Fuji 55-200mm vs 50-230mm

cardiff_gareth

cardiff_gareth

Messages
2,648
Name
Gareth
Edit My Images
Yes
It's probably been asked already but I've been reading about these lenses and some say optically they're the same formula but it's the aperture speed and build quality where the main differences are but as they have different focal lengths I'm struggling with the lens formula bit.

Has anyone had both please and can shed light on them both?

My main camera is a full frame Pentax and the Fuji is mainly used as a general walkaround camera with landscapes and the occasional 'grab photo' camera for weddings so this longer focal length would fit into these shooting genres.

Thanks.
 
I have the 55-200 and did try the 50-230. The 55 is better built, has the ring, and is wider. IQ seems to be a bit better but for occasional use the 50 is hard to beat.
 
I've had both,but own neither now. The 55-200 is much better built and has the aperture ring. Its a good lens though the bokeh can be a bit fussy. The 50-230 is much lighter, doesn't feel as solid in the hand, but optically its good. Its AF is slower than the 55-200 but as an occassional lens certainly meets the longer focal length requirement. the 50-230 obviously has a little more reach.

It all depends on your requirements, but you could easily buy a 50-230 and Samyang 12mm (giving you a UWA option as well) for the price of a 55-200.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I do admit to thinking about getting the 50-230 instead and using funds to go towards a 10-24. I only use the 55-200 on 2 occasions - days when I need long length (i.e. at beach) which is not often, or airshows (when I often shoot at f8-f11 anyway)
 
Never had the 55-200 but I had the 100-400 and found it far to heavy so I sold it and got the 50-230 great lens for the money
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I've had both,but own neither now. The 55-200 is much better built and has the aperture ring. Its a good lens though the bokeh can be a bit fussy. The 50-230 is much lighter, doesn't feel as solid in the hand, but optically its good. Its AF is slower than the 55-200 but as an occassional lens certainly meets the longer focal length requirement. the 50-230 obviously has a little more reach.

It all depends on your requirements, but you could easily buy a 50-230 and Samyang 12mm (giving you a UWA option as well) for the price of a 55-200.
Click to expand...



This sums it up really.

I have both - had the 55-200 for longer then bought the 50-230 as a holiday lens due to its lighter weight and extra reach. Having used the 55-200, I found that the 50-230 felt way too plasticky in comparison so it's been on the shelf ever since. Images were OK but the 55-200's are better - IMO! How visible the differences are in the real world is hard to say.
 
owned both and neither really impressed me, but ... I wasn't big on tele lenses at the time. I feel I would make much better use of either one now. Difference in weight wouldn't bother me so much as 200g is hardly holding you down, I like a bit of weight to a tele lens it makes it easier hand holding tbh, feels more steady. I never noticed anything significant between them optically bar the light gathering ability, I'm sure the 55 is sharper but if so only by a hair, and nothing that can't be made up for in post if you shoot RAW
 
Thanks for the replies. I put a wanted post up here but nothing and then when searching online I found a 50-230mm at CeX for £185 with free shipping. Thought for that price, even though the 50-200mm would have been better, I couldn't leave it!
No idea about condition as stock images and no description so here's hoping its alright when it gets here, if not it'll be going straight back with distance selling laws for a full refund!
 
Hi Gareth. Have been having the same thought myself.. Please let us know how you rate the lens when you get it,.
Rob
 
All zooms are subject to a greater variation in quality between examples, than non zooms.
This is a fact of life.
The difference between individual examples of these two lenses is greater than the differences between them. Most examples of each can meet most people's expectations for image quality.
The build quality of the 55 200 is clearly higher, but has little to no impact on sharpness.

As the 50 230 has a greater range one should expect it to have greater compromises through the range of focal lengths. In practice this is impossible to identify in actual use.

I have noticed that the shop price of the 50 230 has risen considerably since I bought mine.
Which is something that only seems to happen on better lenses in high demand. There are very few bargain offers since the MK2 version came out.

The Mark2 only increased the effectiveness of the anti shake, the optics are identical
 
Last edited:
I think that's probably the best comparison of these two lenses that i have seen.
 
much better build quality, the 230 is like a toy lens but like all fuji lenses they have decent IQ even the cheap ones.
 
cardiff_gareth said:
It's probably been asked already but I've been reading about these lenses and some say optically they're the same formula but it's the aperture speed and build quality where the main differences are but as they have different focal lengths I'm struggling with the lens formula bit.

Has anyone had both please and can shed light on them both?

My main camera is a full frame Pentax and the Fuji is mainly used as a general walkaround camera with landscapes and the occasional 'grab photo' camera for weddings so this longer focal length would fit into these shooting genres.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
They are not the same formulae. The 55 200 has one more element as it needs more correction to cope with the larger aperture. However it is very similar indeed as one of the doublets is replaced by a single element In the 50 230.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top