1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

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

    791
    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.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    PB300034-Edit-Edit_zps3b8cd8bd.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    PC290388_zpscdf58967.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    I have shot a lot of frames with this combo and with the E-M5. Here are few galleries with the E-M1 (some are just the 50-200 and some are with the EC14 or EC20).

    https://www.mu-43.com/gallery/g2477-fall-regatta-2013.html

    https://www.mu-43.com/gallery/g2470-lacrosse-oct-2013.html



    Here are a few examples:

    P9300007.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    PB200058_2_.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    PA260872.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    PA130255.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Drdave944

    Drdave944 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    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 Subscribing Member

    105
    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 Subscribing Member

    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 Subscribing Member

    105
    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 Hall of Famer

    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 Subscribing Member

    105
    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 Hall of Famer

    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 Subscribing Member

    105
    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! Subscribing Member

    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 Subscribing Member

    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 Subscribing Member

    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 Hall of Famer

    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.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.