Finally someone that puts the 50-230 where it belongs, not downplaying it's lack of features/quality but understanding the price/quality balance which is just crazy compared to the entire Fuji lens line-up.
If it weren’t for the added reach of the 70-30 and weather sealing, I would’ve never sold my 50-230. It performed incredibly well for the price, especially when the 55-200 was the only other option.
I’m a picky retired pro. I’ve owned a 50-230, a 55-200, and now a 70-300. This excellent review is the first I’ve seen that accurately describes the relationship of these three lenses. Skilled photographers can get beautiful images with any of them. I gave the 50-230 to my daughter, and when we go out shooting together I’m so impressed with the great results she gets with it. She’s not a gear head, and doesn’t know that her lens is an “XC cheapo” so that doesn’t hold her back. My results with the 70-300 might be technically better, but the artistic and emotional quality of her images are just as good as mine.
Oh, I totally agree. The 70-300 has so many things going for it, but they’re largely situational… If you’re heavily tracking wildlife… If you want a teleconverter… If you want the sharpest image from a zoom in this range… But that doesn’t diminish the incredible results I’ve seen from the 50-230. I’m so pleased for your daughter. She’s got the right idea. It’s never about gear, it’s about the final image.
As a retired pro, what are your feelings about the 55-200 for youth sports and possible a little auto racing on an X-T3(amateur, not professional)? I currently shoot with my XF90 f2. It's nice and sharp, but I'd like a bit more reach. There's a retired pro locally selling a 55-200 for a pretty good price. But, I'd like to know if someone with experience thinks it will be sufficient. This video is so timely. As a retired pro, what are your feelings about the 55-200 for youth sports and possible a little auto racing on an X-T3(amateur, not professional)? I currently shoot with my XF90 f2. It's nice and sharp, but I'd like a bit more reach. There's a retired pro locally selling a 55-200 for a pretty good price. But, I'd like to know if someone with experience thinks it will be sufficient.
i got the 50-230 in a kit, upgraded to the 55-200 after a year, and again to the 70-300 after another year. was always happy. never regretted my upgrades. all 3 are great
I recently bought the XC50-230, it was on a deal, got it brand new for £250 Will use it for a while till I can trade for a used XF70-300 at a decent price. Am very happy with the price/performance ratio for the XC lens, as a cash-strapped beginner it gave me the opportunity to start doing some wildlife photos.
I think that’s the major benefit of it. It’s constantly been something on this channel that I’ve come back to because I’ve been very pleased with the performance. I’m talking a look at using it on the 40mp sensors soon.
Loved the Video! I just got my XC 50-230mm and I am really loving it. I use the X-T30 II and have been using the 18-55 for the past year, when I discovered the XC 50-230 I was genuinely excited at how affordable it was. And I am having a great time with it.
Like the previous commenter I invested in the Tamron 18 to 300 used it over Xmas taking landscape on the Pembroke coast. Couldn't be happier with the results and a great travel lens if you want to cut down on weight although the Tamron is a bit on the heavy side. I bought the XC 50 to 230 and was really pleased with that but it was a hassle swapping lenses with the 18 to 55. Cracking video as always Steve
Thanks, Keith. I've not heard anything bad about the Tamron so far and, if I hadn't already gone for the 70-300mm, I would have seriously considered it. As I said to the previous commenter, I'd love to know how it resolves with the 40mp sensor.
70-300 it’s one of the best lens I ever had , it’s unbelievable good also for portrait and sports . It’s so sharp , crisp , nice bokeh even if the aperture is high ! It’s really amazing . I have the 18-55 , 56 prime , and 70-300
I got the tamron 18-300 for general walk around and very pleased with it as it focuses so close and leaves me with a body and lens only setup, or use my canon 100-400 with adapter for wild life
I did want to take a look at the Tamron but couldn’t get hold of one. One thing I’d love to know is how it stacks up with the 40mp sensor, because that could be a game changer.
holy cow I'm glad I heard that disclaimer at the end about the 40mp sensors. Thank you! I've got an XH2 and I was considering the two cheaper options. Guess I'll save up for the 70-300. Glad I'm not in a rush :) Thank you!
I own a XC 50-230. Few of my best shots are through this lens. Given the price it’s the best fuji offers in this range. I am no professional, it is all what I need.
I think people forget it was the other kit lens for the XT1/2. It’s old tech but it’s worth looking into and you can get great results with it. I just do an updated video on using it with the XT5 as well, but for any of the earlier cameras, you can absolutely use this as a budget wildlife lens.
I recently bought the X-H2 with the XF100-400 which is a truly amazing combination but I very soon realised that perhaps I would have been better off with the 70-300mm and used the incredible scope for cropping from the 40MP sensor to make up for the drop in reach. However, I’m not in a position to change so I will have to put up with my ‘truly amazing combination’. Good to see the XC getting a decent shout
Thanks a ton! I've been planning on buying my first telelens and the xf70-300 was the obvious choice. Sadly all of the used ones have just sold out on the local (Poland) markets and after watching your video I've actually think the XC would be a better pick for me atm. Thank you so much for that great, high quality, and informative video. Loved it!! You've saved me so much money haha
Thanks for the info and test. I've just bought a X T5 and it came with the XF 18mm TO 55mm. Was looking at the55mm to 200mm. But think I'll get the 70mm to 300mm now. Thanks for the review.
@the_bad_photographer last year i was torn between the 50-230 and the 70-300. i considered the weather sealing as a factor... but then figured i wouldn't really be shooting too many distant subjects in bad weather. the other factors were price and size/weight (since i was travelling with two cameras). and the 50-230 wins those factors by a huge margin. the light weight also helps stabilise the camera easier. finally when i used it in the field, i was incredibly surprised by the pictures i got (in good light). i'm still thinking of the 300 for the extra reach.. but for now the 50-230 serves me very well.
I've been watching Fuji gear reviews thinking of going back to this system after I sold X-T2 and lenses a few years ago. Thanks for reminding me how shitty the IQ is, foliage looks like a one huge poop smudge, I'll stick to my current gear.
What a great article! Thank you very much. On Nov. 20th, my brother, a friend, and myself are leaving on a trip to Namibia (and more?). For 2 weeks of the trip we will be renting a Toyota 4WD (a pretty common way to go in Namibia, from what I've seen). For quite a while I have been stewing over what to bring with me besides my X-T3, my 18-55 lens, and a clean pair of shorts. You, and your video, have helped me out immensely. Dankie! (Thank you! In Afrikaans) 🙂 Sincerely, Paul in California
I never had a use case for the focal range, but I always wanted to get one and try it out. A few months ago I got a new camera and it came with a coupon that redeem the XC lens for about for about US$160! For that price, it’s a no-brainer! I still haven’t had the opportunity to use it, but looking forward to try out in a zoo or something.
I picked up a refurbished XC 50-230mm direct from Fuji a few years ago, it’s super lightweight and was very reasonably priced, also I find I’m not usually using such long focal lengths nowadays, so it made sense. That being said, the few times I have used it I’ve found it a little slow on the AF and I miss not having an aperture ring. I did hire a 70-300 for a short trip to Cornwall last year, it’s was great and I may consider picking up a used one, although I’d still like to try the 50-140mm, maybe with the 1.4TC, again I’ll probably hire one first.
Hi, can you say and give some more about the 55-200 compared to the two others? I hoped that you also included that little more, I’m very satisfied with it.
There's not much more to say, its a great lens. It's better than the XC but slightly softer and slower than the 70-300. I have used the 50-200 for ages and got some incredible shots. The newer lens is a significant upgrade, though.
I enjoyed this comparison Steve, and I agree with you about the results. I have the X-T5 (traded my X-T3) and I recently got the 70-300. I have traded in my 55-200 to get that. Basically I can fill the gaps nicely because I also have the 16-80....so covered all the way from 16mm to 300mm with no gaps!! Yes, the 70-300 is on the Fuji "list" and is a great lens, but I have been very happy with the performance of the 16-80 on the X-T5 too.The new processor and sensor will ensure it works that little bit better than on my X-T3. So, very happy
From what I’ve seen, the older lenses are only slightly softer on the larger sensors, so a soft AI Sharpen should fix any problems. I know some what to have the optimal lens for their system, of course.
@@SteveMellorPhotography It is really compact and hand. The OIS combined with IBIS greatly enhanced usability. I can even shoot satisfactory photos in the night by hand holding.
This video is so timely. I've been considering the 55-200 for youth sports and possible a little auto racing on an X-T3(amateur, not professional)? I currently shoot with my XF90 f2. It's nice and sharp, but I'd like a bit more reach. There's a retired pro locally selling a 55-200 for a pretty good price. Any thoughts about that lens and sports? Thanks for your comparison. It really was nicely put together.
I like the 50-200mm and it was a bit of a workhorse before getting the 70-300mm. I think it's a little wide for sports, to be honest. Of course you could crop in if you have the 40mp sensor.
I moved from Fuji to full frame Sony and this is the lens I miss the most! - I bought a Tamron 70-300mm which comes close in weight, but it's much longer in length and has no stabilisation at all which makes it unusable handheld. What would you say is the closest available alternative for Sony FE with good in lens stabilisation?
In October I bought the 70-300mm lens and the 1.4X teleconverter arrived on Monday. It is a small and lightweight system that gives a full frame equivalent focal length of 630mm. The only problem is that the X-E3 camera has a miniscule grip so holding the camera with one hand can be a bit tiring after some time. The plan is to upgrade it to the X-S20 when it comes out. The system needs a bit of light and trying it out in the middle of winter doesn't help. You can by a lens collar for it, the iShoot IS-XF5520, and it fits both the 55-200mm and the 70-300mm. It seems to fit alright but I haven't tried it out in anger. It should improve the stability and balance when on a tripod.
@@SteveMellorPhotography I know what you mean. I should be trying out the lens collar soon and hope to upgrade the camera this year and that should work out well. Originally the plan was to upgrade to the X-S10, but since the 40MP sensors are being used in the X-H2 and X-T5 along with better autofocus and news that the X-S20 could be coming out this year or early next year, I will wait until the X-S20 is on the market and I will have a better idea of what to get. Hopefully, it will be out soon. Last week I was out for two and a half hours with the setup in the freezing weather, walked about 3 miles and took a lot of handheld photographs. It felt good, but on occasions when shooting with the left hand not fully supporting the lens did feel slightly heavy in the right hand. A bigger grip would have given better support, that is one reason for wanting to move to the X-S10. I am at a loss as to why the grips on the X-T series are so small. I also like the small size and weight of the X-S10 as well as the ability to quickly decide between taking stills or videos. On photographing wildlife, you can decide at the last moment how you want to photograph it. On the X-E3, you need to go to the drive menu first.
Excellent comparison Steve. I love that stained glass window in the middle of a woodland! I went for the XF 70-300mm and it is very good. The sharpness and detail are fantastic and the fact that it is weather-resistant, has great O.I.S, the lens lock that you mentioned and you can use the XF teleconverters (I bought the 1.4x TC) is a winner for me 🙂
It has really given me some amazing shots and I’m really pleased with it. I have to give up my 100-400mm and I don’t feel I’m losing out now. The 70-300mm let’s me do everything I wanted.
Is it great with the Tele? I am a budget XT-2 user, so it would love a 70-300, but £££. I wonder how much difference the stablisation makes in the real world, quite a bit I expect?
I have the xf 100-400 mm + xf 1.4X wf teleconverter for about 3 years. I've rarely taken it on my trips because it's too heavy and too big. Now I have decided to buy the XF 70-300 mm and ditch the 100-400 mm. I hope I will be happier with it. I will definitely keep the teleconverter. Baba from Austria.
Just stumbled upon this video... The comparison are really nice. I am gonna be the odd guy using the 50-230 on a X-T5... Though I don't shoot telephoto all that often, got it only to cover the range for the rare occasions I did wish for more reach. But seeing the comparison, as well as knowing the list of lens for 40 megapixels, the 70-300 does seem rather attractive.
@@SteveMellorPhotography don't know if this would be of any interest to you but... I tried the XC 50-230 on the X-E3 and X-T5... not very scientific by any means but I don't think there was any notable difference to me... the lens doesn't seem to get anything out of the extra megapixels, but the extra pixel density didn't hurt it much either which was (at least to me) a bit surprising.
Great comparison video! I currently have the XC 50-230 for my xt-30 which I bought a few years back after watching your video on it! I’ve gotten more into bird/wildlife photography am interested in the extra reach the 70-300 would provide when used with teleconverters. Would you consider making a video on this in the future?
I am actually out tomorrow filming with the 70-300mm and the 1.4x TC. What that gives you (at f/8) is basically the same as the 100-40mm, which is quite impressive, so I’m interested in seeing how well it works.
@@SteveMellorPhotography same here! I look forward to seeing that video! I actually found that MPB sells the used 100-400 for not much more than the new 70-300, making the decision on which to purchase much more difficult…
Hi Steve and thank you for this clarifying video. I would like to ask you a question. I will have to go to Kenya and would like to buy a lens for my fujifilm xt20 to photograph animals on safari. Among these three, which one would you recommend? Thanks in advance and congratulations again for the video 😊
There is no doubt in my mind that your absolute best bet would be the 70-300mm. If you can, get at least the 1.4x Teleconverter as well and you're shooting, effectively, with a 100-400mm lens for a fraction of the weight, at the expense of just one stop of light.
I don't have chance to try neether of those, i would need a telephoto lens for fuji xt3, and would need it for shooting kiteboarding and surfing from the beach? What do you recomend? Thank you for your answer
If you can get the 70-300mm, that's the best lens to go for. If not, the 50-200mm. It's wider, but it's faster. Right now, I would suggest the 70-300mm every time, though.
There is also one big advantage of 50-230 mm Lens. It is same filter size as 18-55 and 33 1.4 lenses. If you consider cheap/lightweight setup then cheaper xt2/xt3 with no Ibis with 18-55/50-230 with OIS are Perfect together.
I’ve been using the 50-230 if I’m hiking and weight is a concern. I also have the 50-140 and 2x teleconverter. It’s a heavy setup, but I like it as well.
Hello, I mainly shot woodlands and was looking for a telephoto lens to buy, I'm kinda really stuck at this point making a decision, 70 300 nice but that 70mm wish was wider but I have 16 80 so 50 200 doesn't really make sense anymore but it still looks like the best option for this kind of photography I wish fuji had telephoto primes, I would like to here with a zoom lens for you fits the best. also there is a Tamron super zoom lens.
Personally, I wouldn't go for the 50-200 if you have the 16-80. The 70-300 is great. You're already covering the focal range for the majority of shots. As far as Tamron goes, I've not had the chance to test it but I've heard very good things. The only reason I would chose the 70-300 over the 18-300 is that superzooms always have some trade off the greater the zoom range. Plus, in can speak to how fantastically sharp the 70-300 is. I'm still shocked by how good it is after a year of using it.
I do have to say, the low light performance is a little bit to be desired for in the 50-230mm. I recently took a photo at the local park, of a sparrow later in the afternoon, and I had to put the ISO up to I think 3200-4000, and even then it was a little bit underexposed, but I threw it through Topaz Sharpen AI, and I still got a pretty usable image afterwards, so you can still work with it a bit.
Unfortunately, it’s not THAT much better with the other lenses, but it does make a difference. Unless you get the super-expensive lenses, though, that’s always going to be a problem. Really, that’s why tools like Topaz are so good, they let you do more for less.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Yes, but a couple of Aperture stops are always nice, to let more light in, and to get a little shallower depth of field, however small, it's still a win win. It's amazing how far post processing software has come, and how much time programs like Topaz can save, when you get the hang of it.
Thank you for the comparison of the lenses. I got my Fuji kit way back in 2013 to replace a relatively heavy SONY DSLR system. With a XE2 got a set of 18-55mm and 55-200mm. both lenses served well in my family trips with some bird shots. A few months before COVID derailed all plans, got a 100-400 as well, planning to restart the bit of wildlife I used to do with my SONY kit in my trips to India and my project sites in UAE earlier. Want to restart the wildlife shoots but nearly 10 years now and not so good back want the kit to be lighter. However, I feel the whole kit needs a trimming. By getting a 70-300 with a 1.4 TC I can let go 55-200 and 100-400? Have a 60mm Macro too for that little gap . Another option - all lenses except the macro go and get a 16-80 and 70-300 with the TC
A lot of people like that 16-80. That could be a very gold move. I would happily replace the 55-200mm and 100-400mm with the 70-300mm and the 1.4x TC. It is a compromise, of course, but not much of one and the lihtness of the kit more than makes up for the extra stop of light you need at 400mm.
I've owned all three lenses. The 50-230 makes sense for the price and weight, good images. The 70-300 blows the other two away in everything but weight. The 55-200 is the middle child, okay if that's what you have but middling at best.
Love your Style how you do compare things and explain the main differences between each lens. I will go for the 50/230 because my wife would kill me for spending 700€ on the XF70/300 :-)
It’s not quite as simple, unfortunately. Basically, you will have images that are less sharp, but it’s relatively unnoticeable unless you decide to pixel peep or do incredibly tight crops. You’re resolution and performance will remain the same. I’ve found on my 10-24mm (a lot of people said they had a problem with that on the 40mp sensor) that it hasn’t made any difference that I can tell.
Very shortly after getting my XT-2, I bought a XC 50-230. I was excited about the lens and it's weight (or lack thereof) was fantastic. But ... I was really disappointed with the results. I would define them as "OK", but really, not good enough for me. At 50mm they were acceptable. At 230mm they weren't. So, yes it was a (very) inexpensive lens, but the quality just wasn't there for me. I found the XF 55-200 to be a massive leap upwards in quality. I still found that the quality at full zoom wasn't fantastic, but I did find it acceptable. I haven't tried the 70-230, so can't comment on that.
Any zoom like that is something of a compromise but the 50-200 is sharper and it does perform better in low light. The 70-300mm is a big step up. It really should be one of the red badge lenses.
I’ve not had the chance yet and I probably won’t. I did try the 18-135 with the X-T5 and that seemed to resolve okay… perhaps a tiny bit softer than with the X-T3 but not enough to worry about.
The 50-230mm is outstanding value and the difference between it and the 70-300 is far less than the price suggests- owning both and shooting in sunlight at f8 negligible difference
This is true. I've always been a fan of the 50-230mm. The big difference for me was how sharp the 70-300mm is when you zoom into the frame. Mix that with the X-T5 and you can get some quite intimate shots of creatures quite far away.
The 70 to 300 cost about £730 and you can only buy it new.The 100 to 400 can be found in excellent condition used for £930.So I would go for the 100 to 400 as I don't mind the weight.
I've just searched and found several versions of the 70-300mm for around £700, where as a new lens is online for £749 from Wex. Used does give you a bit of money off, and that can make a difference for some. Similarly, it would be chirlish of me to suggest that £200 isn't a break point in price for many and, for most, the 100-400m is just overkill. There's a place for it in Fuji's lineup (although, less of a place now, perhaps) and I have done a 70-300mm vs 100-400mm comparison which is being edited right now. But, this video is about the mid-range zooms and the 100-400mm is not a mid-range zoom, it's still not in the same price bracket or weight class and yet those are the things people are looking for when choosing between these lenses.
Maybe it’s me, my experience is the opposite. Fuji is terrible with zoom lenses, especially for a crop sensor camera. You would think they would have better options. Their fast primes however are stellar.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Finally someone that puts the 50-230 where it belongs, not downplaying it's lack of features/quality but understanding the price/quality balance which is just crazy compared to the entire Fuji lens line-up.
If it weren’t for the added reach of the 70-30 and weather sealing, I would’ve never sold my 50-230. It performed incredibly well for the price, especially when the 55-200 was the only other option.
I’m a picky retired pro. I’ve owned a 50-230, a 55-200, and now a 70-300. This excellent review is the first I’ve seen that accurately describes the relationship of these three lenses. Skilled photographers can get beautiful images with any of them. I gave the 50-230 to my daughter, and when we go out shooting together I’m so impressed with the great results she gets with it. She’s not a gear head, and doesn’t know that her lens is an “XC cheapo” so that doesn’t hold her back. My results with the 70-300 might be technically better, but the artistic and emotional quality of her images are just as good as mine.
Oh, I totally agree. The 70-300 has so many things going for it, but they’re largely situational… If you’re heavily tracking wildlife… If you want a teleconverter… If you want the sharpest image from a zoom in this range… But that doesn’t diminish the incredible results I’ve seen from the 50-230. I’m so pleased for your daughter. She’s got the right idea. It’s never about gear, it’s about the final image.
As a retired pro, what are your feelings about the 55-200 for youth sports and possible a little auto racing on an X-T3(amateur, not professional)? I currently shoot with my XF90 f2. It's nice and sharp, but I'd like a bit more reach. There's a retired pro locally selling a 55-200 for a pretty good price. But, I'd like to know if someone with experience thinks it will be sufficient. This video is so timely. As a retired pro, what are your feelings about the 55-200 for youth sports and possible a little auto racing on an X-T3(amateur, not professional)? I currently shoot with my XF90 f2. It's nice and sharp, but I'd like a bit more reach. There's a retired pro locally selling a 55-200 for a pretty good price. But, I'd like to know if someone with experience thinks it will be sufficient.
i got the 50-230 in a kit, upgraded to the 55-200 after a year, and again to the 70-300 after another year. was always happy. never regretted my upgrades. all 3 are great
They really are :)
I recently bought the XC50-230, it was on a deal, got it brand new for £250
Will use it for a while till I can trade for a used XF70-300 at a decent price.
Am very happy with the price/performance ratio for the XC lens, as a cash-strapped beginner it gave me the opportunity to start doing some wildlife photos.
I think that’s the major benefit of it. It’s constantly been something on this channel that I’ve come back to because I’ve been very pleased with the performance. I’m talking a look at using it on the 40mp sensors soon.
Loved the Video! I just got my XC 50-230mm and I am really loving it. I use the X-T30 II and have been using the 18-55 for the past year, when I discovered the XC 50-230 I was genuinely excited at how affordable it was. And I am having a great time with it.
I'm so pleased to hear that :)
Like the previous commenter I invested in the Tamron 18 to 300 used it over Xmas taking landscape on the Pembroke coast. Couldn't be happier with the results and a great travel lens if you want to cut down on weight although the Tamron is a bit on the heavy side. I bought the XC 50 to 230 and was really pleased with that but it was a hassle swapping lenses with the 18 to 55. Cracking video as always Steve
Thanks, Keith. I've not heard anything bad about the Tamron so far and, if I hadn't already gone for the 70-300mm, I would have seriously considered it. As I said to the previous commenter, I'd love to know how it resolves with the 40mp sensor.
70-300 it’s one of the best lens I ever had , it’s unbelievable good also for portrait and sports .
It’s so sharp , crisp , nice bokeh even if the aperture is high !
It’s really amazing .
I have the 18-55 , 56 prime , and 70-300
Super. What type of the Fuji camera do you have? I’m owning Fujifilm xs20 with 18-55 and now I think about 70-300. Regards
Çok güzel ve bilgilendirici bir çalışma olmuş. Teşekkür ederim kendi adıma. Hangi lensi almam gerektiğini artık biliyorum.
I got the tamron 18-300 for general walk around and very pleased with it as it focuses so close and leaves me with a body and lens only setup, or use my canon 100-400 with adapter for wild life
I did want to take a look at the Tamron but couldn’t get hold of one. One thing I’d love to know is how it stacks up with the 40mp sensor, because that could be a game changer.
holy cow I'm glad I heard that disclaimer at the end about the 40mp sensors. Thank you! I've got an XH2 and I was considering the two cheaper options. Guess I'll save up for the 70-300. Glad I'm not in a rush :) Thank you!
I own a XC 50-230. Few of my best shots are through this lens. Given the price it’s the best fuji offers in this range. I am no professional, it is all what I need.
I think people forget it was the other kit lens for the XT1/2. It’s old tech but it’s worth looking into and you can get great results with it. I just do an updated video on using it with the XT5 as well, but for any of the earlier cameras, you can absolutely use this as a budget wildlife lens.
I recently bought the X-H2 with the XF100-400 which is a truly amazing combination but I very soon realised that perhaps I would have been better off with the 70-300mm and used the incredible scope for cropping from the 40MP sensor to make up for the drop in reach. However, I’m not in a position to change so I will have to put up with my ‘truly amazing combination’. Good to see the XC getting a decent shout
You won't go far wrong with the 100-400mm though. It's a fantastic lens.
Thanks a ton! I've been planning on buying my first telelens and the xf70-300 was the obvious choice. Sadly all of the used ones have just sold out on the local (Poland) markets and after watching your video I've actually think the XC would be a better pick for me atm. Thank you so much for that great, high quality, and informative video. Loved it!! You've saved me so much money haha
Glad I could help!
Thanks for the info and test. I've just bought a X T5 and it came with the XF 18mm TO 55mm. Was looking at the55mm to 200mm. But think I'll get the 70mm to 300mm now. Thanks for the review.
Well done, sir! Really nice comparison between 3 very similar focal lengths. I had written off any XC lenses but you've got me re-thinking that.
Thank you ever so much. I really appreciate that 😊
@the_bad_photographer last year i was torn between the 50-230 and the 70-300. i considered the weather sealing as a factor... but then figured i wouldn't really be shooting too many distant subjects in bad weather. the other factors were price and size/weight (since i was travelling with two cameras). and the 50-230 wins those factors by a huge margin. the light weight also helps stabilise the camera easier. finally when i used it in the field, i was incredibly surprised by the pictures i got (in good light). i'm still thinking of the 300 for the extra reach.. but for now the 50-230 serves me very well.
I've been watching Fuji gear reviews thinking of going back to this system after I sold X-T2 and lenses a few years ago. Thanks for reminding me how shitty the IQ is, foliage looks like a one huge poop smudge, I'll stick to my current gear.
Every time I shoot with the 70-300, I get excited about it. Beautifully sharp, OIS is great. I'm looking forward to testing it properly on the X-T5.
It is a stunning lens. I think, possibly, my favourite of the lot.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Totally agree. I was impressed with the quality of the output - for a zoom lens.
Are you sure sir???49 MP…..come on lets go 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤
As someone who just bought the first Fuji camera with the XF kit lens, this video was full of really useful information.
Thank you. I'm so glad you got something from it.
What a great article! Thank you very much. On Nov. 20th, my brother, a friend, and myself are leaving on a trip to Namibia (and more?). For 2 weeks of the trip we will be renting a Toyota 4WD (a pretty common way to go in Namibia, from what I've seen). For quite a while I have been stewing over what to bring with me besides my X-T3, my 18-55 lens, and a clean pair of shorts. You, and your video, have helped me out immensely. Dankie! (Thank you! In Afrikaans) 🙂 Sincerely, Paul in California
Sounds great! I hope you have a great time
Thank you Steve!@@SteveMellorPhotography
I never had a use case for the focal range, but I always wanted to get one and try it out. A few months ago I got a new camera and it came with a coupon that redeem the XC lens for about for about US$160! For that price, it’s a no-brainer! I still haven’t had the opportunity to use it, but looking forward to try out in a zoo or something.
It's worth a trip out just to give it a go :)
I picked up a refurbished XC 50-230mm direct from Fuji a few years ago, it’s super lightweight and was very reasonably priced, also I find I’m not usually using such long focal lengths nowadays, so it made sense. That being said, the few times I have used it I’ve found it a little slow on the AF and I miss not having an aperture ring. I did hire a 70-300 for a short trip to Cornwall last year, it’s was great and I may consider picking up a used one, although I’d still like to try the 50-140mm, maybe with the 1.4TC, again I’ll probably hire one first.
There's a lot you can do with the XC. I would never count it out, but I do love the 70-300mm
Hi, can you say and give some more about the 55-200 compared to the two others? I hoped that you also included that little more, I’m very satisfied with it.
There's not much more to say, its a great lens. It's better than the XC but slightly softer and slower than the 70-300. I have used the 50-200 for ages and got some incredible shots. The newer lens is a significant upgrade, though.
I enjoyed this comparison Steve, and I agree with you about the results. I have the X-T5 (traded my X-T3) and I recently got the 70-300. I have traded in my 55-200 to get that. Basically I can fill the gaps nicely because I also have the 16-80....so covered all the way from 16mm to 300mm with no gaps!!
Yes, the 70-300 is on the Fuji "list" and is a great lens, but I have been very happy with the performance of the 16-80 on the X-T5 too.The new processor and sensor will ensure it works that little bit better than on my X-T3. So, very happy
From what I’ve seen, the older lenses are only slightly softer on the larger sensors, so a soft AI Sharpen should fix any problems. I know some what to have the optimal lens for their system, of course.
I own the XS20 and 70-300 + 1.4 teleconverter, weight, price and sharpness are just perfect
It really is a great lens, isn't it?
@@SteveMellorPhotography It is really compact and hand. The OIS combined with IBIS greatly enhanced usability. I can even shoot satisfactory photos in the night by hand holding.
This video is so timely. I've been considering the 55-200 for youth sports and possible a little auto racing on an X-T3(amateur, not professional)? I currently shoot with my XF90 f2. It's nice and sharp, but I'd like a bit more reach. There's a retired pro locally selling a 55-200 for a pretty good price. Any thoughts about that lens and sports? Thanks for your comparison. It really was nicely put together.
I like the 50-200mm and it was a bit of a workhorse before getting the 70-300mm. I think it's a little wide for sports, to be honest. Of course you could crop in if you have the 40mp sensor.
I moved from Fuji to full frame Sony and this is the lens I miss the most! - I bought a Tamron 70-300mm which comes close in weight, but it's much longer in length and has no stabilisation at all which makes it unusable handheld. What would you say is the closest available alternative for Sony FE with good in lens stabilisation?
In October I bought the 70-300mm lens and the 1.4X teleconverter arrived on Monday. It is a small and lightweight system that gives a full frame equivalent focal length of 630mm. The only problem is that the X-E3 camera has a miniscule grip so holding the camera with one hand can be a bit tiring after some time. The plan is to upgrade it to the X-S20 when it comes out.
The system needs a bit of light and trying it out in the middle of winter doesn't help.
You can by a lens collar for it, the iShoot IS-XF5520, and it fits both the 55-200mm and the 70-300mm. It seems to fit alright but I haven't tried it out in anger. It should improve the stability and balance when on a tripod.
I can see that it might be a little light on the X-E3. I wonder if a bracket or cage would help with that?
@@SteveMellorPhotography I know what you mean. I should be trying out the lens collar soon and hope to upgrade the camera this year and that should work out well. Originally the plan was to upgrade to the X-S10, but since the 40MP sensors are being used in the X-H2 and X-T5 along with better autofocus and news that the X-S20 could be coming out this year or early next year, I will wait until the X-S20 is on the market and I will have a better idea of what to get. Hopefully, it will be out soon. Last week I was out for two and a half hours with the setup in the freezing weather, walked about 3 miles and took a lot of handheld photographs. It felt good, but on occasions when shooting with the left hand not fully supporting the lens did feel slightly heavy in the right hand. A bigger grip would have given better support, that is one reason for wanting to move to the X-S10.
I am at a loss as to why the grips on the X-T series are so small. I also like the small size and weight of the X-S10 as well as the ability to quickly decide between taking stills or videos. On photographing wildlife, you can decide at the last moment how you want to photograph it. On the X-E3, you need to go to the drive menu first.
Buy the metal hand grip!
Excellent comparison Steve. I love that stained glass window in the middle of a woodland! I went for the XF 70-300mm and it is very good. The sharpness and detail are fantastic and the fact that it is weather-resistant, has great O.I.S, the lens lock that you mentioned and you can use the XF teleconverters (I bought the 1.4x TC) is a winner for me 🙂
It has really given me some amazing shots and I’m really pleased with it. I have to give up my 100-400mm and I don’t feel I’m losing out now. The 70-300mm let’s me do everything I wanted.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Agreed. Great lens :-)
Is it great with the Tele? I am a budget XT-2 user, so it would love a 70-300, but £££. I wonder how much difference the stablisation makes in the real world, quite a bit I expect?
I have the xf 100-400 mm + xf 1.4X wf teleconverter for about 3 years. I've rarely taken it on my trips because it's too heavy and too big. Now I have decided to buy the XF 70-300 mm and ditch the 100-400 mm. I hope I will be happier with it. I will definitely keep the teleconverter. Baba from Austria.
Nice video, I'm using 70-300mm. It's a great lens.
It really is! Thanks for your comment :)
Just stumbled upon this video... The comparison are really nice.
I am gonna be the odd guy using the 50-230 on a X-T5... Though I don't shoot telephoto all that often, got it only to cover the range for the rare occasions I did wish for more reach.
But seeing the comparison, as well as knowing the list of lens for 40 megapixels, the 70-300 does seem rather attractive.
You gave me an idea for a new video. I've been stuck for the past few months but I'm getting back into recording again.
@@SteveMellorPhotography don't know if this would be of any interest to you but... I tried the XC 50-230 on the X-E3 and X-T5... not very scientific by any means but I don't think there was any notable difference to me...
the lens doesn't seem to get anything out of the extra megapixels, but the extra pixel density didn't hurt it much either which was (at least to me) a bit surprising.
Great comparison video! I currently have the XC 50-230 for my xt-30 which I bought a few years back after watching your video on it! I’ve gotten more into bird/wildlife photography am interested in the extra reach the 70-300 would provide when used with teleconverters. Would you consider making a video on this in the future?
XC lens durable?what do you think?
I am actually out tomorrow filming with the 70-300mm and the 1.4x TC. What that gives you (at f/8) is basically the same as the 100-40mm, which is quite impressive, so I’m interested in seeing how well it works.
It’s plastic… but it’s quite durable plastic. It’s been all over the place with me and I’ve not had an issue with it.
@@SteveMellorPhotography same here! I look forward to seeing that video! I actually found that MPB sells the used 100-400 for not much more than the new 70-300, making the decision on which to purchase much more difficult…
@@SteveMellorPhotography same here. I’ve done a ton of traveling and exploring with it and it still looks brand new.
Hi Steve and thank you for this clarifying video. I would like to ask you a question. I will have to go to Kenya and would like to buy a lens for my fujifilm xt20 to photograph animals on safari. Among these three, which one would you recommend? Thanks in advance and congratulations again for the video 😊
There is no doubt in my mind that your absolute best bet would be the 70-300mm. If you can, get at least the 1.4x Teleconverter as well and you're shooting, effectively, with a 100-400mm lens for a fraction of the weight, at the expense of just one stop of light.
I don't have chance to try neether of those, i would need a telephoto lens for fuji xt3, and would need it for shooting kiteboarding and surfing from the beach? What do you recomend? Thank you for your answer
If you can get the 70-300mm, that's the best lens to go for. If not, the 50-200mm. It's wider, but it's faster. Right now, I would suggest the 70-300mm every time, though.
Is the xc 35 f2 better than the Sigma 30 and viltrox 33 mm??
I have no idea, but that might be a good video if I can get my hands on the lenses.
can you please do a video on that @@SteveMellorPhotography
There is also one big advantage of 50-230 mm Lens. It is same filter size as 18-55 and 33 1.4 lenses. If you consider cheap/lightweight setup then cheaper xt2/xt3 with no Ibis with 18-55/50-230 with OIS are Perfect together.
I’ve been using the 50-230 if I’m hiking and weight is a concern. I also have the 50-140 and 2x teleconverter. It’s a heavy setup, but I like it as well.
Hello, I mainly shot woodlands and was looking for a telephoto lens to buy, I'm kinda really stuck at this point making a decision, 70 300 nice but that 70mm wish was wider but I have 16 80 so 50 200 doesn't really make sense anymore but it still looks like the best option for this kind of photography I wish fuji had telephoto primes, I would like to here with a zoom lens for you fits the best. also there is a Tamron super zoom lens.
Personally, I wouldn't go for the 50-200 if you have the 16-80. The 70-300 is great. You're already covering the focal range for the majority of shots. As far as Tamron goes, I've not had the chance to test it but I've heard very good things. The only reason I would chose the 70-300 over the 18-300 is that superzooms always have some trade off the greater the zoom range. Plus, in can speak to how fantastically sharp the 70-300 is. I'm still shocked by how good it is after a year of using it.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Thanks for fast response. Appreciate.
I’d love to see a shootout on the tamron 18-300 v 70-30 using an xt5 or xh2. I suspect the tamron will fall behind.
If I can get hold of a Tamron at some point, I will make one. I’m interested in that lens too.
THIS IS REALLY HELPFUL. THANKS. I AM CONSIDERING CHANGING THE 55-200 FOR THE 70-300 ON MY XT5…VIEWS?
I do have to say, the low light performance is a little bit to be desired for in the 50-230mm. I recently took a photo at the local park, of a sparrow later in the afternoon, and I had to put the ISO up to I think 3200-4000, and even then it was a little bit underexposed, but I threw it through Topaz Sharpen AI, and I still got a pretty usable image afterwards, so you can still work with it a bit.
Unfortunately, it’s not THAT much better with the other lenses, but it does make a difference. Unless you get the super-expensive lenses, though, that’s always going to be a problem. Really, that’s why tools like Topaz are so good, they let you do more for less.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Yes, but a couple of Aperture stops are always nice, to let more light in, and to get a little shallower depth of field, however small, it's still a win win. It's amazing how far post processing software has come, and how much time programs like Topaz can save, when you get the hang of it.
@@jamesmacnamara8174 Yes, you’re completely right. It really has changed the industry… I think for the better, for those of us with limited budgets.
Thank you for the comparison of the lenses.
I got my Fuji kit way back in 2013 to replace a relatively heavy SONY DSLR system. With a XE2 got a set of 18-55mm and 55-200mm. both lenses served well in my family trips with some bird shots. A few months before COVID derailed all plans, got a 100-400 as well, planning to restart the bit of wildlife I used to do with my SONY kit in my trips to India and my project sites in UAE earlier.
Want to restart the wildlife shoots but nearly 10 years now and not so good back want the kit to be lighter. However, I feel the whole kit needs a trimming. By getting a 70-300 with a 1.4 TC I can let go 55-200 and 100-400? Have a 60mm Macro too for that little gap .
Another option - all lenses except the macro go and get a 16-80 and 70-300 with the TC
A lot of people like that 16-80. That could be a very gold move. I would happily replace the 55-200mm and 100-400mm with the 70-300mm and the 1.4x TC. It is a compromise, of course, but not much of one and the lihtness of the kit more than makes up for the extra stop of light you need at 400mm.
I've owned all three lenses. The 50-230 makes sense for the price and weight, good images. The 70-300 blows the other two away in everything but weight. The 55-200 is the middle child, okay if that's what you have but middling at best.
The 70-300 should have a red badge
Love your Style how you do compare things and explain the main differences between each lens. I will go for the 50/230 because my wife would kill me for spending 700€ on the XF70/300 :-)
Ha! I understand the cost concern. I’m glad you enjoyed the video
Very informative.
Can i use 70-300 for portrait photography?
Kindly reply me
Yes you can but you might want to look at something like the 80mm which, at f/1.7, gives you a few more options with bokeh.
@@SteveMellorPhotography
Thank you for replying me.
Actually I've xf 18-55 & xf 23mm...
What happens if I use my 50-200 on xt5? I get les resolution? Less performance...? Thank you.
It’s not quite as simple, unfortunately. Basically, you will have images that are less sharp, but it’s relatively unnoticeable unless you decide to pixel peep or do incredibly tight crops.
You’re resolution and performance will remain the same.
I’ve found on my 10-24mm (a lot of people said they had a problem with that on the 40mp sensor) that it hasn’t made any difference that I can tell.
Topaz photo AI and the 50-230 seem like a great combo. Especially since you can screen grab the demo on Topaz. (Helps to have a 27 inch Retina screen)
I'd be interested in hearing if you tried it and what results you had :)
@@SteveMellorPhotography I would say that DxO offers me better results.
Very shortly after getting my XT-2, I bought a XC 50-230. I was excited about the lens and it's weight (or lack thereof) was fantastic. But ... I was really disappointed with the results. I would define them as "OK", but really, not good enough for me. At 50mm they were acceptable. At 230mm they weren't. So, yes it was a (very) inexpensive lens, but the quality just wasn't there for me. I found the XF 55-200 to be a massive leap upwards in quality. I still found that the quality at full zoom wasn't fantastic, but I did find it acceptable. I haven't tried the 70-230, so can't comment on that.
Any zoom like that is something of a compromise but the 50-200 is sharper and it does perform better in low light. The 70-300mm is a big step up. It really should be one of the red badge lenses.
Fantastic video!
Thank you very much! That’s much appreciated :)
I always thought Fuji was known for there Primes. I’m still using the original 18mm F2 and 35mm F1.4
thank you for review
My pleasure
Has anyone used the XF 70-300mm for deep space photography?
Have you tried the 55-200mm with the X-T5?
I’ve not had the chance yet and I probably won’t. I did try the 18-135 with the X-T5 and that seemed to resolve okay… perhaps a tiny bit softer than with the X-T3 but not enough to worry about.
Great job !! Thks
The 50-230mm is outstanding value and the difference between it and the 70-300 is far less than the price suggests- owning both and shooting in sunlight at f8 negligible difference
This is true. I've always been a fan of the 50-230mm. The big difference for me was how sharp the 70-300mm is when you zoom into the frame. Mix that with the X-T5 and you can get some quite intimate shots of creatures quite far away.
The wieght of the 70-300 really makes me want tonset aside my sigma 100-400 and add this to my bag
Not a word about the sweet spot of the 50-230 mm at 230 mm that is f16. Unbelievable.
The 70 to 300 cost about £730 and you can only buy it new.The 100 to 400 can be found in excellent condition used for £930.So I would go for the 100 to 400 as I don't mind the weight.
I've just searched and found several versions of the 70-300mm for around £700, where as a new lens is online for £749 from Wex. Used does give you a bit of money off, and that can make a difference for some. Similarly, it would be chirlish of me to suggest that £200 isn't a break point in price for many and, for most, the 100-400m is just overkill.
There's a place for it in Fuji's lineup (although, less of a place now, perhaps) and I have done a 70-300mm vs 100-400mm comparison which is being edited right now.
But, this video is about the mid-range zooms and the 100-400mm is not a mid-range zoom, it's still not in the same price bracket or weight class and yet those are the things people are looking for when choosing between these lenses.
Maybe it’s me, my experience is the opposite. Fuji is terrible with zoom lenses, especially for a crop sensor camera. You would think they would have better options. Their fast primes however are stellar.