Contents
Fujifilm’s X-Series interchangeable lens system has only been around for a bit less than three years, and in that time, they’ve managed to put together a rather impressive lens lineup. However, missing from that lineup until recently are pro-grade fast zoom lenses. While the fast standard zoom is set to be released in 2015, Fuji users get the telephoto zoom just before the holidays. Today I’ll review the Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS WR. This is the second weather resistant Fuji lens, and the first constant f/2.8 zoom lens. This is a pro-grade zoom lens with a pro-grade price, retailing for $1599. Can this large mirrorless lens meet the very high expectations that Fuji users demand? Let’s find out.
If you’re not familiar with my reviews, I review from a real world shooting perspective. You won’t find lens charts or resolution numbers here. There are plenty of other sites that cover those. I review products on how they act for me as a photographic tool in real-world shooting.
Construction and Handling
The Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 is an extremely solidly built lens, constructed predominantly of metal, with some high-grade plastics in use for the zoom ring. It definitely feels like a professionally built lens. There is an integral tripod collar that can’t be removed, though the foot of the tripod mount can be removed. The zoom ring is extremely smooth and moderately damped while the focus ring is a bit stiffer, but also very smooth. The aperture ring on the lens is the best of any Fuji lens. Very firm with nice detents without being difficult to use. The controls on the lens definitely feel top-notch.
The lens stays constant in length during zooming and focusing and the included lens hood reverses for storage and stays tight to the body. The constant f/2.8 aperture and telephoto focal lengths necessitate a larger lens than your average mirrorless optic, and the Fuji 50-140mm is indeed a pretty big lens. It’s notably larger than the XF 55-200mm and it’s not particularly light either, at least compared to other XF lenses. While this is somewhat inevitable due simply due to physics, it’s worth noting because it may change how you carry around your kit if this lens is in it. The lens is long enough that it wouldn’t fit into my Think Tank Suburban Disguise 20 bag, which is small by DSLR standards but rather spacious for a mirrorless kit. Well, the lens itself would fit, but there was no way I was getting it in mounted to the camera. As a result, I utilized my Domke F-803 satchel that I haven’t used since 2009.
If you use a camera with a substantial grip, the 50-140 does handle well in the field, making the size and weight more a concern for transport and bag selection than an actual issue in usage. However, I view having a camera with a grip a must for using this lens. An X-Pro-1, X-E1 or X-E2 with accessory grip or an X-T1 are the only things I’d want to use with this lens. For most of the review period, I used the X-T1 vertical grip as well, as I felt it made the whole combination better balanced and more comfortable. There is a notable issue with the lens, though, in that the tripod foot really needs to be removed or swung completely out of the way if you’re using the vertical grip, as it is located too far back towards the mount of the camera, and pinches fingers when using the vertical grip. It’s a shame because the tripod foot is well-balanced and the collar is incredibly smoothly rotating, making it a joy to use on a tripod…just not with the vertical grip.
The lens is also the second Weather Resistant lens in the Fujifilm XF lineup. Being a constant length lens, my guess is the sealing will be a bit more robust than the 18-135mm. I didn’t have a chance to thoroughly test the weather resistance, though I did shoot a bit in some light rain, which posed no problems whatsoever with the lens or the camera. The lens does have the same questionable design of the mount gasket found on the 18-135mm, where the rubber surrounds the mount rather than pressing flush to it. My shooting in the rain didn’t get the lens soaked enough to see if the same issue I found on the 18-135mm was present, however.
The lens hood I mentioned earlier has a nice little feature: a piece of it can be removed to allow for easy access to a polarizing filter while the hood is mounted. The opening is on the bottom of the lens hood, so the hood will still be effective in use. This is just a really nice design touch.
Autofocus and Optical Stabilization
The Fuji 50-140mm features a new triple linear motor for fast and quiet autofocus operation, and for the most part, it’s a very nicely focusing lens. In good light, AF is very fast and extremely accurate when used with a body like the X-T1. Indoors, however, it slows down rather considerably, and on lower contrast subjects can hunt a bit. If you have strong contrast, it does fine indoors, but it isn’t the holy grail of focusing.
The good news is that in good light, it is definitely fast enough to be used for tracking action. I took some shots of cyclists and joggers coming towards me and got a very high hit rate of perfectly in focus shots when using the 8fps burst of the X-T1 in continuous focus mode.
Now we’re on to the 50-140’s optical stabilization. The 50-140mm uses a similar stabilizer to that used in the XF 18-135mm, with a claimed effectiveness of 5 stops. I found the 50-140’s to be even slightly better than the outstanding stabilizer on the 18-135mm. While I didn’t regularly achieve the full five stops on the 18-135mm, I was able to get sharp shots somewhat consistently at 1/6 second at 140mm on the 50-140mm. Simply put, the stabilizer on the 50-140mm f/2.8 is the best on any lens I’ve used, by any manufacturer.
Does it have the same oddly designed gasket on the lens mount as the 18-135 (with the rubber sealing around the outside) or is it done the more normal way? Seeing how excited you seem to be about this lens is heartening
Yes, it’s the same design. I didn’t have heavy rain to shoot in, though, so I never got it wet enough to really test if the same issue was present (also, it’s my personal X-T1, and I didn’t fancy dumping water all over it to check either). I have updated the review to note this, however.
It’s the same design as all Nikon’s WR lens so what?
Do you consider this design to be a failure? so Nikon has failed on 100% of their recent releases although nobody complained… or did anyone? I’ve always wondered if it was efficient… :-s
Not a failure, but also not as secure as one that presses against the lens mount. I haven’t noticed any water intrusion with the later WR lenses, but the 18-135 had some water get past the gasket and between the two lens mounting plates, which isn’t great.
Dear Jordan,
first of all thank you for this excellent review.
As I’m a Fuji as well as an Olympus (OMD E-M1) shooter like you I’m wondering which one would be the better lens overall to invest in.
The excellent Olympus 40-150 f2.8 together with the Oly Teleconverter or the Fuji 40-150 f2.8.
I’m mostly interested in taking photos of my 2yo toddler, so fast AF is crucial.
Which one would you prefer? Will you write an extra article comparing these two lenses like you did for the PanaLeica and the 56mm f1.2 (btw this article and the price difference between these two lenses made me invest into the Fuji X System with a X-E1 now followed by an X-E2).
Thank you and Happy Holidays!
Unfortunately, I didn’t have access to both lenses at the same time. I think the Fuji is optically a slightly better lens (though the Olympus is no slouch). It’s a bit sharper at the edges, has smoother bokeh in most cases and has better CA and flare control. That said, the Olympus slightly more compact and has notably more reach on their respective cameras (especially if you’re adding the 1.4x). Honestly, they feel like different types of lenses given the range differences.
Both lenses are really, really good. I think both may struggle with tracking a toddler in poor light, but both should do fine in good light (at least to the capabilities of their cameras). The Olympus does focus a lot closer, so you’ll have more success when young children run up to the camera there. I’d pick based more on the range of both lenses and which system you’re likely to pick up for the tasks you have in mind…you’re not going to get bad results with either.
I will say I wish I’d had the 50-140mm for just one more day, as the new firmware for the X-T1 seems to have some under the hood focus improvements…I’d be curious to see if it improves the 50-140’s speed in lower light.
If I recall correctly, you shot with the Pany 35-100 a while back. Any thought versus the new Oly 40-150? Does weight trump reach since cost is moot?
My 18-135 is a tad faster ergo sharper between F5.6 and F11 (above 1/125) after the update on XT1…and just like you say..the light has to be good !
I recently changed to Fujifilm, buying an X-T1 and 50-140mm f/2.8 and decided to test the sharpness across the frame. I made sure the camera was square to a flat wall of cupboards with plenty of detail and took multiple shots at various focal lengths at f2.8. To my horror the right hand half was considerably less sharp than the left.
I exchanged the lens, repeated the test and found the replacement is fractionally even sharper across the frame than the good side of the first lens. At f/2.8 the sharpness in all four corners, particularly at 140mm, is stunning.
I am going to buy the 16-55mm f/2.8 and hope I will not have a similar problem. Has anyone else experienced this issue with a Fuji lens?
Yes, I’ve had two XF 23/1.4 copies that were decentered, both bought used, and according to the prior owners were very slight used so I assume they came that way from the factory. Third one, bought new, is fine. Also have had one 35/1.4 that was decentered, second one bought used was fine. Varying degrees but all easily detected. PITA and something that shouldn’t happen at this price point, imho.
I just bought a used 23 mm and am new to the Fuji system. How will I know if the lens is decentered? TY
Shoot a flat subject from a reasonable distance and shoot it from a tripod square to the subject at a wide aperture. It won’t be sharp over the entire frame at f/1.4, but the sharpness should be similar at the left and right edges and the top and bottom edges if it’s properly assembled.
I did notice similar issues with the 18-135, very sharp across the image field from f/8, but rather soft at the left side when shooting the wall of shame, all from tripod and OIS turned off. I exchanged the lens and at first impression all looked fine, but on closer examination the same issues as the first copy, only slightly less blurred left edge, but stil noticeable. My uncle has the same 18-135 with the same issues. This lens is made in China while the others are made in Japan.
My first 10-24 had this issues as well, being soft at the right upper corner, I exchanged that one for a good copy though.
What I’ve learned from this is: always check and double check when you buy a Fuji lens, looks like the quality control isn’t up to the standards yet.
Jordan, do you prefer the bokeh of the Fuji at to long end (@140) over the bokeh of the Olympus 40-150/2.8 (@150)?
I have both a Fuji XT1 and an Olympus EM1 and really doubting which constant zoomlens to get
I think the Fuji’s bokeh is a bit nicer simply because it lacks the onion-ring structure that the aspherical Olympus lens imparts. However, I think that choosing between the two lenses is probably best done considering usage scenarios rather than optical quality, as they are both stellar lenses. The Fuji is probably slightly better overall, but it not enough to sway a decision for most people. The Fuji can provide better subject isolation due to use on the larger format, while the Olympus covers a narrower field of view. Whichever of those is more important would influence my decision, as well as which system you tend to use more often.
Quick question; would the 50-140 work on X-Pro1 ?
I don’t have (yet) and X-T1, but an X-Pro1. Planning on selling my Nikon set and will miss my 70-200 until I get enough money for the X-T1…
Deal-breaker for me on this lens is the non-removeable tripod ring. Impairs fast, smooth handling. Fuji, what were you thinking? Class leaders in this FL zoom all produce lenses with removeable rings …
You can remove the foot, which gives you the same sleek handling feeling as removing the ring on any other lens, just the ring itself doesn’t come off. If anything, it’s sleeker than a lens with a standard removable ring.
Thanks for the really fast reply, Jordan. I thought that even with the foot unscrewed the knobs would pinch and catch near the v-grip and xt-grip, but you’re saying there’s enough clearance? I guess I need to rent this one for a few days.
Yeah, everything comes off except the side knob that locks rotation, but that’s never in the way anyway. The whole foot comes off at the barrel, including the locking screw knobs.
Update: bought the lens, Jordan. No issue with the lens once the ring is removed, as you suggested.