p.1 #1 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Here's a comparison of image quality (IQ) from the Fujifilm Fujinon XF 55-200/3.5-4.8 R OIS on an X-E2 with the Canon EF 70-200/4 L IS USM on a Rebel SL1.
Long story, short; the SL1 + 70-200/4L IS is consistently better.
I bought the SL1 specifically to use with the EF 70-200/4L IS for travel, because I've never been happy with the IQ from my XF 55-200 OIS. I've posted this opinion a few times in the past, but I haven't posted any example comparison photos until now, because I figure the X-E2 vs. SL1 is a fairly fair comparison (i.e. 16 MPx vs. 18 MPX, same "generation", both APS-C, both small, etc.), and I just got the SL1.
Please note that I'm totally happy with the IQ from my other Fujifilm lenses, including;
Fujinon XF 14/2.8 R
Fujinon XF 18/2 R
Fujinon 23/2 (X100s)
Fujinon XF 27/2.8 R
Fujinon XF 35/1.4 R
Fujinon XF 60/2.4 R Macro [1:2]
Fujinon XF 18-55/2.8-4 R OIS
I will definitely snag an XF 90/2 R when it appears.
Also, lest you figure that I have a particularly duff copy of the XF 55-200 OIS, I can offer two comments; (i) I've seen very similar IQ from most 55-200 OIS 100% crops posted by many other users, and (ii) I actually sent example comparison images (6D vs Pro 1) last year to Fujifilm Canada, and they said,
"We are thrilled that you are please with the output of your X-Pro1 as well as that of our primes. Our X-trans sensors and the 55-200 were not intended to rival the performance of full frame sensors. The output of our line-up will easily match or outperform similar equipment in its class. From the samples provided we do not believe their is an issue with your 55-200."
OK, back to the future...
The following comparison images are handheld photos with IS/OIS on and wide open, which is exactly how I'll often use them 'for real'. For each subject and focal length (e.g. harbour at 70mm, wall at 200mm, ...) each of the two images selected for the 100% crops shown here (i.e. SL1 image and X-E2 image) is the "best of three" images for the SL1 and the best of three for the X-E2; it's not the best left corner from one of the three test shots, and the best centre from a different image.
In each of the following example composite images, there are two 100% crops shown in the top row (Canon left and Fuji right), and the bottom row shows the PS CS6 Navigator window, with a red square to show the location of the 100% crops. I compared a total of 25 example image locations from the three subjects (harbour, bridge and wall), and the SL1 + 70-200/4L IS was better in 24 of them.
Of course, TANSTAAFL. The SL1 + 70-200/4L IS has slightly more noise (at the ISO 400 tested), but it also has considerably more detail. All example images are from RAW/RAF files, 'developed' through ACR 8.1 and lightly PP'd for overall exposure in PS CS6. No sharpening.
p.1 #3 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Finally, here's two similar example images from my X Pro-1 + 55-200 OIS vs. 6D + 70-200/4L IS + 1.4x III Extender, at longest focal lengths. These tests from last year are what prompted me to wait until now, after getting an SL1, to post the results. The relative IQ is essentially the same.
p.1 #4 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
So I posited that the 70-200/4L IS would be the better optic- but haven't you found that that the XE-2 is the better landscape and low-light camera? More DR at low ISO and less noise at high ISO and so on? How does the AF compare to what Canon put in the SL1?
p.1 #6 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Is that soley a result of the lens or do you expect the x-trans sensor plays into this as well? Have you done similar comparisons using different lenses in the same class/focal length on these bodies?
p.1 #7 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
johnctharp wrote:
... but haven't you found that that the XE-2 is the better landscape and low-light camera?
Yes. That's why I said I'm very happy with the X-E2 and XF lenses for 60mm and shorter primes, and the 18-55 OIS, too.
johnctharp wrote:
...How does the AF compare to what Canon put in the SL1?
I forgot to mention - I think the centre-point one-shot AF on the SL1 + 70-200/4L IS is much faster and more certain than the X-E2 + 55-200 OIS. The Canon IS seems to be more effective, too. Should be: [B&H new prices]: Canon lens $1349, Fuji lens $700. OTOH, a new X-E2 goes for about $850, and I picked up my new SL1 for just under $400 (US),
p.1 #8 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
newone757 wrote:
Is that soley a result of the lens or do you expect the x-trans sensor plays into this as well? Have you done similar comparisons using different lenses in the same class/focal length on these bodies?
I've compared (and posted) a variety of 6D + Alt vs X Pro-1 and X-E2 + XF lens images for very wide to short telephoto, for a variety of subjects, and they are both very similar - i.e. generally excellent.
IOW, I'm confident that it's the lens.
OTOH, I expect the pending Fujinon XF 50-140/2.8 OIS WR lens will have very excellent IQ, but it'll probably be noticeably bigger and heavier than my EF 70-200/4L IS, and not quite as super fantastic as my EF 70-200/2.8L IS II.
p.1 #9 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Mongrel wrote:
Nice practical test, Jim. Thanks for validating my purchase and helping to stem the tide of "Fuji lust" that's been filling my heart lately! lol
p.1 #10 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Mongrel wrote:
Nice practical test, Jim. Thanks for validating my purchase and helping to stem the tide of "Fuji lust" that's been filling my heart lately! lol.
I starve my Fuji lust alongside my Pentax lust, feeding them occasional morsels to ensure that they don't die out completely .
p.1 #11 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Great stuff Jim. Always appreciate these tests... so feel free to keep them coming!
Another conclusion I get out of this is that Fuji's gear is a bit overpriced these days when scanning the competition, particularly the bodies. An X-E2 at $850, or X-T1 at $1200 feels a little extravagant, at 16MP and with their slower AF, compared to, say, an 18mp SL1 at $500, a 24mp Sony A6000 at $650, or a 24mp Sony A7 at $1350.
I still love mine, and have all intents to get a rumored 24mp body, and recently preferred my Fuji X-E1 files to my 5D2 files on a particular assignment. But the $1200 APS-C price bracket made a lot more sense in the context of when the X-E1 was released, and a lot less so a few years on.
p.1 #13 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Do we know if ACR 8.1 turns x-trans images to mush, similar to early versions of ACR? You can see a nice example of this mid-way down the page in this DPREVIEW review:
p.1 #14 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Good comparison but not that surprising - Canon's 70-200 f/4 IS is one of their most sharpest zooms, so the 55-200 is facing some very stiff competition.
^ Galenapass I agree ACR doesn't handle X-Trans super-nice, but it doesn't account for the IQ drop we see here: that's pure optics.
Another conclusion I get out of this is that Fuji's gear is a bit overpriced these days when scanning the competition, particularly the bodies. An X-E2 at $850, or X-T1 at $1200 feels a little extravagant, at 16MP and with their slower AF, compared to, say, an 18mp SL1 at $500, a 24mp Sony A6000 at $650, or a 24mp Sony A7 at $1350
I guess it depends what you're looking for. I don't think any of those are weather-sealed except the A7. SL1 is still using Canon's ancient APS-C sensor. And, Fuji's native lineup spanks Sony's. Taken in that context, the XT1 looks a bit more personable.
And really, I think that's what Fuji's targeting - their lens lineup and prices are a bit above normal too - but so are the build quality and optics (generally).
p.1 #15 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
I guess my point is that what we are seeing is NOT pure optics, it is optics and the use of the wrong raw converter. I'd like to see ACR, as a confounding variable, removed from the comparison.
p.1 #16 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
galenapass wrote:
I guess my point is that what we are seeing is NOT pure optics, it is optics and the use of the wrong raw converter. I'd like to see ACR, as a confounding variable, removed from the comparison.
Fair enough, but I'd argue ACR's 'mistreatment' of X-trans doesn't resemble this at all, and it's typically only found in fine foliage.
What I'm seeing is just pure optical mush, relatively speaking, compared to the 70-200. That's not ACR doing that.
And, in fact, ACR's 'water-color' can be almost eliminated if you just sharpen with a plugin - the conversion from ACR still looks pretty good with 0 sharpening from ACR itself (from what I've seen).
p.1 #17 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
jcolwell wrote:
OTOH, I expect the pending Fujinon XF 50-140/2.8 OIS WR lens will have very excellent IQ, but it'll probably be noticeably bigger and heavier than my EF 70-200/4L IS, and not quite as super fantastic as my EF 70-200/2.8L IS II.
There is no spoon.
Actually I expect the 50-140/2.8 to be slightly smaller than a 70-200/4, or the same size at the upper end. You've got essentially the same physical aperture size (a 140/2.8 is the same physical aperture as a 210/4) and a shorter lens length and those are the controlling aspects for telephoto lenses (with wides it's coverage, which drives up lens size rapidly).
p.1 #18 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
I'll be the one to say it: you have a bum 55-200. While I'm not sure it would beat the 70-200/4L, My 55-200 is significantly sharper than these crops at the long end.
p.1 #19 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
More to the point, here's a shot at 200mm, focused near infinity (the building is probably 1/2 a mile away), wide open. This is a link to the full image, so click to view.
p.1 #20 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Hi Jordan, Thanks for posting the link to the detailed building shot. It looks about the same as I expect my 55-200 OIS would, and not as sharp as my 70-200/4L IS would. Of course, the only way to be certain is to shoot the same subject with the same lens at the same time (more or less).
.