Olympus UK E-System User Group
Olympus UK E-System User Group

Join our unique resource for Olympus Four Thirds E-System DSLR and Pen and OM-D Micro Four Thirds photographers. Show your images via our free e-group photo gallery. Please read the e-group.uk.net forum terms and conditions before posting for the first time. Above all, welcome!


Go Back   Olympus UK E-System User Group > Cameras, lenses and system accessories > Lens focus > Telephoto

Telephoto Lenses with focal lengths longer than 60mm.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 3rd January 2014
FV1974 FV1974 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chelmsford
Posts: 7
Thanks: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
50-200 SWD vs non-SWD

Hi,

I have just come back from Disneyland Paris where I have been using a 50-200 SWD lens which I rented from Ian for a week. I have been looking for a high quality fast telephoto zoom lens for my E-M5 for a while, but been disappointed with the choices available in m4/3. I have tried the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 but found it too short in focal range.

The 50-200mm SWD worked actually better than expected. It focusses much slower than when using my other prime lenses but it did not bother me too much given I was shooting static objects or persons. When light faded, I focussed manually which was fairly easy given you can focus from 1.5m to infinity with a short turn of the ring. I am very pleased with the quality of the shots I got from the lens even when wide open! Contrast and sharpness are great. My main issue with the lens was the weight. It does weigh a ton compared to my other lenses. I did not have a tripod with me and handling the lens took some time getting used to.

I am wondering what the difference is between the SWD and the non SWD version. Has anyone used both? Was there a difference in handling and quality? I noticed there is quite some price difference between a used SWD and a non-SWD version of this lens. Would you recommend me getting the SWD versions or the Non-SWD? My shooting is predominantly landscape, people, and not sports or wild life.

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 3rd January 2014
photo_owl photo_owl is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Posts: 1,423
Thanks: 37
Thanked 129 Times in 113 Posts
Likes: 55
Liked 53 Times in 42 Posts
Re: 50-200 SWD vs non-SWD

differences -

1. curved aperture blades improves the bokeh
2. SWD AF motors focus faster, and support more AF actions (as I understand it)
3. different bayonet fitting for hood & larger hood. Doesn't accept the RF11 as the older one did.

So, there's a touch of IQ, a bit of AF perrformance and a little practicality.

I would expect the largest AF performance differences on the later bodies, inc O-MD.
__________________
E, Pen and OM-D bodies
43 m43 and legacy glass
loads of flashes and accessories from all the systems
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 3rd January 2014
David M's Avatar
David M David M is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: A Brit now living in Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 6,605
Thanks: 39
Thanked 678 Times in 640 Posts
Likes: 254
Liked 1,310 Times in 792 Posts
Re: 50-200 SWD vs non-SWD

I thought it was the Mk2 14-54 that had the revised aperture blades.

The manual focus feel/action is much better on the SWD. My copy of the SWD has better contrast and sharpness than the copy of the original version but that is probably sample variation.
__________________
It's the image that's important, not the tools used to make it.

David M's Photoblog or follow me on Instagram.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 3rd January 2014
photo_owl photo_owl is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Posts: 1,423
Thanks: 37
Thanked 129 Times in 113 Posts
Likes: 55
Liked 53 Times in 42 Posts
Re: 50-200 SWD vs non-SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by David M View Post
I thought it was the Mk2 14-54 that had the revised aperture blades.
it's an easy thing to 'test' in practice because it delivers slightly wider apertures through the range of the zoom ie the odd 0.1 at any particular FL other than 50 or 200

in the case of the 50-200 it was specifically to change the bokeh because of it's bad rep.
__________________
E, Pen and OM-D bodies
43 m43 and legacy glass
loads of flashes and accessories from all the systems
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 4th January 2014
FV1974 FV1974 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chelmsford
Posts: 7
Thanks: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 50-200 SWD vs non-SWD

Many thanks. It sounds that the SWD version is the one to go for.

Has one of you used the older M Zuiko tele lenses like the 200mm f4 or the 65-200 f4? I wondering how the optics compare to the newer lenses.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 4th January 2014
David M's Avatar
David M David M is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: A Brit now living in Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 6,605
Thanks: 39
Thanked 678 Times in 640 Posts
Likes: 254
Liked 1,310 Times in 792 Posts
Re: 50-200 SWD vs non-SWD

I had the 200 f/4 and the 65-200 f/4 in my OM using days but sold them both on long before trying them on a digital body. I have a Tamron 135 f/2.5 that's pretty nice on 4/3.
__________________
It's the image that's important, not the tools used to make it.

David M's Photoblog or follow me on Instagram.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to David M For This Useful Post:
FV1974 (6th January 2014)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49 PM.


The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2019, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger