Fujinon xc50-230mm vs xf55-200mm

Rod McD wrote:

Hi,

I owned both. I initially bought the 55-200, but then the 50-230 v.II as a traveling lens simply because it is so much lighter. I too did comparative tests and concluded that although the 55-200 was better, the difference in resolution and CAs was pretty much incremental for web use and small sized prints. However, what did differentiate them was AF speed and the level of failing to lock focus and hunt. I found the 50-230 fine in its wider half of its FL range but woeful in the longer half.

This may have been my camera or my sample of the lens, but nothing I did made any difference. I acknowledge that not everyone had this problem, but I ended up selling it and keeping the 55-200. Ironically, I don't actually use it that often because at 600g it's still a heavy additional lens if I don't know in advance that I'm going to need it. My usual solution is to add an adapted 100mm prime to the kit. Lighter than the 55-200 and faster than either.

Regards, Rod

This makes a lot of sense to me, but I am curious to know - and perhaps Jorge (the OP) can comment on this - do the new bodies tolerate the smaller aperture on the long end better than the X-T1 and other earlier bodies - especially seeing a difference in the high performance mode?

My main reasons for trying out Fuji, coming from Pentax, is the smaller form factor, better AF on recent bodies, and expanding quality optical choices. The downside, though, is Fuji long zooms tend to be large and heavy. Even the 55-230 at f/4.5-6.7 is nearly the exact same size and weight as the Pentax 55-300 at f4-5.8. So, going even larger and heavier with less range on the XF telephoto zooms is a non-starter for me.