Fuji XF 70-300 vs XC 50-230 IQ comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Best lens for Travel photography? 70-300 vs 50-230 weight vs IQ?
Encourage me and make a direct contribution thru Paypal paypal.me/scotp... Thank you! 
Развлечения
Развлечения
Thank you. You just saved me $1000. I have the 50-230 and have considered getting the 70-300 for travel to Scotland. I don’t shoot over 50mm, primes only in my normal photography and I take the xc zoom for travel. Keeping the lens I have. Thank you.
I've owned the 50-230 and now have the 70-300. The 50-230 truly is a great lens, light and easy to handle. It has always been well regarded against the 55-200 and by that measure the 70-300. I definitely enjoy the extra reach the 300 brings, and it does have noticeablely better OIS. The overall performance feels more responsive as well. Additionally, the 70-300 can take a teleconverter though, increasing the cost, but really transforming the capabilities.
Another consideration is the Tamron 18-300 which looks to be a great all-rounder for a zoom, at a very good price.
Thanks for the comparison! Just what I was looking for. I have the 230 and was considering the 300. But now I’ll just pump the brakes and enjoy my 230! 🙏😊
Owned the 50-230. It was my favorite lens. Sold it for the 70-300, The only downside of the 50-230 is the plastic bayonet. I am just scared it will just break.
Both are varifocal but 50-230 does not go out of focus compared to the 70-300. 70-300 is extremely heavy..
I regret getting the 70-300. If you are in the situation, just get the 50-230. And pray it wont break or spare X-mount bayonet for it is easy to find.
50-230 is cheap for what it can do but the 70-300 is expensive for what it can do.
Great comparison 👍🏻 I was looking for this review for a while. Thanks
Imo it'ss not just a little bit better. Its obvious that the 70-300 (just as the 55-200) has much better contrast sharpness and microcontrast than the 50-230 ! And i say this as a 50-230 owner. With distant objects (for which those lenses are calculated) the difference would be even more obvious.
I got the XC50-230 on a redemption deal for really cheap (around US$150), and if it wasn't for that deal, I would've never gotten the chance to try a tele zoom at all, as I don't see myself needing that range. The only few times I brought it out was for kids outdoor activities. Coming from fast primes, this lens really needs a lot of light. Basically you'd pack this in the bag after 5:00pm in a summers day. However the time I had it was pretty nice, not so much the IQ but to actually get a decent image vs no image at all. I'd imagine the IQ is a little bit better than those compact zoom cameras (never owned one). That being said, if it was US$400, I'd probably skip it and get a compact bridge zoom like the Sony HX99, or the Tamron 18-300, which would give me a lot more reach.
Side note, the plastic mount broke when it dropped with my camera inside my camera bag, and repairs cost me US$40, which I guess was reasonable considering I couldn't get anything else for $40. But that says something about plastic mounts. I don't mind the plastic body though as it's still quite decent plastic. For the price I got it, it was a steal and I'm keeping it for sure.
Note to other readers, I really don't need the range, so I'm not too fuzzy about the IQ here.
Oh, the best thing about this lens, is that I own an XT30ii, and the entire package weighs just a little over 700g, which is less than many lens alone of this focal range! That's really amazing IMO.
Interesting test. I'm looking for a Fuji zoom right now, and this was quite an eye opener. I might not use it enough to justify a 70-300! Cheers
I wouldn't dismiss the 70-300 it is a beautiful lens and if you want fast focusing and better OIS I'd say it is a better choice. That being said if your looking for a vacation lens and your not shooting fast moving sports and wildlife there is a lot to be said for the simple light 50-230 and for me I think I'd throw the cheap light 50-230 in my vacation bag.
I have just been on vacation to Spain and I took my XT20 and the XC 50 -230. I got the 50-230 second hand for 120 UK pounds and I am really pleased with it. My weight saving choice was- should I take my XF 18-55mm zoom or my XC 16-50mm zoom. The 18-55 is a faster lens, quieter AF but much heavier. The XC16-50 mm is slower, but in Spain generally there is plenty of light, so I took the XC16-50 and the XC 50-230mm lenses and I was not disappointed. I wanted to take my XE-2S camera body instead of the XT20, but the XE-2S has a fault with the d-selector so I took the XT20, again I was not disappointed. Weight and IQ are important to me.
I think XC lenses are often over looked being less glamorous but they perform well for many tasks. I also regret selling my XT-20 it was a great little camera.
Great review! Thank you!!!
Thanks for this comparison
Great comparison 👍🏼
I bought one for $85, now the catch is it has some fungus on the rear element which i need to get rid of, i think this lens is more than enough for my needs, i dont need the all the range, probably 50-120mm is where i am gonna use this lens at.
Hello, for the safari xc50-230 is a valid choice? Thank U
I'm going to assume your dropping some bucks to go on safari. I'd rent something longer if I was taking a trip to photograph animals.
@@Scot_Photo thank u for the reply.
70-300 with 1.4x tc is a better choice? Thank u 🙏🏻
Great video 👌
Tamaron 18-300mm Fuji or XC 50-230mm ois2 . Which lens produce better image quality?
That would be an interesting comparison not in the market for one and I don't get gear to review unless I pay for it : )
Audio is pretty bad bro….
I agree which is why I apologized at the beginning of that section if you caught it.
@@Scot_Photo oh sorry. Just wanted you to know.
People lose viewers on bad audio all the time and do t know why. Cheers.
Iso on every photos different
Yes some of them do vary but we are looking at sharpness/color not grain structure and the variance in ISO for each set of images is not that great. I was more interested in keeping the speed and aperture similar as that could have had a greater effect on the results.