I still have the 4/3 50-200 SWD (that is the more recent version from 2007 onwards, with the supersonic wave drive i.e. fast AF) and also have the EC-14 and EC-20. I would like to mention a few things to add to what Peter said: 1) The lens performs well with the EM1.1 and EM1.2 however the AF is slower than when using the m4/3 40-150. It's clearly faster than when using non-SWD 4/3 lenses, though. 2) The second point that I would like to mention is that you should check and if needed calibrate the AF, in particular when coupling the lens with the teleconverters. I calibrated my setup thoroughly using a Spyder lens calibration chart which confirmed my feeling that the lens is back-focusing. It needed slight adjustment (-2) to compensate for this, which is not much but could make or break shots taken at close distance and with open iris. With the EC14 the optics needed -5 and with the EC-20 -10 was needed. Luckily Olympus cameras have support in the menu to calibrate the AF, so there no need to send the lens to pay an expensive visit to the Olympus workshop. 3)The third point is that the 4/3 50-200 lens had a trombone zoom design whereas the m4/3 40-150 has internal zoom elements and keeps constant length. After soon 15 years of use of which 10 are heavy use, I have not noticed any dust or dirt sucked into the lens, though, the lens is well dust sealed. The build quality is excellent, I have not experienced any failures or malfunctions after more than 10 years of heavy use.
Great bit of information Tord--Thank you!! I got my non-SWD lens over a month ago-- Using a Panasonic camera was useless,, But just today I was able to get a very nice used 1 MKII that works great!! Going out later to tune it up--
I was have an 50-500 SWD and it was MUCH softer than a new 40-150 2.8, definitelly. When I haven´t possibility to compare both images taken on same body and compare pictures side by side, I was think that 50-200 is good and sharp. No in comparison with 40-150 2.8 ...
Don't forget a neat little feature of the 50-200 lens hood has this little window for say adjusting a polarizer filer with out taking the hood off. Good stuff as usual Peter, cheers
I owned both the non-swd and swd versions of this lens & used them both with the original em1. Still own & use the swd with em1 mk 2 and mk 3. The swd focuses a bit faster & facilitates manual focus override easily. The bokeh, at times, is a little busier than the non-swd version. Never had a reason to replace it; it suits my needs well. I also use it with the 1.4 tc.
The 40 -150 F2.8 is a very, very special lens. Sharp from edge to edge, lightweight, silky smooth, beautiful build quality, manual focus clutch, compact, weather sealed and is unparalleled in the full frame world. Where an 80 - 300mm F2.8 simply does not exist that I know of. If it did, it would weigh around the same as a suitcase and cost around the same as a second hand Porsche Boxster! Oh and you likely couldn't use it if rained either! Having used both Sony's 70-200 f2.8 & Canon's version, (both which weigh a ton and do not have the same features as the Olympus) the M.Zuiko wins hands down every time, on price (actually I would pay double for this lens and still be happy), build quality, weight, size & reach. It is a masterpiece of optical engineering.
I tried both and leaned towards the older one in the end. Why? It has more reach at still a reasonable aperture. But if you want to use AF, go for the new lens, even on a phase AF camera. The 50-200 AF drains the battery ultra fast.
Once again a good comparison discussion, thank you. As a generalisation, a x3 zoom lens will always be a bit better than a x5 super-zoom. I use the Panasonic DMW-MA1 4/3-MFT adaptor. It is well made and will support a very heavy lens such as the 4/3 Sigma 50-500 I have it mounted on. That one was Sigma's first "Bigma" and the focussing lens elements are heavy (it's full frame). Consequently the motors are rather slow and clunky, it chunters away to itself when focussing but eventually gets there. It focuses equally well on Panasonic or Olympus but having no OIS prefers the Olympus back. The AF does work but can take a second, and the lens is so heavy I cannot use it without a tripod. Remember the AF is done in the camera, no lens cares whether it is contrast or phase, the camera just tells the lens to move in or out, I suspect the DFD pulses are too fast for it. The camera will switch to S-AF/AFS. Whilst 50-500 is x10, the wide end (50~150) seems intended for aiming it. Results can be stunning, I don't know what they put into the glass, it can have an almost 3D quality, and f/6.3 is pretty fast for a 500mm zoom. Panasonic have long made zoom lenses in this range, most of which are small and light, albeit with smaller apertures; 35-100 f/2.8, 100-300, 14-140, 45-150, 45-200, PZ45-175 (video), 100-400 (which I don't have). Olympus have been a bit slow on the uptake but are now producing a few faster but monster size lenses Auto focus adapters 4/3-MFT are available from £25. The DMW-MA1 is still available if you can hunt it down and has always been cheaper than the Olympus flavour.
Enjoyed your review Peter. I have both the SWD version & the non-SWD version of the 50-200mm lens. Doesn’t seem that the SWD outperforms the original 50-200mm. But I’m using the older E-M1 & not the E-M1 Mark II. Have not tried the 40-150mm so not able to compare the two. But I can say that the old 4/3 50-200 is extraordinary. Plenty fast enough & tack sharp. I shoot surfing photos for a living & have done so since the 1960’s. Have used many pro systems through the decades. Canon is good,still use a lot of their gear. But when I want that extra crispness & pop,I opt for the Oly combo. Leica-like quality glass! It is a pain (& too costly) to have to use the Oly adapter. But it connects you to the other great 4/3 glass like the 7-14,14-35,8,& 50 mac lenses. All of them are stellar. Still work great on the old E-5/E-3 & the CCD sensor E-500 as well (with no need for the adapter).
Very useful review, Peter. I would like to add that 40-150mm supports focus stacking in camera - an very important feature for some people. And Peter, would be very usefull if you could compare the flares and chromatic aberations. If you shoot an sunset, you would have a good chance to compare flare. I hope 40-150mm will not loose the battle here. Thank you for review, greetings !
I have had the 50-200 mk1 since right around the time I purchased my E-1, in 2006. I use it effectively with the EC14 teleconverter and MMF3 on my E-M1s, and it is a terrific mid-long telephoto. I find it’s AF speed to be more than sufficient for everything but birds in flight. I wish you had mentioned what I consider to be likely it’s biggest drawback, and that is how long it gets when fully extended, almost 2 1/2” (6 cm) longer than the 300mm f4 with the teleconverter on it! It is a little lighter, though!
I have the 40-150 and my dad has the 50-200. I use mine on my E-M1 Mark II and my dad uses the original E-M1. The 40-150 is definitely the lens I use the most. It's perfect for equine photography, outdoor portraits of dogs and horses, and indoor portraits of dogs and cats with flash. I also keep a 2x teleconverter on my 40-150 for wildlife photography and closeups of flowers. My dad keeps a 1.4x converter on his 50-200, so he gets a slightly shorter focal length with a slightly brighter maximum aperture. I think that for wildlife photography, the deciding factor between these lenses is probably the teleconverters that are compatible with them rather than anything pertaining to the lenses themselves. From what I've heard, the old four thirds mount 2x teleconverter was not as sharp as the micro four thirds version. In my experience, the MC-20 has such great image quality and such fast autofocus that you'd never know it was there. Those are both great lenses though!
Love the internal zooming of the 40 to 150 and the fast autofocus those features when paired with the x2 teleconverter makes it a perfect zoom lens but it does have a few faults and those are it's weight and less stellar low light performance.
I have the 50-200 SWD version that I bought for my old E-3 at the time, and have found it a very good lens on the E-M1 as well. Image quality wise it is an excellent lens, and the AF is decently fast on the E-M1 mk2 (much improved compared to the mk1). I have considered the 40-150mm a couple of times, with the internal zoom actually being one of the things that I would find quite appealing. The faster AF (and better flexibility with AF zones) is one factor. Moreover, fully extended to 200mm the 50-200 is a pretty long lens, particularly with the lens hood attached. And zooming out does change perspective ever so slightly as it moves the lens forward, which can be distracting on video particularly. At the same time, the loss of the 50mm at the long end as well as the cost are why I haven’t quite yet been able to justify getting a lens that does have quite a bit of overlap with my existing zooms.
Great video Peter! I would love to see and hear your opinion on the true legends of the Four Thirds system, the 50mm f2 Macro, the 14-35mm f2, the 35-100mm f2 and the 150mm f2
I have the 2007 version of the 50-200mm and I started with the 620-Series of cameras, later the E-5 and since 4 years the EM1M2, and I can tell you, even when I make pictures of staring or landing swans with Precapture I get 95% excellent results, so I will definitely stay with it. The same with the 7-14mm f4 wide angle lense, I bought it and I still believe it was almost not used at all, for 350 €, the adapter was already there and the picture quality, the autofocus, everything still is more than excellent. The price for that lence was in the beginning years ago 2.400 €, and the value for money ist just unbeatable… Just the fact that these lences look a bit oldfashioned… I don’t care and nobody take notice… So, I believe the bigger problem than quality and picture quality and focus speed and the look is; getting a good one! Regards from Germany Volker
I have the SWD version with a Lumix adapter (so no weather seals). I got it at a great price from a friend who had 2. On the original E-M1 it focuses faster than my previous DSLR kit so I am very happy with it.
My Olympus E-300 2 lens kit came with a 40-150mm f3.5-4.5 lens that was made in Japan. That lens was a surprise, at least to me. The E-300 body was made in China, as was the 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens. The 40-150 was unusual for a kit lens as its 3.5-4.5 maximum aperture range was unusual for a kit zoom
It's a surprise to me, too. I've just dug my E300 out of the cupboard and yes - the 14-150 is made in Japan. Considering i've had the camera for 18 years, i should really have noticed sooner....
I have the older 50-200mm. When I was very actively shooting corporate conferences, I almost bought the 40-150mm when it came out, but realized that they were close to the same size and weight, and I had that extra 50mm on my old lens. I never bought the 40-150mm. The 50-200mm paid for itself 20 times over shooting wedding ceremonies and conference ballroom sessions. I don't think I'll ever sell it.
This is the second time I have watched this video as this subject matter has been highly relevant to me. I have recently sold my 12-40 Pro and Lumix 35-100 f2.8 to pay for a 12-100 Pro f4. A part of my reasoning for this was 100mm reach was not enough with the fast lens and I already had the 50-200. I also acquired an EC-14 at essentially no cost and then paid £100 for an MMF-3, which I have justified by the fact that this whole setup is a lot cheaper than the 40-150 Pro, especially cheaper than that lens with an MC-14. So far this is proving to be a killer combination, whereby the extra reach is hugely off-setting the (admittidly significant) advantages of the 40-150 Pro.
The SWD version of this lens popped up on ebay while I was ogling the used Panaleica 50-200s. I snapped it up for £400, but not before I got on youtube to see if it was still any good about 15 years later. Hey look, Peter Forsgård has a pair of videos on the older mark! If it's good enough for him, then the SWD is more than good enough for me...
I have both, while the character of the images taken with the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 is quite good, the autofocus is really slow comparing with the 40-150mm f2.8, it was this that made me get a 2nd hand 40-150mm f2.8 as soon as I laid my eyes on one... For anything that is not dynamic, the 50-200mm does great, if your subject is dynamic forget about it and get the 40-150mm. The 40-150mm f2.8 is also sharper, even with the mc14 teleconverter, the 50-200mm has a different, more filmy character. For anyone in North America I have a 50-200mm f2.8-200 SWD in very good condition that I rarely use and wouldn't mind to be parted appart from... It's a great lens.
I love listening to you and thank you for the videos .... I am asking for your opinions 😁 what a good adapter from micro 4/3 to 4/3 lens. Does it make sense???
Hi Peter, excellent video! I own the 50-200 SWD lens. The autofocus speed is still unacceptable for moving subjects on the E-M1 and E-M1 Mark ii. You could get a soaring bird like a hawk, but nothing faster - like a car or a faster bird in flight. The IQ also lacked detail IMO, perhaps because it was designed to resolve a 5 MP sensor and modern sensors are 20MP. The 40-150 Pro was too short for my needs (wildlife) so I purchased a Panasonic Leica 50-200 to complement my 300mm f4 Pro. It is visibly sharper than the Zuiko 50-200 and of course with fast autofocus. I still have my Zuiko 50-200 and MMF-3 which I use on my self-designed remotely controlled rover for close-up shots of wildlife.
I own both of these and to be honest I don’t really see any image quality difference as you said. Both are beautiful lens. Sure the AF speed is a bit slower with the 50-200. O still manage to get some great bird shots with it.
Guess it all depends on what cameras you own and use. I like the look of both lenses but I own the 50-200 ED 2.8-3.5 SWD lens that I carry along with my 12-60 ED 2.8-4.0 SWD lens, and since they are both paid for I like them even better. Both lenses work great with either my E-5 or my EM1, and I plan to use both cameras for a very long time. Another favorite four thirds lens is my Olympus 150mm F2.0 prime lens. Olympus has some really excellent quality glass with either platform you choose.
Great video, Peter! I have the 50-200mm SWD and still use it sometimes with my E-3 for sports. Do you think it focuses as fast on an M1 Mk I as it does with my E-3?
My worry, when buying older lenses, is the concern with dust or fungus. I bought a few, when I did not know what I do now and it was a learning experience! I only buy new or from a second hand dealer, with a good reputation. eBay? Never!
I currently have 3 old FT lenses which bought used (not from eBay...) and which I possibly would buy again. BUT one should be aware that these lenses are not made to last forever. The aperture and the electronic cabling might break some day. I had that twice and could have it repaired (not through Olympus, though), but that risk should be added to the cost. I‘d stay away from lenses which are “worn off“.
The prices for the adapters obviously should prevent from keeping old lenses. New they costed around 300 € both from Olympus or Panasonic. I have 2 from Commlite, which are well-made, but do not work good with my 50-200 swd and an 12-60 swd, which I once had. But with 50mm and 70-300, they work fine.
I sold my 50-200 SWD and E30 to fund my EM1 MkII. I miss the 50-200 (it really was superb) but given the price of a used 40-150 I think I would choose that over the 50-200 with the MMF3. More compact, lighter and designed for the M4/3.
On the 50-200 lens, you state that you need an adapter to make it work with micro 4/3. Unclear as to what type of adapter is needed and by using this adapter do you still have all of your AF functions etc. ??
Decided on the 50-200 SWD. Got a mint one, plus found an almost new MMF3 for a total cost of AUD$600. The 40-150 is at least AUD$1500 now, so i am pretty happy :)
Hi Peter! Actually the weight of 40-150 is 760g without removable tripod collar (880g with tripod collar). Niin, ja nöyrä pyyntö, että et pitäisi vv-suojia kiinnitettyinä linsseihin näissä videoissa, häiritsee merkittävästi koon arvioimista. Tämä on toki ongelma muillakin kanavilla kuin sinun. Kiitos huippukanavasta, jatka samaan malliin!
Thanks and kiitos. I have the lens hoods on almost all the time and thats why I have them on my videos too. The thumbnail on this video both lenses are lens hood off.
Hi Peter, i had the old version and my doughter had the newer SWD version. Now we sold the old one and I have the SWD version on my E-M1 (1st version). There is a real difference in autofocus speed. Do you want to test? I am in Eastern Vantaa 😁
I had them both , the M lens is sharper, especially at the long and. I only sold the 50-200 because the original EM-5 doesn't focus it very fast, same for the 50. The EM-1s fixed that somewhat .. after I sold both lenses. I lean towards the newer lenses.
I got my MMF-3 with my lens. Now I see them starting at $199 on ebay. Vey impressed with the 50-200 for the price. I use it on a OMD EM5 MKIII with a grip and it handles fine. It's unusable with my G9 except in manual focus.
Me too. I have both. My 50-200mm is the newer SWD. My adapter is the MMF-1. Here's one interesting note. I typically use it with the EC-14 teleconverter. The images it produces have a FOV very similar to the 300mm f/4 pro or the 40-150mm pro with the MC20 teleconverter. Any thoughts on why? The FOV with the EC-14 should only be 280mm, but it sure appears like it's 300mm. Or maybe the newer micro lens are more like 280mm compared to the old 4/3's lenses.
you have to factor in focus breathing - manufactures state the focal lenght at infinity as focallength of the lens. which you not use that often on a these tele lenses. so a 300mm lens could only be 260mm at 4 meters distance because of focus breathing. usualy primes are better than zooms in that regard
@@k3i0 Focus breathing is the change in FOV (field of view) as you rack the focus in and out. So, focus breathing is a result, not a cause. But yes, many lenses...maybe most lenses have shorter focal lengths when focused at their minimum focal distance than at infinity. An easy way to tell that is....tada...if you notice focus breathing when you move the focus point for the lens from far to near and back again. So, in the comparison I mentioned, the opposite of what you suggest is happening. The prime lens, the 300mm is demonstrating a shorter focal length at close distances compared to the zoom with a teleconverter attached. Maybe at infinity, the prime will have a narrower FOV as the focal length is longer than the zoom, but when you focus on near objects, the prime loses more focal length than the zoom and they appear to have the same focal length.
Thank you Peter for this video, I own the 50-200mm lens (I paid it for 275 euro) and was thinking to upgrade to a 40-150mm lens, but with this information I don't upgrade. I have also bought a Viltrox JY-43F adapter on Amazone for 45 euro, Peter can you put a MC14 or a MC-20 teleconverter on this lens and does this work well? I would be very gratefull because I search for a long time but find nothing, and I want more zoom out of my telelens, Thanks in advances, Marc Duke
Did you test the image quality of the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 vs. the 40-150 f2.8 + MC-14 converter? The MC-14 new is US $300 new and I saw on e-bay the 40-150mm F/2.8 PRO +1.4xTelecon MC-14 for US $1,180 used import from Japan. The good thing with the M43 system is that there are many good options for compatible lenses both old and new. Maybe you could do a test comparing image quality of several different "budget" lens and converter combinations: 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 + old teleconverters, 40-150 f2.8 + new teleconverters, 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 100-400mm f5-6.3 IS
I had the old 50/200 and the 50/200 sw now I have the 40/150 pro for years and I would not change it for any other perspective. Thanks for your videos always very accurate and understandable. Greetings from Italy I passed through Finland and I hope to return soon "on the bike" 😃A greeting
I only own the 40-150 pro. With the MC 14 you can also reach 210 mm @ f 4 with the newer lens. However I think you should have told us something about the bokeh. Of what I read the bokeh on the vintage lens is a bit more pleasant.
Nice video! I would like to know if i coudl use the 40-150 on my om10 mark 3 im buying one through the internet and im new with the cameras and lenses. Thnak you
Hello and thanks a lot for your videos ! I have a question... I own two SWD lenses, one 12-60 and one 50-200. They are both in very goode condition and I have the MMF3 adapter. Those lenses AF are a nightmare with my GH5, and I'm thinking about getting a body that can handle correctly those lenses as I don't want to spend money on buying new m4/3 equivalent as those lenses have a very good image quality (I'm not a wildlife or sport fotographer). I also use lots of vintage lenses (I bought my first olympus in the late 70's when I was a teenager, I still have OM4 bodies and others cool digital P1 MF stuffs for specific works), OM lenses, Helios... I need a camera that can make good photos in night conditions (street mainly) and want to have a usable AF with my SWD lenses. What would you suggest ? OM-1, em1 MK III, em1ex... ? I won't probably shoot higher that 6400 iso. I've seen on some on your videos that high iso is cleaner on the OM-1. I was thinking about the new Lumix G9II but I'm afraid it can't handle properly the SWD lenses. Thanks a lot in advance if youu find some time to answer this question !
@@ForsgardPeter Thanks for your quick answer. In what AF mode did you make your tests ? S-AF or C-AF ? I've seen on other videos the one have to use C-AF instead of S-AF ? And also that Oly/OM bodies work in contrast detection in S-AF and Phase Detection in C_AF ? Which would mean that SWD lenses have a less good AF on S-AF than C-AF ?
If I remember correctly I used mostly S-AF. I will try to find out and chech that from the metadata. I think OM SYSTEM Workspace gives that info. Not sure, but I will look.
There may be some viltrox adapters floating around. $30-35 Not sealed. Mount is softer metal. Disconnects if you twist zoom ring too hard. Works ok for my needs.
@@sunnzboz9482 If you use the EC20 then you ought to stop down. I recommend F/9, F/8 is a minimum otherwise images will be soft. This is based on my own experience of many years of heavy use in the field.
Thanks for the review. I luckily got the 50-200 SWD with MMF3 from someone wil apperantly never used it for about 300 euro's which seems a bargain. It works indeed very well with the EM-1. AF speed is good in good light, but not so for moving subjects. It surprises me with the EC-20 2x teleconverter the IQ is still quite good. Much better than with my Sony A77-2 with 70-200,2.8 and teleconverter.
I tried to make a movie how fast the auto focus is, but it is not the quality that you always show. The 12-100 is faster, there is no time between pressing and focusing. With this lens, there is a slight delay, but not bothersome. At 200mm, the lens may want to search in difficult situations ua-cam.com/video/qMUfIqAacFo/v-deo.html
Peter, I had just asked about the adapter. I am am such a moron as I didn't finish watching your entire video that states what adapter is needed. so, please ignore my previous question...sorry.
Look at the medium format photographers 😜 ugly and bulky camera, but amazing photos 😊 what comes out of the camera counts much more than the look of the camera 😉
Peter, my friend, as we say "you're flogging a dead horse" with the old lens compared with the newer 40-150 PRO, especially if you add either of the Lens Converters. 😄 Rick
@@WhoIsSerafin Maybe, but I'd suggest that anyone on a budget is wiser to buy just one really top rated professional quality lens than compromising by trying to stretch their budget. Getting just one PRO lens and investing your efforts in really learning how to use it will deliver better results. Rick
![Olympus 50-200mm F/2.8-3.5 - [Are Four-Thirds lenses worth buying?]](/img/n.gif)
More about the Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 lens: ua-cam.com/video/hmt9XT_o1Pc/v-deo.html
@ForsgardPeter the new version of the oly 50-200 is coming out this year, any details on the aperture?
I still have the 4/3 50-200 SWD (that is the more recent version from 2007 onwards, with the supersonic wave drive i.e. fast AF) and also have the EC-14 and EC-20. I would like to mention a few things to add to what Peter said: 1) The lens performs well with the EM1.1 and EM1.2 however the AF is slower than when using the m4/3 40-150. It's clearly faster than when using non-SWD 4/3 lenses, though. 2) The second point that I would like to mention is that you should check and if needed calibrate the AF, in particular when coupling the lens with the teleconverters. I calibrated my setup thoroughly using a Spyder lens calibration chart which confirmed my feeling that the lens is back-focusing. It needed slight adjustment (-2) to compensate for this, which is not much but could make or break shots taken at close distance and with open iris. With the EC14 the optics needed -5 and with the EC-20 -10 was needed. Luckily Olympus cameras have support in the menu to calibrate the AF, so there no need to send the lens to pay an expensive visit to the Olympus workshop. 3)The third point is that the 4/3 50-200 lens had a trombone zoom design whereas the m4/3 40-150 has internal zoom elements and keeps constant length. After soon 15 years of use of which 10 are heavy use, I have not noticed any dust or dirt sucked into the lens, though, the lens is well dust sealed. The build quality is excellent, I have not experienced any failures or malfunctions after more than 10 years of heavy use.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Great bit of information Tord--Thank you!! I got my non-SWD lens over a month ago-- Using a Panasonic camera was useless,, But just today I was able to get a very nice used 1 MKII that works great!! Going out later to tune it up--
I was have an 50-500 SWD and it was MUCH softer than a new 40-150 2.8, definitelly. When I haven´t possibility to compare both images taken on same body and compare pictures side by side, I was think that 50-200 is good and sharp. No in comparison with 40-150 2.8 ...
Don't forget a neat little feature of the 50-200 lens hood has this little window for say adjusting a polarizer filer with out taking the hood off. Good stuff as usual Peter, cheers
Thanks for pointing that out!
I owned both the non-swd and swd versions of this lens & used them both with the original em1. Still own & use the swd with em1 mk 2 and mk 3. The swd focuses a bit faster & facilitates manual focus override easily. The bokeh, at times, is a little busier than the non-swd version. Never had a reason to replace it; it suits my needs well. I also use it with the 1.4 tc.
Same. I use this lens and the 12-60mm swd on my Em1 mkii and absolutely love the combo.
The 40 -150 F2.8 is a very, very special lens. Sharp from edge to edge, lightweight, silky smooth, beautiful build quality, manual focus clutch, compact, weather sealed and is unparalleled in the full frame world. Where an 80 - 300mm F2.8 simply does not exist that I know of. If it did, it would weigh around the same as a suitcase and cost around the same as a second hand Porsche Boxster! Oh and you likely couldn't use it if rained either! Having used both Sony's 70-200 f2.8 & Canon's version, (both which weigh a ton and do not have the same features as the Olympus) the M.Zuiko wins hands down every time, on price (actually I would pay double for this lens and still be happy), build quality, weight, size & reach. It is a masterpiece of optical engineering.
I have had them both. The 4/3 with a 520 and the m4/3 with my M1 mk 2. But, never at the same time. Thanks for the comparison Peter.
I tried both and leaned towards the older one in the end. Why? It has more reach at still a reasonable aperture. But if you want to use AF, go for the new lens, even on a phase AF camera. The 50-200 AF drains the battery ultra fast.
Once again a good comparison discussion, thank you.
As a generalisation, a x3 zoom lens will always be a bit better than a x5 super-zoom.
I use the Panasonic DMW-MA1 4/3-MFT adaptor. It is well made and will support a very heavy lens such as the 4/3 Sigma 50-500 I have it mounted on. That one was Sigma's first "Bigma" and the focussing lens elements are heavy (it's full frame). Consequently the motors are rather slow and clunky, it chunters away to itself when focussing but eventually gets there. It focuses equally well on Panasonic or Olympus but having no OIS prefers the Olympus back. The AF does work but can take a second, and the lens is so heavy I cannot use it without a tripod.
Remember the AF is done in the camera, no lens cares whether it is contrast or phase, the camera just tells the lens to move in or out, I suspect the DFD pulses are too fast for it. The camera will switch to S-AF/AFS. Whilst 50-500 is x10, the wide end (50~150) seems intended for aiming it. Results can be stunning, I don't know what they put into the glass, it can have an almost 3D quality, and f/6.3 is pretty fast for a 500mm zoom.
Panasonic have long made zoom lenses in this range, most of which are small and light, albeit with smaller apertures; 35-100 f/2.8, 100-300, 14-140, 45-150, 45-200, PZ45-175 (video), 100-400 (which I don't have). Olympus have been a bit slow on the uptake but are now producing a few faster but monster size lenses
Auto focus adapters 4/3-MFT are available from £25. The DMW-MA1 is still available if you can hunt it down and has always been cheaper than the Olympus flavour.
Enjoyed your review Peter. I have both the SWD version & the non-SWD version of the 50-200mm lens. Doesn’t seem that the SWD outperforms the original 50-200mm. But I’m using the older E-M1 & not the E-M1 Mark II. Have not tried the 40-150mm so not able to compare the two. But I can say that the old 4/3 50-200 is extraordinary. Plenty fast enough & tack sharp. I shoot surfing photos for a living & have done so since the 1960’s. Have used many pro systems through the decades. Canon is good,still use a lot of their gear. But when I want that extra crispness & pop,I opt for the Oly combo. Leica-like quality glass! It is a pain (& too costly) to have to use the Oly adapter. But it connects you to the other great 4/3 glass like the 7-14,14-35,8,& 50 mac lenses. All of them are stellar. Still work great on the old E-5/E-3 & the CCD sensor E-500 as well (with no need for the adapter).
Very useful review, Peter.
I would like to add that 40-150mm supports focus stacking in camera - an very important feature for some people.
And Peter, would be very usefull if you could compare the flares and chromatic aberations. If you shoot an sunset, you would have a good chance to compare flare. I hope 40-150mm will not loose the battle here. Thank you for review, greetings !
Good point about the focus stacking. Missed that one on my video. Thanks for pointing that out.
I remember when I bought the first EM1 the mmf3 came with the camera. I still have the adapter but the camera died in 2019.
I have had the 50-200 mk1 since right around the time I purchased my E-1, in 2006. I use it effectively with the EC14 teleconverter and MMF3 on my E-M1s, and it is a terrific mid-long telephoto. I find it’s AF speed to be more than sufficient for everything but birds in flight. I wish you had mentioned what I consider to be likely it’s biggest drawback, and that is how long it gets when fully extended, almost 2 1/2” (6 cm) longer than the 300mm f4 with the teleconverter on it! It is a little lighter, though!
I have the 50 - 200mm, and it is excellent with the mkll and the m1x... lovely lens!
I have the 40-150 and my dad has the 50-200. I use mine on my E-M1 Mark II and my dad uses the original E-M1. The 40-150 is definitely the lens I use the most. It's perfect for equine photography, outdoor portraits of dogs and horses, and indoor portraits of dogs and cats with flash. I also keep a 2x teleconverter on my 40-150 for wildlife photography and closeups of flowers. My dad keeps a 1.4x converter on his 50-200, so he gets a slightly shorter focal length with a slightly brighter maximum aperture. I think that for wildlife photography, the deciding factor between these lenses is probably the teleconverters that are compatible with them rather than anything pertaining to the lenses themselves. From what I've heard, the old four thirds mount 2x teleconverter was not as sharp as the micro four thirds version. In my experience, the MC-20 has such great image quality and such fast autofocus that you'd never know it was there. Those are both great lenses though!
Love the internal zooming of the 40 to 150 and the fast autofocus those features when paired with the x2 teleconverter makes it a perfect zoom lens but it does have a few faults and those are it's weight and less stellar low light performance.
I have the 50-200 SWD version that I bought for my old E-3 at the time, and have found it a very good lens on the E-M1 as well. Image quality wise it is an excellent lens, and the AF is decently fast on the E-M1 mk2 (much improved compared to the mk1).
I have considered the 40-150mm a couple of times, with the internal zoom actually being one of the things that I would find quite appealing. The faster AF (and better flexibility with AF zones) is one factor. Moreover, fully extended to 200mm the 50-200 is a pretty long lens, particularly with the lens hood attached. And zooming out does change perspective ever so slightly as it moves the lens forward, which can be distracting on video particularly.
At the same time, the loss of the 50mm at the long end as well as the cost are why I haven’t quite yet been able to justify getting a lens that does have quite a bit of overlap with my existing zooms.
Great video Peter! I would love to see and hear your opinion on the true legends of the Four Thirds system, the 50mm f2 Macro, the 14-35mm f2, the 35-100mm f2 and the 150mm f2
I would like to add the 300 F/2.8 to that list
All the SHG lenses and the 50/f2 are amazing.
I have the 2007 version of the 50-200mm and I started with the 620-Series of cameras, later the E-5 and since 4 years the EM1M2, and I can tell you, even when I make pictures of staring or landing swans with Precapture I get 95% excellent results, so I will definitely stay with it. The same with the 7-14mm f4 wide angle lense, I bought it and I still believe it was almost not used at all, for 350 €, the adapter was already there and the picture quality, the autofocus, everything still is more than excellent. The price for that lence was in the beginning years ago 2.400 €, and the value for money ist just unbeatable… Just the fact that these lences look a bit oldfashioned… I don’t care and nobody take notice… So, I believe the bigger problem than quality and picture quality and focus speed and the look is; getting a good one! Regards from Germany Volker
Hey Peter, i got my 150mm 2.0 , found it on EBay for 1200 € 😅
Thanks, Peter! To test lense AF capabilities try to photograph a running or cycling person in C-AF mode.
I have the SWD version with a Lumix adapter (so no weather seals). I got it at a great price from a friend who had 2. On the original E-M1 it focuses faster than my previous DSLR kit so I am very happy with it.
Thanks for sharing the info about E-M1 vs. DSLR.
My Olympus E-300 2 lens kit came with a 40-150mm f3.5-4.5 lens that was made in Japan. That lens was a surprise, at least to me. The E-300 body was made in China, as was the 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens. The 40-150 was unusual for a kit lens as its 3.5-4.5 maximum aperture range was unusual for a kit zoom
It's a surprise to me, too. I've just dug my E300 out of the cupboard and yes - the 14-150 is made in Japan. Considering i've had the camera for 18 years, i should really have noticed sooner....
I have the older 50-200mm. When I was very actively shooting corporate conferences, I almost bought the 40-150mm when it came out, but realized that they were close to the same size and weight, and I had that extra 50mm on my old lens. I never bought the 40-150mm. The 50-200mm paid for itself 20 times over shooting wedding ceremonies and conference ballroom sessions. I don't think I'll ever sell it.
This is the second time I have watched this video as this subject matter has been highly relevant to me. I have recently sold my 12-40 Pro and Lumix 35-100 f2.8 to pay for a 12-100 Pro f4. A part of my reasoning for this was 100mm reach was not enough with the fast lens and I already had the 50-200. I also acquired an EC-14 at essentially no cost and then paid £100 for an MMF-3, which I have justified by the fact that this whole setup is a lot cheaper than the 40-150 Pro, especially cheaper than that lens with an MC-14. So far this is proving to be a killer combination, whereby the extra reach is hugely off-setting the (admittidly significant) advantages of the 40-150 Pro.
The SWD version of this lens popped up on ebay while I was ogling the used Panaleica 50-200s. I snapped it up for £400, but not before I got on youtube to see if it was still any good about 15 years later. Hey look, Peter Forsgård has a pair of videos on the older mark! If it's good enough for him, then the SWD is more than good enough for me...
I have both, while the character of the images taken with the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 is quite good, the autofocus is really slow comparing with the 40-150mm f2.8, it was this that made me get a 2nd hand 40-150mm f2.8 as soon as I laid my eyes on one... For anything that is not dynamic, the 50-200mm does great, if your subject is dynamic forget about it and get the 40-150mm. The 40-150mm f2.8 is also sharper, even with the mc14 teleconverter, the 50-200mm has a different, more filmy character.
For anyone in North America I have a 50-200mm f2.8-200 SWD in very good condition that I rarely use and wouldn't mind to be parted appart from... It's a great lens.
I love listening to you and thank you for the videos .... I am asking for your opinions 😁 what a good adapter from micro 4/3 to 4/3 lens. Does it make sense???
Hi Peter, excellent video! I own the 50-200 SWD lens. The autofocus speed is still unacceptable for moving subjects on the E-M1 and E-M1 Mark ii. You could get a soaring bird like a hawk, but nothing faster - like a car or a faster bird in flight. The IQ also lacked detail IMO, perhaps because it was designed to resolve a 5 MP sensor and modern sensors are 20MP. The 40-150 Pro was too short for my needs (wildlife) so I purchased a Panasonic Leica 50-200 to complement my 300mm f4 Pro. It is visibly sharper than the Zuiko 50-200 and of course with fast autofocus. I still have my Zuiko 50-200 and MMF-3 which I use on my self-designed remotely controlled rover for close-up shots of wildlife.
I own both of these and to be honest I don’t really see any image quality difference as you said. Both are beautiful lens. Sure the AF speed is a bit slower with the 50-200. O still manage to get some great bird shots with it.
Good value for money option if you dont need super fast AF. Nice and solid as well.
Thanks for the comparison Peter, much appreciated.
Guess it all depends on what cameras you own and use. I like the look of both lenses but I own the 50-200 ED 2.8-3.5 SWD lens that I carry along with my 12-60 ED 2.8-4.0 SWD lens, and since they are both paid for I like them even better. Both lenses work great with either my E-5 or my EM1, and I plan to use both cameras for a very long time. Another favorite four thirds lens is my Olympus 150mm F2.0 prime lens. Olympus has some really excellent quality glass with either platform you choose.
Great video, Peter! I have the 50-200mm SWD and still use it sometimes with my E-3 for sports. Do you think it focuses as fast on an M1 Mk I as it does with my E-3?
I have not tested it with E-3 so unfortunately I cannot say anything about that for sure.
My worry, when buying older lenses, is the concern with dust or fungus. I bought a few, when I did not know what I do now and it was a learning experience! I only buy new or from a second hand dealer, with a good reputation. eBay? Never!
I currently have 3 old FT lenses which bought used (not from eBay...) and which I possibly would buy again. BUT one should be aware that these lenses are not made to last forever. The aperture and the electronic cabling might break some day. I had that twice and could have it repaired (not through Olympus, though), but that risk should be added to the cost. I‘d stay away from lenses which are “worn off“.
The prices for the adapters obviously should prevent from keeping old lenses. New they costed around 300 € both from Olympus or Panasonic. I have 2 from Commlite, which are well-made, but do not work good with my 50-200 swd and an 12-60 swd, which I once had. But with 50mm and 70-300, they work fine.
oh woe! where is the new version of 50-200? was due last month!
I sold my 50-200 SWD and E30 to fund my EM1 MkII. I miss the 50-200 (it really was superb) but given the price of a used 40-150 I think I would choose that over the 50-200 with the MMF3. More compact, lighter and designed for the M4/3.
On the 50-200 lens, you state that you need an adapter to make it work with micro 4/3. Unclear as to what type of adapter is needed and by using this adapter do you still have all of your AF functions etc. ??
It's a 43 to m43 adapter made by olympus. You retain all electronic functionality like focus, aperture, display of focal length etc.
Decided on the 50-200 SWD. Got a mint one, plus found an almost new MMF3 for a total cost of AUD$600. The 40-150 is at least AUD$1500 now, so i am pretty happy :)
Sounds like a good deal.
Hi Peter! Actually the weight of 40-150 is 760g without removable tripod collar (880g with tripod collar).
Niin, ja nöyrä pyyntö, että et pitäisi vv-suojia kiinnitettyinä linsseihin näissä videoissa, häiritsee merkittävästi koon arvioimista. Tämä on toki ongelma muillakin kanavilla kuin sinun. Kiitos huippukanavasta, jatka samaan malliin!
Thanks and kiitos. I have the lens hoods on almost all the time and thats why I have them on my videos too. The thumbnail on this video both lenses are lens hood off.
Hi Peter, i had the old version and my doughter had the newer SWD version. Now we sold the old one and I have the SWD version on my E-M1 (1st version). There is a real difference in autofocus speed. Do you want to test? I am in Eastern Vantaa 😁
We could figure something out and see what we can do about that. Sounds interesting.
would you count the OM-1 as having phase detection? It sounds like a hybrid system but not entirely sure if it works as well as EM-1 with this lens?
It works well with OM-1. Have not tested it side by side with E-M1.
@@ForsgardPeter Thank you!
I had them both , the M lens is sharper, especially at the long and. I only sold the 50-200 because the original EM-5 doesn't focus it very fast, same for the 50.
The EM-1s fixed that somewhat .. after I sold both lenses.
I lean towards the newer lenses.
I got my MMF-3 with my lens. Now I see them starting at $199 on ebay. Vey impressed with the 50-200 for the price. I use it on a OMD EM5 MKIII with a grip and it handles fine. It's unusable with my G9 except in manual focus.
Me too. I have both. My 50-200mm is the newer SWD. My adapter is the MMF-1. Here's one interesting note. I typically use it with the EC-14 teleconverter. The images it produces have a FOV very similar to the 300mm f/4 pro or the 40-150mm pro with the MC20 teleconverter. Any thoughts on why? The FOV with the EC-14 should only be 280mm, but it sure appears like it's 300mm. Or maybe the newer micro lens are more like 280mm compared to the old 4/3's lenses.
It is possible that the 300m f4 is more close to 280mm than 300mm. I have not tested them side by side so cannot say for sure.
you have to factor in focus breathing - manufactures state the focal lenght at infinity as focallength of the lens. which you not use that often on a these tele lenses. so a 300mm lens could only be 260mm at 4 meters distance because of focus breathing. usualy primes are better than zooms in that regard
@@k3i0 Focus breathing is the change in FOV (field of view) as you rack the focus in and out. So, focus breathing is a result, not a cause. But yes, many lenses...maybe most lenses have shorter focal lengths when focused at their minimum focal distance than at infinity. An easy way to tell that is....tada...if you notice focus breathing when you move the focus point for the lens from far to near and back again.
So, in the comparison I mentioned, the opposite of what you suggest is happening. The prime lens, the 300mm is demonstrating a shorter focal length at close distances compared to the zoom with a teleconverter attached. Maybe at infinity, the prime will have a narrower FOV as the focal length is longer than the zoom, but when you focus on near objects, the prime loses more focal length than the zoom and they appear to have the same focal length.
Thank you Peter for this video, I own the 50-200mm lens (I paid it for 275 euro) and was thinking to upgrade to a 40-150mm lens, but with this information I don't upgrade.
I have also bought a Viltrox JY-43F adapter on Amazone for 45 euro, Peter can you put a MC14 or a MC-20 teleconverter on this lens and does this work well? I would be very gratefull because I search for a long time but find nothing, and I want more zoom out of my telelens, Thanks in advances, Marc Duke
I havw this lens and the tc 1.4. It works well with the 4/3 tc 1.4. You cannot use a mc 1.4 or 2.0 with it.
If the MC-14 or MC-20 fits inside the adapter then it should be ok. The converter does not fit inside the MMF-3 adapter.
I have the TC made for this lens...the EC-14. It works well.
Thanks a lot for the video. But how image quality comparing to M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II?
Have not tested them side by side. Unfortunately cannot say for sure. My guess is that the 50-200mm has better image quality.
Did you test the image quality of the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 vs. the 40-150 f2.8 + MC-14 converter? The MC-14 new is US $300 new and I saw on e-bay the 40-150mm F/2.8 PRO +1.4xTelecon MC-14 for US $1,180 used import from Japan. The good thing with the M43 system is that there are many good options for compatible lenses both old and new.
Maybe you could do a test comparing image quality of several different "budget" lens and converter combinations:
50-200mm f2.8-3.5 + old teleconverters,
40-150 f2.8 + new teleconverters,
75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
100-400mm f5-6.3 IS
I did not test the lens against 40-150mm f2.8 + MC-14. Maybe I will do that in the near future.
Very good video !! Congrats
Thank you very much!
I had the old 50/200 and the 50/200 sw now I have the 40/150 pro for years and I would not change it for any other perspective. Thanks for your videos always very accurate and understandable. Greetings from Italy I passed through Finland and I hope to return soon "on the bike" 😃A greeting
I only own the 40-150 pro. With the MC 14 you can also reach 210 mm @ f 4 with the newer lens. However I think you should have told us something about the bokeh. Of what I read the bokeh on the vintage lens is a bit more pleasant.
That is a matter of opinion which lens has better bokeh. Yes, you are right I should showed it.
Nice video! I would like to know if i coudl use the 40-150 on my om10 mark 3 im buying one through the internet and im new with the cameras and lenses. Thnak you
Yes you can!
@@ForsgardPeterdo I need an adapter?
Not for the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 lens.
Would I lose performance with the mmf-2 vs the 3?
I do not think so. MMF-3 is weather sealed and MMF-2 is not.
Hello and thanks a lot for your videos ! I have a question... I own two SWD lenses, one 12-60 and one 50-200. They are both in very goode condition and I have the MMF3 adapter. Those lenses AF are a nightmare with my GH5, and I'm thinking about getting a body that can handle correctly those lenses as I don't want to spend money on buying new m4/3 equivalent as those lenses have a very good image quality (I'm not a wildlife or sport fotographer). I also use lots of vintage lenses (I bought my first olympus in the late 70's when I was a teenager, I still have OM4 bodies and others cool digital P1 MF stuffs for specific works), OM lenses, Helios... I need a camera that can make good photos in night conditions (street mainly) and want to have a usable AF with my SWD lenses. What would you suggest ? OM-1, em1 MK III, em1ex... ? I won't probably shoot higher that 6400 iso. I've seen on some on your videos that high iso is cleaner on the OM-1. I was thinking about the new Lumix G9II but I'm afraid it can't handle properly the SWD lenses. Thanks a lot in advance if youu find some time to answer this question !
I am afraid that I cannot say how those lenses work on G9II. I know they work fimne on Olympus/OM SYSTEM bodies.
@@ForsgardPeter Thanks for your quick answer. In what AF mode did you make your tests ? S-AF or C-AF ? I've seen on other videos the one have to use C-AF instead of S-AF ? And also that Oly/OM bodies work in contrast detection in S-AF and Phase Detection in C_AF ? Which would mean that SWD lenses have a less good AF on S-AF than C-AF ?
If I remember correctly I used mostly S-AF. I will try to find out and chech that from the metadata. I think OM SYSTEM Workspace gives that info. Not sure, but I will look.
@@ForsgardPeter thanks !
@@ForsgardPeter I asked Thomas Eisl and he answered me that OM-1 swithes to Phase Detection in AFS if a 4/3 lense with proper adapter in connected.
Found a 35-100 2.0 second hand here in Czech republic, was tempted but price was almost the same like new 40-150.
Some lenses keep their value.
Swd version was much faster on the 4/3rds cameras anyway. Only have used the swd version on the m4/3rds.
Have E-5 Mark II, and would like to use primary for landscape work/ manual focus....$ drives my decision....what is best adapter?
If you want to focus manually, I suggest you the 50-200. You can even reach 400mm with it when you use the x2 converter.
MMF-3 is weather sealed and I think it is important.
There may be some viltrox adapters floating around. $30-35 Not sealed. Mount is softer metal. Disconnects if you twist zoom ring too hard. Works ok for my needs.
On your em5ii, 50-200 will use contrast af. Painfully slow and noisy. Ask if the lens is worth the cost of a new camera.
@@sunnzboz9482 If you use the EC20 then you ought to stop down. I recommend F/9, F/8 is a minimum otherwise images will be soft. This is based on my own experience of many years of heavy use in the field.
Thanks for the review. I luckily got the 50-200 SWD with MMF3 from someone wil apperantly never used it for about 300 euro's which seems a bargain. It works indeed very well with the EM-1. AF speed is good in good light, but not so for moving subjects. It surprises me with the EC-20 2x teleconverter the IQ is still quite good. Much better than with my Sony A77-2 with 70-200,2.8 and teleconverter.
It was a bargain!
Olympus needs to up date the 50-200mm
My em1 mark i doesn't have phase detection
It does have both Phase Detect and Contrast Detect AF.
As Peter said, it has. I have one and can confirm that, too.
For me I would choose the 40-150 f2.8 because of the constant aperture.
Same conclusion for me: I've kept my old 50-200 swd for both price and reach as IQ and aperture are almost the same...
FYI for everyone who's interested in the lens, you can reverse the lens hood.
Thanks for the info.
would like to see a review of the old 300 2.8 compared to the 300 f4 😉
If I can get a hold of one I will.
At Moment there is (unfortunatly) only one long telephoto lens That is very good : 150-400mm.
But they can not deliver it...
what a shame the 50-200 isn’t 2.8 throughout the range.
It would be better, but I think f3.5 is not that bad.
I tried to make a movie how fast the auto focus is, but it is not the quality that you always show.
The 12-100 is faster, there is no time between pressing and focusing. With this lens, there is a slight delay, but not bothersome. At 200mm, the lens may want to search in difficult situations
ua-cam.com/video/qMUfIqAacFo/v-deo.html
Peter, I had just asked about the adapter. I am am such a moron as I didn't finish watching your entire video that states what adapter is needed. so, please ignore my previous question...sorry.
Look at the medium format photographers 😜 ugly and bulky camera, but amazing photos 😊 what comes out of the camera counts much more than the look of the camera 😉
Agree.
Peter, my friend, as we say "you're flogging a dead horse" with the old lens compared with the newer 40-150 PRO, especially if you add either of the Lens Converters. 😄
Rick
Well if some are on a budget it’s a great option to know about.
@@WhoIsSerafin Maybe, but I'd suggest that anyone on a budget is wiser to buy just one really top rated professional quality lens than compromising by trying to stretch their budget. Getting just one PRO lens and investing your efforts in really learning how to use it will deliver better results.
Rick