50-200 SWD vs. regular 50-200 on EM1

[jeffryscott]

Sorry to ask this, but couldn't really find the answer with search. I'm thinking of an EM1, 50-200 and MMF-3. Is the performance of the SWD lens noticeably better?

Thanks,

Jeff

 

[barry]

The SWD should focus more quickly and quietly.

Neither will be quick compared to the new Pro mu43 lenses.

Barry

 

[edmsnap]

It's a bit faster and noticeably quieter.

 

[jeffryscott]

Ordered a non swd. Price difference was noticeable. I got to thinking if the performance is at least as good as my old E1 and 50-200 (which I used for sports including NCAA basketball) then it should work well for my current non-pro needs.

 

[jeffryscott]

Received the non-SWD and MMF-3 and am quite impressed with the function. So pleased, in fact, that I think I'm going to go ahead and upgrade to the SWD version. I am generally quite pleased with its performance, but the more seamless AF/MF ability of the SWD will make the lens that much better -more so I think than the faster AF.

I've missed some shots, or at least delayed getting them, because the AF just can't acquire focus. If I had MF readily available I could tweak it enough for it to work.

Would I prefer the native 40-150, yes, but simply can't afford it. Will post some pics soon, just have to finish going through a bunch.

 

[eteless]

The biggest downside to the SWD version is the lens hood, the normal version is far more compact.


On the upside, you can use it as an ice bucket for champagne.

 

[edmsnap]

There's an SWD 50-200 in the Member buy/sell section here for a very attractive price.

 

[Phocal]

Received the non-SWD and MMF-3 and am quite impressed with the function. So pleased, in fact, that I think I'm going to go ahead and upgrade to the SWD version. I am generally quite pleased with its performance, but the more seamless AF/MF ability of the SWD will make the lens that much better -more so I think than the faster AF.

I've missed some shots, or at least delayed getting them, because the AF just can't acquire focus. If I had MF readily available I could tweak it enough for it to work.

Would I prefer the native 40-150, yes, but simply can't afford it. Will post some pics soon, just have to finish going through a bunch.

I went thru this exact thing a few months back. I ended up getting the SWD version because I found a good deal that included the MMF-3 and 1.4x TC. First use was to shoot an airshow and found the easy use of manual focus saved a lot of time/frustration if I missed initial focus. Never had the other version so I don't know if one focus faster. I highly recommend the SWD because of the instance manual focus.

 

[barry]

There's an SWD 50-200 in the Member buy/sell section here for a very attractive price.

That one says NON-SWD.

Barry

 

[jeffryscott]

So here are a few with the 50-200, some with the EC-14 and some without. So glad Olympus gave us a decent solution for this wonderful 4/3 glass!

 

[tkbslc]

Can I hijack and ask how either version would be with a camera other than E-M1? Like a GX7?

 

[barry]

Can I hijack and ask how either version would be with a camera other than E-M1? Like a GX7?

AutoFocus would be slow and unreliable on any body without PDAF.

Barry

 

[PacNWMike]

Near useless on my EM5. I just manual focus.

 

[elandel]

Near useless on my EM5. I just manual focus.

Used the 50-200 on E-P3 - EM1 and Epl-5 and all I can say is that it is an awesome lens. Never had problems with AF.

 

[Luckypenguin]

AutoFocus would be slow and unreliable on any body without PDAF.

Barry

While being undoubtedly slower, the AF success rate will be higher for a CDAF-only body than the PDAF on the E-M1 for stationary subjects. For moving subjects, the faster AF speed of the E-M1 will give it a higher success rate.

 

[pdk42]

I had the 50-200 non SWD on an E-M1 and it performed pretty well. Focus was fairly fast and consistent, if a little noisy. I seem to recall reading an early review of the E-M1 which looked at AF performance with 4/3 lenses and it concluded that the SWD version of the 50-200 was no quicker than the older non SWD.

 

[jeffryscott]

Have the SWD version coming in a few days. Will update once it arrives and I have a chance to use it a bit. Between the SWD and the 3.0 firmware I'm anxious to see how it performs in comparison.

 

[VooDoo64]

I also have the 50-200 non SWD and I'm curious in difference between SWD and non swd of someone who will have both at the same time - immediately told whether the AF faster and how much thx

 

[jeffryscott]

I also have the 50-200 non SWD and I'm curious in difference between SWD and non swd of someone who will have both at the same time - immediately told whether the AF faster and how much thx

I just picked up the SWD version and sold the non-SWD version. As has been said, the SWD is quieter and focuses faster. I don't quite know how much faster as I was only able to use it for about half an hour today, but it is noticeable (still not super fast though). My initial impression is the biggest difference is being able to manually focus to get close. The non-SWD would hunt and if this one hunts, you can crank the focus to get you close. Im hoping to try it more with CAF and the new 3.0 firmware on the E-M1 when I have some time - Sunday at the earliest but more likely Tuesday or Wednesday

I posted a few photos from today in the birds thread.

 

[jeffryscott]

Currently I have both SWD and non-SWD versions in hand. Sale for the non-SWD fell through so it is back for sale, make an offer

So I took the opportunity to test them against each other this morning of my speedy 10-year-old. I had her run at me at full speed, covering a distance of around 47-meters to 7 meters. Test was run four times, two with the SWD and two with the older version. C-AF, 9FPS on FW 3.0 on the E-M1. First two runs were shot with the SWD version: Test 1: All AF points selected so camera chose, 8-second burst was 42 frames, 33 of which were acceptably sharp (of those, most were tack sharp to my eye). Second wasn't as good, I forgot to reset to all points so it had trouble finding focus initially. Another 8 second burst, 45 frames 25 of which were sharp. Better technique would have helped here. Third and fourth tests were with the non-SWD version, first was 7-second 38 shot sequence, 17 of which were sharp. Fourth, again with non-SWD was 9 seconds and 47 frames, 19 of which were sharp.

The SWD did a pretty good job, 78% sharp at best vs. 45% sharp at best with the non-SWD. Just a quick test and I think with more careful technique results with both could be improved (I didn't play with slower FPS, or different AF blocks, or AF point size.)