1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Changing the Lumix 35-100 f2.8 for Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by zulfur666, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    254
    Jan 30, 2014
    I debating if its worth changing my current Lumix 35-100 2.8 to the Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD with adapter on my E-M1. While I like the image quality and focus speed a LOT of the Lumix mounted on my E-M1, I find myself sometimes perhaps 50% of the time wanting more reach. Wish there was a 1.4x or even 2x extender like Olympus made once for 4/3 lenses.
    BUT the MIGHT of the 4/3 lens is MUCH larger and also weighs more than twice as much. Perhaps wait for the release of the new 40-150 2.8 from Olympus?
    Any thoughts anyone went through the same dilemma? Can you share your experiences please?
     
  2. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    The 40-150 is going to be roughly the same size as the 50-200. And, unfortunately, there has been no TC announcement for m43.

    The EC1.4 works well on the 50-200. The EC20 needs light and a tripod and the fastest aperture at the long end is f7 (at 800 effective of course). You can get some good results from this combo but it is not easy:

    50-200+EC20 @400 f7 1/640

    P6150112.

    The 90-250 and 300 f2.8 are better choices with the EC20.
     
  3. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    254
    Jan 30, 2014
    Thanks, I don't think I would use the 50-200 with a TC as 400mm (FF equiv) is more than sufficient for me. What bothers me (perhaps is only the pure spec that bothers) not sure if it makes a REAL difference in real life photos is the quick change away from f2.8. Shooting birds or monkeys in the rain forest every bit of light sensitivity is desired.
    50 to 54mm —– f/2.8
    55 to 59mm —–f/2.9
    60 to 69mm —–f/3.0
    70 to 83mm —–f/3.1
    84 to 104mm—-f/3.2
    105mm to 130mm — f/3.3
    131mm to 169mm — f/3.4
    170mm to 200mm — f/3.5
     
  4. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    You would have to try it. The 50-200 is fairly inexpensive on the used market I suspect you could grab one try it and re-sell it if it does not work correctly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    FWIW, the EC14 is really cheap on ebay right now....and it's a nice piece of glass....have you considered the 75-300?
     
  6. bassman

    bassman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    678
    Apr 22, 2013
    New Jersey
    Scott
    I have the 50-200 and only bring it out for special occasions - I find it too big to lug around (like my Nikon 80-200/2.8) "just in case". But if I'm shooting a grandkid's ball game or recital, it's there. I paid about $500 a few months ago and I'm very pleased.
     
  7. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    It is certainly not small especially with the EC20:

    P6150108.

    But it fits in my Hadley Small with a 12-35, two TCs, a PL25 and an E-PM1 with a P14 mounted without any trouble. The Manfrotto CX055 Pro is much much larger