Jump to content

55-200mm or 50-140mm


Cynthia

Recommended Posts

I'm sure there are more discussions with these two lenses.

I doubt between these two lenses. I allready have the 10-24 mm, 18-55 mm.

I like to takes pictures of my kids playing around, studio portrait, architecture, landscape and street photography.  So like several things.

 

I wonder if the 50-140 is worth the price if I want to use this for portrait and playing kids? or shoud I go for the cheaper 55-200 mm and buy the 35 f2?

 

Can you use the 55-200 mm for studio portrait or even my 18-55mm?

 

If I buy the 50-140 mm do I still need to buy a portrait lens like the 56 mm f1.2?

 

I hope someone can help my out

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that the bokeh on the 55-200 is very nice and underrated compared to other lenses. It's a little bit slower, but I prefer having the extra reach out to 200mm. It's also much lighter. The 50-140mm does have weather sealing, but I don't really need that feature for how I use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

50-140mm is focusing much faster, so better for fast moving kids : )

 

18-55mm is absolutely great lens for studio portraits, same as 55-200mm.

For street shooting and architecture I'd use 18-55 + 35mm 2 for more discrete and relaxing shots.

 

Personally I've sold 50-140mm and purchased 55-200mm again + few extra lens for that cost difference : )

 

XF55-200mm on 200mm f4.8 (X-E2)

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!

Edited by yukosteel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem!...50-230  ;)

 

It very much depends on how frequently you would use the lens.

 

I don’t use these focal lengths range to justify the fact that a lens like the 55-200 which is only marginally more light efficient is so much more expensive than the poorer relation.

 

Due to the excellent performance at Hig ISO values by Fujifilm cameras, the supposed aperture limitations are, really, a bit of a red herring. :ph34r:

 

Besides this cheap lens performs at very high level.

 

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

 

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/

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that the 50-140mm is intrinsically a better lens that any of the other two, but also a radically different one ! Oranges are very nice to squeeze and apples have a nice crunch both quench the thirst and are a very good source of sugars and fibre. They are not interchangeable tough.

 

 

Anyway, If one makes occasional to moderate use of the longer focal lengths, one has to wonder whether investing so heavily in such an expensive bulky and heavy lens, which only reaches to 140mm anyway, is what one needs.

 

For my part I am more than happy with the 50-230 and have used the money to buy many other things. Of course some here comment to any thrifty comment that they do have money to spare and so they don’t mind spending a lot of it even for duplicate of triplicate of things, which is good for them. However we all think with our wallet in out mind and mine is certainly not the same as someone else’s.

For my money and the use I make of it, the 50-230 cannot be beaten.

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

50-140 is better than other two, but...i prefer 55-200 and 56 f/1,2 for 1500 euro. Here are few pics taken with 55-200

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!

Edited by calinandra69
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice pictures. And again thank you for your comments.

I rented a 50-140 lens this weekend. It is a really great lens but big. I tried different things with this lens.

I used it to photograph my son during football with the 50-140 with the extender 1.4.  I tried it for studio portrait and my conclusion with this is that my 18-55 had the same result as the 50-140. 

A great lens and you get used to it's size. But for the things I'll use it for I think the 55-200 zoom is good enough for me.

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!

Edited by Cynthia
Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is made with the 18-55

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

50-140 - Fastest AF great for kids and sports, does very well as portrait.

 

55-200mm - Best compromize for ME it has great bokeh less busy than the 50-140, but not a lot in it, and better reach for travel and wildlife. AF is not as fast, but the update about 18months ago imoproved things significantly as did FW 4.0 and zone focus.

 

50-230.. best on price and has slightly longer reach. The 50-140mm will need the 1.4x teleconverter to match the other 2 lens reach and you can buy either of these lens second and for roughly the same price as the teleconverter.

 

Have you considered teh 90mm its undeniably sharp and allows a lot of cropping, its lack of OIS won't matter as you seem to be using it outside so you can use high SS, it compresses like the zoom (mild) is fast Aperture and is very fast AF thanks to the Quad linear motor. YOu could pick up the 90mm and the 55-200 for the same prices as the 50-140.

 

 

The other lens I would give serious consideration to if you are into portrait is the 35 F1.4 the F2 is getting a lot of hype right now but the F1.4 is a better portrait lens and I have never found the AF limiting on it.

 

YOu could still buy all 3 lens I have recomended Shand for the price of the 50-140mm

 

10-24

18-55

55-200

35 F1.4

90

 

That is a hell of a kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35 F2 is faster AF than the F1.4 but the F 1.4 is faster aperture, ie you will be able to blur backgrounds more.

 

Not only that I find the rendering on the F1.4 to be nicer, at this point its a purely subjective thing, they are both sharp fantastically executed lens. The F2 is sligthly more clinical and the F1.4 is warmer, more film like and better for Portrait. They both excel at Street.

 

Fast AF is not everything, also the 35mm has rarely let me down in most conditions. We are talking fairly small differences these days with a X-E2/X-E2s, X-T1 or X_T10 or X-Pro2 body when it comes to AF. 

All my favorite pictures in this system have come from the 35mm F1.4 including those of my daughter. I have one of her that is probably my proudest moment. However I don't share pictures of my daugther on the internet. 

 

I have jsut put a gallery of 90mm street images up in this forum and you can check out my flickr stuff here, have a look at the 35mm images.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/10596811@N04/

 

Specifically have a look at Team Building a great image from my 35mm. Also my avatar of the lightbulb was shot with the 35mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in The Netherlands? Or only in the States?

 

 

The various European Fuji are usually stingy but there have been cashbacks on and off lately but they appear to have been stopped at this moment in time at least for lenses alone while tyou can find them on cameras and cameras with lenses.

 

http://www.kamera-express.nl/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/org-ke_nl-Site/nl_NL/-/EUR/ViewParametricSearch-SimpleOfferSearch?webform-id=WFSimpleSearch&DefaultButton=findSimple&SearchCategoryUUID=&WFSimpleSearch_NameOrID=Fujifilm+90mm+&findSimple=Zoek

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own the 50-140 now, and I've borrowed the 55-200 and 56 (me and a friend have a pool of lenses between us that we lend to each other). It goes without saying that all the lenses perform very well.

 

Before I bought the 50-140, I borrowed the 55-200 for a few events. It was very good, but I needed to use flash indoors sooner than I would have liked. I'm not averse to using on-camera flash at events, but in some situations I'd prefer to go without. So I rented the 50-140 from 'hire-a-camera' (great company btw).

 

My experience renting the 50-140 was profound, and was the first moment I thought "Ah, so this is why pro lenses are so expensive". I'd never used or purchased a lens anywhere near this expensive before. I returned the hire lens, borrowed some money and bought one. In the past I've agonised over purchasing lenses half this price, but for this one I didn't bat an eyelid.

 

The lens is a pleasure to use, and just works in every way. The AF is quiet and fast. It doesn't feel like elements are being moved around inside like on some of the earlier primes I have. In this way it feels the same as the 18-55. The OIS does make some noise, but it's just a quiet hum that doesn't bother me. On the subject of OIS, for static subjects in low light, I often use this lens at 1/60s throughout its range. The feel of the lens is very solid. The zoom range is covered with a short twist which I like, and the broad rubber grip of the zoom is comfortable.

 

I haven't noticed any issue with the image quality, but I don't pixel peep. I've read some people saying they don't like the bokeh, but it looks great to me. Needless to say, subjects look very sharp and I don't see any obvious aberrations. But the real pleasure for me is how this lens is in use.

 

When I was buying the lens, I also read about the olympus 40-150/2.8, which seems to be a very similar lens, but with a better finish. This lens has the manual focus clutch on the focus ring and a retracting lens hood. Both look like great features that fuji should take note of.

 

For me, the 56 is a different breed. It's a lovely compact lens which can produce much shallower depth of field. I'd love to have one for closer portraits. For events, it's not versatile enough for me. I find myself shooting a lot around the 90mm mark with the 50-140, so I think the 56 would lack reach in a lot of situations.

 

Just my two pennies worth, I hope it's helpful (if a bit long winded!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you are asking for using the zooms for studio portraits I would like to mention one advantage for the 50-140mm. It has a fixed aperture compared to the 55-200 (at least below f 4.8). This is very important if you want to use a studio flash with a fixed flash power. If you zoom with the 55-200 you will change the exposure. Other than that I prefer the 55-200 for traveling because it is so much lighter and smaller... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: portraits and street

 

I picked up the Fuji because I wanted to do street photography without carrying around a backpack full of lenses. My other cameras are a Sony A7r2 and a Nikon D810, so I'm used to having the extra pixels and processing latitude of a full frame. With the fuji, there is a little less exposure latitude and ability to crop. The Fuji kit is lighter, stealthier, and the handling is better--MUCH better than the Sony--so you get shots you wouldn't otherwise get. But the point is, you really want stellar optics to make the most of the smaller sensor. The 50-140 is a beast of a lens, so keep that in mind. Do you really want to lug around that big of a lens for your small / light mirrorless?

 

The 35mm f/2 is sharp and fast--great for street--and doesn't block the OVF. Haven't tried the f/1.4. For street, you often find yourself in low light levels, so f/2.8 is often not fast enough!

 

The 56mm (85mm equivalent, let's not forget) is even sharper and faster, and should be fine for portraits.

 

This site has bench tests on pretty much all of the Fuji lenses: http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?producent=66&obiektyw=1224&typ=0&moc=0&sort=

The blur chart of the 90mm is amazing: http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr/review/

 

Here is my site with street photos, all these were taken with the 35mm f2: http://www.ericyphotography.com/#!street/f0gtw

 

p.s. gordonrussel76: I like your street shots with the 90! I'll have to give that one a try. '-)

Edited by erk1024
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're in erk1024's (enviable) position and have three systems, I'd agree - save your big pro tele zoom for the DSLR system. Undoubtedly, the Fuji X cameras, like all other mirrorless cameras, are best used with a small lens. They'll handle better and will be easier to carry around.

 

However, if you're like me and only use one system that you want to be as versatile as possible, the size of a tele zoom isn't a problem. At the end of the day, both the 55-200 and the 50-140 dwarf any of the fuji bodies. I decided that if I was going to put the 55-200 on my x-e1, the extra size of the 50-140 was irrelevant. The 55-200 is pretty long when extended anyway.

 

A comment on the variable aperture of the 55-200 when using flash: when I take photo's with off-camera flash, I'm always in the mid apertures to control the flash exposure. Perhaps people do use flash with the lens wide open -  it's certainly a skill I haven't mastered. I imagine it's very difficult (ND filter?). So for me, this wouldn't be an issue.

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...