Fuji 55-200

[Tommyboy]

I'm a recent Fuji convert. I started with a used EX-2, 18-55, and 23mm f/1.4. I was so impressed with the camera, the zoom, and the wide lens, I kept buying. A 16mm, 56mm, and 90mm later, I finally opted for an X-Pro 2. I had to sell my FF Canon system, consign some tobacco pipes, and work a second job, but I put together a very nice system. I'm really impressed with the image quality, particularly with the prime lenses. The 23mm is the lens that I keep on the body and the 90 is just amazing.

 

When I bought the X-Pro 2, I had hoped to pick up a tele zoom. It was the only hole in my system. I agonized between the 50-140 and its infinitely more affordable cousin—the 55-200—for several weeks. I've always opted for better glass and would love to have a 16-55 and 50-140, but I got into this system for reasons of weight. After having a chance to actually handle both, I took the responsible route (financially speaking) and opted for the 55-200. Samy's Camera was out of stock, though, so I had to come home and order it online. 

 

It arrived Thursday and I took a brief trip out of town to try it out. The fit and feel of the lens is very different than the 50-140. It has a metal barrel, but the protruding inner barrel is plastic. The zoom is not smooth. It's ungainly, not a sophisticated design. The max aperture is variable, and slower, but faster then competitive lenses in the same range by other manufacturers. It does offer OIS, 3 stops or 5 stops, depending on who you ask, something absent from most of my lenses. Once I shot a few hundred exposures and processed them, I can safely say that I'm very pleased with the lens's performance. I also really like the (equivalent) 300 mm reach. The 50-140 (equivalent) 200mm seemed so much shorter in the store. That lens is certainly very sharp, probably sharper, has a fixed max aperture, internal mechanism, and is still very small and light, though much heavier than my chosen lens. Most of my shooting is in close, patient, and not dependent on the speed that a zoom affords. Were my circumstances different, I might have opted for the 50-140. Given my current life circumstances, and shooting style, however, this lens seems to fit the bill and is quite satisfying, given its limitations. 

 

I'll continue to shoot my 90 for what I deem critical images, but in all honesty, it was the one lens I didn't reach for all weekend. I used the 55-200 extensively. There were some less-than-spectacular low-contrast photos, some motion blur, and other issues, but many of the photos are just great. These are a few that I think highlight this inexpensive lens's tremendous sharpness. All are RAW files processed in LR. 

 

Thanks for reading. Feedback, comments, and questions are welcomed.

 

 

200mm • f/13 • 1/60 • ISO 200

 

 

156mm • f/4.5 • 1/900 • ISO 200

 

 

200mm • f/8 • 1/60 • ISO 400

 

 

55mm • f/5.0 • 1/420 • ISO 400

 

 

181mm • f/4.7 • 1/560 • ISO 400

 

 

55mm • f/3.5 • 1/2500 • ISO 200

Edited June 28, 2016 by Tommyboy

[CRAusmus]

Every time I put mine on the T1, it impresses me.  I mainly use it for events like the Spring Festivals and things.  Incredibly sharp.

 

If I were a wedding photographer or something, I'd want the faster 50-140, but I'm not, so....

[Aswald]

Nice!

 

One of my favorite lens from Fujifilm.

[Chris X-E2]

Greats photos.

 

The 23mm and 55 - 200mm are my most used go to lenses!

[Leighton]

Thanks for your input. I'm thinking about getting this lens, buy I'm not quite there yet.

[Tommyboy]

Thanks for your input. I'm thinking about getting this lens, buy I'm not quite there yet.

 

 

It's a great lens. It's my sixth Fujinon lens and only one was less expensive (used 18-55). 

 

If you need a long zoom for indoor/low light shooting, this is not your lens.

 

If you can't get past fit and finish issues, this is not your lens.

 

If you want 6X reach, shoot outdoors in the daylight, and dig crisp, clear photos, this might be the lens for you.

 

Good luck with your decision. 

[Nero]

I have the 18-135mm (which is actually my least used lens for a number of reasons I won't go into here) and it was the primary reason for pushing me away from the 50-140mm. The image quality is no comparison between the two, but 135mm was just not long enough whenever I really wanted some reach. I went with the 55-200 to get that extra length and it's quickly become a favorite lens. The image quality is stunning for a lens of that price. It has some tradeoffs, but that extra $1000 that I saved allowed me to buy an X-Pro2. The 55-200 is almost permanently attached to my X-T1 and then I rotate between the 16, 23, and 35 f/1.4 on the X-Pro2. If I had spent the extra $1000 on the 50-140, my gear would not be nearly as flexible right now.

[jlmphotos]

I LOVE my 55-200.  Even though it does not come out to play very often, I do take it with me.  Know it is there is good enough.  This lens, at least my copy is tack sharp across the focal range, and at each aperture.  I have no complaints.  I hate the "are you happy to see  me" extension at long end but that's a price to be paid.  It's lightweight compared to it's big brother the 50-140 2.8 which, after unloading myself of my Nikon gear which included the Nikon 70-200 F2.8, I do not ever want to carry around again.  So, there are a few drawbacks, but the 55-200 is a magnificent lens and one I will not give up.  

[Tommyboy]

…I hate the "are you happy to see me" extension at long end but that's a price to be paid.…

 

That.

 

...It's lightweight compared to it's big brother the 50-140 2.8 which, after unloading myself of my Nikon gear which included the Nikon 70-200 F2.8, I do not ever want to carry around again....

Mine was a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 v1. Owned it for a dozen years, used it a dozen times. So heavy it was silly as a carry-in-your-bag-lens. Not unlike Nero above, I traded mine for an XP2.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Tommyboy

[abiser]

It's pics like these that made me want the 55-200 so much in the first place but I haven't had any success capturing sharp photos at 200mm with this lens. I bought this used and noticed that at 200mm all the photos were very blurry no matter what I tried. I'm hoping that I wasn't ripped off buying a defective lens.

 

Here is an example where it is kind of sharp in the center but not like it should be at f8.

 

1/500 sec - f/8 - ISO 640 @ 200mm

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

I noticed today when inspecting the lens that when zoomed out to 200mm the external part of the lens significantly wobbles. I know that with an external lens there is going to be some movement especially when the lens is zoomed at to the max but this one seems excessive.

 

Does anybody else's wobble when zoomed out?

 

I'll try to post a video to dropbox but I'm not sure if I can include the link.

 

Video example

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eagd72b188m1wdp/Fuji%2055-200%20Lens%20Wobble.mp4?dl=0

 

[Nick05]

It's pics like these that made me want the 55-200 so much in the first place but I haven't had any success capturing sharp photos at 200mm with this lens. I bought this used and noticed that at 200mm all the photos were very blurry no matter what I tried. I'm hoping that I wasn't ripped off buying a defective lens.

 

Here is an example where it is kind of sharp in the center but not like it should be at f8.

 

1/500 sec - f/8 - ISO 640 @ 200mm

DSCF9519.JPG

 

I noticed today when inspecting the lens that when zoomed out to 200mm the external part of the lens significantly wobbles. I know that with an external lens there is going to be some movement especially when the lens is zoomed at to the max but this one seems excessive.

 

Does anybody else's wobble when zoomed out?

 

I'll try to post a video to dropbox but I'm not sure if I can include the link.

 

Video example

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eagd72b188m1wdp/Fuji%2055-200%20Lens%20Wobble.mp4?dl=0

Yes, mine has the wobble too. I found that I get much sharper photos if I turn the IS mode to shooting only. I recently posted that same suggestion in a topic on the 100-400mm too and was thinking I should really do a comparison between the IS settings. I remember reading it somewhere else and it seemed to help me. Edited February 2, 2017 by Nick05

[quincy]

It's pics like these that made me want the 55-200 so much in the first place but I haven't had any success capturing sharp photos at 200mm with this lens. I bought this used and noticed that at 200mm all the photos were very blurry no matter what I tried. I'm hoping that I wasn't ripped off buying a defective lens.

 

Here is an example where it is kind of sharp in the center but not like it should be at f8.

 

1/500 sec - f/8 - ISO 640 @ 200mm

DSCF9519.JPG

 

I noticed today when inspecting the lens that when zoomed out to 200mm the external part of the lens significantly wobbles. I know that with an external lens there is going to be some movement especially when the lens is zoomed at to the max but this one seems excessive.

 

Does anybody else's wobble when zoomed out?

 

I'll try to post a video to dropbox but I'm not sure if I can include the link.

 

Video example

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eagd72b188m1wdp/Fuji%2055-200%20Lens%20Wobble.mp4?dl=0

Try shooting from a tripod, and try taking pictures of things that are closer to the camera. But mine does not wobble at all, and honestly, I think your lens is defective.

You can have a short look at my XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Album to see what you can expect from a working sample.

[Mike G]

That wobble just doesn't look right,