As you live with this lens, you will find yourself saying Holy Chit!. You depend upon its quality and dependability, day in and day out, And it delivers. But then one day, you get a shot which is SO great that you wonder why you use anything else. That never happened to me with the equivalent Nikkor (or God forbid, even the Leica R mount 70-200). You fall in love all over again. And you say, Ken is right. Fuji IS the new Leica.
After reading about the dim light in the jungle, I bought this lens specifically to photograph mountain gorillas in the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda. You are required to stand no closer than 15 feet from the gorillas, but since they are free to come as close to you as they want, I'll be wearing two Fuji X-T2's, one with this lens and the other with the 18-135. If I had other uses for it, the 16 f/1.4 would be ideal for the second camera, but I mostly take portraits. People complain about the 50-140 being heavy and bulky, but compared to the Nikon 70-200 which I recently sold, it's a relief not to be carrying the Nikon RPG. Oh, by the way, I'm deliriously happy with the technical quality of the portraits I've been making with the 50-140. I've also used it with the Fuji 1.4 teleconverter and I see no diminution in quality.
Thanks Mr. Israel - this is exactly the information I require re 1.4 x TC for low light. How does the TC affect f stop of the f2.8? Does it "convert" it to a f4?
Love your videos. I had the 55-200mm and truly loved it, I got some great images out of it from portraits to landscapes. I shoot a lot of my son’s high school hockey along with other non pro sports and struggled with the variable aperture during editing, very time consuming. I sold the 55-200 and bought the 50-140 used for $1200. I love it and will never part with it, but I do miss the 55-200. The 55-200 just was too slow for indoor hockey rinks, but if this was not a situation I’d be shooting, I’m sure I would have kept it. I just thought this might be a bit of insight beyond your review. Thanks for all the videos and info on the Fuji lenses. Pete
Vincen Cohan the 55-200 has a variable aperture. When zooming in you lose stops depending on how far you zoom. The 50-140 has a constant f2.8 aperture, not effected by zooming. It’s tough to change f-stop during fast paced back and forth movement to get correct exposure. With the 50-140 I can leave it at a specific f stop. Editing +/- 300 images of a game is very time consuming with variable exposure/f stop settings, even using PS. The lighting in rinks is horrible and I’d rather have a constant f2.8 than a variable aperture lens.
@@MrKaraspt Very helpful. I am considering the 50-200 f2.8 for figure skating and needed someone with experience! Will it still work well in the rink with the 1.4xTC??
@@Bazzasphotolife If you shoot the 50-140 wide open with the extender, I think you'd be ok. I've gotten very good results shooting at 1/500th f4.0 @ISO 2500-3200. I find that understanding the sport is essential to getting quality images. Knowing player positioning or how a play may develop can be the difference between hitting or missing on a shot. Check out this article. I used it as a reference tool. Good Luck! www.michaelconnellphoto.com/blog/2016/10/23/shooting-stars-with-the-fujifilm-x-t2 Pete
I bought the 55-200 over the 55-140 for the extra reach, I use it for my daughters softball games and with the battery grip on the xt2 the the AF speed in good lighting is great. I was worried the AF wouldn't be good enough but as softball is played during sunny days usually I am very happy. I am now thinking of getting rid of my Canon 7d markii and my 70-200. I only shoot for a hobby and don't need 2 camera systems. It's just hard of letting go of the 7d markii I still love it.
Ken, I use the stellar XF16-55 f/2.8 and the XF55-200. As I don't do portraiture or sports, I dont need the "speed" of the 50-140, nor do I consider bokeh important, as I shoot landscapes and small products. As for the OIS being "better" than the 55-200, I think the difference is minor, especially considering I use a tripod 99% of the time, so no OIS required. Thanks again.
On Ken’s recommendation I got the 180mm 2.8 Nikon he is referencing. My friend has the 200 f2, so we tested them and Ken is correct the 180 is better. My friend sold his lens and got himself the 18.
Hey Ken, noticing while out walking my dogs and carrying this lens on my Xe2s around my neck, the barrel creeps all the way zoomed out to 200. It still has that hydraulic feel when zooming in and out, but it kind of annoys me it does this. I had one with a previous camera and mistakenly sold it, so bought another, but I don't remember my last one doing that. Is it normal that the movement of walking will extend the zoom since there is no lock, or do you think mine is a bit loose?
Coming from a Canon 70-200 2.8 II (that I absolutely loved), now sold, should I aim for the 50-140 2.8 or would I be happy with the 55-200? Mainly I would use it for portraits and events with my X-T3. Thank you.
You nicely summed up why I sold my 56mm f1.2 - all my good shots were at f2.8+ anyway. Why weather sealing not worth it? I'd worry about the 55-200 sucking in water in drizzle/rain/snow but then I guess I could trash 3 of them for the same price as the 50-140.
Hi Ken, as usual I enjoy your videos for it’s frank opinions and no BS. I don’t own this lens but I do own the 50F2, 60, 90 &100-400 that’s within this len’s range. Do I need this lens? This is mostly for portrait?
I like it solely for the engineering thought, craftsmanship, internal zoom aspect of it, wondering how serviceable will those 3 motors be if it ever needs the maintenance?
I’m a wedding photographer and would love your advice, would you go for 50-140 or 55-200. I current use 70-200 f4 Nikon and I love it but need to switch to fuji full now. Please help??
Thanks again for this really interresting video. Now I have doubts and a question... I own a XT-2 with the default lens on it. I like the results in (home) studio shootings, as I shoot portraits with flashes at F8. But once outside my studio, it lacks of the famous bokeh we all love. So I was planning to get the 56 1.2 next month and I would have went for the 55 - 140 later on.. But both together are quite a budget for a non pro as I am. So I'd really appreciate an advice on this one.. Do you think I should directly go for the 55-140 instead of both of them ? Thank you in advance :)
Which is better: Nikon 70-200 F4 on FX body or this one on x-h1 x-t3 (remembering the 50-140 is F4 dof FF equivalent and not 2.8, with similar reach of 200mm)? Speaking of bokeh and sharpness. Nikon is less expensive also :/
@@i0001w remember that usually underexpose by 2/3 and also you have to consider the noise equivalent factor by the sensor size, you still have no real benefit with just a stop faster lens. That's why I think usually are overpriced lens.
Hi Ken I'm thinking of the 55-200 for shooting some of my son's basketball games. Don you think I can get away with using this lens for that purpose. Indoor basketball gym lighting is decent but not great.
I would imagine the new 80mm macro would list for approx the same as this lens, but would really like this one just for the construction alone, internal zoom, don't know why I just now am interested in this lens.
Hi, like all your reviews. Had one question. I have a ufjifil XT-1 and looking to get a second camera. I found a new XT1 black for $750 or I am looking to get the Nikon d500. What would you recommend? I am still a beginner but want to do different kind of photography : Portrait,wedding,band and event shooting (like music concerts)... Price is not a big factor.
ohhhh thats too high, i just sold a XT1 for $580…….XT2 is about to hit and the prices are dropping like a rock. depends on what lenses you got…….even shooting? oh yes, the D500…….price is NO FACTOR ehh????? makes it easy there, D500 and a 70 200 2.8 VC tamron for event shoots. also a gen 1 24-70 2.8 Nikkor
When you take a portrait you are never going to have always enough room for a 200m or 300mm, so i think 56mm or the 90mm are more versatile for portraiture.
Theoria Apophasis I like getting the most out of a lens as I can. =p If the telecon decreases sharpness though then I might as well just crop the image. The teleconverter for the Olympus 40 to 150 f2.8 actually makes the lens slightly sharper and seems to not have a major affect on much else other than making the aperture value higher.
I was just wondering since I'm very happy with the f1.4 except for its weight, so the f2 as a walk around lens seemed like a good lens to have. I didn't hear you talking bad about it in the review. Hence my surprise.
Hi... Just got the 50-140 and would like your intake on using the TC 1.4x on it... I know the trade offs on aperture and all that but would like a "real life" testimony on how it handles and IQ (if you had the chance to try it yet) Hope you get the chance to answer this... thanks Regards from Portugal
Ricardo Ribeiro You get the extra reach comprimising loss of light and probably IQ but fuji engineers must have not slept to make it the best they can so it must be worth your money. Try it yourself.
@Theoria Apophasis Ken. I have the 55-200 on my XT10 but I'm not sure that I'm happy with the results. I have been using it for portraiture due to budget reasons. I'm not getting the eyes very sharp. I'm shooting hand held, usually at the fastest sync speed available at the widest aperture. Should I be disabling face detection & using the single focus point for better results? Does it help to make the size of the single point the smallest size possible? I heard that it will hunt more if the focus point is too small. The eye detection appears to be picking up on the eyes. I'm not sure that this lens is as sharp as my Canon 70-200F4 L. Thanks Mang!
yes,.....shoot single point and drop that box on the eye and compare the shots, you shouldnt be having an issue however the XT10 is not the best for face detect at the widest aperture, you have test shot links? :)
I can upload them to private gallery on my website for you to look at or I can send you the original files. Which would you prefer? Is you email address you paypal address?
I'm a sharpness Freak, Being a lettering artist by trade, sorry can't help it. , I need the reach and focus speed. Which it has. so........ How sharp is this lens! assume I know what I'm doing. Thanks.
Hi Ken, im thinkin to get one of the two lenses, use my X-T2 mostly for our Dog in running mode ...... In the moment i use my 16-55 for it an im very happy with it but i can use more reach .... Is the 55-200 compareable autofocus wise ? in speed and accuracy ? Would be cool cause i can buy then the 10-24 too =) Or is the 50-140 so much better for this purpose ? Thank u Ken !!!
I just got my hands on an xt2 and the 50-140. I noticed that I have some lense rotation left or right when I zoom in or out. this is really pronounced. is this normal or did I get sent a bad copy? I know that some lenses wiggle but this seems like much more than any other camera I have ever used.
Bokeh seems outrageously bad. I don't get the love for this lens. BTW, is it possible --- possible, though surely not a pleasure usability wise --- to use the Tamron 70-200 2.8 on the Fujis?
And what is a pleasing bokeh is yet different still. I've seen "interesting" bokeh from some of the 50-140 shots online (not all bad), but not what I'd call pleasing overall. I'm not going to bust your balls if you like it. I'm happy you do. But it seems very, very different from what other lenses you say you like bokeh-wise produce.
As you live with this lens, you will find yourself saying Holy Chit!. You depend upon its quality and dependability, day in and day out, And it delivers. But then one day, you get a shot which is SO great that you wonder why you use anything else. That never happened to me with the equivalent Nikkor (or God forbid, even the Leica R mount 70-200). You fall in love all over again. And you say, Ken is right. Fuji IS the new Leica.
When do you actually start talking about the lens????
After reading about the dim light in the jungle, I bought this lens specifically to photograph mountain gorillas in the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda. You are required to stand no closer than 15 feet from the gorillas, but since they are free to come as close to you as they want, I'll be wearing two Fuji X-T2's, one with this lens and the other with the 18-135. If I had other uses for it, the 16 f/1.4 would be ideal for the second camera, but I mostly take portraits. People complain about the 50-140 being heavy and bulky, but compared to the Nikon 70-200 which I recently sold, it's a relief not to be carrying the Nikon RPG. Oh, by the way, I'm deliriously happy with the technical quality of the portraits I've been making with the 50-140. I've also used it with the Fuji 1.4 teleconverter and I see no diminution in quality.
Thanks Mr. Israel - this is exactly the information I require re 1.4 x TC for low light. How does the TC affect f stop of the f2.8? Does it "convert" it to a f4?
Nikon RPG, loooool!
Love your videos. I had the 55-200mm and truly loved it, I got some great images out of it from portraits to landscapes. I shoot a lot of my son’s high school hockey along with other non pro sports and struggled with the variable aperture during editing, very time consuming. I sold the 55-200 and bought the 50-140 used for $1200. I love it and will never part with it, but I do miss the 55-200. The 55-200 just was too slow for indoor hockey rinks, but if this was not a situation I’d be shooting, I’m sure I would have kept it. I just thought this might be a bit of insight beyond your review. Thanks for all the videos and info on the Fuji lenses.
Pete
Pete Karas i dont understand what do u mean by variable aperture during editing? You can do anything during editing especially if you use photoshop
Vincen Cohan the 55-200 has a variable aperture. When zooming in you lose stops depending on how far you zoom. The 50-140 has a constant f2.8 aperture, not effected by zooming. It’s tough to change f-stop during fast paced back and forth movement to get correct exposure. With the 50-140 I can leave it at a specific f stop. Editing +/- 300 images of a game is very time consuming with variable exposure/f stop settings, even using PS. The lighting in rinks is horrible and I’d rather have a constant f2.8 than a variable aperture lens.
Pete Karas true thank you for the reply 🙏🏻
@@MrKaraspt Very helpful. I am considering the 50-200 f2.8 for figure skating and needed someone with experience! Will it still work well in the rink with the 1.4xTC??
@@Bazzasphotolife If you shoot the 50-140 wide open with the extender, I think you'd be ok. I've gotten very good results shooting at 1/500th f4.0 @ISO 2500-3200. I find that understanding the sport is essential to getting quality images. Knowing player positioning or how a play may develop can be the difference between hitting or missing on a shot. Check out this article. I used it as a reference tool. Good Luck!
www.michaelconnellphoto.com/blog/2016/10/23/shooting-stars-with-the-fujifilm-x-t2
Pete
IOS switch on or off?
Is this still optically good compared to Current Canon/Nikkor lenses?
I bought the 55-200 over the 55-140 for the extra reach, I use it for my daughters softball games and with the battery grip on the xt2 the the AF speed in good lighting is great. I was worried the AF wouldn't be good enough but as softball is played during sunny days usually I am very happy. I am now thinking of getting rid of my Canon 7d markii and my 70-200. I only shoot for a hobby and don't need 2 camera systems. It's just hard of letting go of the 7d markii I still love it.
im sure youre happier with teh XT2 , arent you
Are you not recommending the 23mm f1.4 - or the 23mm f2??
Ken, I use the stellar XF16-55 f/2.8 and the XF55-200. As I don't do portraiture or sports, I dont need the "speed" of the 50-140, nor do I consider bokeh important, as I shoot landscapes and small products. As for the OIS being "better" than the 55-200, I think the difference is minor, especially considering I use a tripod 99% of the time, so no OIS required. Thanks again.
On Ken’s recommendation I got the 180mm 2.8 Nikon he is referencing. My friend has the 200 f2, so we tested them and Ken is correct the 180 is better. My friend sold his lens and got himself the 18.
****180
do you need to switch off OIS when panning? does it have OIS setting for panning?
Hey Ken, noticing while out walking my dogs and carrying this lens on my Xe2s around my neck, the barrel creeps all the way zoomed out to 200. It still has that hydraulic feel when zooming in and out, but it kind of annoys me it does this. I had one with a previous camera and mistakenly sold it, so bought another, but I don't remember my last one doing that. Is it normal that the movement of walking will extend the zoom since there is no lock, or do you think mine is a bit loose?
Coming from a Canon 70-200 2.8 II (that I absolutely loved), now sold, should I aim for the 50-140 2.8 or would I be happy with the 55-200? Mainly I would use it for portraits and events with my X-T3. Thank you.
You nicely summed up why I sold my 56mm f1.2 - all my good shots were at f2.8+ anyway.
Why weather sealing not worth it? I'd worry about the 55-200 sucking in water in drizzle/rain/snow but then I guess I could trash 3 of them for the same price as the 50-140.
18mm and 23mm not recommended, you meant 18 and 27mm I guess?
He said, "You're an idiot not to buy the 27mm f/2.8" in Part 4 of 5 Must Own Fuji X lenses.
That's so weird, I've owned almost every lens and the 18mm is my favorite lens which I've bought now 3 times.
ken does the aperture have an equivalent FF rating like the focal length does or is F3.5 always equal 3,5 ??
on crop you get the same brightness but the aputure changes with the crop so a f2 on apsc equals an separation/background blur of f2.5 on FF
Is the noise normal, I hear fan like sound when the camera is on?
which one has faster auto focus? I'm looking at these 2 lenses or the 100-400mm for sports mainly.
In my experience with the 50-140mm and 100-400mm both are quite fast focusing. I have not tested them against each other.
Hi Ken, as usual I enjoy your videos for it’s frank opinions and no BS. I don’t own this lens but I do own the 50F2, 60, 90 &100-400 that’s within this len’s range. Do I need this lens? This is mostly for portrait?
Could you do a 'revisiting' of your fujifilm lenses now 5 years have passed etc
How is it for indoor sports though? If autofocus is faster than the 55-200 I guess it's the best option
In what situations do you think the hood will not be needed for this marvelous lens?
in no situations really, but low light
Nice.
Like indoors with led lamps?
Will it be needed under the projector light on your local stadium?
I like it solely for the engineering thought, craftsmanship, internal zoom aspect of it, wondering how serviceable will those 3 motors be if it ever needs the maintenance?
For general wildlife photography fuji 50-140mm or the new fuji 200mm? In your opinion.
fuji 200 or 100-400.
I’m a wedding photographer and would love your advice, would you go for 50-140 or 55-200. I current use 70-200 f4 Nikon and I love it but need to switch to fuji full now. Please help??
Have you used the 50-140 with the 1.4 TC? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
TC are pure evil…….heheheh i dont use them except on HUUUGE primes
Have you made a video about tele-converters? If you have I would like to watch it.
Thanks
Thanks again for this really interresting video. Now I have doubts and a question... I own a XT-2 with the default lens on it. I like the results in (home) studio shootings, as I shoot portraits with flashes at F8. But once outside my studio, it lacks of the famous bokeh we all love. So I was planning to get the 56 1.2 next month and I would have went for the 55 - 140 later on.. But both together are quite a budget for a non pro as I am. So I'd really appreciate an advice on this one.. Do you think I should directly go for the 55-140 instead of both of them ? Thank you in advance :)
mocheford you prob hava a kit lens 18-55. Get 56 f1.2 the bokeh wow in its perfect in low light
Thanks man, I got it a month ago. It is a killer :)
hi ken.. need your advice, should I buy 56mm f1.2 and the 55-200mm or should I go with the 50-140mm? thanks...
i was thinking the exact same thing
I'd strongly recommend getting the 56 and the 55-200. I have both but you'd have to pry the 56mm 1.2 out of my cold dead hands.
Oscar Chang Anderson thanks.. i got the 56mm and 55-200mm, and I'm glad i did.. 56mm is wonderful
Oscar Chang Anderson i also undecided at the moment between 18-135 vs 55-200? In term of sharpness, fast focus & better in low light
Vincen Cohan - the 55-200 is better in low light when zoomed to higher focal lengths for sure. 👌🏼
Which is better: Nikon 70-200 F4 on FX body or this one on x-h1 x-t3 (remembering the 50-140 is F4 dof FF equivalent and not 2.8, with similar reach of 200mm)?
Speaking of bokeh and sharpness. Nikon is less expensive also :/
but fuji will get more light and fast shutter
@@i0001w remember that usually underexpose by 2/3 and also you have to consider the noise equivalent factor by the sensor size, you still have no real benefit with just a stop faster lens. That's why I think usually are overpriced lens.
Hi Ken I'm thinking of the 55-200 for shooting some of my son's basketball games. Don you think I can get away with using this lens for that purpose. Indoor basketball gym lighting is decent but not great.
if its an Xt20 or XT2 or Xpro2, then yes
Theoria Apophasis XT20
I would imagine the new 80mm macro would list for approx the same as this lens, but would really like this one just for the construction alone, internal zoom, don't know why I just now am interested in this lens.
Hi, like all your reviews. Had one question. I have a ufjifil XT-1 and looking to get a second camera. I found a new XT1 black for $750 or I am looking to get the Nikon d500. What would you recommend? I am still a beginner but want to do different kind of photography : Portrait,wedding,band and event shooting (like music concerts)... Price is not a big factor.
ohhhh thats too high, i just sold a XT1 for $580…….XT2 is about to hit and the prices are dropping like a rock. depends on what lenses you got…….even shooting? oh yes, the D500…….price is NO FACTOR ehh????? makes it easy there, D500 and a 70 200 2.8 VC tamron for event shoots.
also a gen 1 24-70 2.8 Nikkor
When you take a portrait you are never going to have always enough room for a 200m or 300mm, so i think 56mm or the 90mm are more versatile for portraiture.
this clears up my questions about the 55 to 200 vs this lens
I'd still like to know more about the 100 400 and the teleconverter though.
telecons are the devil to me except for HUUUUGE primes :P
Theoria Apophasis I like getting the most out of a lens as I can. =p
If the telecon decreases sharpness though then I might as well just crop the image. The teleconverter for the Olympus 40 to 150 f2.8 actually makes the lens slightly sharper and seems to not have a major affect on much else other than making the aperture value higher.
hi Ken. can you use a Nikon tamron 70-200 on the x-t3 with a adapter?
yes, but thatd be a BAD idea
Theoria Apophasis why? Is there issues? what about the Nikkor 180mm f2.8d?
Which 23mm Fuji lens were you dissing, the f2 or f1.4?
both are fine reductively
I was just wondering since I'm very happy with the f1.4 except for its weight, so the f2 as a walk around lens seemed like a good lens to have. I didn't hear you talking bad about it in the review. Hence my surprise.
Hi... Just got the 50-140 and would like your intake on using the TC 1.4x on it... I know the trade offs on aperture and all that but would like a "real life" testimony on how it handles and IQ (if you had the chance to try it yet)
Hope you get the chance to answer this... thanks
Regards from Portugal
Ricardo Ribeiro You get the extra reach comprimising loss of light and probably IQ but fuji engineers must have not slept to make it the best they can so it must be worth your money. Try it yourself.
Theo, how does the single shot focus acquisition compare to a dslr with comparable lens, and to the 55-200?
that question doesnt follow
Simplified, how is this lens on the xt1 v your tamron 70-200 and nikon dslr? In terms of focus acquisition and tracking specifically. Cheers.
@Theoria Apophasis Ken. I have the 55-200 on my XT10 but I'm not sure that I'm happy with the results. I have been using it for portraiture due to budget reasons. I'm not getting the eyes very sharp. I'm shooting hand held, usually at the fastest sync speed available at the widest aperture. Should I be disabling face detection & using the single focus point for better results? Does it help to make the size of the single point the smallest size possible? I heard that it will hunt more if the focus point is too small. The eye detection appears to be picking up on the eyes. I'm not sure that this lens is as sharp as my Canon 70-200F4 L.
Thanks Mang!
yes,.....shoot single point and drop that box on the eye and compare the shots, you shouldnt be having an issue however the XT10 is not the best for face detect at the widest aperture,
you have test shot links? :)
I can upload them to private gallery on my website for you to look at or I can send you the original files. Which would you prefer? Is you email address you paypal address?
Paul V. How was it now? Do you get sharp portraits?
we need pics to see whats good or not
I'm a sharpness Freak, Being a lettering artist by trade, sorry can't help it. , I need the reach and focus speed. Which it has. so........ How sharp is this lens!
assume I know what I'm doing. Thanks.
5:32 No sir, this lens is the equivalent of the 70-200 f4 VR, not the 2.8
Just in terms of Depth of field, then you're right. But if we talk about the amont of light we can get, then it's like de 2.8 :)
yes this is why fuji cheaper than FF lens
Hi Ken,
im thinkin to get one of the two lenses, use my X-T2 mostly for our Dog in running mode ......
In the moment i use my 16-55 for it an im very happy with it but i can use more reach ....
Is the 55-200 compareable autofocus wise ? in speed and accuracy ? Would be cool cause i can buy then the 10-24 too =)
Or is the 50-140 so much better for this purpose ?
Thank u Ken !!!
I just got my hands on an xt2 and the 50-140. I noticed that I have some lense rotation left or right when I zoom in or out. this is really pronounced. is this normal or did I get sent a bad copy? I know that some lenses wiggle but this seems like much more than any other camera I have ever used.
very little yes :) shouldnt be more than a hair over a single mm .
Bokeh seems outrageously bad. I don't get the love for this lens.
BTW, is it possible --- possible, though surely not a pleasure usability wise --- to use the Tamron 70-200 2.8 on the Fujis?
subject separation is diff than DOF :) theres a hardcore reason 70-200 2.8 range lenses are used for portraiture, same reason for the 300mm 2.8
And what is a pleasing bokeh is yet different still. I've seen "interesting" bokeh from some of the 50-140 shots online (not all bad), but not what I'd call pleasing overall. I'm not going to bust your balls if you like it. I'm happy you do. But it seems very, very different from what other lenses you say you like bokeh-wise produce.
Great! thank you
Lensohol.
“Get this damn box out if the way huh.” hahahahha fire! Lol
You get what you paid for??
meaning???
+Theoria Apophasis triple the quality of 55-200?
Perhaps u were comparing 50-140 vs 55-200 yes u get what u paid for in term of their price
lambos also catch fire more often than camrys :)
When and where was these ever 200$? I find that to be completely false information..
I heard that too. I think he meant it was on sale for $200 off regular price.
komaeda??????
how come toyotas are so highly appreciated in america? :D .. that's a serious question.
Bjoern Templ where are they not appreciated? ^^
Lens alcoholic... Brilliant