Reading mode: Light Dark

50-200 swd or not for mFT

Go to last post
jim stirling

jim stirling

Veteran Member
Messages
7,356
Solutions
1
Reaction score
2,396
Location
Scotland, UK
A bit of a hypothetical question ,I believe from reading posts in the mFT forum that though far from speedy the non-SWD version of the 50-200 is a little quicker to focus on the current mFT adapter. Now, for the hypothetical part of the question. When Olympus brings out the next high end mFT camera, with the adapter to allow proper use of the FT lenses. Is it fair to assume that the SWD lens will then have the fastest AF? I appreciate that the answer is going to be a little speculative. Although I don’t know the specs of the future high end model based on the OMD I will be hopefully buying it, the relatively small size of the OMD with to me fiddly controls and its poorer video implication are the only reasons I bought the GH3’s. Hopefully the next body will be a bit larger and a bit better ergonomically.

I am not an avid telephoto shooter however I would like a bit longer than the 35-100 { which ,is performing very well} and the 50-200/SWD delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Apart from the hopeful gain in AF speed does the SWD have any other notable improvements


Thanks

Jim
 
jim stirling said:
jim stirling wrote:

A bit of a hypothetical question ,I believe from reading posts in the mFT forum that though far from speedy the non-SWD version of the 50-200 is a little quicker to focus on the current mFT adapter. Now, for the hypothetical part of the question. When Olympus brings out the next high end mFT camera, with the adapter to allow proper use of the FT lenses. Is it fair to assume that the SWD lens will then have the fastest AF?
Click to expand...
Jim,

it might be prudent to ask Olyflyer a question on this.

I seem to recall he did some testing on the original V SWD focus speed (although it was years ago, and I may be mixing up the lenses!).

I have a feeling that the SWD wasn't actually that much faster!
jim stirling said:
I appreciate that the answer is going to be a little speculative. Although I don’t know the specs of the future high end model based on the OMD I will be hopefully buying it, the relatively small size of the OMD with to me fiddly controls and its poorer video implication are the only reasons I bought the GH3’s. Hopefully the next body will be a bit larger and a bit better ergonomically.

I am not an avid telephoto shooter however I would like a bit longer than the 35-100 { which ,is performing very well} and the 50-200/SWD delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Apart from the hopeful gain in AF speed does the SWD have any other notable improvements
Click to expand...
I have never seen a test posted that showed any worthwhile IQ difference, and I've seen a number of tests that show the two lenses to give identical output.

I never bothered upgrading from my original one to the SWD.

Remember the lens hood is MUCH bigger on the SWD one, and can be a PITA to fit into a bag even reversed.
 
i've shot motorsports with the original Jim, and it would do the old pop out of focus and then refocus at the wrong time trick on the E-1, but i was still very usable, so i guess if the AF modules are good it would be a solid performer compared to the SWD version
 
Huh. Strange that the only people asking and answering this interesting question (at this writing) are the useless Oly-hating dual-brand owners.

:)

I have both models, Jim. On the E-1, E-500, E-510, and E-3, I found focus acquisition not much different, but the SWD iteration tracked moving subjects quite a bit better. In past discussions, some people disagreed with me and thought acquisition was also faster on the new model. I guess it depends on your technique and what you shoot.

Anyway, assuming you'll be using PDAF, with a focusing module similar to what is in use on the Oly DSLRs now, you would definitely want the SWD model for things like BIFs. For stationary wildlife, portraits, and sports like tennis, where you might be using S-AF, I don't know if it's worth paying the extra for an SWD motor, which may break more easily than the old focus motor (I don't know that that's true, just a guess). Then again, the classic 50-200 is not totally immune to problems itself. Ask the Big Bad Boy above for further details.


Speaking of strange issues, I had one with my classic model, where focus at 200mm would be unresponsive. I mean, totally dead. I had to either focus manually or zoom out to around 180mm to "jump start" the focus. I sent it back to Olympus, and they said it was working within spec. I was hoping for some improvement with the SWD model, but it behaved exactly the same way. Go figure.

Optically, there might be some difference if you pixel peep at them side by side, but otherwise I don't see a noticeable improvement. I definitely would not pay for the SWD version on that basis alone. However, you might feel differently if you mostly shoot birds in trees, with branches in the near foreground and background.


I turned up a bunch of related threads when I was searching for my own past postings on the topic. Sorry if they are redundant, but I am going to just dump them below (subtract the spaces from the off-forum links):

Loading…

forums.dpreview.com

Loading…

forums.dpreview.com

http://forum. fourthirdsphoto.com /f48/please-help-cant-decide-between-old-new-50-200-a-33582-2.html

http://www. fourthirdsphoto.com /f75/zuiko-digital-olympus-50-200-swd-32107.html

http://www. fourthirdsphoto.com /f48/new-50-200-swd-worth-moving-up-34932.html

http://www. fourthirdsphoto.com /f48/50-200-swd-optically-different-32035.html

Julie
jim stirling said:
jim stirling wrote:

A bit of a hypothetical question ,I believe from reading posts in the mFT forum that though far from speedy the non-SWD version of the 50-200 is a little quicker to focus on the current mFT adapter. Now, for the hypothetical part of the question. When Olympus brings out the next high end mFT camera, with the adapter to allow proper use of the FT lenses. Is it fair to assume that the SWD lens will then have the fastest AF? I appreciate that the answer is going to be a little speculative. Although I don’t know the specs of the future high end model based on the OMD I will be hopefully buying it, the relatively small size of the OMD with to me fiddly controls and its poorer video implication are the only reasons I bought the GH3’s. Hopefully the next body will be a bit larger and a bit better ergonomically.

I am not an avid telephoto shooter however I would like a bit longer than the 35-100 { which ,is performing very well} and the 50-200/SWD delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Apart from the hopeful gain in AF speed does the SWD have any other notable improvements

Thanks

Jim
Click to expand...
 
The AF speed difference between the two versions on μ43 isn't significant. The biggest focusing problem with SWD (I cannot say for the original) is that the AF just isn't accurate enough of the time to be particularly useful. The main benefit of the SWD over the original on a μ43 camera is the access to a mechanically coupled focusing ring, which makes MF significantly easier than it otherwise would be. I was in a similar position as you and I went with the SWD version for that very reason. I don't use telephotos often enough, but wanted something with better IQ than what's available. And since I mainly shoot static subjects, AF didn't really matter to me.
 
jim stirling said:
jim stirling wrote:

A bit of a hypothetical question ,I believe from reading posts in the mFT forum that though far from speedy the non-SWD version of the 50-200 is a little quicker to focus on the current mFT adapter. Now, for the hypothetical part of the question. When Olympus brings out the next high end mFT camera, with the adapter to allow proper use of the FT lenses. Is it fair to assume that the SWD lens will then have the fastest AF? I appreciate that the answer is going to be a little speculative. Although I don’t know the specs of the future high end model based on the OMD I will be hopefully buying it, the relatively small size of the OMD with to me fiddly controls and its poorer video implication are the only reasons I bought the GH3’s. Hopefully the next body will be a bit larger and a bit better ergonomically.

I am not an avid telephoto shooter however I would like a bit longer than the 35-100 { which ,is performing very well} and the 50-200/SWD delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Apart from the hopeful gain in AF speed does the SWD have any other notable improvements

Thanks

Jim
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

I'm not touching the hypothetical new camera with a ten-foot pole, but can respond from the standpoint of a pdaf E-series body. The SWD edition focuses and locks faster than the older edition. This is easily demonstrated trying them side by side. The SWD has the added benefit of mechanical manual focus, just like a classic manual lens. I much prefer that to drive-by-wire MF.

Optically, they're nearly identical and it would be hard to pick one over the other in that regard. However, the SWD version has curved aperture blades and is considered to offer better (smoother) bokeh than the earlier edition, which can give "gritty" bokeh in certain settings. This is an aesthetic rather than a bench-test difference. Oh yes, the SWD lens hood is a gigantic dog dish of a thing that can't be stowed in a normal size camera bag. The other's is big, but quite slender.

I do use the earlier 50-200 on my E-M5 with pretty reliable results. It's bang-on with my E-series bodies, but certainly slower than the SWD and there are times I'd kill for a focus limiter, like the 150's.

Let's say I didn't own anything, today. Given a new camera with fast pdaf and top-drawer CAF, between the two lenses I'd pick the SWD in a heartbeat.

Cheers,

Rick
 
Last edited:
windsprite said:
windsprite wrote:

Huh. Strange that the only people asking and answering this interesting question (at this writing) are the useless Oly-hating dual-brand owners.

:)
Click to expand...
The bounders :-)
windsprite said:
I have both models, Jim. On the E-1, E-500, E-510, and E-3, I found focus acquisition not much different, but the SWD iteration tracked moving subjects quite a bit better. In past discussions, some people disagreed with me and thought acquisition was also faster on the new model. I guess it depends on your technique and what you shoot.

Anyway, assuming you'll be using PDAF, with a focusing module similar to what is in use on the Oly DSLRs now, you would definitely want the SWD model for things like BIFs. For stationary wildlife, portraits, and sports like tennis, where you might be using S-AF, I don't know if it's worth paying the extra for an SWD motor, which may break more easily than the old focus motor (I don't know that that's true, just a guess). Then again, the classic 50-200 is not totally immune to problems itself. Ask the Big Bad Boy above for further details.

Speaking of strange issues, I had one with my classic model, where focus at 200mm would be unresponsive. I mean, totally dead. I had to either focus manually or zoom out to around 180mm to "jump start" the focus. I sent it back to Olympus, and they said it was working within spec. I was hoping for some improvement with the SWD model, but it behaved exactly the same way. Go figure.

Optically, there might be some difference if you pixel peep at them side by side, but otherwise I don't see a noticeable improvement. I definitely would not pay for the SWD version on that basis alone. However, you might feel differently if you mostly shoot birds in trees, with branches in the near foreground and background.

I turned up a bunch of related threads when I was searching for my own past postings on the topic. Sorry if they are redundant, but I am going to just dump them below (subtract the spaces from the off-forum links):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/38995120


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/26759368


http://forum. fourthirdsphoto.com /f48/please-help-cant-decide-between-old-new-50-200-a-33582-2.html

http://www. fourthirdsphoto.com /f75/zuiko-digital-olympus-50-200-swd-32107.html

http://www. fourthirdsphoto.com /f48/new-50-200-swd-worth-moving-up-34932.html

http://www. fourthirdsphoto.com /f48/50-200-swd-optically-different-32035.html

Julie
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the info Julie much appreciated



windsprite said:
windsprite said:
jim stirling wrote:

A bit of a hypothetical question ,I believe from reading posts in the mFT forum that though far from speedy the non-SWD version of the 50-200 is a little quicker to focus on the current mFT adapter. Now, for the hypothetical part of the question. When Olympus brings out the next high end mFT camera, with the adapter to allow proper use of the FT lenses. Is it fair to assume that the SWD lens will then have the fastest AF? I appreciate that the answer is going to be a little speculative. Although I don’t know the specs of the future high end model based on the OMD I will be hopefully buying it, the relatively small size of the OMD with to me fiddly controls and its poorer video implication are the only reasons I bought the GH3’s. Hopefully the next body will be a bit larger and a bit better ergonomically.

I am not an avid telephoto shooter however I would like a bit longer than the 35-100 { which ,is performing very well} and the 50-200/SWD delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Apart from the hopeful gain in AF speed does the SWD have any other notable improvements

Thanks

Jim
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Big Ga said:
Big Ga wrote:
Big Ga said:
jim stirling wrote:

A bit of a hypothetical question ,I believe from reading posts in the mFT forum that though far from speedy the non-SWD version of the 50-200 is a little quicker to focus on the current mFT adapter. Now, for the hypothetical part of the question. When Olympus brings out the next high end mFT camera, with the adapter to allow proper use of the FT lenses. Is it fair to assume that the SWD lens will then have the fastest AF?
Click to expand...
Jim,

it might be prudent to ask Olyflyer a question on this.

I seem to recall he did some testing on the original V SWD focus speed (although it was years ago, and I may be mixing up the lenses!).

I have a feeling that the SWD wasn't actually that much faster!
Big Ga said:
I appreciate that the answer is going to be a little speculative. Although I don’t know the specs of the future high end model based on the OMD I will be hopefully buying it, the relatively small size of the OMD with to me fiddly controls and its poorer video implication are the only reasons I bought the GH3’s. Hopefully the next body will be a bit larger and a bit better ergonomically.

I am not an avid telephoto shooter however I would like a bit longer than the 35-100 { which ,is performing very well} and the 50-200/SWD delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Apart from the hopeful gain in AF speed does the SWD have any other notable improvements
Click to expand...
I have never seen a test posted that showed any worthwhile IQ difference, and I've seen a number of tests that show the two lenses to give identical output.

I never bothered upgrading from my original one to the SWD.

Remember the lens hood is MUCH bigger on the SWD one, and can be a PITA to fit into a bag even reversed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Gareth, I am not really needing super fast AF and it is interesting to here about the quality difference or lack of

Cheers

Jim
 
Last edited:
Member said:
illy wrote:

i've shot motorsports with the original Jim, and it would do the old pop out of focus and then refocus at the wrong time trick on the E-1, but i was still very usable, so i guess if the AF modules are good it would be a solid performer compared to the SWD version
Click to expand...
 
MAubrey said:
MAubrey wrote:

The AF speed difference between the two versions on μ43 isn't significant. The biggest focusing problem with SWD (I cannot say for the original) is that the AF just isn't accurate enough of the time to be particularly useful. The main benefit of the SWD over the original on a μ43 camera is the access to a mechanically coupled focusing ring, which makes MF significantly easier than it otherwise would be. I was in a similar position as you and I went with the SWD version for that very reason. I don't use telephotos often enough, but wanted something with better IQ than what's available. And since I mainly shoot static subjects, AF didn't really matter to me.
Click to expand...
 
jim stirling said:
jim stirling wrote:

A bit of a hypothetical question ,I believe from reading posts in the mFT forum that though far from speedy the non-SWD version of the 50-200 is a little quicker to focus on the current mFT adapter. Now, for the hypothetical part of the question. When Olympus brings out the next high end mFT camera, with the adapter to allow proper use of the FT lenses. Is it fair to assume that the SWD lens will then have the fastest AF? I appreciate that the answer is going to be a little speculative. Although I don’t know the specs of the future high end model based on the OMD I will be hopefully buying it, the relatively small size of the OMD with to me fiddly controls and its poorer video implication are the only reasons I bought the GH3’s. Hopefully the next body will be a bit larger and a bit better ergonomically.

I am not an avid telephoto shooter however I would like a bit longer than the 35-100 { which ,is performing very well} and the 50-200/SWD delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Apart from the hopeful gain in AF speed does the SWD have any other notable improvements

Thanks

Jim
Click to expand...
If they can implement proper PDAF then it is safe to assume the SWD version will in fact be faster, but more than that, it will be quieter to focus as well. Significant as most people that want better tracking not only want it in stills but in video as well for things such as birding. The 4/3 lenses as they are now aren't supported in C-AF for video and manual focus or S-AF will allow you to hear the individual clicks of the focus by wire system but the SWD lenses don't click so the in camera mic or SEMA-1 with a mic directly connected won't pick up the focus noise. As for which is going to be faster, native m4/3 vs SWD, you can technically test that now with an E-5 vs and EM5 with their fastest focusing lenses, the m4/3 lenses focus faster.
 
Skeeterbytes said:
Skeeterbytes wrote:
Skeeterbytes said:
jim stirling wrote:

A bit of a hypothetical question ,I believe from reading posts in the mFT forum that though far from speedy the non-SWD version of the 50-200 is a little quicker to focus on the current mFT adapter. Now, for the hypothetical part of the question. When Olympus brings out the next high end mFT camera, with the adapter to allow proper use of the FT lenses. Is it fair to assume that the SWD lens will then have the fastest AF? I appreciate that the answer is going to be a little speculative. Although I don’t know the specs of the future high end model based on the OMD I will be hopefully buying it, the relatively small size of the OMD with to me fiddly controls and its poorer video implication are the only reasons I bought the GH3’s. Hopefully the next body will be a bit larger and a bit better ergonomically.

I am not an avid telephoto shooter however I would like a bit longer than the 35-100 { which ,is performing very well} and the 50-200/SWD delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Apart from the hopeful gain in AF speed does the SWD have any other notable improvements

Thanks

Jim
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

I'm not touching the hypothetical new camera with a ten-foot pole, but can respond from the standpoint of a pdaf E-series body. The SWD edition focuses and locks faster than the older edition. This is easily demonstrated trying them side by side. The SWD has the added benefit of mechanical manual focus, just like a classic manual lens. I much prefer that to drive-by-wire MF.
Click to expand...
Ah ,now the mechanical manual focus is also my preferred option , thanks for that snippet Rick
Skeeterbytes said:
Optically, they're nearly identical and it would be hard to pick one over the other in that regard. However, the SWD version has curved aperture blades and is considered to offer better (smoother) bokeh than the earlier edition, which can give "gritty" bokeh in certain settings. This is an aesthetic rather than a bench-test difference. Oh yes, the SWD lens hood is a gigantic dog dish of a thing that can't be stowed in a normal size camera bag. The other's is big, but quite slender.

I do use the earlier 50-200 on my E-M5 with pretty reliable results. It's bang-on with my E-series bodies, but certainly slower than the SWD and there are times I'd kill for a focus limiter, like the 1
Click to expand...
Accuracy is far more important than speed as I will not be chasing diving swallows , so it doesn’t need to be rocket fast. Focus limits are such a useful feature it is surprising that it does not show up in more lenses.

I am assuming/ hoping/ guessing that the rumored future camera with support for FT lenses would therefore benefit from the SWD focus advantage . I had originally posted in the Oly DSLR forum but the question was evicted to here by the mod.

Jim
 
Last edited:
OniMirage said:
OniMirage wrote:
OniMirage said:
jim stirling wrote:

A bit of a hypothetical question ,I believe from reading posts in the mFT forum that though far from speedy the non-SWD version of the 50-200 is a little quicker to focus on the current mFT adapter. Now, for the hypothetical part of the question. When Olympus brings out the next high end mFT camera, with the adapter to allow proper use of the FT lenses. Is it fair to assume that the SWD lens will then have the fastest AF? I appreciate that the answer is going to be a little speculative. Although I don’t know the specs of the future high end model based on the OMD I will be hopefully buying it, the relatively small size of the OMD with to me fiddly controls and its poorer video implication are the only reasons I bought the GH3’s. Hopefully the next body will be a bit larger and a bit better ergonomically.

I am not an avid telephoto shooter however I would like a bit longer than the 35-100 { which ,is performing very well} and the 50-200/SWD delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Apart from the hopeful gain in AF speed does the SWD have any other notable improvements

Thanks

Jim
Click to expand...
If they can implement proper PDAF then it is safe to assume the SWD version will in fact be faster, but more than that, it will be quieter to focus as well. Significant as most people that want better tracking not only want it in stills but in video as well for things such as birding. The 4/3 lenses as they are now aren't supported in C-AF for video and manual focus or S-AF will allow you to hear the individual clicks of the focus by wire system but the SWD lenses don't click so the in camera mic or SEMA-1 with a mic directly connected won't pick up the focus noise. As for which is going to be faster, native m4/3 vs SWD, you can technically test that now with an E-5 vs and EM5 with their fastest focusing lenses, the m4/3 lenses focus faster.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input ,tracking AF is not that important for my intended still image use however I am pretty keen on video .So that is a good point .

Cheers

Jim
 
The swd has a nice snappy focus (on a 43 camera) only if you are fairly close to in focus. If you have to rack the glass far it moves fairly slowly. If you can find the older version for cheap I'd get that one. They work well with monopods.
 
Want to add that either version works brilliantly with the EC14, giving 283mm reach at a one-stop loss. Definitely adds to the lens' utility.

Cheers,

Rick
 
Skeeterbytes said:
Skeeterbytes wrote:

Want to add that either version works brilliantly with the EC14, giving 283mm reach at a one-stop loss. Definitely adds to the lens' utility.

Cheers,

Rick
Click to expand...
Thanks Rick , I wonder why they haven't given us tele-convertors with mFT

Jim
 
Member said:
jkrumm wrote:

The swd has a nice snappy focus (on a 43 camera) only if you are fairly close to in focus. If you have to rack the glass far it moves fairly slowly. If you can find the older version for cheap I'd get that one. They work well with monopods.
Click to expand...
 
jim stirling said:
jim stirling wrote:
Click to expand...

jim stirling said:
Thanks Rick , I wonder why they haven't given us tele-convertors with mFT

Jim
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

I think it's an excellent question (although I've been lectured by forum "experts" the digital teleconverter function renders optical teleconversion obsolete). Honestly, if Oly offered an EC14 for µ4/3 I'd buy it and the 75 and wait with bated breath for the Panny 150/2.8.

Cheers,

Rick
 
Skeeterbytes said:
Skeeterbytes wrote:
Optically, they're nearly identical and it would be hard to pick one over the other in that regard. However, the SWD version has curved aperture blades and is considered to offer better (smoother) bokeh than the earlier edition, which can give "gritty" bokeh in certain settings.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I suspect the people who do this particular considering are ones who WANT the SWD one to have less nasty bokeh, rather than ones who honestly look at the pictures!!

Surely the bad bokeh with the 50-200 is a function of the glass/optic formula (which seems to be pretty much the same on both) . The aperture blades merely changing the shape of the OOF highlights

As I mentioned previously, I've yet to see any side by side comparison where the nastiness of the gritty/double stroke bokeh is lessened on the SWD design. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong though as I'd snap up a new 50-200 tomorrow if this was the case. The bokeh is the main failing of what is otherwise an incredible lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top