Which zoom (55-200 or 50-230)

Jared Huntr wrote:

Vic Chapman wrote:

Jared Huntr wrote:

Vic Chapman wrote:

Jared Huntr wrote:

slimandy wrote:

I read a few reviews and they same on a par in terms of IQ, either being better depending on who's review you read.

I would tend to believe this based on Fuji's product planner for X cameras who said of the 18-55:

"We made it f/2.8 to achieve both brightness and high image quality. Consequently the cost would be higher, so there was the problem with the price even though we wanted a wider range of people to use our product. This is why we then created the XC lens “XC16-50mm” and “XC50-230mm” as the beginners’ model. The only difference is the material used for the lens exterior. The inside is the same optical design and technology as the XF lens."

The last sentence is telling and throws cold water on all the baseless speculation in these threads. Yes, the XF lenses are typically designed to be faster (brighter) optics with metal bodies. But it is incorrect to assume that the XC glass is of poorer optical quality or resolution within the same operational parameters.

Having owned several lenses with plastic mounts, I'm convinced that owners that have had problems relating to the plastic mount tend to be abusive toward their equipment. Either that, or Fuji is different from CaNikon in that they made extremely fragile plastic mounts.

I don't know if you're trying to convince yourself or someone else. The lenses used may be the same but they are not the same design - how can they be when the XC lenses have 2 fewer elements and obvious difference in the groupings? I daresay they elements they do use are the same or similar. Checkout the Fuji website or numerous reviews which show the number and grouping of the elements.

I would not assume that overall optical quality can be predicted so easily by simply counting the number of elements or groups.

18-55:

http://www.lenstip.com/383.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_18-55_mm_f_2.8-4_OIS_Image_resolution.html

16-50:

http://www.lenstip.com/409.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XC_16-50_mm_f_3.5-5.6_OIS_Image_resolution.html

Takeaways:

- the 16-50 actually resolves more detail than the 18-50

- at the wide end, the 16-50 blows away the 18-55 in terms of resolution at the edges. "(the 18-55 at) the shortest focal length doesn’t provide high MTFs at any aperture". Whereas with the 16-50, "At 16 mm, which is often used to capture architecture and landscapes, you care about even sharpness across the frame – and you get exactly that."

I bought a 16-50 XC mainly for use as an IR lens but reports of its usability for IR turned out to be false. I tried it alongside my 18-55mm taking exactly the same images with the same tripod mounted camera and found that from about 20mm to 50mm at apertures of f5.6 and f8 there was no difference I could see but outside of those parameters there was enough distortion at 16mm to need cropping, so no gain in focal length and comparatively poor image quality at wider than f5.6 and smaller than f8 (possibly because the XC lenses don't have the benefit of of LMO).

Given the results of the tests above we can only conclude that you may have received a bad sample of the 16-50. But what cannot be denied is that the optical quality is close enough such that the two lenses are interchangeable in terms of image quality in practical use. I would argue that the 16-50 is actually better in that it offers a more 'epic' field of view at the wide end. The stretching of clouds into the corners at 16mm tends to present a greater impression of sweeping vistas.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. First you ascertain that they are the same except for the outer materials now you accept that they aren't but you think the cheaper lens is actually better.

You misread, I did not say they were the same when I wrote, "it is incorrect to assume that the XC glass is of poorer optical quality or resolution within the same operational parameters"

I have tried more than one example after I returned mine and the friend whose lens I borrowed tried my XF lens while I had his XC - he too now uses a 18-55 XF lens where before he'd been happy with his 16-50 XC lens. He kept his 50-230 XC because he doesn't use it much anyway.

Whether you think the elements and groups have no bearing on the quality is rather silly and completely immaterial because it is a fact that the quality and grouping of the elements is wholly responsible for the overall quality of the lens output.

Again, you misread. I did not say it has no bearing when I wrote, "I would not assume that overall optical quality can be predicted so easily by simply counting the number of elements or groups"

Just having more elements says nothing about the optical quality. For example, whether the elements are aspherical or low dispersion glass would be a lot more insightful.

I'm happy for you believe your XC lenses are better for you and I can understand you wanting to protect them but don't make ridiculous assertions, it smacks of desperation.

I'm just relaying facts here using quantitative test results not tainted by personal biases.

I'll not respond again because we've moved a long way from the advice the OP asked for.

Sure. But I would argue that the dismissive attitude that most have against XC lenses is unfounded. This would play a part in the OP's decision making process.

I've not seen to much in terms of a dismissive attitude towards the XC lenses around here.  I'm sure there is some, but mostly what I see is simple acknowledgement that most analytic IQ measurements (and this goes beyond just resolution measurements, and includes things like vignetting, distortion, aberrations, etc) get better as you spend more.  There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.  As we know talent & skill are more important than the incremental differences between the various lenses.  But the differences are real, even if we sometimes focus on them more than is needed.