Fujinon xc50-230mm vs xf55-200mm

I've recently purchased a fuji xt20 with the xc50-230mm kit lens and I'm very impressed with the little one versus the excellent xf55-200mm.

I've used it in a rollerblading half marathon with AF-C and I took over 4,000 photographs. I never had a camera with a reliable continuous AF, and I was very surprised at home when I reviewed the pictures: almost all were in focus. In fact, I spent too much time selecting the pictures, and the next time I will use the burst with care...

Here you can see the pictures of the event: http://www.jorgebenayas.com/Talavera/Talavera-Patina/21k-Rio-Tajo

I also do a homemade comparison between this lens and the xf55-200mm, and here you are the results:

You can see more sample images with the xc50-230mm here: http://www.jorgebenayas.com/Review/Fujinon-XC-50-230mm/Fujinon-XC-50-230mm-Sample/

The XC 16-50 and its larger sibling the XC 50 - 230 are both excellent lenses. There are many threads which attest to this. They are not everything for everybody but they are an outstanding value with excellent IQ. Of my five or six Fuji lenses, these two I use the most often as they are light with simple operation such as thumb wheel aperture adjustment as I'm primarily an aperture preferred shooter. Further development of the XC line however isn't something Fuji ever pursued and both these lenses I believe are now discontinued.

I've got both as well, and like you I'm happy with them as walk-around lenses.  Do I wish they were a stop faster?  sure!  I'd also like to have a million cash, if you've got it lying around.  

At any rate, they're sharp enough I don't regret using them on my X-T20, and anything much better would be wasted on the X-M1 (also under-appreciated, IMO).

Matt Fulghum wrote:

I've got both as well, and like you I'm happy with them as walk-around lenses. Do I wish they were a stop faster? sure! I'd also like to have a million cash, if you've got it lying around.

At any rate, they're sharp enough I don't regret using them on my X-T20, and anything much better would be wasted on the X-M1 (also under-appreciated, IMO).

Yes they are both terrific walk-around lenses  and I have two XT1 bodies so I have one XC for each when I walk around which takes care of 95% of what I need when on the street. For a more specific shooting activity, then I'll use one of my wider  lenses or take out the 100-400.

I like my 2nd hand 50-230 as well and will never get the 55-200 due to 3 reasons: cost, size/weight & limited use.

Together with the kit 18-55 mm lens, you got a excellent light travel kit, good enough for my use.

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

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.