Fujifilm tele zooms

[Trustmeimadoctor]

I have a x-t3 and the 16-55 2.8 but I'm hankering after something longer as I hopefully have a few trips coming up in the next couple of years Yellowstone being one of them.

I'm budget constrained so I think the 100-400 £1700 is out and the 50-140 £1600 may be just too short and too much

So that leaves the old 55-200 3.5-4.8 and the new 70-300 4-5.6 never shot either.

I could rent the 100-400 but that's like 255 for one trip

So anyone shot with both? What do you prefer

Any comments appreciated

[DavidY]

Check out the Fuji Refurb Store, much better pricing! They come in and go out of stock quickly and regularly

https://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/lenses/refurbished-len...

I've had the XC50-230 and XF55-200 and now have the XF50-140

The 50-140 is a fantastic lens, but it doesn't have the reach of the others and is quite heavy (for the Fuji System), but it can be combined with teh teleconverters for more reach. The 55-200 is a good lens, nice and sharp but therendering of the bokeh is not for me. If you want something cheap don't rule out the 50-230, yes its plastic but is optically good and expect to pay £100-£150 secondhand.

I've no experienece of the 100-400 or the new 70-300, people who I know have them, like them.

[Red Firecracker]

I just didn't get on with the 100-400 for my area of work, it worked but wasn't 'wow', it was a bit big and a bit heavy. Which is why I've ended up with the 200 f2...... Doh!

As has been mentioned above, the 50-140 is fantastic and I'd definitely advise 'try before I buy' a 100-400.

[Trustmeimadoctor]

The 200 f2 someone was feeling flush

[Red Firecracker]

Didn't feel like it at the time

But, a very good deal combined with it being a business expense so tax deductible made it more palatable plus it's a permanent attachment to one of the bodies. It's that good. Rent one!

[GravelBen]

DavidY said:

If you want something cheap don't rule out the 50-230, yes its plastic but is optically good

I picked one up dirt cheap second hand, the tiny aperture is limiting in low light but its surprisingly sharp and very lightweight to throw in the bag.

[Trustmeimadoctor]

Tiny aperture shouldn't be a huge issue I suppose as it will be used outdoor during the day

[FunkyNige]

Trustmeimadoctor said:

Tiny aperture shouldn't be a huge issue I suppose as it will be used outdoor during the day

I picked one up second hand and my shots are all in the daytime - honestly it's fine and I'm only looking to replace it with the 70-300 to get an extra bit of zoom for birds that are far away. The 50-230 is NOT compatible with the Fuji teleconverters so if you're thinking that's an easy way to get more zoom then you're out of luck!

[Trustmeimadoctor]

Tbh at 230 with 2xtc I shake too much for me to get any usable shots I think I could get the 50-230 for my next trip that's Vegas, Arizona, Utah do no wildlife then sell that then get 70-300 for the next one for the animals

[Whoozit]

Trustmeimadoctor said:

Tbh at 230 with 2xtc I shake too much for me to get any usable shots I think I could get the 50-230 for my next trip that's Vegas, Arizona, Utah do no wildlife then sell that then get 70-300 for the next one for the animals

The 50-230 on a very sturdy tripod, no tc, still needs zero wind to get sharp shots at least for me! Or boost ISO to unforgivable levels.

[Craikeybaby]

I have the 55-200. Shortly after I bought it the 70-300 came out, which seems better on paper, especially for wildlife, as it is longer and has WR.

I talked myself out of upgrading as I often use it for portraits at the wide end - I prefer it at 55mm to the 18-55mm lens.


Walk in the Woods by Lewis Craik, on Flickr

The difference isn't enough for me to upgrade, but if I was buying either new I would go 70-300.