Calidad de imagen excelente. Robusto y un poco pesado como es normal. Lo uso para retratos, animales y deportes.

Built quality , picture quality , both are amazing. Weight approx 1000gm is ok for the quality and price. It’s not too heavy. I love the lens ,focusing is instant, sharp all the way from 50-140 mm even at 2.8. Must buy if you can afford.

Le pare-soleil cheap et le design du pied sont mes seuls reproches à cet objectif. Je ne peux pas lui reprocher son poids ni son prix ; les équivalents en plein format sont à la fois plus lourds et plus chers. Voir les autres commentaires au sujet de la qualité d’image (exceptionnelle), l’autofocus (rapide et sûr) et la qualité de construction (très bonne, comme avec tous les objectifs Fuji).Cet objectif prend des filtres à 72 mm. Si vous avez des 77 mm (nécessaires pour le 18-55 f/2.8), le petit trou dans le pare-soleil plastoque ne sert à rien. Le pied amovible est tout juste compatible Arca Swiss, mais n’est pas biseauté. J’ai failli perdre l’objectif et mon X-T5 en pensant qu’il était bien attaché, mais ce n’était pas le cas. Vissez une plaque au pied avant de l’attacher à un trépied. Aussi, il est trop en avant du centre de gravité ; on ne peut pas poser l’objectif + boîtier sur le pied. Heureusement, on peut tourner le collier ou bien carrément dévisser le pied de l’objectif.Pour ceux qui hésitent entre cet objectif et le 55-200 mm f/3.5-f/4.8 ou le 70-300 mm f4-5.6, il faut savoir que le premier est vraiment un outil professionnel. Il coûte beaucoup plus cher et pèse davantage pour une plage de focales plus réduite, mais il est plus polyvalent, puisque l’ouverture est constante. La séparation du sujet de l’arrière-plan est bluffante. Le piqué est bien meilleur à toutes les focales dès f/2.8. Il est tropicalisé (ce n’est pas le cas du 55-200). La mise au point du 50-140 mm est interne ; le barillet ne s’allonge pas. Les autres objectifs aspirent la poussière beaucoup plus facilement.La question est vraiment de savoir si la grande différence de prix est justifiée. Pour moi, la qualité d’image, l’ouverture constante et la polyvalence de cet objectif (c’est un bon outil pour le portrait, le sport en intérieur, le spectacle, le mariage…) me font dire que oui. Je me sépare de mon 55-200 (un peu à contrecœur, j’avoue) et n’utilise le 70-300 que dans certaines situations bien précises.Objectif vendu par Amazon et livré dans les temps. RAS.

Pro Lens means that you have all the controls needed for manual shots and the focus is fast in auto and the picture has high resolution and sharp edges. Great for sport shots but it is a bit heavy at times. Happy with the quality produced.

La calidad óptica es buenísima, pero el collar de tripié es medio enclenque.

Excelente lente me siento muy conforme con mi compra, lente sellado a la interperie.

El lente/objetivo fue todo lo esperado, una excelente alternativa de la marca para tener un equivalente a un 70-200 2.8, el precio no es bajo, pero esta dentro del mercado de objetivos de este tipo. La calidad es muy buena y creo que para quienes ocupan esta distancia focal y luminosidad, seguramente es un objetivo que cumple su función sin problemas.

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!

Es un excelente objetivo , su construcción es soberbia y con una nitidez maravillosa en todo el rango focal incluso a f2.8 , yo lo uso para retrato y foto deportiva , también lo he utilizado para algunas presentaciones musicales , el estabilizador es muy bueno , el enfoque es rápido y certero , además de estar sellado a prueba de agua y polvo , yo lo ocupo en la xt 3. Tal ves el bokeh es un poco menor que el canon 70 200 2.8 pero creo que es normal por la diferencia de tamaño del sensor.