Which zoom (55-200 or 50-230)

jturn00 wrote:

I'm strongly considering adding a zoom lens to my travel kit. I have the 18-55 right now. With the recent sale, the prices seem pretty good. Do I just get the 50-230 (which on sale is $200) or spend a little more to get the 55-200. Reach is one consideration but so is f-stop and the 55-200 has a pretty good aperture range.

I "might"consider the 50-140 but given the size/weight, it might be better to get a lighter lens.

Between the two, is the quality generally the same or does it make sense to spend the extra $ to get the 55-200?)

I have the 50-230 ans love it. When I go to the Flickr groups and look at the samples I don't see much difference in the photo quality of the lenses, but I'm not much of a peeper either. They both have their strengths.

The 50-230 is smaller, ligter, and has more reach. Those are some serious advantages for sure.

The 55-200 is a stop faster, which could make a big difference for some, and it is constructed better. You may be handing that lens down to your kids 25 years from now while the XC lenses may break down in five years even with careful handling.

The 50-230 suits me fine and I love it, takes great photos, and the speed is no problem for me because it's an out doors lens anyway, and it's also good indoors with flash and makes a good portrait lens like that as well because most of the time with flash I am at around F5.6 to F8 anyway. Here's a couple groups at Flickr to compare.   The links are to the first picks in each group enlarged and ready to scroll through.  As you can see, both have wonderful IQ, I don't see enough difference to choose one over the other on that basis, but a stop faster may make a difference, and build quality,= or being lighter, smaller, and a bit more reach may mean more.

50-230 https://www.flickr.com/photos/134474588@N08/27150053966/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

55-200 https://www.flickr.com/photos/mbiker/27120402761/in/pool-1958578@N25/lightbox/

If you want a brass and not plastic lens mount spend the extra $$ and get the 55-200. The other one is cheaper for a reason, and an extra 30mm is not going to get you much further reach. The 55-200 is a decent kit-level lens, and well worth the extra $$ over the 50-230, which was designed for the smaller and lighter Fujis like the XA and XM.

And if you don't need the constant 2.8 and weather sealing, then the 50-140 might be overkill.

If you don't really use telephoto often, like me, then the 50-230mm is a no-brainer. The images are great, it's light, it's small. And importantly, it's super cheap at $200 right now. $200 is affordable for telephoto lens that you will use a few times a year. If you are going to use telephoto a lot, than the 50-200mm starts to make more sense, especially since it is also on sale.

Vic Chapman wrote:

For someone who uses primes but just occasionally needs a long lens the 50-530mm is okay and will provide satisfactory images. You get what you pay for and there are reasons the 55-200mm is more expensive - build quality, aperture and, yes when it comes down to it the image quality too. I've seen lots of pictures showing how sharp the XC lens is but IMO they don't quite have the sparkle of the XF lens, the sharpness isn't quite there although you'll sometimes only notice this when similar images from each are seen side by side. There are an increasing number of complaints and questions for advice about getting the plastic mount replaced and the fact that it is now relatively simple to get it fixed (at owners cost) at your nearest Fuji rep shows seems to indicate that the problem is getting worse.

Looking at hundreds of images I see no difference in sharpness between the two, you folks have better eyes than I do by far. When I look at a hundred images of each in the Flickr groups, I see what looks basically like the same image quality from both. Here is a sampling of some of my favorite 50-230 shots just in the first 50 or so, these have a sharpness problem or or not high quality photos?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123221083@N05/27077403981/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mariopanda/26868044460/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/100226276@N03/27016607812/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nwchadwik/26802052272/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123221083@N05/19647578063/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123221083@N05/21578999025/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/t0m1kaze/26755141106/in/pool-2545066@N24/lightbox/

I gotta say, if there are sharpness problems in these photos then you are a pixel peeping master.  I realize that the 55-200 may be a tad better iq in the corners and such, but from what I see in many pics the difference is not noticeable and the 50-230 is capable of wonderful iq.

You know what I think?  I think folks like to justify their own purchases and defend the lens they bought.  That's understandable, so I feel the 50-230 needs some defending too.  The range difference is 35mm with the added 5 at the short end.  In full frame isn't that like a 50mm range difference?  To me that range difference is huge and important.  The size difference is important, and the weight difference is important for many folks as well as the price difference.  The 50-230 has definite advantages in several important ways to many people and the iq difference is far too slight to negate those differences.  Sure it's plastic mount but I simply mount mine and feel no problem with it's quality.  The speed difference isn't that big of an advantage for many because these lenses are used outside mostly and backgrounds are usually further and you get added bokeh with a longer range, so that helps equal that issue out.

The 50-230 at 200 bucks is one of the best values in the lens world right now in my opinion.  I believe it's advantages are simply huge and hard to deny for many folks.  I use a bag and have both my X-E1 bodies in it with the 18-55 on one and the 50-230 on the other.  I don't think I could use that bag with the 55-200, and I know it would weigh more as well.   The 50-230 and the 18-55 also use the same filter size, so that is nice when you have both these lenses, which the op does.

50-230

1, lighter weight can make a huge difference in comfort and balance wth the camera

2, lower cost, no need to explain that one.  I just ordered one of these new lonail 25mm 1.8 lenses for 130 dollars on Ebay.  You can add another lens to your stable with the saving you get with the 50-230

3 smaller size.  Again, smaller size may be the difference in what bag you feel you can use, it does for me.

4, longer range, 35mm extra, like 50mm in ff terms, that's a nice advantage.

Yep, the 55-200 is better built, but I see no reason my 50-230 won't last 5 or 6 years if I take care of it and don't mount it a million times.  I leave mine mounted and rarely take it off.  By that time I'll be able to buy another one for a hundred bucks if I want one.

Better IQ, maybe so but I have not seen it in any real world application, both turn out great photos that no one should have complaints about. Yep, faster speed, but long ranges outdoors in day light really makes that not a big deal for many anyway.

I had to defend the 50-230's honor here, it is a great buy, one of the best in the lens world and deserves some defenders to come forward who use it and appreciate it's strengths.

Wow, I love Fuji and the lenses they give us a chance to own and debate over.  In the end, we are all lucky to be in the Fuji stable, we all have access to all these lenses and I wish I could own them all.

Depends how much use you'll get out of it. I shoot primes and I shoot wide. For a contemplated trip out west, I plan to pick up the 50-230. Fast enough for the environment. Cheap enough I won't mind it collecting dust after the trip.

Is this a desire founded on a sale, or a need?

uniball wrote:

Depends how much use you'll get out of it. I shoot primes and I shoot wide. For a contemplated trip out west, I plan to pick up the 50-230. Fast enough for the environment. Cheap enough I won't mind it collecting dust after the trip.

Is this a desire founded on a sale, or a need?

Probably a little bit of both.  :). Sale definitely has me building out my kit

pauldb126 wrote:

To those who have owned, or at least used, both: is there any appreciable difference in AF speed?

I had both. Yes, 55-200 focuses a lot better. In fact, focusing with 50-230 in slightly low light (ISO 1600-6400) was frustrating.

The image quality from 55-200 is also noticeably better. And the image stabilization is better as well.

There is really nothing in favor of 50-230 except price and weight.

ScottD1964 wrote:

Even though the 55-200 FL is your basic Canikon kit lens FL the Fuji 55-200 is hardly a kit lens. For pretty much half the price you're getting a zoom lens that in my estimation is nearly as sharp as the heralded Canon 70-200 f4 L IS.

I understand your enthusiasm, but no, not even close. Fuji 55-200 is a good lens for the money (on sale), but it's only average at 200mm/4.8.