55-200mm or 50-140mm

[gordonrussell76]

The 90mm continually blows my mind. 

 

Just for shizzles and giggles this weekend I took it out along with my 55-200mm and I shot some wildlife and birds at the same physical distances at 90mm and 200mm respectively. When I cropped the 90mm to match the 200mm field of view tabout 70% of the shots were sharper from the cropped 90mm even when zoomed in further. I find that mind blowing.

 

If it were not for the issue of initial target acquisition there is part of me that is tempted to ditch the 55-200 and take the 90mm instead for my canada trip.

 

erk1024 thank you for your kind words 

 

It funny i bought the 90mm because of an oh wow moment in the shop where I pointed it out the window and got an amazing first shot (featured on Fuji Love few months back). Then my brain kicked in and I started wandering if were a practical lens for me. Those street shots were part of me trying to convince myself I could live without it and sell it and the 55-200 to justify the 50-140mm, the irony is that the more I have used it the more I am realizing how versatile it is.

 

I did a few shots this weekend that show that its very good at architecture if you have the distance to get far enough away and that leads me to suspect that it will do well at landscape. In addition its close focus is fabulous and it makes a great Macro lens.

 

I will put up another gallery later this week with a few shots to illustrate this point.

G

Edited May 18, 2016 by gordonrussell76

[Bill Evans]

This one is made with the 18-55

 

You are doing very, very well with the lenses you have. I for one am very impressed with your results!!!!

[lleo]

Nice shots and beautiful kids, Cynthia. You know, when you get a "stock" lens, one of those offered in kit with the camera, and a "pro" one you'll understand the difference istantly as well as why the pro lenses cost a fortune.

Many years ago I've tried a Nikon 28-80 f/3,5-4,5 or 5,6, then I've bought a 35-70 F2,8 and it was like day and night.

Just looking at the pics, the ones taken with the kit lens looked like toys.

It's not the case of Fuji, obviously, due the high quality of the kit lenses. The only questions you have to ask yourself are:

• how much the differences between the two lenses might affect my work? And are they so big to justify the extra money?
• do I need a weather sealing lens?
• how much I can or I wish to pay a lens?

Once you have answered this questions, you'll have the clue.

Actually I own the 18-55 and the 55-200 and they're really great, great lenses. I shoot mainly with a old Leica so I didn't want to get several prime lenses and I opted for these two zooms.

In the early I also thought about the 16-55, the 50-140, but in the end the two I have are perfect for my needings. Also, the other two are... well I don't know why Fuji made lenses that overlay each other. Fortunately they didn't do it with the two zooms I have.

Edited May 31, 2016 by lleo