Telephoto/Super telephoto lens

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by neofx19, Jul 8, 2013.

  1. neofx19

    neofx19 Mu-43 Regular

    May 16, 2012
    I'm looking to get a Telephoto/Super telephoto lens but I'm not quite sure which one to get. In the past I used a 50-200mm SWD version and it worked great with my E-3 but I sold all my four thirds gear three years ago. I heard a lot of issues with SWD lenses and m4/3 bodies so I'm not going to get an SWD lens anytime soon. As a micro four thirds user, I'm looking to get a lens I can use indoors and outdoors. I've narrowed it down to the following...

    Panasonic 100-300mm
    SIgma 70-200mm 2.8 plus adapter
    Olympus 50-200mm 2.8 (Non-swd) plus adapter

    I was wondering if I could get some input on the following lenses. Specifically the focusing both auto and low light. I mainly want to use this lens for school and church performances plus occasionally sports and wildlife. Thanks in advance.
  2. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    What is the intended usage?

    For me, I mostly use/need a 'super telephoto' indoor for sports. Which means gyms, which means crappy lighting. So the P100-300 is much too slow. Typically, one needs f/2.8 or better for indoor action stuff.

    I'd get the P35-100 f/2.8 and either wait for a fast 150mm prime which I heard was coming out this year (IIRC) or look for a 200 f/2.8 or 300mm f/2.8 plus adapter if you're okay with MF.

  3. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I agree with Gary to stick with a faster lens over a slower one like the Lumix 100-300mm, although if you want both extreme reach and fast AF then a slow lens is what you're stuck with at the moment until we get more native lenses to the system. Until then you can either get a fast lens with fast AF but with shorter reach like the Lumix X 35-100mm f/2.8, or get a fast lens with good reach, but forgo AF. It all depends on your needs.

    The Zuiko 50-200mm is a superior lens to the Sigma 70-200mm. As far as SWD vs non-SWD, that all depends on how you use the lens. The problem with the SWD motor on a Micro Four-Thirds camera only applies to regular use of AF. CDAF racks the lens in and out to find focus and that mechanical motor can't physically handle it. However, when using a lens not made for CDAF, which includes all SWD lenses, they are also rather slow to AF and if you are experienced with manual focus you should be able to MF faster and more accurately than AF with such a lens. Therefore, if you are not using the AF regularly and relying more on MF, then the mechanically-linked SWD lens gives you a better feel for your manual focusing. I use the Zuiko 50-200mm SWD on my Pen cameras regularly, and I prefer it over the fly-by-wire Zuiko lenses I also use... but I'm not one to fall back on AF and can function fine without it (though if using MF for sports I would suggest a lighter prime instead of the zoom lens. A bright 150mm or 200mm prime will be easier to handle for fast action).

    So yes there is a certain problem with SWD motors on m4/3 cameras, but that all depends on the individual and type of usage. Whether the SWD or non-SWD version of the 50-200mm is the better fit really all depends on you.

    Out of all your choices listed I would go for the Zuiko 50-200mm but again, that's without reliance on AF. Otherwise, I would get the Lumix X 35-100mm/2.8, and try to get closer or crop if necessary. I don't like any slow lenses, as a personal preference. ;) 
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.