50-200 swd or not for mFT

[Pikme]

Big Ga wrote:

I have a feeling that the SWD wasn't actually that much faster!

I have both versions and cannot understand the comments that say the AF speed is the same or close. It would be like saying the AF speed of original m4/3 lenses is the same as recent MSC lenses. The SWD is MUCH faster and a different type of focus. There is no 'final adjustment' like with the original, just a one shot bang. The only explanation I have for those who think the AF speed is similar is if they only use the lens with tele converter - that does bring the SWD lens focus speed back down to non- SWD speed.

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.

The two lenses are the same with respect to sharpness, but the SWD lens has rounded aperture blades. I can believe that many people do not notice the difference, but it was a very pleasant difference for me. It removes or lessens some of the previous harshness and 'digital' look of the OOF areas. It is a subtle difference, agreed, but still is very noticeable to me.

The hood is a bit larger, but the difference is exaggerated (I've never had any problems fitting it into the same bags I've always used). The SWD hood has a door that permits adjustment of filters and polarizers.

Jim, your question is a good one and I wish I knew the answer. Right now, I don't like using the SWD lenses on my EM5 because there is a lot of slamming around and I worry that it is damaging to the lenses (I have no idea if it is actually damaging, it just feels like it might be). That is the only reason I've kept my non SWD lens around. If the new camera works with SWD ok, then I will get rid of the original version.

 

[reygon]

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

I can give you hypothetical answer but instead I suggest we wait this quarter if Olympus will release zoom with faster or constant aperture . I hope there is a 50-200mm m4/3rd lens in the coming month or so. The next body is 8 months or year away.

 

[Big Ga]

Pikme wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

I have a feeling that the SWD wasn't actually that much faster!

I have both versions and cannot understand the comments that say the AF speed is the same or close. It would be like saying the AF speed of original m4/3 lenses is the same as recent MSC lenses. The SWD is MUCH faster and a different type of focus.

If you go back and read my text, you'll see that I said I recall Olyflyer doing some tests, which if I recall, refuted claims made by some about the speed differences. I thought it was the 50-200 SWD v the ordinary Mk1 version, but I might be mistaken. I'll send him a PM now to see if he will chime in.

 

[olyflyer]

Big Ga wrote:

Pikme wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

I have a feeling that the SWD wasn't actually that much faster!

I have both versions and cannot understand the comments that say the AF speed is the same or close. It would be like saying the AF speed of original m4/3 lenses is the same as recent MSC lenses. The SWD is MUCH faster and a different type of focus.

If you go back and read my text, you'll see that I said I recall Olyflyer doing some tests, which if I recall, refuted claims made by some about the speed differences. I thought it was the 50-200 SWD v the ordinary Mk1 version, but I might be mistaken. I'll send him a PM now to see if he will chime in.

A very long time ago... I tested the AF speed of the 40-150 MK1 and compared it with the 50-200SWD, both on the E-3. The test was conducted indoors during an evening, so the light was not very good. The 40-150 was as fast as the 50-200SWD on the same target and I never really regarded the 50-200SWD as a fast focusing lens, it is far too slow for the price. The only thing I did not like about the 40-150 MK1 was that the front lens was rotating, otherwise it was an excellent lens.

Edit: I just realize that this is the MFT forum. I have no idea about how these lenses perform on any MFT body, but the 50-200 is a heavy lens and it needs a lot of battery power. I found the focus motor quite weak, this was noticeable when I aimed the lens upwards. I don't think there was anything wrong with my lens, it is a very front heavy lens, especially at 150-200mm, where it extends a lot. On an MFT body I think it would look bizarre and the batteries are too weak for that.

 

[jim stirling]

illy wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

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

 

[jim stirling]

reygon wrote:

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

I can give you hypothetical answer but instead I suggest we wait this quarter if Olympus will release zoom with faster or constant aperture . I hope there is a 50-200mm m4/3rd lens in the coming month or so. The next body is 8 months or year away.

 

[jim stirling]

olyflyer wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

Pikme wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

I have a feeling that the SWD wasn't actually that much faster!

I have both versions and cannot understand the comments that say the AF speed is the same or close. It would be like saying the AF speed of original m4/3 lenses is the same as recent MSC lenses. The SWD is MUCH faster and a different type of focus.

If you go back and read my text, you'll see that I said I recall Olyflyer doing some tests, which if I recall, refuted claims made by some about the speed differences. I thought it was the 50-200 SWD v the ordinary Mk1 version, but I might be mistaken. I'll send him a PM now to see if he will chime in.

A very long time ago... I tested the AF speed of the 40-150 MK1 and compared it with the 50-200SWD, both on the E-3. The test was conducted indoors during an evening, so the light was not very good. The 40-150 was as fast as the 50-200SWD on the same target and I never really regarded the 50-200SWD as a fast focusing lens, it is far too slow for the price. The only thing I did not like about the 40-150 MK1 was that the front lens was rotating, otherwise it was an excellent lens.

Edit: I just realize that this is the MFT forum. I have no idea about how these lenses perform on any MFT body, but the 50-200 is a heavy lens and it needs a lot of battery power. I found the focus motor quite weak, this was noticeable when I aimed the lens upwards. I don't think there was anything wrong with my lens, it is a very front heavy lens, especially at 150-200mm, where it extends a lot. On an MFT body I think it would look bizarre and the batteries are too weak for that.

Hi , long time no see , I was really inquiring about the lenses performance on a PDAF supported camera , which is supposed to be coming from Olympus to allow full support for FT lenses. I am not to bothered about fast AF and looking at the samples I have found from both the older version and the SWD they both seem to have similar image quality.

good to here from you

Jim

 

[jim stirling]

Pikme wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

I have a feeling that the SWD wasn't actually that much faster!

I have both versions and cannot understand the comments that say the AF speed is the same or close. It would be like saying the AF speed of original m4/3 lenses is the same as recent MSC lenses. The SWD is MUCH faster and a different type of focus. There is no 'final adjustment' like with the original, just a one shot bang. The only explanation I have for those who think the AF speed is similar is if they only use the lens with tele converter - that does bring the SWD lens focus speed back down to non- SWD speed.

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.

The two lenses are the same with respect to sharpness, but the SWD lens has rounded aperture blades. I can believe that many people do not notice the difference, but it was a very pleasant difference for me. It removes or lessens some of the previous harshness and 'digital' look of the OOF areas. It is a subtle difference, agreed, but still is very noticeable to me.

The hood is a bit larger, but the difference is exaggerated (I've never had any problems fitting it into the same bags I've always used). The SWD hood has a door that permits adjustment of filters and polarizers.

Jim, your question is a good one and I wish I knew the answer. Right now, I don't like using the SWD lenses on my EM5 because there is a lot of slamming around and I worry that it is damaging to the lenses (I have no idea if it is actually damaging, it just feels like it might be). That is the only reason I've kept my non SWD lens around. If the new camera works with SWD ok, then I will get rid of the original version.

Hi Roberto,

I know my question is a bit speculative as we do not know how well a future implementation of PDAF will work on the rumoured Olympus body that will fully support FT lenses. I have seen a few posts like yours mentioning the motor activity of the SWD version on current mFT bodies and the general consensus seems to be that the non –swd version is marginally quicker. Decisions decisions


Cheers

Jim

 

[sderdiarian]

jim stirling wrote:

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 limiters are such a useful feature it is surprising that it does not show up in more lenses.

+1 on focus limiters, all large optical range zooms should include them.

On speed and accuracy of AF, the 75-300 MkII will assuredly shine here. I'll be curious what optical improvements it offers as well over its predecessor, along with its new lowered price. Yes, it's slow, but somewhat offset by being light and compact and affordably priced. If they can improve on the sharpness at the long end (where all the less expensive zooms fall apart), that will be meaningful.


The 50-200 is a honker of a lens to lug about on an mFT body; add in its tendency to occasionally blow up and the apparently iffy accuracy of its slow AF and it leaves me sitting on the fence.

I've concluded mFT simply doesn't offer major benefits in reduced lens size when it comes to long zooms, thus Olympus' failure to reproduce the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 in this format, unfortunately.

And while I've played with the idea of a 4/3's 50-200 f2.8-3.5 with EC-2 bringing it to a range of 200-800mm at f5.6-7 (not much different from the 75-300 f4.8-6.7 MkII there), price and compromises in performance and handling keep holding me back. Not a perfect world.

 

[acahaya]

Pikme wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

I have a feeling that the SWD wasn't actually that much faster!

I have both versions and cannot understand the comments that say the AF speed is the same or close. It would be like saying the AF speed of original m4/3 lenses is the same as recent MSC lenses. The SWD is MUCH faster and a different type of focus. There is no 'final adjustment' like with the original, just a one shot bang. The only explanation I have for those who think the AF speed is similar is if they only use the lens with tele converter - that does bring the SWD lens focus speed back down to non- SWD speed.

i second that. the swd s also faster and more reliable when used with C-AF on the E-3 and E-5. I did a lot of testing before i decided to keep the SWD version.

AF speed with EC-14 on the E-5 is still good enough for BIF but i am faster with MF if i use the lens with the EC-20. The non SWD is even slower. The fastest AF (still not usable in C-AF on FT) with the EC-20 is the Sigma 70-200/2.8.

At least with my copies the SWD doesn't hunt as often on FT, even with older models like the E-510.

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.

The two lenses are the same with respect to sharpness, but the SWD lens has rounded aperture blades. I can believe that many people do not notice the difference, but it was a very pleasant difference for me. It removes or lessens some of the previous harshness and 'digital' look of the OOF areas. It is a subtle difference, agreed, but still is very noticeable to me.

True, if you look very hard, the bg is rendered little a bit betterbut this is still the most noticable weakness of this lens. The aperture is a bit better on the non SWD version, i.e. the SWD drops to 3.5 at a much shorter focal range.

The hood is a bit larger, but the difference is exaggerated (I've never had any problems fitting it into the same bags I've always used). The SWD hood has a door that permits adjustment of filters and polarizers.

The hood is a bit bulky but it does its job. I also didn't have to buy a new bag.

Jim, your question is a good one and I wish I knew the answer. Right now, I don't like using the SWD lenses on my EM5 because there is a lot of slamming around and I worry that it is damaging to the lenses (I have no idea if it is actually damaging, it just feels like it might be). That is the only reason I've kept my non SWD lens around. If the new camera works with SWD ok, then I will get rid of the original version.

Same here, the only SDW lens that i am halfway comfortable using on mFT is the 14-35. I know the slamming and use the 50-200 SWD with MF only (if at all).

Btw the sigma 70-200/2.8 does not AF at all on mFt, it takes about a minute to confirm focus and then it is way off.

I do hope very much that Oly will come up with a camera wirh sensor pdaf, adapter or whatever that allows us to use SWD lenses with full AF speed on mFT but i am not sure if and when they will deliver. Even though the 50-200 SWD is a bargain right now it still costs a lot of money. I'd only buy it if i was OK using it with MF only.

 

[jim stirling]

acahaya wrote:

Pikme wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

I have a feeling that the SWD wasn't actually that much faster!

I have both versions and cannot understand the comments that say the AF speed is the same or close. It would be like saying the AF speed of original m4/3 lenses is the same as recent MSC lenses. The SWD is MUCH faster and a different type of focus. There is no 'final adjustment' like with the original, just a one shot bang. The only explanation I have for those who think the AF speed is similar is if they only use the lens with tele converter - that does bring the SWD lens focus speed back down to non- SWD speed.

i second that. the swd s also faster and more reliable when used with C-AF on the E-3 and E-5. I did a lot of testing before i decided to keep the SWD version.

AF speed with EC-14 on the E-5 is still good enough for BIF but i am faster with MF if i use the lens with the EC-20. The non SWD is even slower. The fastest AF (still not usable in C-AF on FT) with the EC-20 is the Sigma 70-200/2.8.

At least with my copies the SWD doesn't hunt as often on FT, even with older models like the E-510.

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.

The two lenses are the same with respect to sharpness, but the SWD lens has rounded aperture blades. I can believe that many people do not notice the difference, but it was a very pleasant difference for me. It removes or lessens some of the previous harshness and 'digital' look of the OOF areas. It is a subtle difference, agreed, but still is very noticeable to me.

True, if you look very hard, the bg is rendered little a bit betterbut this is still the most noticable weakness of this lens. The aperture is a bit better on the non SWD version, i.e. the SWD drops to 3.5 at a much shorter focal range.

The hood is a bit larger, but the difference is exaggerated (I've never had any problems fitting it into the same bags I've always used). The SWD hood has a door that permits adjustment of filters and polarizers.

The hood is a bit bulky but it does its job. I also didn't have to buy a new bag.

Jim, your question is a good one and I wish I knew the answer. Right now, I don't like using the SWD lenses on my EM5 because there is a lot of slamming around and I worry that it is damaging to the lenses (I have no idea if it is actually damaging, it just feels like it might be). That is the only reason I've kept my non SWD lens around. If the new camera works with SWD ok, then I will get rid of the original version.

Same here, the only SDW lens that i am halfway comfortable using on mFT is the 14-35. I know the slamming and use the 50-200 SWD with MF only (if at all).

Btw the sigma 70-200/2.8 does not AF at all on mFt, it takes about a minute to confirm focus and then it is way off.

I do hope very much that Oly will come up with a camera wirh sensor pdaf, adapter or whatever that allows us to use SWD lenses with full AF speed on mFT but i am not sure if and when they will deliver. Even though the 50-200 SWD is a bargain right now it still costs a lot of money. I'd only buy it if i was OK using it with MF only.

 

[MAubrey]

jim stirling wrote:

Hi Mike , I was planning ahead for a future mFT model that is supposed to be coming with full AF speed for FT lenses and wondered what would be most likely to be the best option for that, hence the speculation . Thanks for the info luckily telephoto work is not a huge part of my shooting but it would be nice to get a bit longer range.

Jim

I only just got mine a couple months ago with the same anticipation. My entire years photography budget is being put on hold until this (more positively) rumored μ43 that will be able to full take advantage of this lens.

 

[MAubrey]

olyflyer wrote:

A very long time ago... I tested the AF speed of the 40-150 MK1 and compared it with the 50-200SWD, both on the E-3. The test was conducted indoors during an evening, so the light was not very good. The 40-150 was as fast as the 50-200SWD on the same target and I never really regarded the 50-200SWD as a fast focusing lens, it is far too slow for the price. The only thing I did not like about the 40-150 MK1 was that the front lens was rotating, otherwise it was an excellent lens.

So the question is: ws the original 50-200mm slower than the 40-150mm. The fact that the 50-200mm SWD is the same speed as the 40-150mm doesn't really help one way or the other in terms of which 50-200mm focuses faster than the other.

 

[jim stirling]

MAubrey wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

Hi Mike , I was planning ahead for a future mFT model that is supposed to be coming with full AF speed for FT lenses and wondered what would be most likely to be the best option for that, hence the speculation . Thanks for the info luckily telephoto work is not a huge part of my shooting but it would be nice to get a bit longer range.

Jim

I only just got mine a couple months ago with the same anticipation. My entire years photography budget is being put on hold until this (more positively) rumored μ43 that will be able to full take advantage of this lens.

 

[Big Ga]

jim stirling wrote:
Thank you for your view on this, Sabine, Overall it looks like at least regarding the much hoped for future PDAF supported body that the SWD version is the better choice. I do not intend to be using it for any fast moving subjects and will happily use MF .Though as you say the lens is not the cheapest in the world it really delivers a lot for the money.

Jim

Jim. I'm confused.

Everything in this thread only confirms to me that for you and I, its the non SWD that's the best bang for the buck lens to get ??

 

[Big Ga]

MAubrey wrote:
So the question is: ws the original 50-200mm slower than the 40-150mm. The fact that the 50-200mm SWD is the same speed as the 40-150mm doesn't really help one way or the other in terms of which 50-200mm focuses faster than the other.

Well ... it does kind of shed some light on whether the SWD is worth it, if you owned the 40-150 and realise that that particular lens wasn't considered to be a speed demon :-D

 

[Johann D]

jim stirling wrote:

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

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

Jim

When I asked that question a few months back, I was carpet bombed with ridicule. Why would I want a TC, when there is that "wonderful" digital .jpg 2X magnify...

You can all speculate on whether the SWD will work better and faster with a camera that is just a concept in the mind of some Oly engineer...

...or buy the mk1 and use it on the OMD...

...Or deal with "jitter focus" with the SWD. As was mentioned, the SWD has better OOF with better shutter blades.

 

[jim stirling]

Big Ga wrote:

jim stirling wrote:
Thank you for your view on this, Sabine, Overall it looks like at least regarding the much hoped for future PDAF supported body that the SWD version is the better choice. I do not intend to be using it for any fast moving subjects and will happily use MF .Though as you say the lens is not the cheapest in the world it really delivers a lot for the money.

Jim

Jim. I'm confused.

Everything in this thread only confirms to me that for you and I, its the non SWD that's the best bang for the buck lens to get ??

I agree that at the moment the SWD is not the best choice for the mFT cameras, but my plan for the lens is on a future PDAF supported body where hopefully it will have better AF than the non-swd version and i am increasingly getting into video so the SWD version also seems to be quieter . I don't mind just using manual focus at the moment, and if my only intention was for use on the current non PDAF mFT bodies then the non-SWD body is a great buy. Though there seems to be some differences of opinions between people regarding the AF speed, the majority seem to side with the SWD. I know buying gear for an unannounced camera is a bit of a gamble.

Jim

 

[illy]

jim stirling wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

jim stirling wrote:
Thank you for your view on this, Sabine, Overall it looks like at least regarding the much hoped for future PDAF supported body that the SWD version is the better choice. I do not intend to be using it for any fast moving subjects and will happily use MF .Though as you say the lens is not the cheapest in the world it really delivers a lot for the money.

Jim

Jim. I'm confused.

Everything in this thread only confirms to me that for you and I, its the non SWD that's the best bang for the buck lens to get ??

I agree that at the moment the SWD is not the best choice for the mFT cameras, but my plan for the lens is on a future PDAF supported body where hopefully it will have better AF than the non-swd version and i am increasingly getting into video so the SWD version also seems to be quieter . I don't mind just using manual focus at the moment, and if my only intention was for use on the current non PDAF mFT bodies then the non-SWD body is a great buy. Though there seems to be some differences of opinions between people regarding the AF speed, the majority seem to side with the SWD. I know buying gear for an unannounced camera is a bit of a gamble.

Jim

it's a cracking lens Jim, even if you have to manually focus the optics are worth it....especially if you can get one dirt cheap

 

[jim stirling]

Johann D wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

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

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

Jim

When I asked that question a few months back, I was carpet bombed with ridicule. Why would I want a TC, when there is that "wonderful" digital .jpg 2X magnify...

You can all speculate on whether the SWD will work better and faster with a camera that is just a concept in the mind of some Oly engineer...

...or buy the mk1 and use it on the OMD...

...Or deal with "jitter focus" with the SWD. As was mentioned, the SWD has better OOF with better shutter blades.

I agree it is a bit of a gamble , but for my use I do not mind using manual focus till the camera with PDAF hopefully comes along.

Jim