How good is the XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7?

[jonikon]

I am particularly interested in how sharp it is at 230mm. Also, how fast does it focus?

 

[Vic Chapman]

The long end is its weakness and it isn't as fast as the 55-200 even though it is lighter and with less glass. However, at modest apertures and below about 170mm performs well.

Checkout used so you don't lose much if anything if you don't like it.

Vic

 

[Fujijitsu]

The XC zoom looks sharp to me, and focus is reasonably quick. I also have the 55-200, and in practice the key difference is just the wider aperture. Reviews suggest the 55-200 is better, I can't see a difference except for the aperture and better build materials.

Both these shots from the xc at full zoom and at iso 200 and f7.1. Building was hand held at 1/60th so ois not bad either.

 

[a_c_skinner]

It is very good, it is a gem if you can live with the slow aperture.

 

[Frodro100]

Mine is sharp enough at 230mm for me, but the lighting has to be good to use this lens effectively.





The biggest limitation of this lens is the slow autofocus speed (on my X-T1) which is comparable to an non-focus-limited macro lens powered by screwdrive AF, if it has to hunt. In good light, it's fast enough, though -- and again, I'm using an X-T1, which doesn't have the latest AF technology. The second biggest limitation is the narrow maximum aperture. To put it in perspective, the f/6.7 aperture is about a stop slower than the f/4.8 of its XF counterpart. That means that in many conditions where you might be shooting at ISO 1600 with the 55-200, you're going to be shooting at ISO 3200 with the 50-230 -- or you may be shooting at half the shutter speed to compensate, which won't freeze motion quite as well -- either of which can soften the fine details to a greater extent, IMO, than any difference that might be attributed to the sharpness of the optics. I think a lot of people use this lens with shutter speeds that are far too low to freeze motion/camera shake and then attribute the motion blur to the sharpness of the optics.

I'm not that interested in Fuji's current telephoto options for the price or ergonomics of using such big lenses on a small camera, so, until Fuji comes out with a mid grade tele zoom with better AF, a bit more reach, low weight and a decent price, this is probably the only telephoto lens I'll buy for the system. It is very lightweight, which I like a lot.

 

[plaatje]

I think it's a sharp lens. And fast enough for me ( and my X-Pro1).











--

Jos takes photos

A blog about photography and people all over the world.

jostakesphotos.blogspot.nl

 

[Marco Aurelius]

It is a fantastic lens, it is cheap and has a lightweight build due to the plastic construction. Mine is very sharp, surprisingly for a cheap zoom.

As others have said though, this lens should only be used when there is good light, during the day. If you can live with that restriction, I would say it's a no brainer.

 

[John R Fletcher]

I haven't got any XF lenses to compare it to, but for me it's great at 230mm:











Been a while since I used it - can't remember thinking the AF was a problem. But much of the stuff I've shot has been relatively static.

 

[Craig268]

As others have noted, it's a very fine lens. I use it extensively as a general all purpose walk around lens. Light, sharp and inexpensive. I have several other much more expensive Fuji XF lenses but I use this lens and it's equally excellent (now discontinued) smaller 16-50 XC sibling the most.

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

Hi,

It’s surpringly good. Not that much different to the 55-200 but AF is slow.

here is my report:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=6083

--
regards
Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

 

[jtr27]

Nice sample pics here! I'll add a few more. =)

--
Jonathan

Jonathan

Explore Jonathan’s 3,785 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[ediblestarfish]

AF is very slow, but mostly silent. Once you get to your target range and sort of stay in that range, it's more tolerable. If you make more than small distance changes, focus will take a lot of time to re-acquire.

I love mine anyway.

It's so inexpensive, relatively small, very light, and the image quality is very decent, irregardless of price.

I never intend to use telephoto seriously, and this is perfect as an occasional tool.

I have a gallery here shot entirely on that lens if you want to see some results.

https://sunflowerinthesky.smugmug.com/2018-05-Oakland-Zoo-JPEG/

 

[jonikon]

As others have noted, it's a very fine lens. I use it extensively as a general all purpose walk around lens. Light, sharp and inexpensive. I have several other much more expensive Fuji XF lenses but I use this lens and it's equally excellent (now discontinued) smaller 16-50 XC sibling the most.

As someone who has only recently entered into Fujifilm my only Fujinon lens is the XC 16-50 and I have been favorably impressed with its optical qualities, especially so because it starts at 16mm. Despite its all plastic build, low price and lightweight it is sharper with better micro-contrast than I had any reason to expect from such a lens. (Sorry to hear it has been discontinued!) It is good to know the XC 50-230 is in the same vein as the XC 16-50 though and is still available.


Best regards,
Jon

 

[madhav56]

Agree with Andrew. Its a great lens. Long back, just after purchase I wanted to test it out at various focal lengths and also ability for continuous focus. I really liked.

For is price and light-weight, its a steal !

Sharing the results:

Ballet-in-air Test drive 50-230mm – Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[TillmanB]

I am particularly interested in how sharp it is at 230mm. Also, how fast does it focus?

--
Best regards,
Jon

I just got my version II yesterday and took out to the garden to try it out, here are a few SOOC shots at 230mm, I think they are all wide open from what I recall. I was quite impressed with the lens, these were shot around the minimum focusing distance, handheld with OIS mode 2. I felt the focusing was sufficient it bright light on my X-e2, inside it was a bit slower but not terrible. I use a single point with the smallest box in AF-s mode, so if your shooting style uses a larger area to focus or you use AF-c then it might not be as usable. Overall though for a first impression I find it quite favorable.