p.2 #1 · Advice on telephoto lens for my XT 5 please!
My 55-200 was overall a "meh" performer. Pretty good stopped down one up to about 150mm, then went marginal -- usable, just not great. At the time I had the 50-140 and it was so much better I actually carried it when traveling. But it was also so heavy I only carried it on days I thought I might want it, so it spent a lot of time in the car and not in my bag when it might have been useful.
In my case the 70-300 actually replaced both. Yes I occasionally miss the f2.8 performance of the 50-140's range at times, but in the end it wasn't worth its weight to me. My 55-200 was about as good stopped down one from 55-150 as the 70-300 is wide open, but way better after 150. Plus the 70-300 is a much better all-around tele-zoom for me, covering a more useful range basically at the same size and weight as the 55-200. Also FWIW, my copy is really good wide open, which is how I shoot with it most of the time...
p.2 #2 · Advice on telephoto lens for my XT 5 please!
Jack Flesher wrote:
My 55-200 was overall a "meh" performer. Pretty good stopped down one up to about 150mm, then went marginal -- usable, just not great. At the time I had the 50-140 and it was so much better I actually carried it when traveling. But it was also so heavy I only carried it on days I thought I might want it, so it spent a lot of time in the car and not in my bag when it might have been useful.
In my case the 70-300 actually replaced both. Yes I occasionally miss the f2.8 performance of the 50-140's range at times, but in the end it wasn't worth its weight to me. My 55-200 was about as good stopped down one from 55-150 as the 70-300 is wide open, but way better after 150. Plus the 70-300 is a much better all-around tele-zoom for me, covering a more useful range basically at the same size and weight as the 55-200. Also FWIW, my copy is really good wide open, which is how I shoot with it most of the time... ...Show more →
The 55-200 certainly softens up a bit at the longest end, but then you have to put a x1.4 TC on the 50-140 to get to 200, and then it'sonly half a stop faster. Mine is OK thankfully, and is as good as my old 80-200 2.8 for Nikon at shared apertures . If I run out of light I use the 90 which crops very well indeed. I keep getting tempted by the 70-300 as it certainly would be better at the top end, but the 55-200 is an old friend! In general use I rarely wish for longer and 55 at the short end is more useful than 70
p.2 #3 · Advice on telephoto lens for my XT 5 please!
gyoung143 wrote:
The 55-200 certainly softens up a bit at the longest end, but then you have to put a x1.4 TC on the 50-140 to get to 200, and then it'sonly half a stop faster. Mine is OK thankfully, and is as good as my old 80-200 2.8 for Nikon at shared apertures . If I run out of light I use the 90 which crops very well indeed. I keep getting tempted by the 70-300 as it certainly would be better at the top end, but the 55-200 is an old friend! In general use I rarely wish for longer and 55 at the short end is more useful than 70
My advice is to buy and try the 70-300 -- they show up here regularly in the B&S for reasonable. Once you do I suspect you might let the beloved 55-200 go
p.2 #4 · Advice on telephoto lens for my XT 5 please!
Jack Flesher wrote:
My 55-200 was overall a "meh" performer. Pretty good stopped down one up to about 150mm, then went marginal -- usable, just not great. At the time I had the 50-140 and it was so much better I actually carried it when traveling. But it was also so heavy I only carried it on days I thought I might want it, so it spent a lot of time in the car and not in my bag when it might have been useful.
In my case the 70-300 actually replaced both. Yes I occasionally miss the f2.8 performance of the 50-140's range at times, but in the end it wasn't worth its weight to me. My 55-200 was about as good stopped down one from 55-150 as the 70-300 is wide open, but way better after 150. Plus the 70-300 is a much better all-around tele-zoom for me, covering a more useful range basically at the same size and weight as the 55-200. Also FWIW, my copy is really good wide open, which is how I shoot with it most of the time... ...Show more →
Jack, your experience with the 55-200 pretty much matches mine. I never got a photo that I was really happy with at the long end. I second the advice to get 70-300. Its very capable wide open at all focal lengths. It can focus very close too.
p.2 #5 · Advice on telephoto lens for my XT 5 please!
The 70-300 gets you a lot of flexibility with some limitations. I like mine and for lightweight “reach” and good optical performance it’s a heck of a lens.
But I’m with G Dan on this one and can also heartily recommend the 50-140. It is one of my favorite lenses for the beauty of its rendering, F / 2.8 constant aperture, and sharpness across the frame and across the range. I think for fall colors, the 50-140 would be spectacular for selective focus, very usable FOV range. And even combined with the 1.4x you still have a relatively fast lens. It is one of my absolute favorite lenses. I pretty much only reach for the 70-300 when there’s lots of light and I need max reach.
p.2 #6 · Advice on telephoto lens for my XT 5 please!
Rand47 wrote:
The 70-300 gets you a lot of flexibility with some limitations. I like mine and for lightweight “reach” and good optical performance it’s a heck of a lens.
But I’m with G Dan on this one and can also heartily recommend the 50-140. It is one of my favorite lenses for the beauty of its rendering, F / 2.8 constant aperture, and sharpness across the frame and across the range. I think for fall colors, the 50-140 would be spectacular for selective focus, very usable FOV range. And even combined with the 1.4x you still have a relatively fast lens. It is one of my absolute favorite lenses. I pretty much only reach for the 70-300 when there’s lots of light and I need max reach.
I remember when I first took mine out into the field after I received it. I wasn't sure what to expect, and having a later model of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS... I was honestly shocked by how well it performed.
p.2 #8 · Advice on telephoto lens for my XT 5 please!
SGinNorcal wrote:
I'd love to see the 50-140 put on the same diet as the 16-55 MkII.
Lighter with the same or better performance is always a good thing, but I wonder how much room there is for that with this lens. My point of comparison is my older (and sold) Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, which had comparable functionality on the FF system. It is quite a bit larger and heavier than the Fujifilm lens. That latter is more like the f/4 verson of the 70-200mm lens.
Again, not that minimizing weight and bulk is a bad thing, I just wonder how much room there is to do that.
On the other hand, Fujifilm, please rethink that comically larger foot on the lens! (I replaced mine with a much smaller and equally secure third-party product.)
Aug 27, 2025 at 08:49 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Advice on telephoto lens for my XT 5 please!
gdanmitchell wrote:
Lighter with the same or better performance is always a good thing, but I wonder how much room there is for that with this lens. My point of comparison is my older (and sold) Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, which had comparable functionality on the FF system. It is quite a bit larger and heavier than the Fujifilm lens. That latter is more like the f/4 verson of the 70-200mm lens.
Again, not that minimizing weight and bulk is a bad thing, I just wonder how much room there is to do that.
On the other hand, Fujifilm, please rethink that comically larger foot on the lens! (I replaced mine with a much smaller and equally secure third-party product.)...Show more →
There should be lots of room to make this lens lighter. The entrance pupil (how big the opening is for the light) at wide open aperture is 50mm. The entrance pupil for a 70-200 f/4 lens is 50mm. That is an important design spec as it is very important in determining the diameter of the lens. The entrance pupil for a 70-200 f/2.8 is 71mm, so isn't really a relevant comparison at all. Of course that lens should be bigger. This lens even though it has an f/2.8 aperture should have a diameter similar to a 70-200 f/4--not a 70-200 f/2.8--FF 35mm lens, and because the actual focal length is shorter it should be able to be shorter than a 70-200 f/4 FF lens. So Fuji should be able to make this lens with the diameter of the 70-200 f/4 lens, but with a shorter length. It should be lighter than a 70-200 f/4 lens and unfortunately it is heavier. Here are the relevant comparisons:
Fuji 50-140 - 995g
Sony 70-200 f/4 macro (and with such a short focus distance that usually adds weight) - 794g
Canon RF 70-200 f/4 - 695g
Nikon doesn't have a Z mount 70-200 f/4 , yet anyway
So, if Sony and Canon can make a lens with the same size hole to let in light, but with a longer physical length 200 and 300 grams respectively lighter, than I think Fuji could do quite a bit lower the weight of this lens. I think a mk II on a diet is definitely in order for this lens.
