55-200 vs 50-230

eliehbk · Mar 27, 2015

Dear All,

I would like to purchase a telephoto lens and I am considering the above lenses.

On one hand the 50-200mm is better built, better image quality and slightly faster than the 50-230mm, on the other hand the 50-230mm is lighter, cheaper and has longer reach.

I would not like to carry a heavy lens, especially on the Xe2 that is not really the best suited camera for long lenses. (I do not like the additional grip either).

I would like to ask your opinion on both lenses please.

Does the 50-200mm out perform the 50-230mm by that much that justifies the extra weight and cost? I will be using the lens mostly for landscape, I rarely take pictures of moving subjects.

Thank you so much for your help!

Elie

Andreasfe · Mar 27, 2015

eliehbk said:
Dear All,

I would like to purchase a telephoto lens and I am considering the above lenses.

On one hand the 50-200mm is better built, better image quality and slightly faster than the 50-230mm, on the other hand the 50-230mm is lighter, cheaper and has longer reach.

I would not like to carry a heavy lens, especially on the Xe2 that is not really the best suited camera for long lenses. (I do not like the additional grip either).

I would like to ask your opinion on both lenses please.

Does the 50-200mm out perform the 50-230mm by that much that justifies the extra weight and cost? I will be using the lens mostly for landscape, I rarely take pictures of moving subjects.

Thank you so much for your help!

Elie

Hi Elie.

I have owned both of them. In terms of image quality they are pretty equal, but I think 55-200mm wins with a little bit on equal apertures as the 50-230mm at its largest.

I had the 50-230mm first. The reason I switched to the 55-200mm was only the one stop aperture advantage. It's heavier, but only a tad larger than the 50-230mm

230mm vs 200mm in reach isn't that much to consider.

But you say Landscape only? With that in mind, and also ther fact that you use the X-E2 without the grip, I really recommend the 50-230mm. It's a bargain.

DarnGoodPhotos · Mar 27, 2015

Its a good lens, smaller, lighter, and less expensive. No aperture ring so that is controlled on the camera body. I have a leather half case on the X-Pro which thickens it up helping with grip but honestly, if I didn't have a thumb grip on the camera it would be very awkward to use my 55-200. With one it its easy to hold the combo in one hand just dangling by my side.

eliehbk · Mar 27, 2015

Andreasfe said:
eliehbk said:

Dear All,

I would like to purchase a telephoto lens and I am considering the above lenses.

On one hand the 50-200mm is better built, better image quality and slightly faster than the 50-230mm, on the other hand the 50-230mm is lighter, cheaper and has longer reach.

I would not like to carry a heavy lens, especially on the Xe2 that is not really the best suited camera for long lenses. (I do not like the additional grip either).

I would like to ask your opinion on both lenses please.

Does the 50-200mm out perform the 50-230mm by that much that justifies the extra weight and cost? I will be using the lens mostly for landscape, I rarely take pictures of moving subjects.

Thank you so much for your help!

Elie

Click to expand...

Hi Elie.

I have owned both of them. In terms of image quality they are pretty equal, but I think 55-200mm wins with a little bit on equal apertures as the 50-230mm at its largest.

I had the 50-230mm first. The reason I switched to the 55-200mm was only the one stop aperture advantage. It's heavier, but only a tad larger than the 50-230mm

230mm vs 200mm in reach isn't that much to consider.

But you say Landscape only? With that in mind, and also ther fact that you use the X-E2 without the grip, I really recommend the 50-230mm. It's a bargain.

Thanks for your thoughts, yes I need it mainly for landscape, so I will be running around with it, hiking most probably. I think the shape of the Xe2 makes it awkward with long lenses (never owned a range finder) and heavy ones as well.

If the trade off is not too big I would rather go for the 50-230!

jrk · Mar 27, 2015

I do not have the 50-230 so I can't comment on it. I do have the 55-200 and the X-E2. I have used this combination on many occasions and have no problems handling the setup. I did add the lensmate thumb grip to the camera and I feel that really makes a difference. The 55-200 provides very crisp pictures right out of the camera. Highly recommend.

h2odog · Mar 27, 2015

jrk said:
I do not have the 50-230 so I can't comment on it. I do have the 55-200 and the X-E2. I have used this combination on many occasions and have no problems handling the setup. I did add the lensmate thumb grip to the camera and I feel that really makes a difference. The 55-200 provides very crisp pictures right out of the camera. Highly recommend.

I am also considering the 50-230 for my XP1 as an occasional telephoto zoom. For me, what I found recently that when I attached the Fuji XP1 grip, it was actually more comfortable and easier to use the XP1 without the Lensmate thumbrest. I guess it's just a personal preference. Being a fairly lightweight lens, I think that the 50-230 on my XP1 with the grip will work for me.

averageguy · Mar 27, 2015

h2odog said:
jrk said:

I do not have the 50-230 so I can't comment on it. I do have the 55-200 and the X-E2. I have used this combination on many occasions and have no problems handling the setup. I did add the lensmate thumb grip to the camera and I feel that really makes a difference. The 55-200 provides very crisp pictures right out of the camera. Highly recommend.

Click to expand...

I am also considering the 50-230 for my XP1 as an occasional telephoto zoom. For me, what I found recently that when I attached the Fuji XP1 grip, it was actually more comfortable and easier to use the XP1 without the Lensmate thumbrest. I guess it's just a personal preference. Being a fairly lightweight lens, I think that the 50-230 on my XP1 with the grip will work for me.

I use the 50-230 lens on my XP1 without any additional grip...i have fairly small hands and don't have any handling issues.

georgehudetz · Mar 27, 2015

This website has reviewed both:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/fujix

The charts show that the 55-200 will resolve more detail at F8 than the 50-230, particularly at longer focal lengths. Whether or not this will matter to you is another thing. It's clearly not a huge difference.

I think it should come down to more about handling and preferences. If you like better build quality, aperture rings, and the extra speed get the XF. Get the XC to save some money or weight.

I have the XF and really like it - I do find the larger aperture to be useful when isolating subjects. And, I bought into Fuji to get the best IQ out of an ASP-C sensor. I also like the aperture ring - I hate it when camera handling changes based on what lens is mounted. Those cheap little dials on the Fuji bodies just don't cut it for me. So the XF is a no brainer for me - I consider it one of Fuji's best lenses, and never hesitate to take it hiking. Others value weight more, and get great results out of the XC. It's good to have options.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

El Chubasco · Mar 27, 2015

I had the same question (many have had this same question, just check previous threads) and decided to buy the XC. Looked around and many of the reviews find both lenses comparable in IQ. Seemed to me that longer zoom and lighter lens would make the XC much better. I have to say that you get what you paid for, I am not particularly impressed with its sharpness, and it is hard to lock autofocus in low light environment. I am still thinking that I just should have purchased the XF which has an excellent reputation. In short, my advice is -just pay the extra-bucks and get the XF-, it seems to be a better lens, period.

Cheers

britcam · Mar 27, 2015

I have both - getting the 50-300 at a very low price to use on my X-M1.

I already had the 55-200, and it is a superb lens. I use it for urban, architecture, landscape, portraits - anything really, but tend to use it on the X-E2 with a thumb rest and grip, and that makes it easy to handle.

Between the two, the XF is by far the superior lens, and what I have found is that the IQ is so good that images will crop easily without losing detail, so the importance of that extra 30mm in a print is questionable ...

My 50-300 is mostly for bright days when I need extra range for coastal and bird shots. I might sell it, but for the money, its probably wiser to hang on to it!

User3908626092 · Mar 31, 2015

As I have both I will give you my opinions..

For me I prefer the XF and from my tests the XF

* Better Contrast under certain conditions
* Something no one mentioned it has 1.5 stops better OIS. The XC has 3 stop OIS where as the XF is
* 1 stop faster

As a zoom... as soon as the light fades you are relying on lens speed and OIS to get a sharp picture. The combination of the above, the XC will be atleast 2 stops slower is less than perfect light. Which can make all the difference.

The only benefit of XC is that its lighter.

Best Regards

eliehbk · Mar 31, 2015

User3908626092 said:
As I have both I will give you my opinions..

For me I prefer the XF and from my tests the XF

* Better Contrast under certain conditions
* Something no one mentioned it has 1.5 stops better OIS. The XC has 3 stop OIS where as the XF is
* 1 stop faster

As a zoom... as soon as the light fades you are relying on lens speed and OIS to get a sharp picture. The combination of the above, the XC will be atleast 2 stops slower is less than perfect light. Which can make all the difference.

The only benefit of XC is that its lighter.

Best Regards

Thank you so much for your input, I think I will get the 55-200 especially that you can get one used for 375 now!

bauerman · Mar 31, 2015

50-230 is a FANTASTIC lens - easier to sling around with GREAT OIS, superb image quality and a build quality that is not really "kit" level to my eye. The Fuji XC lenses just don't feel "plasticky" as you would expect them to. They are very well built.

I think that you will find many people defending or recommending the 55-200mm simply because they think they should - I mean come on - they paid more for it, it has a metal mount and a aperture ring - it HAS to be better right? wink wink.

georgehudetz · Mar 31, 2015

bauerman said:
50-230 is a FANTASTIC lens - easier to sling around with GREAT OIS, superb image quality and a build quality that is not really "kit" level to my eye. The Fuji XC lenses just don't feel "plasticky" as you would expect them to. They are very well built.

I think that you will find many people defending or recommending the 55-200mm simply because they think they should - I mean come on - they paid more for it, it has a metal mount and a aperture ring - it HAS to be better right? wink wink.

slimandy · Mar 31, 2015

Reviews I read put them on a par in IQ terms, perhaps even advantage 50-230. I bought the longer lens for it's light weight and because it was cheap as chips.

It suffers from noticeable CA in high contrast so I would think twice about using it for landscape.

SwedishPhoto · Mar 31, 2015

bauerman said:
50-230 is a FANTASTIC lens - easier to sling around with GREAT OIS, superb image quality and a build quality that is not really "kit" level to my eye. The Fuji XC lenses just don't feel "plasticky" as you would expect them to. They are very well built.

I think that you will find many people defending or recommending the 55-200mm simply because they think they should - I mean come on - they paid more for it, it has a metal mount and a aperture ring - it HAS to be better right? wink wink.

georgehudetz · Mar 31, 2015

slimandy said:
Reviews I read put them on a par in IQ terms, perhaps even advantage 50-230. I bought the longer lens for it's light weight and because it was cheap as chips.

It suffers from noticeable CA in high contrast so I would think twice about using it for landscape.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34270522@N04/

Check the data below, you can clearly see the 55-200 has better optics. Fuji puts the extra glass & coatings in the 55-200 for a reason.

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/880-fuji50230f4567

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/879-fuji55200f3548

Fuji's own MTF charts tell a similar story.

Nothing wrong with preferring the cheaper or lighter lens, but there is no reason to claim something that isn't true.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

Ollie 2 · Mar 31, 2015

bauerman said:
50-230 is a FANTASTIC lens - easier to sling around with GREAT OIS, superb image quality and a build quality that is not really "kit" level to my eye. The Fuji XC lenses just don't feel "plasticky" as you would expect them to. They are very well built.

I think that you will find many people defending or recommending the 55-200mm simply because they think they should - I mean come on - they paid more for it, it has a metal mount and a aperture ring - it HAS to be better right? wink wink.

slimandy · Apr 1, 2015

I'm not really bothered about charts and graphs, only real world use. The extensive review I read was real world and had photos rather than graphs.

Vieito · Apr 1, 2015

For landscape use, where you mostly shoot stopped down, I recommend the 50-230. It does not have much disadvantage in terms of sharpness at f/8-f/11 compared to the 55-200. CA is there although in my experience it's not as bad as in, say, the 18-135.

--
http://500px.com/vieito

55-200 vs 50-230

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

New member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts