mdotson90

The XF55-200mm isn't compatible with the teleconverter, and it's a physical issue, not Firmware. The teleconverter compatible lenses have a recessed rear element, and the teleconverter has a protruding front element that fits into that space. This isn't the case for the XF 55-200mm, and XC 50-230mm 

If you can get a good deal and the focal length and aperture work for you, why not? The image quality is great as with virtually all of Fuji's lenses, and it's very well corrected (has little distortion for such a wide lens). A great and unique focal length for environmental portraits. It's one of the older ones so while I wouldn't call it "slow", it isn't as blazing fast to focus as others. That, plus the fact that it has no weather sealing and it's a little slow in f-stop for a wide prime of that size. It's essentially the same size as some of the primes that are two stops faster. For me personally, there are just more attractive options for wide angle X mount lenses. 

But as I said, if the focal length and f-stop and price work for you, you'll find very few reasons to be upset with this lens.

Fuji vs Fuji did an excellent write up of this as well. The 18-135mm is shorter and lighter than the 55-200, even though it is a little fatter. To me, it feels perfectly balanced on an XT-2.
 
So you have a little bit of objective advice, here's some shots with both lenses. I wasn't being exactly careful and the shots with the XF 55-200mm ended up being at 128mm. This test is far from perfect but it'll help you get the idea. They were all taken on an XT-2 and had no filters.
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/clktuiiuzfybl4a/comparison.jpg?dl=0
 
As you can see, when racked out, the 18-135mm is incredibly soft at larger aperatures, especially when compared to the 55-200. It doesn't really start getting its act together until f/10-ish. Hopefully this can help the OP or someone else stuck in this dilemma. If low light is causing a problem for you with the 18-135 its probably going to do the same with the 55-200. It really only has at best a one stop advantage in the overlapping zoom range. Telephoto zooms of this size aren't exactly known for their low light performance.
 
If the sharpest photo is of the utmost importance, then get the 55-200. If ultimate versatility and WR are important, go with the 18-135. Sometimes the subject matter is so compelling that noone will notice your photos at 135mm are kind of soft. It's a great thing to have such range in one lens.

I travel quite a bit and my XT-2 stays mostly paired up with my 18-135mm. While I do have some gripes about it's sharpness and IQ especially when racket out to 135mm. It tends to be a little soft but the lens is infamous for this.
 
Where this lens shines is the wide focal length range and WR. It's a day time lens so I usually have it stopped down to like f/8 and it does fine given the light is enough. It's been everywhere from the rainy muddy hills of Iceland to the Sahara desert. In these conditions the less you have to change lenses the better.
 
In fact the 90% of the times where I do change lenses is to put on my Samyang 12mm because 18mm just doesnt cut it for mosy landscapes. The only other lens that I carry in my travel kit is the 23mm f/1.4 for low light.
 
For what its worth, one of my travel buddies has a XT1 with am 18-55mm which she uses mostly and a 55-200mm which she loves, but doesn't use often as it isn't too versatile as a travel lens and finds herself taking it off just as quickly as she put it on. Could just be different styles.
 
Here is my travel photo blog. http://mikeo0.synology.me
Im unsure if all the EXIF data is intact, but nearly everything was shot with the 18-135mm except the obvious low light photos which were done with the 23mm.

If you're worried about not having anything wide enough, and your budget is a factor, why not try the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2? It's a permanent part of my travel kit and I think the IQ is great, comparable to Fuji glass. If you can deal with no autofocus, I think it'll serve you well, especially for the price of $250, it's less than 1/3 the cost of the XF 10-24mm. Protip: Set to infinity, and everything beyond 3 feet is in focus, so if landscapes are your thing, you probably won't have to adjust focus much anyway.
 
Also, it's 2 stops faster. The only negatives I can think of with this lens is noticable light falloff on the edges, especially wide open (depending on your style, this may or may not be negative) and lack of communication with the camera, so no autofocus/EXIF data. Other than that, it's small, light, cheap, fast, and the IQ is good. It's a really good landscape photographer's tool.
 
Flickr has lots of shots taken with it. Check it out.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=rokinon%2012mm
and
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=samyang%2012mm

Those lenses aren't equipped with OIS. The 80mm is. Do you have OIS turned on? It takes a bit of juice to stabilize big heavy lens elements. Mirrorless cameras aren't known for their battery life.  
You can go into the settings and change the IS Mode from continuous to shooting only so that it's stabilizing the image only when you press the shutter button, vs all the time and see if that makes a difference
 
Depending on your shooting habits, I don't think 200+ frames is bad for a camera that's only rated for 350 frames WITH the 35mm f1.4, and that's straight from Fuji themselves.
 
If I were you, and I was otherwise happy with the lens, I would carry another battery or two and deal with it. They're cheap on Amazon and i'm sure the lens is worth it.
 
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Fuji vs Fuji did an excellent write up of this as well. The 18-135mm is shorter and lighter than the 55-200, even though it is a little fatter. To me, it feels perfectly balanced on an XT-2.
 
So you have a little bit of objective advice, here's some shots with both lenses. I wasn't being exactly careful and the shots with the XF 55-200mm ended up being at 128mm. This test is far from perfect but it'll help you get the idea. They were all taken on an XT-2 and had no filters.
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/clktuiiuzfybl4a/comparison.jpg?dl=0
 
As you can see, when racked out, the 18-135mm is incredibly soft at larger aperatures, especially when compared to the 55-200. It doesn't really start getting its act together until f/10-ish. Hopefully this can help the OP or someone else stuck in this dilemma. If low light is causing a problem for you with the 18-135 its probably going to do the same with the 55-200. It really only has at best a one stop advantage in the overlapping zoom range. Telephoto zooms of this size aren't exactly known for their low light performance.
 
If the sharpest photo is of the utmost importance, then get the 55-200. If ultimate versatility and WR are important, go with the 18-135. Sometimes the subject matter is so compelling that noone will notice your photos at 135mm are kind of soft. It's a great thing to have such range in one lens.

I've used both.. And I feel that both of the 23mm have a very clinical way of rendering things. I've not used the 14mm, but I have the 56mm and that magic you speak of I've only ever really seen in the 35mm f1.4. Just my personal experience
 
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk