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

Have anyone taken pictures with Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200/2,8-3,5 SWD and the EM-1?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Stefan_SS, Apr 22, 2014.

  1. Stefan_SS

    Stefan_SS Mu-43 Regular

    52
    Dec 9, 2013
    I guess many of us Olympus shooters are interested in a telezoom with a good reach. There was a zoom for Olympus 43 cameras called Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200/2,8-3,5 SWD and in the latest version it focused faster due to a new SWD-construction. This was the zoom I was looking to get when the E-5 was out but I jumped to m43 and the smaller lenses instead.
    However, after upgrading to the EM-1 I again find myself looking at the older ED 50-200/2,8-3,5 SWD lens to use with Olympus own adapter. I hesitate between this combo and the unknown 40-150 f2.8 that will arrive next year. I occured to me that I may not be alone in this. Do any of you who visit this site have this combo already, I would be very interested in reading about your experience with it and seeing lots of samples.

    Please share!

    With my best regards
    Stefan
     
  2. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I have the 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD with MMF3 adapter and EC-14 1.4x teleconverter. I've only shot test pics with it, planning on heading out to the zoo/park for a bit of practice with it before it goes on Safari with me, so no test images to share. My impressions on the E-M1:

    - It handles well, but it is a 'very' large lens compared to others in the system. It's small for the reach and speed you get (aperture, not DoF equivalent) compared to, say, a 100-400 on a Canon FF camera which is what I was coming from.
    - Image quality is really excellent, even wide open, but slightly better stopped down half a stop or so
    - Autofocus is acceptable, but not blazingly fast. It hunts on low contrast objects, more so than the native supertelephoto I tried (the much slower but lighter 100-300 panasonic), but it's certainly very usable for static objects.

    A few things to consider: the 40-150/2.8 will likely be slightly lighter (if at all) but has significantly less reach, and no confirmation on whether a teleconverter will be available. I don't doubt it will be significantly faster focussing than the 50-200, based on experiences with other modern, MFT mount Olympus lenses. There's also no release date on the 40-150 yet, so its anyone's guess when it will actually be available for purchase.

    Overall, I like the lens quite a bit, but I'm not primarily a telephoto shooter. I may opt to upgrade to one of the native telephoto options in the future, but I'm guessing they will cost at least twice what I paid for the 50-200, so it will depend greatly on the size and any image quality gains I can achieve by doing so.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Glenn S

    Glenn S Mu-43 Top Veteran

    788
    Feb 1, 2010
    I had one - briefly - with my EM 1 and an MMF3 adapter but was disappointed with the speed of autofocus and really couldn't take the weight. It negates the idea behind owning an m4/3 system to lug a large heavy lens with you, I found that I didn't and so sold it on.

    Quality-wise I had no real quibbles, it is good but didn't blow me away. I have used a Canon 100-400 extensively and gave that up as too heavy and now have a Panasonic 100-300 and am happy with the trade off of quality vs portability.

    Here are a couple of samples, I only took a couple of hundred before I knew it wasn't for me:

    PC010097_zpsd64c80d4.

    PB300034-Edit-Edit_zps3b8cd8bd.

    PC290388_zpscdf58967.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Drdave944

    Drdave944 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    698
    Feb 2, 2012
    I had one in the closet and it does take some good pictures. It needs good light and contrast to work well.A tripod helps. Is really better glass than Panny 100/300 but is bigger. do quite a bit of telephoto work and it can be hard with any lens. You really have to have good conditions,such as clarity and light angle so don't make hasty conclusions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. juangrande

    juangrande Mu-43 Top Veteran

    805
    Dec 2, 2012
    COLORADO
    I had one a while back with an em-5. It had absolutely better IQ than the m4/3 offerings along with speed. Extremely frustrating when AF'ing on that body, tho. Should be better on the EM1. It leaves a little to desire, sometimes, with its bokeh ( a little jagged). The non SWD should focus as accurately as the SWD and only marginally slower. They're generally $300-400 cheaper and optically the same. I often used a monopod with it because of size.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. ScottGee1

    ScottGee1 Mu-43 Regular

    98
    Mar 22, 2014
    Motown!
    Stefan, thanks for asking this question for me -- though I'd substitute EM5.

    If the following questions seem ill-informed, I'll apologize in advance . . . I'm new to serious use of m4/3.

    It seems we've all read that the 4/3 lenses typically focus slowly when adapted to m4/3 bodies but do we know if they were faster on 4/3 bodies? IOW, are we expecting them to do something for m4/3 that they didn't do for 4/3? And in the case of Olympus, is there any real advantage to using the SWD versions on m4/3? Based on what I see, comparable SMW examples are always more expensive.

    Mattia, I'm not sure I'd agree with you statement that the 40-150/2.8 will have significantly less reach. The difference between 150 and 200mm for m4/3 is only ~2° (8° 15' vs. 6° 12'). Actually, I find the difference between 40 and 50mm more significant AND useful: 31° 25' vs. 24° 25'. Those specs are diagonal measurements assuming sensor size of 17.3 x 13.

    Whilst I was searching for information about using 4/3 lenses on m4/3 cams, I found this useful link:

    http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html

    btw, nice sample images from Glenn and nstelemark. :smile:
     
  8. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    I have tested the 50-200 back to back on both 4/3 and m43 bodies and the focus speed of the 50-200 is about the same on both bodies. I found it fast enough when using AF tracking to shoot Lacrosse, so it is definitely good enough for me. It is certainly a little softer with the TCs but right now it is certainly the bargain choice for good reach and good IQ (better than any of the m43 glass).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I find the difference between 400 FF equivalent and 300 significant enough, particularly since I don't feel 16MP gives me a ton of latitude for cropping. Plus the teleconverter brings it to 560 equivalent.
     
  10. ScottGee1

    ScottGee1 Mu-43 Regular

    98
    Mar 22, 2014
    Motown!
    Larry, your direct comparison is very helpful indeed. What I've read led me to believe that the AF performance of 4/3 lenses degraded significantly when adapted to m4/3. As you point out, AF performance is relative; I make pix of grandkids, not Formula 1 cars. Though at times I wonder which is more difficult. :rolleyes:

    The 4/3 lenses that intrigue me are the f/2.0 zooms -- 14-35 and 35-100. Of course they're hefty but having a decent quality f/2.0 max aperture in a zoom could be very useful.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Stefan_SS

    Stefan_SS Mu-43 Regular

    52
    Dec 9, 2013
    Hi!

    It´s interesting to see I am not alone with these questions. When I bought the EM-5 to use as my every day camera and as a second camera to my Canon 5D MkII, I relished in the compact size and the small weight. After using the Olympus for about 6 months I ended up selling off my 5D and the 24-105 standardlens after realizing I barely had touched it after getting the EM-5.
    I did not sell the realitively compact 70-300 4-5,6 L lens though because that turned out to be very nice with an adapter and by manually setting the image stabilizer to 300 mm in camera I got some great shots with it.
    Eventually I sold it as too much money was bound into it. Shame I did not know that the EM-1 was on the horizon. Not I find myself looking for a new telezoom. I have the lightweigt 75-300 from Olympus but I must confess that it dissapoints me since I often try to use the lenses longer reach.
    Since Price is a consideration for most of us I was wondering if the EM-1 and that old 43-zoom would be worthwile. I see by the replies in this thread that many of you belive it´s too heavy and large. I do not mind that in one lens since I come from Canon where everything is big. Please note that the 40-150 f2.8 will be stuffed with glass as well and built to Pro specs. It seem to me all Pros have strong backs jugding by their gear so I fully expect this to be one of the heaviest m43 lenses yet when it arrives. ;)

    Here are some samples from my first foray into the world of manual adapters and focusing with my old Canon-lens on the EM-5. This is what I miss today...

    The dog and the hunting crabspider were shot manually with the EM-5 and the my old Canon USM 100 f2.8 lens.

    If I can get these results with the 50-200 lens from Olympus and AF, albeit slow, I think I would take it.

    Cheers!
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  12. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    As a long time 4/3 shooter and owner of the SHG zooms, as well as E-1, E-3 and previously E-410 and E-5 et al, I can tell you without any hesitation that the 4/3 lenses focus as fast, at least the with E-M1, as they did with all of those cameras. I also have the 18-180mm 4/3 lens, which is no speed demon and it works on the E-M1 as well as is did on my E-5. I also used to own the non-SWD 50-200mm and it is a superb lens, with which I did a lot of newspaper sports photography.

    Some people may want m4/3 purely for size and don't understand why anyone would want larger lenses, but they tend to forget, or not understand, that there is a significant array of outstanding 4/3 lenses that now perform better on m4/3 bodies than they ever did on 4/3 bodies. And when I say perform better, it's because these 4/3 lenses were designed for sensors that way exceeded what was even available with the E-5. The E-M1 sensor, without an AA filter, isn't giving these lenses the slightest heartache. You can't buy a 4/3 body anymore, so the only option is a m4/3 body, but to neglect 4/3 lenses is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  13. ScottGee1

    ScottGee1 Mu-43 Regular

    98
    Mar 22, 2014
    Motown!
    Noob ignorance on display again . . . for those who have used them, what differences are there in the AF function of the EM5/1/10 that affect the use of 4/3 lenses?
     
  14. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    The E-M1 provides phase difference AF(4/3 lenses) and contrast detection AF (m4/3 lenses), while the E-M5 and E-M10 only have contrast detection, so AF with 4/3 lenses will be a lot slower with the latter.
     
  15. ScottGee1

    ScottGee1 Mu-43 Regular

    98
    Mar 22, 2014
    Motown!
    Ray, thanks, very helpful indeed! Clearly one of the reasons the E-M1 commands a premium price.
     
  16. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror!

    941
    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Clint
    The E-5 and 50-200SWD with or with out the EC-14 was my favorite combo. Then I sold the E-5 and bought the EM1. While it worked on the EM-1, I soon feel out of love with that lens since it was now oversized for the em-1. The focusing wasn't as sure-footed as it was on the E-5 either. I've since then sold the lens and teleconverter (along with my 12-60, 50, and 7-14). I'm much happier with the current lenses that I have, but I feel like I need to add the 75-300, or just wait until the 40-150 f2.8 comes out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    The problem I and a few others had was not so much that the focus was slow on the CDAF bodies. I could live with that, but the issue I saw was a consistent front focus. The body would drive the lens into focus then one last correction would bring it out of focus mostly to the front. I eventually gave up on AF with the 50-200 and EM-5 and went with MF. Is this a mechanical design issue or firmware? It is hard to tell, but I do know that the 4/3 40-150 was horrendous on m43 bodies until the firmware was updated and then it was really quite good.
     
  18. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry

    The 40-150 is just as big as the 50-200, I may like the E-M1 50-200 combo better because I have the non SWD version which is a bit smaller.
     
  19. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I think it's due to the way the contrast detect works, as I found that to be the case with my E-P2 when trying to use the 4/3 lenses, it could be very painful at times. That's why I bought a few MF Voigtlander etc lenses, because I really couldn't use the 4/3 lenses and why I held off with the likes of the E-M5. After reading all the reviews on the E-M1 and when I lost my E-5, I had little choice as to which way to go. I was worried about the choice, but was more than pleasantly surprised at how well the 4/3 lenses work. The E-M1 has, in a way, invigorated my interest in photography, as it's so versatile and the beats the E-5 by a country mile. Now I have a bunch of M lenses that I don't know whether to keep or sell.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    From what I've read the 40-150 will be the same length but a touch narrower than the 50-200. And no official word on a teleconverter yet (that might push me over the edge, because native lens AF performance is simply much better than the adapter 43 lens performance - I put up with it because of the image quality and aperture vs. the available slow m43 options, and the reach I can get with a 1.4x TC). I guess it will weigh a little less than the 50-200, so maybe 800 grams (couple hundred grams less than the Canon 70-300L as well)?

    We'll have to wait and see.