1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

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

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by jeffryscott, Jan 9, 2015.

  1. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    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
     
  2. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    The SWD should focus more quickly and quietly.

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

    Barry
     
  3. edmsnap

    edmsnap Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Dec 20, 2011
    Edmonton, Alberta
    It's a bit faster and noticeably quieter.
     
  4. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    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.
     
  5. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    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.
     
  6. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    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.
     
  7. edmsnap

    edmsnap Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Dec 20, 2011
    Edmonton, Alberta
    There's an SWD 50-200 in the Member buy/sell section here for a very attractive price.
     
  8. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    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.
     
  9. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    That one says NON-SWD.

    Barry
     
  10. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    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!
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 7
  11. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Can I hijack and ask how either version would be with a camera other than E-M1? Like a GX7?
     
  12. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    AutoFocus would be slow and unreliable on any body without PDAF.

    Barry
     
  13. PacNWMike

    PacNWMike Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Dec 5, 2014
    Salish Sea
    guess?
    Near useless on my EM5. I just manual focus.
     
  14. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    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.
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    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.
     
  17. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. VooDoo64

    VooDoo64 Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Jul 17, 2010
    Zagreb - Croatia
    Davor Vojvoda
    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
     
  19. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    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.
     
  20. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    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.)
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1