Fuji X-T2 with 55-200 for outdoor sports.

Hi all!

I am sorry if this has already been answered. I have searched hi and low and not found in depth info.

I have sold all my micro 4/3 gear and have purchased a used X-T2 with the 18-55 lens.

My question is: does the 18-55 and the 55-200 focus fast enough on the new X-T2 for outdoor sports in good light? I shoot a lot of dogs and horses in movement and could not get a decent hit rate with an E-M1 and the 12-40 and pany 35-100. I got some great shots but missed way too many that would have been outstanding if the focus was better.

I know that the XF 50-140 is a fast lens but I am trying to avoid the size/weight.

Thank you very much for any insight!

Don't expect a 700$ lens to perform as well as a 1600$ lens. At the end of the day, you are the one controlling the equipment and you have to understand the limit of the tool you are working with. If you ask many photographer will tell you that the X-t1 was not good enough for wildlife photography. I used the X-T1 almost entirely for just wildlife and I got amazing result. I adapted my technique to take into account EVF blackout and use pre-focus technique.

Don't expect the camera to do all the work for you. It doesn't matter if the lens has a faster focusing motor or better aperture.

Yes, I understand. Not looking for the equipment to do all the work.

Hoping for a reasonable keeper rate with the 55-200 in full sun. Not expecting miracles in low light. Hoping someone has had some experience on how the autofocus is on the X-T2. Looking for good enough ;-)

I got a great hit rate with my old Olympus E-5 and the 12-60 and 50-200 swd. I was thinking the E-M1 would be an improvement after the firmware updates but after trying many settings and techniques, still cannot get a reliable hit rate.

I will purchase the 50-140 if necessary but prefer the smaller size and reach of the 55-200 if it will do the job. Trying to get enough info to make an educated guess before purchasing. If is is an absolute "No", I will go directly to the 50-140. If there is a consensus that the 55-200 can get the job done on the X-T2 I will try that first. Worst case I will resell it and get the 50-140.

Bruc said:

Hi all!

I am sorry if this has already been answered. I have searched hi and low and not found in depth info.

I have sold all my micro 4/3 gear and have purchased a used X-T2 with the 18-55 lens.

My question is: does the 18-55 and the 55-200 focus fast enough on the new X-T2 for outdoor sports in good light? I shoot a lot of dogs and horses in movement and could not get a decent hit rate with an E-M1 and the 12-40 and pany 35-100. I got some great shots but missed way too many that would have been outstanding if the focus was better.

I know that the XF 50-140 is a fast lens but I am trying to avoid the size/weight.

Thank you very much for any insight!

Click to expand...

Taken on 2 consecutive days ( I can't swap position that fast) so no fluke. Taken 2015 so this is with the XT1 Pre FW version 4.0 + 55-200mm.









Below, all wide open between 90mm and 99mm also 2015 - Pre version 4.0 FW XT1 + 55-200mm.















Vic

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002

I have the 55-200 and used it to take pictures of surfers. It was very sunny so I was able to use a fast shutter speed and F8 - F11 aperture for a larger DOF. I used CAF with focus priority and the smallest Zone setting. I had a good number of keepers and am really satisfied with the results. But this was with a X-E2 with firmware 4.00, so I'm expecting a significant improvement with my wonderful new X-T2.

I shoot my high school son's football and baseball games and I sold all of my m4/3 gear as well and jumped straight into the Fuji system with the X-T2, 50-140 and 100-400. I've never looked back. Yes, the 50-140 is larger versus the m4/3 equivalent; however, it's still very comfortable to shoot with. Oh, and the C-AF of the X-T2 paired with the 50-140 is stellar!

racin06 said:

I shoot my high school son's football and baseball games and I sold all of my m4/3 gear as well and jumped straight into the Fuji system with the X-T2, 50-140 and 100-400. I've never looked back. Yes, the 50-140 is larger versus the m4/3 equivalent; however, it's still very comfortable to shoot with. Oh, and the C-AF of the X-T2 paired with the 50-140 is stellar!

Click to expand...

100-400 samples...?

Macro said:

100-400 samples...?

Click to expand...

A few 100-400mm outdoor ports pics. Awesome lens.

I don't shoot BIF (or any birds for that matter), or own the 50-140. However, I did have the 55-200 on the X-T1 and it was just adequate. I used it to shoot galloping horses at the races etc, and I got some keepers. However, now that I have the 55-200 strapped onto my X-T2 - it is night and day. There is no comparison between the two cameras. The X-T2 on that lens, eats focus for breakfast. Coupled with that, the brilliant sharpness of this lens and its smaller weight and great OIS, you really can't go wrong. There is a guy I feel very ashamed to quote because he annoys the hell out of me, but seems to know what he is talking about (The Angry Man - you know who I mean), and he does a really good comparison on Youtube with the 55-200 and the 50-140 and in the end he recommends for most uses the 55-200. He actually owns both lenses, which speaks volumes to me. I think this is a gorgeous lens and though I have the 18-135, 35f2 and the 16-55, the 55-200 would be the last lens I would sell because it is just so good. Strap that onto your X-T2, and you will be laughing.

Sutto

philipsuttonphotography.com

Sutto said:

I don't shoot BIF (or any birds for that matter), or own the 50-140. However, I did have the 55-200 on the X-T1 and it was just adequate. I used it to shoot galloping horses at the races etc, and I got some keepers. However, now that I have the 55-200 strapped onto my X-T2 - it is night and day. There is no comparison between the two cameras. The X-T2 on that lens, eats focus for breakfast. Coupled with that, the brilliant sharpness of this lens and its smaller weight and great OIS, you really can't go wrong. There is a guy I feel very ashamed to quote because he annoys the hell out of me, but seems to know what he is talking about (The Angry Man - you know who I mean), and he does a really good comparison on Youtube with the 55-200 and the 50-140 and in the end he recommends for most uses the 55-200. He actually owns both lenses, which speaks volumes to me. I think this is a gorgeous lens and though I have the 18-135, 35f2 and the 16-55, the 55-200 would be the last lens I would sell because it is just so good. Strap that onto your X-T2, and you will be laughing.

Sutto

philipsuttonphotography.com

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Whenever I use it, it almost surprises me how good the i.q. is.

I have the XT1 ANF 55-200 and for this use it is just barely sufficient. Fills the social media need and friends and family see boys in focus with their grimacing faces playing lacrosse. Great images when it works, sucks when it doves not. Easy to get 30 keepers from a game.

That said, seems like XT2 resolves focusing ssues for sports at this level

Dave

If you are serious about sports I wouldn't ignore the 50-140. Yes, it is significantly larger than the 55-200, but it might be worth it. I have shot lots of lacrosse and use a mono-pod.

Sutto said:

I don't shoot BIF (or any birds for that matter), or own the 50-140. However, I did have the 55-200 on the X-T1 and it was just adequate. I used it to shoot galloping horses at the races etc, and I got some keepers. However, now that I have the 55-200 strapped onto my X-T2 - it is night and day. There is no comparison between the two cameras. The X-T2 on that lens, eats focus for breakfast. Coupled with that, the brilliant sharpness of this lens and its smaller weight and great OIS, you really can't go wrong. There is a guy I feel very ashamed to quote because he annoys the hell out of me, but seems to know what he is talking about (The Angry Man - you know who I mean), and he does a really good comparison on Youtube with the 55-200 and the 50-140 and in the end he recommends for most uses the 55-200. He actually owns both lenses, which speaks volumes to me. I think this is a gorgeous lens and though I have the 18-135, 35f2 and the 16-55, the 55-200 would be the last lens I would sell because it is just so good. Strap that onto your X-T2, and you will be laughing.

Sutto

philipsuttonphotography.com

Click to expand...

Great info!!!! Thank you very much for sharing your experience. Most the info I was able to find on the lens was the old reviews done on the X-T1 and was wondering if the X-T2 significantly improved the performance of the lens.

This is just the info I was looking for. I am going to get the 55-200 then and give it a go. I am sure it will take some practice to find all the right focus settings to get the best out of it but am looking forward to playing around with them.

I have yet to use the 100-400, as the 50-140 was required to shoot football (low light night games) and basketball (low light gymnasiums). However, I will be using the 100-400 to shoot day baseball. I will post photos in the near future as our high school baseball season starts in a couple of weeks.

Check this out