X-T20 focus speed vs X-E2 (18mm and XC50-230 II)

Hi,

I currently own a X-E2, plus the XF 18mm f2 and the XC 50-230 II.

My question is if the X-T20 will focus faster with these lens, specially with the 50-230 II.

For the 18mm i honestly don't care much, as i use it for street / family / Landscapes, so, apart from indoor low light, i don't really need any improvements.

It would cost me 500EUR (sell X-E2 for 300EUR and buy X-T20 body for 800EUR), so apart from all the other enhancements on the X-T20, if there is no gain in focus speeds with the lens i currently own, i see no point on exchanging.

The alternative is to get a 2nd hand Canon 700d (300EUR) with a telezoom (100EUR for a used 100-300 USM) to cover that, while selling the 50-230 for sure as it would have no use (probably will spend the money on a 35mm 1.4....

Thanks for the help!

I think the limiting factor is the 50-230 XC lens which is not very fast on any of the bodies. The XT20 may improve AF speed a little though.

Vic

Rmcp20 wrote:

Hi,

I currently own a X-E2, plus the XF 18mm f2 and the XC 50-230 II.

My question is if the X-T20 will focus faster with these lens, specially with the 50-230 II.

For the 18mm i honestly don't care much, as i use it for street / family / Landscapes, so, apart from indoor low light, i don't really need any improvements.

It would cost me 500EUR (sell X-E2 for 300EUR and buy X-T20 body for 800EUR), so apart from all the other enhancements on the X-T20, if there is no gain in focus speeds with the lens i currently own, i see no point on exchanging.

The alternative is to get a 2nd hand Canon 700d (300EUR) with a telezoom (100EUR for a used 100-300 USM) to cover that, while selling the 50-230 for sure as it would have no use (probably will spend the money on a 35mm 1.4....

Thanks for the help!

I just tried my 50-230 on both of those cameras and it is faster on my X-T20. I only tried it at 230 fl and not very bright light

Thanks,

Its more or less what i expected. Its kind of a stupid thing that, although telezooms are most used for parents on their kids sports, running or playing arround, amateurs shooting birds or wildlife, no mirrorless system has an accessible telezoom with fast AF.

Its not even about having the best image quality of kit zoom (IMHO its the fuji by the way), because image quality doesnt matter if you cant get that moment in focus.

What is the point of having super fast focus amateur cameras when its only usable with pro lens?

In Fuji even a 700EUR telezoom like the 55-200 seems to be no better than the 50-230.

Cheers

I have a 55-200 and I find AF very quick on a X-E2. I have used it for sport through to landscape. Certainly buffer issues in the X-E2 if shooting burst in RAW but you can get solid results and speed with jpg. A Canon telephoto consumer specs at f/4.5-5.6 while the 55-200 max is f/3.5-4.8. Also for me at least image stabilisation comes in handy. I find the 55-200 a fantastic all rounder for the price. I haven't used the 50-230 so I can't provide any insights or comparisons.

Vic Chapman wrote:

I think the limiting factor is the 50-230 XC lens which is not very fast on any of the bodies. The XT20 may improve AF speed a little though.

I find it to be faster on the 24mp bodies... but I haven't tried it on the X-T20.

Rmcp20 wrote:

Thanks,

Its more or less what i expected. Its kind of a stupid thing that, although telezooms are most used for parents on their kids sports, running or playing arround, amateurs shooting birds or wildlife, no mirrorless system has an accessible telezoom with fast AF.

Its not even about having the best image quality of kit zoom (IMHO its the fuji by the way), because image quality doesnt matter if you cant get that moment in focus.

What is the point of having super fast focus amateur cameras when its only usable with pro lens?

In Fuji even a 700EUR telezoom like the 55-200 seems to be no better than the 50-230.

Cheers

55-200mm is a completely different league of AF to 50-230mm XC. If you want blazing fast try the 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8 16-55mm f2.8 unless their prices are what makes the inaccessible. But in that they are no different to DSLR cameras/lenses.

The f2 primes are best for kids from what I've read.

Vic

Vic Chapman wrote:

55-200mm is a completely different league of AF to 50-230mm XC. If you want blazing fast try the 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8 16-55mm f2.8 unless their prices are what makes the inaccessible. But in that they are no different to DSLR cameras/lenses.

The f2 primes are best for kids from what I've read.

Vic

I recon that from the other threads i read, i got the feeling that AF wasn't very diferent between the 55-200 and the 50-230 II. Optically they were also not very different. Of course the f-stops allow higher shutter speeds and that alone can make it worth for some people. I live in Portugal where we have sun 70% of the time and i use it in daytime so AF is the gamechanger for me, not being brighter.

As i mentioned above, the in DSLRs you have cheap telezooms with USM or not USM, at least in Canon (have not used Nikon so i don't know).

A 75-300 USM or a 100-300 USM are arround 100GBP used. 55-200 is more than 400GBP used. Even the 75-300 IS USM from Canon is 200GBP used now...so that is something different in DSLRs world.

I wanted to stay light and have only one camera, so while getting the X-T20 would be a wonderful solution for me, the 55-200 at 580g doesn't sound very friendly to be honest.

My budget only allows one of the options:

Exchange X-E2 for X-T20

Exchange 50-230 for 55-200

(maybe) Exchange 50-230 for 90mm f2 (90mm would be nice for indoors also...although no zoom)

Rmcp20 wrote:

I recon that from the other threads i read, i got the feeling that AF wasn't very diferent between the 55-200 and the 50-230 II. Optically they were also not very different.

Optically they are very different! Fuji blurb says the 50-230mm uses the same glass as in 55-200mm and it does - but only half of it.

Of course the f-stops allow higher shutter speeds and that alone can make it worth for some people. I live in Portugal where we have sun 70% of the time and i use it in daytime so AF is the gamechanger for me, not being brighter.

If AF speed is really a game changer for you, you only need to look at the stats to see the more powerful motor of the 55-200 wins easily - in fact, as the fastest of its age group, it still holds its own against the later series of of zooms and primes too.

As i mentioned above, the in DSLRs you have cheap telezooms with USM or not USM, at least in Canon (have not used Nikon so i don't know).

A 75-300 USM or a 100-300 USM are arround 100GBP used. 55-200 is more than 400GBP used. Even the 75-300 IS USM from Canon is 200GBP used now...so that is something different in DSLRs world.

I wanted to stay light and have only one camera, so while getting the X-T20 would be a wonderful solution for me, the 55-200 at 580g doesn't sound very friendly to be honest.

My budget only allows one of the options:

Exchange X-E2 for X-T20

Exchange 50-230 for 55-200

(maybe) Exchange 50-230 for 90mm f2 (90mm would be nice for indoors also...although no zoom)

You are obviously only reading threads by owners who want to protect their choice. The difference in images says otherwise. However, if the IQ of the 50-230 XC is good enough for you then don't waste money on the 55-200mm - but don't kid yourself it's better than it is or that it is as good as the 55-200mm. Keep to half size pictures (still big enough from the XT20) and it will appear plenty sharp. There is a reason for the price difference but if you intend to use it as an occasional long option and avoid the longer end of the range (over say, 180mm) and stop down to f8 (only a 1/2 stop from max) it will be a worthwhile lightweight long lens.

Either way, checkout the used market. That way, if you don't find the lens acceptable you can resell usually without loss and sometimes at a profit.

Best of luck whichever you decide

Vic

Vic Chapman wrote:

Optically they are very different! Fuji blurb says the 50-230mm uses the same glass as in 55-200mm and it does - but only half of it.

Either way, checkout the used market. That way, if you don't find the lens acceptable you can resell usually without loss and sometimes at a profit.

Ok, half the glass is a diference!

I just read what the LM stands for, and its clear that the AF should be snappier.

The prices i refer to are only for the used market. Not enough €€€ to go for either the 55-200 or 90mm new, and to be honest, i have been buying used glass for the past 10 years appart one or two exceptions, so im fine with that.

50-230 is also 200g lighter than the 55-200, and that is something to consider.

Anyone able to add a turbo switch to my 50-230? Engineers where are you?

Thanks a lot for the help. Guess i will have to decide if it is the 50-200 paired with the X-E2, or the 55-230 paired with the X-T20.

I like very much my Canon FD 50mm 1.8 for portraits, so 90mm is a dream and not a need. Also as my kid run or rides the bike towards me, i would spend more time looking over my shoulder to move backwards than taking photos.

Acros from the X-T20 would suit my photography like a glove (check my insta account rui_porfirio), you will understand.

Rmcp20 wrote:

Vic Chapman wrote:

Optically they are very different! Fuji blurb says the 50-230mm uses the same glass as in 55-200mm and it does - but only half of it.

Either way, checkout the used market. That way, if you don't find the lens acceptable you can resell usually without loss and sometimes at a profit.

Ok, half the glass is a diference!

I just read what the LM stands for, and its clear that the AF should be snappier.

The prices i refer to are only for the used market. Not enough €€€ to go for either the 55-200 or 90mm new, and to be honest, i have been buying used glass for the past 10 years appart one or two exceptions, so im fine with that.

50-230 is also 200g lighter than the 55-200, and that is something to consider.

Anyone able to add a turbo switch to my 50-230? Engineers where are you?

Thanks a lot for the help. Guess i will have to decide if it is the 50-200 paired with the X-E2, or the 55-230 paired with the X-T20.

I like very much my Canon FD 50mm 1.8 for portraits, so 90mm is a dream and not a need. Also as my kid run or rides the bike towards me, i would spend more time looking over my shoulder to move backwards than taking photos.

Acros from the X-T20 would suit my photography like a glove (check my insta account rui_porfirio), you will understand.

Glass is a better investment because you will eventually swap for newer bodies. You cna use free Google Nik Suite Silver FX 2 which has an Acros sim. None of the sims is actually what the film looked like so just use them as your starting point to get what you want.

If you don't have software that supports Nik filters as a plugin you can download them and navigate to them in programs to find the EXE file (App) for each separately (like sil FX) and send it to your desktop (a shortcut). Do this for each of Nik suite to use as standalones.

Vic

Rmcp20 wrote:

50-230 is also 200g lighter than the 55-200, and that is something to consider.

This is the only reason (other than price) that I went for this lens.  I don't use a tele zoom often so this one was $140 used and is small and light for what it is.  That said, if I used this type of lens more often, I would certainly go for the 55-200mm.

It's a shame but in Lisbon we don't have equipment renting stores. Well, last time i checked they were asking 1/10 of the price lens for a minimum of 48hours. Was a Canon lens.

It would be easier to buy new and sell 1 week later under warranty if i didn't like it, and would loose the same amount.

That way i could test the 55-200 vs 50-230. I'll try to find someone who owns either an X-T20 or the 55-200 to see the difference in real life...just not sure how.

Thanks for the tip Vic!

I just handheld a X-T20 at a local shop (wasn´t available before), and it's the worst camera i've tried in terms of handling. And my hands aren't big at all.

Personal opinion of course, but its the one that counts to me...

So 55-200 its the way to go, maybe buy a X-E3 with the new sensor/AF by the end of the year.

I think i saw videos in youtube that i shouldn't have  (ones with the 90mm f2 review)

Rmcp20 wrote:

I just handheld a X-T20 at a local shop (wasn´t available before), and it's the worst camera i've tried in terms of handling. And my hands aren't big at all.

Personal opinion of course, but its the one that counts to me...

So 55-200 its the way to go, maybe buy a X-E3 with the new sensor/AF by the end of the year.

I think i saw videos in youtube that i shouldn't have (ones with the 90mm f2 review)

Good decision in that the XE series are slimmer and lower but 1cm wider and it makes a world of difference to the handling. I have both XT2 and XT20 as backup and I've ordered a handgrip with which I think I'll be able to use it ok - but not as comfortably as the XT2.

Vic

I've shot several school sports events recently with my X-T20 and 55-200mm. Brilliant AF performance - DSLR like speed and reliability. Hardly get any OOF shots.

I previously owned an X-E2 and still own an X-T1. The AF in the X-T20 absolutely knocks the socks off the earlier generation in situations where speed and tracking are required.

I am totally confident in the X-T20, whereas the other cameras would have me working around the limitations in sporting situations.

Grumpyrocker wrote:

I've shot several school sports events recently with my X-T20 and 55-200mm. Brilliant AF performance - DSLR like speed and reliability. Hardly get any OOF shots.

I previously owned an X-E2 and still own an X-T1. The AF in the X-T20 absolutely knocks the socks off the earlier generation in situations where speed and tracking are required.

I am totally confident in the X-T20, whereas the other cameras would have me working around the limitations in sporting situations.

Hi Grumpyrocker

Thanks for your input. That would be the kind of scenario my telezoom would be used. Sometimes only my son riding a bike, running around, playing outdoor soccer or golf. He has soccer pratice/games, but its indoor (they are 4/5 years old) and only a 50-140 f2.8 or the 90mm f2 would be usable.

While the 50-140 is too big and out of my budget, 90mm is similar size/weight to 55-200, but i wouldn't be bringing it with me on any other scenarios probably.

If i sell the 50-230 and buy a 50-200 used i recon i will be spending around €250.

Exchanging the X-E2 for a X-T20 would mean a €500 investment (at least).

The X-T20 with a grip would still be quite small, and one of those ebay cheap quick release grips is arround €15.

Will probably hold the 50-230 II during summer. I have it on sale for €325 at a portuguese website, still has 22 months guarantee from Fuji Portugal, its 2 months old, so seems like a reasonable buy for anyone searching for one.  In case i sell it soon than i will have to decide faster :-), othewise, lets see if the X-E3 comes out after in September/October.

When using the 55-200mm I don't find I need a grip. I support the weight of the lens with my left hand, and my right hand holds the camera quite lightly.

Obviously a personal preference.

Grumpyrocker wrote:

When using the 55-200mm I don't find I need a grip. I support the weight of the lens with my left hand, and my right hand holds the camera quite lightly.

Obviously a personal preference.

Hi, thanks for your input.

With a telezoom lens i would expect it to be OK, as you always have to use both hands.

But the telezoom would not be my walkaround lens, a 18mm f2 instead. And in the shop it have the 16-50 XC, so weight wise it wouldn't be very different.

On my X-E2 i use a thumb grip, and one hand is enough, because the front camera grip is a little bit bigger, not much but i fealt it made a diference.

On the X-T20, the front grip is the issue, and also, i couldn't imagine it with a thumb grip.

I know there are some, i have checked google and found some images.

Grumpyrocker wrote:

When using the 55-200mm I don't find I need a grip. I support the weight of the lens with my left hand, and my right hand holds the camera quite lightly.

Obviously a personal preference.

I just received my (3rd party) XT20 grip this morning but I can't comfortably use it with any lens larger than 23mm f1.4 or 90mm f2 and with either of those two I have to spread the fingers of my right hand partly around the shape of the lens. Maybe the OEM grip is closer fitting allowing a tad more space but for me this is another good reason to hang on for the new XE3 which, (if same as previous bodies) is 1cm wider than XT20 - a small amount but it will make all the difference in holdability.

Vic