Fujifilm 50-230mm - both versions

Vic Chapman wrote:

AndyH44 wrote:

My Mk2 copy has never let me down. Just a great, lightweight telezoom for everything and everyone, except "pixel-peepers". You can never please them!

Another way of saying - Ideal for those who accept substandard IQ. I've still to see a properly sharp result from the long end of the 55-230mm at distance. I've seen passable shots.

When you say pixel peepers I assume you mean those who view at full size. What is the point of settling for half or 3/4 size when you just paid out to swap 16mp for 24mp?

The 50-230 is a decent lens and lightweight but it is not to the same standard as the 55-200mm and further behind the 50-140 +TC. There is trade off in size and weight which might sway a user one way or the other and it is understandable to opt for lightweight gear when traveling. However, to make such a silly remark about pixel peepers invites the response that some people are willing to accept relatively substandard results from their lenses.

Vic.

Probably you're right and I'd love to see some comparison shots with the 55-200 showing how the 50-230 is substandard.

Anyway the comment about pixel peeping is completely valid because when pixel keeping you are seeing details that would rarely show up in a printed picture or online. For example on my Quad HD 25 in monitor, viewing things at 50% basically takes up my entire monitor which is 22 x 13 (approx). Viewing things at 100% that would be about 44 by 26 in. If I have to look at what a print would be if it was three and a half feet by 2 ft then that is pixel peeping and that is pointless for virtually everyone.

Oh and by the way that's with my 16-megapixel xt-1. With a 24 megapixel sensor it's even worse!