50-200 SWD vs. 40-150 PRO AF Speed on E-M1 firmware v3.0?

I'm looking to buy a fast telephoto lens for my E-M1 and fast AF speed is a priority. While I've heard nothing but good things about the AF speed of the 40-150mm PRO, even with the 1.4x teleconverter, I am wondering how much of a benefit the E-M1's firmware v3.0 has been in terms of improving AF and AF tracking when using the 50-200mm SWD lens. I shoot in relatively low light events where I can't get too close to the stage, and sports/wildlife-ish situations (dogs at the dog run don't count as either "sports" or "wild"-life, but they're still fun to shoot!).

Even if the 50-200 SWD cannot match the 40-150 PRO in overall AF or AF tracking speeds, if the performance is improved over previous firmware versions, it would still be worth it for me to buy the legacy lens as the used price on the 50-200 plus MMF-3 adapter is less than half what it would cost for a 40-150mm PRO plus 1.4x teleconverter.

Looking for some insights from anyone who has shot with the 50-200 SWD using the new v3.0 firmware on the E-M1. I've already heard nothing but good things about the 40-150 PRO, but just trying to figure out if it's worth the extra 700+ bucks over the 50-200 SWD and MMF-3.

I use the 50-200 SWD with the EC14 and firmware 3.0, and it definitely is an improvement over prior versions.  It won't perform as well as the 40-150 for af speed but it is responsive and works well.  Check out the Olympus SLR forum and the Sunday Bird thread for many samples shot with this combo by various people.

Airmel did some testing on af with the 50-200 vs 40-150 2.8, you might search for his thread in either the Olympus SLR or Micro Four Thirds forums.

the bottom line for me is the 50-200 works very well for all but small objects and/or those with only horizontal planes, the latter since the bodies don't use cross type focus points.  For most subjects and situations it's plenty fast.

HFAhmad wrote:

I'm looking to buy a fast telephoto lens for my E-M1 and fast AF speed is a priority. While I've heard nothing but good things about the AF speed of the 40-150mm PRO, even with the 1.4x teleconverter, I am wondering how much of a benefit the E-M1's firmware v3.0 has been in terms of improving AF and AF tracking when using the 50-200mm SWD lens. I shoot in relatively low light events where I can't get too close to the stage, and sports/wildlife-ish situations (dogs at the dog run don't count as either "sports" or "wild"-life, but they're still fun to shoot!).

Even if the 50-200 SWD cannot match the 40-150 PRO in overall AF or AF tracking speeds, if the performance is improved over previous firmware versions, it would still be worth it for me to buy the legacy lens as the used price on the 50-200 plus MMF-3 adapter is less than half what it would cost for a 40-150mm PRO plus 1.4x teleconverter.

Looking for some insights from anyone who has shot with the 50-200 SWD using the new v3.0 firmware on the E-M1. I've already heard nothing but good things about the 40-150 PRO, but just trying to figure out if it's worth the extra 700+ bucks over the 50-200 SWD and MMF-3.

Be aware in low light the on sensor PDAF sensor performance is no where as good as CDAF. Since you are wanting to use it predominantly for low light, then the 40-150 pro is worth the extra $$.

I do not own the 40-150mm, but do own the 50-200mm MK1 (non-SWD) lens. I use it professionally to shoot corporate events including general sessions where I can't get too close to the stage. The stage scenes are generally spotlit so my 50-200mm has no problem snapping into focus very quickly. I generally shoot with my camera/lens on a tripod in these situations.

If you are talking about a low lit stage, then the 40-150mm will probably perform somewhat better.

Here is a sample from a recent conference, using the 50-200mm. The 'keynote' speaker was about 60-70 ft. from me -- I also used the DTC (Digital Teleconverter) on this shot.

hnilickam wrote:

Hello, look at

http://www.furnfeather.net/Reviews/3.0_FirmwareTest.html

Hm, I'm massively amazed by his findings. To date, anybody who owns this lens and the E-M1 reported that the Lumix 100-300 delivers extremely poorly, with the E-M1's high-speed C-AF. And from my own experience, I would say that FW 3.0 indeed has turned the camera into a true sports monster - but solely with the µFT lenses. The C-AF performamce of my E-m1 with my 50-200 SWD was clearly better than described by him before the upgrade - but hasn't changed significantly afterwards.

At the dog racetrack it still does not C-AF fast enough for the faster guys such as the Whippets and Greyhounds - while it delivers in great style with my own, slower dogs.

SS2SS wrote:

I use the E-M1 with my 50~200 SWD, and love it! However, AF tracking performance was not good, UNTIL firware 3.0. Now, it is absolutely excellent. I have not had a chance to compare it's performnce with the 40~150/2.8, but like you, I've heard nothing but good about it.

You may wish to read a quck & dirty review I did on v3.0's AF tracking abilities, with several lenses including the 50~200 SWD with it's 1.4x converter.

The review can be founc here: http://www.furnfeather.net/Reviews/ReviewIndex.html

Just click on the second item down.

BTW: I normally use my 50~200 SWD for rodeos, Ice racing (motocross on frozen lakes) and wildllife.

Good luck!

Well, I still love my 50-200 SWD but after today's spring race at the dog racetrack where I used both the 40-150 Pro and the 50-200 SWD I have to admit that it was an early knockout for the latter. Yes, you often get one or two sharp pictures (both in H and L) and if you reduce the FPS rate in H to 6 or 7 FPS (which is far less in reality) this helps to increase performance. But with these difficult subjects, the 50-200 SWD is just as far from producing correctly focused bursts of 10 or more pics as it was before the firmware update. While the 40-150 Pro does so easily.  
Okay, one usually won't need these long bursts but when it comes to assessing the C-AF performance, this demonstrates that the 40-150 Pro is clearly superior - at true 9 or 10 FPS.