So I’ve been using the XF 55-200mm to great efffect for the last 9 months or so. I’ve taken it all around the world and put it through its paces and been generally very happy with it. It has faced hikes through the rain, freezing temperatures, the dust of East African plains, and has held up well throughout.
Despite all of this, I’m finding myself drawn to the 50-140mm 2.8. I don’t mind the extra weight, and I would love to be able to shoot some astro zoomed shots. I work in some places where celestial alignments with architecture are a key part of the story, and the capacity to have some compression in my shot while still seeing objects like the Pleiades would be sweet. I also want a zoom lens with better bokeh and subject isolation for portraits (I currently shoot almost all of my portraiture with the 35mm 1.4), so I’m curious about how much of an improvement I’d see there.
My big hesitation comes in losing that 60mm of reach. I took the 55-200mm on safari and was super impressed with its reach. While if I were to return to Africa I would certainly spring for the 100-400mm, I’m worried I may miss some shots I’d otherwise get in the meantime if I switch. I’ve considered grabbing the 2x teleconverter to remedy this, does anyone have any experience with this combo as compared to the 55-200?
I suppose my main question is this: how much of an image quality improvement could I expect, especially for portraiture? And how much am I likely to miss that reach? Is it a worthwhile tradeoff, for those who have used both?
Thanks, here are some samples of the shot’s I’ve taken with the 55-200 to give an idea of how I like to shoot (you’ll notice there is no astro here, because it just isn’t fast enough to shoot astro competently).