Which zoom (55-200 or 50-230)

Vic Chapman wrote:

For someone who uses primes but just occasionally needs a long lens the 50-530mm is okay and will provide satisfactory images. You get what you pay for and there are reasons the 55-200mm is more expensive - build quality, aperture and, yes when it comes down to it the image quality too. I've seen lots of pictures showing how sharp the XC lens is but IMO they don't quite have the sparkle of the XF lens, the sharpness isn't quite there although you'll sometimes only notice this when similar images from each are seen side by side. There are an increasing number of complaints and questions for advice about getting the plastic mount replaced and the fact that it is now relatively simple to get it fixed (at owners cost) at your nearest Fuji rep shows seems to indicate that the problem is getting worse.

Looking at hundreds of images I see no difference in sharpness between the two, you folks have better eyes than I do by far. When I look at a hundred images of each in the Flickr groups, I see what looks basically like the same image quality from both. Here is a sampling of some of my favorite 50-230 shots just in the first 50 or so, these have a sharpness problem or or not high quality photos?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123221083@N05/27077403981/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mariopanda/26868044460/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/100226276@N03/27016607812/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nwchadwik/26802052272/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123221083@N05/19647578063/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123221083@N05/21578999025/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/t0m1kaze/26755141106/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

I gotta say, if there are sharpness problems in these photos then you are a pixel peeping master.  I realize that the 55-200 may be a tad better iq in the corners and such, but from what I see in many pics the difference is not noticeable and the 50-230 is capable of wonderful iq.

You know what I think?  I think folks like to justify their own purchases and defend the lens they bought.  That's understandable, so I feel the 50-230 needs some defending too.  The range difference is 35mm with the added 5 at the short end.  In full frame isn't that like a 50mm range difference?  To me that range difference is huge and important.  The size difference is important, and the weight difference is important for many folks as well as the price difference.  The 50-230 has definite advantages in several important ways to many people and the iq difference is far too slight to negate those differences.  Sure it's plastic mount but I simply mount mine and feel no problem with it's quality.  The speed difference isn't that big of an advantage for many because these lenses are used outside mostly and backgrounds are usually further and you get added bokeh with a longer range, so that helps equal that issue out.

The 50-230 at 200 bucks is one of the best values in the lens world right now in my opinion.  I believe it's advantages are simply huge and hard to deny for many folks.  I use a bag and have both my X-E1 bodies in it with the 18-55 on one and the 50-230 on the other.  I don't think I could use that bag with the 55-200, and I know it would weigh more as well.   The 50-230 and the 18-55 also use the same filter size, so that is nice when you have both these lenses, which the op does.

50-230

1, lighter weight can make a huge difference in comfort and balance wth the camera

2, lower cost, no need to explain that one.  I just ordered one of these new lonail 25mm 1.8 lenses for 130 dollars on Ebay.  You can add another lens to your stable with the saving you get with the 50-230

3 smaller size.  Again, smaller size may be the difference in what bag you feel you can use, it does for me.

4, longer range, 35mm extra, like 50mm in ff terms, that's a nice advantage.

Yep, the 55-200 is better built, but I see no reason my 50-230 won't last 5 or 6 years if I take care of it and don't mount it a million times.  I leave mine mounted and rarely take it off.  By that time I'll be able to buy another one for a hundred bucks if I want one.

Better IQ, maybe so but I have not seen it in any real world application, both turn out great photos that no one should have complaints about. Yep, faster speed, but long ranges outdoors in day light really makes that not a big deal for many anyway.

I had to defend the 50-230's honor here, it is a great buy, one of the best in the lens world and deserves some defenders to come forward who use it and appreciate it's strengths.

Wow, I love Fuji and the lenses they give us a chance to own and debate over.  In the end, we are all lucky to be in the Fuji stable, we all have access to all these lenses and I wish I could own them all.