Fuji XF 55-200mm First Look

Awesome. First and foremost on my mind is size and weight. The specs make it seem like a very large lens for a mirrorless camera. The pictures you took make it seem more moderate in size, but how did it handle? Is it too big?
 
as much as this looks very nice and a reasonable price point, i pretty much stopped using my old canon 70-200L f2.8 and ended up selling it and getting the 10-20mm and i prefer to shoot ultrawide landscapes and cityscapes. so for me the most interesting lenses are yet to come. the 12mm Zeiss and the 10-24mm Fuji lens
 
Jman13 said:
Awesome. First and foremost on my mind is size and weight. The specs make it seem like a very large lens for a mirrorless camera. The pictures you took make it seem more moderate in size, but how did it handle? Is it too big?
Click to expand...

It is big, but it ain't heavy. At least it doesn't feel heavy. However, this is a very subjective assessment. I am used to handling a Carl Zeiss 2.8/180mm Sonnar prime with Metabones Speed Booster adapter on my X-E1. Now that's heavy. ;)
 
Ah! 56 mm f/1.2?!

My wallet is crying.

I'll have my complete set of mostly used primes (35/50/85 on FF) with light sucking powers of 1.4 and faster by 2014.

Thank you Fuji.
 
Thanks for the write-up Rico. Telephotos are an area I haven't really been interested in Fuji particularly, mostly because m43 seems like such a perfect format for telephoto to me and I'm already well stocked with small but really excellent 90-600mm equivalent lenses for my OMD. And AF speed is so much more important to me with long lenses than it is with medium to wide that my comfort level with Fuji's AF just isn't there yet. I'm fine with the AF performance of the primes I shoot with, but I don't have confidence that I could work with that AF speed on a long lens. Then again, I've never tried the 18-55, which I understand is somewhat faster than the primes, and that seems to be your point of reference with this one. So someday once this long lens shows up I should try to get a copy of it and the kit lens and shoot with them for a while to see if I would want to incorporate either or both into my gear. I was interested in your reaction to the AF in terms of trying to get moving subjects in focus. Seems doable, but I'm guessing I'd get more misses than I'd be really comfortable with. But worth a try anyway. And the images are really nice, as always!

-Ray
 
flysurfer said:
My preview is now online: First Look: XF55-200mmF3.5-4.8 R LM OIS | Fuji Rumors

Unlike dpreview, I had a copy of he new camera firmware, and I was able to take many test shots with the prototype lens. I was also able to show most of them publicly, see my Flickr set.

If you have any further questions regarding this lens (regarding handling and functionality), feel free to ask.
Click to expand...

Very useful. The Flickr set shows the range of capability and is helpful to me in deciding on a purchase. Thanks for taking the time.

Though the lens looks big, I feel it is all relative and it is the size it has to be. It doesn't seem to be heavy.
 
Actually, I'm surprised at the size & weight of it. I've got an old Vivitar 28-200mm f:3.5 - 5.3 that is pretty much the same size and weight.

Yes, I know that it's manual focus, without the IOS, but it's also twice the zoom range of the Fuji, and built for full frame. The Vivitar weighs in at about 620g and is 11cm (4.4") - 17cm (7") long, depending on the zoom and focus settings.

Given the money I'd rather have the Fuji -- proper automation and better optically -- but it's not exactly little.
 
I would have proffered a reduced weight in exchange for shorter zoom. Honestly if they were following typical 35mm zoom conventions, a 50-135 would have been more along the lines of a 70-200 equivalent. But, I will still be happy to buy one. It looks pretty sharp.
 
zapatista said:
I'd hate to think what the $$ would be for a fixed f2.8 50-135.
Click to expand...

Sigma and Tokina managed to make them for about $600 for APS-C, though without the stabilization. . Though in my example above, I should have clarified that the aperture speed of 3.5-4.8 was sufficient for me, in order to keep size down.
 
Hello Rico,

Many thanks for your efforts! I can't wait to get the 55-200.

Just a quick question with regard to your picture samples:
You posted you picture DSCF7151 (yellow flowers) twice on flickr. It says there that it's been processed with LR & Aperture. Yet, the exifs of the 'original' views both say Aperture 3.4.4.
Since the two pics look different (the 2nd with slightly darker background and more pleasing OOF-edges of the petals of the "4-flowers-group" on the left), what exactly was the difference when you processed the two pictures?

Cheers
Manfred
Phocus Pictures
 
Got my production lens a few days ago, it's much better than the prototype I tested, so I guess I'll be quite happy with this lens. Unfortunately, the ugliest winter was followed by the ugliest spring and now the ugliest early summer in decades, we are basically flooded, the horses are already taking scuba diving lessons. I expect my next book to be about the Fuji XP200. :rolleyes:
 
To be honest, it really ain't that big. Against my old 5d mk2 with 70-200L glass....or even my 17-40L it is tiny. It just looks big on the small XE1 body.
Any-hoo, this is my offering of my new 55-200 married to XE1. straight out of camera 4shot vertical stitch of the Shard in London (Jpegs)

Exposure 0.022 sec (1/45)
Aperture /5.0
Focal Length 55 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias 0 EV


8909376716_c7266c7d94_o.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The Shard by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr
 

Similar threads

P
Fuji XF 55-200mm
Replies
3
Views
2K
RT Panther
RT Panther
Ray Sachs
Fuji Fujifilm XF 55-200mm lens available for pre-order at B&H
Replies
5
Views
3K
PeterPrism
P
S
Fuji Alternative to xf 55-200mm
Replies
9
Views
3K
flysurfer
flysurfer
Back
Top