That's quite a bit shorter again! Think the extra 30mm would make that much difference on the 50-230mm? Shame about the aperture on it. Its very cheap though
Still better than the 18-55mm though....I will temper my expectations accordingly
The board meeting didn't go to plan by David Yeoman, on Flickr
What lenses do you currently have? You could buy the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 or 75mm f1.2 and still have a good chunk of your cash left over. Both of those are amazing lenses.Thank you all!!
It probably was GAS…..so I need to remember just to get out there and take pictures rather than staying in and dreaming about new equipment!
Although, liking the talk about the 16-80mm……
I think I went to a similar board meetingPuffins with an original X100 - quite a heavy crop (4MP final image) - involved a lot of stitting very still
Personally I wouldn't buy either the 50-230 or 55-200 for wildlife on one holiday, if you have other applications for them - then great, But you'll think you have the gear and the images will be meh, your exptations will be too high, whereas if you took the picture with teh 18-55 and its still meh, you'll be happier as your expectations will have been a lot lower
Puffin on Staffa by Chris Walker, on Flickr
I've still a lot to learn
As many on here know, I have shot a lot of wildlife with my Fuji system. Puffins don't need a lot of reach (generally), somewhere like Skoma, Farne Islands or the Trenish Isles, they'll be within 2-3m of you. To shoot birds you ideally need at least 400mm, I tend to use the 100-400 with and without the 1.4TC that will give you 560mm @ f5.6 (so you need a bit of light to help you).
Barn Owl2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
Bully by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
Mallard by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
As many on here know, I have shot a lot of wildlife with my Fuji system. Puffins don't need a lot of reach (generally), somewhere like Skoma, Farne Islands or the Trenish Isles, they'll be within 2-3m of you. To shoot birds you ideally need at least 400mm, I tend to use the 100-400 with and without the 1.4TC that will give you 560mm @ f5.6 (so you need a bit of light to help you).
I am seriously considering selling the X-T3 & 100-400, and replacing it with a T5 & 150-600 for my wildlife stuff. However, my existing set up does give good results, as long as you have a bit of patience and maybe a decent tripod.
This was shot at 560mm with a shutter speed of 1/40th, so you can see why a tripod is useful.
Thanks George. I prefer to shoot wildlife more than anything else but with my current state of health getting around with the gear is not easy.
Duly noted; but we're talking £600+ of lens and I'm talking about lenses at £200 on the second hand market.
Personally I think you're going to be disappointed with 200mm for any wildlife. Unless you're a ninja and can get really close
200mm isn't long enough, even for casual wildlife shooting on APS-C. It would be a wasted £200 as you're going to be very disappointed with the results, and then have to sell the lens you've bought for something longer. There are several lenses in the 400 to 600mm range for Fuji now, but they all cost more than £200 unfortunately
People need a short telephoto for all sorts of things. Travel, portraits, some sports photography could all be done with a 50-200. The 70-300 would be better, you're at the equivalent of 105-450mm in full frame so you're getting significantly more reach there.
As an illustration, I took this out of my home office window. The distance is no more than 8 to 10 metres, if that (the tree is at the end of our very short front lawn), this was shot at 400mm and it's heavily cropped to get the bird anything like big enough in the frame. At 200mm it would be unusableLooks like you've all saved me £200 in the short term then!
What is even the point of these lenses then haha. I suppose the 70-300mm isn't much use either? Unless your wildlife is very friendly...
Very much appreciate all the advice
Some people use a 55-200 for mountain landscapes etcLooks like you've all saved me £200 in the short term then!
What is even the point of these lenses then haha. I suppose the 70-300mm isn't much use either? Unless your wildlife is very friendly...
Very much appreciate all the advice
Even uncropped I think thats pretty good to be honest; but I understand that outdoors it could get frustrating at larger distances and with wilder...life.
Black Kites by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr
Barn Owl by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr
Robin by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr
Field by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr
Egret by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr
All of the following were shot below 200mm. Yeah the reach can make things easier, and you might not get magazine worthy shots, but it's certainly not impossible to do on a 55-200mm as an enthusiast.
Lovely shots there mate, you've really put the cat amongst the pigeons now...how much cropping are we talking here?All of the following were shot below 200mm. Yeah the reach can make things easier, and you might not get magazine worthy shots, but it's certainly not impossible to do on a 55-200mm as an enthusiast.
Until I bought the 50-140 it was my most used lens: bike races, portraits, motorsport (longer would be better though) and landscapes mainly.Looks like you've all saved me £200 in the short term then!
What is even the point of these lenses then haha. I suppose the 70-300mm isn't much use either? Unless your wildlife is very friendly...
Very much appreciate all the advice
I use an Evoc Stage Capture. I found that a lot of bags available when I was looking a few years back, especially the ones geared to outdoor photography, were sizes for DSLRs, with bigger lenses, so my kit would rattle around inside them - not ideal when mountain biking.
Honestly can't remember, but nothing too crazy. I think the older ones were shot on my X-T1, so can't have been cropped much!
Deer 2 by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr
Is there much variation with the 18-55? I've only heard good things about it tbh.
I have the Viltrox 13mm and it's excellent. I was thinking about this thread while driving yesterday and was going to suggest it to @RichardC27
I think this question has pretty much been answered now, but i just thought I'd pop a quick defence of the 50-230 on here. It's definitely not long enough for a lot of wildlife (I took it to Dagnam Park in Romford before I got my 100-400 to shoot deer & I couldn't get close enough most of the time), but the quality is pretty good. These were taken with it (the deer shots are pretty heavily cropped; most of the other shots I got were unusable. The swan and the squirrel came very close to me though).
Apparently, same as there apparently is with the 16-80mm. How much of it is true and how much is internet nonsense who knows?
I did read about that with the 16-80 - I bought one rated as good from MPB, thinking that if it wasn't great then at least it was cheap. I'm very happy with it. These were all taken with it on my X-T30.
Really nice set of images. If I could sell my 18-55 for about £240 then it's only a small outlay to get the 16-80mm, and if the optical performance is the same then it's a more rounded lens overall. The only downsides are its bigger and a stop slower at the short end.
- Totally.
DSCF1288 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr