Previous news story    Next news story

Fujfilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Real-world Samples

By dpreview staff on Sep 6, 2013 at 18:15 GMT
Buy on GearShop$629.99

The Fujinon XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS is the first telephoto zoom for Fujifilm's X system cameras, and offers an 83-300mm equivalent angle of view. It has built-in optical image stabilization with 4.5 stops claimed benefit, and uses linear stepper motors for silent autofocus. The lens features an (unmarked) aperture control ring, and offers high quality all-metal barrel construction.

We're working on expanding our previously-published content on this lens, but for now, click the links below to view our gallery of real-world samples taken in a range of different environments. 

Fujfilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Samples Gallery

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Real-World Samples - Published September 5th 2013

There are 32 images in our samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution.

293
I own it
49
I want it
7
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

Comments

Total comments: 52
forpetessake
By forpetessake (7 months ago)

The lens is good on the short end, soft on the long end, it's actually measured very similar to Samsung 50-200mm, which is a $200 lens. It's not quite as good as a cheap Canon 55-250mm, and for that $700 one can get Canon 70-200/4L, which is just far better than this Fujinon in every respect.

1 upvote
Sessility
By Sessility (7 months ago)

For those who are wondering what league the IQ of this lens is in - most reviews I've come across put it on par (if not better) than the Canon 70-200 F/4 L series lens.

Fwiw, my subjective comparison agrees - this is another excellent lens from Fuji, just like the 18-55 it's changed my perception of zooms vs primes (and that's saying a lot given how superb the Fuji prime lenses are).

Just off the top, some googled reviews:

www.prophotonut.com/2013/07/08/10-portraits-and-a-review-of-the-fujifilm-xf-55-200mm-f3-5-4-8-lm-ois-lens/

www.photogenykstudios.com/2013/05/28/fuji-xf-55-200mm-3-5-4-8-lens-impressions/

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

Not a single moving subject except that slow penguin (?) in the water.

0 upvotes
garyknrd
By garyknrd (7 months ago)

You have a typo on your gear shop page. 3rd down from the top under Key Features.

0 upvotes
Tandua
By Tandua (7 months ago)

i saw some good examples on flickr with x-pro1 + 55-200

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnevill/8921597153/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnevill/8921972905/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnevill/8922733918/in/photostream/

i think very good lens

http://ungawa.tumblr.com/post/60411270931/fuji-x-e1-55-200mm-f-3-5-4-8

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

Quality wise, this zoom should be quite similar to any consumer DSLR zoom of this focal length out there.

My only concern is the size of this lens which is not much smaller than that of a DSLR zoom. Looking at it, if one were to attach this to the X-M1, for example, it would not balance well thus affecting handling. This size of it will best be attached to a DSLR size body.

In such a situation, the micro 4/3 zooms are made to better size. Even the Lumix 100-300mm f/4-5.6 is only slightly bigger but it covers up to 600mm equivalent. The Lumix 45-175mm f/4-5.6 is quite small for its focal length.

If one is going mirrorless, the combo must be small otherwise we might as well use a DSLR.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (7 months ago)

When you look at the IQ, the league in which this lens plays is not the entry level DSLR zoom, but those that are already big & heavy. You're right it makes the X-Pro1+XF55-200 combo not the most compact on the market, but it's a dream to work with and I'm not changing it for any 4/3 zoom...

2 upvotes
Swagon
By Swagon (7 months ago)

Eventually, the flipply mirror will be viewed as a negative. Mirrorless will soon encompass full frame, and eventually larger sensors. Size is not the only reason to go to mirrorless.
I plan to buy the xe1 because it is big enough to fit my hand and it has very good APSC sensor, and a high quality EVF built in. Smaller cameras like OMD don't fit my hand well. I will buy the 55-200mm. Already played with it at the store and it is comfortable on xe1.

2 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

Size is a very personal thing. In fact, photography in general is a personal thing. Depending on the size of your hand or whether you are a man or woman will determine what type of camera will suit you. It also depend on what type of photography you are doing.

For me, if I need a small camera to do intrepid photography, I would choose a compact camera, most likely a micro 4/3 camera, with a compact zoom and a large aperture prime for low light.

If I were to shoot sports like surfing in Bali, I can't do without my Canon 1DX and the latest Canon 200-400mm f 4.0L IS. Any other combo would not be able to capture the fast moving action at unpredictable distance.

If it is just a wedding, I would prefer a small full frame DSLR like the Canon 5D MkIII with a standard zoom like the 24-70mm f/2.8L MkII and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L MkII for closeups.

On other days, I will just take along a Canon G12 for unexpected photo opportunities.

The XE-1 or the XM-1 will be good for casual use.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

For those who have not bought the XE-1, XM-1 or the older X-Pro1 and is considering a mirrorless camera can look out for the Olympus OMD EM1, the replacement to the OMD EM5, which will be launching in about 10 days time.

Great days ahead for the mirrorless world.

I will be going for the pre-launch on the 21/9.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
caravan
By caravan (7 months ago)

The best zoom lens is a sharp prime and a good pair of legs.

4 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (7 months ago)

And a hammer to knock down walls.

7 upvotes
sagephotography
By sagephotography (7 months ago)

caravan you're my idol. i love you. <3 i shall make your quote famous.

0 upvotes
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (7 months ago)

Simply not true. The image from the same object area coverd by a short focal lenght looks very much different than that covered by a long focal length. You can not zoom with your feet, you can zoom by cropping the image. (with loss of resolution)

6 upvotes
Nabilon
By Nabilon (7 months ago)

LJ is right. With your feet, you can only change perspective. That's why you talk about a portrait lense for example. The distance to your subject with a portrait lense is just right to don't have any weird proportions in your face (big nose, etc.) and still fill out the frame completely. You can still get the same result in terms of composition with a wide angle lense if you use the same position of shooting. But of course, then the subject will be much smaller, and you have to crop the image and lose resolution. So naturally, you will go closer with your wide angle to get the same framing and thus you get a different perspective. Also lense characteristics like bokeh etc. will be different...

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
caravan
By caravan (7 months ago)

why must it be a short focal length ? would medium work?

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (7 months ago)

Antonio I haven't laughed so hard for some time now ! Thank you ! :)

0 upvotes
Swagon
By Swagon (7 months ago)

I use my legs to get the perspective I want. Then I zoom to get the framing I want.
With a single prime, I would have to walk to get the framing and give up on getting the desired perspective. It I could carry a bunch of primes and switch lens every other shot on average.
A sharp and fast zoom is a fantastic tool.

1 upvote
Expat Nomad
By Expat Nomad (7 months ago)

Nice examples. I wonder if you could add some people portraits?

I'm liking that extra stop that Fuji seems to be building in. Loving the 18-55 for this reason.

If anyone yet has the 55-200, I'd love to know how fast it focuses (given Fuji camera AF performance).

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (7 months ago)

I've been using the XF55-200 for almost two months now. Always found that the Fuji X AF-discussion was a bit over the top, likely by some that never used the camera at all. Regarding this lens, there has not been one moment that I thought 'AF is too slow', camera and lens worked fine for me with a result that was nothing less than excellent. Previously owned Nikon, I'm not going to make any assessment about them, but you'll need to dig deep in your wallet to get the same kind of result and prepare for a very sore shoulder.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Expat Nomad
By Expat Nomad (7 months ago)

Oh, I am not panning the AF at all. Should have worded the question better. Fine for what I do.
Similar to the 18-55 then?

0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (7 months ago)

It's about on par for the rest of the system in decent light. When the sun goes down, though, the AF gets pretty slow due to being a CDAF system, and a max aperture of 3.5-4.8.

0 upvotes
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (7 months ago)

I don't have the 18-55, but all primes except the XF23mm and, of course new 27mm. I find the XF14mm the best lens in AF behavior, XF55-200 behaves very well. the XF60 is still the worst. About the low light behavior, I'm always wondering which kind of pictures people are trying to make in the dark.. My Nikon didn't excel in this either, maybe one or two lucky shots but all the rest out of focus, no doubt. Are some maybe trying to achieve the impossible?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

It's strange, a camera rumor story and there are hundreds of comments. An article with sample images from an actual lens that's shipping and next to nothing.

Anyway, very nice looking images. The wildlife looks great, and I always get nostalgic when DPR posts sample images from London. It's such an interesting city, with absolutely fantastic architecture to shoot.

Looks like a very good lens. Good job and thanks a lot.

6 upvotes
ragmanjin
By ragmanjin (7 months ago)

RIGHT!? Still, though, this lens looks like it could kick the crap out of any cheap Canikon equivalents. I love how Fuji seems to have forgotten what the industry standard max apertures are for their X lenses.

1 upvote
Juck
By Juck (7 months ago)

>> looks like it could kick the crap out of
>>any cheap Canikon equivalents.

LOL,,, Canon 70-200 F/4L is cheaper and destroys this toy in every way.

7 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

> LOL,,, Canon 70-200 F/4L is cheaper and destroys this toy

Ragminjin seems to have been talking about the typical variable aperture 55-200 zoom as he mentioned "industry standard" max apertures in reference to the typical f/4-5.6 found in most consumer zooms.

Don't think he was talking about L lenses.

3 upvotes
ragmanjin
By ragmanjin (7 months ago)

Nailed it, Marike. "CHEAP Canikon eqiuvalents." Besides, the 70-200 f/4 may be cheaper but you're comparing apples to oranges. The Canon version with IS is $600 more expensive than this one. Looking at their stabilized APS-C option, the 55-250, Fuji's is twice the price and you can bet it's worth every penny in superior quality and faster aperture. Ditto that for Nikon's DX equivalent.

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (7 months ago)

I have used both the Nikon 55-200mm and Canon 55-250mm IS. Don't see any photo in the sample images that couldn't be made with any of the above two lenses. Both were pretty sharp zooms.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

Cheap? It is $700, sheesh. Compare to the pretty sharp Oly 40-150 for $99.

2 upvotes
Sessility
By Sessility (7 months ago)

@ Juck: "destroys"?!? - actually, you couldn't be more wrong.

This lens is at least as good as the L series 70-200 F/4. Don't believe me? Look for reviews (e.g. www.prophotonut.com/2013/07/08/10-portraits-and-a-review-of-the-fujifilm-xf-55-200mm-f3-5-4-8-lm-ois-lens/ reckons the Fuji lens's IQ is "better than the Canon 70-200 L", and photogenykstudios.com/2013/05/28/fuji-xf-55-200mm-3-5-4-8-lens-impressions/ puts it around the same.

I wish only people who actually have both A and B would be allowed to blurt out statements like A is better than B ;-)

0 upvotes
Stephen Scharf
By Stephen Scharf (7 months ago)

Nice! Now, if I could only actually buy one of these fine lenses. They've been on backorder for months in the U.S.

0 upvotes
caver3d
By caver3d (7 months ago)

I ordered form Adorama a couple weeks ago. After 2 days of backorder, the lens came in and they shipped to me. You will not be waiting a long time. Just put in an order.

0 upvotes
Chris_LC
By Chris_LC (7 months ago)

Same story here. The order at Adorama was waiting about a week, then it shipped. Got it last week.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (7 months ago)

If I bought into the Fuji system, I would just stick with their awesome primes.

0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (7 months ago)

...unless you needed to go longer than 60mm. This lens hardly overlaps with their primes at all.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

Normally I would agree but their 18-55 f/2.8-4 is a superb lens that has gotten great reviews, and now this lens. I could see someone on a budget choosing the 18-55 and 55-200 instead of all primes.

3 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (7 months ago)

I can see choosing this lens and 18-55 as a great and light travel kit. Primes are primes but sometimes flexibility, timing and lack of weight is what matters the most.

2 upvotes
Mark Weston
By Mark Weston (7 months ago)

I am considering buying the X-E1 with both zooms and the 60mm with plans to add the 10-24 when it comes out. This X100S would remain my most used camera and the X-E1 when different focal lengths are needed.

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (7 months ago)

Maybe I am mistaken, but I find the sharpness (micro-contrast) just OK.

The OOF blur looks a bit funky.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

> OOF blur looks a bit funky

It does? Looks very good in the butterfly image.

3 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (7 months ago)

OOF loos indeed good in the butterfly image, but in those where the background is not blurred as strongly it looks ... strange. Look at background the gorilla image or the flamingo image. I am wondering whether those are aberrations, or the effect of the X-Trans sensor.

In general I find these photos flat.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

The fuji is fantastic. I used a rental on vacation and it offered image quality on par with the 18-55, which itself is one of the finest zooms made.

2 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (7 months ago)

One of the finest zooms made?! Bold statement, indeed! I own the Nikon AF-S VR 80-400, Mark II, and that IS an amazingly sharp lens, but it would be very bold of me to call it one of the finest zooms made, as there are so many out there I don't own, or have tested myself! The Pentax 18-55 was better than Canon's and Nikon's equivalent, but still not one of the best, I'm sure ;-)!

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (7 months ago)

Hardly better than my Nikon 18-200mm, because Ken Rockwell assured me it was everything I needed. What, me bitter...?

9 upvotes
caver3d
By caver3d (7 months ago)

Ah yes, the gospel according to Ken. Praise the Lord.

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

@ caver ... LOL. I've wondered before if dear old Ken couldn't be another Jim Jones of photographers, holed up somewhere in California. Price of admission would be that one need buy everything ever made, then sell it, then wait, then buy it all again because it always was the best to begin with....at least until the next thing is out. HAHAHA....gotta love a marketer.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

BTW, I think he's shooting with a homemade paper mache pinhole camera this week or something....it's all anyone needs~!

1 upvote
rfsIII
By rfsIII (7 months ago)

Knock it off you guys. I loved my 18-200 Nikkor and took some of my favorite pictures with it. It's not razor sharp, but the images it produced were very coherent. Short of carrying two camera bodies it was the fastest way to go from short to long.

0 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (7 months ago)

My 18/200 was soft compared to a friends. Sent it in ... warranty ... and it came back MUCH improved!

0 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (7 months ago)

Oh, not the 55-200, then?! Sold that off very quickly!

0 upvotes
Raybce
By Raybce (7 months ago)

Nikon 18-200
To insert an article for nikon 18-200 within this Fuji 55-200 review is awkward to say the least.
The 18-200 is very very soft, the tube is too loose, creeping out of the barrel, made of plastic.
If you ever try the Fuji 55-200 you will give away your 18-200.
Regards

0 upvotes
Total comments: 52