Fuji 55-200 - help me decide

[Lightmancer]

Sooo...I have read with great interest the threads started by Ray and Peter that show off the performance of this lens. I have been thinking about it since first announced. Having seen some results I am even more swayed, but...

1. I don't do a lot of real telephoto work - Most of what I shoot on the long side these days is sport (Rugby or Cricket), or airshows, and those sparingly. I therefore don't need a REALLY long lens, nor do I relish lugging something really heavy around all day.

2. I know that I wouldn't carry it as a matter of course when out and about - my carry set is the 18-55, 27/35 and a legacy lens or two like the 40mm Summicron and the 50mm Zeiss Sonnar.

3. I have legacy (mf) lenses that cover the focal length (Olympus OM)

4. I have a Fuji S5 Pro that can take Nikon's finest (and cheaper, if bought secondhand) I don't have an equivalent zoom. but I do have a 200mm prime (MF)

The money is in the bank - I have had a bit of a selling spree lately. So I can afford it. But given my statements above I'd welcome thoughts, less on outright performance than on how usable the lens is, how portable, how easy to handle. Talk to me of benefits, not features.

Your thoughts welcome!

 

[Mikey]

This is an outstanding lens but you knew that already.

Not a portable lens as it takes up an entire compartment in my camera bag. And yet, I can still manage to fit this attached to my camera plus 2 lenses in my ONA Bowery Bag. When you first handle it, it feels large and well built (probably as big as the Panasonic 100-300 for micro four thirds but heavier). Surprisingly, I can still comfortably hold my X-E1 (I use wrist straps) without additional grip with this lens attached for an entire day at the zoo. And of note, I only have medium-sized Asian hands.

In terms of usability, I think it makes for a versatile portrait lens in reasonably good light (e.g. when out with the kids at the beach or park, or say in Disney). For my candid portraits, I prefer being able to throw the background out-of-focus and this lens does an excellent job of that (see below for examples) and with kids, it's so hard to chase after them outdoors with a prime or standard zoom (indoors, I use fast primes).

And at the zoo, this is the 1 and only lens I ever need.

There are also examples on the Fuji X Forum site with members using this for motorsports or airshows but I personally have not tried it for those.

 

[Lightmancer]

Mikey, thank you that's exactly the sort of feedback I am looking for. Over the years I have journeyed away from lugging big bottles around - I used to have an 80-200 f2.8 for my Nikons - my chiropractor loved it! But there are times when a long - preferably zoom - lens is essential and I would rather have a single solution if I can.

 

[Mikey]

Glad to oblige. would love to hear your thoughts on the lens should you ever decide to purchase it.

 

[GeoffM]

I don't use long zooms that often either, but I wanted something that would give me the reach when needed. The 55-200 is a slow lens but a great lens, no regrets from me. Many people say it is a huge lens but compared to my now sold Nikon 70-200/2.8 it is tiny and therefore handling is not an issue. I do find fitting the hood, either mounted for use or reversed for storage to be a pain as it is quite stiff, I am hoping it will become easier with use. I have the Fuji handgrip which I use all the time with all of my lenses and this will enhance the handling further. (some image samples in the links in my sig).

 

[Ray Sachs]

I guess it's all relative. Tiny compared to an equivalent focal range in full frame, huge compared to m43. It was bigger and heavier than I'd carry around as a regular part of my kit, as is my Olympus 75-300, which is slightly smaller with twice the reach. I carry the Olympus 75mm around a lot, and the 14-150 on rare occasions I want a zoom. The 75-300 I only take out when I have a very specific reason and it's usually ALL I take when I take it. I suspect I'd use the 55-200 the same way.

That said, the optical quality and the usability of the lens are very very good. Not as good as the Olympus 75, but probably a bit better than the Olympus 75-300 - nicer bokeh than the big Oly for sure. And if I wanted to standardize everything around a Fuji kit, I'd surely buy one.

-Ray

 

[jloden]

Well there's no getting around it, it's a larger lens for the system. Like Mikey said, it takes up a whole sleeve/compartment in the camera bag. It's a little long dimensionally on the X-E1, but light enough that handling hasn't been a problem. I wouldn't *mind* an extra grip on the X-E1, but I didn't *need* one, if that makes sense. The AF was a little troublesome prior to the July FW update but I don't have any issues with it now. The optics are very good, enough so that I think it competes favorably with my much longer Panasonic 100-300mm. And the aperture is reasonably fast, which isn't so much a big difference in low light but combined with the larger sensor makes for a nice ability to blow out a background and do tight portraits.

Ultimately, really like having it in conjunction with the 18-55 to cover that 80-300mm range. I don't need it nearly as much as the wider end, but there are plenty of great opportunities I'd feel I was missing out on without the longer range. Some examples with the 55-200 in my travels:


Picking out details in a larger scene:

Balloon Festival 2013 by jloden, on Flickr

LebowskiFest 12 by jloden, on Flickr


Concert & Event shots:

Rich - Backyard Gospel by jloden, on Flickr

LebowskiFest 12 by jloden, on Flickr


Wildlife:

Elk, Jasper National Park, Alberta Canada by jloden, on Flickr



Tele landscapes:

Jasper National Park, Alberta Canada by jloden, on Flickr

LebowskiFest 12 by jloden, on Flickr

 

[Lightmancer]

This is really great input - and so well illustrated! Thank you all very much.

 

[bobmielke]

The question you need to answer if what you normally shoot. From your initial statement led me to believe you don't use long lenses. I, on the other hand use all focal lengths so I have a wide range of zooms and fixed lenses to choose from. Since I'm primarily an animal photographer the 55-200mm is indispensable to me. When I have the 18-55mm onboard I'm always at the 55mm end wanting for more. I also shoot my share of macro and landscape photographs. That works the other end of the spectrum, utilizing wide angle lenses and the 60mm macro. If I had to pick one lens on my camera all the time it would be the 60mm macro because it doubles as a medium range telephoto and handles the macro application at the same time it's all good, pick your poison.

55-200mm

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

55-200mm

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

35mm

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

35mm

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Armanius]

Love that photo of the eagle!