Jump to content
Federica

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

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends of course on what you are shooting. I have both and they are fine lenses. I find that I use the 18-135 far more than the 55-200. The 18-135 is a great all round lens producing some surprisingly good images. Also nice and light to carry, well balanced on XT4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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.

Loading...

  • Posts

    • Does the focus bounce around when you are looking through the viewfinder? If so, it probably means that the menu setting for touchscreen focusing is turned on. Turn it to off in the menu settings and the focus point should only move when you use the joystick to move it around. Turn that setting to on when you want to use the back lcd screen as the “viewfinder” and then touch the spot you want to use as focus point. This is the cellphone method for focusing.
    • Which Canon DSLR are you referring to if I may ask?
    • Welcome here, Doug !
    • Hi mate,. I have the camera now and using the fringer pro and finding the focusing jumps all over the place. It doesn't 'lock' on to anything.  When it's sharp it's great but it sounds some time trying to work it out.   I'm using the canon 16-35mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm with similar results. The 300mm lens test was a bust but that was my fault as I was still in single focus mode and not continuous focus mode.  I won't make that mistake again.   What setting should I
    • Yes. I exchanged a couple and all their LCD panels creak and squeak like a cheap kid's toy. The XT3 I have has a much more solid screen casing. It also sounds hollow and as chap as on the X200. The rubber doors for the ports are also a downgrade. How is one to fix these when the rubber hinges eventually degrade and fall off- it doesn't seem to have a fix from the outside of the body. The video and photo quality is great but for a flagship it should feel like a precision instrument and it doesn't
×
×
  • Create New...