Which zoom (55-200 or 50-230)

jturn00 wrote:

I'm strongly considering adding a zoom lens to my travel kit. I have the 18-55 right now. With the recent sale, the prices seem pretty good. Do I just get the 50-230 (which on sale is $200) or spend a little more to get the 55-200. Reach is one consideration but so is f-stop and the 55-200 has a pretty good aperture range.

I "might"consider the 50-140 but given the size/weight, it might be better to get a lighter lens.

Between the two, is the quality generally the same or does it make sense to spend the extra $ to get the 55-200?)

I have the 50-230 ans love it. When I go to the Flickr groups and look at the samples I don't see much difference in the photo quality of the lenses, but I'm not much of a peeper either. They both have their strengths.

The 50-230 is smaller, ligter, and has more reach. Those are some serious advantages for sure.

The 55-200 is a stop faster, which could make a big difference for some, and it is constructed better. You may be handing that lens down to your kids 25 years from now while the XC lenses may break down in five years even with careful handling.

The 50-230 suits me fine and I love it, takes great photos, and the speed is no problem for me because it's an out doors lens anyway, and it's also good indoors with flash and makes a good portrait lens like that as well because most of the time with flash I am at around F5.6 to F8 anyway. Here's a couple groups at Flickr to compare.   The links are to the first picks in each group enlarged and ready to scroll through.  As you can see, both have wonderful IQ, I don't see enough difference to choose one over the other on that basis, but a stop faster may make a difference, and build quality,= or being lighter, smaller, and a bit more reach may mean more.

50-230 https://www.flickr.com/photos/134474588@N08/27150053966/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

55-200 https://www.flickr.com/photos/mbiker/27120402761/in/pool-1958578@N25/lightbox/