Okay Fuji Shooters, where do you stand on the 50-140mm f2.8 zoom lens. I know it's heavy but is it good?
Let me know if you've used it and what you think. The 50-140mm f2.8 is on sale right now and I'm trying to help bolster the global economy. What's your take?
Gloria, photo taken with the Samsung Galaxy NX camera and the 50mm f2.8 macro.
The good: Weather sealed, very good flare control, fast silent autofocus, smooth zoom with no lens extension, about 4 stops gain with stabilisation, strongly built, distortion and CA negligible, sharp pretty much across the range (outstanding in the centre and outstanding to good at the edges). A zoom range that works well in the real world. The weight seems a lot compared to other Fuji zooms, but I find it well balanced on the camera and can use it almost all day (let's just say I'm not in my twenties anymore). The not so good: The plastic lens hood is easy to jam if I try to put it on in a hurry. I put a little lubrication on the thread from time to time. Often the lens is too sharp at the edges and I need to apply a small amount of blur to selected parts of an image so the eye is not drawn there.
Kirk, if you are using it for portraiture I'd borrow one from the store for an hour and see what you think. Would it pay for itself?
I find it very good, nice and sharp. I think you would like it. The f2.8 aperture is welcome, esp. with a tele-extender. Solid and sizable. If you buy it on sale, it usually sells used in non-sale times for close to what you paid. And David is oh so right about the hood(s)- not just on this one, on all of the Fuji plastic ones. Reversing them for storage on the lens brings up words I normally banish from my vocabulary.
Kirk: Lovely lens. Beautiful rendering. I got it during the infamous Best Buy $599 two day sale a couple of years ago. (Should've bought half a dozen!) I rarely use it because it's not long enough for my nature photography, but every time I do I'm delighted by it.
I have used it for several years for stage work, mostly with a Ballet Company, not so different from what you do with your local theater. Focuses fast enough for me with the XT-2, often with the e shutter when the audience is in the house, and it has produced images for use in everything from posters to instagram. Works for me. I have to say I rarely use it outside the theater as the 55-200 is also an excellent lens and somewhat lighter.
9 comments:
The good:
Weather sealed, very good flare control, fast silent autofocus, smooth zoom with no lens extension, about 4 stops gain with stabilisation, strongly built, distortion and CA negligible, sharp pretty much across the range (outstanding in the centre and outstanding to good at the edges). A zoom range that works well in the real world. The weight seems a lot compared to other Fuji zooms, but I find it well balanced on the camera and can use it almost all day (let's just say I'm not in my twenties anymore).
The not so good:
The plastic lens hood is easy to jam if I try to put it on in a hurry. I put a little lubrication on the thread from time to time.
Often the lens is too sharp at the edges and I need to apply a small amount of blur to selected parts of an image so the eye is not drawn there.
Kirk, if you are using it for portraiture I'd borrow one from the store for an hour and see what you think. Would it pay for itself?
If you need it, you need it. If you don't really need it, don't get it. If the 55-200 is doing everything you need a long lens to do, save your money.
I find it very good, nice and sharp. I think you would like it. The f2.8 aperture is welcome, esp. with a tele-extender. Solid and sizable. If you buy it on sale, it usually sells used in non-sale times for close to what you paid.
And David is oh so right about the hood(s)- not just on this one, on all of the Fuji plastic ones. Reversing them for storage on the lens brings up words I normally banish from my vocabulary.
Rick
I have both of the long zooms. If you love the 90, try the 50-140. Yes, it is that good. I still use both depending on what I’m shooting.
A friend of mine has the 50-140, he uses it at school plays etc. He loves that lens.
Kirk: Lovely lens. Beautiful rendering. I got it during the infamous Best Buy $599 two day sale a couple of years ago. (Should've bought half a dozen!) I rarely use it because it's not long enough for my nature photography, but every time I do I'm delighted by it.
Ditto: "If you love the 90, try the 50-140."
I have used it for several years for stage work, mostly with a Ballet Company, not so different from what you do with your local theater. Focuses fast enough for me with the XT-2, often with the e shutter when the audience is in the house, and it has produced images for use in everything from posters to instagram. Works for me. I have to say I rarely use it outside the theater as the 55-200 is also an excellent lens and somewhat lighter.
I'm perhaps not as picky as you are Kirk, but I've had mine for quite some time. I find it's a beautiful lens. I use it as often as I can.
Post a Comment