Contents
Bokeh
I was originally going to show 100% crops of out of focus areas throughout a range, but after a short while, it became apparent that the two lenses are remarkably similar in that department, at least in this test. To show an idea of out of focus rendering, see the reduced areas of blur from the two lenses at 90mm, with the focus point about 8 feet from the camera.
As you can see above, the bokeh is quite similar between the two lenses. Neither is a cream machine, but both are respectable in this department. Overall, it’s clear to me that the 50-140mm f/2.8 is the superior lens from an optical standpoint. Is the difference and speed worth the added bulk and the much higher price tag? Only you can decide that.
Some additional first impressions on the 50-140mm f/2.8
I’ve been shooting with the 50-140mm for the past two days, and I’m quickly becoming very impressed with the lens. It is very sharp at any focal length and aperture, has excellent color and contrast, fairly decent bokeh in most situations (though there are some caveats there), and most surprisingly: it seems to be essentially apochromatic. I’ve got a lot more shooting to do with the lens before making final judgments, but my first impressions are very positive. I will have my full in-depth review of the Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 coming later next week! Edit: Check out my full review of the 50-140mm here!
In the meantime, here are a few quick image samples (Click to enlarge):
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.
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
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.
How have you found the IQ and AF speed compared to the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 ?
Thank you for your analysis and thoughts.
Did you try shooting handheld?
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.
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!
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
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.
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!