55-200 is on sale, thinking about upgrading from 50-230

I agree, I shoot raw mostly but on the odd occasion I shoot jpeg I have not noticed any issues. On the lens issue I have had excellent results with the 230 and do a fair bit of birding with it. Certainly don't feel the need to upgrade for build quality alone.

I ended up buying the 55-200 about a week ago and ran a bunch more comparisons against the 50-230. This time I used Raw and shot with the same settings (manual) on a tripod (ois turned off). When shooting handheld in jpeg at the store, I couldn't see any difference in image quality even when pixel peeping. When shooting off a tripod in raw I did notice a small difference in IQ. You'll have to pixel peep at 100% to find it though. Here's a couple of comparison shots, 100% crops, shot off a tripod in raw and developed with exact same settings in silkypic:


shot from about 14 feet away @ 200mm f6.4


again 200mm f6.4 but this house is about 1.5km away

The other thing I have noticed now is that the 50-230 seems to be slightly faster at focusing. I don't notice it all the time but in certain situations its there. Don't know if its due to the decreased weight of the lens or what.

Chillibones said:

I agree, I shoot raw mostly but on the odd occasion I shoot jpeg I have not noticed any issues. On the lens issue I have had excellent results with the 230 and do a fair bit of birding with it. Certainly don't feel the need to upgrade for build quality alone.

Click to expand...

You never noticed the difference in maximum aperture then?

v30 said:

I ended up buying the 55-200 about a week ago and ran a bunch more comparisons against the 50-230. This time I used Raw and shot with the same settings (manual) on a tripod (ois turned off). When shooting handheld in jpeg at the store, I couldn't see any difference in image quality even when pixel peeping. When shooting off a tripod in raw I did notice a small difference in IQ. You'll have to pixel peep at 100% to find it though. Here's a couple of comparison shots, 100% crops, shot off a tripod in raw and developed with exact same settings in silkypic:


shot from about 14 feet away @ 200mm f6.4


again 200mm f6.4 but this house is about 1.5km away

The other thing I have noticed now is that the 50-230 seems to be slightly faster at focusing. I don't notice it all the time but in certain situations its there. Don't know if its due to the decreased weight of the lens or what.

Click to expand...

Thanks sharing this great info! If you find anything else between the two lenses that would be helpful for those we are in the fence of purchasing one of these lenses including myself!

Cherishzm said:

Thanks sharing this great info! If you find anything else between the two lenses that would be helpful for those we are in the fence of purchasing one of these lenses including myself!

Click to expand...

Yes, thanks for posting - it's great to know that when using good "shot discipline" the 55-200 pays off, at least a little. Important for those of us who like to shoot landscapes.

To push my luck, it would be interesting to see which image would stand up better against more aggressive sharpening in a developer like Capture One. Which is to say, just how sharp can you make the images without bringing in some undesirable artifacts? Does the difference between the two lenses increase or decrease when this is done?

v30 said:

I ended up buying the 55-200 about a week ago and ran a bunch more comparisons against the 50-230. This time I used Raw and shot with the same settings (manual) on a tripod (ois turned off). When shooting handheld in jpeg at the store, I couldn't see any difference in image quality even when pixel peeping. When shooting off a tripod in raw I did notice a small difference in IQ. You'll have to pixel peep at 100% to find it though. Here's a couple of comparison shots, 100% crops, shot off a tripod in raw and developed with exact same settings in silkypic:

Click to expand...

BTW - can you confirm - were these crops from the center of the image, side, or corner?

the house was center, the other was a little off center.

Chillibones said:

I agree, I shoot raw mostly but on the odd occasion I shoot jpeg I have not noticed any issues. On the lens issue I have had excellent results with the 230 and do a fair bit of birding with it. Certainly don't feel the need to upgrade for build quality alone.

Click to expand...

Not at all taking a stance regarding JPEGs, just following up on the comment from forpetesake. From my days with Fuji P&S, there were some issues - but that was a few years ago and wouldn't apply to the X system.

I'm lurking for a friend, and just learning. She needs lighter equipment (than Nikon) and Fuji is a leading candidate. The only real mark against Fuji is the lack of a birding/wildlife lens - and the probability when that lens does come it might be fast and a bit too large given the physical issues she has.

Cherishzm said:

Cherishzm said:

I ended up buying the 55-200 about a week ago and ran a bunch more comparisons against the 50-230. This time I used Raw and shot with the same settings (manual) on a tripod (ois turned off). When shooting handheld in jpeg at the store, I couldn't see any difference in image quality even when pixel peeping. When shooting off a tripod in raw I did notice a small difference in IQ. You'll have to pixel peep at 100% to find it though. Here's a couple of comparison shots, 100% crops, shot off a tripod in raw and developed with exact same settings in silkypic:


shot from about 14 feet away @ 200mm f6.4


again 200mm f6.4 but this house is about 1.5km away

The other thing I have noticed now is that the 50-230 seems to be slightly faster at focusing. I don't notice it all the time but in certain situations its there. Don't know if its due to the decreased weight of the lens or what.

Click to expand...

Thanks sharing this great info! If you find anything else between the two lenses that would be helpful for those we are in the fence of purchasing one of these lenses including myself!

Click to expand...

Also it looks more like the 50-230 shot is simply a bit OOF, and it may be a factor in it's focusing a little faster. Could you mount them up again and manual focus using the 10X zoom feature to try and get them in as good of focus as possible? The auto focus of the cheaper 50-230 simply may not be as precise.

--
[[[If I am commenting on your X trans photos, I consider it a shame there are a few users out there who say test charts keep them away from X trans, this then encompasses all photos like these, amazing but true.]]]

guitarjeff said:

The auto focus of the cheaper 50-230 simply may not be as precise.

Click to expand...

When it does lock (which can be a painful experience), it produces very good results. I haven't really seen an imprecisely focused image produced by my 50-230. Assuming I did have green focus feedback while shooting, of course.

Well I'd love a faster lens, but for the price, the overall package is excellent. Coupled with the X-E1 I've had some very satisfactory results. If you want to see some examples you'll find me on Flickr as Chillibones. The X-E1 album contains recent bird images, I'm no pro and don't attempt birds in flight but it keeps me happy.

Chillibones said:

Well I'd love a faster lens, but for the price, the overall package is excellent. Coupled with the X-E1 I've had some very satisfactory results. If you want to see some examples you'll find me on Flickr as Chillibones. The X-E1 album contains recent bird images, I'm no pro and don't attempt birds in flight but it keeps me happy.

Click to expand...

If you're happy with what you've got that's all that matters, personally I value the extra stop or so on the 55-200mm, I think people under-estimate how much of a difference that can make when it matters.

Sure, I would value extra speed too. It's what I can afford though. If money was not an issue I'd have the faster lens. But, as I said, for me the quality of the images the 230 produces exceeds the price I paid (if that makes sense!)

Chillibones said:

Sure, I would value extra speed too. It's what I can afford though. If money was not an issue I'd have the faster lens. But, as I said, for me the quality of the images the 230 produces exceeds the price I paid (if that makes sense!)

Click to expand...

Understood, that's ultimately what's important, being happy with what you've got.