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

Does anyone use a 50-200 as a MF-only lens?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by ijm5012, Sep 4, 2015.

  1. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Hi everyone,

    So I'm wondering if anyone owns a 50-200 (non SWD), and uses it strictly as a MF only lens? Lately, I've been considering picking up a non-SWD version to use with my GH4s, and just using it as a manual focus lens. Has anyone done this before, and if so, how good does the lens work as a MF-only lens?
     
  2. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The SWD version would be better for that seeing it has a mechanically linked AF ring. Using 'fly by wire' with MF isn't as ideal, although that is how a lot of Olympus lenses are & so it does work, but the mechanical is easier.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. VooDoo64

    VooDoo64 Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Jul 17, 2010
    Zagreb - Croatia
    Davor Vojvoda
    I did for 1 year with my E-M5 and it works great !!

    But em5 have IS and maginfied view if you turn focus ( focus assist 5-14x )
     
  4. faithblinded

    faithblinded Mu-43 Top Veteran

    929
    Nov 25, 2014
    Cleveland, OH
    Ken
    ^^^^this
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    Personally I prefer the original version as it didn't have an ice bucket for a lens hood.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    That's exactly why I'm looking at the non-SWD version @eteless@eteless. The hood is a reasonable size, it's slightly smaller, and MUCH cheaper. AF is going to be useless regardless of whether it is an SWD lens or not, since I'll be using it on my GH4.

    For those who say get the SWD due to the manual focusing, I'll say that I've never shot with a manual focusing lens before, all lenses have been focus by wire (which I haven't had an issue with, due to focus magnification and peaking on the GH4). If I am comfortable with the focusing system on my native m43 lenses, it shouldn't' be any different with the non-SWD, correct?
     
  7. VooDoo64

    VooDoo64 Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Jul 17, 2010
    Zagreb - Croatia
    Davor Vojvoda
    buy 50-200 mk1 you wont regret, you will be extremely happy - its abnormally cheap excellent lens !!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    No, it shouldn't be any different.

    Then I agree. Go for the Mk I version. Also, I do agree the lens hood is a little like a bucket on the end of the Mk II (SWD) version, but hey, beggars can't be choosers! :rolleyes: ;)
    I bought the SWD version earlier this year for a little over US$600 (including postage) from Japan, but that translated to AU$800 with the low AU$ value, but still it was worth it for me (using it on the E-M1).
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2015
  9. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I can pick up 50-200 mk1, MMF3, and EC14 for about $525.

    I was originally planning to wait for the 100-400, but the more I think about it, the more I'm not so certain. Yes it will have good reach and optics, but it would likely wipe out all of the funds I have set aside for camera stuff. Picking up the 50-200 combo I mention above would allow me to have enough left over to but either a Panasonic 7-14 and fit it with a filter system, or but a handheld 3-axis gimbal to shoot video with my GH4's.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Personally I would get the SWD because the manual focus action is going to be a lot better and if you ever get a camera with PDAF you will be happy that you got the SWD.
     
  11. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Ugh... I keep going back and forth about the SWD vs non-SWD.

    Things I like about the non-SWD:
    • It's lighter (750g vs 995g) by 250g, a quite significant amount
    • It's smaller in diameter
    • It's MUCH cheaper
    • The lens hood isn't as absurd
    Things I like about the SWD:
    • Physically linked manual focusing (although I've never had a lens like that, so I don't know what I'm missing)
    • Better AF performance with PDAF bodies (I currently own two GH4's and love them, and don't know if I would switch to Olympus. Their menu system is quite frustrating)
    • Better resale value if I ever want to sell it.

    If I already owned, or planned on getting an E-M1 (or E-M1 mk.II), the SWD would be a no brainer. But owning two GH4's, the AF performance is irrelevant, and a 250g weight savings is quite significant when you're talking about lugging it around all day long. They both perform the same optically, and both take 67mm filters (I own a few from when I had a 100-300). I think the biggest thing is, is the difference in MF between the lenses worth 250g and the price differential? I don't believe it is.
     
  12. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I don't know where you're getting your weight measures from, but the specs I have are:-
    50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Super Telephoto Lens - 995g (Weight without the tripod adapter) & my measure of the tripod mount appears to be 175gm
    50-200mm f2.8-3.5 Telephoto Zoom - Weight 1070g with tripod adapter

    EDIT: Redoing my maths correctly the SWD version would be 1170gm & actual weighing it appeared to be approx. 1160gm.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. fdifulco

    fdifulco Mu-43 Veteran

    251
    Nov 28, 2011
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Frank
    It is a good lens, you will use the lens to hold the camera, so there will be learning curve if you have never used a manual lens. Both versions lack a focus scale so it you will be using he viewfinder to focus. Does the panny have a manual focus zoom where when you start manual focus it will increase the image x3 or x5 so you can focus? the EM5 and EM1do have that ability and makes it usable. it can auto-focus but you need good light and time. you can also focus on a spot and let the action come to that spot.

    frank
     
  14. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    By saying they don't have a focus scale, it should be mentioned they do have a focus window with distance markings (& zoom with focal length), but no other markings, i.e. no DoF scaling etc.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    According to four-thirds.org, the original version is 920g / 32.5 oz and the SWD version is 995g / 35.1 oz. (both weights are without tripod adapter). So the SWD version (which is slightly fatter in diameter) comes in 75g / 2.6 oz heavier.

    The original version does have the slimmer lens hood. My understanding is that they are NOT interchangeable as Oly changes the hood fitting on the SWD.
     
  16. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Yeah, I don't know where I saw it, but I saw the weight for the 50-200 listed as 750g, and the weight for the SWD listed at 995g. So, not as big of a weight difference, but there is still a little bit. The biggest thing is the slightly slimmer body, and the smaller lens hood. Both are important when packing the lens in my LowePro backpack to take with me to a shoot.
     
  17. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Thanks. The specs I have listed are product information I saved from Olympus site while they were still current. The original (Mk I) version is specified as being Weight 1070g with tripod adapter & in the downloaded user manual it specifies it as Weight : 1070g (37.7oz) (excluding hood and cap), EDIT: My weights additions were incorrect. Someone can weigh their Mk I version with & with tripod mount & without hood & caps.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2015
  18. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    Done. Mine comes in at 922g on my little (uncalibrated) digital postal scale. The tripod collar, which I had to find as I have never used it, comes in a 155g. Total weight would therefore be 1077g.

    So looks like the lens itself agrees with what four-thirds.org states and with collar also agrees with your weight from the user manual. So both are correct (within a reasonable degree of error considering my non-lab quality scale). No need to pick one. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    That part of looking for the ideal size is true. Another lens, the M75-300 lens is specified to have the 4/3's lens hood & it is quite large on it adding to its packing size with the hood looking like a bucket on it & so I modified a 40-150 lens hood to fit it making it much more manageable in the bag, so I can understand your thinking in this regard.

    However, just because I like to know what the facts are on these matters, here are the dimensions from the user manual for the Mk I Dimensions : Max. dia. Ø 87 x Overall length 157 mm & the Mk II SWD version Dimensions : Max. dia. : 86.5 (3.4 in) × Overall length 157 mm (6.1 in) & I can I can confirm the diameter of the rubber focus & zoom rings are 86.5mm as measured with my vernier callipers on the SWD version are as specified & the lens hood maximum diameter is 112mm, but I don't know what the maximum diameter is of the Mk I lens hood is though. Both lenses look to be pretty similar in size to me!
     
  20. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    Looks to be about 91mm measured on my precision Disney plastic ruler I pulled out of my daughter's desk.
     
    • Like Like x 2