Fuji 50-230, how does it stack up ?

JohnN

JohnN

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,359
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I had asked this in the XT1 thread but by bad luck asked just before a batch of banter then a genuine question so it disappeared from view, still a great thread but not always one to ask a question in :)

A question for you all which was no doubt answered at some point but finding the answer eluded me.

I'm looking for longer reach than the 135, but it hardly seems worth it for the 50-200 and the 400 is out of my price range now, so hows the 50-230?

From what I've seen on the wider internet it seems to be generally well received but I prefer to get first hand knowledge from you all here

Cheers
 
I seen your question, but since I never used that lens couldn't really comment. I do however have the 55-200 and it's pretty solid. From what I gathered when researching them, the 50-230's OIS is rated at 3 stops, where the 55-200 is rated as having 4.5 stops. That's a big difference if you ask me. I can get sharp shots hand holding at 1/8th sec with the 55-200. You also get a stop more light either end of the focal range. The 55-200 is also reportedly a bit sharper. The 50-230 is definitely more an outdoor lens. If that's where you plan to use it, then it should do just fine.
 
Last edited:
Can only speak about the mk2 version, but it's nearly as good as the 55-200 (which I also have and is excellent) As to be expected it does tail off at 230mm, but still better than any other cheaper zoom I have tried over the years.

Build quality is fine, think the mk2 is supposed to have improved ois and slightly quicker focus over the mk1

No idea how good it is for fast moving stuff, but it's fine for general use, just bear in mind the price when judging it against far more expensive lenses
 
Last edited:
None of the Fuji lenses is bad, just some are better than others! I have both the 50-230 and the 55-200, having bought the 50-230 for the same reason as you - the extra length. However, I found that it feels a bit cheap and nasty compared to the 55-200 and so the 50-230 sits unused in the cupboard (as does the 55-200 now I have the 100-400 but that's due to redundancy of lenses rather than because I don't like it!). Results are very good, although the aforementioned less good OIS can be a limitation if you need IS (I do!) as can the smaller maximum aperture through the range. Mine is apparently the Mk 1 version, the Mk 2 might be better.
 
I have to say I've been very impressed with the XC 50-230mm MK II I paid £119 brand new on eBay and the lens hasn't disappointed.
 
Yeah, if you get a white box it's so cheap it's no risk at all. It's fine for daylight use.
 
I always say, end result is what matters, whatever you use to get there. There will always be advantages with pricier lenses, but like someone said there are no bad Fuji lenses. Just slightly limited ones.
 
I'm facing the same problem when picking the XF and XC lens. Having own Nikon pro glass myself, when looking for Fuji lens for my XT1 I wanted the best one but they are expensive and it adds up the weight. I wanted to buy the 16-55 f2.8 but the weight puts me off, so does the 50-140 f2.8. If I planning to carry the weight of those lens, I might as well use my D3 and the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8. The whole point of me buying the Fuji is for compact and light compare to the Nikon. I think I will go for all prime for the Fuji. I got the 35mm f2 but would like the 18mm f2 and the 56mm f1.2.

Talking about that I'm gasing for the cheap 16-50 f3.5-5.6 and the 50-230 you mention. The 50-230 is more easier for me to sneak into the football stadium then the 70-200 f2.8 lol.
 
I had nothing longer than the 90mm prime but when on a trip with my brother I borrowed his 55-200 and was surprised how useful it was. And it was certainly up to the quality of all the other Fuji lenses I have. On getting back here I thought I'd buy a 50-230 (mk1, I think) as I only rarely use the long reach. But in the month I've had it it has proved ideal and I've no intention of trading up. As a portrait shooter I prefer fast apertures, but I bought this for landscape work so it gets stuck on a tripod at f8 and it is great. I've no bad words for the lens.
 
I have the Mk1 that I use on my T-10. It's a fine lens for what it is but it is XC and not XF and is a bit plasticky in comparison to the 18-135 I have. That's not to say it has a cheap feel or anything like that and pound for pound, it's an excellent lens and I have no complaints about mine. It's very sharp for what it is. XF lenses will be better, especially for build quality but you won't go far wrong with the 50-230.
 
I've had both, the 55-300 is the better lens as I found it quicker to focus . However I did sell it as it wasn't really a lens that I use that much so purchased the 50-230 as it was lighter and cheaper. Here's one through the window at home. 1480020338180.jpg
 
frod said:
Never rule out the 18-55mm. It's a great compromise of quality, size, weight and speed.
Click to expand...
I was going to say this. I think if it was weather sealed there'd be a lot less 16-55 sales.
 
Everyone, thank you so much, great feedback.

Well I never knew there were two versions, I'll keep that in mind and keep an eye for a mk ii

Thanks again
 
Ive owned all 4 Fuji teles and there really isn't a bad egg amongst them. The 50-230 is clearly built to a tight budget but optically it's very sound and AF isn't too shabby. It's worth sub-£200 all day long and I'm planning to pick one up for next Motorsport season as my opportunities are quite limited next year, so no point in shelling out for the bigger brothers.

RS Combe 2015 by -Harry_S-

RS Combe 2015 by -Harry_S-

RS Combe 2015 by -Harry_S-
 
ianmarsh said:
As a portrait shooter I prefer fast apertures, but I bought this for landscape work so it gets stuck on a tripod at f8 and it is great. I've no bad words for the lens.
Click to expand...

It can do portraits as well, Ralf Little on the red carpet somehwere in London 2013, at a full 230mm, I just happened to be walking past......


Ralf Little sm by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
I was going to say this. I think if it was weather sealed there'd be a lot less 16-55 sales.
Click to expand...

I think the WR is overrated. How many of us will actually go out in extreme weather and shoot? Most lens will be ok with a few drop of rain. Talking about that I bought the 35mm f2 because it got WR and is cheaper lol.

Personally out of the 16-55 and the 18-55 I will prefer the 18-55 because is lighter and smaller which goes well with Fuji lens. If I start mounted big lens on my XT1, I might as well shoot with my D3 and the 28-70 f2.8 .......
 
badboy1984 said:
I think the WR is overrated. How many of us will actually go out in extreme weather and shoot? Most lens will be ok with a few drop of rain. Talking about that I bought the 35mm f2 because it got WR and is cheaper lol.

Personally out of the 16-55 and the 18-55 I will prefer the 18-55 because is lighter and smaller which goes well with Fuji lens. If I start mounted big lens on my XT1, I might as well shoot with my D3 and the 28-70 f2.8 .......
Click to expand...
TBH my Fuji is my travel lens so WR is important as I will have no control of the weather, and if I get caught out it wouldn't be a good thing. I was sure glad my EM5-II and 12-40mm was weather sealed when I went to Venice last year, they got soaked :eek:
 
badboy1984 said:
I think the WR is overrated. How many of us will actually go out in extreme weather and shoot? Most lens will be ok with a few drop of rain.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I wouldn't know if my gear is WR or not, to be honest. If the weather is poor I will either be inside watching TV or if I am outside I'll have the gear protected. I've got an all-weather cover somewhere but a plastic bag does a perfectly good job.
 
I shot with my D3 and 70-200 f2.8 in very heavy rain outdoor on ironman shoot. Both the body and lens is weather seal but I still have the rain cover on the body and lens.
 
I owned the 50-230 and have to say I was disappointed by it - maybe I was expecting to much?

Mind you the Olympus 40-150 r is even cheaper but is an amazingly sharp lens...
 
badboy1984 said:
I think the WR is overrated. How many of us will actually go out in extreme weather and shoot? Most lens will be ok with a few drop of rain. Talking about that I bought the 35mm f2 because it got WR and is cheaper lol.

Personally out of the 16-55 and the 18-55 I will prefer the 18-55 because is lighter and smaller which goes well with Fuji lens. If I start mounted big lens on my XT1, I might as well shoot with my D3 and the 28-70 f2.8 .......
Click to expand...

My old D90 got some water damage after a few rainy shooting sessions. The camera worked fine, but the digital info inside the VF went wonky and the top LCD had a little water mark inside too. Never had any issues with non-WR lenses though. The only thing you need worry about is water getting into the sensor, as there will be no rubber seal - which is all that makes them WR really
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
My old D90 got some water damage after a few rainy shooting sessions. The camera worked fine, but the digital info inside the VF went wonky and the top LCD had a little water mark inside too. Never had any issues with non-WR lenses though. The only thing you need worry about is water getting into the sensor, as there will be no rubber seal - which is all that makes them WR really
Click to expand...

I am not surpraise you got damage on your camera. When you say a few rainy sessions I would assume it is pouring it down outside and you gone out with the camera. What am trying to say is some people will buy WR lens because they so afraid a few drop of water will damage the lens.

A few drop on the lens or body will probably be ok but not when pouring it down outside and shoot a few hour session.
 
badboy1984 said:
I am not surpraise you got damage on your camera. When you say a few rainy sessions I would assume it is pouring it down outside and you gone out with the camera. What am trying to say is some people will buy WR lens because they so afraid a few drop of water will damage the lens.

A few drop on the lens or body will probably be ok but not when pouring it down outside and shoot a few hour session.
Click to expand...


Aye, I live in southern Ireland, WR is probably a must over here :D
 
Yeah I'm not in a position where I have to shoot in the rain. It normally means the available light is dull anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top