4/3 50-200mm SWD vs m4/3 75-300mm

[turtleboy133]

I recently purchased the 75-300mm for a trip to Costa Rica. After I purchased the 75-300, my E-M5 I died on me so I placed a preorder for the E-M5 III + 14-150mm lens. The 14-150mm will be my standard hiking lens. However, I am going to Costa Rica in a few weeks and need a lens better suited for jungle photography. In addition to the 75-300mm, I have the 12-40mm PRO, 12-50mm, 20mm f/1.7, 45mm f/1.2, 60mm f/2.8.

I was planning on bringing the 12-40mm and 75-300mm with me and mainly using the 75-300mm for wildlife photography (with the Pixel 3 for landscapes when I don't have time to change lenses). However, since the E-M5 III has PDAF, I am wondering if I should purchase the 50-200mm SWD and bring that instead of the 75-300? The advantages are weather sealing and much brighter aperture. The disadvantages are heavier and less reach (which can be compensated for with a 1.4x teleconverter, but that will essentially eliminate any advantage of aperture over the 75-300mm). However, the reach may not be an issue in a dense jungle.

Thoughts? I know the Panasonic 50-200mm is an option, but at $1400 used it's about 4-5x more expensive than the Olympus 50-200mm SWD.

 

[rloewy]

The 75-300 is much lighter and easier to carry than the 50-200 - so if you are going to be hiking a lot - I would think that would be a better option.

While the 50-200 definitely provides better optical results in challenging light - the 75-300 is surprisingly good. (I own both, and the 50-200 is more of a specialist lens for me, for general hiking, the 75-300 is hard to beat).

 

[Phocal]

Get the 50-200 you will not be disappointed. While the aperture with the ec-14 is similar the lens will capture more detail, which helps when losing detail due to higher ISO’s. Also add the ec-20, gives you a cheap 100-400 that is only marginally slower than the Panny 100-400 at 400.

Here is a comparison thread I did: 300mm shootout

you can click thru to my Flickr where I have lots of examples from the 50-200, with Separate Albums for when I used One of the TC‘s

 

[turtleboy133]

The 75-300 is much lighter and easier to carry than the 50-200 - so if you are going to be hiking a lot - I would think that would be a better option.

Agreed. I would continue to use the 75-300 for general hiking and have been happy with the results I've gotten from it. I've only had a chance to test it out at the zoo though as I haven't been hiking since I bought it recently.

While the 50-200 definitely provides better optical results in challenging light - the 75-300 is surprisingly good. (I own both, and the 50-200 is more of a specialist lens for me, for general hiking, the 75-300 is hard to beat).

Thanks! The big question is whether it's worthwhile to get the 50-200mm for trips like the jungle where it will apparently be very dim and long reach is of less value. I'd probably only pull the 50-200mm out on those occassions.

 

[turtleboy133]

Get the 50-200 you will not be disappointed. While the aperture with the ec-14 is similar the lens will capture more detail, which helps when losing detail due to higher ISO’s. Also add the ec-20, gives you a cheap 100-400 that is only marginally slower than the Panny 100-400 at 400.

Here is a comparison thread I did: 300mm shootout

you can click thru to my Flickr where I have lots of examples from the 50-200, with Separate Albums for when I used One of the TC‘s

Just looked through your thread. I found it earlier but took a second look. It appears in good light I'd be very happy with the 75-300mm and would not feel the need to get a 50-200mm. Perhaps if I push the ISO, I will still get some keepers with my 75-300mm in poor lighting. Just bring plenty of SD cards to be sure I get a keeper!

 

[CD77]

I'm in a similar dilemma to the OP and wanted to pick everyone's brains... I have the P45-175 which is currently my longest lens, but over lockdown I've found that I need more reach so I've been looking at the O75-300 M.Zuiko.

I've been keeping an eye out for a bit of a bargain, but in doing so I've been offered a 4/3 50-200 SWD for about the same money as the O75-300 goes for. I know the 50-200 SWD is a superior lens in terms of potential image quality so really I should jump at it, but there are couple of things that I'm not sure of... it is not much more reach than what I already have (only another 25mm, and I don't have the cash to add the EC-14 straight away) and I would be running it on an EM10ii initially so the AF would be erratic.... so my question is... is the extra IQ and the brighter aperture worth sacrificing the extra reach of the O75-300 for?

 

[PakkyT]

The big question is whether it's worthwhile to get the 50-200mm for trips like the jungle where it will apparently be very dim and long reach is of less value. I'd probably only pull the 50-200mm out on those occassions.

The thing about the ZD 50-200 (either version) is you really have to get one in your hands, hold it, put it in your backpack, etc. to determine how comfortable you will be lugging it around. However these lenses are excellent and a true bargain so unless you must have the smaller size of a newer m43 lens, it would be very hard to beat the performance of the ZD 50-200 for the low cost they go for now.

It appears in good light I'd be very happy with the 75-300mm and would not feel the need to get a 50-200mm. Perhaps if I push the ISO, I will still get some keepers with my 75-300mm in poor lighting.

Keep in mind that the Oly 75-300 isn't just a little bit slower than the old ZD 50-200s, it is a LOT slower when talking about using them in dim light, with when using each at full zoom (200 and 300; let's assume which ever one you bring, when you use it there will be a lot of times where you are going to use the full focal length) you are talking about 3-stops difference. The 50-200's IQ is likely already better than the 75-300 (which I do not have so pure speculation on my part), but even if they were equal, in my mind I much rather have a 200mm shot at 3-stops faster ISO and crop it than a much noisier 300mm shot 3-stops higher ISO. Also keep in mind if you are in a jungle I am guess most of your shots are going to be wildlife so shutter speed becomes important. So again, if you shoot both of them at 3-stop higher ISO, I bet your keepers are going to be the 50-200 that allows shooting 3-stops faster shutter than the 75-300 for the same ISO setting.

In other words, if you are talking about poor light in a jungle, I would just assume most shots on the 75-300 at its long end are going to be too noisy and/or too much motion blur. Even at 75mm, the 50-200 is going to be about a full stop faster.

and I would be running it on an EM10ii initially so the AF would be erratic.... so my question is... is the extra IQ and the brighter aperture worth sacrificing the extra reach of the O75-300 for?

While I highly recommend the ZD 50-200 as a great bargain for a high quality lens, for you using the E-M10 series you may find its user performance to be frustrating.

That said, I know back in the 4/3rds days when we have the ZD 50-200 and the 70-300 (Oly branded but rumored to be a Sigma design) this same argument came up a lot. While people who used it liked the 70-300, the general consensus from people who had owned and used both was that the 50-200 give better photos cropping the 200mm photo down to "300" than did the 70-300 at 300mm. Keep in mind that the old 70-300 was an f4-5.6 lens where as the 75-300 is a slower f4.8-6.7 (although m43 cameras are much better with ISO noise than those old 4/3rd bodies so maybe that is a wash).

But again I think the main issue with you and the 50-200 will be AF performance.


As an aside to both of you, the non-SWD version of the 50-200 has a slight aperture advantage where it doesn't close down as quickly as the SWD version and I think is still cheaper to buy than the SWD version. Both have an identical optical design. Although with the lens only closing down 2/3 of a stop over the entire zoom range, maybe the slight aperture difference doesn't matter that much, but a data point all the same.

 

[CD77]

The thing about the ZD 50-200 (either version) is you really have to get one in your hands, hold it, put it in your backpack, etc. to determine how comfortable you will be lugging it around. However these lenses are excellent and a true bargain so unless you must have the smaller size of a newer m43 lens, it would be very hard to beat the performance of the ZD 50-200 for the low cost they go for now.




Keep in mind that the Oly 75-300 isn't just a little bit slower than the old ZD 50-200s, it is a LOT slower when talking about using them in dim light, with when using each at full zoom (200 and 300; let's assume which ever one you bring, when you use it there will be a lot of times where you are going to use the full focal length) you are talking about 3-stops difference. The 50-200's IQ is likely already better than the 75-300 (which I do not have so pure speculation on my part), but even if they were equal, in my mind I much rather have a 200mm shot at 3-stops faster ISO and crop it than a much noisier 300mm shot 3-stops higher ISO. Also keep in mind if you are in a jungle I am guess most of your shots are going to be wildlife so shutter speed becomes important. So again, if you shoot both of them at 3-stop higher ISO, I bet your keepers are going to be the 50-200 that allows shooting 3-stops faster shutter than the 75-300 for the same ISO setting.

In other words, if you are talking about poor light in a jungle, I would just assume most shots on the 75-300 at its long end are going to be too noisy and/or too much motion blur. Even at 75mm, the 50-200 is going to be about a full stop faster.




While I highly recommend the ZD 50-200 as a great bargain for a high quality lens, for you using the E-M10 series you may find its user performance to be frustrating.

That said, I know back in the 4/3rds days when we have the ZD 50-200 and the 70-300 (Oly branded but rumored to be a Sigma design) this same argument came up a lot. While people who used it liked the 70-300, the general consensus from people who had owned and used both was that the 50-200 give better photos cropping the 200mm photo down to "300" than did the 70-300 at 300mm. Keep in mind that the old 70-300 was an f4-5.6 lens where as the 75-300 is a slower f4.8-6.7 (although m43 cameras are much better with ISO noise than those old 4/3rd bodies so maybe that is a wash).

But again I think the main issue with you and the 50-200 will be AF performance.


As an aside to both of you, the non-SWD version of the 50-200 has a slight aperture advantage where it doesn't close down as quickly as the SWD version and I think is still cheaper to buy than the SWD version. Both have an identical optical design. Although with the lens only closing down 2/3 of a stop over the entire zoom range, maybe the slight aperture difference doesn't matter that much, but a data point all the same.

Thanks for your comments @PakkyT . Although I've no plans to go near a jungle just at the minute... one thing I've got in mind is photographing owls near dusk so a brighter aperture is definitely going to be helpful.

In terms of AF, one of the other solutions for a longer lens is a 300mm legacy lens such as the Sigma 300mm Telemacro which would have to be used MF as the Canon version only works on a metabones adapter and I definitely don't have the funds to go down that route so would have to use a viltrox adapter and hope that the aperture control and AF could be useable... at least with the 50-200 SWD I'd have aperture control and some AF even if it was a bit hit and miss. Also, at some point (funds permitting) I am looking to get an EM1ii body so this lens would work better... kind of future proofing myself.

 

[Fuzzdog]

While I highly recommend the ZD 50-200 as a great bargain for a high quality lens, for you using the E-M10 series you may find its user performance to be frustrating.

I'd second that. Optically, it's still up there with some of the top lenses of today and works wonderfully on something like an E-M1 Mk2, but you're in for a bad time if you're trying to use it on anything without phase detect AF.

In terms of AF, one of the other solutions for a longer lens is a 300mm legacy lens such as the Sigma 300mm Telemacro which would have to be used MF as the Canon version only works on a metabones adapter and I definitely don't have the funds to go down that route so would have to use a viltrox adapter and hope that the aperture control and AF could be useable... at least with the 50-200 SWD I'd have aperture control and some AF even if it was a bit hit and miss. Also, at some point (funds permitting) I am looking to get an EM1ii body so this lens would work better... kind of future proofing myself.

That said, if you're looking at upgrading to an E-M1 in the future and are happy helping out with a bit of manual focus in the meantime, one reason I keep using a lot of my old SWD 4/3 lenses is that there's just something nice about just being able to grab a ring which is mechanically linked to things, rather than wait for stepper motors to catch up. I'm definitely not a fan of electronic 'manual' focus.

 

[Kae1]

I've been keeping an eye out for a bit of a bargain,

I don't know what your budget is but don't know if you've come across this Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm F4.8-6.7 II Lens - £75 CASHBACK! 4545350043742 | eBay . Ebay is offering 20% off selected buyers till tomorrow and in addition Olympus is offering a £75 cashback till the 15th which I would think would reduce the price of a new 75-300 to £279!

would have to use a viltrox adapter and hope that the aperture control and AF could be useable

I have the 75-300 II and have been surprised at what it can do with a bit of post processing even at 300mm, admittedly in daylight. However, this won't get round the aperture issue.

I also have both the Viltrox EF-M1 and EF-M2 (the focal reducer) and use them with a Canon 70-200 f4L plus also a 1.4 extender. They were all bought second hand over time and the lot probably cost me around £550. This combination gives me either a 50-140 f2.8, a 70-200 f4 or a 98-280 f5.6. I find that the AF and aperture control work well. AF is not as fast as a native lenses but gets there so is probably more useful for static subjects. Having said that I mainly use the combination for motorsports, and occasionally bees, and use manual focus as the AF isn't really up to it. IMO CAF is not worth trying. Whilst I haven't used this combination with an EM10, I have used them with an EM1, EM1 II, G90 and G9 and get similar results.

Best of luck with your deliberations.

 

[CD77]

After a few beers last night I put in a cheeky low offer for the 50-200 SWD that I’d already been offered at a significant discount... and it was accepted! Ended up getting the lens for £250 with a £70 discount off their original buy it now price!

Just have to get an adapter, which I’ve got enough Amazon gift credit to buy without adding anything towards it.

Thanks for everyone’s help.

 

[L0n3Gr3yW0lf]

Depends on your expectations and preference of WHAT you would prefer to photograph in nature. Large subjects like foxes, deer, moose, bison, rabbits/hairs, otters, etc are not difficult to get large enough in the frame, focal length like 400 to 600mm FF 35mm Equiv. For bears, wolves, crocodiles, and other dangerous wildlife the longer the focal length the better. But given that we need to keep wildlife safe as much as we should keep ourselves safe the more focal length the better for everyone.
Do not interact with wildlife, observe only, it's the best way to keep wildlife safe and independent. For birds, even more, focal length would be better, not because they are a lot smaller, but they are also a lot more skittish by nature, the fact that their main area is up in the air or high up in trees (for most species).

For wildlife enthusiasts the biggest advantage that Micro Four Thirds has is these 2 lenses: Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400mm f 4-6.3 ASPH Power OIS and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm f 5-6.3 IS.
No other system offers that high magnification on a telephoto zoom, size and weight being remarkable right now since there is no competition outside of using teleconverters on 150-600mm/200-600mm lenses. These lenses are not as cheap as the little siblings Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm f 4-5.6 ASPH Power OIS and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm f 4.8-6.7 but the extra focal length makes a big difference for small subjects and for keeping as many details as possible. Cropping is not the best or, sometimes even, viable solution.

As per OP's specific situation, Costa Rica is a tropical country so high humidity is to be expected (rain or not). A weather-sealed lens would be highly recommended. The question is on your trip where will you spend most of your time? In the tropical forest or out in the open or on a river. It's an important question because it will define the amount of light you will have, what shutter speeds you can/need to use, and how much you want to carry. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III is a wonderful camera but has quite a small profile and grip (unless you use the battery grip), a lens like Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f 2.8-3.5 (SWD or Mark I) is quite heavy, especially front heavy for the size of the camera. You might find the lens too uncomfortable for stable shooting at low shutter speeds (IBIS or not) and low light. (I have used that lens personally on both the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II and E-M1 Mark I, it was the reason I bought the E-M1 Mark I because the E-M5 Mark II was too unbalanced with the lens to hold it comfortably for too long). There aren't many choices between low price and long focal length, cheaper options may not give you the IQ and performance you wish/need but a more expensive option is not easy to carry or affordable. It's hard to compromise if/when you fall in the middle (like I am) in picking between the two.
A cheap-er option to get extra reach is the old Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm f 4-5.6 because it works with the EC-14 teleconverter (compared to the newer Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm f 4.8-6.7) while being not as heavy or as big as Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f 2.8-3.5.
Not many telephoto lenses take teleconverters, especially for Micro Four Thirds, that's where the new Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm f 5-6.3 IS might be the most optimal option for needs if it fits into your budget. Another benefit you can take advantage of with this lens is that it works with Pro Capture capabilities of your Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III where you can take advantage of for wildlife action moments, something that the Four Thirds lenses won't be able to do.