Angry Photographer: FUJI’s BEST & Must Own Telephoto Lens, Review & Overlook

Angry Photographer: FUJI’s BEST & Must Own Telephoto Lens, Review & Overlook


Tuấn Ngọc Vũ says:

Hi bro! does this lens good enough for action scene like sport? (like soccer), i plan to use it on the x-t2 body? BTW thanks for your videos!

Eric Gilbert says:

Dear Ken your the best Pro Gear reviewer on U Tube, an interesting individual. An obvious non conformist. Im an Old retired pro shooter with Mega Nikon gear and many old German primes and since the XPro1 arrived I bought three Fuji bodies and 6 lenses from my own testing before finding your reviews, I was pleased to discover all the lenses I bought were identical to your tested favorites. Im sending you a thanks donation today. Look forward to more OBJECTIVE and personal thought reviews in the future. Have you done a review of the 27mm f2.8 Pancake fantastic plastic Fuji yet? it would make my XT10 pocketable.


I just got the lens..but please help..if I look through the eyepiece I don’t see a change in the zoom when I pull in and out….but if I look at the back screen..I can see a change when I go from low to 200…is there a setting that gives you a live view through the eyepiece? Thanks in advance

Deckard Shaw says:

ha, not interested in the 16…:-).

Max Archer says:

I got a 50-230 for free when I bought my X-Pro2 today. It’s better than I thought it might be, definitely a rung above Nikon’s 55-200 kit teles at least.

I’ll have to decide which tele to upgrade to later, though. I also bought the 56mm and have an 85 1.4 that I’m going to adapt, so portrait teles aren’t really an issue, but I’d eventually like something along the lines of the 70-200 I sold to fund my switch from Nikon to Fuji. Maybe a “MkII” version of the 50-140 if/when it surfaces?

steve james steve james gonzales says:

Hi! just want to know if 50-230 is good too?

Danvil says:

Can’t believe you don’t like the best kit lens ever, the 18-55mm. I think when you buy it as part of the kit, it’s an out of this world
value. Compared to my plastic Canon or Nikon it’s excellent in my opinion. I’ve read that the OIS gives you at least 3 extra stops
and I’ve been able to regularly take hand-held photos at 1/30th with excellent crispness.

On the 55-200mm, I want it and haven’t heard any knowledgeable source have anything but praise for this lens.

Gaurav Sharma says:

you talk too much, and show too less photo results. 🙂

James Mason says:

Hey Ken, thanks for this review. In Canada I can buy both the 55-200 + the 90mm for the price of the 50-140. If I want a lens for portraiture work, mostly outside with ambient light, am I better off with teh 90mm or the 50-140? BTM, I’m a Bokeh whore.

Ravi Shankar says:

How about the xc 50 230 lens for 170 bucks new?

Proper Noun says:

I’m gettin’ this over the 50 to 140 2.8
With the 55 to 200’s capabilities in conjunction with the XT 2’s cabilities I can cover 90% of what I would like to do in this focal range with this lens. If I get a long term gig then I will dish out for the 50 140 2.8 and under the assumption that the gig will pay for it, but I find the 55 to 200 more indispensable than the 50 to 140 because you can take that lens more places without your set up becoming a hulking tube of metal (as awesome and phallically compensated as that makes me feel) and I’ve looked at raw files the lens produces and they are quite pleasing. The color rendition is very clean without feeling clinically so, and sharpness is quite fine for a zoom even at 200mm. Zooms diffuse the colors and light frequencies more but Fuji’s zooms do so in a nice way. It’s kind of like how you can have a small amount of nasty noise and it’ll look worst than a larger amount of fine grain type noise. Fuji’s diffusion of light in it’s zooms is as to the fine grain version of sensor noise, but I digress since this applies to both lenses in question.

I would like to add that lenses can be sharp in several ways but two variants of sharpness come in the form of “harsh” and as I put it “fine”. Harsh sharpness has it’s time and place but you can attain that by cranking “clarity” like functions in post, as where you can’t get “fine” by turning it down. So when I say a lens has fine sharpness it means I’m comfortable with it’s rendition of details.

Paul Vasquez says:

don’t care what anyone else says, I love your reviews.

Harry Bunn says:

i use a 3 lens set up, 2 zooms and a prime, so this zoom, the 56mm as my prime, what do you recommend for my standard walk around zoom.

biggles333999 says:

Thanks for that.
I’ll look for ANOTHER of your recommendations….the Pocket Wizard then

mrz 1342 says:

Also I would like to ask you pls share those reasons u mentioned that u didn’t buy 50-140!

RLx says:

The one Lens that I’m really interested in besides the 56mm, & 35mm f2 is the 16mm. An no one else seems to want to review it except BHT, & we all know he doesn’t really go beyond the aesthetics in his reviews.
I’m Curious to know what has put you off from the 16mm 1.4?. I hear you singing the praises of the 10-24mm, so I can tell it’s a focal length you may be interested in. With that said, why is the 16mm so uninteresting to you? Thanks for all your insight BTW, I look forward to learning more about using X-T1 and vintage glass. Not much out there is the way of that infor either.

Thanks again,


Michael Russo says:

Range finders only make sense in bigger formats, like 645 to 4×5. Personal opinion of course. Long live film! 🙂

Martin Treacy says:

Another great review Ken – helping me decide to click the “Buy” button for this lens right now!

Artem Holstov says:

You should probably just remove this video, Ken) almost all your comments about other lenses in the beginning contradict your other videos.. about the 16mm, 18-135, 50-140..

Niru says:

What do you think about the XC 16-50mm ?

Geraldine Abat says:

Grabbed this for $499 at Amazon!!! Very underrated lens but is no slouch either. Thanks for your wonderful review!

Leigh Busby says:

How about the XC 50-230mm Fuji

pl capeli says:

mirrorless rf bodies r the best

YB says:

I have now the 50-230 lens, and wow,it is much better then i thought..only for 300usd!!

gordon tant says:

Thanks for this one. I am currently looking to find a zoom for music work. This looks the one.


Roman Canas says:

Is this lens good for birding? the other option is the fuji 100-400 but it is too expensive. Right now there are some good choices in the dslr world on telephoto lens.

Weston Bennett says:

Hey does anyone know how this lens performs in low light? wedding settings in church/ receptions? Thanks

Proper Noun says:

For general telephoto photography and with not regard for price. Is this going to offer more than the 50 to 140 *with* teleconverter? Does it’s sharpness compensate the detail loss at higher noise reduction needed from being slower? I’ve also been meaning to ask what it is you don’t like about the Fuji 100 to 400 because I didn’t see my self getting into a second system for a long tele zoom. the Nikon d500 wild life package is a great deal but I like the fuji body better for basically everything else. I guess my question is… is the lens so bad that I can’t take good wild life shots with it? I’m very willing to edit to the point where I shoot for latitude in post when I shoot for personal purposes.

newpixeldude says:

Just sent a donation man. Thanks for all the info. Already got a couple of great Nikkor lenses thanks to your channel.

Orestisc says:

I really like your reviews and insight. What I would love to see on top of it, is some shots with the lens matching the characteristics you describe, and/or video in the case of OIS. Thanks for the review anyway!

Ruben de Klerk says:

wait, the 18-135 is NOT a good lens??? Edit: my suggested videos even shows a video of yours with the titel: Winner: Fujifilm 18-135mm: Best Super-Zoom Lens I’ve EVER USED. What’s going on here?

Kimberly Norton says:

This one does not seem to be weather resistant.

Kimberly Norton says:

I thought you said the 18-135 was a good lens???

Greg Profitt says:

I really only have the budget for two lenses. Mainly a family shooter and vacation shooter with xt-1. I’m thinking 18-55 and 35 f2 or 18-55 and 10-24. 55-200 maybe down the road. I’m not greatly familiar with wide angle zooms but I can imagine that being a useful range on a cropped sensor. Not crazy about f4 indoors though. Help.

Orighomisan Ogbebor says:

Thank you so much for this review!!!!!! Very helpful

pl capeli says:

i love this lens on the xe2 and xpro2 it is superb ….. sad to hear about the other fujis which i have not tried

ive got the 18-55 2.8-4 the 55 200 33.5 -4.8- 5.5 ajnd the 10-24

i do love the nikons with a speedbooster metabone adapter i dont use peaking or split prism just standard with full mag wide open then stopped diown

thanks for an excelllent video

mrz 1342 says:

are u recommending fujinon 50-140? do u think better telezoom vs Nikon 70-200 or Canon L 70-200?

Steve Solomon says:

Ken, I agree with your assessment of the XF55-200! I have used it on both an XT-1 and an X-Pro2 (for landscape work), and the results are indeed stellar, in terms of sharpness. (Of course, I always try to use either a tripod or at least a monopod, because I want to get the most detail possible in my images), and as you said, this lens rocks! Of course, I make sure to turn OIS OFF when using on a tripod. Thanks again!

Greg Profitt says:

This or 18-135 on XT2?

 Write a comment


Do you like our videos?
Do you want to see more like that?

Please click below to support us on Facebook!