Jump to content

XF 18-135mm lens vs XF 55-200mm lens

Federica

By Federica
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

Federica Newbie

Federica

Posted
Posted

Hi,

I am looking for feedback on the 2 following lenses:

XF 18-135mm

XF 55-200mm

I have a Fuji x-t20 body with a kit lens 16-50mm and a wide lens 10-24mm

I am now looking to add a zoom lens, but I am not sure which one.

Any feedback on the XF 18-135mm and the XF 55-200mm?

Many thanks,

Federica

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jwascher Apprentice

jwascher

Posted
Posted

I agree with Lrover. The 18-135 is my go-to lens for travel and just everyday shooting. Also, being WR, it is good out doors in all kinds of weather. The wide range of focal lengths makes it very handy. Take a look at the YouTube video by Andrew and Denae as Andrew goes over all the fuji lens and why he likes each one and for what.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Herco Rising Star

Herco

Posted
Posted

Without knowing your type of photography, I would guess that the 18-135 will in practice replace your 16-50 (unless you need its compactness). The 55-200 is much more an extension of what you already have. Both are fine lenses, but designed for different purposes.

The 18-135 is Fuji's version of a 'super zoom' lens: a lens with a zoom factor of at least 7x to 10x zoom. Usually these super zoom lenses suffer from a lot of compromises, but this is actually quite a good one with good 'sharpness' and contrast except perhaps for the far corners and edges. It's a true 'travel lens' that for many people is almost 'glued' to their camera. Together with the 10-24 you'd have a very universal combo. However, don't expect it to have 'exquisite bokeh' and shallow depth-of-field for portraits. Around 50mm the max. aperture is f5, so the DoF can't be really shallow. The OIS is very good so the smaller apertures can be compensated with longer shutter speeds without blurred images due to camera shake.

The 55-200 is a true tele zoom lens. Not a lot of people need the longer focal lengths (beyond 200mm in full frame equivalent terms or 135mm in Fuji's APS-C format), but if you do -like for sports, wildlife or landscape details- it's a very good lens. In pure sharpness it even 'beats' Fuji's professional 40-150 tele zoom, but that one has a bit better contrast and a constant f2.8 aperture. I would not worry too much about the Weather Resistance (WR) thing. First, your camera isn't WR, so that is the limiting factor. Secondly, if you take a few precautions, also non-WR lenses can be used in a light drizzle or rain without you worrying about it. My guess is that you're not the photo reporter waiting in the downpour for that perfect shot in a football match. The OIS in the 55-200 however, is very useful when you start zooming in. At 200mm (300 in full-frame) it becomes hard to carefully focus and keep a steady shot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Federica Newbie

Federica

Posted
  • Author
Posted
21 hours ago, jwascher said:

I agree with Lrover. The 18-135 is my go-to lens for travel and just everyday shooting. Also, being WR, it is good out doors in all kinds of weather. The wide range of focal lengths makes it very handy. Take a look at the YouTube video by Andrew and Denae as Andrew goes over all the fuji lens and why he likes each one and for what.

Thank you for your reply and suggestion! I will have a look at the YouTube video.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Federica Newbie

Federica

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Herco said:

Without knowing your type of photography, I would guess that the 18-135 will in practice replace your 16-50 (unless you need its compactness). The 55-200 is much more an extension of what you already have. Both are fine lenses, but designed for different purposes.

The 18-135 is Fuji's version of a 'super zoom' lens: a lens with a zoom factor of at least 7x to 10x zoom. Usually these super zoom lenses suffer from a lot of compromises, but this is actually quite a good one with good 'sharpness' and contrast except perhaps for the far corners and edges. It's a true 'travel lens' that for many people is almost 'glued' to their camera. Together with the 10-24 you'd have a very universal combo. However, don't expect it to have 'exquisite bokeh' and shallow depth-of-field for portraits. Around 50mm the max. aperture is f5, so the DoF can't be really shallow. The OIS is very good so the smaller apertures can be compensated with longer shutter speeds without blurred images due to camera shake.

The 55-200 is a true tele zoom lens. Not a lot of people need the longer focal lengths (beyond 200mm in full frame equivalent terms or 135mm in Fuji's APS-C format), but if you do -like for sports, wildlife or landscape details- it's a very good lens. In pure sharpness it even 'beats' Fuji's professional 40-150 tele zoom, but that one has a bit better contrast and a constant f2.8 aperture. I would not worry too much about the Weather Resistance (WR) thing. First, your camera isn't WR, so that is the limiting factor. Secondly, if you take a few precautions, also non-WR lenses can be used in a light drizzle or rain without you worrying about it. My guess is that you're not the photo reporter waiting in the downpour for that perfect shot in a football match. The OIS in the 55-200 however, is very useful when you start zooming in. At 200mm (300 in full-frame) it becomes hard to carefully focus and keep a steady shot. 

Thank  you so much for your detailed and useful reply. I have quite a bit of thinking to do! I am attracted to the 18-135 for its versatility (I can see it will become very quickly my go-to lens) and to the 55-200 because it would allow me to take landscape detail photos (something I am really interested in) and the occasional wildlife shots. I am going to try them both and see how it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Les White Newbie

Les White

Posted
Posted

I have had both the 18-135 and 55-200 for several years--the 18-135 has been a regular go to lens for some time but the sharpness of the 55-200 is first rate even though it isn't weather sealed and the 18-135 is.  That being said I have the 50-140and that is my best quality zoom--I am thinking of selling both the 18-135 and 55-200 and going with the 16-55 to fill the gap with the 50-140---hard to go wrong though with any of the fuji lenses

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Giampaolo Masserano
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By Giampaolo Masserano · Posted

      I use a TECHART ring to mount Canon EF lenses on the GFX 50S-II and 100S-II, maintaining image stabilization and autofocus. The only limitation are lenses with a small rear element diameter that make it impossible to cover medium format. Fast lenses like the EF 85/1.2L or the 100-400L, however, work great.
    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
×
×
  • Create New...