two X-T2 bodies I am very happy. Gary
XF 55-200mm was the first and only Fuji Telephoto I bought. I use it only second to my 35mm F1:1.4. For me, it's as sharp as I could want, but light and small enough that I never leave it behind. WR would have been the icing for me though! Liked and Subbed.
Just purchased the 55-200 on Tuesday. My initial thoughts on the IS are WOW . The smaller size/weight and extra range decided it for me. Your comparison of image quality between the two lenses also confirms, I made the right decision. Another great YT video Andy. 👍🏻s up from me.
I have the 55-200mm and am very happy with it. But if I was still shooting weddings, I’d probably go with the 50-140 because of its constant 2.8 aperture. It’s horses for courses really and budget too of course!
Thanks for the comparison. The result confirms my opinion that the smaller and lighter (and much more affordable) Fuji lenses are of very good quality and that it wouldn't make much sense for me as a non-professional to spend so much more on the professional lens and to carry around a lot more weight with me. I've been using the 55-200mm on my X-T2 for almost two years and have always been very happy with the results. Greetings from Switzerland.
Interesting review, for my needs I purchased a refurbished XC55-230mm, cost less than £180 for use on my little X-E3, much lighter of course and I don't envision my using it that much tbh but at the price I thought it would be handy to have. One critique if I may, white subtitles on a light or white coloured back ground, might want to rethink that for next time?
Thanks for the comment. Generally I check all the subtitle to make sure they're readable and didn't see a problem with any here. Sorry if there was any problem.
Great review, once again. Thanks for doing this. On this topic, I feel not sharing the general view on these comparisons. Yes 50-140 is more expensive, but can be used landscapes, professional portraiture, lower light conditions & all weather condition. A 2.8 50-140 gets far more usage. If not owning all fuji lenses; I'd say it's better, cheaper and better option overall. It does more things, gets more used, better investment I'd say.
Really good comparison. I've got the 55-200 and have been very happy with it, but have always wondered if there was a big difference in terms of quality. Glad to see there really isn't. Each has it's place and will suit the needs of a photographer looking for extra stability and other features vs smaller and lighter, but either will get you great image quality.
I was considering the 50-140, but ended up with the 55-200, its very good, has a stabilizer, if you have a 56 1.2 or 90 f2, then get the 55-200, no need to carry heavy lens and not worth 3 times the money eather.
You've just convinced me not to trade in my 55-200mm for the 50-140mm, but it does like like a seriously swank piece of kit though. However, the weight is also a bit of a turn off when trying to lug that and all the other stuff ( including camping equipment) up a bloody mountain, weight becomes a huge consideration.
Interesting. I have both lenses. I take the 55-200 for landscape, but the 50-140 remains great for event photography - especially in poor light. It renders colour beautifully. I'll be taking the 55-200 to the Dolomites this year, though, for the reasons you give in this video. Thanks - that was useful.
I grabbed the 55-200mm about a month ago, absolutely blown away by the lens. It's built like a tank too. I'm glad the difference is so minimal, with the 50-140 being better in low light for obvious reasons. But with the 50-140 being like 3 times the price of the 55-200, I'm happy with my purchase :)
Great job mate! Another very useful video and beautifully edited as always. It was a fantastic morning over there, and I'm really looking forward to be there again! Have a nice one my friend :)
At the risk of stating the obvious I guess ‘it’s horses for courses’. I have the 55-200 and am very happy with it but I want to start shooting dramatic sea waves. Some will be in stormy low light conditions and 300mm full frame equivalent is not needed. So I’m considering the 50-140 for the constant aperture control, weather sealing, faster focus etc. Thanks for the video. Now I know I won’t be getting much improvement in Image Quality. I think I might try with my 55-200 first and rent a 50-140 to compare usability before possibly buying one. On a related issue, I own the 18-55 and found that it is too good to be called a kit lens. But I subsequently bought the 16-55 f2.8 because I enjoy being able to control the aperture; like the film camera days. I put up with the extra weight because I enjoy using it so much. I can imagine enjoying/enduring the same with the 50-140. Although you are a Fuji ambassador I like the level headed factual approach you take when comparing Fuji products. Keep up the good work. 👏👏
@@AndyMumford that goes for every video you've uploaded thus far! I'm hoping your channel takes off soon, they're such high quality but somehow quite easy to understand, they're fab! (Although you did make my decision slightly harder as I feel like the 50-140 would also make a better portrait lens but I guess I gotta choose! Currently have the XT2 with a kit lens and 10-24, so I need that final piece to round it off before upgrading the kit lens :D)
The 50-140 is my favorite lens after 40 years of shooting, including Nikon. Worth the extra cost and weight to carry. Absolutely beautiful results both for landscape and portrait with 2.8. Will never sell this one. I think you can tell the difference in contrast quality.
This is part of the decision for me, I like the size of the 55-200, and it’s good enough optically, but the 50-140 has the 2.8 for portraits and shooting wildlife (where high shutter speeds needed), shares filters with 10-24, has tripod collar and again for wildlife, can take the fuji sealed TC’s. Very versatile, but very big in size and price!
Had the 55-200, as soon as you angle it down the zoom would creep forward and would constantly need readjusting. But do miss how light it is compared to the 50-140
If I were picking to shoot events or portraits I'd want the 50-140 for sure, but for landscapes the 55-200 certainly does the job. I reached a similar conclusion when I rented a 16-55 2.8 and compared it to my 18-55 2.8-4. The 16-55 is obviously wider, but at the apertures I shoot landscape with, it was only just barely more sharp... hardly noticeable. So there again the lighter lens is the one I prefer to carry (plus it has OIS). In sort, Fuji makes a lot of quality lenses.
I completely agree. The "kit" 18-55 is a fantastic lens for everything in the world except DOF-isolation (it is physics). And yes - Fuji is amazing with how they treat the "kit" lenses (or "entry bodies"). Pushing out the latest firmware with the little brother (t30 now) while the t3-owners are waiting - because it does come - it will be upgraded - family wide. Over years to come. The xt20 - there came the little brother with the same effing sensor and processor. One really have to look into the details before one got why the xt2 was so much more expensive. It is almost like one feel that Fuji really loves "the image" - and does its very best to provide that at every price-point. Very rarely have I felt like this about a brand. Maybe Patagonia - although I never was brand-loyal about anything - not even on the climbing and outdoor gear that my life depended on. The "kit-lens" that came with my camera (that 18-55) it is still almost like my lens-hood in daily life, in addition to the 23mm prime.
For sure, the faster aperture makes the 50-140mm much better for that sort of thing. Back in the day I used to be a full time wedding shooter and wouldn't dream of using this lens for that, but as you say, just for landscapes, the differences are so small as to be negligible (in my opinion). I think it's the same with the 18-55 (which I use) and the 16-55 as well. I've thought about doing another video comparing those two, I'll have a think about it, but it's not a lens I use a whole lot for photography - I use it as a video lens.
I found that I love using the 90mm for portraits and the 55-200 for landscapes and some wildlife ( I use a fringer pro adapter with my Canon 400mm for most wild life) So I have been pleased that so far I have never purchased the 50-140mm which has allowed me to buy other Fuji glass.
You Sir. You are a legend and for that we are forever in your debt - keep it up - thanks - save money for beers - or get a beast of a lens for the odd occasion you need 2.8? My clients won't notice the difference if you promise not to tell them - the beers are on me have a good one
I decided to buy the 50-140 for a few reasons: 1. aperture for some "documentary/travel" shots of people in the holidays 2. internal zoom which is better for attaching filters 3. weather resistance 4. a used one is not that expensive. So for me it is the more versatile lens.
Not what I expected; I thought the 50-140mm would be clearly superior. I would really like to see a similar comparison between the 18-55 and the 16-55, if you can manage it at some point. Thanks.
I bought the 90mm for landscape photography (and occasional other stuff), imo you don't need much more zoom. It let's me sometimes use a little depth of field, because it renders it beautifully.
I believe it all boils down to whether you are satisfied with f3.5 to f4. IMO, with telephotos, f3.5 at 55 gives enough bokeh even for portraits, and f2.8 at longer focal lengths renders too small of a focal plane to be practical. People don't tend to notice that much of a difference in 1 stop worth of bokeh. For landscape, you don't even need that big of an aperture. I'd say it's perfectly fine to work with the 55-200 and put that extra money into a nice wide prime like the 16mm f1.4.
I think it does have an edge..but the edge is so small for landscapes as to not make the extra weigh and size worth it in my opinion. We didn't have an agenda for this video, I have one lens and my friend has been using the 50-140mm for about 3 years, so it was genuine curiosity about how big the difference was.
@@AndyMumford Like you I own the 50-140 F2.8 and after seeing this test I will add the 55-200 for much less weight and better reach. The only missing test is tracking BIF & AF in low-light.
@@genesis204 I own the 50-140 F2.8 OIS & the 55-200 F3.5-4.5 OIS. Both are very sharp, but the F2.8 is a better and much more expensive lens and for portrait excellent . I used the 50-140 F2.8 in tough situation with backlighted tree leaves in fall without any problems with CA. If you rented this lens maybe it was dropped and suffer from decentering, that happen all the time when you drop a lens just a few feet from ground.
The 55-200mm is a really gmsuperb lens. I bought a second-hand one in the US and I enjoyed it a lot. It provides magical results when you have harsh light conditions. I shot my family while they were in the pool, under the 12am direct sunlight: guys... you won’t believe it was shot on an APSC camera.
Great video. I have owned both and kept 50-140 purley because of the fixed aperture, WR and internal zoom and also that it works with the teleconverter if I want more reach. Both lenses are great.
I do event a lot sometimes travel. Found 50-140 really good for event work but when I am about to travel I always get the dilemma when deciding to pack 50-140 due to its size and weight. Traded 50-140 for 90mm f2 prime and 55-200 based on this review. I am at peace now. Thank you so much for great content
Thank you for doing this Comparison Andy! I've decided to go with the 55-200mm as I am and avid Backpacker here in Wyoming and the compact lightweight nature of the lens is invaluable as I am sure you can attest. The only let down is the lack of weather proof, but as you have mentioned before there are ways around that. Thanks again for all the great advice.
Both look to have fine optics, especially once stopped down so far. People who need the f2.8 know who they are. If you don't, then there is the lighter, cheaper option (55-200). Looks like you can't go wrong. Good review in all. Well done. Out of interest, which camera did you film this on?
Very interesting and useful comparison. Thanks for posting. I'm of a certain age where the lighter lens has a lot of appeal. I can't say I've ever regretted buying the 55-200. When I was considering this lens, I thought the fact that the 50-140 is, at best, only 1.5 stops brighter just wasn't a big enough discriminator.
On one hand I would like the ability to use teleconverter with 50-140 and weather sealing but on the other hand it's twice heavier and twice more expensive. I was just struggling to make a choice and, as always, this video is right on time to help. Thank You!
I know it's an old video, but I really need some help. I want to buy a zoom lens with the main target for car photography. What lens would you recommend?
Hard to say, but if it's moving cars (as opposed to stationary shots), the 50-140mm has fast autofocus and the wider aperture will give you faster shutter speeds as well
I’m very close to picking up the 55-200... mainly because I’m expanding my arsenal and need a telephoto but also buying a few lenses over the next few months and money is a factor. The aperture is a alight concern as I’d like to also shoot wildlife at dusk. Have you or anyone had luck with wildlife on the 55-200?
Hi Andy, for general purpose lens for shooting birds or moving object would you still recommended 55-200mm to get quite acceptable result? I'm planning to buy tele lens for this purpose as I'm new to Fujifilm system.
Hi Eko, I can’t honestly say as I’ve used the lens for fast moving subjects. The AF is certainly slower than the 50-140mm, and with a slower minimum aperture you’ll also have slower shutter speeds, which isn’t ideal for birds.
Thanks for the comparison Andy, my first journey with X-T2 a friend lend me 55-200 to Lampung, Kelumbayan, Indonesia taking landscape photo of rocks and I Agree with you there are so much details and resolution especially below the 140mm (200mm FF equivalent), but at the end I buy 40-150 and 1.4x tc, because I need the extra stop for event and stage photography, I am a zoom lens guy, so my 10-24 & 50-140, pretty much for everything... :D
The 50-140mm is a great lens and if I were still shooting weddings (I used to be a wedding photographer) then for sure it would be the one I'd use, so I completely understand why you would want it for event and stage photography
Another very practical review - the bottom line really seems to be these Fuji lenses are all optically well-built. The 18-55 “kit” lens is also fantastic. What Fuji does do though is give you choices, you don’t pick up the 50-140 for the optical reasons, more so for the other reasons you mentioned (f/2.8, weather resistance, internal focal changing). Thanks for always being level-headed in these reviews, I always learn a lot from them.
Indeed, it seems to be something of a Fuji philosophy. Their cheaper cameras like the X-T20/30 will give you the same quality as their top of the line cameras, but the difference is in the features. It seems that they have a similar idea with the lenses...the optics are great on the 18-55 (which I use) and the 55-200mm, but if you need faster focus, weather sealing or fixed fast aperture, then you get the expensive lens. Thanks for the comment Alan, and for supporting the channel. Glad you like the videos.
Hi Andy. Thanks a lot for this video. It’s really helpful in my decision-making. I wonder if you’ve ever used the 55-200 in heavy rain? Best regards Aron
Would be interesting to see a comparison with the XC 50-230 (or at least to get your thoughts). Now I know it is a very different animal; consumer level, lower build quality, etc. But I have one and have generally been pleased with its performance. As a landscape shooter I bought it as I didn’t think I’d be using a telephoto that much, but I actually find I’m using the 50-150 range quite a lot. Would be good to know what I’m missing and whether it’s worth the upgrade. Apart from the very low price (I paid just over £100 for my XC second hand), the things I like about the XC are very low weight and 58mm filter thread, which matches the 14mm f/2.8 and the 18-55. It also works well for infra red. By the way, I saw quite a difference in the corner shots at 50mm. Trees were much sharper with the 50-140. Thanks, and keep em coming. Very useful vids.
I bought a XC 50-230 second hand for a song and found it to be a great lens and used it mainly for landscape. All the reviews said it was very similar to the 55-200. I ended up trading it in recently on a used 55-200 and I have to say I find them quite different! The 55-200 is so much sharper in my view. A truly great value lens for sharp and contrasty landscape shots. Am really loving it.
I've never used the 50-230mm, but if I come across one in future I'd certainly be interested in seeing how it compares with the 55-200mm. Glad you liked the video
I own both the 50-230 and the 55-200. In fact my ultralight kit is the 14mm, 18-55, and 50-230. Like you said, one filtler size fits all. My 50-230 is actually a bit sharper than my 55-200 at 200mm. It is impressive for it's cost/weight. However it's focus performance in low light is poor-- slow and constantly searching. Not good for wildlife, not so much of an issue for landscape. I'm not sure the IS is as effective as the 55-200. And the build quality is very cheap. I'll always take the 55-200 if weight isn't critical.
Interesting video. I had the 55-200mm. Wonderfully sharp lens. Great colour and micro-contrast. But for people pics the out of focus background was AWFUL. Clumpy bokeh. I now use the Fuji 70-300mm which is so light that I always have it with me. Might not be as sharp (how sharp do we need our pics?) but the bokeh combined with weight/size is awesome. You can even shoot flowers with lovely blurred backgrounds. It even takes the 1.4 tel converter. Slight loss of IQ with the converter and equivalent of f8 wide open. so I just crop into it rather than sacrifice one stop of light and risk blur from long exposures. Love your reviews but not the 55-200 lens.
I reviewed the 70-300mm lens and pretty much agree with you. I think it's a superb lens. Bear in mind this review was about the 55-200mm as a landscape lens, where brokeh isn't at all important so it's not something I even considered. As a landscape lens, where you want everything in focus, the 55-200mm is superb
Thanks for the video, im a beginner and currently has x-s10 & the kit lens xf 18-55mm, I feel I need a lens for more reach, currently 50-140 is 1.6x price compare to 55-200 here in Singapore, which one would you recommend? (not for professional use whatssoever) thanks!
If you really want to save some cash, get the XC50-230 lens. I have that as well as the XF55-200 and have tested them both side by side. I can say they are both pretty identical in terms of image quality. The XC is even lighter than the XF55-200 and much cheaper. Pick up a used one for 100 bucks and wow, you have 50-140 image quality at a fraction of the cost.
Andy, you are comparing these lenses at apertures smaller than f/11, at which point diffraction is going to limit any resolutions advantage of a sharper lens.
Hi Jesse. No, we compared the lenses at f11 (not smaller) where diffraction isn't a problem. Before making the video myself and Andrea (who owns the 50-140mm) discussed which aperture we would most often use for landscapes and we both felt that f11 was the sweet spot.
I’m not trying to be overly critical, as your video is still very relevant but the 50-140 is diffraction limited at f/11. In fact at 50mm it is so sharp you lose nearly 20% of the resolution to diffraction by stopping down from f/4 to f/11. www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/969-fuji50140f28ois And the 55-200 is not diffraction limited since it is already softer and barely loses any resolution by stopping down past f/8. www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/879-fuji55200f3548
Nice comparison! I have a 55-200 and from an optical standpoint it's a great lens for the price, and relatively compact and light. Just not very quick at focusing - which isn't really an issue for the kind of work that you do. BTW in case you don't know this tip, when zoomed in to an image in C1 and have the Hand tool selected, if you right click it brings up a thumbnail of the whole image that you can navigate around - easier than doing many small drags side to side like you were doing :)
Depends how you define "take advantage"? Some lenses will always perform better than others. The 55-200 doesn't take full advantage of the sensor, but it certainly gets more details than it does on an XT4
I sold my 55-200 to get a 50-140, it is harder to carry around especially when I hike a mountain, but I like the flexibility of it when I try to shoot portraits and yes it is really convenient that it has the same filter size as the 10-24, so I can use my filters on both of them
My combo for landscape photography is: 12mm Touit + 16-50mm + 50-230mm + X-T30. All in a tiny Think Tank Hubba Hubba bag. You may start making fun of me.
I'm thinking of taking it with me on a trip to Senja in July. My feeling about that lens is that it's designed to pair with the 16-80mm. I usually only carry two lenses, the 10-24 and the 55-200, and I shoot a lot between 55 and 70mm, which I'd lose if I switched to the 70-300. So I'm thinking of doing a trip with the 16-80, the 70-300 and then something like the Samyang 12mm or Laowa 9mm for if I need to shoot really wide.
@@AndyMumford Would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that lens if you take it for a spin. The weather sealing, extra reach, and its compatibility with the teleconverters seem like a win but agree the loss of mid range is unfortunate.
Thanks for this review. I was torn between the two but the extra size and weight was not worth it for me as I like to travel light so have gone with the 55-200.
Thank you for confirming what I already expected. There is no doubt the faster 50-140 will help in certain darker conditions but as far as portability and excellence for the money the 55-200 is a no brainer. especially with the excellent image stabilization and the great high ISO performance of the fuji xt-3
As the comment says below...if you need to shoot moving subjects, or if you're shooting wide open then the 50-140mm has stuff the 55-200mm just doesn't. But for landscapes in the middle of the aperture range, the 55-200mm is right up there.
Hello to Andrea! Andy, I had the chance to test and try the 55-140 on an XT2 and it was a great shooting experience, but it's heavy to carry on the mountains! Great to location for test :-) Ciao
When using a non weather sealed lens on the XT3 (a weather sealed body), what are the risks? Is it just to the lens, or is the body seal compromised at the lens to body interface?
There's always a risk, but it depends on the intensity of the bad weather. I've used this lens for almost 4 years in rain and waterfall spray, in blizzards and dusty deserts and it's been fine. Generally if the rain is so bad that there's a risk of it entering the camera through the join, chances are it's too bad to shoot without getting rain spots in the lens which ruin the images anyway.
Andy Mumford very good point, I’ve shot a Panasonic GF-1 and 20mm f1.7 (neither sealed), in all sorts of conditions without issue. That being said my “beach camera” is an Oly EM5 as I’ve rinsed sand and salt water off it under a tap many times without any problems
Great video. I also use the 55-200 for landscapes and love it, though do wish it were weather sealed. Last year I was hiking with my X-T1 and 55-200 strapped on my shoulder, and my camera strap slipped out its loop and fell directly to the ground, landing with the lens barrel hitting on a hard rock. --- It scratched the lens barrel, but continues to work perfectly :)
Thanks for commenting, glad you liked the video. I've used the 55-200mm for almost 4 years now in some nasty conditions and the lack of weather sealing has never been an issue. Glad yours was tough enough to survive the fall.
Nice comparison ! I have the 55-200 and am quite happy with it. I did consider the 50-140 but found it too heavy and big! Always love your videos and your work! Thanks!
And showing that was basically the point of the video, as lots of people think the 50-140mm is better for landscapes, when in reality it offers only marginal differences
Thanks for the comparison video. For landscapes, I use the Fujinon 16-55mm f/2.8 weather resistant zoom lens on a weather resistant Fuji X digital body. When I shopped for a telephoto zoom, I did not even consider the 55-200mm f/3.5 to f/4.8 weather resistant zoom lens because I do not like variable aperture zoom lenses.
Depends completely on how you define best. Sharper wide open? Yes. Faster aperture? Yes. Better for portraits and a street? Absolutely. Sharper at f8 between 55 and 120mm? Not really, and for landscapes that's what counts. It may be sharper between 120mm and 140mm, but then again, it doesn't extend to 200mm, which makes it less useful. I made this video 4 years ago and since then have used both lenses extensively and have seen nothing to change my opinion.
Hello Mr. Mumford, I've been a long time Fuji mirrorless shooter. I have both of these lenses. I'm starting to look more at teleprimes. Before I plow into longer and longer lenses, my question is, does getting a slower lens mean you can stop it down further before running into diffraction? I still like decently deep depth of field, often with focus stacking. Generally I try to stick with the sweet spot of any given lens. Both the 50-140 and 55-200 have minimum apertures of f/22. But the faster lens hits it's sweet spot in a far shallower depth of field. Does diffraction also strike at a wider aperture, all focal lengths the same? Is this stuff a waste of time to ponder about? Any light you can shed on the subject I'd greatly appreciate. Thanks!
You mention how a lot of your non WR lenses survive the elements you expose them to, but I was curious how exposed you have them? Do you use those plastic camera wraps in the rain? How often do you have filters over the front element? I've just switched to Fuji from Canon DSLRs and while my 7D body could be treated like those old Nokia brick phones, the lenses I've always been scared to let them even near moisture.
Thanks for the comment. The lenses have been pretty exposed to the elements, I tend to only use a plastic bag if there's heavy rain or snow...for light rain or waterfall or sea spray I don't really protect them. I've also had them blasted by sand in Namibia and Iceland as well, and used them in temperatures down to -20 My 55-200mm is going on 8 years old now and it's still in excellent condition. My 10-24mm I replaced last year as it it broke when I dropped it on a rock. But up until then it had been fine for about 6 years of heavy usage. I never use filters on the front unless I'm actually shooting with a filter.
Well, the contrast boost was simply because we noticed that the 55-200 wasn't as contrasty as the 50-140mm, and we wanted to see if it was possible to get it looking the same
I bought the 55-200 for my South Africa trip for shooting wildlife and landscape, it was sharp and stable! Actually, it's the only XF lens I am keeping~
I've used it in humid and dusty conditions quite often, but only for 2 week trips or so...I don't know what it would be like long term in such conditions
55-200 all the way. I have the Kit Lens, the 50mmf2wr and the 55-200 on my X-T3. It works better than most cameras as expected. And I can carry the Bag with Cam, Lenses and Pol/ND filters while shooting on travel. My super lightweight but full blown old carbon tripod gives support when I need it. I shoot Photo / Video, 25/75 %. My next search is for a superwide prime.
The 55-200 is a great lens and has been in my bag for 6 years now. For an ultra-wide prime, try the Laowa 9mm (I use this and like it) or Rokkinon 12mm. I’ve spoken to Fujui lots of times about an ultra wide prime, like a 12mm or 10mm, but they think the two zooms (10-24mm and 8-16mm) are already sufficient for landscape photographers
Now that is a great comparison video. I agree the 50-140 is optically better out of the camera and has several outstanding features too. It appears to me that post processing with the 55-200 eliminates almost 100% of the optical differences between the two lenses. If the price and weight were the same I would buy the 50-140, but they are not so my choice will be the 55-200, even though I do not think a 200mm reach is that meaningful for me…the 140 is pretty impressive. Have two questions…how many km or miles were you from the mountain range you shot. And #2 where was this video was sho ? Northern Italy ? Thanks and Cheers
Thanks, really glad you found the video useful. You're right, the video was filmed in northern Italy, in the Dolomites, in a place called Rifugio Lagazuoi
Doesn't matter cause I own both. The 55-200 is not bad at all in fact I have a lot of quality photos with it. But to my eyes and through a bit of pixel peeping I see that the 50-140 has some kind of feeling in which the images pop more and I mostly shoot indoor and it's pretty handy to have the constant 2.8 aperture. I might sell the 55-200 and save more for the 100-400 since you lose less than a stop at the long end and you get double the focal length and plus you get a better image quality. But I must sacrifice portability in order to get that in which I have no problem with that. I mostly shoot events indoor so the 50-140 would be my choice if I need the reach the 100-400 would be my choice although I need to crank up the ISO in which I am totally fine as long as I nail focus.
For sure if you're shooting mostly indoors and need the faster aperture, the 50-140mm is the better lens. The 100-400mm is a lovely lens, which I've borrowed quite a few times. However, for hiking and landscapes it's so big that it basically always got left behind so I decided not to buy it. Still, a great lens though
Hi Andy, this is very useful. Indeed a saving, rather the saved money can be spent elsewhere. BTW, F11 is a sweet spot of this lens, rather both lenses you believe? Or does 50-140 have smaller F no as a sweet spot? Thanks again for sharing this!
Thanks for the comment, glad you found it useful. I would say f8 is probably the sweet spot on the 55-200mm. I don't know about the 50-140mm as I don't actually own it, but f7,1 to f8 is usually the sweet spot in a lot of lenses
@@AndyMumford Hello, I bought this lens and took it on my Himalayan trek. It produced outstanding portraits of some seven thounsader peaks in the Indian Himalayas. Your video was very helpful indeed!
For landscapes I'd say the 55-200 is better. It's half the price with far more reach. And for all intents and purposes, image quality is the same. Sure the 50-140 is faster at f/2.8, but you're not shooting lanscapes at 2.8. As far as weather sealing, not a big deal. If you must shoot while it's raining etc. just buy one of those cheap plastic camera/lens covers. Problem solved. Now if you plan to do other types of photography like sports or portraits, I'd consider the 50-140, though 2.8 on a crop sensor equates to f/4 dof/bokeh. For portraits the 56 1.2 or 90 f/2 is much better, or the upcoming 50mm f/1.0. For sports the 200mm f/2 is king.
Great comparison thank you. Having tested a few examples of both lenses in a variety of situations and contrast ranges my conclusion is. It is possible to get a variance in quality with different models of the 55-200. When you get a good copy it is magnificent, so never sell it. However the 50-140 has been superb with every copy I have tested and sometimes the results are phenomenal. There is a weight difference but the balance of the 50-140 means you are not so aware of this. The extra quality of the rendering of images means you can crop heavily so the focal range matches each other. Don’t buy the 1.4x tele-convertor as the standard zoom cropped by 40% is just as good. Despite the weight I had to make the 50-140 one of my must have lenses for landscape photography and with the new 16mm f2.8 and two X-T2 bodies I am very happy. Gary
Nice video. I got a second handed 55-200 for my trip to Tibet last year. It works like a charm.
XF 55-200mm was the first and only Fuji Telephoto I bought. I use it only second to my 35mm F1:1.4. For me, it's as sharp as I could want, but light and small enough that I never leave it behind. WR would have been the icing for me though!
Liked and Subbed.
Yeah, it's a wonderful lens. Thanks for watching, and for the sub
Just purchased the 55-200 on Tuesday. My initial thoughts on the IS are WOW . The smaller size/weight and extra range decided it for me. Your comparison of image quality between the two lenses also confirms, I made the right decision. Another great YT video Andy. 👍🏻s up from me.
Thanks for watching, glad you liked the video
I have the 55-200mm and am very happy with it. But if I was still shooting weddings, I’d probably go with the 50-140 because of its constant 2.8 aperture. It’s horses for courses really and budget too of course!
Thanks for the comparison. The result confirms my opinion that the smaller and lighter (and much more affordable) Fuji lenses are of very good quality and that it wouldn't make much sense for me as a non-professional to spend so much more on the professional lens and to carry around a lot more weight with me. I've been using the 55-200mm on my X-T2 for almost two years and have always been very happy with the results. Greetings from Switzerland.
Thanks for watching, glad you found the video useful
great video! we just got the 50-140mm and cant wait to use it here in Hawaii when it arrives!
Have fun with it
Interesting review, for my needs I purchased a refurbished XC55-230mm, cost less than £180 for use on my little X-E3, much lighter of course and I don't envision my using it that much tbh but at the price I thought it would be handy to have.
One critique if I may, white subtitles on a light or white coloured back ground, might want to rethink that for next time?
Thanks for the comment. Generally I check all the subtitle to make sure they're readable and didn't see a problem with any here. Sorry if there was any problem.
Awesome video, great comparison! Thanks for the info, very non-biased review
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
Thank you both. I have had the 55-200 for almost a year and surprises me how good it is. With good post processing it is as sharp as they come!
Glad you enjoyed the video
Great review, once again. Thanks for doing this. On this topic, I feel not sharing the general view on these comparisons. Yes 50-140 is more expensive, but can be used landscapes, professional portraiture, lower light conditions & all weather condition. A 2.8 50-140 gets far more usage. If not owning all fuji lenses; I'd say it's better, cheaper and better option overall. It does more things, gets more used, better investment I'd say.
Thanks for the comment Phillipe, glad you enjoyed the video
I am blown away every time I use my 55-200! I love this lens and am so impressed with its sharpness. Thanks for the comparison video!
It's a great lens. Glad you liked the video
I agree, its an amazing lense
Really good comparison. I've got the 55-200 and have been very happy with it, but have always wondered if there was a big difference in terms of quality. Glad to see there really isn't. Each has it's place and will suit the needs of a photographer looking for extra stability and other features vs smaller and lighter, but either will get you great image quality.
Thanks for watching Paula, glad you liked the video
4 years late, but I'd say there is a huge difference in quality. built in zoom, weather proof, less shake to name a few
I was considering the 50-140, but ended up with the 55-200, its very good, has a stabilizer, if you have a 56 1.2 or 90 f2, then get the 55-200, no need to carry heavy lens and not worth 3 times the money eather.
You've just convinced me not to trade in my 55-200mm for the 50-140mm, but it does like like a seriously swank piece of kit though. However, the weight is also a bit of a turn off when trying to lug that and all the other stuff ( including camping equipment) up a bloody mountain, weight becomes a huge consideration.
Glad you found the video useful
Interesting. I have both lenses. I take the 55-200 for landscape, but the 50-140 remains great for event photography - especially in poor light. It renders colour beautifully. I'll be taking the 55-200 to the Dolomites this year, though, for the reasons you give in this video. Thanks - that was useful.
Thanks, as ever, for watching and supporting the channel
I grabbed the 55-200mm about a month ago, absolutely blown away by the lens. It's built like a tank too. I'm glad the difference is so minimal, with the 50-140 being better in low light for obvious reasons. But with the 50-140 being like 3 times the price of the 55-200, I'm happy with my purchase :)
I totally agree, it's a fantastic lens
Great job mate! Another very useful video and beautifully edited as always. It was a fantastic morning over there, and I'm really looking forward to be there again! Have a nice one my friend :)
Thanks Andrea, and thanks again for all your help with putting the video together.
At the risk of stating the obvious I guess ‘it’s horses for courses’. I have the 55-200 and am very happy with it but I want to start shooting dramatic sea waves. Some will be in stormy low light conditions and 300mm full frame equivalent is not needed. So I’m considering the 50-140 for the constant aperture control, weather sealing, faster focus etc. Thanks for the video. Now I know I won’t be getting much improvement in Image Quality. I think I might try with my 55-200 first and rent a 50-140 to compare usability before possibly buying one. On a related issue, I own the 18-55 and found that it is too good to be called a kit lens. But I subsequently bought the 16-55 f2.8 because I enjoy being able to control the aperture; like the film camera days. I put up with the extra weight because I enjoy using it so much. I can imagine enjoying/enduring the same with the 50-140.
Although you are a Fuji ambassador I like the level headed factual approach you take when comparing Fuji products. Keep up the good work. 👏👏
Thanks for watching, glad you enjoy videos
Omg. I was just deciding on which one of these I should get next. :O
Me too
Glad you found the video useful :-)
@@AndyMumford that goes for every video you've uploaded thus far! I'm hoping your channel takes off soon, they're such high quality but somehow quite easy to understand, they're fab! (Although you did make my decision slightly harder as I feel like the 50-140 would also make a better portrait lens but I guess I gotta choose! Currently have the XT2 with a kit lens and 10-24, so I need that final piece to round it off before upgrading the kit lens :D)
The 50-140 is my favorite lens after 40 years of shooting, including Nikon. Worth the extra cost and weight to carry. Absolutely beautiful results both for landscape and portrait with 2.8. Will never sell this one. I think you can tell the difference in contrast quality.
How amazing is that lens! I'm so stoked with the images I get from it
I think 55-200 vs. 55-230 would be much intresting. Btw thx for the Test.
I've got 50-230 and i dont like it really. Focus motor is slow, not so sharp at 230, also is so slow. Will sell it and get the 55-200
@@adomolis I agree.. I'd sell my 50-230 and get a 55-200. Regretted that I didn't get 55-200 to begin with.
too bad you can't use a teleconverter on the 55-200, that would be amazing. quite a bit disappointed when i discovered this after buying it :(
They make third party ones from what I've seen get the job done
sean fisher you know where? Can’t find anything. Question is if they’re good enough or if cropping would be the same...
This is part of the decision for me, I like the size of the 55-200, and it’s good enough optically, but the 50-140 has the 2.8 for portraits and shooting wildlife (where high shutter speeds needed), shares filters with 10-24, has tripod collar and again for wildlife, can take the fuji sealed TC’s. Very versatile, but very big in size and price!
Thanks for saving me the dollars and weight! Very helpful!
Thanks so much, glad you found it useful
@4:16 It's quite difficult to read text on a white background
Had the 55-200, as soon as you angle it down the zoom would creep forward and would constantly need readjusting. But do miss how light it is compared to the 50-140
I‘ve been using the 55-200 for years but today - in a moment of weakness I ordered the 50-140 😱
Haha, it is a great lens though
The XC 55-230 might be worth a look. At f11 it could be surprising.
If I were picking to shoot events or portraits I'd want the 50-140 for sure, but for landscapes the 55-200 certainly does the job. I reached a similar conclusion when I rented a 16-55 2.8 and compared it to my 18-55 2.8-4. The 16-55 is obviously wider, but at the apertures I shoot landscape with, it was only just barely more sharp... hardly noticeable. So there again the lighter lens is the one I prefer to carry (plus it has OIS). In sort, Fuji makes a lot of quality lenses.
I completely agree. The "kit" 18-55 is a fantastic lens for everything in the world except DOF-isolation (it is physics).
And yes - Fuji is amazing with how they treat the "kit" lenses (or "entry bodies").
Pushing out the latest firmware with the little brother (t30 now) while the t3-owners are waiting - because it does come - it will be upgraded - family wide. Over years to come.
The xt20 - there came the little brother with the same effing sensor and processor. One really have to look into the details before one got why the xt2 was so much more expensive.
It is almost like one feel that Fuji really loves "the image" - and does its very best to provide that at every price-point. Very rarely have I felt like this about a brand. Maybe Patagonia - although I never was brand-loyal about anything - not even on the climbing and outdoor gear that my life depended on.
The "kit-lens" that came with my camera (that 18-55) it is still almost like my lens-hood in daily life, in addition to the 23mm prime.
For sure, the faster aperture makes the 50-140mm much better for that sort of thing. Back in the day I used to be a full time wedding shooter and wouldn't dream of using this lens for that, but as you say, just for landscapes, the differences are so small as to be negligible (in my opinion). I think it's the same with the 18-55 (which I use) and the 16-55 as well. I've thought about doing another video comparing those two, I'll have a think about it, but it's not a lens I use a whole lot for photography - I use it as a video lens.
I found that I love using the 90mm for portraits and the 55-200 for landscapes and some wildlife ( I use a fringer pro adapter with my Canon 400mm for most wild life) So I have been pleased that so far I have never purchased the 50-140mm which has allowed me to buy other Fuji glass.
Nice vid! I own the 50-230 which is also razor sharp. Nice to see there's not so much different between the 50-140 and 55-200.
You Sir. You are a legend and for that we are forever in your debt - keep it up - thanks - save money for beers - or get a beast of a lens for the odd occasion you need 2.8? My clients won't notice the difference if you promise not to tell them - the beers are on me have a good one
Glad you enjoyed the video :-)
So in the real world, save yourself some money and buy 55-200 cause that's exactly what am I going to do. Thanks a lot!
If you just shoot landscapes...pretty much, yeah.
I decided to buy the 50-140 for a few reasons: 1. aperture for some "documentary/travel" shots of people in the holidays 2. internal zoom which is better for attaching filters 3. weather resistance 4. a used one is not that expensive. So for me it is the more versatile lens.
Not what I expected; I thought the 50-140mm would be clearly superior. I would really like to see a similar comparison between the 18-55 and the 16-55, if you can manage it at some point. Thanks.
Thanks for the comment. I've been thinking of putting together a comparison of those two lenses at some point.
I can spot an Italian just by listening to one speaking english. Source: I'm italian.
Everyone can do that actually... 😁 "It'sa becausa the accent isa very stronga"
I bought the 90mm for landscape photography (and occasional other stuff), imo you don't need much more zoom. It let's me sometimes use a little depth of field, because it renders it beautifully.
I use the 80mm for the same reasoning. Rarely have had a need for longer.
I believe it all boils down to whether you are satisfied with f3.5 to f4. IMO, with telephotos, f3.5 at 55 gives enough bokeh even for portraits, and f2.8 at longer focal lengths renders too small of a focal plane to be practical. People don't tend to notice that much of a difference in 1 stop worth of bokeh. For landscape, you don't even need that big of an aperture. I'd say it's perfectly fine to work with the 55-200 and put that extra money into a nice wide prime like the 16mm f1.4.
Certainly for landscapes you never need to shoot at anything below f8, so for me this lens is perfect for what I want it to do.
From what I researched and my own personal experience I've found that in terms of sharpness, the 50-140mm has the edge.
I think it does have an edge..but the edge is so small for landscapes as to not make the extra weigh and size worth it in my opinion. We didn't have an agenda for this video, I have one lens and my friend has been using the 50-140mm for about 3 years, so it was genuine curiosity about how big the difference was.
For the 1000 bucks I would expect it too
@@AndyMumford Like you I own the 50-140 F2.8 and after seeing this test I will add the 55-200 for much less weight and better reach. The only missing test is tracking BIF & AF in low-light.
I rented the 50-140mm for 3 days and I wasn’t overly impressed by sharpness or anything
@@genesis204 I own the 50-140 F2.8 OIS & the 55-200 F3.5-4.5 OIS. Both are very sharp, but the F2.8 is a better and much more expensive lens and for portrait excellent . I used the 50-140 F2.8 in tough situation with backlighted tree leaves in fall without any problems with CA. If you rented this lens maybe it was dropped and suffer from decentering, that happen all the time when you drop a lens just a few feet from ground.
The 55-200mm is a really gmsuperb lens. I bought a second-hand one in the US and I enjoyed it a lot. It provides magical results when you have harsh light conditions. I shot my family while they were in the pool, under the 12am direct sunlight: guys... you won’t believe it was shot on an APSC camera.
It's a great lens
Great video. I have owned both and kept 50-140 purley because of the fixed aperture, WR and internal zoom and also that it works with the teleconverter if I want more reach. Both lenses are great.
Thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed the video.
I do event a lot sometimes travel. Found 50-140 really good for event work but when I am about to travel I always get the dilemma when deciding to pack 50-140 due to its size and weight. Traded 50-140 for 90mm f2 prime and 55-200 based on this review. I am at peace now. Thank you so much for great content
Thanks so much, glad you found the video useful
Thank you for doing this Comparison Andy!
I've decided to go with the 55-200mm as I am and avid Backpacker here in Wyoming and the compact lightweight nature of the lens is invaluable as I am sure you can attest.
The only let down is the lack of weather proof, but as you have mentioned before there are ways around that.
Thanks again for all the great advice.
Glad you found it useful. I've never felt the lack of WR inhibited the 55-200mm in any way, and I've been using mine since 2015
Good review, but I would have used the clarity slider instead of the contrast slider ;-)
Both look to have fine optics, especially once stopped down so far. People who need the f2.8 know who they are. If you don't, then there is the lighter, cheaper option (55-200). Looks like you can't go wrong. Good review in all. Well done.
Out of interest, which camera did you film this on?
Thanks for the comment, glad you liked the video. This was filmed with the X-T3 and the 10-24mm lens.
I have the 55-200 and the optical quality is great. The weight and the price is half that of the 50-140. save the money for the 100-400 instead.
Yeah, it's a great lens.
Love the minimalism in your videos - some things like font make all the difference. Anyways, have a good one
Thanks so much for watching, and supporting the channel.
@@AndyMumford sure thing :)
Very interesting and useful comparison. Thanks for posting. I'm of a certain age where the lighter lens has a lot of appeal. I can't say I've ever regretted buying the 55-200. When I was considering this lens, I thought the fact that the 50-140 is, at best, only 1.5 stops brighter just wasn't a big enough discriminator.
Thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed the video
On one hand I would like the ability to use teleconverter with 50-140 and weather sealing but on the other hand it's twice heavier and twice more expensive. I was just struggling to make a choice and, as always, this video is right on time to help. Thank You!
Thanks for the comment, glad you found the video useful
not to forget the 50--140 is 3 times the price of the other
Indeed
I know it's an old video, but I really need some help. I want to buy a zoom lens with the main target for car photography. What lens would you recommend?
Hard to say, but if it's moving cars (as opposed to stationary shots), the 50-140mm has fast autofocus and the wider aperture will give you faster shutter speeds as well
I’m very close to picking up the 55-200... mainly because I’m expanding my arsenal and need a telephoto but also buying a few lenses over the next few months and money is a factor. The aperture is a alight concern as I’d like to also shoot wildlife at dusk. Have you or anyone had luck with wildlife on the 55-200?
Thanks for the comment. I can't say I've tried so I can't say.
The 50-140 is certainly superior but after editing I agree with your assessment
the 55-200 is superior because it is possible to go to 200
I picked up both of them, the 55-200 is a great walk around lens but I use the 50-140 more, mainly because it's f2.8 and performs well wide open.
Certainly shooting wide open the 50-140mm is a stellar lens.
Hi Andy, for general purpose lens for shooting birds or moving object would you still recommended 55-200mm to get quite acceptable result? I'm planning to buy tele lens for this purpose as I'm new to Fujifilm system.
Hi Eko, I can’t honestly say as I’ve used the lens for fast moving subjects. The AF is certainly slower than the 50-140mm, and with a slower minimum aperture you’ll also have slower shutter speeds, which isn’t ideal for birds.
Thanks for the comparison Andy, my first journey with X-T2 a friend lend me 55-200 to Lampung, Kelumbayan, Indonesia taking landscape photo of rocks and I Agree with you there are so much details and resolution especially below the 140mm (200mm FF equivalent), but at the end I buy 40-150 and 1.4x tc, because I need the extra stop for event and stage photography, I am a zoom lens guy, so my 10-24 & 50-140, pretty much for everything... :D
The 50-140mm is a great lens and if I were still shooting weddings (I used to be a wedding photographer) then for sure it would be the one I'd use, so I completely understand why you would want it for event and stage photography
Another very practical review - the bottom line really seems to be these Fuji lenses are all optically well-built. The 18-55 “kit” lens is also fantastic. What Fuji does do though is give you choices, you don’t pick up the 50-140 for the optical reasons, more so for the other reasons you mentioned (f/2.8, weather resistance, internal focal changing). Thanks for always being level-headed in these reviews, I always learn a lot from them.
Indeed, it seems to be something of a Fuji philosophy. Their cheaper cameras like the X-T20/30 will give you the same quality as their top of the line cameras, but the difference is in the features. It seems that they have a similar idea with the lenses...the optics are great on the 18-55 (which I use) and the 55-200mm, but if you need faster focus, weather sealing or fixed fast aperture, then you get the expensive lens.
Thanks for the comment Alan, and for supporting the channel. Glad you like the videos.
Hi Andy. Thanks a lot for this video. It’s really helpful in my decision-making. I wonder if you’ve ever used the 55-200 in heavy rain?
Best regards
Aron
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed it. I have used the 55-200mm in quite heavy rain
Nice comparison video. Does anyone know what software he used in the comparison. It doesn't look like lightroom.
Glad you liked the video. The software is Capture One Pro
thank you for this video..really useful information for me
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
Thanks for the comparison and hope you both enjoyed yourselves in the dolomites with that gorgeous vista.
Thanks for watching
Would be interesting to see a comparison with the XC 50-230 (or at least to get your thoughts). Now I know it is a very different animal; consumer level, lower build quality, etc. But I have one and have generally been pleased with its performance. As a landscape shooter I bought it as I didn’t think I’d be using a telephoto that much, but I actually find I’m using the 50-150 range quite a lot. Would be good to know what I’m missing and whether it’s worth the upgrade. Apart from the very low price (I paid just over £100 for my XC second hand), the things I like about the XC are very low weight and 58mm filter thread, which matches the 14mm f/2.8 and the 18-55. It also works well for infra red. By the way, I saw quite a difference in the corner shots at 50mm. Trees were much sharper with the 50-140. Thanks, and keep em coming. Very useful vids.
I bought a XC 50-230 second hand for a song and found it to be a great lens and used it mainly for landscape. All the reviews said it was very similar to the 55-200. I ended up trading it in recently on a used 55-200 and I have to say I find them quite different! The 55-200 is so much sharper in my view. A truly great value lens for sharp and contrasty landscape shots. Am really loving it.
I've never used the 50-230mm, but if I come across one in future I'd certainly be interested in seeing how it compares with the 55-200mm. Glad you liked the video
I own both the 50-230 and the 55-200. In fact my ultralight kit is the 14mm, 18-55, and 50-230. Like you said, one filtler size fits all. My 50-230 is actually a bit sharper than my 55-200 at 200mm. It is impressive for it's cost/weight. However it's focus performance in low light is poor-- slow and constantly searching. Not good for wildlife, not so much of an issue for landscape. I'm not sure the IS is as effective as the 55-200. And the build quality is very cheap. I'll always take the 55-200 if weight isn't critical.
So, I dropped and broke my 50-230 yesterday. 55-200 here we come!
thanks for the comparison, this was very useful and I'm sure many people looking to buy a Fuji lens in this focal length has wondered which way to go
Thanks for the comment, glad you found it useful
Did you mention the price differences? 55-200 is a great bargain
Interesting video. I had the 55-200mm. Wonderfully sharp lens. Great colour and micro-contrast. But for people pics the out of focus background was AWFUL. Clumpy bokeh. I now use the Fuji 70-300mm which is so light that I always have it with me. Might not be as sharp (how sharp do we need our pics?) but the bokeh combined with weight/size is awesome. You can even shoot flowers with lovely blurred backgrounds. It even takes the 1.4 tel converter. Slight loss of IQ with the converter and equivalent of f8 wide open. so I just crop into it rather than sacrifice one stop of light and risk blur from long exposures. Love your reviews but not the 55-200 lens.
I reviewed the 70-300mm lens and pretty much agree with you. I think it's a superb lens. Bear in mind this review was about the 55-200mm as a landscape lens, where brokeh isn't at all important so it's not something I even considered. As a landscape lens, where you want everything in focus, the 55-200mm is superb
Thanks for the video, im a beginner and currently has x-s10 & the kit lens xf 18-55mm, I feel I need a lens for more reach, currently 50-140 is 1.6x price compare to 55-200 here in Singapore, which one would you recommend? (not for professional use whatssoever) thanks!
I would go with the 55-200mm. That's the lens I use
If you really want to save some cash, get the XC50-230 lens. I have that as well as the XF55-200 and have tested them both side by side. I can say they are both pretty identical in terms of image quality. The XC is even lighter than the XF55-200 and much cheaper. Pick up a used one for 100 bucks and wow, you have 50-140 image quality at a fraction of the cost.
Love the 50-140 for portraits and landscapes...i do not like the external zoom at 55-200...and the 50-140 it's very stylish...
Thanks for the comment
Thank you for another round of rich content! To my eye, the 55-200 appeared to have astigmatism in the corners.
Hmm, it's not something myself or Andrea noticed. Maybe though
what do you suggest if you have to chose not only for landscape but also for portrait?
The 55-200mm isn't much of a portrait lens. For that you'll be better off with the 50-140mm because of it's smaller depth of field at f2.8
Andy, you are comparing these lenses at apertures smaller than f/11, at which point diffraction is going to limit any resolutions advantage of a sharper lens.
Hi Jesse. No, we compared the lenses at f11 (not smaller) where diffraction isn't a problem. Before making the video myself and Andrea (who owns the 50-140mm) discussed which aperture we would most often use for landscapes and we both felt that f11 was the sweet spot.
I’m not trying to be overly critical, as your video is still very relevant but the 50-140 is diffraction limited at f/11. In fact at 50mm it is so sharp you lose nearly 20% of the resolution to diffraction by stopping down from f/4 to f/11.
www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/969-fuji50140f28ois
And the 55-200 is not diffraction limited since it is already softer and barely loses any resolution by stopping down past f/8.
www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/879-fuji55200f3548
Nice comparison! I have a 55-200 and from an optical standpoint it's a great lens for the price, and relatively compact and light. Just not very quick at focusing - which isn't really an issue for the kind of work that you do.
BTW in case you don't know this tip, when zoomed in to an image in C1 and have the Hand tool selected, if you right click it brings up a thumbnail of the whole image that you can navigate around - easier than doing many small drags side to side like you were doing :)
Thanks for the comment Adam, glad you enjoyed the video. And thanks for the C1 tip
Out of curiosity, will the XF55-200 be able to take advantage of a 40 megapixels sensor? I was planning to buy the 55-200 for my XH2.
Depends how you define "take advantage"? Some lenses will always perform better than others. The 55-200 doesn't take full advantage of the sensor, but it certainly gets more details than it does on an XT4
I sold my 55-200 to get a 50-140, it is harder to carry around especially when I hike a mountain, but I like the flexibility of it when I try to shoot portraits and yes it is really convenient that it has the same filter size as the 10-24, so I can use my filters on both of them
It's a great lens. My friend who's lens I used in this video still prefers his 50-140mm. At the end of the day, both lenses are pretty great.
My combo for landscape photography is: 12mm Touit + 16-50mm + 50-230mm + X-T30. All in a tiny Think Tank Hubba Hubba bag. You may start making fun of me.
Hey Andy, will you get a chance to review the new 70-300mm? Would love to hear your thoughts on that lens.
I'm thinking of taking it with me on a trip to Senja in July. My feeling about that lens is that it's designed to pair with the 16-80mm. I usually only carry two lenses, the 10-24 and the 55-200, and I shoot a lot between 55 and 70mm, which I'd lose if I switched to the 70-300. So I'm thinking of doing a trip with the 16-80, the 70-300 and then something like the Samyang 12mm or Laowa 9mm for if I need to shoot really wide.
@@AndyMumford Would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that lens if you take it for a spin. The weather sealing, extra reach, and its compatibility with the teleconverters seem like a win but agree the loss of mid range is unfortunate.
Thanks for this review. I was torn between the two but the extra size and weight was not worth it for me as I like to travel light so have gone with the 55-200.
It's a great lens
Thank you for confirming what I already expected. There is no doubt the faster 50-140 will help in certain darker conditions but as far as portability and excellence for the money the 55-200 is a no brainer. especially with the excellent image stabilization and the great high ISO performance of the fuji xt-3
Thanks for watching, glad you found the video useful
55-200 any day until Sunday ... longer reach with the same OIS but half price.
Great for an ultra light landscape lens but if you find yourself also shooting sports or events the 50-140 is the only real option.
As the comment says below...if you need to shoot moving subjects, or if you're shooting wide open then the 50-140mm has stuff the 55-200mm just doesn't. But for landscapes in the middle of the aperture range, the 55-200mm is right up there.
Hello to Andrea!
Andy, I had the chance to test and try the 55-140 on an XT2 and it was a great shooting experience, but it's heavy to carry on the mountains!
Great to location for test :-)
Ciao
Thanks for the comment. The 55-200mm really is a great telephoto lens if you want to travel light
Yes, I surely want to travel light :-)
55-200 vs 50-230 next?
When using a non weather sealed lens on the XT3 (a weather sealed body), what are the risks? Is it just to the lens, or is the body seal compromised at the lens to body interface?
There's the risk of water getting into the camera. The point of entry would be where you attach the lens to the body.
There's always a risk, but it depends on the intensity of the bad weather. I've used this lens for almost 4 years in rain and waterfall spray, in blizzards and dusty deserts and it's been fine. Generally if the rain is so bad that there's a risk of it entering the camera through the join, chances are it's too bad to shoot without getting rain spots in the lens which ruin the images anyway.
Andy Mumford very good point, I’ve shot a Panasonic GF-1 and 20mm f1.7 (neither sealed), in all sorts of conditions without issue. That being said my “beach camera” is an Oly EM5 as I’ve rinsed sand and salt water off it under a tap many times without any problems
Great video. I also use the 55-200 for landscapes and love it, though do wish it were weather sealed. Last year I was hiking with my X-T1 and 55-200 strapped on my shoulder, and my camera strap slipped out its loop and fell directly to the ground, landing with the lens barrel hitting on a hard rock. --- It scratched the lens barrel, but continues to work perfectly :)
Thanks for commenting, glad you liked the video. I've used the 55-200mm for almost 4 years now in some nasty conditions and the lack of weather sealing has never been an issue. Glad yours was tough enough to survive the fall.
Nice comparison ! I have the 55-200 and am quite happy with it. I did consider the 50-140 but found it too heavy and big! Always love your videos and your work! Thanks!
Thanks so much for watching
Shooting at f11 negates the biggest difference between the lenses. In that case, the lighter lens will always be better
And showing that was basically the point of the video, as lots of people think the 50-140mm is better for landscapes, when in reality it offers only marginal differences
Thanks for the comparison video.
For landscapes, I use the Fujinon 16-55mm f/2.8 weather resistant zoom lens on a weather resistant Fuji X digital body. When I shopped for a telephoto zoom, I did not even consider the 55-200mm f/3.5 to f/4.8 weather resistant zoom lens because I do not like variable aperture zoom lenses.
Thanks for the comment 🙏
50-140 mm is the best fuji lens ever. No comparison.
Depends completely on how you define best. Sharper wide open? Yes. Faster aperture? Yes. Better for portraits and a street? Absolutely. Sharper at f8 between 55 and 120mm? Not really, and for landscapes that's what counts. It may be sharper between 120mm and 140mm, but then again, it doesn't extend to 200mm, which makes it less useful. I made this video 4 years ago and since then have used both lenses extensively and have seen nothing to change my opinion.
Hello Mr. Mumford,
I've been a long time Fuji mirrorless shooter. I have both of these lenses. I'm starting to look more at teleprimes. Before I plow into longer and longer lenses, my question is, does getting a slower lens mean you can stop it down further before running into diffraction? I still like decently deep depth of field, often with focus stacking. Generally I try to stick with the sweet spot of any given lens. Both the 50-140 and 55-200 have minimum apertures of f/22. But the faster lens hits it's sweet spot in a far shallower depth of field. Does diffraction also strike at a wider aperture, all focal lengths the same? Is this stuff a waste of time to ponder about? Any light you can shed on the subject I'd greatly appreciate. Thanks!
Should do blind comparsion
You mention how a lot of your non WR lenses survive the elements you expose them to, but I was curious how exposed you have them? Do you use those plastic camera wraps in the rain? How often do you have filters over the front element?
I've just switched to Fuji from Canon DSLRs and while my 7D body could be treated like those old Nokia brick phones, the lenses I've always been scared to let them even near moisture.
Thanks for the comment. The lenses have been pretty exposed to the elements, I tend to only use a plastic bag if there's heavy rain or snow...for light rain or waterfall or sea spray I don't really protect them. I've also had them blasted by sand in Namibia and Iceland as well, and used them in temperatures down to -20 My 55-200mm is going on 8 years old now and it's still in excellent condition. My 10-24mm I replaced last year as it it broke when I dropped it on a rock. But up until then it had been fine for about 6 years of heavy usage.
I never use filters on the front unless I'm actually shooting with a filter.
Thanks for this.Since you have a slight boost to the 55-200 contrast, perhaps you should have done the same with the other lens.
Well, the contrast boost was simply because we noticed that the 55-200 wasn't as contrasty as the 50-140mm, and we wanted to see if it was possible to get it looking the same
I bought the 55-200 for my South Africa trip for shooting wildlife and landscape, it was sharp and stable! Actually, it's the only XF lens I am keeping~
Jay Altes could you use it as a sports lens? Runners specifically.
Trevor Weimer I only use it for landscape, tracking is unreliable with my X-T2
Jay Altes I wonder if the xt20 is the same?
Trevor Weimer Probably, I guess it is more of the camera’s problem
Fuji claims 55-200 isn't a WR lens but in real world is this lens can withstand humid weather? Here in India Humidity and Dust are two major issues.
I've used it in humid and dusty conditions quite often, but only for 2 week trips or so...I don't know what it would be like long term in such conditions
Thanks.Very helpful comments.I'll stick to the 50-140.Sharp as.Easy to handle with tripod mount.
Glad you enjoyed the review
55-200 all the way. I have the Kit Lens, the 50mmf2wr and the 55-200 on my X-T3. It works better than most cameras as expected. And I can carry the Bag with Cam, Lenses and Pol/ND filters while shooting on travel. My super lightweight but full blown old carbon tripod gives support when I need it. I shoot Photo / Video, 25/75 %. My next search is for a superwide prime.
The 55-200 is a great lens and has been in my bag for 6 years now. For an ultra-wide prime, try the Laowa 9mm (I use this and like it) or Rokkinon 12mm. I’ve spoken to Fujui lots of times about an ultra wide prime, like a 12mm or 10mm, but they think the two zooms (10-24mm and 8-16mm) are already sufficient for landscape photographers
Would using a rail help to balance the 55-200 on a tripod?
Not sure what you mean by a rail.
Now that is a great comparison video. I agree the 50-140 is optically better out of the camera and has several outstanding features too. It appears to me that post processing with the 55-200 eliminates almost 100% of the optical differences between the two lenses. If the price and weight were the same I would buy the 50-140, but they are not so my choice will be the 55-200, even though I do not think a 200mm reach is that meaningful for me…the 140 is pretty impressive. Have two questions…how many km or miles were you from the mountain range you shot. And #2 where was this video was sho ? Northern Italy ? Thanks and Cheers
Thanks, really glad you found the video useful. You're right, the video was filmed in northern Italy, in the Dolomites, in a place called Rifugio Lagazuoi
Doesn't matter cause I own both. The 55-200 is not bad at all in fact I have a lot of quality photos with it. But to my eyes and through a bit of pixel peeping I see that the 50-140 has some kind of feeling in which the images pop more and I mostly shoot indoor and it's pretty handy to have the constant 2.8 aperture. I might sell the 55-200 and save more for the 100-400 since you lose less than a stop at the long end and you get double the focal length and plus you get a better image quality. But I must sacrifice portability in order to get that in which I have no problem with that. I mostly shoot events indoor so the 50-140 would be my choice if I need the reach the 100-400 would be my choice although I need to crank up the ISO in which I am totally fine as long as I nail focus.
For sure if you're shooting mostly indoors and need the faster aperture, the 50-140mm is the better lens. The 100-400mm is a lovely lens, which I've borrowed quite a few times. However, for hiking and landscapes it's so big that it basically always got left behind so I decided not to buy it. Still, a great lens though
Holy shit the landscape is 😍
Thanks so much for the comment
Hi Andy, this is very useful. Indeed a saving, rather the saved money can be spent elsewhere. BTW, F11 is a sweet spot of this lens, rather both lenses you believe? Or does 50-140 have smaller F no as a sweet spot? Thanks again for sharing this!
Thanks for the comment, glad you found it useful. I would say f8 is probably the sweet spot on the 55-200mm. I don't know about the 50-140mm as I don't actually own it, but f7,1 to f8 is usually the sweet spot in a lot of lenses
@@AndyMumford Hello, I bought this lens and took it on my Himalayan trek. It produced outstanding portraits of some seven thounsader peaks in the Indian Himalayas. Your video was very helpful indeed!
How about a comparison between both lens for portrait? 😀