The Fuji XF 55-200mm OIS is optically superb, has fantastic image stabilization and is faster and better made than other brands of APS-C zooms. The Fujifilm XF55200 features a 62mm Filter Thread. Which is perfect since it matches the thread of my 23mm f1.4 lens. I personally use GOBE Filters, which I have talked about time & time again here. Optical image stabilisation is included on this lens, which promises to allow sharp hand held images to be taken at shutter speeds up to 4.5 stops slower than would be possible without this feature. So long as a pause for the system to catch up is allowed, with care sharp images are possible around half the time at shutter speeds as low as 1/8sec at 200mm that's an incredible five stops slower than the usual rule of thumb for hand-held shooting would dictate possible. This resistance ensures that the zoom doesn’t extend when you are carrying the camera with the lens pointing down.

Apochromatic lenses have special lens elements (aspheric, extra-low dispersion etc) to minimize the problem, hence they usually cost more. However, at the moment I shoot with an old fully manual Tamron Adaptall 60-300 F3.8/5.4 and it's serviceable, if rather front heavy. Remembering the old Sunny 16 rule and allowing for the fact that ISO 1600 is now quite usable means that f8 and f11 aren't troublesome any more (hence Canon has released f11 relephoto lenses for those of us who hate lugging big lumps of glass around). Based on the fact that the Tamron is smaller and lighter than the 100-400, I have no interest in that lens but the 70-300 looks just about right - even if it is about the same weight, being optimised for mirrorless means it won't have the extra length that the Tamron has with the mount adapter. I have a 50-230mm as well which is very nearly the same optical formula as the 55-200 bar a single additional element in the 55-200 which probably mainly corrects edge aberrations to allow a wider aperture. As others have said, the difference with the 55-200 wasn't compelling - the 70-300 definitely is. Even if it ends up around the same ballpark as the 16-80 or 50-140. I am, of course, assuming its optical quality will be up to scratch and it features comparable levels of OIS to the 16-80 but WR plus TC compatibilty plus the size as demonstrated are nice.PS – since completing this write-up my filter arrived and I have taken some shots with the 16-55 – watch this space because there will be another blog coming soon. I will discuss how this lens fits in with my 55-200, 18-135 and 35mm F2 – and which lens is destined for ‘fleabay’)!! It takes a little effort to get the ring to twist from wide, where the lens is at its shortest, to long where the zoom extends to its longest focal distance.

Most telephoto lenses these days have Optical Image Stabalization (OIS) so this isn’t really a unique feature to the Fujifilm 55-200mm lens. Since I am on a tripod for the most part I have this turned off almost all the time. But it works very well and I’m glad to have it when I don’t have a tripod or just need to hand hold my camera for a shot. For my landscape work, I use the 16-55 lens the most often. That focal range is simply the most useful for the scenes I normally shoot. It allows me to go wide angle and provides enough zoom to get closer to subjects. Landscape photography is more than wide angle shots though. Telephoto lenses can also be used very effectively to get landscape shots. Especially in the mountains. Reminiscent”– This image was taken during my very first outing with the 55-200. I absolutely love the color rendition and how it captured the beads of water as interesting out of focus bokeh balls. This is the image I think of when I’m out shooting foggy sunrises.But despite this, the XF55-200mm is a great telephoto zoom for most users - and decent value for money too. The only other control on the lens is the on/off switch for the optical image stabilization - which promises up to 4.5 stops of benefit. There are no special image stabilization modes, as found on some rival system lenses, for panning.

Zoom lenses like this are a welcome addition to the Fujifilm X-series line-up, providing greater flexibility and convenience than the prime lenses released with the X-Pro1 provide. Here is what I am hoping will be able to happen. In normal shooting situations and for my travel trips to Asia, I am hoping to have the 16-55 glued on to one of my X-T2’s and the 55-200 glued onto the other. Though the 16-55 has no stabilisation, I am envisaging this to not be a problem. I used the 35mm F2 lens extensively in Myanmar and never had a problem with camera shake or wished that it had stabilisation. For the 55mm end, if stabilisation is needed, then of course I can pull out the 55-200 and use the 55 end for stabilisation. I am hoping the 16-55 will be just as sharp at 35mm as my 35mm F2 lens. I only lose one stop (F2-F2.8), so if this is the case then this small lens may have become obsolete and will end up with the 18-55 on ‘fleabay’. I see no spherochromatism (called color bokeh by hobbyists). This means that out-of-focus highlights remain neutral and don't take on any slight color fringes. Chromatic aberrations are very well controlled for a telephoto zoom lens with fringing only just exceeding half a pixel width towards the edges of the frame at 200mm and maximum aperture. This low level of fringing should pose few issues as it will be barely visible, even in large prints, or harsh crops from near the edges of the frame.I understand your comment re full size images. This is not a lens review post it is an example of the artistic characteristics of the lens. These pictures clearly show the bokeh. If lens sharpness is to be assessed then a far more scientific process is needed and will be carried out by some technician somewhere.