Shootout Olympus 50-200/2.8~3.5 SWD vs 40-150/2.8

[ijm5012]

I had a 50-200 SWD for several years. Earlier this year it broke and I considered many options to replace it. I decided to buy the 300mm f4 Pro, and it is a stellar lens for birds and wildlife and I enjoyed using it on a trip to Spain and Portugal recently. But the weight and fixed focal length meant it spend a lot of time in the hotel and I regret the purchase. Recently I found an excellent copy of the 50-200 SWD and repurchased it. The zoom range is ideal and thus can be used in so many circumstances making it a super flexible lens. Focus speed is enough for me. The 300mm f4 Pro will be sold. I never considered the 40-150 Pro as the range is not what I need.

When you’re original SWD broke, why didn’t you get the PL 50-200 f/2.8-4.0?

It gives you the same range, but is much more compact and light weight.

 

[SteveAdler]

When you’re original SWD broke, why didn’t you get the PL 50-200 f/2.8-4.0?

It gives you the same range, but is much more compact and light weight.

The PL costs $1500 and I got a SWD for $300. Why pay 5x more for a lens with the same range and IQ?

 

[Holoholo55]

I had the 50-200 SWD for several years, then bought a 40-150 Pro+MC-14 recently. The IQs are pretty close, but the 40-150 AF's faster and can use Pro-Cap L as well as H. Another difference not mentioned yet is that 4/3rds lenses do not AF in video mode. 40-150 Pro does. So, if you shoot video occasionally with long lenses, this matters.

 

[ijm5012]

The PL costs $1500 and I got a SWD for $300. Why pay 5x more for a lens with the same range and IQ?

You said you didn’t use the 300 PRO much because of it’s weight.

The 300/4 PRO weighs 1475g. The 50-200 SWD weighs 995g.The PanaLeica weighs 655g.
If you want a lens with less weight, the PL 50-200 is it.

Plus, in addition to being lighter, the PL is smaller, has faster focus motors, doesn’t limit the burst rate that the the camera can shoot at, and is repairable if something were to happen to it.

 

[SteveAdler]

You said you didn’t use the 300 PRO much because of it’s weight.

The 300/4 PRO weighs 1475g. The 50-200 SWD weighs 995g.The PanaLeica weighs 655g.
If you want a lens with less weight, the PL 50-200 is it.

Plus, in addition to being lighter, the PL is smaller, has faster focus motors, doesn’t limit the burst rate that the the camera can shoot at, and is repairable if something were to happen to it.

I know, but I would rather save my pennies for exotic travel.

 

[ijm5012]

I know, but I would rather save my pennies for exotic travel.

That’s perfectly reasonable.

I was simply mentioning a more modern optic that filled the same focal range and speed.

 

[jhawk1000]

I have both the 50-200mm 2.8/3.5 and 40-150 2.8 pro. My 50-200 is not SWD and my copy cost me less than $250.00
from KEH eBay. It was bought in July 2019 and has been invaluable for shooting HS football with one problem. After 2 games, my wife decided she liked the 50-200 better and she has used it since for football. We shoot with EM-1 cameras. Our team is ranked in a tie for first in the State and is now 10-0. We do this and post the photos to the football team's Facebook page and our own page to allow the athletes to see themselves in action, to use for their facebook pages, for their enlargements or any way they wish. I love both lenses but must admit that I tend to lean toward the 50-200. I guess that if it breaks, I will find another one, probably an SWD model and use it until it breaks.

 

[blackfox wildlife]

As a fairly recent convert to Olympus (sept) and a wildlife shooting OAP with limited funds , I looked for a cheap but accurate way to achieve what I want , after reading up and realising that these older lenses work on em1ii I bought a 50-200swd and mmf.3 from a u.k dealer with 12 months warranty .. straight out of the box it was spot on .. a couple of weeks later I found a EC.14 tc on e.bay for a bite your hand off price .. this initially proved problematical till I found that it could be micro adjusted ,,job now done and in all honesty I cannot fault the set up either with or without the t.c .its fast to both focus and shoot I don’t nit pick over shutter speeds it delivers pictures with punch . And just a week or so ago I added a 12-60 f2.8 to the collection as well . The two lenses, adaptor,and t.c costing me under £500 u.k pounds a bargain in this day and age

 

[AndyT]

Two 4/3rds lenses I wish I did not have to sell with my E3's - the 12-60 and 50mm macro .............................
But I was not letting the 50-200 SWD go !

 

[SteveAdler]

I think we over-emphasize the "magic" and importance of lenses in general, and that mystification empowers camera companies to make very high margins on the new ones. But really, lens technology hasn't changed that much in the last 20 years especially with regards to long zooms and primes. I tested the Olympus 300mm f4 Pro against an ancient Sigma APO 300mm f4 Tele Macro with a metabones smart adapter. OK, the Sigma is slow to focus and forget about C-AF. But overall IQ and sharpness is surprisingly similar. I'm sure the same is true with regards to the 50-200 SWD and the 40-150 Pro and new Leica 50-200. Any of these lenses can be used to produce great and terrible images by any of us on any given day....

 

[jhawk1000]

No over-emphasizing the "magic" of the lenses I use. They do what I bought them to do. I think that the 50-200 is as good as the 40-150 Pro for what I want it to do. Both lenses focus fast and both have excellent IQ. I knew that CDAF would be slow with all but the EM1 and since I was going to use the EM1, I entered into the purchase kind of knowing what to expect. It was a matter of money that guided me to the 50-200mm since I did not want to pay another $900 for the 40-150 used. I love them both, both focus on subjects much closer than I was able to do with my Nikon lenses so it was a win-win.