Jump to content

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


Federica

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • X Raw Studio works with image files on your computer - not the image files on the camera card
    • Hello. Thankyou,now Is all more clear: I have take some time in your link. Let tell you. I has totaly forget this machine have "compress picture option" and not Only "compress lossless" anyway not change the experiment. RAW  and this last two format look like same result about Number of recording picture. Can tell all results in this: in raw you can make 17 pictures for second. Is wrong. Is about One single Press and wait buffer. Full 30/20/10/8 not change. After 17 Need Press again. You not can Press before "redgreen light recording Is on".   With preshot you can have 25  are more 7 pictures . The story change Only in jpg shot only. In jpg at 30 you have 30 picture but redgreen light off very Fast so you can shot very quicly. At 20 shot Is about start look like infinite shot. 60. So the best performance are this last One  about Speed and recording picture after camera working witout big limit. I want take a shot about Italy cyclet Just for passion. I think i Will use this last setting.  After Need check when battery not are full change and ambient temp.  Anyway my cam look like exactly specific about you link. Im Happy my cam working perfectly.
    • I do not use Flickr, so I do not know what their BB code is. All I did was copy the second link you provided, (starting at https: and ending at  _k.jpg — leave off the [img] and [/img] tags) and pasted it into the message. After a moment, a message popped up asking if I wanted to paste it as the image or as a plain link. I did this twice, the first time I had it paste in as the image and the second time as a link. Nothing fancy or tricky.
    • So do I just copy the BB code from flickr and paste it anywhere on the page like other forums or is there some other trick I need to perform to get it to post?
×
×
  • Create New...