p.2 #1 · 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.
mawz wrote:
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.2 #2 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
I completely agree. your copy of the 55-200OIS isn't where it ought to be. The one I had was super sharp throughout it's entire range including the long end. I'd say you have a bad copy for sure as the one I had NEVER looked like yours in these samples.
p.2 #3 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
70-200 f4 IS is a very highly regarded lense generally considered to be the sharpest of the original set of four 70-200L lenses that Canon used to offer. And it is a FF lens which in this case is mounted on an APS-C sensor further hiding any corner weakness. And it is about twice the price of the Fuji. Given all that, it should work better than the Fuji - it would be rather disappointing if it didn't.
It is a very convoluted price comparison where you are comparing the price of the XE-2 kit including the 18-55mm to some deal you got on the SL1. XE-2 body costs about $850 new these days and SL1 body-only is currently $500 after a $100 rebate. So about a $350 different even after rebate, unlike the $800 difference that you are implying. And there are other bodies in the X-system like X-A1 and X-M1 which are cheaper than the SL1.
There is no doubt in my mind that SL1 + 70-200f4L can offer higher quality than FujiX+55-200mm but I think you have skewed the comparison a bit too much here.
p.2 #5 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
cputeq wrote:
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).
Wow, I guess I would not be so sure as you are. I thought long and hard before buying Fuji mainly because the test shots on DPreview were so terrible. I even posted that issue here in this forum, and then someone suggested downloading the raws and using a different converter. It was like night and day.
I can say for sure that ACR 8.4 does a good job with detail - but still has awful water color effects (even with sharpening turned off) - however early versions of ACR turned everything to mush, not just the foliage.
The question I have - does 8.1 still have this issue?
p.2 #6 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Regarding RAW files and Fuji, once you've used a E-X2 or X-T1 and post processed with either PhotoNinja by Picturecode or even the free LightZone, you won't TOUCH an Adobe product to process a RAW image.....yeah it's THAT big a difference. Once you're in Jpeg go for Lightroom no worries, but get it right in those others FIRST and you won't look back. it's like night and day.
p.2 #7 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
curious80 wrote:
70-200 f4 IS is a very highly regarded lense generally considered to be the sharpest of the original set of four 70-200L lenses that Canon used to offer. And it is a FF lens which in this case is mounted on an APS-C sensor further hiding any corner weakness. And it is about twice the price of the Fuji. Given all that, it should work better than the Fuji - it would be rather disappointing if it didn't.
True, but the problem is that for practical reasons, that is what we have to compare. If I am traveling and want a light kit, I'd pay for something better than the 55-200, but, there is no other Fuji option. So I can see and appreciate what Jim is doing here.
Best comparison probably would have been both lenses at f/4 with the 70-200 on and x-trans with an adapter. Since we don't have any smart adapters, this is a tough comparison to make and limits the f stop setting on the 70-200.
Having said that, and having owned the 70-200 for about 5 years now, I think the results would still come out similar to what Jim has showed though I am not yet convinced that the choice of converter is not playing some small role.
p.2 #8 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
curious80 wrote:
It is a very convoluted price comparison where you are comparing the price of the XE-2 kit including the 18-55mm to some deal you got on the SL1....
No, it was simply a mistake. I forgot that it included the 18-55 OIS.
So, the X-E2 is only twice as expensive as the SL1.
p.2 #9 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
galenapass wrote:
True, but the problem is that for practical reasons, that is what we have to compare. If I am traveling and want a light kit, I'd pay for something better than the 55-200, but, there is no other Fuji option. So I can see and appreciate what Jim is doing here.
Best comparison probably would have been both lenses at f/4 with the 70-200 on and x-trans with an adapter. Since we don't have any smart adapters, this is a tough comparison to make and limits the f stop setting on the 70-200.
Having said that, and having owned the 70-200 for about 5 years now, I think the results would still come out similar to what Jim has showed though I am not yet convinced that the choice of converter is not playing some small role. ...Show more →
Sure, it is obviously clear that Fuji is far from being a full-fledged system. The range of lenses and accessories available in DLSR systems is far more than any mirrorless system and people choosing these systems are well aware of this limitation. I think the fact that Fuji has a $700 telephoto zoom which can be compared to 70-200f4L at all is commendable. Look at systems like NEX, EOS-M, Samsung which all have only cheap consumer zooms. The 35-100 in the m43 is the only other high quality zoom lens in the mirrorless world and it is not as long and is also much more expensive.
p.2 #11 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
There seems to be something amiss with your 55-200. The images look nothing like what i got with a copy i borrowed from Fuji Canada for several months. The copy i used was frighteningly sharp.
p.2 #12 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
I would say the my XF 55-200 OIS performed about the same as Jim's copy. Very good, but certainly not the equal of the Canon.
After picking up an SL1 and the 18-55 IS STM, I'm really curious to see how the 55-250 IS STM performs... Canon seems to be really delivering the goods with these new low-cost lenses.
p.2 #13 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
jcolwell wrote:
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).
I'm kind of confused by that statement because the crops you have presented show your copy to be significantly softer than the building example I posted. I know it's not side by side, but you can see in my building shot, the majority of the frame is quite sharp...in your crops at 200mm, they look downright blurry.
p.2 #15 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Jman13 wrote:
I'm kind of confused by that statement because the crops you have presented show your copy to be significantly softer than the building example I posted. I know it's not side by side, but you can see in my building shot, the majority of the frame is quite sharp...in your crops at 200mm, they look downright blurry.
I guess maybe it's more that I would fully expect the 70-200/4L IS to take a sharper image of that building (based on my experience with the lens). Maybe my 55-200 OIS would be worse than yours, even probably. Yet the 70-200/4L IS would be better.
p.2 #17 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
Hi Mike. I don't think it's decentred. I used a total of 25 evaluation points and the trends are pretty consistent; up/down, left/right.
I plan to post the original images on my site for download by anybody with sufficient interest, but that'll have to wait. I'm off to Utah tomorrow for a week of silent meditation.
I think I'll also try to beg or borrow a second 55-200 OIS later this summer, just for giggles.
p.2 #18 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
jcolwell wrote:
X-E2 = $850
SL1 = $395
difference = $455
X-E2 is 115% more expensive than SL1.
I use the X-E2 and SL1, so I put my XF 35/1.4 on the X-E2, the SL1 is for teh 70-200/4L IS.
P.S. the EF-S mount Sigma 30/1.4 isn't much bigger than teh XF 35/1.4 R.
Comparing a special deal you got on the SL1 with the regular price of the X-E2 makes no sense. If you want to do that then you should also include the various deals Fuji has offered on its cameras / lenses in the past and then compare to that. The current price of SL1 even with the current rebate is $500. Anyways, I don't think there is any need to drag this argument any further
p.2 #19 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
My copy of the 55-200 was much the same as Jim's. It's certainly possible that I also had a dud but it was a huge dissapointment. A 45-200 Panasonic zoom on a GH2 was better, and that's a dead average lens. I even purchased Irident to make sure it wasn't LR's fault but the results were much the same (no real foliage shots). I also had a NEX7 and 55-210 at the time and that was significantly better than the Fuji combo. I was really surprised but didn't persue it as I had decided by then Fuji wasn't for me.
Based on what I've seen since I sold mine, I suspect, that there's some real sample variation with this lens. SOme are great but more than a few are like mine and this one.
p.2 #20 · X-E2 + XF 55-200 OIS vs SL1 + EF 70-200/4L IS
I like my Fuji 55-200 IOS but it's not comparable to the stellar Canon 70-200/4L IS. The Fuji lens still quite good and mine is not as soft as jcowell's lens.
The X-T1 with the 55-200 is maybe comparable to something like a 6D with 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS (quite good optically). Lenses have similar weight, cost about as much, same FOV on these bodies, one is a bit slower but FF 6D irons that out. The Fuji is better built and I think it performs slightly better and is smaller. I'd rather have the Fuji combo myself. I've had the 6D and 70-200/4 IS and it's a great (but large and heavy) combo.
, and unfortunately the SL1 doesn't let you mount a compact 35mm 1.4 on it either