FujifilmXF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR

I'd like to get a couple of things out of the way: First, as I've mentioned in other reviews I ran camera stores and a national photo catalog for years. Second, I've sold hundreds of 70-200s and borrowed them dozens of times but never owned one long term, I could always use a loaner. In short I have a lot of experience with lenses in general including fast tele-zooms.Thumbnail review of the Fuji 50-140mm f2.8 - If you need it, buy it, it is really as good as everyone says it is. Pleasing and solid build, I have no concern it will require more than normal care in handling. Functionally the zoom and focus rings are as smooth in operation as any top end lens I've handled. Internal focus and internal zoom seems to be hard to find anymore, but having both makes it very easy to use filter holders and grad filters. The short arc to zoom makes composition a breeze. The IS is nothing short of outstanding, I can handhold the 50-140 and get fewer blurred images than with the 55-200. And finally images taken with this lens are some of the sharpest I've seen.Oh, and the foot on the rotating collar isn't Arca Swiss compatible but you can swap it out for a foot that is for about $40 from 3rd party vendors.tldr/As a photographer I shoot across a range of styles, from street to tabletop and landscape. What I do not shoot are portraits, sports, or video. I did all three ages ago and found that I had no desire to continue. What drives me to acquire camera equipment is need with also a little bit of desire, I need certain focal lengths but I want the equipment that's the best fit for me. I'm 7 years past my switch from Canon to Fuji and I'm still very happy with my pictures so I think the verdict is in for me, I'm not feeling any motivation to use another brand or platform.Two years ago I needed a longer lens to punch in on my landscapes and to make panoramic images of deep scenes. I purchased the 55-200 because that's what I felt I could afford. The lens is very sharp, compact, and fast focusing - the 55-200 is a great lens. But. Because the barrel extends on the 55-200 while zooming, and there is no way to lock it down, each time I adjusted filters setting up a shot the zoom would creep in or out changing composition and focus (the lens isn't constant focus throughout the zoom range). The 55-200 is a great lens, just not for what I want to shoot.The 50-140 was my second choice, but only because of price. As mentioned above the quality of the lens and its images are fantastic, but it's the internal focus and zoom that have been game changers for me. I no longer have zoom and focus creep when adjusting filters and my landscapes are much better for it.Soapbox moment: The 50-140 gives approximately the same magnification through the viewfinder as a 70-200 on a FF camera. The rest of that statement is: f2.8 is f 2.8 and doesn't change based on sensor size. Please stop multiplying apertures to find an equivalent. Applying 'crop factor' to aperture only helps describe the out of focus background in specific situations, it has nothing to do with light gathering. So, f2.8 is f2.8. This lens gathers as much light allowing similar shutter speeds in a given lighting situation as a FF 70-200 f2.8.Also, I suggest not worrying too much about equivalency between two different sensor formats. Honestly, nobody in film days ever spent this much time rationalizing magnification and bokeh differences between 35mm (FF) and medium format. We just shot our cameras. The same applies here, how often do you look at a scene and say to yourself "I think a 73mm focal length would be perfect"? You just don't do that when you're shooting a zoom, you view the scene through the eyepiece or back panel and compose your image. You just shoot your camera. In that moment is anyone really doing the math to determine the FF equivalancy of their shot?Off the soapbox...Summary: The 50-140 lens works for me in ways that the 55-200 couldn't. Internal focus and zoom make a huge difference for me and I probably should have purchased this lens first and skipped the 55-200. The 50-140 is a monster of a lens in comparison, but it fits on my XT bodies well and feels comfortable to tote around. I will shoot this lens most often from a tripod, but when handheld the IS is exceptional and helps deliver very sharp images. Highly recommended!

I agonized over 56mm 1.2 Vs. 90mm 2 Vs. 50-140 2.8. I have all three of them right now but only plan on keeping two of them. I think I'm going to keep 50-140 and 56.1.2.The 50-140 is incredibly versatile. It's every bit as good as Canon 70-200 2.8 ii and Canon 70-200 F4 IS, both of which I previously owned. The Canon 70-200 2.8 is still better in terms of bokeh and higher magnification factor. The drawback is its 500g extra weight. And when you add another 500g of weight from a full frame body, that's a total of 1kg extra. Not fun to carry for a long period of time at all. I sold both canon lenses since I got the fuji 50-140.Optical image stabilization is highly effective. Autofocus is fast and accurate. Image quality is very high. I can't find obvious flaws. Unfortunately this lens has low magnification factor. So let's say I want to get a closeup shot of a flower this lens can't do that. Bokeh is decent but not spectacular. That's why I have 56 1.2. Small enough to bring along just in case.When I first got the lens I was surprised to hear rattling noise when I gently shake the lens. It turns out that this is perfectly normal and was by design. My Canon lenses make no noise at all so I didn't like what I heard at first. But after a while I got used to hearing it. The noise goes away when you turn on the camera, and comes back when you turn off. Other than this, build quality is very high. It makes me want to hold it. My Canon 70-200 2.8 makes me want to put it down.There was a period of time when I had both Canon 70-200 f4 and fuji 50-140. The choice was not as obvious as 70-200 2.8 vs. 50-140. Both 70-200 f4 and the fuji counterpart offer excellent image quality. If I mount the Canon 70-200 f4 on a Canon 6D series, the combo weighs about the same as xt2 + 50-140 combo. I feel that the bokeh is better on the canon and it's about 200g lighter. In the end I chose the fuji because i really love my xt2. And even though 50-140 is larger and a bit heavier it's one full stop faster, making it potentially a great event lens. Besides the OIS is much quieter and appears to be more effective. Mostly importantly I already sold all my canon full frame. And the only way to use the canon is to mount it on my M5. By the time I add an adapter, the size difference disappears.In summary, I'm very glad I got this fujinon 50-140 as a bring-everywhere lens. It is by no means small but very manageable. It's weather resistant. It allows to me to use lower ISO thanks to its extremely effective OIS. If you like traditional DSLR like the canon 5d series and you don't mind the weight, then I think a 5Div and 70-200 f2.8 combo is still superior because of better bokeh and higher magnification. But I do mind. I'm getting old. I just want something lighter and more manageable.