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

    Jan 25, 2014
    Greeley, CO
    Real Name:
    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

    Sep 10, 2013
    Hagwilget, B.C., Canada
    Real Name:
    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

    Jan 25, 2014
    Greeley, CO
    Real Name:
    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

    Mar 21, 2011
    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

    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.


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

    MarkoPolo Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 25, 2014
    Greeley, CO
    Real Name:
    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.