My 50-200 SWD broke. What should I get next?

Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
314
I loved that lens but the zoom mechanism broke and it doesn't move anymore. Olympus wants $400 to fix it and I find that too expensive. I'm not sure what to get now:

1. Pickup another 50-200 SWD on the used market and hope it has another few years in it before something else brakes
2. Buy a 40-150 Pro and live without 200mm on the long end using my ancient and slow Sigma PO 300mm f4 Tele Macro until it dies
3. Get a Lumix 45-175 and a 300mm f4 Pro
4. Get a Leica 50-200 (expensive) or a 100-400

Who's made the transition from a 4/3 50-200 to a m43 tele zoom and what were your experiences?

Any suggestions welcome.
 

comment23

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
962
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
Is the O50-200 SWD a 2.8-3.5 aperture lens?

If so you may find the O40-150 PRO with 1.4x TC a good replacement, although the P50-200 2.8-4 is probably even closer to like for like. May come down to what brand of body you use?
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
2,699
Location
New England
Do you have budget concerns? The huge selling point of the 50-200 SWD over the 40-150 (especially if you add the TC to go with it) is the 50-200 SWD is simply a wayyyy cheaper lens. You get a lot of bang for your buck. You could get two of them! :rofl:
 
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
314
Do you have budget concerns? The huge selling point of the 50-200 SWD over the 40-150 (especially if you add the TC to go with it) is the 50-200 SWD is simply a wayyyy cheaper lens. You get a lot of bang for your buck. You could get two of them! :rofl:
Yes, this is true. But the 50-200 SWD is also slower to focus in many situations. And I think it's time to move on from 4/3 lenses, though I know the differences are marginal when it comes to IQ.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,554
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Do you have budget concerns? The huge selling point of the 50-200 SWD over the 40-150 (especially if you add the TC to go with it) is the 50-200 SWD is simply a wayyyy cheaper lens. You get a lot of bang for your buck. You could get two of them! :rofl:
I replaced my 50-200 with the 40-150 + TC and in general I'm very pleased. AF is much faster and it's lighter. However, there's little between them in sharpness and the background OOF blur ("bokeh") on the 40-150 is busier and worse IMHO. I've considered swapping back several times, but those 50-200 lenses aren't getting any younger and there are a number of well-known failure points just waiting to bite you (e.g. ribbon cables, zoom mechanism). They're not economically-repairable so buying one in 2019 is a bit of a shot in the dark.
 

JensM

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
623
Location
Oslo(ish), Norway
Real Name
As screename
Cant really help with the decision but I have the 40-150 with the MC14 teleconverter. I find that I for the most part shoots with TC attatched, rendering in effect a f:4 and am currently planning to off-load the Oly set plus my Pana 100-300 Mk1 to cover most of the costs for an upgrade to the PL 50-200 in additon to saving some weight and space, as I can do without the longer reach for awhile. Could spring for the Pana teleconverter, but am keen on the 100-400 down the road. Neither of these solutions are budget friendly but you know that already.
:)
 

alex g

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
1,644
Location
New York / Bath
Sorry to hear of your SWD bereavement, Steve, I remember it well!
I honestly don't think there is a direct modern replacement available for that lens. I haven't used the PL 50-200, but I gather that its maximum aperture drops quite sharply in comparison to the SWD. The 40-150 Pro handles much better than the SWD, and overall is a lovely lens — there's just that unfortunate rendering issue that @pdk42 mentions which can make close backgrounds a liability. However, given that you're pretty adept at fixing backgrounds to your satisfaction, that might not be so much of a concern. The 40-150 has better fine detail resolution but lower contrast than the 50-200 SWD, and tends to flatten the in-focus part of the image more, in my experience.

If you can bear to wait, Olympus have those two mysterious telephoto zooms on their roadmap — it would be nice to think that they may have come up with a worthy successor/alternative to the 40-150 Pro. Perhaps look out for a lightly-used copy of the SWD in the meantime? The UK Olympus website still listed new copies until very recently (they still have new stock of the 150/2 and 12-60/2.8-4) so there must be relatively new used ones kicking around, I should imagine.
 

fishtug

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Messages
276
Location
London Ontario
Real Name
Monty
I have a 50-200 non SWD that I picked up off of EBay a while back at a good price - Works well on my EM1 1 - With less mechanism internally I suspect it may not break down as often - It is a very capable lens -
 

Ross the fiddler

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
3,719
Location
Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Real Name
Ross
I had a used 50-200 SWD lens that I'd paid good money for (from Japan) & appeared to be in great condition but within a couple of years the aperture blades stuck & so I didn't think it wise to sink anymore money into old gear & went with the 40-150 + MC14. That is the best way to include the MC14 for price, otherwise it works out a lot more expensive separately. I'm pretty happy with the results at 56-210mm F4.0. I had wasted money on an EC20 before the 50-200 SWD lens became faulty too & am now waiting for the MC20 to arrive to also use at times with the 40-150 lens.
 

bassman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
1,051
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
The Bassman
When my 50-200 fell apart in my hands, I bought the 40-150/28 and MC14. I did consider buying another 50-200 at the time, but was able to package the then-new E-M1ii with the 40-150 at a good price. I also bought the 100-400 for our then-upcoming safari. But the 40-150/MC14 has replaced almost all other uses of the 50-200. I’m quite satisfied.
 

x_holger

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
93
Location
Berlin, Germany
I had a SWD 2.8-3.5/50-200 + EC-14 and EC-20 for many years and replaced it with the PL 100-400 a year ago. I also have the 12-100 Pro.

The PL 100-400 is sharper than the combination 50-200 with EC- converters, the weight is about the same.

If you need F2.8-3.5 then the PL 2.8-4/50-200 comes rather close at a hefty price, but the PL 50-200 can also use converters.

If the focal range of 50-200 was sufficient for you I'd go for the 2.8/40-150 Pro + MC-14.
 

Gillymaru

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
Sunshine Coast Australia
I still have a swd 50-200 and 1.4X they are great set . If mine broke I would spring for the Panasonic 50-200, it is nice and compact and together with the 12-60 would make an excellent 2 lens kit. I am very tempted to sell my 12-35 and 35-100 2.8 lenses and get the 2 slower but more versatile zooms.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
2,699
Location
New England
I am very tempted to sell my 12-35 and 35-100 2.8 lenses and get the 2 slower but more versatile zooms.
Or sell them and get the Oly 12-100 PRO which will cover the same focal range of those two lenses. While you do lose one stop, with your E-M1 you gain back that stop or even two (for hand holding low light shots) with the dual IS feature.
 
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
314
Or sell them and get the Oly 12-100 PRO which will cover the same focal range of those two lenses. While you do lose one stop, with your E-M1 you gain back that stop or even two (for hand holding low light shots) with the dual IS feature.
I have the 12-40 and it is my favorite lens. I use f2.8 often with handheld night scenes.
 
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
314
I had a SWD 2.8-3.5/50-200 + EC-14 and EC-20 for many years and replaced it with the PL 100-400 a year ago. I also have the 12-100 Pro.

The PL 100-400 is sharper than the combination 50-200 with EC- converters, the weight is about the same.

If you need F2.8-3.5 then the PL 2.8-4/50-200 comes rather close at a hefty price, but the PL 50-200 can also use converters.

If the focal range of 50-200 was sufficient for you I'd go for the 2.8/40-150 Pro + MC-14.
I have a Sigma 300mm f4 that I use on a metabones adapter. the focus is slow but the IQ is stunning. Sharpness is 5-10% below the Olympus 300mm f4 Pro but bokeh is far better. I use it for birds and wildlife and can live with slow focus. I may get the 40-150 pro as I like f2.8 and don't need the 150-200 when I have the 300.
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,074
3. Get a Lumix 45-175 and a 300mm f4 Pro
Out of curiosity, why a 45-175 as slower 50-200 replacement option rather than a Panasonic 45-200 I or II?

4. Get a Leica 50-200 (expensive) or a 100-400
If cost is a concern but longer than 200 is attractive I'm also curious as to the exclusion of the Panasonic 100-300 I and II.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom