Hi, I have a 50-230mm lens on my XT20 and wondering how this compares to the new 70mm-300mm which some of you have mentioned to me. I guess i'm considering is it worth the upgrade? afterall it's just an extra 70mm.originally I did think about getting the 100-400mm but as some of you pointed out the weight could be a big issue for me given my physical limitations/condition.i've included some pics i took of blue tit, great tit,chaffinches with my 50-230mm, which i believe also has OIS. They have not been edited aparted from having velvia applied

Fire_Bird123 wrote:Hi, I have a 50-230mm lens on my XT20 and wondering how this compares to the new 70mm-300mm which some of you have mentioned to me. I guess i'm considering is it worth the upgrade? afterall it's just an extra 70mm.originally I did think about getting the 100-400mm but as some of you pointed out the weight could be a big issue for me given my physical limitations/condition.i've included some pics i took of blue tit, great tit,chaffinches with my 50-230mm, which i believe also has OIS. They have not been edited aparted from having velvia appliedThese look very nice to me, maybe notquiteas sharp as the 70-300, but I think the bokeh might be a bit nicer with this lens. That additional 70mm of extra reach is significant, though (and 190mm is a fair bit more with the 1.4X TC). It's likely the 70-300's AF is snappier too, especially in low light. The 50-230 definitely punches well above its weight class in good light, though. It has a really nice "look" about it. I’ve had the 50-230 in the cart several times, but never bought one.Forgive me, but hat last little guy needed a bit of brightening...

Erik Baumgartner wrote:Fire_Bird123 wrote:Hi, I have a 50-230mm lens on my XT20 and wondering how this compares to the new 70mm-300mm which some of you have mentioned to me. I guess i'm considering is it worth the upgrade? afterall it's just an extra 70mm.originally I did think about getting the 100-400mm but as some of you pointed out the weight could be a big issue for me given my physical limitations/condition.i've included some pics i took of blue tit, great tit,chaffinches with my 50-230mm, which i believe also has OIS. They have not been edited aparted from having velvia appliedThese look very nice to me, maybe notquiteas sharp as the 70-300, but I think the bokeh might be a bit nicer with this lens. That additional 70mm of extra reach is significant, though (and 190mm is a fair bit more with the 1.4X TC). It's likely the 70-300's AF is snappier too, especially in low light. The 50-230 definitely punches well above its weight class in good light, though. It has a really nice "look" about it. I’ve had the 50-230 in the cart several times, but never bought one.Forgive me, but hat last little guy needed a bit of brightening...Hi Erik, thanks so much for the feedback and for brightening up the pic. I agree looks better that way.

For wildlife, the 70-300 plus the 1.4 teleconverter will blow away anything that you can do with the 50-230. Yes the 50-230 is much better than it is credited and if the 20mm on the shorter end was more important to me, I'd not hesitate to go with that lens. But as I have the 18-135 for general walk about and hiking, the 70-300 plus TC1.4 will be much more useful to me for wildlife and wildflowers.