Veterans: To SWD or not SWD, that is the question....

[Lenzflair]

This question is geared towards the veterans, you know early adopters of E-1, E300 etc....

In your honest opinion, on an E-3 does SWD make that much of a difference over micro motor?

reason: I bought an E-3 + 12-60 (at an insanely good price)

I already have: 14-54 and 50-200 classics

I was thinking of either getting the SWD version of the 50-200 to go with the 12-60

or

selling the 12-60 and getting an 11-22 (which I used to own and loved)

I'm leaning towards the second option just because I think the 11-22 may be optically superior to the 12-60. When I used to have the 50-200 before, I used it in action shots maybe twice, so that type of photography is not my main stay....

--
'The best tool in your camera kit is between your ears'
'It matters less what's in front of the viewfinder, than what's behind it'
Lenzflair 2008

 

[E_ B]

If you are not going to use the 50-200mm for action shots, there is no reason to get the SWD version. Optically, both versions are identical. The SWD version has, besides the SWD focusing motor, a change to the 35-100mm tripod foot and a really poor petal lens shade that makes it difficult to fit the lens in most lens bags. Additionally, the SWD version will not allow fitting of the Olympus ring flash and the older version will.

--
Good Shooting,

English Bob

 

[Skip Williams]

It's definitely better for action shooting. I immediately notice the increased focusing speed with the SWD 50-200. I also notice much better AF performance with the 1.4x too. The direct-drive MF is also much nicer than the fly-by-wire with the old version. Ditto on the 12-60.

I know that they're supposedly identical, but I find that the bokeh is somewhat better with the new lens, esp with the 1.4x.

Yep, the big hood is a PITA; it make my bag configuration a lot different, as the huge thing won't fit in the same spaces as the old lens. I think that they made a mistake with the new hood design, but I guess if I were using a polarizer, I'd think different. I also don't like the cut-out that's for the polarizer is any good. Most times mine slides open. It's just one more thing that I have to check for. It'd be nice to have an option of either hood, but they'd probably screw us on the price then.

The old foot is better, as it was bigger.

Skip

If you are not going to use the 50-200mm for action shots, there is
no reason to get the SWD version. Optically, both versions are
identical. The SWD version has, besides the SWD focusing motor, a
change to the 35-100mm tripod foot and a really poor petal lens shade
that makes it difficult to fit the lens in most lens bags.
Additionally, the SWD version will not allow fitting of the Olympus
ring flash and the older version will.

--
Good Shooting,

English Bob

 

[daleeight]

I agree with English Bob about the 50-200 SWD being a lot better in action situations. A lot is a subjective word though. It isn't 10 times faster. Maybe more like 2 or so, but I never timed it so it could be 1.3 for all I know.

Not sure what he means by the 35-100 verbiage. Not sure if the macro light work on the 50-200 non or SWD version, so maybe he will clarify.

I'm kind of curious on your sell the 12-60 and get the 11-22 lens option. I'm not so sure that it has nothing to do with the SWD part. The 14-54 is a great lens and a ton of people like it and use and still want it. If you need wider, and shoot a lot in the really wide world, then the 11-22 is a better lens for that range by a good margin. Again, it is subjective, but the difference in optical quality between the 11-22 and 12-60 SWD is probably better than the optical quality between the 12-60 SWD and the non-SWD.
--
Dale

 

[Lenzflair]

I'm going out this afternoon with my kit as is, so I guess I'll see for myself if the 50-200 classic is ok or not. I've successfully shot action with the 50-200 classic and E-1, so that should indicate my aptitude...

I don't plan on getting a macro light - with RC flash, I don't see any need for me.

I have a 7-14mm, so ultrawide is not the issue here. I'd like a widish lens with filter screw mount for GNDs, ND's and CPL's.

The 12-60 is "ok" but doesn't blow me away vs 14-54mm. There's also that weird "w" distortion on the 12-60 I have to conscious of.

As a replacement to the 11-22 and 14-54, there is no doubt the 12-60 excels in this area.

I agree with English Bob about the 50-200 SWD being a lot better in
action situations. A lot is a subjective word though. It isn't 10
times faster. Maybe more like 2 or so, but I never timed it so it
could be 1.3 for all I know.

Not sure what he means by the 35-100 verbiage. Not sure if the macro
light work on the 50-200 non or SWD version, so maybe he will clarify.

I'm kind of curious on your sell the 12-60 and get the 11-22 lens
option. I'm not so sure that it has nothing to do with the SWD part.
The 14-54 is a great lens and a ton of people like it and use and
still want it. If you need wider, and shoot a lot in the really wide
world, then the 11-22 is a better lens for that range by a good
margin. Again, it is subjective, but the difference in optical
quality between the 11-22 and 12-60 SWD is probably better than the
optical quality between the 12-60 SWD and the non-SWD.
--
Dale

--
'The best tool in your camera kit is between your ears'
'It matters less what's in front of the viewfinder, than what's behind it'
Lenzflair 2008

 

[Skeeterbytes]

I suppose the answer revolves around whether you require fast focusing. The 11-22 is poky and searches more compared to the 12-60, but is a fine lens optically. Side-by-side comparisons I've seen of the two 50-200 versions show them to be essentially identical optically, so again the ony reason to make the (rather expensive) switch is focus speed.

I'd also consider stanting pat on the lenses and getting a teleconverter or some other accessory. (e.g., the EC14 and 50-200 work spectacularly well together.)

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Richard DH]

Perhaps I'm missing something here in this thread.

It was my understanding that SWD stands for "supersonic wave drive." and is used INSIDE those E system cameras with 'IS' as the means for image stabilization.

If that's indeed the case, are you speaking of the focusing mechanisms in the ZD lenses vs other types of glass?

If I'm offbase, I don't mind being set straight..just kinda curious.

me thinks tho taketh thyself too seriously

 

[E_ B]

The Sonic Wave Drive (SWD) referred to in this thread is the fast focusing motor located in the newer Olympus lenses.

--
Good Shooting,

English Bob

 

[marlof]

...partly because of the better new tripod foot. The old foot wasn't the sturdiest out there, and could flex a little. The new foot has a much stronger build. Next to that, my old lens fell apart at the point where the old foot connected to the lens, and I have a feeling the build quality of that part of the lens is better on the new one. The focusing speed is better, but for that alone, I woulnd't have bought the new version, since I don't do action shots.

 

[Lenzflair]

on one hand having the latest and greatest is good, on the other hand saving money is good too...

optically, I can see no difference between the 12-60 and 14-54 - actually the latter appears warmer to me. in good light, same focusing speed virtually.

--
'The best tool in your camera kit is between your ears'
'It matters less what's in front of the viewfinder, than what's behind it'
Lenzflair 2008

 

[Lenzflair]

I've decided to stay with the classic 50-200 for a while. I'm not keen on that toilet bowl lens shade on the SWD version.

--
'The best tool in your camera kit is between your ears'
'It matters less what's in front of the viewfinder, than what's behind it'
Lenzflair 2008