Reading mode: Light Dark

40-150 2.8 with 1.4x telecon vs Oly 4/3 50-200 2.8-3.5 SWD for sports

Go to last post
offtheback

offtheback

Senior Member
Messages
1,252
Reaction score
631
Location
MA, US
I do a lot of surf photography(and occasional other action) with the 40-150 2.8 w/1.4x telecon.I like the sharpness and accurate focusing and in many cases I can crop a fair amount if needed.Does anyone have experience with both or just comments on the 50-200 as far as focusing speed/accuracy in C-AF.I've borrowed an Oly 50-200 and only had the opportunity to do a few still shots.Lens appears to be sharp and renders well.
 
Last edited:
Having shot extensively with both lenses, on E-M1 II and OM-1 bodies, I can say that there is no comparison. The 40-150 f/2.8 is telepathically fast compared to the SWD’s leisurely racking back and forth. With the SWD, I often resorted to turning on the autofocus limiter, in order to reduce how much time it was spending trying to lock onto my subjects (usually sea birds fishing at moderate distance overhead). The 40-150 f/2.8 with either teleconverter is much, much faster to lock on. Haven’t used the AF limiter with it yet.

i shoot C-AF almost all the time.

Having said all this, the 50-200 SWD was a hoot to shoot, and I was able to get some great results with it for larger, slower-moving subjects, provided I planned ahead by pre-focusing and paying attention to likely paths of travel. (If your panning skills are good, they will help the SWD quite a lot.) It was fairly useless for things like diving birds, or birds closing distance rapidly at shallow angles or head-on. I could never track diving and re-emerging terns with the SWD, nor get cormorants resurfacing before they swallowed a fish. 40-150 f/2.8 with TC handles those challenges with ease. Even the (underrated) 75-300 did better than the SWD in the fast-action birding scenarios.

--
Enjoy your small world of photography
 
Last edited:
I have both and used my SWD a lot before replacing it with a 100-400 GM and 40-150/2.8 plus MC14.

What he said!

Also a naked 40-150/2.8 is amazingly sharp wide open at 150mm.



1ecf333f28074332af1be9f70fdb8435.jpg

With my copies, adding the MC14 gives a slightly better result than cropping the naked lens from 20Mpix. Lenstip found the opposite with their copies. A TC improves AF by making the subject larger but reduces the low light limit.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
 
Last edited:
You made a couple of comments there where you seem to suggest that the SWD lens is slower.

I think it’s important to understand that it’s as much the camera’s inability here which gives the performance issues. I think that the SWD drive would be natively quick

Olympus (OMDS) haven’t really made an effort (none actually) to further develop Autofocus with the FT lenses and so what we get with the mFT cameras is just a very basic legacy PDAF support - as opposed to the hybrid PDAF|CDAF we get with mFT lenses.

Agree, for sports and any fast moving subjects the old FT lenses wouldn’t be a good choice now. However, for my current photography I would be interested in some of the legacy FT lenses more for their optical qualities rather than AF speed

jj
 
Last edited:
The SWD is a fine lens; sadly, whether any company will develop further autofocus solutions for that venerable glass has been answered by now. I can only report my practical experience, with available products and technologies, in response to the original question.

As for optical character, the 50-200 SWD was the first larger-aperture telephoto lens I ever looked through, and it was amazing. My first test shots were from my apartment’s balcony in Japan, capturing a rainy night in front of a pachinko parlor. Moody street scenes from blocks away, wafting cigarette smoke, bokeh, everything! I very quickly became a telephoto enthusiast, which led to birding, which led to… accepting that the SWD was not going to meet my needs.

I subsequently went through many native and adapted telephoto zooms and primes. The Panasonic 200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC has become my sporting weapon of choice. However, solely for the Four Thirds “look” that you mention (which I suspect has to do with the Olympus’s telecentric design requirement, dropped for MFT), I did acquire the even mightier FT 150 f/2.0. It also ponders a bit, so I only bring it out for portraits or predictable slower action.
 
UrbaneHobbit said:
The SWD is a fine lens; sadly, whether any company will develop further autofocus solutions for that venerable glass has been answered by now. I can only report my practical experience, with available products and technologies, in response to the original question.

As for optical character, the 50-200 SWD was the first larger-aperture telephoto lens I ever looked through, and it was amazing. My first test shots were from my apartment’s balcony in Japan, capturing a rainy night in front of a pachinko parlor. Moody street scenes from blocks away, wafting cigarette smoke, bokeh, everything! I very quickly became a telephoto enthusiast, which led to birding, which led to… accepting that the SWD was not going to meet my needs.

I subsequently went through many native and adapted telephoto zooms and primes. The Panasonic 200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC has become my sporting weapon of choice. However, solely for the Four Thirds “look” that you mention (which I suspect has to do with the Olympus’s telecentric design requirement, dropped for MFT), I did acquire the even mightier FT 150 f/2.0. It also ponders a bit, so I only bring it out for portraits or predictable slower action.
Click to expand...
Regarding adapted lenses, I recently acquired a Metabones adapter primarily for using my E-M1III with my canon 300mm f/2.8 for Manual Focus astronomy. I hope to try it for wildlife as well but I don’t hold high hopes for the AF speed. On my Canon cameras it’s lightning fast.

That FT 150mm f/2 intrigues me - another Astrophotography contender me thinks - test charts I’ve seen show it to be sharp right across the view so star images would be very nice and the slow AF not an issue

jj
 
Last edited:
offtheback said:
I do a lot of surf photography(and occasional other action) with the 40-150 2.8 w/1.4x telecon.I like the sharpness and accurate focusing and in many cases I can crop a fair amount if needed.Does anyone have experience with both or just comments on the 50-200 as far as focusing speed/accuracy in C-AF.I've borrowed an Oly 50-200 and only had the opportunity to do a few still shots.Lens appears to be sharp and renders well.
Click to expand...
Which 50-200? The original ED model focuses slowly and has trouble keeping up in C-AF. I have that one and occasionally use it. 40-150/2.8 takes a big resolution hit with the MC14 and I seldom use the combo. I suppose the 50-200 can match the pair in IQ--not the bare Pro lens where they overlap.

My only SWD lens is the 12-60, faster focusing than E-lenses with traditional motors and has a tendency to stutter in the process with an m4/3 body. Disconcerting, although better on PDAF than CDAF bodies, where it's hopeless.

From a practical standpoint. the 40-150 will deliver a higher % of keepers by itself and with the MC. Best practice for E-series lenses is S-AF bursts refocusing between. That said, subject detection does work.

ETA 4/3 lens burst frame rates are much lower than native m4/3 lenses.

Cheers,

Rick
 
Last edited:
I still use my 50-200 SWD as my short telephoto zoom lens because it goes to 200mm without a TC and I like its rendering better than that which I have seen with the 40-150 f2.8. It is fine for slower moving targets (flying birds, not swallows), my deer and Black bear. I would not recommend it to replace an mFTs zoom for sport.

It will not focus as quickly like the mFTs lenses if you require it to do full scans to focus. However, it does have mechanically linked focus, so it you are adept at providing the scan with the focus ring, then it does work for fast things using CAF (you don't need CAF+MF).



--
drj3
 
Last edited:
One lens I tried adapted was a used Canon EF 200mm f/2.8, with cheaper electronic adapters (Viltrox and Commlite) as well as Canon and third-party teleconverters. On Olympus bodies there was a lot of what looked like chromatic aberration. I thought some of it might have been due to Olympus sensor UV cutoff choices. Tried the Wratten 2A gel hack, without much success. I did learn that I didn’t mind birding with primes, and that f/4 at 280mm was plenty close and bright for what I generally needed, and that 200mm at f/2.8 was very nice when under tree cover looking for kingfisher and smaller birds.

AF speed on the adapted EF lenses never kept up with flying and diving birds. That’s when I started saving up for the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8, which I ultimately got used for around US$1000 when I lived in Japan. I sold the Canon 200mm and teleconverter and that almost paid for a used Panasonic 1.4TC!

I have never used my 150mm f/2 for astrophotography! I will definitely give that a try now that I live closer to some good desert locations for that genre.
 
jjbinx said:
UrbaneHobbit said:
The SWD is a fine lens; sadly, whether any company will develop further autofocus solutions for that venerable glass has been answered by now. I can only report my practical experience, with available products and technologies, in response to the original question.

As for optical character, the 50-200 SWD was the first larger-aperture telephoto lens I ever looked through, and it was amazing. My first test shots were from my apartment’s balcony in Japan, capturing a rainy night in front of a pachinko parlor. Moody street scenes from blocks away, wafting cigarette smoke, bokeh, everything! I very quickly became a telephoto enthusiast, which led to birding, which led to… accepting that the SWD was not going to meet my needs.

I subsequently went through many native and adapted telephoto zooms and primes. The Panasonic 200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC has become my sporting weapon of choice. However, solely for the Four Thirds “look” that you mention (which I suspect has to do with the Olympus’s telecentric design requirement, dropped for MFT), I did acquire the even mightier FT 150 f/2.0. It also ponders a bit, so I only bring it out for portraits or predictable slower action.
Click to expand...
Regarding adapted lenses, I recently acquired a Metabones adapter primarily for using my E-M1III with my canon 300mm f/2.8 for Manual Focus astronomy. I hope to try it for wildlife as well but I don’t hold high hopes for the AF speed. On my Canon cameras it’s lightning fast.

That FT 150mm f/2 intrigues me - another Astrophotography contender me thinks - test charts I’ve seen show it to be sharp right across the view so star images would be very nice and the slow AF not an issue

jj
Click to expand...
If you can live with manual focus the beloved for astrophotography Samyang 135mm F/2 was made in a m43 mount , not small not light but a very good performer
 
offtheback said:
I forgot to mention that I'd like to use it with a 1.4 teleconverter and I have an OM1.1.The 50-200 would be an SWD.Any further comments on that?

Thank you all for your help!

I do a lot of surf photography(and occasional other action) with the 40-150 2.8 w/1.4x telecon.I like the sharpness and accurate focusing and in many cases I can crop a fair amount if needed.Does anyone have experience with both or just comments on the 50-200 as far as focusing speed/accuracy in C-AF.I've borrowed an Oly 50-200 and only had the opportunity to do a few still shots.Lens appears to be sharp and renders well.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The biggest difference will be speed. The newer MFT lens will drive autofocus much faster, and it will allow much higher burst rates with more accurate results.

Minor differences are focal length (200 vs 150), constant vs variable aperture, internal zoom vs trombone, sharpness vs rendering, and the old 4/3 lens requires an adapter which adds an additional ingress point for moisture.
 
offtheback said:
Would be an SWD model.
Click to expand...
Well duh on me, it's right there in the title.

I can't imagine putting one to challenging tasks in 2025, the four-thirds lenses are best suited for leisurely pursuits. Still use a few myself.

If you can find a clean Panny 50-200 that will be much more suited to sports. And smaller. Or wait for the mystery white OM tele zoom due this year. It appears to be in or near this FL range; hopefully longer even than 200mm.

Cheers,

Rick
 
Think he's talking about getting close with MF then engaging AF to lock on.

You can also set AF Limit ranges as described on p 130. I'll assume an adapted AF lens will recognize them.

Rick
 
offtheback said:
Is there something about the scan with focus ring in the manual?
Click to expand...
The focus ring is always in manual mode. You can be in autofocus mode spin the focus dial to pre focus while having still having autofocus with the shutter button half pressed though it is generally more effective to manually turn the dial and then half press as the target comes into focus.

Shooting fast moving targets (swallows owls), I would have the manual focus set to about 30 feet and half press the shutter button as I brought the camera to my eye while spinning the manual focus ring in the appropriate direction for pre focusing. Not as fast as an mFTs lens, but no problem with the camera missing the target in its scan. If you don't turn the focus ring, it still does the normal scan. For slower moving targets, just manually prefocus without half press or allow the camera to do its normal much slower scan from maximum to minimum focus to find the target.

I do not know how the lens can have mechanically linked focus with focus distances on the dial window and still auto focus and scan without moving the focus ring. It is definitel a mechanical link, since it focuses even with the camera turned off. It is like snap focus with the mFTs lenses while still allowing auto focus in the manual snap position, something I wish the mFTs Pro lenses had.

--
drj3
 
Last edited:
drj3 said:
I do not know how the lens can have mechanically linked focus with focus distances on the dial window and still auto focus and scan without moving the focus ring. It is definitel a mechanical link, since it focuses even with the camera turned off. It is like snap focus with the mFTs lenses while still allowing auto focus in the manual snap position, something I wish the mFTs Pro lenses had.
Click to expand...
Been too long since they were released for me to recall the SWD details. The focus ring connects to the focus group via gears—truly mechanical—perhaps linking to a helicoid? SWD motors are linear and don't share that same focusing linkage.

While the focus ring has a short throw it's free to rotate beyond the limits so must have a clutch.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

offtheback
ED 50-200mm.How fast is the focusing compared to 40-150 2,8 Pro?
Replies
6
Views
193
ErwinFromHolland
E
N
I don’t really get the OMS 50-200 f2.8 LWL - I’m hoping for a nice surprise
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
12K
Hope1943
H
Phocal
  • User review User review
OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO Initial/Ongoing Review
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
29K
Hmm1000
H
Humansvillian
Zukio 50-200 4/3 lens for OMD M1 advice sought
2
Replies
38
Views
284
EZGritz
EZGritz
Ostetti
The slowest of the slowests - Pany GH4 with the Oly 50-200 2.8-3.5
Replies
1
Views
2
KCK14
K

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