FUJI 70-300 vs Fuji 55-200 | Image quality comparison
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 07. 2024
- FUJIFILM 70-300 VS FUJIFILM 55-200, Image quality and autofocus comparison straight up with no bull. I compare the images of both lenses side by side and take a look at autofocus speed. It's a very interesting comparison of two very popular lenses. Did Fuji just replace this long time lens in their lineup? Take a look at this video and decide for yourself In this episode I look at how these lenses compare in image quality at 70, 100, 200, and then 300mm with the 70-300. I was surprised at how good it is.
PLEASE HELP MY CHANNEL OUT BY USING THE LINKS BELOW
Amazon link
FUJIFILM XF 70-300 F4-5.6 - amzn.to/3bTnDW7
Adorama link
FUJIFILM XF 70-300 F4-5.6 - adorama.rfvk.net/gbPVmA
WEBSITES - capeannphototours.com, krwphoto.com
WORKSHOPS - capeannphototours.com/photogr...
PHOTO BLOGS - capeannphototours.com/photo-b...
www.krwphoto.com/blog
LUPINE AND WATERFALL WORKSHOP - capeannphototours.com/lupine-...
MAINE LIGHTHOUSE TOUR WITH Bill Fortney - capeannphototours.com/maine-l...
INSTAGRAM: Cape Ann Photo Tours / capeannphototours
KR Williamson Photography - / krwilliamsonphoto
AMAZON LINKS FOR GEAR I USE EVERYDAY
Fujifilm X-H1 - amzn.to/3uQdAJR
Fujifilm X-T3 - amzn.to/3uLaiaX
Fujifilm X-T30 - amzn.to/3e24XWE
Fujifilm XF 10-24 f4 OIS - amzn.to/3uMGLxz
Fujifilm XF 16-80 f4 OIS WR - amzn.to/3bWjG2D
Fujifilm XF 55-200 f3.5/4.8 OIS - amzn.to/3uLgTlC
Fujifilm XF 100-400 f4.5/5.6 OIS WR - amzn.to/3b9UMO1
Fujifilm X-T3 & XF 16-80 Bundle - amzn.to/3kAvTOG
Fujifilm prime lenses
Fujifilm XF 16 f1.4 R WR - amzn.to/307Tw7C
Fujifilm XF 23 f2.0 R WR - amzn.to/3sJ7Fok
Fujifilm XF 90 f2.0 LM WR - amzn.to/2NTwfE5
Backpack and tripod gear
Lowepro Flipside 400 AW - amzn.to/3r9VwZ5
Feisol CT 3401 - amzn.to/3075QoU
Feisol CB 40D ballhead - amzn.to/3r9We8H
Neweer Leveling base - amzn.to/3860fDI
Video Gear
Fuji X-H1 - amzn.to/3uQdAJR
Canon M50 - amzn.to/2NYrSaJ
DJI Osmo pocket - amzn.to/2NNXIqS
Benro Slim tripod - amzn.to/3bUQsBl
Fujifilm X-S10 - amzn.to/3dZBGvJ
Fujifilm X-S10 w/XF 16-80 bundle - amzn.to/3e1ywYp
#fujifilmxf55200 #fujiimxf70300 #fujifilm
THIS VIDEO IS NOT SPONSORED BY FUJIFILM - Jak na to + styl
Thanks a lot for the review Kirk. Very well done. It has helped me a lot with deciding what lens to pick up next.
The new 70-300 is absolutely superb and just as sharp as the 55-200.
Thanks for this Kirk . Great stuff . Look forward to seeing some images with the 1.4 teleconverter on the 70-300mm .
Dale, the next video will have some examples with the 1.4 on the 100-400 and the 70-300
Thanks for taking the time Kirk, nice comparison, for now I’m ok with the 55-200 and the 100-400. I’m looking forward to your next video. Stay safe.
Thanks Enrique it’s a very nice lens. We shall see how it stacks up with the 100-400.
Awesome comparison Kirk! Hoping you do more of these in the future.
Thanks Andrew! Next up is the comparison with the 100-400 on Thursday.
I'm pretty excited because I will finally receive my copy tomorrow. Thanks for the review.
I know you will like it, so far great lens.
Great comparison Kirk. Looking forward to seeing your review with this lens for sports photography. Looks a promising lens, be interesting to see how fast and how it copes with moving subjects.
looking forward to it as well. first impressions were nice if you are not zooming
Good comparison Kirk, I'm glad the 70-300 is coming up as a good choice. I've had it on order since it came out and I look forward to getting it on my camera for some playtime!
Thanks Old Gal you will love it.
Hi Kirk. I guess it's hard to improve on a great lens but they seem to have done it with the 70-300. I just got hold of the 55-200 a couple of weeks back to go with my 16-80 and XT2. It's a great setup for me. Keep em coming 😎
Thanks Drew, More to come. Enjoy the 55-200 its a beautiful lens.
Thanks for the comparison. I was expecting more difference of sharpness on long end but they are very close.
Yes very close. At 300 it's very sharp which I thought it would be more like the 55-200 which is kind of soft in the corners at 200.
Thanks for the nice comparison!
Thanks!
Very helpful Kirk. I've kept the 70-300mm on my X-T3 since I got it. I set up a tripod yesterday and started comparing my 100-400mm to it. Tried a few shots at 100/200/300mm with both but my scene needs more contrast and edges so will keep at it.I look forward to your results. I hope to try the 70-300mm with the 1.4tc and compare it to the 100-400mm at 400mm too. Looking to get back up to Rockport/Gloucester in the next few weeks also. As always, this was really helpful.
Bill, I have been testing it and so far I see no difference between them. Amazing!
Thanks for the nteresting comparisons Kirk. Although the 70-300 looks awesome, I've decided to stay with my 55-300 and 100-400, as I can't justify the expense of making the change. The 55-200 lens performs extremely well in its own right.
Hi Richard, Yes I agree. If it were not for the extra reach and the 1.4 x ability I would stick with the 55-200. This lens is sharper than the 55-200 at it's longest focal length. The 55-200 is a little off in the corners at 200 (no big deal really) but the 70-300 is nice and sharp wide open at 300.
Lovely scene, nicely captured.
Thanks for the update!
You bet!
Thanks a lot Kirk!! I think the 70-300 is a great alternative to the 55-200, considering weather sealing, reach and image quality. Now I'll wait for the comparison to the 100-400. See you next week.
Im actually shooting two football games this weekend so both lenses are going to get a real workout!
I recently found your channel - very informative & well presented videos. I hear the 55-200 is good for infrared photography - wondering if the 70-300, which I’ve pre-ordered, will also be good for infrared photography. Any insight would be appreciated.
I’m not sure about this but since the colors are nice and the lens is nice and sharp the results should be the same as the 55-200
I was so torn on this. I was fairly confident I would buy the 70-300, but I plan on using it for landscapes and figured 70 on the wide end would feel restrictive. So I ended up buying a used copy of the 55-200 and saved $400.
Honestly you will love the lens. For me my two main lenses now will be the 16-80 and the 70-300 for landscapes oh and the 10-24. Three lenses, and xt3 and xt30 for landscape hiking.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography yeah, I'm eyeing the 10-24 as well.
Appreciate your channel!
Many thanks! 🙏
Bravo! Your review are so relevant for us Fuji fans! I hope you do a comparison between the 70-300 vs. the 50-140 with the 1.4X teleconverter.
Thanks Bill! I’ll have to think about that one. Maybe as part of my review with the 1.4 TC
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Sure thing! At first blush it may seem not to make much sense but doesn't the 50-140mm with the 1.4 teleconverter come close to the 300mm of the 70-300mm? The reason I ask is on DPreview counseled me to just keep on with my 50-140mm/1.4 teleconverter vs. the 70-300mm. As always, I look forward to any of your videos!
The 50-140 with the 1.4TC is a 292 mm in FF terms the 70-300 is 400 at the long end without the TC. Now the 50-140 with the TC is a superb sports lens but for me it is still kind of short. I use the 100-400 for daytime field sports the 70-300 has proved to be a non starter at least for football. The work around for it is to set the lens on a focal length and shoot in continuous AF and it will work brilliantly you just can’t zoom with it.
hey kirk great and informative comparison! in your last video you examined that with the 70-300 the autofocus went all over the place if you zoom. do you know if the 55-200 has the same problem? this would be the deciding factor for me to get the 55-200, since I would primarily shoot sports with it. thanks already for your help and have a great weekend :)
I’ll check into it further and let you know. I used the 55-200 for sports a couple of years ago and it seemed ok but I don’t remember if it had the same issue. I shot football today with the 100-400 and there is no comparison the 100-400 is so smooth continuous focusing while zooming and the 70-300 is all over the place. It’s fine if you leave it on one focal length and follow the play on continuous AF. It’s actually really good in that regard.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography thanks a lot for your fast answer. if you could look into it that would be really great and help me out a lot. i also looked at the 50-140 as a more high end option, since i don't need the range of the 400mm and can also make use of the 50mm (i do athletics and want to photograph and film my friends so i'm directly on the field). but if the 55-200 doesn't have the "zoom-focus" problem i'll probably go for it...
Thanks for the comparison Kirk. I mentioned on your previous video that I felt the 70-300 exhibited some of the best micro contrast I’ve seen in a zoom lens and, maybe it’s just me, but your image samples do seem to show slightly more contrast in the 70-300 images than the 55-200. Would you agree?
Yes absolutely!
You have saved my money😂 I thought it will be a huge different from newer 70-300
Thanks for the great review. I'm looking to choose one or the other for travel up to Alaska on the inside passage. Lots of beautiful scenery and whales as well. Did you ever decide which of these lenses to keep?
Barry right now I have both but will be selling the 55-200. The 70-300 is just as sharp but is weather resistant and has way more reach
For Alaska I'd definitely recommend the extra reach of the 70-300mm. I took a Canon 70-300mm on full frame (so same FL as the 55-200mm) and I had to do a ton of cropping. WR is another bonus.
Great review Kirk!!! Do you think owning both the 70-300 and the 100-400mm lenses together has any reason to do do?
Let’s put it this way. It depends on what you are going to use them for. I shoot sports once or twice a week and the 100-400 is head and shoulders above the 70-300. As it should be be for $1900 compared to $800. The 70-300 is a great replacement for the 55-200 for landscape and travel but it’s not really a sports lens. I will keep both and sell the 55-200. No way I’m hiking or traveling with the 100-400. But I will with the 70-300.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thank you Kirk for your advice and yes there is some logic there to own both lenses then!😁👍
Thanks for this comparison. I have the 55-200 and have loved it. But that extra 100mm reach would be nice. How much heavier is the 70-300 over the 55-200?
Geoff you will love this ... wait for it ... almost exactly the same!!! A little more plastic somewhere in the 70-300. But the build quality is top notch.
The Colors Are BETTER Represented, W/The 55-200mm, IMO. But The Extra A 100mm Is Hard To Beat W/The 70-300mm. Kirk, Truly Appreciate This Vid'!
Not sure there is much difference. But that is just me.
Hi! I do have a question about lower light photography. Does the 3.5 vs 4.8 make a big difference between these two lenses (given that the 300-700 is newer and has other features to improve light etc). I often take pictures in lower light situations and want to know what's the best choice due to the difference in aperture. Thank you!
The 55-200 and the 70-300 are not good at low light photography. They are variable aperture lenses and at the long end 55-200 f4.8 and the 70-300 f5.6 are pretty slow. The 55-200 is very marginally faster in low light but the 70-300 is a much better lens in many ways. For low light photography the 90 f2 is a much better choice for telephoto shots.
Nice.
Considering the compression and rendering by CZcams, I would wait for 70-300 MK.II.
Sundar - trust me they are as sharp as the 55-200 the CZcams compression does not do it justice.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography ... I understand. Videos with both the images under go the same compression at the same time, I believe. Thank you so much for the assurance. Lol.
Great video kirk
Thanks Steve!
Having such a tough time considering to sell the 55-200 for the 70 -300. I will be traveling soon with only three lenses. And there will be a jump in focal length from 35 to 70. But the quality and option for teleconverter make it such a fantastic option.. headaches.. thanks for the videos on this lens!
For me this is a no brainer because I don't use the 35-70 focal range that much. But I have the 16-80 in case I do. I travel with the 10-24, 16-80, and now the 70-300.
I sold my 55-200 back in January as soon as the 70-300 was announced and having had the latter for the past 3 weeks I can honestly say I believe I made the right decision. As the video shows, sharpness is fairly similar but beyond 140/150mm on the 55-200 the 70-300 absolutely smokes it. The added 100mm on the longer end was a no brainier for me. As with Kirk I also have the 16-80 but I don’t use that range all that much. You could perhaps add the 50mm f2 to your setup and that would fill that gap for you somewhat and it’s just a downright super lens.
@@garethmcfarland7244 thanks for the answer! I have the 10-24 and the 35 f2 and i don’t want to take to many lenses traveling. I do love the fuji f2 primes though! I guess I have some time to consider. Thanks for helping out!
Oscar that 50 f2 is on my list it’s a beautiful little lens.
Thank you for the comparison! 55-200 feels ok when stopped down even on long end, but what about full open picture quality compare? Have you looked at it too? Thank you, take care!
The image quality is top notch wide open for the 70-300! I never had an issue with the 55-200 wide open either
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography ok thanks! Btw just now we are watching movie “Proposal” that was shot in “your” test harbour, even sandra bullock drove around that red building :). I stopped it and showed your video to my wife...we agreed you have such a wonderfull place to live and shoot!
Thank you Kirk, I love this channel.
I'm going to buy my first telephoto lens and I think I'll go with the 70/300!
It’s a great lens for the price. No other camera companies come close.
It would be helpful to know what aperture was used when each shot was taken, as stopping down normally improves the image (up to a point.) Oops, now you tell me 5 minutes in :')
Kirk my friend..... thanks for the video!!! You are one of my references..... I have used your tips and comment to improve my videos.... all of them using fuji xt4.... our channel is
PITUS PELO MUNDO
we are from Brazil!!!!
Best regards
Thanks Jeison!
Hello, Kirk!
Thank you for the story. I have a question ...
1. - Which lens gives the best resolution in 200mm at the corners of the frame?
2. - The 55-200 uses a super ED-lens, an analogue of a "fluorent" lens (1pcs Super-ED аpochromatic and 1-ED )
And 70-300 only 2pcs - ED. The 55-200 CA (Chromatic Aberration) is very well controlled to center and does not result in obvious fringing In practice..
Value "CA" 70-300 should be higher on contrasting transitions, especially in the corners ?
But as in fact , at 200 mm , I did not see , since I have not yet bought this miracle ...
As you know, the 55-200 uses an internal software distortion correction, this is clearly seen if you use the RAW-converter (Capture1) with the setting turned off, and the frame resolution immediately improves. So I think, is the lens 70-300 the same internal correction or not ? Where will the CA-level be lower?
Many Thanks!
I’m not much of a pixel peeper but the 70-300 is nice and sharp in the corners at 200.
I have both - the macro mode of the 70-300mm is a winner for me. I do find sharply capturing birds in flight out further than 200mm to be very difficult (with both lenses) - but if the birds or objects are staying still, then the extra range and macro mode is great. And the lens does not creep out when you have the camera swinging around as you carry. Final thing - it is super quiet and LIGHT weight. But for birds in flight I think I'm going to stick with the 50-140mm where I can a) find the bird quickly and b) get a HIGH shutter speed due to wide aperture. I don't own the 100 to 400 which I guess is specialised for birding. This may be my limited technique of course. Will be interested Kirk in whether you find you can get sharp shots of the wings flapping on birds in flight with the 70-300mm above 200mm
I should be going out on a bird expedition soon so I will let you know how it goes.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography How did the bird capturing go ?
I agree. For a trip out to capture "nature" (as opposed to landscapes), it's a one-lens solution, for everything from wildlife to plants, fungi and even insects. In fact with the 70-300 and my trusty little 14mm prime, I'm pretty much sorted for a day out for everything.
70-300 all the way. Can you do some test with the 1.4xTC? Thanks Kirk!
Yup been shooting some with it mostly looking for birds and it seems to be doing quite well image and single AF wise. It’s not the 100-400 in the Continuous AF area.
Software is going to correct the imperfections of the 55-200 for most users. Capture One Pro can correct those. It all depends on what you want the lens for. For me, both lenses are probably not on my wishlist, but, both would be worth a look for anyone wanting to shoot wildlife/sports. XF 18-135 is probably next on my list, but, we shall see.
Unfortunately the 18-135 has been dumped on so much and friends have had awful experiences with the lens that I never even considered it. For me both these lenses are superb.
I was shocked at the macro capabilities of the 70-300!
Dick I have been shooting some as well and really like it.
That clinches it for me. 70-300 is in my future.
Jaime I think you will enjoy it.
Got a used copy of the 55-200 for a bargain 290€, really happy with the choice.
It's a great lens! At that price you can't beat it.
The 70-300 is on Fujifilm's list of lenses optimised for the new 40Mp sensor, but the 55-200 isn't. The fact that they performed so similarly in your test tells me either: a) you were at the limit of the 26 Mp sensor's ability to resolve detail, or b) Fujifilm's list is BS! Would be interesting to repeat the test on, say, the X-T5.
I've not had the 55-200 but I've just bought the 70-300 as an upgrade to the XC50-230. The difference is night and day, even though the 50-230 is regarded as a "hidden gem" in terms of sharpness. I mainly got it for the extra reach, but the performance overall is so much better. I'm delighted.
The 70-300 is a magnificent lens for the money. I’m selling my exceptional 55-200 as I no longer use it. I have not tried it on my xt5 yet but I’m betting that it is also exceptional except for minor edge softness.
So do I sell my 550-200 and get the 70-300,, I want the 70-300 but I not rich ( I'm from Lynn ) so would the be any reason to have both ? I have the 10-24 , 16-80. 18- 55 and the 55-200 also a Viltrox 23 f1.4 and a ttartisan 50mm f1.2 !! love your channel !!
Hi Mike glad to see you are North Shore local. I would sell your 55-200. If it’s in great shape you could get about $400 or more for it. So at least it will make the cost less. Hunts will give you much less for it so try to sell it privately if you can.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thanks Kirk, I am retired in Florida now. Love your channel keep up the great work, you have a nice comfortable way about you making it a pleasure to watch !!
Hello!! The Xf 70-300 which parts are made of plastic? Can You Show? Please. Thanks!!!
Hi Ali, I have no idea which parts are plastic and which parts are metal.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thanks dude!!!
Images look as they were sharpened, so the picture looks "artificial", especially at 300mm ? I like lenses that does not require sharpening. One such lens, that I have, is Zeiss Distagon 135mm F/2. You can turn off sharpening and noise reduction, and it gives very natural looking pictures. With Fuji lenses, I remember, I forgot to turn on sharpening for 50mm F/2 lens, when I was looking at the pictures, I thought, I probably put the camera in manual focus accidentally, pictures were so blurry...Then I turned on sharpening, and it was OK (just OK, not spectacular).
The images are raw straight out of the camera. I’ll have to check and see if sharpening is set at the normal +40 inside LR
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Most likely. Try setting it to 0 in LR
The 70-300 is alot more expensive.. so we are paying for that extra reach and weather resistance.. and not really image quality 😁
And a nice barrel lock to keep the lens from creeping. The extra reach is a very nice tool at the loss at the short end.
Not really happy with the quality.
I think it’s on par with the 55-200.