Fujifilm 50-230mm - both versions

Would you recommend to buy this just to use as travel lens, rather than carrying 50-140?

It is a nice light weight lens to carry around during travel. Check the pics I clicked with it recently while travelling: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61291825

I LOVE the 50-230.  I have to zoom to 100% or even 200% to pixel peep a difference between this lens and the 50mm f/2 (generally considered Fuji's sharpest).  [may be partially due to the IS rather than the lens optics]

Considering the price, range, weight, IS, and image quality, it is my favorite Fuji lens.

I love mine. It is a mark 1 which feels cheap compared to the XF lenses but image quality is excelent.  As long as you don't care for the slow aperture it is best value for money.

I've been very satisfied with the IQ and performance of the 50-230ii. As others have noted, the XC lenses are probably the best value for the money, at least in the Fuji lens lineup. It obviously does not have the WR and overall construction of the 50-140, but the overwhelming consensus is that it is a great performer for its class. It's realtively small, light, and fast enough on the right body,

I would recommend the OIS ii version; there isn't much detail about how exactly it differs from the OIS i, except that it is (in the words of another forum member) "OISier" If there are future firmware updates for it, the second version is more likely to be upgraded than the first version, as indicated by Fuji's update page.

AndyH44 wrote:

My Mk2 copy has never let me down. Just a great, lightweight telezoom for everything and everyone, except "pixel-peepers". You can never please them!

Another way of saying - Ideal for those who accept substandard IQ. I've still to see a properly sharp result from the long end of the 55-230mm at distance. I've seen passable shots.

When you say pixel peepers I assume you mean those who view at full size. What is the point of settling for half or 3/4 size when you just paid out to swap 16mp for 24mp?

The 50-230 is a decent lens and lightweight but it is not to the same standard as the 55-200mm and further behind the 50-140 +TC. There is trade off in size and weight which might sway a user one way or the other and it is understandable to opt for lightweight gear when traveling. However, to make such a silly remark about pixel peepers invites the response that some people are willing to accept relatively substandard results from their lenses.

Vic.

Advent1sam wrote:

It seems to me the most underrated lens in this range is the 55-200 3.5-4.8.

Agreed wholeheartedly. For X-T20 (which is the compact body) seems to be the most well-proportioned option for both quality and size/weight. XF is a nice bonus vs XC.

Vic Chapman wrote:

AndyH44 wrote:

My Mk2 copy has never let me down. Just a great, lightweight telezoom for everything and everyone, except "pixel-peepers". You can never please them!

Another way of saying - Ideal for those who accept substandard IQ. I've still to see a properly sharp result from the long end of the 55-230mm at distance. I've seen passable shots.

When you say pixel peepers I assume you mean those who view at full size. What is the point of settling for half or 3/4 size when you just paid out to swap 16mp for 24mp?

The 50-230 is a decent lens and lightweight but it is not to the same standard as the 55-200mm and further behind the 50-140 +TC. There is trade off in size and weight which might sway a user one way or the other and it is understandable to opt for lightweight gear when traveling. However, to make such a silly remark about pixel peepers invites the response that some people are willing to accept relatively substandard results from their lenses.

Vic.

Probably you're right and I'd love to see some comparison shots with the 55-200 showing how the 50-230 is substandard.

Anyway the comment about pixel peeping is completely valid because when pixel keeping you are seeing details that would rarely show up in a printed picture or online. For example on my Quad HD 25 in monitor, viewing things at 50% basically takes up my entire monitor which is 22 x 13 (approx). Viewing things at 100% that would be about 44 by 26 in. If I have to look at what a print would be if it was three and a half feet by 2 ft then that is pixel peeping and that is pointless for virtually everyone.

Oh and by the way that's with my 16-megapixel xt-1. With a 24 megapixel sensor it's even worse!

Hi,

Yes, IMO. it's worth it for travel and 'grab & go' uses. I've owned both versions of the 50-230 and still own a Mk1 and the 55-200. I found myself leaving the 55-200 at home because it's a 600g lump in the day pack. I bought a mint used 50-230 for $150 just for hiking and travel, not that I'm doing too much of either at the moment. It weighs 390g with the caps on, so it's lighter and by enough to actually notice that it's lighter.

I believe the two versions are optically identical but there's improved OIS in the MkII. I initially bought a used MkII, but had trouble with its AF on my XT1 running fully upgraded FW. I sold it to someone on whose camera the AF worked and later bought a used Mk1. I haven't owned both at the same time, so I haven't compared their IQ side by side. I've had no troubles with the Mk1 and it works just fine. I don't notice any IQ differences at all.

I've compared it to my 55-200. The XF is better but I've come to think of the benefit as being the build quality, faster aperture and more capable OIS than outright resolution. There is a difference visible at pixel peeping levels in some images. However, in my samples, the differences at each aperture are incremental when viewed at 100%. That's a print of over 24X36", so for more routine smaller print sizes, I doubt it would be visible at all. There's a noticeable step up in the IQ one stop down from maximum aperture so I try not to use it wide open (though that's true of both lenses.) The 50-230 is the better lens in terms of flare resistance if you're shooting into the sun.

To my surprise, I've become a convert...... I think the 50-230 is a capable travel lens. Yes it's plastic and lacks an aperture ring, but you know that when you buy one. If you look past that, it's underrated and offers a useful FL range in an ultralight package. It's excellent value for money and more so if bought used.

Cheers, Rod

Snap Happy wrote:

Would you recommend to buy this just to use as travel lens, rather than carrying 50-140?

Yes. It's small, lightweight - and rocks my face off. The prints really tell the story.

Snap Happy wrote:

Would you recommend to buy this just to use as travel lens, rather than carrying 50-140?

I have had excellent results from the 50-230. Many of the images in my Myanmar thread were taken using that lens: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4102878

I’ve blown several up to A2 size and they look great. I’ve since bought the 55-200 because I like the metal mount more.

Vic Chapman wrote:

AndyH44 wrote:

My Mk2 copy has never let me down. Just a great, lightweight telezoom for everything and everyone, except "pixel-peepers". You can never please them!

Another way of saying - Ideal for those who accept substandard IQ. I've still to see a properly sharp result from the long end of the 55-230mm at distance. I've seen passable shots.

When you say pixel peepers I assume you mean those who view at full size. What is the point of settling for half or 3/4 size when you just paid out to swap 16mp for 24mp?

The 50-230 is a decent lens and lightweight but it is not to the same standard as the 55-200mm and further behind the 50-140 +TC. There is trade off in size and weight which might sway a user one way or the other and it is understandable to opt for lightweight gear when traveling. However, to make such a silly remark about pixel peepers invites the response that some people are willing to accept relatively substandard results from their lenses.

Vic.

Well, what exactly is the definition of optically substandard?

We can all agree that that an Apple iPhone is substandard compared to the 50-230. No one expects it to perform close to the 50-140+tc given the pricing, weight and size difference. However, they would be considered quite similar in quality compared to a Pentax 645z coupled with a 600 f/5.6 - which would be a quantum leap in optical quality. (I'd use the Fuji example, but they don't yet have a comparable, truly long lens in the medium format arsenal.)

Who would use the medium format for travel photography, though?

Let me know when the 50-140 achieves 3x reach for travel needs, or the 55-200 reaches 4x. And I'll let you know when the 50-230 gathers light at f/4. Point is Fuji has taken a considered approach to meet differing needs with every new lens, and the resulting comparisons are almost always apples to halibut - kind of absurd.

That said, I've yet to find anyone who actually has put a 50-230 through its paces say it didn't meet reasonable expectations. The vast majority say it exceeds expectations by a fair margin. Count me proudly in that substandard group.

Hi Vic & others,

I know we're slightly off topic, but here's a quick side by side comparison of the 50-230 v1 and 55-200 in a distance shot. This is of course limited..... Only one FL (135mm), only one aperture (f8), and only one shooting distance (about 150m), but it's what I took to compare them on the day. Jpeg, SOOC from my XT1. I seem to have set the EC to -2/3 in the 55-200 image, so it's slightly darker than the 50-230 shot - my mistake.

I did previously do other comparisons between the two and between some adapted primes at 100mm and 200mm and all apertures but deleted most of them because series like that consume vast amounts of disk space. One thing that did leap out to me was just how warm (yellow) Fuji lenses are compared to those of other brands.

FWIW I think that it can be claimed that the XF is the better lens - it's BQ is substantially better, it's faster, and the OIS performance claimed by Fuji is stronger. On IQ, I think I'd give a small edge to the XF when viewed at 100%. That equates to a print that's bigger than 24x36". The differences would probably be inconsequential for smaller prints. The two lenses are close enough that if you shoot either one at its optimal middle aperture, it's better than the other wide open, at least for landscape applications where you want cross frame sharpness. Both lenses deteriorate a little at at the long end. A small bonus is that the 50-230 is the more flare resistant of the two - really excellent, see the third image.

I think the 50-230 is remarkably good for the money and terrific as a travel lens as long as you're happy with its aperture range and you're not shooting action in low light. Its AF and OIS are a huge benefit over adapted primes at longer FLs like 135 & 200mm. Sure there are some images you won't get, but speed isn't always essential. If you want to take a distant peak, a temple detail, a tree, a crag, a yacht, larger wildlife or whatever, the 50-230 is absolutely up to the task. And its light weight might just mean you have it with you over heavier XF lenses.

What do you make of this comparison? (I wasn't trying to win awards with the content - just compare the lenses.)

Cheers, Rod

50-230 @ f8

55-200 @ f8

50-230 - flare resistance...... Shot from my verandah. The sun was setting but not really low. The distant treeline is on a hill ridge, not the true horizon, and the sun still had some power in it. Shots like this are demanding for flare resistance and CA control and the 50-230 passes with excellence. I don't think I have any Fuji zoom or adapted 100/135/200mm lens that deals with into-sun images as well.

You lost me in your veranda. I am sure the points are all excellent (best I can recall), but then the veranda swallowed me up. I want your veranda.

Oh, reality. I had no idea about the flare resistance. We don't get sun in Minnesota. Hence, few verandas. Can't get off the theme.

Seriously, I do think the newer bodies might make the most out of the limited light gathered by the 50-230. The X-T20 might get better AF response than the X-T1 (but I sure would love that heavier duty unit as my back up for bad weather). That AF in low light has been my most unanticipated takeaway with the slow zoom. Tracking a fast, erratically running dog in heavy overcast without a problem in the majority of shots taken. Not imaginable on a Pentax even with a good prime, but not a problem at 200mm f/6.4 (wide open) on the Fuji.

Wow I didn't expect so much positive feedback, I think my mind is made up, I will buy 1 as a lightweight travel lens. Probably MK II version as there does not seem to be much difference in price used, plus a few suppliers are offering 'white box' MK II's at only a little more than the used price (by white box I mean a new lens that was originally part of a kit but has been split out to sell separately by the store).

Thanks everyone!

JNR wrote:

Well, what exactly is the definition of optically substandard?

We can all agree that that an Apple iPhone is substandard compared to the 50-230. No one expects it to perform close to the 50-140+tc given the pricing, weight and size difference. However, they would be considered quite similar in quality compared to a Pentax 645z coupled with a 600 f/5.6 - which would be a quantum leap in optical quality. (I'd use the Fuji example, but they don't yet have a comparable, truly long lens in the medium format arsenal.)

JNR

You have just proved my point. "We can all agree that that an Apple iPhone is substandard compared to the 50-230." You're just drawing the line to different standard.

I'm not arguing with the fact that the 50-230mm is for its price/weight/size, a good alternative. What I am arguing is users saying it is pixel peeping to view images at full size. I repeat, I personally have yet to see a really sharp picture from the long end of this lens in spite of users posting pictures purporting to show sharpness.

There are respected members on this forum who own both 50-230 and 55-200. That shows the usefulness of the XC lens when traveling but also shows that the XF lens is enough better to own for use when weight is not such a problem.

My real argument is with the pixel peeping remark that finds it acceptable to view at half size as a means of making the lens "better" - yet the same person can't wait to buy a new body with more pixels - which is nonsensical.

I'll ask you this - do you agree with the generally accepted wisdom that good lenses beat a good body and that systems are built on the quality of the lenses? That is where the distinction comes in.

Not everyone can afford the best lenses and Fuji serve that camp too. I can't afford new lenses either, I save hard and buy used lenses and bodies. I learned a long time ago that buying second best quality only leaves one dissatisfied and means buying twice. That's one reason I try to make the point when members are asking advice on gear.

Vic

Vic Chapman wrote:

JNR wrote:

Well, what exactly is the definition of optically substandard?

We can all agree that that an Apple iPhone is substandard compared to the 50-230. No one expects it to perform close to the 50-140+tc given the pricing, weight and size difference. However, they would be considered quite similar in quality compared to a Pentax 645z coupled with a 600 f/5.6 - which would be a quantum leap in optical quality. (I'd use the Fuji example, but they don't yet have a comparable, truly long lens in the medium format arsenal.)

JNR

You have just proved my point. "We can all agree that that an Apple iPhone is substandard compared to the 50-230." You're just drawing the line to different standard.

I'm not arguing with the fact that the 50-230mm is for its price/weight/size, a good alternative. What I am arguing is users saying it is pixel peeping to view images at full size. I repeat, I personally have yet to see a really sharp picture from the long end of this lens in spite of users posting pictures purporting to show sharpness.

There are respected members on this forum who own both 50-230 and 55-200. That shows the usefulness of the XC lens when traveling but also shows that the XF lens is enough better to own for use when weight is not such a problem.

My real argument is with the pixel peeping remark that finds it acceptable to view at half size as a means of making the lens "better" - yet the same person can't wait to buy a new body with more pixels - which is nonsensical.

I'll ask you this - do you agree with the generally accepted wisdom that good lenses beat a good body and that systems are built on the quality of the lenses? That is where the distinction comes in.

Not everyone can afford the best lenses and Fuji serve that camp too. I can't afford new lenses either, I save hard and buy used lenses and bodies. I learned a long time ago that buying second best quality only leaves one dissatisfied and means buying twice. That's one reason I try to make the point when members are asking advice on gear.

Vic

Mostly agreed, based on your clarifications. While I agree that the pixel packing race is somewhat less relevant if lenses fail to reach resolving "limits," some misconceptions exist. My vintage Pentax lenses probably tend to match the old 6 mp CCD sensors in overall resolving capability. Still, when shot on the current 24 pixel sensors, they perform as though they are considerably sharper. If the sensor "canvas" is finer, even relatively soft lenses exhibit greater detail and depth. The old lenses tend to do especially well in low light where signal amplification from ISO boost has a softening impact. And, yes, every brand uses some form of smoothing at ISOs beyond 800 - but for some reason the major players (and advertisers) never get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. It is a bit comical.