Need Lens Advice from owners of 70-300mm & 50-200mm lenses

I presently own the E520 and use the 70-300mm lense for shooting kids sports photography. While I like the zoom of the 70-300 when compared to its price point, I find that, at 300mm, it is slow to autofocus, especially in low light conditions.

I have been considering the 50-200mm lense for shooting mainly soccer & basketball and using a 1.4x teleconverter to make up for when I need the longer zoom. My question is this: is the 50-200mm, compared to the 70-300mm, worth the $$ to achieve faster autofocusing and a lower lower fstop? I have been shooting on aperature priority mode at f4 and shooting action from the sideline to mid-field with the 70-300mm.

Thanks for your insight.

I owned both lenses, but used 70-300 on E-510 while I use 50-200 SWD on E-3 so it might not be a fair comparison.

The 70-300 was great, especially when you stop down to f7.1-9, but that means you lose a lot of light gathering ability.

The 50-200 is sharper than 70-300 on all focal lenghts and all apertures, but not that much (compared to 70-300 on f8 for example).

The beauty with 50-200 is that you can shoot at any aperture without worrying if the shot is going to be sharp or not.

It's pretty fast to focus as well and doesn't hunt + it's virtually silent making no buzzing noises.

I have no experience with the 1.4TC though, but I hear good things about it.

You could alternatively consider 90-250 f2.8 if you've got the money

As the previous poster mentioned, IQ difference under optimal conditions for each lens is not huge, 50-200 is miles ahead in focusing speed and aperture. Shots taken at F4 with 50-200 look sharper than F8 on the longer lens.

The 50-200mm lens is faster, and sharper. But like someone else mentioned, under optimum conditions you won't see the difference in your photos. The difference will be in handling speed and and in autofocus accuracy.

And it should be a better lens. It costs three times as much.

The shorter lens is actually longer and heaver. This is because it is faster, so it uses more glass. And it is weather sealed and much better built. The 50-200mm is one of the better lenses Olympus makes, and while not cheap, is reasonably priced when compared to similar lenses from Canon, Nikon or Sony.

For indoor shooting, 300mm might be overkill. 50-200mm might be perfect. And adding the 1.4X extender will only slow the lens down. You will lose around a full stop if not more.

The 70-300mm is a pretty good lens for long distance wildlife shooting. It seems huge compared to other 4/3 lenses but compared to a 600mm film lens it is downright petite.

I've actually used that lens at full extension (600mm) handheld and gotten good results in daylight.

If you do a lot of indoor telephoto shooting it might pay to bite the bullet and get the 50-200mm SWD lens.



It will outlive your E520 and the next four cameras you buy.
--
Marty
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
Olympus E-30
Zuiko 9-18mm
Zuiko 14-54mm II
Zuiko 40-150mm I
Zuiko 70-300mm
Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 macro

I use the old version of the 50-200mm + 1.4 TC on my E520. I also have the 70-300mm. I like the 50-200mm much better. Aside from it just being a brighter lens, it handles better, focuses faster and it's sharper at all aperatures in my opinion. Some would argue with me about the sharpness, but that is my impression. The TC doesn't degrade the image at all that I can see. The weight of it helps me to keep it steady as well. I hardly use the 70-300mm any more. You can pick up the old version used for around $600 probably. The SWD version will focus faster on your E520 but not as fast as on the E3. I would think that everything else would be comparable to the old version.

The 70-300mm is a very good lens for the money and people get wonderful images using it. I just found that I had to work much harder at it.

Jolene
--



My galleries-- http://www.zenfolio.com/jolieo

Thank you one and all for the input. It has been very helpful.

Jolie O, so, using the 520, do you believe it is worth it in autofocus performance to spend $400 more on a new SWD version vs. $600 for a used non-SWD version?

I don't know because I've never used the SWD version. Sports are pretty demanding and it might be. I shoot birds (but they are usually sitting fairly still) and I am happy with the older version on my E520.

I think that you should do a search or start a new thread--surely there are people out there that have used both on a lower end body.
Good luck,
Jolene
--



My galleries-- http://www.zenfolio.com/jolieo

Stephen Jenkins said:

I presently own the E520 and use the 70-300mm lense for shooting kids sports photography . While I like the zoom of the 70-300 when compared to its price point, I find that, at 300mm, it is slow to autofocus, especially in low light conditions.

I have been considering the 50-200mm lense for shooting mainly soccer & basketball and using a 1.4x teleconverter to make up for when I need the longer zoom. My question is this: is the 50-200mm, compared to the 70-300mm, worth the $$ to achieve faster autofocusing and a lower lower fstop? I have been shooting on aperature priority mode at f4 and shooting action from the sideline to mid-field with the 70-300mm.

Thanks for your insight.

Click to expand...

First, sports activities aren't in the dark, even kids sport may not be in TV quality light, but well enough light...

Second, in kids sports activities, you prolly won't be sitting/standing that far- like in big arena, in professional sports...I guess, you'd like to capture "an activity" itself, not just kids faces...

Third, someone on this forum(can remember his name right now) posts NHL Hockey games photos taken with 40-150...After seeing his sport photos, you might deceide and try kids sports with 40-150, might be enough for you...

Just my opinion...

p.s.: I have 70-300mm, I'm trying to get pictures of birds, airplanes, candid photos of people...

I've owned both of these lenses and the step up to the 50-200 (non-SWD) is one of the few camera gear choices that I could honestly try to claim was justified by need rather than compulsive collecting. I use it a lot to shoot kids' soccer outdoors in poor natural light and am now happy to share my photo output with other team parents rather than a bit apologetic about it as previously with the 70-300. On the rare occasions when I would have wanted a bit of extra zoom, cropping works just fine.

The fellow who has posted various galleries of sports images is Greg Chappell who

goes by the name of greg61 on this forum. The stuff that he's done is nothing short of amazing.
Here's a link to his galleries: http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports

As for the question is getting an SWD 50-200mm version worth the added money when used on an E-520. I don't believe so. I've owned both the 70-300mm and the 50-200mm ED which I still use. The 50-200mm ED version worked well on the my E-510 but the AF speed is clearly faster when used on my E-30. The AF system of the E-30 is more sophisticated-being virtually identical to that of the E-3. While, the E-510 AF system is basically the same as is used in the E-520.

Unless you're planning on upgrading your E-520 to an E-3 or E-30 in the near future, my suggestion would be to get the ED version and save a couple of hundred dollars.

Zig

I've only borrowed a 70-300, so my experience is a bit fleeting.

What I found was: in bright sunlight, there wasn't a great deal of difference between the two in terms of IQ. Maybe the 50-200 was a bit sharper, maybe that was owner pride.

However, the moment the light is anything but optimal, the 50-200 maintains overall sharpness, while the 70-300 loses it quickly, even what's in focus.