Took me a while, but finally got around to redoing and posting some test shots with the lens extended to 200mm on tripod (These were SOOC JPEGs without any PP):
Took both at f/8.0, 1/30 sec, ISO-1000, on 2 seconds timer (Wasn't bright enough to allow for higher shutter speed, but since it is on tripod, the slower speed is fine). Can you tell which one is done by AF and which one by MF?
I don't think there is any discernible difference between the 2.
Finally, here's a handheld shot at f/10, 1/1000 sec, ISO 640 (I was so busy trying to capture this shot of my friends passing by my house that I accidentally left the ISO at 640):
Based on more trial-and-errors over the past couple weeks, I can draw the following conclusions:
1) There is nothing wrong with my lens (what a relief!);
2) The 50-200mm SWD is sharp, but difficult to handle on a m4/3 body;
3) The DOF when fully extended is really shallow, even when stopped down, so in order to get good handheld results, one should:
(i) use faster shutter speed (1/500 or above should be safe);
(ii) stopping down will help;
(iii) use the smallest focus box possible (14x) even when in AF mode, rather than the default focus box;
(iv) move the focus box into the area of the frame you want to focus, because far-away subject will get out of focus if you move the camera ever so slightly (hence, one cannot focus and recompose);
(v) set into vivid mode if there is no enough contrast
I find that with the E-M5, the 50-200SWD focuses fast enough to capture slow moving objects, like sail boats, but can absolutely not focus and recompose. Next time, I am going to try C-AF as someone on this forum has suggested that the C-AF on the E-M5 works well enough to allow capturing moving objects with the above AF method...
Hope the above findings are helpful to those contemplating on using or already is using the 50-200SWD on m4/3...
Any comment, anyone?