[shoplink 23304]
[/shoplink]
It doesn’t happen very often to see a Four Thirds lens or camera review. That’s why it’s worth to mention the new [shoplink 23304]Olympus ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD[/shoplink] lens review made by Photographyblog (Click here). That lens is made in Tatsuno, the same fab that is currently producing the 12mm f/2.0 Micro Four Thirds lens that will be announced on June 30th. And as you can read the lens is a very good performer:
– “Build quality is outstanding, with a solid construction and superb fit and finish.”
– “It’s also very good in the optical department, showing pretty consistent sharpness results across most of its aperture range. The moderate vignetting, lack of chromatic aberrations, and good close-up performance”
– “At first sight, it may look bulky and heavy, but when you remind yourself that it covers an angle-of-view range similar to that of a 100-400mm lens on a 35mm camera, you immediately realise that it’s actually quite compact, especially if you factor in the bright maximum aperture, too.”
Click on shop name to see the lens search results at [shopcountry 23304].
Now let’s hope Olympus will make such nice zooms for the Micro Four Thirds system!
38 Responses
my favorite 43rd lens.
That lens is a dream of mine for years…
It’s even a very cheap lens for what you get, especially compared to the m43 telelenses. I wish it could be made to focus quickly on m43…
@Admin
I have problems with cookies, every time I come to this site I have to switch from mobile site to the desktop version (safari on iPad)
Best regards
Try a different browser.
I use Grazing because of the way it handles tabs and I can have more than 20 open at all times!. Atomic works well, too.
Today was the first time I noticed the mobile version. It looks good, but I prefer the full version.
How Well would this lens work on a GH2? Auto-focus isn’t a concern.
no question ask my ever trusted lens ever since
Oh man, when I first loaded the page I thought this was an announcement for a m4/3 version of the 50-200mm. That would be awesome!
I’m still waiting to get this lens for my E30. Some things we have to wait for. 🙁
I’d buy a m4/3 version of this lens in a heartbeat. Even at the regular price that the 50-200mm SWD was going for.
This lens demonstrates why 4/3 is still viable. Unfortunately, a m4/3 version can’t be much smaller or lighter. Eventually there will be larger mirrorless bodies which can more-or-less balance the 50-200, but until then the E-5 and E-30 make more sense.
BTW, it is an excellent chunk of glass. I don’t use mine much because my photography requires shorter focal lengths, but when I need a telephoto it comes in handy every time.
THe 50-200 SWD is the best lens I’ve ever owned in my many decades in photography, by far….it is an absolute jewel.
Now, if Olympus would just make an updated camera body along the lines of the E-620 or E-30 that I could use it with….not a very good match for micro 4/3 cameras, to say the least. Barely a match for even the 600 series. But man, what a lens!
Anyway, the Panny 45-200 f.4-5.6 is the micro 4/3 version of this lens currently, or the closest you are going to get.
Olympius
+1: Now, if Olympus would just make an updated camera body along the lines of the E-620 or E-30 that I could use it with….not a very good match for micro 4/3 cameras, to say the least.
I hope they bring this superb lens to MFT one day…
An MFT version (or something similar) of this lens would be extremely useful. I sometimes shoot performances where even from the front of the stage you need a telephoto to get close enough to the action. My F4.0-5.6 100-300mm zoom is just not fast enough. I’d even be very happy with a more modest zoom range, say a F2.8-3.5 75-150mm to keep the weight down. Of course I’d prefer a version with OIS for use on my GH2, but if Olympus made such a lens, I’d even switch to using a stabilized PEN body.
If you reduced the FL that far, may as well keep the aperture constant 😉
Personally I’d like to see a 35-100 2.8-3.5 instead. But first the 12-5x 2.5-3.3 zoom 😀
this lens is good, but also overhyped imo,
it’s excellent as long as you compare it to kit lenses.
it’s just good when you compare it to the competition
despite my criticism esp. AF accuracy is one of it,
i own this lens, and use it a lot.
and price/performance ratio is for sure excellent
Sorry, but the Olympus FT kit lenses are exclellent compared to the competition. The 50-200SWD is outstanding. Indeed, there is no competition at all if it comes to range, IQ, compactness and price-performance ratio. The only disadvantage is the huge lenshood and unfortunately, the smaller one of its predecessor, the 50-200 non SWD, doesn’t fit. Put that’s a price I’m happy to pay for the performance of this lense.
I’m mainly shooting dogs in action with this lens – anmd the E-5 – and the AF accuracy is great. And it also was with the slower C-AF of the E-30. Although the E-5 has increased the number of keepers to some 80 percent.
So, if the AF precision of your 50-200 SWD is suboptimal you should have it (or the camera) serviced. But not right now, please, as they seem to have major service issues in Oly country, right now.
It’s lenses like this that show why Olympus NEEDS a Pen with EVF!!!
Yeah, I was lucky enough to get this lens with a year of dealer warranty for half the original price. I never made a better purchase in terms of value for money!!
With just two lenses, you can cover an equivalent of 24mm to 400mm and still have a decently fast aperture (use the 12-60mm and the 50-200mm). NO OTHER camera system offers such great flexibility in that quality for so little money.
wrong-placed comment. Erased.
Yes very nice lens, one of my favorite when I was a 4/3 user:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roberto_mandirola/4477447398/in/photostream/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roberto_mandirola/4473558959/in/photostream/lightbox/
Hi Guys, I think Olympus should make the following line of products
1. M43 for entry level, travel and journalist cameras
2. 4/3 for sports and bird photography – they should continue update all HG and SHG lens to SWD based and ceased the production of all standard grade lens except updating the 70-300mm to a HG lens with SWD and better resolution for bird and sports photography. So keep making E-X and E-XX for sports, birds, high speed photography.
3. Mirrorless Medium Format using their excellent mirrorless technology to a professional camera for portrait, wedding, landscape, fashion photography.
What do you think?
To be honest, no to point two: The PDAF system never will be as precise and accurate as CDAF. So they’d rather accelerate the C-AF of the CDAF on top-DSLR level (with the FT lenses, I hope) and the image-rendition rate of the EVF – to than give us a mirrorles successor of our FT flagship with interchangeable mount. So you could use the small and fast primes and µFT zooms for the range up to about 50mm and for the longer fast tele lenses that can’t be built much smaller than the FT Zuikos anyway we could keep on using our FT lenses.
Meanwhile, I’ve got nothing to say regarding a mid-format camera. This just isn’t the area I’m interested in. But I don’t know if there is money to be earned, there.
Exactly.
Apparently Sony is going to move their whole Alpha range to fully digital age meaning always fully working live view and seamless video integration (unlike Canikon’s OVF bodies) so that’s where Olympus should aim for unless they again intend to be late for getting into train like what happened in getting complete Four Thirds body line up.
Especially trying to keep separate Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds line ups, with the later unable to use all new optics for the former, is really the last thing Olympus can afford with their limited resources. So the sooner they expand Micro Four Thirds line up from small unergonomic pocket cameras to fully ergonomic direct controls tools the better chances they have for getting “good seat in train”.
OLED by its nature solves slow response time problem of old compromise liquid crystal crap (lots of problems in getting them to work fast enough for monitors/TVs) along offering superior contrast (and better power efficiency) and image lag from sensor to display is only question of increasing read out speed of sensor and faster processing so it’s no wonder if Sony is getting ready to club Canikon with whole tree trunk.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-first-worldwide-picture-of-the-final-a77-and-a65-production-models/
These fixed mirror cameras just won’t be able to get rid Alpha mount’s heavy retrofocus design of wide angle lenses or bulk taken by mirror box and current NEXes are pocket toy bodies inbalanced for use with Alpha/Minolta optics but also that might change fast so Olympus can’t expect train to stay forever on station.
(and neither is Samsung lacking in resources to achieve their goals)
Yes i think so i to,
Can we look on new HG lens in M43 so come now, also start by 12mm F2 lens so is one steep better so 12-60mm F2.8-4 is, and two steep better so 7-14mm F4, but not zoom.
Olympus definition M43 difference not so 43, but Panasonic so go up same way so the do on 43.
I think we all will be surprise what Olympus will do by 43 in future, the large flang distance and telecentre lens can be important, to more give room than mirror and shutter.
@koretzky
i had two different swd copies (calibrated on the E-5 body) so no way it was user error, the lens has issues (i wish i could say differently..), i also found the old version non-swd focusing ‘more secure, though slower’ than the swd. Also the old version 50-200 funnily is brighter (stays longer @2.8 – 2.9 than the apparently better SWD new version…) and it’s also thinner barreled..and the hood is as you mentionned smaller (and therefore imo overall the better choice over the swd) if you don’t believe it test it. Also the old 50-200 focuses fast on the E-5 (much faster than it did on the E-3….)
oly fanboys like to defend their lenses as holy grail one of a kind products, i like my olys too but let be serious now:
for the same price than the 50-200 swd for example canon also makes image stabilized silver L lense 100-400 mm, about same size/weight so cut the fanboy talk. even if the olympus is ‘faster’ aperture wise, the L used on fullframe for example 5d, is easily better. Just crank up the iso dial on the 5d and you’re there, same shutter speeds, less noise, and thinner ‘dof’ possibilities on the canon.
the DOF of the Olympus is 2.8 – 3.5 corresponds (5.6 – 7.0 on fullframe)!! Most people forget that…
so the oly should be (f 2.25 – 2.8 to only ‘equalize’ the ‘slow’ canon equivalent….)
I wholeheartedly recommend to test the products in a store, before writing stuff like ‘has no competition’ etc…
also the price argument is no valid, as olympus is charging almost the same for their E-5 as canon does for the fullframe 5dmkII..
Out
maitani
I never claimed you made a user error. And I’m aware of the fact that the SWD version stays brighter longer than the SWD version.
But my 50-200 SWD hasn’t got any focus-accuracy issues, believe me.
I csan shoot pictures like these (please don’t mind the two older ones shot with a bridge I’ve added to this set) at any time:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63427925@N00/sets/72157626321748071/
And the L 100-400 is far from the 50-200 SWD IQ wise. There have been countless comparisons in several forums that proved this fact.
In addition, I’m fully aware that I can get a thinner DOF with FF cameras and lenses – but if I needed this I had purchased an FF system.
And please: Apart from the smaller sensor (that may be regarded as a disadvantage by some but isn’t one for me and many other FT users as you got far sharper pictures from corner to corner), the E-5 has got far more to offer than the 5D MKII. And in addition, it’s the most rugged camera on the market.
So if you like FF better than your Oly gesar – no problem, everybody should use what they like most. But don’t tell me that there is a tele zoom on the market that represents a true competitor for the 50-200 SWD – as there isn’t.
He is a troll, don’t feed him.
New Zuiko 50-200mm SWD is a lot more expensive than the old one for many many good reasons, and he is only person I know who recommends the old if price tag is not a concern.
Zuiko 50-200mm SWD version’s bokeh is very smooth and very magical in quality. I could believe old version is a little brighter (though I haven’t used the old version), but SWD version is more than usable. Like I mentioned before, Zuiko 50-200mm SWD’s color is a little warmer, so they may be mistaken as darker.
Lens hood was increased in size because it’s better at cutting down stray light and that improves overall image quality.
You’re wrong.
I have used 100-400 L and it’s such a poor lens in comparions to 50-200mm SWD.
First, it’s much bigger and quite heavier.
That stupid push-pull zoom is crap, gathers dust and isn’t weather sealed at all.
IS in 100-400 is much less effective barely providing 2 stops at best, and E-3/5 IBIS gives 4 stops easily, 5 if you’re steady.
Optically, 50-200 just blows it away in every sense, especially outside the centre.
100-400 makes much more sense on a APS body and then although you do get a longer reach you don’t get high ISO advantage at all, so it’s 1-1.5EV slower with 3 stop worse IS, plus it’s more expensive and not weather sealed – HA!
Adding EC14 to 50-200 you get comparable reach and still 1/3 EV faster lens with much better close focusing capability.
File this under old news!! The 50-200 SWD is one of the biggest reasons I decided to go 4/3. Excellent value for the money!
The 50-200 SWD is, IMHO, actually superior to the more famous 12-60mm SWD. I use both & without a doubt the bigger brother is better in my experience, which is saying something given the superb quality from the 12-60. Mind you anyone with an E-5 must have both.
I’m a little off kilter in the fact that I’ve yet to own a 12-60mm that I like (I’ve owned 3). It may be the way I’m using it…probably is…but I just don’t like it.
So I’m now using a 14-54 (Mk1) and a 50-200 (Mk1) on my E5 and I’m a genuinely contented photographer.
Sure, the SWD feature could shave countless milliseconds off my see/compose/check/shoot workflow…but hey, what the heck, it’s a small price to pay for contentment, right?
obvious cases of brand-blindness, people seem to prefer to justify their purchases instead of being objective, i like my oly system a lot, but I’m not brand blind.. but what do I expect here it’s a 4/3 related blog.
i can only say, once you test fullframe (and esp. buyers of E-5 should have a look at it as the body’s are same size and same price-league..), there is no way back, also ff sensors are much more forgiving with ‘mediocre’ lenses, I shot for fun with a 60 dollar tamron 28-200 soup-zoom on fullframe and was nothing but impressed, expecting nothing, the lens performed faboulous (for oly standards) Fantastic sharpness, much nicer bokeh, than the nervous 50-200 bokeh… the tamron was light as an oly kit lens, and there are even plenty of aps-c lenses will get same results on cropped system body (for example d300) for example. maybe it’s not 1:1 the same focal length, but a standard 70-300 on aps-c will give the same or better results than this lens. I hate to say, but it’s true.
A shame oly didn’t keep the momentum they had with the E-1 back when it was released, the E-1 remains a world class camera until today, The E-3 has become obsolete, the E-5 is close to obsolete in about a year, it will be…
I hope at least the new pens will deliver.
Another problem, as capable as the lens itself might be, as long as the sensor tech of the bodys of choice
is outdated for noise and dynamic, and it’s a big shame there is no higher resolving sensor/body combination than 12mp to mount those lenses on (I’m talking native 43 mount, not awkward adapting of 35-100 to a GH2 body…)
build quality of the e-5 is good, but not superior to a Nikon D300s or pentax K7/K5 for example.. just visit your next photographic store and have a look.
Obsolete you say? I often get to see professionals. Sports shooters and journalists. You should see some of the gear I see!
We are talking about people making a living out of their craft, not forum crawlers: what I see is for most part battle scarred discontinued bodies, sometimes bodies that have never been flagship at all! How often did I see a D3x? Just once. D3s? Never so far. D2? D100? D200? I still get to see some!
E5 delivers and can go through a serious beating. Give it to a pro with a couple of decent lens and it will be put to good use for years to come!
Do you think it’s appropriate to presume that anybody who doesn’t share your point of view does suffer from brand-blindness? This sounds as if you believe you are the one who knows it all, doesn’t it? Maybe it’s you who’s got a brand allergy?
So, if you speak German I could send you a link to a comparison between the D5 MkII and the E-5 made by an optical engineer. And he comes – like me – to the concusion: FF could be an advantage, but only if the lenses are four times and big as the FT lenses. Otherwise, you will have ro cope with a limited IQ. That’s a fact and it’s quite easy to understand. And I never would be able to pay the lenses or the sherpa to carry them around for me.
But it seems to me that you just don’t want the FT lenses to be better. Now that several people have told you that the L 100-400 doesn’t play in the same league as the weather sealed 50-200 SWD your’e coming with the Bokeh of a Tamron. And more things like that. Oh dear oh dear…
Strange that Tamron never dared to compete with the Zuikos and Sigma never could be successful in FT land. Must have been because the panaLeicas and Zuikos were just too cheap or what?
And now you want to tell us that the D300 has got the same built quality as the E-5. Now thanks for the laugh.
And when it comes to the K5, a camera I nearly purchased myself and a friend of mine is shooting with: It’s true, its built quality comes close to the E-5, but close isn’t on a par. And that’s what he says too.
In addition, Pentax hasn’t got any zooms that are on a par with the Zuikos.
Yep, there are these fantastic small primes. But I don’t want a bunch of primes, they are expensive – and not weather sealed.
I really love this lens. It’s the single reason I keep an Olympus DSLR around.
I keep hoping that Olympus will find a way to make it focus properly on µ4/3 bodies. It’s kind of usable on the E-P2, but the autofocus is very poor (and the autofocus performance is one of the major selling points of this lens to begin with).
You’re not the only one. There are bunch of us who still on 4/3 wagon because of this lens. Best bang for the buck ever! It’s hard to give up this lens. It’s so small for what it is (try a Canon/Nikon equivalent), and the reach is so useful for so many situations, the image quality is magical, no discernible geometric problem. Yes, the highest rating lens for this focal length is actually Zuiko 35-100mm f2 for even greater IQ (and constant aperture), but the reach is smaller and it’s a lot bigger! Most of us aren’t pro enough to justify 35-100mm’s price tag, but 50-200mm SWD just fits the bill (and it out-resolves my E-620 already, so I really don’t need even better lens when the body can’t deliver much more improvement).
don parrot,
i didn’t compare the tamron to the zuikos, i just said, i was impressed that a 60 dollar tamron lens from the 35mm film days from the fleamarket perfomed fabulous on fullframe,(the sensor is just so much more forgiving) same or better than a 900$ zuiko lens on a FT system body. maybe you don’t know that i shot half of my life with olympus since the om days, besides other digital zuikos i still own the 35-100 which is feel is truly in a league of it’s own, i haven’t found something which comes close in any system. i’m not dissing olympus by any means, I still have several olympus bodys, since shooting fullframe parallel, i’ve become maybe a little brand-tired as you say, and i regret not swapping earlier to fullframe, so even if the 50-200 is maybe unique in terms of size/price/performance as you like to put it (i still don’t agree..) but it doesn’ make up for the drawbacks of the system. Telecentricy is a myth, this has been proven, also scientifically.., and so are the four times bigger lenses, which would be physically true, but the better iso performance made up for this easily, try a D700 iso 3200 and compare it to your E-5 it looks like iso 400 from the E-5 and iso 200 from the E-3, now add the dof penalty, on fullframe just stop the lens down, and you have the same image as on the olympus, it works one way, but it doesn’t work the other way , think about it…
i know there are many scientific comparisons, but when i see it with my own eyes. i believed the crap long enough.. but it’s also true that i’m pissed that olympus was unable to deliver a decent sensor for the otherwise overall good system, (until today the best non-fullframe system) i’m the first to que if oly gives us a real update as E-7, with really ‘up to date’ sensor technology, as the E-5 in real life is a mediocre update to an E-3 heck even a E-620 comes very close in image quality.. i just don’t think it’s worth the money, and i’m talking from owners perspective, also i don’t say i’m the one who knows it all, i just have pretty much experience with all the actual systems on the market, and i try to be objective and the opposite of brand blind.
as you might have noticed I don’t like the stereotype fanboy arguments, from ‘blind’ system worshippers, i’ve been one for myself…
The Olympus Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Digital ED SWD is very fast and renders beautiful image quality, sharp throughout the entire image and with minimum distortion and vignetting. Together with E3 this telezoom is very versatile, the fast f-stop and the image stabilizer reduces dramatically the need for carrying a tripod. The focus mechanism is nice, lightning fast and quiet. Build quality seems excellent (although I have not yet tested its splash proofing) Highly recommended!