Which Fuji Zoom Lens? 50-140mm Vs 55-200mm Vs 100-400mm
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2024
- Recently I was asked which Fuji zoom lens to get out of the 50-140mm or the 100-400mm... And, they hadn't considered the 55-200mm...
I thought this would be an easy thing to answer but in my research (yes, I research these videos) I discovered that it was a bit more complicated than that...
See, it turns out that there are good reasons for people to choose one of these lenses over the other and in this video, I explore which one you should get, depending on what you want to use it for.
Website: www.stevemellor.com
Instagram: / steve_mellor
Facebook: / spmellorphotography
Twitter: / sp_mellor 
Хобби
Wow, that’s the info that’s i was looking for in many videos, finally found yours, “each lens has its specific utility”
Thanks ever so much, Neil. I'm really glad you found it useful and I hope it steers you in the right direction.
Really great review. First time here and I was impressed with your breakdown of use cases.
That’s so kind of you, thank you 😊
You explain things very well, Steve. This video has been very helpful.
I'm so glad you've found it useful. Thank you so much for the comment, it's greatly appreciated.
Really insightful! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Greetings from Sacramento, CA
And greetings to you from the U.K. 😊
Thanks ever so much for your comment. I’m glad you find the video useful.
Thanks for that Steve, that was interesting and informative.
Thank you. I’m really glad people are engaging with this video in particular because it’s a big decision to make and a lot of money if you find you’ve gone for the wrong thing
Really interesting discussion thank you. We’re just starting our journey with ‘real’ photography, and it’s really interesting the jump in understanding from what ‘zoom’ means in terms of your average phone camera or small compact camera, and how you think of capturing distant objects, which lenses are best, etc with a decent camera and glass. It’s fascinating. Learning a lot from watching your videos and have subbed.
Many thanks again!
Sorry this is a late response. I'm so glad you've learned some things from my videos. I hope you're doing well with your photography?
@@SteveMellorPhotography Yes, it’s going well thanks. Lots of experimenting, and we have some shots we’re really happy with. Lots where it could have been better, of course, but the odds are improving! It’s a long road to learn about proper photography, but really interesting and rewarding. So glad we made the jump 👍
Thanks for the reply and don’t worry about it being late!
@@bramsrockhopper3377 It is a long road to get to the results you want in the end, but it's such a fantastic journey to go on. I wish you all the best in the future :)
@@SteveMellorPhotography thank you!
Great video. Thanks for not just being a fan boy but talking about what is important. Utility. Lens like cameras are tools and we need to understand the job before selecting the tool. Awesome job.
Thanks ever so much. Really pleased you found it useful :)
Some interesting telephoto lens choices here Steve. And of course now we have the new 70-300mm f4-5.6 OIS WR lens which costs £729 here in the UK. It looks compact and only weighs 580g which is pretty good for that focal range! And it takes teleconverters too! All the YT reviews I have seen of it so far have been pretty positive. I hope you get chance to test/review it.
I am hoping to get hold of one. I notice Wex still has it set as a pre-order but my intent is to replace my 50-230 with it.
From what I’ve seen, it looks fantastic.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Yes I notice it's still on pre-order here in the UK stores. Any idea when it will come in stock?
Im lucky enough to own the 100-400 (mainly for wildlife) and the 55-200. The 55-200 is a great lens for events, landscape and in the right situation has nice background blur for portraits. I decided against the 50-140 and got the 56F1.2 and the 23 1.4 for the blurry background shots
Today, I’m editing a video which is a shootout between the 50-230mm and the 55-200mm. I was pretty amazed at the conclusions.
Nice review. What about for sports event, do you think it is worth purchasing the 50-140 or is the 55-200 enough ?
Unfortunately, I’ve not had the chance to go to any sporting events due to lockdowns. We’re not far from Prescott Hill, where they do the hill climbs and I would have liked to have given that a go...
Your main issue with sports is going to be fast focusing and movement. I know many go to the 100-400mm for sports but I’ve seen some say the 55-200 is a good compromise.
The big thing with the 50-140, though, is reach. It’s a bit short for field sports. Adding the 2x TC brings this up to f/5.6 with a focal length of 280mm. That’s considerably better but is an extra expense to consider.
Perhaps, to start with, sticking with the 55-200 is a good start and then you can decide if you’re missing some usability.
But, the 50-140 is an expensive lens and I would suggest finding somewhere to rent it and the TCs first so you can have a go.
There’s also the 70-300mm to consider, as that is meant to be out sometime this year. That’s a f/4.5-5.6 IIRC, and might be a bridge between focal length and cost. We’ll have to wait and see.
Excellent video. I own the 55-200 and I'm trying to decide between the 100-400 and the new 70-300. Mostly for bird photography...
If it’s purely for birds, go the extra mile and grab the 100-400 with the 1.4x TC as well. I think, however, the 70-300 might start to overtake the 55-200 in the long run. Just a hunch.
In 2018 I made a safari in Tanzania with the Fujifilm Xt3 and xf 50-140 + tc2x. I enjoyed very much this versatile combo. We can use this lens too for deep space (astrophotography)!
Sure and there’s nothing wrong with the 50-140, it’s a great lens. It has its issues though, depending on what you use it for and there are many cases where a different lens is going to be a better choice.
Really enjoyed the video. I have the 50-140, and I agree that it's a great lens, but limited for wildlife. For tight portrait shots, I'm thinking I'll pick up the 90 f/2, get the 100-400 for wildlife, and perhaps get the 55-200 as well, although I'm debating how much I'll actually use it.
That 90mm looks great. I’ll have to get my hands on one at some point.
Don’t forget to look at the 70-300 as well.
Thanks for commenting and I’m really pleased you liked the video 😊
Thanks for these insights. Almost bought a used XF 50-140mm...realizing it is not the right lense for me.Waiting for the XF 70-300...
Yes, that 70-300 could be very interesting. I’m hoping I’ll be able to borrow it to do a bit of a review when it comes out (although we’ll have to see.
now with the 70-300 in the mix, im very unsure which one to buy. I'll maily use it for landscape photography, any advise?
I like the 70-300mm. I’ve seen some images from it and you’re not loosing a massive range when it comes to 55-70 (if you have the kit lens). I’m pretty sure you won’t miss it.
If you were doing wildlife primarily, I would still suggest the 100-400mm but just for landscapes, the 70-300mm should give you a bit of extra reach. Plus, it’s weather sealed which the 55-200 isn’t.
If you want a great range, combine it with the 16-80mm or 18-135mm.
As soon as I can, I’ll do another look with all of the lenses, the 70-300 included, it that won’t be for a while.
Interesting, I am coming to Fuji in the new year and was considering what my lens line up should be. I like most am interested in wildlife and landscape and was wanting the 100-400 and considering whether the 50-140 would be worth it, as could use it for portraits to but then I am carrying a heavy lens around. I have listened to the likes of Andy Mumford and Thomas Heaton butI am still undecided. My head hurts.......
It’s a difficult choice and our decisions (my whole family has X-T3’s now) has been driven by the things we most want to shoot.
There’s certainly a fair amount of crossover as well, with some of the macro lenses being great for portraits as well.
So, definitely get the 100-400. It’s the only native choice for wildlife that isn’t going to cost you £6k.
Other than that... Will you be doing landscapes too or is it just wildlife & portraits?
The use case you haven't mentioned is sports. I am a sports shooter thinking of switching to Fujifilmfrom Nikon but there does seem to be a lack of fast telephoto zooms. I currently shoot with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 AND A Sigma 100-300MM F4. At the moment the lack of fast long lenses is what is holding me back from making the switch. think i would struggle if i had to shoot at f5.6 especialy in winter.
You’re right, that is the one thing they are missing. They want you to buy the 200mm but it’s 6k and only gives you f/4 with the 2x TC. I have to admit, it’s an area I don’t do.
Use a canon 100-400 with a fringer for long reach and it works well as an option. That 55-230 is cheap but so worth it and light in your bag, keep them coming as look forward to your honest reviews
I do like the idea of longer focal ranges using Canon glass but you’re jumping up considerably in cost agains it’s a great option though and I’m looking forward to seeing what Sigma might have in the near future.
I’m doing a shootout with the 55-200 and the 50-230 on Sunday, which was an interesting shoot.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Why, are Sigma going to produce some lenses for the X-Mount soon?
Great breakdown! May have saved me some dough before I bought all the 1.0+ primes for documentary photography and I live at f8 anyways😂
Yeah, doing landscapes, I tend to be at f8 all the time too 😂
XF 70-300mm - C'mon Fuji still waiting....
Ha! Yes!! I think a lot of people are waiting for that lens!
Thank you very much... 👍👍👍😃🖐🖐
I’m really glad you found it useful. It took me a while to get all of this and I’m glad I can pass along the knowledge!
Very useful, thank you.
Glad it’s been useful. Sorry for the late reply :)
@@SteveMellorPhotography No need to apologise! the only thing nudging me towards the 50-140 is the WR, I don't tend to go out in horrendous weather but having moved from Olympus with all WR lenses I may miss that peace of mind. I also use it by the coast which = sand, or am I being over cautious and dismissive of the build quality of the 55-200?
@@jonathansaull9715 You know. You might be better with the 70-300. It’s got the same optics as the 50-200 and that lost focal range (50-70) isn’t much of a pain.
I’m trying to get my hands on one at the moment to do a proper review.
@@SteveMellorPhotography I will stay tuned Steve, thanks for your time and keep vlogging!
The 100-400 is soo heavy ... using it for wildlife with xt2+battery grip ... 2.4kg.... but what an amazing lens... sometimes a bit jealous of my friend shooting gx80 +100-300 panasonic... only about 1kg ... ans stunning images ... anyway keep it up , really nice content will try this afternoon your wildlife settings :-) thank you !
Awesome, hope you get on well with them. Have you looked at the 70-300? I’ve got a feeling that’s going to be an option for a lot of wildlife shooters who need a walk around lens :)
@@SteveMellorPhotography thinking of... thinking of selling my 55-200 for getting it and maybe buying the 90f2...
Yeah, we might get rid of a 55-200 as well.
is Fuji XC 50-230 good for beginner wildlife photographer??
To be honest, it depends. If you're starting out and you're after something that has a lot of different uses, I'd actually take a look at the 70-300mm which has a lot to offer, great image quality and is still fairly light-weight. If price is an issue, however, the 50-230mm is still pretty good.
You won't have quite the reach you would with the other lenses and you'll have to push your ISO up a little but my Mum (who has used the 230 more than I have) has some great wildlife shots using it and I was very pleased with the shots I got from the Zoo... In fact, it's great for that sort of photography.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Thanks buddy
Having all 3 of those lenses, I can positively say that there is no comparing the 50-140 to the much cheaper 55-200... absolutely not a chance in h***! The 50-140 is superior in every single way, mot notably in solar flaring in backlit situations, and obviously in the aperture depth of field. The autofocus is also much fast on the 50-140! Of those 3, the 55-200 is the one I’d not purchase again, if I had the choice
Like any video talking about gear on RUclips, YMMV.
You say the 50-140 is superior but I've seen side-by-side shots from the two where you can't tell the difference, 1:1, even some where the 55-200 looks better. The few shots I was able to take (I have only used it for a few minutes, so only have a few shots that I've tried, but I know someone with the lens and they have done extensive testing) were not noticeably different. "Solar flaring in backlit situations," I will talk to John about when I see him again in the new year, but it's not likely something he would have missed out. He's much more technically minded than I am.
The major benefit of depth of field is not apparent in your typical landscape shots where you're often focus-stacking to get the whole thing sharp anyway. In fact, I don't think I know a landscape photographer that spends their time much below f/8. Sure, for some shots, but their out-of-the-bag settings would be a higher aperture anyway.
And, what is the point of a faster autofocus if you're taking a landscape? There are rarely times when those few milliseconds are going to mean you don't get a landscape shot... especially when you've been waiting an hour or so for the right lighting.
So, the benefit is only really there for Astro and specifically for Astro when you're taking a subject in the distance. Most Astro is done on a much wider lens with a wider aperture (2 and below).
But, I'm not saying the 50-140 is a bad lens. Quite the contrary. I'm saying it's situational, that it was designed primarily for portraiture (where DOF and autofocus speeds do really matter). Sure, it can handle certain wildlife shots really well too, but that if you're serious about wildlife, the 100-400 is more tailored to the sort of shots you'll want to take.
And, it can handle landscape and it will do a very good job of it but what benefits the lens brings will, largely, become redundant because of the settings that are likely to be used.
That's the thing with all of the Fuji range. They all have a purpose, a usage case they have been designed for, and understanding that can be really important not just when choosing lenses to buy but when packing your bag for a trip.
If you're not a fan of the 55-200 or you don't need it in your kit, there is tremendous resale value in Fuji lenses.
I feel like the most versatile would be the 50-140 + teleconverter. While when combined it’s the same minimum aperture as the 100-400, the main difference is that the 100-400 can never do 50-140 @ 2.8, whereas the 50-140 can do both. Not only that, shooting landscape at different apertures is purely subjective. There is no rule that states one must shoot at f/8 and up to be considered a proper landscape photographer.
In reality, for the price the 50-140 + teleconverter will do landscape, wildlife, portraiture, and do them all exceptionally well with some of the best micro-contrast and image quality.
The 50-140mm can never do 400mm. Even with the 2x, you’re capping out at 280 at f/5.6. The 100-400 is around f/5 at that point and every scrap of light is important with wildlife.
You’re right, there isn’t a rule that says you must shoot at f/8 but the reality is that f/8-f/11 ends up being where most landscapes are taken.
The 50-140 is a great lens, make no mistake about it, but like every Fuji lens, it has a specific use case and there are lenses better suited to landscape/wildlife/sport.
In the same way I wouldn’t use the 100-400 for landscapes, it doesn’t mean it can’t do it, there are just better options, especially when it comes to landscapes.
@@SteveMellorPhotography valid points! Curious on your opinions with the 70-300 vs the 100-400? Do you think the lens stacks up in the IQ department? Or would you not even compare these two lenses and consider them their own entities? For the average Joe, most are looking for how they can achieve the best bang for buck instead of just owning every lens Fuji comes out with. Which would be your go-to if you could only have one?
The 70-300, I’ve only seen sample images for and some reviews so far but the IQ looks on par with the 50-200, of not better in some reviews.
I’ve also seen the 50-200 out-perform the 50-140 in certain circumstances (which I was surprised about at the time & why I tried to find out more about the different use cases).
I mostly do landscapes so, if I had to choose one, and assuming the sub-55 range was covered by another lens, I’d go for the 70-300.
It’s not the fastest of lenses but 300mm can handle about 80% of any wildlife shots you’d want to take. You would sacrifice a little IQ for that but you’re not trying to find perfect, you’re trying to find the best bang for your buck.
It will be able to handle pretty much anything landscape wise and there are times you want to shoot at 300-400mm. With the 1.4 TC, you could do that without compromising on weight of you’re hiking. 55-70 isn’t a massive loss in range. You could live with it.
So, my ultimate set of lenses for landscapes, I suppose would be the 10-24, 16-55 (because f/2.8) and the 70-300mm with TC.
But, if you’re serious about Wildlife, the 100-400 with TC is a must.
I am considering getting the 70-300 anyway, for a landscape setup. I currently have the 18-135 and I’d want the 10-24 with that too.
The thing I’m missing is fast lenses but I’m not doing a lot where that’s important.
Obviously, it’s important to understand what you want to take and what benefits you need from a lens before buying.
@@SteveMellorPhotography thank you for the very thoughtful and insightful response! I shoot mainly landscape and I was leaning towards the 70-300 but I always have this feeling that I will be missing out on micro contrast or f/2.8 from the 50-140!
I think you make some valid points about not trying to achieve perfect but get that best bang for buck and I think I agree with you on that lens setup. I had the 16-80 but was unhappy with corner softness and overall performance so I was planning on getting the 16-55 as well!
Thanks again for your time and opinions!
My pleasure.
Honestly, I wouldn’t worry too much about micro-contrast. Again, going by the results I’ve seen from the 55-200 and 50-140 side-by-side, you’d be hard pressed to see much of a difference, if any, on Landscape shots. Where the 50-140 really shines is professional portraiture. It blows every other Fuji X lens out of the water for that.
focus breathing.