Fujifilm XF 55-200mm

If you'll excuse me, I wonder if I might pick the collective brain of the TOP Commentariat with a little question:

Does anyone have and use the Fujifilm XF 55–200mm ƒ/3.5–4.8 R LM OIS lens? Just wondering what you think of it and how you feel about it. Does it serve? Do you like it?

Thanks in advance,

—Mike the Ed.

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stéphane Bosman: "I have it and it is on the same level as your typical Canikon 70–200mm ƒ/4. It focuses fast, including in the studio (but I don't do sports), is pretty sharp consistently (I do landscape), very light for what it does and its OIS is absolutely amazing, kind of a built-in tripod.  :-)  Helps a lot for precise framing at the long end."

Sandy Rothberg: "For me, it’s a particularly useful lens that has found a permanent home in my camera bag. Smallish, light and not ostentatious, it’s sharp throughout its range and easily handheld."

David_A_J: "Yes, I bought the 55–200mm about three years ago. Diminutive size for its zoom/aperture range. Uses the same filter size (62mm) as my 56mm ƒ/1.2 and 23mm ƒ/1.4. Optical performance is exemplary out to about 150mm. At 55mm, resolution keeps pace with my 56mm ƒ/1.2. Out at 200mm, it is still good, as long as you stop down to about ƒ/8. OIS is very effective. When I travel, I take my 10–24mm and the 55–200mm. A most excellent travel kit!"

Steve Jacob: "I second Stéphane's comments. Considering the price and size, it is hard to fault. Sharp, compact and with very effective OIS. Also excellent flare resistance and good contrast. Or to put it another way, several leagues ahead of the 70–300mm variable aperture zooms you may be used to."

David: "Stéphane has pretty well nailed it. It'd put it slightly ahead of the Canon equivalent, but that's really splitting hairs. I don't use it much now after seeing the output from the amazing 50–140mm. That's a shame, and your question is a reminder to pick it up again. It's a better fit for walking around with a camera and lens for the pleasure of making photographs. It matches well the physical size and handling of the X series bodies. It's certainly the one of the three lenses I'd buy if starting out with Fuji cameras."

Comments

[Michael Kay]

I've had one for the last 2 years and used it quite often. I think it is excellent - much better than my various Canon equivalents from the past. The IQ is excellent and the images are very detailed and show good contrast. Focus abilities are also excellent. I'd definitely recommend it.

[Geoff Wittig]

I own one. It feels reasonably solid, and it's very compact. I find I can slip it in a jacket pocket while I carry an XH-1 with a shorter lens mounted. The 300 mm (equivalent) end is long enough for anything but wildlife photos. Optically it seems more than good enough for hand-held photography.
It doesn't induce glass-lust like a big fat 80-200 f:2.8 35 mm format lens, but it's so easy to carry around you hardly notice the weight. The built-in image stabilization works just fine, and is even better on the IBIS-equipped XH-1.

[Al DaValle]

Yes...I've had this lens for several years and have used it on the XT-1, XT-2 and X-Pro 1. I think it is a very sweet little lens. It is sharp (enough for me), light weight and reliable with a very useful range. I use my Fuji system when i need to travel light and for when I work on the street in urban areas. I find it very useful to have a light weight lens with this quality and range. Larger lenses in the urban environment are cumbersome, heavy and intimidating.

It may not win any optical testing award, but then what good do those awards do if the lens spends more time in the closet than out in the field.

I love it and would buy it again if this one where to get damaged or lost.

Al

[Stanleyk]

I have this lens. I rarely shoot anything above 50mm (in FF equivalent). However, every now and then I want something longer. This lens is uniformly excellent from it's widest aperture. It has very pleasing out of focus areas too. The OIS is very good. It's really a great lens. I don't use it much, but when I do I am always very pleased with the results. I wouldn't sell it so I guess that's my recommendation.

[Stanleyk]

I forgot to include, it's a bargain at $599. The build quality is excellent.

[Bill symmons]

Yes I've used it. It was quite good. One stop down it was virtually as good as the 50-140 so its a bargain. Build is good like most Fuji lenses. My only difficulty was speed at the telephoto end. But that was livable.

[Lyle Mannweiler]

Don't use it often, but when I do it is more than adequate. A tad heavy, but as sharp and useful as needed. I'm sure the 50-140 is sharper and faster focusing, but I stopped shooting sports ages ago.

[Rob L.]

I liked mine for what it was, I just didn't like what it was. The lens is sharp, the OIS works well enough, I just found that I needed that range more often indoors than out, so I eventually ended up with the 50-140 2.8. If you have the light, it does a fine job, and isn't too massive, working on an XE-2 as well as a XT-2.

[John Holmes]

I have it Mike. It is a fine lens in good light, not too big and heavy. The image quality isn't as good as a prime lens but its utility makes up for that.
I don't use mine much since I have issues with the weight and mostly because it doesn't focus as well in low light and I have to go to ISO 12800 when using it. I photograph people at performances, etc. inside and I need a fast enough shutter speed to stop subject motion.
It work great for landscapes!

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I have owned and used this lens for a few years now. My short answer: it’s an excellent long-zoom value for the X platform. Although it is a trombone it’s still relatively light and compact with very good contrast and definition across the frame throughout its range. Plus, of course, it has OIS. I like it very much!

[Syv]

I do and I use it on a X-T10 and an X-Pro2.

It's an OK lens. It's good on static subjects and much less on active subjects. But, I had such a good deal:

1. There was a sale.
2. It was just before Fuji raised their prices in Canada.
3. It turned out that the lens wasn't brand new, it was an open box, so I go another 10% refund from the dealer.

Considering the price, it's an excellent lens, but coming from the Canon 70-200L-IS f/4, it's not in the same league.

The OIS with the most recent firmware gets an average of 2 stops.

If you need fast focus and much higher optical quality, there's the $$$ 50-150 f/2.8.

The combo: X-Pro2 and the 55-200 is about a third smaller than my Canon 7DmkII with the 70-200L-IS f/4

Hope this helps

Thanks

Syv

[Luca]

Wonderful lens...my copy is at least 95% as sharp (@ its "worst" focal length, 200mm) as what used to be my "reference" lens, the Contax Vario Sonnar 100-300 @ 300mm, so it replaced it being a fraction of the size and weight.

Moreover the stabilization is quite effective, even though not Olympus levels good.

In summary, I like it very much!

[Matt Anderson]

I’ve used the Fuji 55-200 since the days of the XE-1. It’s sharp and pretty contrasty and it draws images in a manner that feels to me very much in keeping with other Fuji glass. It’s a great size for the Fuji bodies, handles well, and feels well built, especially for the price. The IS is very effective, although (very) occasionally I get an image from this lens with inexplicable blur that I think can be attributed to IS overcorrecting near what would be hand-holdable without IS. I rented the 50-140 f/2.8, which is an exceptionally sharp lens, but found the image quality improvements to be mostly at the margins, at certain focal lengths, if you’re looking very closely. I came away from the experience with a deeper appreciation of the 55-200. The 50-140 also consumed batteries with alacrity. Others’ mileage may vary, but for me, the 55-200 offers exceptional value for money.

[Brett]

I bought the 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 OIS II instead and love how incredibly light-weight it is for the reach it has and the images it produces. I can only imagine that the XF brother to this lens is going to be a high quality performer.

[Ville Siekkinen]

I have it and I really like it for travel. It is worth every penny, especially as it is easy find super cheap second hand.

This comes to my favorite thing-to-hate in photography gear reviews: when something's body is made of plastic it is categorically bad for some reason. When in reality the moderns polymers are amazing materials as well as the manufacturing technologies for them. Plastics can be way tougher than aluminium for example (Professional construction tools are made plastic) and Polymers are less prone to thermal expansion which should be a good thing too for optics.

As a friend of lighter, but good things I am eagerly waiting to get my hands on the Fuji 15-45 to add to my travel bag.

[Chris Kern]

I’m very pleased with mine: it focuses quickly; the optical stabilization is excellent; it’s sharp, with good contrast and color; and it has decent if not spectacular bokeh. Because of its size and weight, it’s a little awkward on an X-E body, but I find it quite comfortable to use on an X-T camera. (I’ve never tried it on an X-H1.)

I can’t figure out how to link images in your comments form so they will display when published, but some samples at various focal lengths can be found at https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/32542654325/in/datetaken-public/ (~80mm), https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/36893008501/in/datetaken-public/ (~100mm), and https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/43042747700/in/datetaken-public/ (200mm). (That last image is a tight crop of the full frame, so you're seeing the detail at close to 1:1.)

[Rick]

Andy Mumford, a Fuji pro, just posted the following, which includes that lens (he likes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtTxkgkeuak&frags=pl%2Cwn

[Peter Baglole]

Hi Mike,

I have had the 55-200 since 2015 and it is one of my most used lenses. I shoot all prime lenses, except for the 55-200. It is sharp and has good color. I usually take it with me to the park where I go to walk the dog (Bubbles) and I get good, clear shots of woodpeckers, blue jays, squirrels etc.

I just returned from a trip to the Azores and used that lens for some landscapes and closeups of salamanders etc.

It has some vignetting wide open (you notice it if you flip back and forth between jpeg and raw) but not offensive.

It is fairly light and well built.

I do wish it had a constant aperture but it is a good value for the money.

[Bob Johnston]

I have had this lens for around three years. It is an amazing lens.Very sharp. A little less so at 200mm but still sharp. Very flare resistent too. Compact and lightweight for its focal range. It has stabilisation. The downsides are only f5 at the long end and it's not 'weather sealed', although I have never had a problem with the renowned English weather getting the best of it. Plus it's relatively cheap!
I have had many 50x40cm or thereabouts prints exhibited that were made using this lens.

[Bob Johnston]

I should have mentioned that it's not as fast focusing as say, the 50-140 but it's a fraction of the cost and weight.

[John Holmes]

Mike, look at:https://everchangingperspective.com/2018/10/22/fuji-55-200mm-lens-with-acros-indoors/

[Dave Van de Mark]

Mike, regarding your question on the 55-200 lens: I have an "uncertain" answer despite owning it about 4 years. It is quite OK over most of its range with only perhaps the 200mm end losing some definition. The uncertain part is due to lack of use - I'm a wide angle guy and use the "companion" 18-55mm 99.9% of the time (I feel I have a very good sample). I think the longer lens is not as sharp and has lower contrast and maybe the OIS is not as good either. But that entire sentence is honestly suspect due to how casually I have used it and not given it the time and care I give to my wide angle work. Another subjective issue regarding the long lens is that it is attached to an X-Pro 1 16MP camera. I invariably want to drastically crop the images I've tried to take with it, which compromises the results. A tiny part of me is a "closet" wildlife photographer! So that poor 55-200 belongs in someone else's hands! I would be most happy to send it to you to play with if you ever desired.

[Tony Estcourt]

I've had the 55-200 for a few years now and the quality seems a lot better than many of the tele-zooms I've had in the past. It reminds me a lot of the Fuji 18-55, fairly small, modest speed and not too expensive. Money aside, the faster Fuji lens is just a bit too heavy for me when travelling.

[Rich Beaubien]

The 55-200mm is not too heavy, and on my X-T1 it balances well, not so much on the X-E2. I don't use the hood. Fairly sharp lens throughout the range. I find I get bests results from f/4 to f/11 with the sweet spot around f/5.6 to f/8. At 55mm wide open though it's very nice. On my copy the focus seems a bit soft if I am right up against the stop at 200mm. Vignetting, distortion, and chromatic aberration are all well controlled throughout the lens range which is probably due to some internal processing happening.

Mostly I shoot at shorter focal lengths with Fuji's fine primes. I picked up one just to have something longish. When I have to head out with the wife for the day the kit is the X-T1 with the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm. There are times around the yard or on a hike that longer length comes in handy. It's a solid lens especially for my needs. I've pulled off some good wildlife shots out behind the house on The Flats. And I've also got some nice panorama shots from my home office window with it. While I can't say I love it, it's a keeper. I'd score it an 8 out of 10.

[Stephen Scharf]

I've shot with two copies, one was a rental I used with my X-Pro1 for a landscape photography vacation in 2013, and the one I bought used but like new in 2014. I sold mine in March of this year after owning it for four years and I would estimate I probably used it four times in all that time.

Both copies I used left me rather underwhelmed, it always seemed a bit soft to me and with a rather flat contrast profile. Other folks, though, swear by its sharpness and like it very much, so maybe there is some unit-to-unit variation.

I would say this and the 18mm f/2 are the only two lenses I've not been particularly impressed with in the Fujifilm XF lineup. Its certainly not on the level of the 50-140 f/2.8, not even close.

As always, best to rent before purchasing.

[Ian Hunter]

I bought mine second hand on ebay. It has behaved impeccably whenever I've used it. It is sharp and focusses quickly and reliably. Not a lens for low light use but I've used it for landscapes in daylight. IOS works well, I reckon at least two stops. I hope this helps.
Ian Hunter

[Mark Kinsman]

I have this lens and have used it frequently. It is surprisingly good, even Michael Reichmann was surprised by how good it was wide open. Worth renting to see if you get along with it. I’ve done landscape, as well as daily vernacular using this lens. I pack this one when I want a lighter but still excellent kit in place of using the 50-140 f2.8.

[Mark Cotter]

I've had one of those for a couple of years. I bought it when I bought my XT-1 (shortly after it was launched). I've used it extensively for photographing sports and drama/dance when I haven't been able to get close to the stage. It handles well, it's not heavy in comparison to other DSLR lenses of similar length, although it is heavy when compared to XF mount lenses in general. Auto focus is as a good as the body it is attached to, in my experience (and I've had it open the front of the X-Pro1-1 as well).

I've never fallen in love with a zoom lens in any camera system and this is no exception: it does its job well and gives me the results I want/need from it.

[John VanDomelen]

I have used it for the last three years for all types of photography. It is sharp and retains that sharpness quite well out to the 200mm point. I just used it with my XT-2 to take pictures at a 6 year old soccer practice. I was very pleased that I got an 80% keep rate of the action even at the full 200mm end. On the Xt's it balances well. A great lens for every day use.

[John Dahlstet]

Regarding the 55-200. It is one of the Fuji lenses I would be reluctant to part with. I bought mine used on the DPRev classified. It has served me well not that I use it a whole lot but it provides the next step beyond either of the mid range zooms, the 18 or 16 dash 55s, without being a monster like the 100-400 which is probably a better lens but way bigger and lots heavier. I found the 55-200 to be nicely sharp with no bad habits that I can see. Works well on the SLR type bodies less so on the RF styles although it's not too bad on the Pro-2.

[Michael McKee]

As with most Fuji lenses, you get very good sharpness (up to about 130mm then still decent), color, and contrast. You also get an Oxford comma. Focus is a touch slower than the 55-140 f/2.8, but it's much lighter. I use the latter in the studio but travel with the 55-200.

[Jeff Smith]

Hi Mike,

I had and recently sold this lens. Let me explain...The lens itself is well constructed and optically very good. My problem was I am used to Micro 4/3 system and I found the lens to be a beast. I ended up packing it in a separate lens case instead of my camera bag because of the weight. That morphed into taking the case with the lens in it along on outings and leaving it in the car unused unused. The lens is good and if you are used to DSLR lens size/weight likely not an issue, but if used to Micro 4/3 the lens is too large and heavy. The whole of experience led me to selling all my Fuji gear and going back to Micro 4/3. Got the GX9 and very happy with it.

[Peter Cameron]

I've been happy with mine for landscape and nature. Example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/aurora_photog/21857202994

[Norm Nicholson]

It.s a very good lens, very sharp to 140mm, and still good to 200mm. Also, it’s well built and a half stop faster than a normal telephoto in this price bracket. I answered a similar query at the GetDPI forum, and included a photo. See the “55-200mm Lens” thread under the Fuji thread.

Also, if your looking for new topics, take a look at the Light L16. There’s a thread under “Other Cameras” at GetDPI. Light’s website is; light.co. I own one; it has both great virtues and great faults. But, it can also produce a great image.

Regards,
Norm

[Adam Richardson]

I use it, though I'm not a telephoto guy normally, so I don't have a lot to compare it to. The 55-200 focuses pretty well, though on my X-T1 it can hunt a fair bit in continuous AF - may be improved on newer bodies. I was shooting some pictures of our dog and our new puppy playing the other day, and the lens struggled a lot to keep up on the X-T1.

Is quite sharp all around from what I've seen. Bokeh is not great - foliage can be rather buzzy looking, and I often see soap bubble highlights (not terrible, but not great). But for the price it's a solid lens, and I don't use a telephoto enough to justify jumping to the 50-140, which is also quite a bit bigger and heavier I believe.

[Aaron Dill]

I've had one for a while now and basically like it. If you need that range and can afford it, there's not a lot of reasons not to get it.

But I don't love it - it's just a very servicable lens.

[Bryan William Jones]

I found this lens to be crazy sharp. Far sharper than I expected and was one of the lenses that proved to me, that Fuji understood how to make an affordable, yet high performing lens. Example images photographing a Steller's Jay here: https://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2014/02/stellers-jay-with-the-fuji-x-pro1-and-fuji-55-200-zoom-lens/

[Rod]

Sold many in the shop I serve at. General feeling is it's sharp as the uber f2.8, but focussing was a little lacking on older cameras. Much as the 18-55.

[David Wilson]

It’s an excellent lens. Focusing is fast and precise, image quality what you’d expect from an XF lens. I’ve used it on everything from an X-Pro 1 to an X-H1 and highly recommend it.

[Inkphot]

An under appreciated lens I think.It is optically very good (as opposed to great),light weight with very effective O.I.S. The range is about perfect and it is compact.
I have tried other Fuji long zooms but keep returning to this one for all the aforementioned
reasons. Highly recommended.

[Matthew Liggett]

Not what you asked, but I have the XC 50-230, and I think it's outstanding for the price. It is really light for the reach it has, and you can handhold it to do remarkable things, much like the XF 18-55.

[Jason Melancon]

I've bought it sold it bought it sold it.
I might buy it again.

Quality is great out to 150/EFV 220 or so. Far end quality is real world noticeably center soft, not just pixel peeping soft.

I got the 50-140, which is great, but uncomfortably heavy to me for just walking about. But it is always irritating to have a zoom that is often unusable at either end.

But now I'm thinking that an EFOV 75-225 with good to great quality with a bonus bump of a slightly soft 300 thrown in, for those stand-off headshots or images where something else other than center sharpness is what matters most...is a pretty good package. Add in acceptable weight, reliable real-world 3 stop stabilization and relatively inexpensive to boot and it might actually be a great lens.

(And I can attest that if you get it at a good price to begin with the resell value holds up.)

[Brent]

I’ve had it for several years and have used it for landscapes, portraits, wildlife, and even (with more mixed success) sports with my X-T1. For the size/weight/price it is a great lens. I don’t shoot a lot of telephoto these days so I have not been able to justify the extra cost/weight of the 50-140 or 100-400.

[Brian Stewart]

It's amazing what a good lens this is for the price. It's very sharp and the image stabilisation works very well. I used to use it for a lot of my jazz photography and you could tell which images were shot with it as they were so sharp. A colleague doing the same shooting only uses this lens for this reason. I added the 50-140mm f/2.8 to the kit because in very low light the extra speed can be an advantage, but that's a lot larger and more expensive lens, and it's surprising how close the 55-200 is to the 50-140 in image quality, plus it gives you more reach. You certainly wouldn't bother with the faster lens unless you needed the speed and were prepared to sacrifice the addition reach to get it. Lens Rentals did a tear-down of the 55-200 a couple of years ago and seemed impressed.

[Jon Schick]

I have it and think it's very good given its price point. Similar build quality to the 18-55 (so a notch up from typical kit lenses), good OIS and nice image quality. I'm happy with mine even wide open in the centre at 200mm but it has the reputation of dipping in performance at its longest lengths (like most zooms?). I don't print or view at 100% so as long as it's sharp enough (for me) then I'm more interested in the colours, contrast, and how it handles out of focus areas. I think it does well against all of those criteria and given I rarely use telephoto zooms in any case, it's really not worth me spending a lot more on the higher end faster (and much bulkier) lenses.

[vinck]

I have it. The aperture ring is unmarked and it irks me (Fuji's way to tell us we are too stupid to understand that the largest aperture won't be available at all focal lengths ?) but mostly it is terribly loose. You can count on having the wrong aperture setting every time you pick the camera. Totally defeats the purpose of an aperture ring. Unfortunately the program mode is no workaround: at least on my X-T1, it would often pick unreasonable apertures in bright light - anything between f/14 and f/20 - even though there was ample room to increase speed.

It's not weather resistant, which might or might not bother you. Apart from that, I find the lens to be an ideal compromise between reach / size / aperture (especially given that the better option is a large and heavy f/2.8 zoom, no f/4 version available). And the IS is very good, with none of the softness I got off the 18-55 when I didn't turn it off at higher speeds.

Here is the biggie : the optical quality is generally highly considered, and I would concur and be overall quite pleased with the lens, except that my copy is visibly soft in the bottom left quadrant of the image. And by soft I don't mean pixel-peeping, but readily apparent while displaying the whole picture on screen, even below 50%. I've sent it twice to Fuji (or whatever workshop they have entitled in France), the second time with a bunch of examples, and got it back each time with the answer that it was "within specs".

Executive summary : for me, it sucks.

[eric erickson]

Mike, I have and use this lens. It was one of the first lens purchases I made with my Fuji system. But there is always a but. I recently acquired the 18-135 super zoom, and I have to say it also is an excellent lens. I used to be a lens snob, trying to use only primes and high end glass. This lens changed me. It is terrific and almost lives on my camera. I recently went on a month long trip and took only this lens and the 35 f2 for low light situations. It was all I needed and came away with many beautiful images. Give it a try, you will be impressed. Eric

[Jonathan Robsom]

I second comments that mention the IS on this lens is like having a built in tripod. Just got home from photographing my son playing in his school orchestra. ISO3200 at 200mm, 1/30 - 1/50 second was the best I could do in the poor light... holding my breath when pressing the shutter and hand holding... the images are very sharp at wide open aperture.

[Jeff]

I don’t own it, but found this Fuji zoom comparison interesting (without knowing the credibility of the reviewer’s subjective commentary). The 55-200 looks compact until it fully telescopes, to seemingly twice the length, ignoring the hood. And it’s not weather sealed like the larger and much heavier 55-140, which maintains constant length and is faster, constant aperture.
https://www.fujivsfuji.com/18-135mm-vs-50-140mm-vs-55-200mm/

[Tim S]

I have it, not as happy with it as I had hoped to be. I think I get better quality with my old Canon APS-C and a cheaper Tamron 70-300. Also get better results with my Olympus M4/3 and the $100 40-150. Love my Fuji XE2S with the 35mmF2, but the 55-200 leaves me wanting. It is a very nice, smooth, well built lens, and the OIS works well. Guess I just expected more from a lens that cost as much as the camera.

[Patrick Dodds]

I've not used it or even picked one up and I know several other people in the same boat and we all agree, loudly on internet forums, that no pro tog would be seen dead with this piece of glass. /scsm off.

[Stuart]

I like this lens stopped down for general landscape/travel photography, the weight difference is certainly noticeable from my Canon 70-200 f/2.8! I am much less keen on it wide open. I'm not sure whether this is because it is that much softer, or whether (on my old X-T1 at least) it is because the focus is slow and not terribly reliable. I find that this lens in particular (and also the 85mm f/1.2) is the most likely XF lens to refuse to acquire focus at all, even in good light with a nice contrasty subject. Other times, it focuses just fine: a real Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde situation.
I've heard some people say that the Fujifilm XC 50-230mm f4.5-6.7 is 95% as good as the XF lens for half the price (it's lighter too), if you can live without the aperture ring.

[Iran Ramirez]

I have it and it’s perfect for its purpose, walk around and vacations, not that it couldn’t be used professionally(I’ve shot kids parties where candid triumphs kids running away from the camera. I would make sure to pick up a new copy cause the first one I had years back was loose and mount wasn’t as tight.

[Dogman]

I didn't read the other comments...maybe I'll go back and scan them when I have more time. I am an owner of the lens in question and it's a pretty decent compact zoom in the +/- 85-300mm equivalent range. I can't say it matches the quality of the 70-200/2.8L Canon I used to have but it also doesn't weigh as much either--that's become pretty important to me these days. If I had one quibble about it, it's that it's not an internal zooming lens. I loved the fact that the Canon stayed the same physical length no matter what focal length I was using. The Fuji...no, it doesn't do that.

Fact is, I don't really use zooms much...hardly at all actually. I also have the 18-55 Fuji, the one everyone says is so great. To me, it's okay but nothing to get excited about. The 55-200 is like that for me. It's handy, it's convenient, it's plenty sharp enough but it doesn't push any of my "On" buttons.

[CharlyR]

I have the XF 55-200: very nice glas!

BUT: Travelling I use more and more the XF 18-135:
just 200mm äquivalent, not 300mm, optically eventually little bit less strong. But with my X-T2 a fine weather sealed (XF 55-200 isn't!) combo and no need to change glasses in dusty or humid situations or rain! OIS is near perfect, also short focus.
Together with XF 23mmF2 for indoor/lowlight a compact, lightweight but versatile equipment well proved on several journeys!