Comparing Oly 40-150, 75-300 II and 50-200SWD

Hi all,

Maybe some people might like to see a comparison of these lenses:

• Olympus 40-150mm/f4-5.6
• Olympus 75-300mm/f4.8-6.7 II
• and the old Zuiko 50-200mm/f2.8-3.5 SWD

I know, there are many other lenses out there, some people (including me) might wish another test set, but as things are, I only have these 3 tele zooms available.

I will not write too much, instead I will give you some pictures.

Ok, here we go.

First some size comparisons:

Olympus 40-150mm/f4-5.6, 75-300mm/f4.8-6.7 Mk II, 50-200mm/f2.8-3.5 SWD

Max Zoom + lens hood + tele converter + 4/3rds adapter ...

Front lens comparison, filter size is 58mm, 58mm and 67mm

You see, while the lens alone is not this much bigger, things get bulky with lens hood, adapter and converter. On the other hand you get quite a lot of glass for your money ...

Some time ago I saw a comparison of the new PRO mFT zooms at 43rumors.com:

http://www.43rumors.com/the-big-olympus-pro-lens-size-comparison/

I thought it will be interesting to see how the "old" FT tele compares. Here is what I got (please note that I or Manuel might have used wrong numbers and the actual sizes might be different when the lenses show up at Photokina in September).

Here is my comparison with kudos to Manuel:

Oly 75-300, 50-200SWD, 300, 40-150

Between the new brothers, the 50-200 doesn't look this big any more

But keep in mind that I have to add 20mm for the MMF3 adapter and that the new 40-150 will not extend when zooming.

Back to the current offerings, what about IQ?????????

In short: I love the 50-200 lens because it is

• either decently sharp with fast aperture
• or razor sharp when stopped down to f5 to f8

Here are some examples:

I shot these samples hand hold with antishock=0s on my EM1 at 1/320s. I took the best from 3 shots. The results were quite consistent, I could have done 1 shot only as well.

First with tele converter and stopped down to f5 which is f7.1 with tcon.

100% crop: 50-200 + EC14 tele converter @ 283mm/f7.1 and 75-300 @300mm/f7.1

Next a comparison without tele converter:

100% crop: 50-200 @200mm/f6.3 and 75-300 @ 221mm/f6.1

And aperture full open, f6.1 against f3.5:

100% crop: 50-200 @200mm/f3.5 against 75-300 @221mm/f6.1

The third lens in this round is the cheap but good 40-150/f4-5.6. I decided to add this lens later, excuse the different test setup.

100% crop: 75-300 and 40-150 @150mm/f5.6

The cheap lens holds up quite well, but I think the 75-300 has some additional contrast.

My summary:

• The 40-150 is a very nice lens for its price. If you don't need more than 150mm, the 40-150 is a very good and compact companion.
• The 75-300 is quite sharp up to 220mm. At 300mm, it gets a little bit soft. In non-perfect light, the slow aperture f6.7 causes the ISO value to go through the roof. If you lower the shutter speed instead, you get blurry pictures because the lens is not very shake and shutter shock resistant.
• The 50-200 is a bulky lens. Especially with lens hood and tcon. But it is very sharp and has a fast aperture. The bokeh can be very nice or a little bit busy, depending on background distance. But it is always at least as good as the mFT lens bokeh.
  You can have useful pictures from 50mm up to 300mm (up-rezed or with tcon), so it feels like a 6x zoom compared to the 75-300 which is a 4x zoom.
  In bad light, the f3.5 aperture and the weight help and you can work with 10x less light compared to the 75-300 zoom.
  AF with EM1: In good light (ISO200 and shorter than 1/200s) AF is quite good, even C-AF works very fast and reliable. I like it and I prefer it to the not-so-fast Pany 100-300 lens mechanics. But I had to do the AF-fine-tune thing. And I had to redo the calibration process with EC14 which gave noticeable more back-focus.

Hope you liked this mini-review, you might have noticed that the 50-200 lens is my current favorite lens. I do 50% of my photos with it ...

Christof

Thanks Cris.  Good job.  I have the 50-200 and just ordered the 75x300 for the additional reach.  Sadly I sold my 1.4 TC.   The 300 looks pretty soft, and if that's the case I'll likely send it back.

I wish they'd hurry up and get the new lenses out.  I hope I live long enough to get them.

thanks for this mini comparison review!

Indeed 50-200 is a an amazing lens, and it should be considering how much larger and costlier this lens is.

I own the Panny 100-300, and although like you said it cannot compare against the likes of the 50-200, what I do like about the Panny is the very compact formfactor, and f5.6 at the tele  end compared to 6.3 on the Oly 75-300.

If I can find a good condition cheapish 50-200 SWD, I would definitely get it to compliment my existing 100-300, but not replace it, as the small formfactor of the 100-300 is a must for light travel.

Thank you for this comparison! It confirms what I suspected: the 50-200 is excellent (but heavy and probably slow focusing on an E-M5 which is what I have), the 75-300 is too soft (and slow) while the cheap 40-150 is quite good.

I wonder how the coming mft 40-150/2, 8 will compare. I hope it will be in the same league as the 50-200. A 2x TC upon that would be nice!

Bobby J wrote:

Thanks Cris. Good job. I have the 50-200 and just ordered the 75x300 for the additional reach. Sadly I sold my 1.4 TC. The 300 looks pretty soft, and if that's the case I'll likely send it back.

I wish they'd hurry up and get the new lenses out. I hope I live long enough to get them.

Thank you all for the kind comments.

Bobby,

as you can see, I have both lenses (again). When I got the EM1 in November, the light was bad and the 75-300 was very disappointing against the 50-200. I sold it immediately.

But I missed the lightweight lens quite often. In June I found the very same lens for sale and bought it back. In good light, the difference between 50-200 and 75-300 is not THIS big unless you crop to 100% ...

Christof

Interesting but not my experience with my 75-300 II at all (soft at 300mm). My copy is very sharp and has decent contrast at 300mm. I'm comparing it to a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and my Sony 70-400 G lens - these are MUCH more expensive lenses - comparing the Oly 75-300 II on my EM5 against the Sony 70-400G on my a57 or a77 I find the Oly holds its own, even at 300mm, which is pretty amazing. Seems like there might be sample variation with the75-300 II because I'm not the only one to report it to be very sharp at 300mm, while there are others, like you, who don't seem to have a copy that is all that great at 300mm

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

Interesting but not my experience with my 75-300 II at all (soft at 300mm). My copy is very sharp and has decent contrast at 300mm. I'm comparing it to a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and my Sony 70-400 G lens - these are MUCH more expensive lenses - comparing the Oly 75-300 II on my EM5 against the Sony 70-400G on my a57 or a77 I find the Oly holds its own, even at 300mm, which is pretty amazing. Seems like there might be sample variation with the75-300 II because I'm not the only one to report it to be very sharp at 300mm, while there are others, like you, who don't seem to have a copy that is all that great at 300mm

Hi Marco,

you might have noticed that I wrote "a little bitsoft at 300mm". I am with you, I would not call the 300mm mFT lenses "soft" (75-300 and 100-300 as well), only a little bit soft

And to get the sample variation out of the way:

I have some experience with the mFT tele lenses.

• I owned the old Mk1 75-300 which was alittle bit softer at the long end.
• I compared my sample with another one at my local photo shop.
• I compared my sample with a 100-300 at my local photo shop.
• I compared my sample with a 100-300 of a friend.

I think I have a general feeling how my lens compares.

And even more, my finding is straight in line with the findings of slrgear.com. Go to the sharpness graph and set both lenses to f8 and you will see:

Oly 50-200mm (old version, optically similar):

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/38/cat/15

Oly 75-300 (old version, optically similar):

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1373/cat/15

Very useful review, thank you! Very thorough, and keeping to important points.

I am anxious to see how the future 300 f/4 compares with these (probably one year from now)!

MarkLeeds2k5 wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

My summary:

• The 75-300 is quite sharp up to 220mm. At 300mm, it gets a little bit soft. In non-perfect light, the slow aperture f6.7 causes the ISO value to go through the roof. If you lower the shutter speed instead, you get blurry pictures because the lens is not very shake and shutter shock resistant.

I agree with Marco Cinnirella; this is not my experience at all with the 75-300 II.

It's great that you're providing information by doing a comparison, but it would be a shame if people were put off the 75-300 II, because your results at 300mm are certainly not representative of the results I (and others) get.

Maybe you have a bad copy?

It is highly possible there is variations in copies. I guess for those really wanting to use their 75-300ii at 300mm, they should try it first at the shop, and if possible test it at 300mm

CrisPhoto wrote:

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

Interesting but not my experience with my 75-300 II at all (soft at 300mm). My copy is very sharp and has decent contrast at 300mm. I'm comparing it to a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and my Sony 70-400 G lens - these are MUCH more expensive lenses - comparing the Oly 75-300 II on my EM5 against the Sony 70-400G on my a57 or a77 I find the Oly holds its own, even at 300mm, which is pretty amazing. Seems like there might be sample variation with the75-300 II because I'm not the only one to report it to be very sharp at 300mm, while there are others, like you, who don't seem to have a copy that is all that great at 300mm

Hi Marco,

you might have noticed that I wrote "a little bitsoft at 300mm". I am with you, I would not call the 300mm mFT lenses "soft" (75-300 and 100-300 as well), only a little bit soft

And to get the sample variation out of the way:

I have some experience with the mFT tele lenses.

• I owned the old Mk1 75-300 which was alittle bit softer at the long end.
• I compared my sample with another one at my local photo shop.
• I compared my sample with a 100-300 at my local photo shop.
• I compared my sample with a 100-300 of a friend.

I think I have a general feeling how my lens compares.

And even more, my finding is straight in line with the findings of slrgear.com. Go to the sharpness graph and set both lenses to f8 and you will see:

Oly 50-200mm (old version, optically similar):

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/38/cat/15

Oly 75-300 (old version, optically similar):

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1373/cat/15

Hi, it's OK, no need to quote review sites - I am expressing my opinion only, not stating it as fact. All I can say is that my copy of the 75-300II on my EM5 is as sharp at 300mm as my £1500 Sony 70-400G is - which is pretty amazing. It's not what I would call soft with my 30 years' experience of shooting tele lenses, when compared to what similar zooms can achieve at 300mm. Maybe I find this because I shoot real world images and not test targets at relatively short distances, as some of these review sites do. Maybe there is sample variation. In any case, it's just opinion at the end of the day.

MarkLeeds2k5 wrote:

bigley Ling wrote:

It is highly possible there is variations in copies. I guess for those really wanting to use their 75-300ii at 300mm, they should try it first at the shop, and if possible test it at 300mm

Now thatI can agree on!

Actually, I think better still would be to clearly establish what the returns policy is, and if it is good, then take it home and test it under controlled conditions - ideally outdoors with a carefully considered target at an appropriate range, with a tripod and IBIS turned off. Testing in a shop or shop doorway doesn't really give you ideal conditions, especially with a long tele.

MarkLeeds2k5 wrote:

bigley Ling wrote:

It is highly possible there is variations in copies. I guess for those really wanting to use their 75-300ii at 300mm, they should try it first at the shop, and if possible test it at 300mm

Now thatI can agree on!

As said above, there is not much sample variation. All in all I had four (4) 75-300 lenses on my camera and the results were similar.

The lens is not bad, and I for sure did not want to worry some people. I like my 75-300 lens, for its price and weight it is a wonderful lens and I will for sure keep it.

All I say is that a 3 times heavier and 4 times more expensive lens can give better results. But this should not be shocking news to anyone here?

Christof

MarkLeeds2k5 wrote:

bigley Ling wrote:

It is highly possible there is variations in copies. I guess for those really wanting to use their 75-300ii at 300mm, they should try it first at the shop, and if possible test it at 300mm

Now thatI can agree on!

As said above, there is not much sample variation. All in all I had four (4) 75-300 lenses on my camera and the results were similar.

The lens is not bad, and I for sure did not want to worry some people. I like my 75-300 lens, for its price and weight it is a wonderful lens and I will for sure keep it.

All I say is that a 3 times heavier and 4 times more expensive lens can give better results. But this should not be shocking news to anyone here?

Christof

Absolutely, when I wrote too soft earlier it's in comparision to the very best lenses. Many are very happy with the sharpness of the 75-300. But, still, it's not fast! I have the 40-150 and though it's a very good lens I miss some sharpness at the long end. But I have to admit that that it's only when viewing 100% you recognise that. I must stop pixelpeeping and being satisfied with what I get in real photographing!

Many thanks for taking the trouble to do this Christof!

Two reactions to your conclusions:

1. My experiences with regard to camera shake/shutter shock with the 75-300 II on my E-M1 does not match yours at all, provided, of course, that I use 0-second AS and with IBIS on off course. On the contrary, a shutter speed of 1/125 is usually pretty safe at 300 and with a bit of luck I can get it right at 1/30 or 1/60 as well. When comfortably seated and using my chest for arm support, I have managed speeds as low as 1/10. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that the difference between our observations is due to sample variatioin with regard to either body or lens.

2. Although it is of course difficult to judge without shooting the lenses side by side, I would spontaneously say that my copy of the 75-300 is better than yours. Here's a 100 percent crop from the center from a quick test I just made with a subjecct somewhat similar to yours. This is at 300 mm with the lens wide open. Straight out of LR with everything but the highlight slider (pulled back to -50) at default. Focus is on the sex of course. What else?

Anders W wrote:

Many thanks for taking the trouble to do this Christof!

Two reactions to your conclusions:

1. My experiences with regard to camera shake/shutter shock with the 75-300 II on my E-M1 does not match yours at all, provided, of course, that I use 0-second AS and with IBIS on off course. On the contrary, a shutter speed of 1/125 is usually pretty safe at 300 and with a bit of luck I can get it right at 1/30 or 1/60 as well. When comfortably seated and using my chest for arm support, I have managed speeds as low as 1/10. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that the difference between our observations is due to sample variatioin with regard to either body or lens.

2. Although it is of course difficult to judge without shooting the lenses side by side, I would spontaneously say that my copy of the 75-300 is better than yours. Here's a 100 percent crop from the center from a quick test I just made with a subjecct somewhat similar to yours. This is at 300 mm with the lens wide open. Straight out of LR with everything but the highlight slider (pulled back to -50) at default. Focus is on the sex of course. What else?

Interesting contribution to the thread - may I ask why some folks seem to be using the 75-300 for what I would normally use a dedicated macro lens for ? I see a lot of insect and flower shots posted using the 75-300 whereas I had initially imagined it would be used more for wildlife, sports, etc

Anyone thinking about the Oly 75-300II as a possible purchase should check out here:-

https://www.flickr.com/groups/oly75_300/

MANY great examples including plenty of stunning 300mm shots

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Many thanks for taking the trouble to do this Christof!

Two reactions to your conclusions:

1. My experiences with regard to camera shake/shutter shock with the 75-300 II on my E-M1 does not match yours at all, provided, of course, that I use 0-second AS and with IBIS on off course. On the contrary, a shutter speed of 1/125 is usually pretty safe at 300 and with a bit of luck I can get it right at 1/30 or 1/60 as well. When comfortably seated and using my chest for arm support, I have managed speeds as low as 1/10. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that the difference between our observations is due to sample variatioin with regard to either body or lens.

2. Although it is of course difficult to judge without shooting the lenses side by side, I would spontaneously say that my copy of the 75-300 is better than yours. Here's a 100 percent crop from the center from a quick test I just made with a subjecct somewhat similar to yours. This is at 300 mm with the lens wide open. Straight out of LR with everything but the highlight slider (pulled back to -50) at default. Focus is on the sex of course. What else?

Interesting contribution to the thread - may I ask why some folks seem to be using the 75-300 for what I would normally use a dedicated macro lens for ? I see a lot of insect and flower shots posted using the 75-300 whereas I had initially imagined it would be used more for wildlife, sports, etc.

This is only a test shot for comparison with those Christof offered so I chose a somewhat similar subject. But I do use my long tele zooms (previously 40-150 and 100-300, now 40-150 and 75-300 II) for close-ups (although certainly not close-ups only), along with extension tubes if I want more magnification than they can natively provide. While a dedicated macro lens is surely better from a purely optical point of view, these lenses hold up pretty well in terms of sharpness and provide significantly more working range than most dedicated macros, e.g., the 60/2.8.

That working range is helpful in a variety of ways. First, there is less risk of scaring scarable subjects away. Second, there is less of a problem with shading the subject. Third, it helps throwing a messy background even more out of focus. Fourth, it sometimes helps getting the right angle/view of the subject.

While I would hardly ever go as far as 300 mm for close-ups, I am often somewhere around 100. Some examples with the 100-300 (first two) and the 40-150, both with extension tubes, here: