Jump to content

Is XC 50-230mm identical to XF 55-200mm?

knarf72

By knarf72
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
jlmphotos Experienced

jlmphotos

Posted
Posted

Speaking for myself, as a stock/travel shooter I've been tremendously impressed by the sheer sharpness and clarity coming from the 55-200.   Having been a Nikon full-frame shooter and having owned the famous 70-200 2.8VR1 I was so very surprised when I got the 55-200 how perfect it was - at about 1/2 the weight, size and 1/3rd the cost.

 

I do not have experience with the 50-230 but I will certainly vouch for the 55-200.  After I sold my Nikon gear I looked at the 50-140 2.8.  Looks like a true classic, and the reviews were great but the price, and especially the weight made me go with the 55-200.

 

You may want to consider renting each one if your budget allows, or borrowing one from someone that has one.   Ultimately the final decision is yours alone but right now the price difference between both is only US $150.00.  If you can, hold off on your decision and save a few bucks and get the 55-200.

 

Those are my 2 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

yes, but nobody is saying that the 55-200 is bad ... or that they are identical ( they are not).

 

But if someone is considering buying the 55-200 I would definitely recommend trying the50-230 and THAT advise, should you go for the cheaper lens, is worth WAY MORE than 2 cents... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
khunrudi Rookie

khunrudi

Posted
Posted

Portrait shot with the 55-230 mm (sorry for first post, file was too large emand then I had to run)

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
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

Yes, this minor upgrade of the lens was released, some time ago already, together with the new II version for the 16-50mm and the X-A2.

 

This camera was ( in a hurry) brought to the market attempting to bank on the “ selfie” craze featuring a upward tilt-able screen for selfies 

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_a2/

 

Because of this “ improved” selfie attitude, the lenses for the “ new” model had to be slightly changed so this lens focusses a little closer and has an improved OIS performance to 3 to 3.5 stops

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xc50_230mmf45_67_ois_2/

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xc50_230mmf45_67_ois/

 

Compare here the two lenses

Link to post
Share on other sites
frod Community Regular

frod

Posted
Posted

I'm tempted to add one of these to my bag to have a lightweight long lens but I wonder how to determine if the one I'm buying is a version I or II, allegedly the OIS is moderately improved in the II so obviously I'd prefer that given the choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

the version II is best bought in a kit ( and then you sell the rest of the kit) with the X-A2 and the 16-50 II since on its own would probably cost you nearly as much as 2/3 of the whole kit.

 

Here in the Netherlands the kit costs €649 while the lens, stand alone, is €449 ( making camera and the other lens cost only €200 more!). the kit with the camera and 16-50 is €499, while the 16-50 II standalone costs again €449.

 

So it should be easy to sell camera and lens 16-50 II for €400.

 

If you don’t want to go through the fuss of buying and re-selling, version one is available for €199 or €249 at some other places, less if secondhand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
johant Mentor

johant

Posted
Posted

I can update that I bought the 50-230 (for €169, a no-brainer), and I am very happy with it.

 

Yes, it is slow (but then, the Canon 55-250 kit zoom was hardly faster), but it definitely is sharp enough wide open for my purposes.

 

Despite the plastic build, it feels solid ... I just hope that it proves to be that way (the long term build quality is my only concern).

 

I've used it for two weeks now, and it's good enough for daytime use. AF is fast enough for me, and is very precise.

 

I haven't tried the "zoo test" yet though. Most of my pictures so far where the birds visiting our garden ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tikcus Rising Star

Tikcus

Posted
Posted

I was photoing a gig (mostly with the 35/1.4) but decided to play and attached the XC50-230.

The conditions were pretty much as opposite you can get to daylight.

 

The results were not bad at all, granted I cranked ISO all the way to 6400.

 

I'll upload and link at some point soon.

 

settings used with the XC 55-230, camera X-T10, @230mm, F/6.7, 1/125 sec, ISO 6400

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
TonyCr46 Rookie

TonyCr46

Posted
Posted

XC50-230, some extreme test shots

 

1. Fast-moving object.

2. Bird under harsh summer sun, non-static also. 230mm  and crop 100%.

3. Indoor, at night, quick kitchen setup. Light source - only one candle!

 

Sorry, don't have XF55-200.

 

 

Thanks for this comparison. It really was well done and helps.

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites
MSW Enthusiast

MSW

Posted
Posted

I have seen MTF graphs comparing both.  Yes, the XF is sharper but if you look at the vertical scale, you may see that the difference is not really as great as it looks - it depends on thpow the graph is presented.  Sharpness often depends more on technique than on the difference between lenses.  What I can tell you is that subjectively the photos made with  my X-E2 + 50-230 are in the same league as some I have taken in the past with a Nikon D7100 + 55-200.  I suggest  lower weight and lower price are the pluses for the XC while lack of aperture ring is the biggest minus.

 

The XF is most likely more durable which could be an issue if you tend to bang up equipment.  On the other hand if you by a used XC, it costs so little that damaging it wont be the end of your financial world.

 

The aperture ring could be an issue if you have other Fuji lenses that also have one -  I find that switching between aperture ring and no-aperture ring an annoyance.  If you are transitioning from Nikon or Canon, setting aperture with a wheel on the body will feel normal.

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

  • Posts

    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
×
×
  • Create New...