I've found a good deal on a used 150/2.0 (less than a 40-150 Pro), and I'm a little tempted. The rational person in me says 'stick with the 50-200 SWD'. But there's real appeal to a very fast telephoto. How is the AF speed? Is it worth it? I would probably mostly use it on trips involving wildlife, and the weight (more than bulk) holds me back a little (and is the thing that rules out the 300/2.8). I'm also intruiged by the upcoming 100-400 (despite the slow long end) for its range, but a fast tele prime is something I've never owned yet. I'm wondering if it's really worth it. I have more or less decided that MfT will be my telephoto system and Sony for the wide end, and this is a very tempting offer... Argh!
Get it, you will not be disappointed. I have the 50-200 and a few months ago picked up the 150/2. I am really happy that I got it. There is something magical about images from this lens and having a 300mm f/2.0 lens sure is nice. I also was thinking the 100-400 might be a nice lens to pick (in addition to the 300/4) but in another thread someone mentioned it's pretty close speed wise to the 50-200 with the EC-20. So I went out today with my 50-200 and EC-20. Needless to say, on a mostly cloudy day I was never able to shoot at ISO 200 and keep my shutter speed high enough. That kind of puts the 100-400 off my list.
It's a fairly rare lens. Assuming good condition, at the price you describe it would not be hard to flip at zero loss if it's not for you. And then at least you'll have scratched that itch and can stop wondering about it.
The teleconverters are generally far better than ones I've used in other systems, the EC20 has a reputation for being soft however I suspect it's more to do with autofocus fine adjust than anything (in my experience it needs more adjustment than the lens alone or EC14). The EC14 is almost universally regarded as amazing. Edit: the 150/2 is also universally regarded as amazing. The problem with "renting" a lens this good is you can't/won't let it go, renter beware.
OK, I'll try. No, don't buy this lens. So what if it's one of the best lenses ever made for any system. It's only one stop faster than the 40-150. Even knowing that it's out there, you could probably be almost happy with the nearly as good, slower 40-150. It's possible... I guess. So, um... right, don't buy it Fred
Anyone ever tried it on a non PDAF body? I suppose that the AF is so bad that I should not but this lens, right? The only thing I can suggest to the OP is to wait for the 300/4 and see how it is. Unless the deal is very good, then go for it, like tkbslc said it's a rare beast.
Well, tkbslc convinced me - it was 100 euros more than a lens I found on a craigslist-type place (but 400 less than the 40-150 retails for here with the teleconverter), I can return it no questions asked in the next 14 days and it comes with a 1 year warranty. I already have the MMF-3 and the 1.4x teleconverter afterall; We'll see how I get along with it! Exciting! I figure if I end up using it exclusively with TC and/or want even more reach, I'll consider sidegrading to the 300/4 when it finally comes out. But the ability to 'zoom out' by popping out a TC, and the fact it's then a very fast telephoto (300 equivalent FOV is plenty for a lot of non-Safari shooting; I'm not a birder after all) along with the pricing convinced me to give it a shot. That shouldn't be a huge issue for me - where I tend to use these super telephotos is countries with interesting animals and lots of sunshine (Africa, South America, Australia), and while more light is always better, if the 100-400 is more compact/a bit lighter, faster AF and has better IQ than the 50-200 with a 2.0x TC, it may still be a winner for those specific situations. But it won't get a ton of use here 'at home'. I quite enjoyed my 100-300 Panasonic when I owned it (was stolen), although the 50-200 has sort of spolied me, and it is very hard to beat in terms of bang for the buck. Oh, and thanks for nothing guys
Just bought a nearly 90% new ZD 150mm F2 , with the E-M1, it is better that before.(I have one when use EM5, it is very slow), AF are slower that MZD 40-150 PRO (last one with 1.4X)
Question for you 43's 5-200mm lens owners. Does the Olympus 43's 50-200mm SWD suffer from zoom creep? Thanks, Bobby
I had the 50-200 and resisted the 150f2 for quite a while, I wrote up my thoughts in another thread here: https://www.mu-43.com/threads/32190/page-6#post-801909
Mine is pretty worn and beat up (it was used when I got it and I am hard on gear) and I still don't have a problem with creep. If anything it is a bit hard to zoom in/out so maybe that helps it not creep.
In my opinion, between ZD 150mm F2 and zd 50-200 SWD (use with E-M1)are: 1. AF zd 50-200 SWD are much faster that 150 F2 (Fat boy), with 1.4X are also 2. 150 F2 Fat boy are use for low light condition with needn't too high iso and image quality output much better that zoom lens. 3. 150 F2 can use 1.4x and 2X image quality are not bad, 50-200 can use 1.4X only if you need detail. 4. 150 mm image dimensional (most 43 lens are better that m43 normal lenses )are much better even use F2. 5. zd 50-200 SWD are light than 150 Fat boy, easy to carry for hold day walk. PS: I will looking for the kipon adapter (EF to m43) and will try the EF long range lens like EF 400mm F5.6L Sigma 150-600 for birding (with E-M1) later.
Thanks for all the replies!!! This means of course I've got this 43's 50-200mm SWD lens on the top of my list with the 1.4X too. I was unsure about getting the 1.4X but so many who comment on the 50-200mm SWD also mention how good it is with this converter that I've added it to the list. Bobby
