50-140, 90, Or The 55-200 ? | FujiX-Forum
Có thể bạn quan tâm
- Home
- What's new Unread posts New media New media comments Latest activity
- Forums Latest posts Forum list Search forums
- Media New media New comments Search media
- Buy/Sell
Search
Everywhere Threads This forum This thread Search titles only Search Advanced search…- Latest posts
- Forum list
- Search forums
- Forums
- X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
- Native X-Mount Lens Forum
- Thread starter AMSOS
- Start date May 28, 2018
AMSOS
Active Member
I am trying to decide between the 50-140 f2.8, 90 f2, 55-200 f3.5-4.8. I primarily do travel, street, portraits, landscapes (mountainous vistas), and sometimes theatre and other performances. If I only shot in daylight I would have no hesitation going for the 55-200 for its combination of IQ, AF speed, IS, low price, and portability. I however, recently went out with my 23 f2 at night and never once felt let down with having to constantly crank up the ISO or go for lower shutter speeds. I've checked some threads here and most people say the 55-200 is great for daylight but will fail at night. For my uses the 90 could work, except some members point out that at f2 focusing in low light will be a problem and you have to stop down to get moving people in focus. But then if I end up stopping down to f4 then why not just get the 55-200 and live with it? Thanks!
jknights
Moderator
Admin/Moderation Team I would say that the 50-140 would be most useful for your photography needs.
Narsuitus
Well-Known Member
AMSOS said: I primarily do travel, street, portraits, landscapes (mountainous vistas), and sometimes theatre and other performances. Click to expand...I use the water resistant Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 with image stabilization for travel, street, portraits, landscapes, sports, theatre, architecture and low-light events. I highly recommend it.
Tilphot
Well-Known Member
The 50-140 has super-fast AF (even in low light), great image stabilization, produces (mostly) a pleasant bokeh and extremely sharp images, even wide open. But it's large and heavy, so that I tend to bring it only for special occasions, when I know in advance that I definitely need these qualities. In other words: travel, street, landscapes – the lens mostly stays at home. Studio and outdoor portraits, indoor sports or performances etc. - yes please! Ccbass
Well-Known Member
For me it was an easy choice because I do mostly travel photography in daylight. The 55-200 was the right size, focal range, performance, and price. However, it does start to become an issue in low light. It will depend on what you need it for. You have a long list there. For travel the 55-200 is easier to travel with than the big 50-140 and has a longer range. For street both will work, but the 50-140 will be the better choice for low light street photography, but it's going to attract attention. Portraits both should perform well. Landscapes both are going to do well here. For theatre and indoor low light it's going to be the 50-140 JJRick
Guest
for your wide range of applications listed the 50-140 is a clear winner. you prob alrady knew that if you've done some research, but you haven't said what body it will be attached to or how much you will shoot with it ... or your budget limits
but for that lens,it all depends on how strong your fingertips are and whether you actually WILL carry that heavy beast all over the place on a small body. i can carry a similar lens on my D750 without getting cramps dues to the camera grip and the way i carry it. i couldn't do that when i tried one out on an XT-2 and i got cramps in a few hours. and i also had it attached to a black rapid sling. granted, it was a rental lens and i was being extra careful, but i wouldn't last long with that lens in a walk around scenario unless my camera had a deep grip and i didn't have to rely so much on finger tip strength.....no way i'm gonna tote a camera around with two hands, and if it's in a bag it's not ready to shoot - i might consider humping it around on a monopod please let us know how long you go out shooting and how you carry your camera, etc......weight HAS to be considered no matter how good the lens is unless you're a casual shooter who isn't going to carry it around or shoot very often with it. when i'm out, i'm constantly shooting if i'm not on a coffee break or snacking //lol// - most members here are always raving about the weight savings of the fuji system, but that kinda goes out the window when you speak of the 50-140 - if i had the money i'd get em all - i'd bet the 55-200 would get more use and be more pleasant and that is always my goal for personal shooting 
kiwitracks
Well-Known Member
Having all three of these lenses, I have to say that I only use the 55-200 for travelling (due to its weight savings). It's a good lens, but lacks the wow factor of the 50-140 completely. The 90 is a fantastic lens and focuses very fast - however, due to its lack of image stabilization and (potentially) quite limiting focal length, it's probably the wrong lens for you. I do use it for landscapes, but it's definitely primarily a portrait lens. As the others have said, the clear choice for you would be the 50-140. I'm always amazed when I look at my pictures taken with this lens. They really pop.
joe aka back alley
Well-Known Member
you might need 2 more lenses...nice to have everything covered. AAMSOS
Active Member
Thread starterTilphot said: But it's large and heavy, so that I tend to bring it only for special occasions, when I know in advance that I definitely need these qualities. In other words: travel, street, landscapes – the lens mostly stays at home. Studio and outdoor portraits, indoor sports or performances etc. - yes please! Click to expand...Thanks, this is why I have still not decided which one to get. My studio or indoor performance requirements will be occasional and it's not like I earn my living from this, so while I know the 50-140 is technically ahead of its cheaper sibling, I am not sure if I will be able to utilise it fully. When you say you leave it behind while travelling it just shows that the best lens is the lens you have with you - ha ha! Which then makes me feel that the 55-200 is a good compromise lens to have provided you keep your expectations in line with its capabilities. A
AMSOS
Active Member
Thread startercbass said: The 55-200 was the right size, focal range, performance, and price. However, it does start to become an issue in low light. Click to expand...Can you elaborate? How low should the light be for the 55-200 to start running up against its limits? And how much better will the 50-140 be in those scenarios? Also, I was wondering how slower the AF of the 55-200 is vis-a-vis its more expensive sibling? A
AMSOS
Active Member
Thread starterJRick said: you prob alrady knew that if you've done some research, but you haven't said what body it will be attached to or how much you will shoot with it ... or your budget limits Click to expand...Indeed, I know that the 50-140 is much better than its sibling, except that weight, size, and cost are all important factors for me. These would be used with an X-E2s and mostly during occasional travelling. Which is one important reason why I have settled upon the more expensive and capable lens - just can't see myself looking conspicuous and lugging it around!
JRick said: how long you go out shooting and how you carry your camera Click to expand...Not much, but photography during my travels is important. That means nearly day long walks out and about wherever I am visiting. In general I am keen on carrying as light a kit as possible. Not only does it help with saving weight, but it makes my photography inconspicuous, which is important to me.
JRick said: i'd bet the 55-200 would get more use and be more pleasant and that is always my goal for personal shooting Click to expand...This says it all, doesn't it?
) Except I am not sure what to expect in terms of low light performance by teh 50-200. It's aperture is 3.5 to 4.0 in the lower telephoto range, and I guess it shouldn't be too bad, yeah? The other thing that struck me was that with anything that is moving you will need to keep the shutter speed up anyway. So, the f2.8 that is the big plus point of the 50-140 may not even be useful for many of the scenarios I plan to shoot in. C cbass
Well-Known Member
AMSOS said: Can you elaborate? How low should the light be for the 55-200 to start running up against its limits? And how much better will the 50-140 be in those scenarios? Also, I was wondering how slower the AF of the 55-200 is vis-a-vis its more expensive sibling? Click to expand...Basically the same situation that you end up running into with any slower lens. Once the light gets low you are faced with bumping up the ISO to hand hold the lens or getting out your tripod. The biggest issue is when the subject you are trying to photograph is moving. The lens also focuses slower in low light. To be honest the 55-200 will work fine in most situations and IMO both the 18-55 and 55-200 are both underrated lenses. When I want to travel light and cover a long focal range I take the 18-55 and 55-200. If I think I will need low light performance I will pack a fast prime or two.
Tilphot
Well-Known Member
AMSOS said: The other thing that struck me was that with anything that is moving you will need to keep the shutter speed up anyway. So, the f2.8 that is the big plus point of the 50-140 may not even be useful for many of the scenarios I plan to shoot in. Click to expand...I don’t get your reasoning here - the f/2.8 is exactly what allows you to keep the shutter speed up! That being said, let me add that my most used lens is the 18-135. This one, plus my fast 18 and 35 f/1.4 primes are my standard kit for travel, street etc. I seldom feel like I‘d need an even longer lens. During the day, the 18-135 really covers it all. J
JRick
Guest
i would never want to think of a lens as a 'compromise' . the 55-200 is a fine lens...all the ones you listed are fine i'd rather shoot with a half full than a half empty motivation factor and always be trying to get more out of the lens rather than feel like it will limit my shooting. what shutter speed you can (sharply) shoot moving objects with a zoom depends as much if not more on your camera holding skills than a 'bit' faster lens at a higher SS - i feel that also applies to getting ANY shot sharp...not just with a longer zoom - not my opinion. i see it a LOT when i'm out with camera clubs. same camera - two different shooters - BIG differences in the finished product - some people shoot better with a heavy zoom that doesn't extend. some don't - i wonder how much you are considering this in your decision making process OIS/IBIS helps in some situations but it is no substitute for great camera holding techniques and i rarely see this mentioned in this forum - in my opinion, it's not mentioned enuff - maybe too simple to discuss and it's taken for granted that everyone has that skill ?? maybe, but i haven't seen that when i'm out with groups with different skill levels. i see lots of poor technique ok....off the soapbox for awhile //lol// Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2018 M mikEm13
Guest
Have you been here to see photos taken with the 55-200? Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 Lens Or here Fuji 55-200mm Image Sample Thread
AndresC
Well-Known Member
If you are working with an xe2s and are not earning a living from this I would definitely point you towards the 55-200. The 50-140 certainly looks to be an amazing lens from the images that I see on this forum, however the 55-200 is no slouch at all. If focusing speed is important, perhaps the 18-135 should be considered as previously mentioned, its supposed to be one of the faster focusing lenses (at least according to Dan Bailey). AAMSOS
Active Member
Thread startermikEm13 said: Have you been here to see photos taken with the 55-200? Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 Lens Or here Fuji 55-200mm Image Sample Thread Click to expand...Thanks! These are really nice pics. I was sure the 55-200 would do well in good to changing light, and these attest to the quality of the lens. Except, that going through the two links and the first few pages there aren't any low light moving subject pictures. Could be just a chance, or maybe it's really difficult? A
AMSOS
Active Member
Thread starterTilphot said: I don’t get your reasoning here - the f/2.8 is exactly what allows you to keep the shutter speed up! Click to expand...Sure. Except that with longer tele FL's the DOF will be really thin. So, I wonder how useful say the 90 mm will be at f2 for moving subjects? I think one would anyway need to be at f4 to get easy AF lock etc. This is a point that I've seen others raise on this forum now and then. Earlier I had assumed that f2 or f2.8 would be a big advantage in low light, but now I am not so sure
A AMSOS
Active Member
Thread starterJRick said: what shutter speed you can (sharply) shoot moving objects with a zoom depends as much if not more on your camera holding skills than a 'bit' faster lens at a higher SS Click to expand...How true! I have to admit my technique is still very much in the state of being perfected. Can you say something more about how one should hold the 55-200 or 50-140 ? Does this vary with the FL? Thanks!
Tilphot
Well-Known Member
AMSOS said: Sure. Except that with longer tele FL's the DOF will be really thin. So, I wonder how useful say the 90 mm will be at f2 for moving subjects? I think one would anyway need to be at f4 to get easy AF lock etc. This is a point that I've seen others raise on this forum now and then. Earlier I had assumed that f2 or f2.8 would be a big advantage in low light, but now I am not so sureYes, the DOF will be really thin, but that's the beauty of it, in my opinion! The attached picture is taken with the 50-140 at 140 mm wide open (=f/2.8). Straight out of camera, no further adjustments. As for AF lock: I was of the opinion that the AF system always measures distance with a wide-open aperture?! I might be wrong, but I thought that's how it is ... However, I have taken lots of images in low light (ISO 2500 and lower) with the XF 50-140 at f/2.8, and the AF locks super-fast; faster and more accurate than with any of my other lenses.
DSCF2792.jpg by Tilman Weigele, on Flickr A AMSOS
Active Member
Thread starterTilphot said: As for AF lock: I was of the opinion that the AF system always measures distance with a wide-open aperture?! I might be wrong, but I thought that's how it is ... However, I have taken lots of images in low light (ISO 2500 and lower) with the XF 50-140 at f/2.8, and the AF locks super-fast; faster and more accurate than with any of my other lenses. Click to expand...Nice pic that well illustrates your point
But I have some friends who do theatre and I am wondering how it'll work out in those settings... Well, you're right - the lens uses the largest aperture to lock focus. But then I do remember members pointing out elsewhere that focusing becomes difficult as DOF gets shallower and this is especially a problem with tele lenses. So, now I am unsure as to what effect this'll have. Maybe some else can chime in on this? M mikEm13
Guest
There are a couple of low light pictures here. Showcase - Fujifilm XF 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 OIS LM
pointreyes
Well-Known Member
AMSOS said: Nice pic that well illustrates your pointJust a little over a month ago, I took thousands of theater pictures over two days. Day 1) I used X-E2 with 23 1.4; X-T1 with 35 1.4; X-Pro2 with 56 -- most of the shots were taken at 2.8 and there was one shot with the 56 that was taken at ISO 12800 @ 1/15 sec. Day 2) X-T1 with 50-140; X-Pro2 with 16-55 -- oddly the shot that the 56 captured the 16-55 failed miserably on but I thing the lighting was not quite right. I was thoroughly pleased at how well the X-T1 with the 50-140 operated and the images were surprising sharp to me. I was amazed at how well the 56 did also. At that time I also owned the 18-55 and the 55-200, never even thought of using them. In fact, I recently got rid of those lens because I prefer using the red badge zooms. Here's one of the shots I took with the 50-140 (note that I can never get the image as sharp on this forum). And yes, the plate of food is floating down to the boy's hand.
kiwitracks
Well-Known Member
I initially missed you saying that you were shooting with the X-E2s. IMO, the 50-140 is too big and heavy for that little camera. I know, you're holding this lens by the lens and the camera just 'sits' behind it, but using this combo just doesn't feel right (I have the X-T2 and the X-Es2 and wouldn't normally use my 50-140 on the latter). Tilphot
Well-Known Member
AMSOS said: But then I do remember members pointing out elsewhere that focusing becomes difficult as DOF gets shallower and this is especially a problem with tele lenses. So, now I am unsure as to what effect this'll have. Maybe some else can chime in on this? Click to expand...Me again
: Don't forget that the DOF increases with distance. For instance, my DOF calculator (PhotoPills app) tells me for the XF50-140 at 140mm and f/2.8, if I focus on a subject that is 20 meters away, I'll get 2,3 meters of DOF, from 18,92 m to 21,22 m. I don't shoot theatre, but a lot of gymnastics (indoors, obviously), and I never felt the need to stop down because the DOF was too thin. On the contrary, sometimes I wish I had even more separation from the background. Last edited: May 30, 2018 A AMSOS
Active Member
Thread starterTilphot said: Me againYes, you're right and 2 metres is certainly not thin. I should try that and in fact for the 90 mm @ f2 it is 3.7 metres at a focal distance of 20 metres. Maybe I should just save up for this one - it'll work well on the streets, and be great in low light. But then I would lose out on the birds and other distant objects, though not so much the mountain vistas.
pointreyes said: At that time I also owned the 18-55 and the 55-200, never even thought of using them. In fact, I recently got rid of those lens because I prefer using the red badge zooms. Click to expand...What's with the red badges? I feel like owing just the two and forgetting about all else ;p) Getting one makes you feel like photographic equivalent of commandos with red berets ;p) In fact, while the 55-200 is much smaller and lighter, it does extend out quite a bit on zoom so I wonder how much of a size advantage it would even have over the 50-140? ! Post reply Insert quotes… Share: Facebook Twitter Email Share Link
- Forums
- X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
- Native X-Mount Lens Forum
Từ khóa » Fuji 50-140 Và 55.200
-
50-140 Vs 55-200: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum
-
Fuji 50-140mm F/2.8 Vs. Fuji 55-200mm F/3.5-4.8 - Admiring Light
-
Fujifilm XF 55-200 - XF 50-140 Comparison Review - YouTube
-
Gear Review: Fujifilm 50-140mm Vs 55-200mm
-
Fuji 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 Vs 50-140mm F/2.8 Vs 55-200mm F/3.5-4.8
-
55-200mm Or 50-140mm - Fuji X Lenses
-
REVIEW: Fuji XF 50-140 Mm F2.8 (Still The Best Fuji Telephoto?)
-
50-140mm F/2.8 Vs. Fuji 55-200mm F/3.5-4.8? - Reddit
-
Buying Advice, Please Help (basically 50-140 Vs 55-200) | FujiX-Forum
-
FUJIFILM XF 50-140mm F/2.8 R LM OIS WR Lens - B&H
-
Fuji 55-200mm Review - Ken Rockwell
-
Fujinon XF 50-140mm F2.8 OIS Review
-
Fujifilm XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR