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.
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.
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
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.
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 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 :)
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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 :)
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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~
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 :)
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
I use a tele lens for landscape only and bought the 55-200 mainly because of the weight advantage. It's a great lens up to 150mm. At full 200mm mine is a bit soft and not so pleasant but I normally don't need this range so it's not an issue. I think here the 50-140 + tele converter is much better. I still think It was the right decision for me to go for the 55-200 instead of the 50-140.
That's something we didn't touch on in the video, but the quality of the 55-200 does fall off at the end of it's focal range. It's a pity, but like you I very rarely need that reach.
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
Thank you for this comparison. Not to be overlooked, the 55-200 gives you 90mm of additional reach incrementally over the 50-140, and therefore is like having a whole other 300 mm equivalent lens in your bag.
The additional reach is a good point, although I have found there's a bit of a drop off at 200mm, which we didn't do in this video as we only compared it to the maximum focal length of the 50-140mm.
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.
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.
@@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)
Thanks :) I've heard of photographers returning the XF55-200mm when the XC50-230mm was comparable, so these two being comparable in these circumstances is even more fascinating. Apparently the XC has the same optical formula as the XF55-200, yet is built to a lower price-point obviously, in terms of coatings and materials. Being an XC-grade lens, it has more variance and less quality control etc. I've often thought that the XC50-230 would suit risky environments, as it can be very cheap.
OIS is a stop and a half better on the XF, and a stop or two better at both min and max zoom, but other than that I agree , they are optically very similar as I've used both. The XF has much quieter AF than the XC too.
I have the 50-230 and am handing it off to a friend to use with her camera. I just bought the 55-200 based on this video, and well, the price is less than 1/2 that of the 50-140. I'll use it to shoot landscapes at f5.6-f16 so don't need the added cost of the f2.8. If I need a telephoto lens that fast I'll use my 80mmf2.8. I mean, you could really buy the 50-200 and the 90mmf2 for the price of the 50-140!
@@jimmason8502 I have, too, since making this comment - yeah, I've got that luscious XF90, and gave her the 50-230 and spare 27mm to go with her firtst-gen XE1+XF35. I could pick it up again cheaply if I suddenly found a need to, but I keep my m4/3 around due to the Olympus telephoto, so that seems unlikely. I was actually thinking of some super-telephoto street photography with all this social distancing ;)
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.
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 chose the 90mm instead, but still have to put it through it's paces. On the same focal length it should beat both zooms, but when cropped it should be closer.
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.
Just took my 55-200 on a trip to Colorado for skiing, perfect size for my skiing backpack, a lot cheaper, great image quality, the only downside is it doesn't have the weather sealing, and you can't lock the lens when it is retracted.
I've never had a problem with the lack of weather sealing, and I've used the lens for almost 4 years in some pretty harsh weather. Not being able to lock the lens is a good point though.
A bit late to the party, but thanks for the comparison! It could have been a good idea to share both raw files. This way people who really want to look deeper into it can, and it negates the whole RUclips compression argument.
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
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?
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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 a great review! I think if you are looking for a weight saving on multi-day trekking, 50-200 is definitely your option of choice. Sometime ago I went for a 18-135 for that reason and also to follow kind of “shoot with what I have” philosophy but in the end of a day I think its quality is not good even for instagram photos. I still don’t give up as I suppose a better steadier tripod would improve the results a bit, but would appreciate if you could share your opinion on it.
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
Thanks for the video. Can you get a third-party bracket that will act as a shoe for the 55-200 lens? I think there was one a good few years ago for the old Nikon 70-200 that fitted on the lens.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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 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
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
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
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 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
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‘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
Nice video. I got a second handed 55-200 for my trip to Tibet last year. It works like a charm.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 and hope you both enjoyed yourselves in the dolomites with that gorgeous vista.
Thanks for watching
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
Thanks for saving me the dollars and weight! Very helpful!
Thanks so much, glad you found it useful
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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 🙏
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.
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.
Very helpful thanks! I bought the XF 55-200 today. Very happy!
That's a great lens...have fun with it
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
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
Awesome video, great comparison! Thanks for the info, very non-biased review
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
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
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 video! we just got the 50-140mm and cant wait to use it here in Hawaii when it arrives!
Have fun with it
Excitedly waiting for the new 70-300mm vs 55-200mm version of this incredibly helpful and informing comparison video.
I'm not sure I'll do one, but if I do it might take a while as landscape photography is hard with this current lockdown
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
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
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.
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
Thanks.Very helpful comments.I'll stick to the 50-140.Sharp as.Easy to handle with tripod mount.
Glad you enjoyed the review
I use a tele lens for landscape only and bought the 55-200 mainly because of the weight advantage. It's a great lens up to 150mm. At full 200mm mine is a bit soft and not so pleasant but I normally don't need this range so it's not an issue. I think here the 50-140 + tele converter is much better. I still think It was the right decision for me to go for the 55-200 instead of the 50-140.
That's something we didn't touch on in the video, but the quality of the 55-200 does fall off at the end of it's focal range. It's a pity, but like you I very rarely need that reach.
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 :-)
Thank you for this comparison. Not to be overlooked, the 55-200 gives you 90mm of additional reach incrementally over the 50-140, and therefore is like having a whole other 300 mm equivalent lens in your bag.
The additional reach is a good point, although I have found there's a bit of a drop off at 200mm, which we didn't do in this video as we only compared it to the maximum focal length of the 50-140mm.
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
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.
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)
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 :)
@4:16 It's quite difficult to read text on a white background
Thanks :)
I've heard of photographers returning the XF55-200mm when the XC50-230mm was comparable, so these two being comparable in these circumstances is even more fascinating. Apparently the XC has the same optical formula as the XF55-200, yet is built to a lower price-point obviously, in terms of coatings and materials. Being an XC-grade lens, it has more variance and less quality control etc.
I've often thought that the XC50-230 would suit risky environments, as it can be very cheap.
OIS is a stop and a half better on the XF, and a stop or two better at both min and max zoom, but other than that I agree , they are optically very similar as I've used both. The XF has much quieter AF than the XC too.
I have the 50-230 and am handing it off to a friend to use with her camera. I just bought the 55-200 based on this video, and well, the price is less than 1/2 that of the 50-140. I'll use it to shoot landscapes at f5.6-f16 so don't need the added cost of the f2.8. If I need a telephoto lens that fast I'll use my 80mmf2.8. I mean, you could really buy the 50-200 and the 90mmf2 for the price of the 50-140!
@@jimmason8502 I have, too, since making this comment - yeah, I've got that luscious XF90, and gave her the 50-230 and spare 27mm to go with her firtst-gen XE1+XF35. I could pick it up again cheaply if I suddenly found a need to, but I keep my m4/3 around due to the Olympus telephoto, so that seems unlikely. I was actually thinking of some super-telephoto street photography with all this social distancing ;)
Great comparison. I have the 55-200mm based on your earlier recommendation and I love it! Thanks again.
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!
55-200 vs 50-230 next?
thank you for this video..really useful information for me
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
Cheers Andy! Great comparison!
Thanks for watching. I appreciate the comment.
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 :-)
I chose the 90mm instead, but still have to put it through it's paces. On the same focal length it should beat both zooms, but when cropped it should be closer.
That's a fantastic lens and one I've looked at getting quite a few times.
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
Thanks for 4k quality!
Thanks for watching
Great comparison. Thanks.
Thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed it.
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
Perfect Comparison...thank you
Thanks so much, glad you found the video useful
Just took my 55-200 on a trip to Colorado for skiing, perfect size for my skiing backpack, a lot cheaper, great image quality, the only downside is it doesn't have the weather sealing, and you can't lock the lens when it is retracted.
I've never had a problem with the lack of weather sealing, and I've used the lens for almost 4 years in some pretty harsh weather. Not being able to lock the lens is a good point though.
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.
A bit late to the party, but thanks for the comparison! It could have been a good idea to share both raw files. This way people who really want to look deeper into it can, and it negates the whole RUclips compression argument.
Hi Maxime, that's probably a good idea about sharing the RAW files and in future is something I'll look into doing.
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
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.
Nice comparison, thanks for the info.
Thanks, glad you found it useful
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!
Holy shit the landscape is 😍
Thanks so much for the comment
The XC 55-230 might be worth a look. At f11 it could be surprising.
Useful and interesting
Thanks so much, really glad you enjoyed it
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
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.
Thankyou for this video!
Thanks for watching
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
Thanks for a great review!
I think if you are looking for a weight saving on multi-day trekking, 50-200 is definitely your option of choice. Sometime ago I went for a 18-135 for that reason and also to follow kind of “shoot with what I have” philosophy but in the end of a day I think its quality is not good even for instagram photos. I still don’t give up as I suppose a better steadier tripod would improve the results a bit, but would appreciate if you could share your opinion on it.
Hi Yuriy, thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed the review. I can't give an opinion onto 18-135mm as I've never used it. Sorry
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
How about a comparison between both lens for portrait? 😀
Thanks for the video. Can you get a third-party bracket that will act as a shoe for the 55-200 lens? I think there was one a good few years ago for the old Nikon 70-200 that fitted on the lens.
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
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
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 would like to see this comparison but also with the 1.4 converter to compare the long end.
Yeah, that would be interesting. The 55-200mm I feel falls off in quality quit a bit after 150mm.