E-M1 PDAF Question

Eric Nepean wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

SkiHound wrote:

At some point I need to invest in a higher quality zoom. I've considered buying a used 50-200 rather than the 40-150 simply because of price differences. Would be interested in hearing more about how the two lenses compare. I'm guessing the 40-150 focuses faster on an E-M1? Any impressions with respect to IQ differences or ergonomics would also be welcome. Thanks. Will probably end up biting the bullet for the 40-150 at some point, but have wondered how the 50-200 would compare.

I have the earlier, non SWD 50-200. It's reasonably close to the 40-150 Pro in resolution and contrast and like the Pro can be used wide open. Focus response is well shy of the Pro and burst rate is limited in comparison. Of course it has the extra 50mm reach and pairs well with the EC14 to make it 70-283. Noticeable vignetting at the long end needs correction in post.

For action work, I reach for the Pro ten times out of ten.

Cheers,

Rick

I have the E-M1 and the SWD 40-200. The autofocus is fast and efficient. I purchased the SWD 50-200 and the EC-14 used from KEH and saved about $1000 over a new MZ 40-150 Pro + 1.4xTC.

I like the fact that I have a bigger zoom range and a longer maximum focal length.

First let me quantify this post. I am not a sports or action oriented photographer. I used to own the m43's 12-40mm Pro zoom with an E-M5 and over time realized I missed the focal range. I also bought from KEH a 43's 12-60mm SWD zoom for my new E-M1 and I am just as satisfied with it's auto focus as I was with the m43's 12-40mm Pro (plus I saved a lot of money). I am so satisfied with the IQ of this lens that I am saving up to buy the 43's 50-200mm SWD (and save even more money). I wouldn't bet money that the m43's 40-150mm Pro with or without TC-14 would be equal or slower to AF than the 43's 50-200mm, but I will bet money that it's more expensive.

Bobby (aka cheap)