Jump to content

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F/3.5-F/4.8 or XC 55-230mm F/4.5-F/6.7?


Velvia

Recommended Posts

I prefer zoom for these type of focal length, mainly used for travelling shooting landscapes & some portraits with family & friends(not for professional works). I wish to know which lens image qualities is better, durability & i only can afford for either 1 of these 2 models? Thanks & appreciate for advising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said this very often the 50-230mm performs way above its paygrade and the 55-200 is only very marginally more light efficient.

 

there are many threads in and around this theme, often with examples.

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/292-the-humble-though-honorable-xc-50-230mm-f-45-67/

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/797-xc-50-230-any-good-id-say-it-is/

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/940-is-xc-50-230mm-identical-to-xf-55-200mm/

 

here you can test the Fuji lenses in a simulator.

 

I’ve done the comparison for you (click on the pics and expand to 100%)

 

55-200 at 55 f3.5

 

XF55-200_3-5_55_STD.jpg

 

 

55-200 at f11

 

XF55-200_11_55_STD.jpg

  This is the 50-230 at f 4.5

 

XC50-230_4-5_50_STD.jpg

 

This is the 50-230 at f11XC50-230_11_50_STD.jpg

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both lenses. Localy I shoot with 55-200 cause it better handles low light. However for travel I'll take 50-230 as it very light, very cheap, has longer reach and it's IQ is on par with 55-200 during daytime.

 

You really help me nail it as i only prefer to use it during the day time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you examine images from the two lenses from a purely technical point of view ('sharpness', 'bokeh', DOF control, IS performance etc) you are almost bound to come to the conclusion that the XC lens is better value that the XF and that the XC is 'good enough'.   They were designed from the outset to be this way.  'XC - Good enough' and 'XF - a bit better', but twice the price.

 

I started with the XC, and was happy with it - it's a really good lens (for the money), but when compared to my other Fuji lenses, I thought the 'handling' was less satisfying, and there was something about the image quality that was not quite good enough.  The contrast was slightly less than my other lenses (XF 18-55, 60mm, 35mm, 27mm) and the colors looked different - especially blues.  If any shots included blues (sky and sea in particular) there was a pale/turquoise hue to the JPEGS compared to my other lenses.  Yes, adjustments in post processing of RAW files can improve the image, but I like to shoot JPEGS which is why I bought Fuji in the first place.

 

So I bought the XF lens, even though I already had the XC.

 

And I'm really pleased with it!

 

The wider max aperture is a big boost, as it allows faster shutter speeds, but the main benefit is a subtle improvements in the quality of the image.  Difficult to explain, but you know when you use a quality prime for the first time, there's a 'cinematic' look that is more than just the shallower DOF and improved sharpness?  It has a similar look and feel to the primes and the smaller XF zoom, and for it's reach the weight is reasonable.

 

And I use Fuji partly because of the way the equipment handles - so the nicer feel and the aperture ring are additional advantages.

 

So I will now only use the XC lens if weight is the most important factor (travelling with hand luggage only, I guess).

Link to post
Share on other sites

the advantages are minimal at best. If it were a 2.8 lens yes, but at 3.5-4.8... no

 

Disagree. The advantages in my view are many.  Light weight.  Much less expensive. Easy to carry.  So what if the aperture is a bit on the slow side?  That has never, ever hindered me.  The lens is ultra sharp -- never had a problem.  The only drawback that bothers me is the "are you happy to see me" extension when racked out to 200.  If you get what I mean. LOL.

After shooting with Nikon gear for years, including the famous 70-200 2.8 VR, I would not, EVER, go back to carrying the loads i carried back in the day.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

At the long end there is only 1 stop in it, easily taken care of with the iso - my outdoor photography u either have light or you do not, I have the xc and quality of photo is great - for double the money I would want more than an fstop different and an aperture ring, get the xc and save up for the 100 to 400!  there is an xc group on flickr, respectfully suggest look at the photo quality there

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I bought the 50-230mm to augment my 18-135mm for the times I need a little more reach. There are some excellent buys on the lens and I'm impressed with its build quality for a low-cost lens.  The zoom ring actually feels smoother than my 18-135mm.  I mainly use the 50-230mm for shooting trains, usually at f/11, so the slow speed of the lens isn't an issue for me. The image quality is fine for my uses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sold my xc 50-230 in favour of 55 200 xf, for the extra weight and price, you get better build, better image quality and contrast. People are complaining about the extra cost for one stop of extra speed, which is about €300 with this lens, but not complaining about a 50mm 1.4 lens being €300 dearer than a 50mm 1.8, also one stop. It comes down to as it always does, you get what you pay for.  If you can afford the 50 - 200 and will make full use of it then its the way to go .

Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me wrong.

 

I am  in favor of the 50-230 OVER the 55-200mm, I find the advantages of the latter compare to the first, absolutely negligible 

I own both the 50-230 and the 55-200 .  Usually pictures taken with one or the other don't seem much different...... but recently I made a test, to check better the IQ of each.

 

I took some pictures of a fine fabric, from  1 mt / 1.5mt  far.   at both zoom ends : about 55 and 200 .

 

Raw files, processed with the same parameters.

and.... wow !!!!!!   the fine textures are much much cleaner with the XF55-200 !!

 

My conclusion is that the XF55-200 pictures quality is noticeably better, but only in some areas, with some subjects.

 

Anyway for now I put the XC50-230 in a drawer.  I think I will  be carry the XF55-200 fron now on .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 55-200 and it's a great lens. I don't mind about weight, handling, since this is a joke right now due the fact I used to go around carrying 300 f2.8 and so on. That is the weight. These lenses are a joke compared to those.

Anyways I'm sure the 50-230 or whatever is a great lens as well. The only thing is every time you shoot with a lens like the ones in this thread, you realize you're missing one more stop. A 55-200 f2.8 would be perfect, in spite of the weight.

Between the two lenses in the title I'd go for the second only for the extra 30mm, than for the stop. Beside the fact it's all plastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that both lenses performs similarly well in good light.

 

In poor light, both lenses performs equally bad too.

 

The ONLY thing Fujifilm could've done to make the XF a clear distinction from the XC, is perhaps WR. An xf55-200 with WR would've been reason enough to justify buying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that both lenses performs similarly well in good light.

 

In poor light, both lenses performs equally bad too.

Agree.

Overall performances are similar enough.

Then weight or price considerations are starting to rise.

Or something more individual.

My copy of 50-230 performs better from middle to long end, while my copy of 55-200 is better from wide end up to middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the AF speed on the 55-200 on the X-T2.

 

It's significantly better than 60f2.4 but definitely worse than 35f2... if it gives you a slightest clue.

Frankly I've never consider 90f2 as I don't shoot portraits. Being in the park or countryside I use 55-200 even more often than 18-55.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's significantly better than 60f2.4 but definitely worse than 35f2... if it gives you a slightest clue.

Frankly I've never consider 90f2 as I don't shoot portraits. Being in the park or countryside I use 55-200 even more often than 18-55.

So af of 55-200 is like 18-55 or 56 1.2? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

I have purchesed second hand 50-230 it was only 150€ in mint condition

Here are some shots

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...