Oly m4/3 75-300 f4.8-6.7 vs Oly 4/3 50-200 f/2.8-3.5

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by MarkoPolo, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. MarkoPolo

    MarkoPolo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Jan 25, 2014
    Greeley, CO
    Mark Brown
    I am beginning the switch over from my Canon 7D system to one with the OMD-EM-1. I have the 12-40 f/2.8. My next need is some telephoto zoom reach and I have been trying to find testing comparisons of these two lenses. DXO has not tested the 50-200 so I have been reading Olympus's MTF charts trying to decide.

    1. The 50-200 is the better lens. Would need the mmf-3. Would lose some auto focus speed in certain situations. Would allow use of teleconverters. I suspect it would be as good if not better that my old Canon 100-400 f/5.6

    2. The 75-300 has gotten surprisingly good reviews on-line. I suspect better quality than Canon's less expensive 70-300 version. Would lose lens speed for non-bright situations. Would lose depth of field isolation. Would gain 100 mm of telephoto length. Would save about $700.

    Has anyone here used both with the EM-1? Would you share your thoughts on the pros and cons? Size and weight differences are not big issues to me, everything is smaller and lighter than I have been using. My gut feeling is leaning towards the 50-200, but I don't want to sell the 35-300 short.

    Thanks for any input.

    Mark Brown Greeley, CO
     
  2. walter_j

    walter_j Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    442
    Sep 10, 2013
    Hagwilget, B.C., Canada
    Walter
    I'm considering these lens too, but will wait until the Olympus M.Zuiko PRO 40-150mm f/2.8 comes out. May come out in a few months. F/2.8 may make it very expensive though, so I'll save money for awhile. If price is too crazy, I'll reconsider.
     
  3. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    You can get a 50-200 and MMF-3 for 600-700 fairly easily, buying the lens second hand. I wouldn't (and didn't) buy new.

    For me, the 40-150 is too short for telephoto reach. If I'm shooting long, I'm happy with a prime that goes to 65-75mm, or a zoom that reaches at least 200, because that means I'm shooting wildlife. I'm more interested in Oly's mystery super telephoto on the roadmap, to be honest.

    The 50-200 is at my sister's so can't comment on AF speed. I'm expecting acceptable (good for big game, not flying birds), not stunning.
     
  4. MarkoPolo

    MarkoPolo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Jan 25, 2014
    Greeley, CO
    Mark Brown
    I'm interested in the 40-150 f/2.8 too. It still will not have the telephoto reach I need for nature photography. Hoping someone here has had experience with both lenses.
     
  5. RenaudVL

    RenaudVL Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    353
    Mar 21, 2011
    Hey,
    Came from a 7D with L lens also...

    I have tried the Panasonic 100-300mm, Olympus 75-300mm and now have the 4/3 Olympus 50-200 with EC-14 and EC-20.
    There is no perfect combo as it is for the M4/3 line up.

    For image quality, no doubt in my mine that the 50-200 is the choice. Limitation as you say is the focusing speed. It will take getting use to it, spatially compare to the 7D.
    With the E-M1 there is a big improvement but still hunt a bit on small subjects. I have found that is is worst when I use the smallest focus area square.
    Also found out that once your lens in focused at a distance close to the subject, it focus faster by using the touch screen, don't know why!

    The Panasonic was to soft for my taste, have tried 2 different copies.

    The Oly 75-300 was to slow, again using higher ISO to compensate was not an option, specially coming from a 7D.
    Focus was accurate and mush faster, IQ was not bad...

    My 2 cents...
     
  6. fike

    fike Mu-43 Regular

    25
    Feb 11, 2013
    I have owned both the 50-200 and the 75-300 vII and a canon 7D with the 100-400. For image quality between the Olympus lenses, it isn't close. The 50-200 with a 1.4x teleconverter is far superior. On the other hand focusing performance is crap. Without the converter, the focus performance of the 50-200 becomes adequate.

    Compared to the canon 100-400, the 75-300 is crap. IQ of The 50-200 with a 1.4x converter is comparable. Focus performance of the 50-200 with converter is far inferior to the 100-400. Without the 1.4x converter, focus performance is a little bit better with the 100-400, but the reach comparison is no longer valid.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailpixie/tags/50200/

    Here is one example from the set above.
    10783667694_84657a879c_z.
     
  7. MarkoPolo

    MarkoPolo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Jan 25, 2014
    Greeley, CO
    Mark Brown
    Thanks for the replies. I have the 50-200 SWD coming this weekend with the EC 1.4. Hoping that the EM-1 will focus adequately, but honestly the 7D was not sterling in that regard, especially with the 100-400. And because I used TC's with both the 100-400 and 400f/5.6 I have gotten used to manually focusing, but it is still hard for fast moving small critters. I'll know more in a couple of weeks.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Rob E-W

    Rob E-W Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Jan 24, 2017
    Nottingham, UK
    Rob Edlin-White
    This is an ancient thread, but I wonder how it worked out?

    I've been trying out 50-200 (non SWD) on E-M5 II with a cheapo adapter, and IQ is stunning, but AF is poor, and - when high focal length and long distance and poor light - is utterly useless. Need to use MF. Even S-AF+MF isn't very useful. Peaking and magnification is very useful. I'm now wondering whether it's the lens, the limitation of the E-M5 II or the cheapo adapter ( ZCTL Auto Focus M43 lens Adapter for AF Four Thirds to: Amazon.co.uk: Camera & Photo )
     
  9. jd950

    jd950 Mu-43 Regular

    34
    Apr 23, 2010
    Rob: The older 4/3 lenses will not work well on any of the micro four thirds bodies except the E-M1 and E-M1 ii. It would be expected that the 50-200 would not focus quickly on the E-M5. FWIW, I have a number of 4/3 lenses bought new before the micro four thirds stuff was around and for the most part, those lenses work well on the E-M1. My 50-200 (non-SWD) seems to focus quickly and well. Perhaps not quite up to current lenses in that regard, but the difference is very small and I am usually satisfied. Try your lens on an E-M1 and I think you will see what I mean.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Rob E-W

    Rob E-W Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Jan 24, 2017
    Nottingham, UK
    Rob Edlin-White
    This forum is wonderful. Or rather the people on it are. Brilliant, prompt and well informed reply. Thanks for reassurance. If necessary I can use MF ... we all did in the old 35mm film days. My old OM-2N :)
     
  11. jim_chung

    jim_chung Mu-43 Regular

    89
    Dec 30, 2016
    Jim Chung
    Rob, check my new thread about focus speeds with 43rds glass.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    I have used my 50-200SWD on my E-M10 and initially found it too slow to be useable. But after a recent post here, I tried it again and found that in good light or wide open, the lens does ok. The AF performance on my E-M1 is significantly better. The SWD has a tendency to rack sometimes, but the always on manual focus (don't know if the non-SWD version has it) helps.

    One suggestion I would have is to get the Olympus MMF-3 adapter if you can afford it. Being weather-resistant, it gives you a nice WR tele kit with your E-M5 II. And you will be able to rule out any adapter issues.

    On a separate note, there are a couple of threads detailing SWD motor failure on the 12-60SWD and some people attributed it to using CDAF. If true, you may be better off with your non-SWD version on the E-M5.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Rob E-W

    Rob E-W Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Jan 24, 2017
    Nottingham, UK
    Rob Edlin-White
    thanks. If a motor fails, is that terminal? Or economically repairable?
     
  14. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    I am not sure if Olympus is still repairing the non SWD lenses, but they told me last year that the SWD version is still covered by their flat rate repair program for around $250 (in the US). At the going price of the non-SWD version, buying another used copy may be cheaper :)

    This thread might be of interest: 50-200 fell apart!
     
  15. jd950

    jd950 Mu-43 Regular

    34
    Apr 23, 2010
    I think highly of the lens, but as noted, the non-SWD is not repairable by Olympus and I have heard reports over the years of the SWD motors having reliability issues. I don't think I would go and buy one of these lenses now unless it was priced pretty low as a more-or-less disposable lens, but I will keep using mine until it falls apart. If buying a lens in the approximate price range of waht a clean 50-200 SWD seems to bring, I think I would get the 75-300 or Panasonic 100-300 instead. I also have the Panasonic and it is not bad but seems a little soft at the long end. I am planning on getting the 40-150 2.8 and converter soon and that would be my "preferred" lens in the +/- 200 focal range, but there is a little bit of a cost difference between it and the others.
     
  16. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    All the reports I have seen for SWD failure are for the 12-60. Haven't found one for the 50-200SWD.

    I owned the 75-300 before I bought the 50-200SWD and decided not to keep 75-300 once I had both the lenses. I think that the IQ and speed of the 50-200 are really compelling especially when combined with an E-M1. May be a better fit with the E-M5II. The upcoming 50-200/2.8-4 from Panasonic will be another faster option in the longer tele range.
     
  17. Rob E-W

    Rob E-W Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Jan 24, 2017
    Nottingham, UK
    Rob Edlin-White
    On a side issue, the 50-200 weighs about a kilo, front loaded, and more with adapter and possible tele-converter. Compare with e.g. the 761g 40-150 Pro which I think is the heaviest "native" M43 lens. Is 1kg or more still within the design limits of OM-D M43 bodies such as E-M5 II? I hold the lens when shooting obviously, or use the tripod mound on the lens not the one on the body, but if the rest of the time it's hanging from a strap by the two eyelets, is this going to cause damage in the long term?

    I suppose I could attach a strap to the lens tripod mount instead, but my standard-issue Oly strap doesn't have such a connector. Am I worrying about nothing here? The weight of the lens means when hanging it's pointing mainly downwards, not horizontally.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  18. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler Subscribing Member

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    @Rob E-W@Rob E-W,
    Hi, the weight of the 40-150+MC-14 is similar to the ZD 50-200. Probably not a problem.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    I would not be too worried. Personally, I don't use neck straps much any more and find it easier to carry by the lens when I have the 50-200 on my E-M1. If you want more security, you could consider something like this: Amazon.com : OP/TECH USA 1301212 Lens Support Adaptor - System Connectors : Photographic Equipment Bag Straps : Camera & Photo.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    I think the mount is strong enough to hold the heaviest of the Four Thirds lenses, otherwise it would make no sense to sell an adapter for these (without a huge compatibility warning at least). So it should be safe to use the 90-250/2.8 (3.3 kg) that I think is the biggest one. And the native 300/4 is 1.5 kg.

    Just do not swing it around in unreasonable ways.
     
    • Like Like x 2