Just took the plunge with 55-200

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Truman Prevatt
OP Truman Prevatt Veteran Member • Posts: 9,167
Re: Just took the plunge with 55-200

Mikegee wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

The 50-140 f2.8 is all anyone could want from in a lens.

It is a fixed aperture zoom

It is fast for a zoom in that range

All the zooming is completely internal - the lens does not extend.

All the things I look for in a zoom. On the other hand it is heavy and not the type of lens I would consider throwing in a bag and walking around with. My 50-140 I use a lot but I often don't take it along because of the size and weight. Lugging that thing around on a hike would require either renting a Sherpa or buying a Yak

I have looked at the 55-200 a couple of times. The faults I find with this lens are

Variable aperture

It is slower than molasses - outside on a cold day in Maine

The zooming is external - namely the lens grows as you zoom out.

All three of these I detest in a lens.

However, I just got mine and tried it out. The huge benefit of this lens is it is about the size of my 90 f2 - even the same filter size. From what I seen here and in testing of it is sharp enough (maybe not to the standards of the 50-140 but still very good) and has a nice rendering (for a slow lens). This lens I will throw in my bag and take it with me a lot more often.

I took a shot of the light switch indoors at 1/10s using my H1 and the OIS/IBIS combination works quite well. Outdoor shots were sharp with good contrast.

Given the price at B&H I decided to take a risk with it. I'm quite pleased and I don't have to worry about what to feed a Yak

You have seemed to forget it's on sale for $499.00 and sharp as a tac @ 200mm. Big bang for the buck IMHO.

In fact when I checked the weight out on B&H, I noticed the sale price of 499 compared to the approximate 3 times that for the 50-140.  That was a big reason I decided to give it a try.  It is half the weight of the 50-140 (about the same size as the 90) and 1/3 the price.

Couldn't go wrong there.  It's not the 50-140 but it is damn good for good light and you don't care that it is slow. From my limited experience so far - it is well worth the investment.  I can't remember when I have ever had the need shoot at 200 on an APS-C.  The longest lens I had on my Nikon 135 format was 180.  Even if soft at 200 - I probably won't ever notice.

-- hide signature --


 Truman Prevatt's gear list:Truman Prevatt's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow