Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 vs. Fuji 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8

The latest telephoto lens from Fujifilm is their long-awaited pro-grade 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS WR.  The lens fills the role of the typical 70-200mm zoom lens in the Fujifilm system.  Fuji already has a well-regarded telephoto zoom in a more compact package in the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 OIS.  The 55-200mm is, of course, slower in aperture and notably smaller in size than its constant-aperture sibling.  But how do the two lenses compare in the overlapping range?  That’s what I wanted to find out.

The Fuji Telephoto Zooms - 50-140mm f/2.8 on the left, 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 on the right
The Fuji Telephoto Zooms – 50-140mm f/2.8 on the left, 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 on the right

Construction and Handling

While the two lenses share much of their range, they are certainly not identical lenses.  The 55-200mm is about 2/3 the length, features a body made predominantly of high-grade plastics and features a non-weathersealed extending zoom mechanism.  The 50-140mm f/2.8 is an internally zooming, weathersealed lens made of metal and plastics that is not only larger but notably heavier than the 55-200mm.  In fact, it’s 71% heavier than its slower sibling.

The 50-140mm is by far the largest current lens for the Fuji X System, and it’s one of the largest mirrorless lenses period.  However, it’s still roughly the same size as a full frame 70-200mm f/4 lens, so we’re not talking enormous, but it definitely will require a good size bag.  Overall, the 50-140mm is the better constructed lens, while the 55-200mm handles much easier and fits better within the ‘small camera system’ mentality. There’s also a rather hefty price difference, with the 55-200mm available right now for only $550 (regularly $700), while the 50-140mm will run you a whopping $1599.

Sharpness

To test sharpness, I took a series of photographs at infinity at 55mm, 90mm and 140mm, from wide open through f/8.  Center and edge/corner crops are presented in the images below.  All images were taken with the lens and camera on a tripod, with 2 second self timer and OIS set to off. 100% crops are presented below. To see the images at full size, click on the image, and when it loads, click the green arrow at the bottom to enlarge to 100%.

100% Crops @ 55mm
100% Crops @ 55mm

At 55mm, the 50-140mm starts out very strong in the center right from f/2.8 and is even very good in the corner. An outstanding performance here. At f/3.5, which is the widest aperture for the 55-200mm, you can see that the 55-200mm is average at best here.  The 50-140mm is clearly superior in both the center and the corner.  The corner has sharpened up a bit here on the 50-140mm, yielding quite good resolution.  At f/5.6 and f/8, the 55-200mm improves significantly, producing very sharp images in the center and good corners, though both still lag behind the 50-140mm, which is producing outstanding resolution across the frame at smaller apertures.

100% Crops @ 90mm
100% Crops @ 90mm

At 90mm, the 50-140mm is a smidgen softer than it was at 55mm when wide open, but is still producing good results here.  At f/4 (the widest aperture for the 55-200mm), both lenses are quite good, though the 50-140mm stays ahead both in the center and on the edge (the corners were not at the same distance for this focal length).  Stopping down to f/5.6 and then to f/8 brings both lenses into excellent territory, with the 50-140mm still maintaining a very slight edge, though it’s quite small here.

100% Crops at 140mm
100% Crops at 140mm

At 140mm, frankly both lenses are very good right from their maximum apertures, and both are excellent across the frame at f/8, with the 50-140mm again holding a very slim lead.

Overall, it’s clear the 50-140mm is the superior lens when it comes to resolution.  It produces excellent resolution at all focal lengths and apertures.  While I didn’t have time this evening to pull crops at all distances close up, I can describe that the differences between the lenses are quite similar to the distant test, though the 50-140mm is actually even sharper at closer distances producing outstanding resolution across the frame at any setting.  The 55-200mm lags a bit, especially at the wide end, but by a margin similar to what’s shown in these tests.

Continue: Bokeh and 40-150mm f/2.8 First Impressions

Tags:

Comments

14 responses to “Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 vs. Fuji 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8”

  1. Gene Lowinger Avatar

    Nice write up. I was out with the new lens last night, specifically to test the AF speed and the new OIS. I was deeply impressed by both. Was going to do the same kinds of tests you wrote about, but I hate pixel peeping, and I’m no engineer, so I’ll leave that stuff to you. Looking at my images from last night though, I just know the new lens is a winner.

  2. Jorge Avatar
    Jorge

    I was deciding between the 50-140 and the 55-200. I went with the 55-200 which is being delivered today only because of the size and weight. My whole purpose of (working on) ridding myself of my Nikon D300, 700, and 800 plus the Nikon glass is to give my back and shoulders a break. Even though this is a really sweet lens, the 55-200 won out. I do love this comparison. I feel I made the right decision for me. I will happily sacrifice some sharpness in order to shave off some weight.
    Thanks for the review.
    J

    1. Jordan Steele Avatar

      I understand. For my own day to day use, the 55-200 will definitely be in the bag. If I buy the 50-140 for myself, it’ll be for event use and occasions where the size isn’t an issue. It is a great lens, though.

  3. Steve Avatar
    Steve

    How have you found the IQ and AF speed compared to the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 ?

  4. Sam Avatar
    Sam

    Thank you for your analysis and thoughts.
    Did you try shooting handheld?

    1. Jordan Steele Avatar

      I’ve done lots of handheld shooting, and will have full analysis of the OIS in my final review. (Hint…it’s really good). My full review should be done sometime next week.

  5. […] Steele over at Admiring Light has compared the two lenses side by side. I have the 55-200mm and use it all the time, but after […]

  6. […] f2.8 LM OIS WR: Review at thedigitaltrekker / Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 vs. Fuji 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 at admiringlight + Full Review of the XF 50-140 at admiringlight / Out & About With The Fuji 50-140mm f2.8 at […]

  7. Jano Avatar
    Jano

    Sorry, but the sharpness comparisons are typical engineering junk. Nothing useful to see here.
    A good lens is always optimised for the typical working distance and since this is a workhorse lens for portrait and event photographers this lens will be used mainly within a distance of several meters. Ergo comparing sharpness at infinity is useless because it in no way represent real world results.
    Even 3 out of your 4 example images are shot at close distance. Those are interesting for comparing sharpness!

  8. Rod Smith Avatar
    Rod Smith

    Great write up Jordan. I have been on the fence over what telephoto to get. Seeing the size and weight difference, not to mention price, I think the 55-200 will be more than adequate for my needs, at least for now.

    Rod

  9. […] More Fuji XF 50-140mm F2.8 lens sample images can be seen at mobile01. Comparison samples between Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 vs Fuji 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 at AdmiringLight. […]

  10. Chuxk Avatar
    Chuxk

    The results with the 50-140 are not surprising. It is expected to be (and should be) somewhat better. However, I can tell you from experience with my 55-200mm, that on its own merits, it is an excellent lens – very sharp. You cannot go wrong with the 55-200mm. And the best bang for the buck. I’m happy with it and have no plan to get the 50-140. And the fact that I also have the excellent 18-135mm means that I basically have it all covered for my type of photography.

  11. Steve Solomon Avatar
    Steve Solomon

    Jordan, man, In glad I found your review and comparison of these two Fujinon lenses! As an XT-1 shooter of landscapes, small products, and macro images, I am debating on one of these two zooms to complement my superb XF 16-55 zoom, however, without too much sacrifice in sharpness or overall image quality. If I planned to use the long zoom as a primary lens, I can see that the 50-140 is the sharper of the two, as well as WR and better-built. However, for the occasional landscape or marathon coverage I plan to use it for, based on your thoroughly professional testing (thank you!), I may now lean towards the more affordable but still quite good 55-200, with the possible addition of the XF 90 as the “sharpness king”. Thanks again sir!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search


Categories


Recent Posts


  1. This article got me thinking… Why does Canon make RF S lenses starting with 18mm when most full frame RF…

  2. Great review. I shoot Nikon and may try an old Nikon D200 and see how it compares with the new…

  3. Your article brings back some very fond memories. I had exact setup you describe. The 15-85 lens on the 30D…