70-300 or 50-200 non SWD

[Justintoxicated]

help me decide. I decided I MUST have a real zoom lense. Right now I have a 14-42 (for sale) and I also have some nice filters for it (UMC ultra UV and HMC polarizer). Te filters would fit nicely on the 70-300.

Problem is the cheapest I see the 70-300 for is about $315 (new) which makes me tempted to pickup a used 50-200 (non SWD) for $650.

I'm not sure which one to go for.

Other lenses in my arsenal are 50mm prime and 14-54mm.

I'll check back in the morning or else I will just buy the 50-200 I guess. I don't have the E3 so I'm not sure I would notice much of a difference between the older version and the new SWD version?

[erikzen]

I'm not sure what your point is about price. To me there is a big difference between $315 and $650. To me these are two different price ranges. I always say buy the best equipment you can afford, not a penny more. In other words don't buy something if it is over your budget just because it's a good deal. Don't spend money you don't have, unless it is an absolutel necessity. If you can afford the better lens then go for it.

Another approach is to buy the cheaper lens now and when you save up another $400 try selling the other lens to buy the new one. This way you not only get to upgrade but you also gain knowledge by working with different lenses.

As far as comparing the two lenses go, I'm afraid I can't help you there as I haven't tried both. I do own the 70-300 and can say that for $315 I think you're going to get a lens that represents a good value. It is much more versatile than I thought it would be and is fairly easy to carry around. Take a look at my "Which Lens to Take on Vacation" thread to see a variety of shots at different focal lengths. Most impressive was the use of this lens at the wide end. Having the extra reach can be fun too.

Here is an interesting picture using the lens almost like a macro, zoomed all the way in at about 6 feet away.



Clarity to me is superb at 300mm. I think you can have a lot of fun with this lens for not very much money.

[Don Kondra]

After you consider the price difference, you may want to consider the size/weight..

The 70-300 is 620g while the 50-200 is 1070g. Quite a bit more to carry around

I won't give up my 70-300 for the reach but may upgrade my 18-180 to the 50-200 for the image quality/better low light use.

Cheers, Don

[Justintoxicated]

thats my concern with the 70-300. I almost need both lenses but don't want to fork out the cash. But if I did get the 70-300 over the 50-200 I owuld be trying to take shots at 200+mm on the 70-300.

I' sure the 70 side of the 70-300 is nice and all but the 50-200 would cover this even better and I already have a nice macro for up close shots.

The again I'd be worried that 200mm might not be enough range, but I don't have to worry about my F-values with this one.

I can buy either I have the cash from selling a liquid cooled computer, I just can't decide, everyone seems to really like their 70-300. Would it make a good lense for the desert though or other outdoors types of activities since it is not sealed like the 50-200?

[Photo-John]

Don-
I see you've got the 18-180mm lens and I know there are no user reviews for it. Please take a few minutes to post a review for it and your other lenses. User reviews are the foundation of this site and we need your contributions.

That goes for the rest of you guys, too. I know who you are

Olympus Zoom Lens Reviews >>

Thanks in advance for your reviews!

[Sushigaijin]

50-200, hands down.

In the world of lenses, from $315 to $650 isn't a whole lot of difference, but a jump from standard grade to pro grade is a world of difference.

i've been vascillating between the 50-200 SWD and the Bigma, which are less than 100$ difference, and the thing that keeps bringing me back to the 50-200 is the image quality. Without getting in depth, the 50-200 is the best sub-3000$ telephoto that zuiko has. the 90-250 might be better, but I'll never be able to afford it. I've been trying to talk myself into the $900 50-200 for a few weeks, but if you have a line on a $650 non-swd, I'd buy that in a second They are identical with the exception of tripod mount and lens body, with the SWD having to accommodate a different type of focus motor.

It's all a compromise in photography; I never thought I'd seriously look at the 12-60 since I have the 14-54, but It's on my short list now because I don't think I will ever be able to afford the 7-14 and I just won't go back to standard grade (new 9-18) lenses after using pro grade...

[Photo-John]

You never said what it is you want to do with the lens. Ordinarily I counsel against less expensive long zooms like the 70-300. But in this case, I've used that lens a ton and it always impresses me. So I have no qualms about recommending it. The only downside is the small variable aperture. On the other hand, at a 600mm equivalent on the long end, you still get sweet shallow depth-of-field. I love that lens.

I haven't had the opportunity to use the 50-200. But it sure looks good and it would make a great compliment to your 14-45. So, I think it comes down to two things. What do you really need? And how much do you want to spend? In this case, I think need comes first. Which lens would offer you more options for your photography. Which one would help you get the photos you haven't been able to get?

A quick note on the 18-180mm lens. I like it alright. But it's not on par with the other two. If you want to carry one powerful lens, it's pretty wonderful. But if you're investing in serious lenses and aren't worried about weight or size (and with Olympus, why worry?), then I'd pass and buy a longer lens.

I hope that helps you make up your mind. Please make sure to post reviews for your Olympus gear. We need your reviews!

[Justintoxicated]

ok I bit on the 50-200. While I'll be kicking myself for not having 300mm range, I'll be patting myself on the back when low F-stops are needed. I have also read that camreas tend to take better pictures when they are not using ht elowest F-stop available, maybe 2 stops up and your ok for a premium shot but that is getting quite high with the 70-300. I tend to not lug tripods around and deal with what I get. I'm sooooo glad I sold my e420 and got the e520 for what I tend to do. I hope this sucker fits in the lowpro singshot 200AW bag, I have a feeling its not going to :P

[Photo-John]

It's always good to have the decision made and be committed. And I have no doubt you're gonna love that lens. Looking forward to reading what you think about it - especially when you post your review

[Justintoxicated]

yea give me some time and I will write something! Now I'm off to find a Sigma DG UV filter for it!

[Atomic2]

I would go with the 50-200. I have the 70-300 and I think I'm the only person not satisfied with it. The focus is pretty slow and infuriating, I took this lens to a racing event and the slow focus nearly drove me crazy. The problem was compounded when I took the lens to an air show and couldnt focus on ANYTHING so I had to leave it in manual the whole time, which was awful because of the whole, focus by wire thing these lenses have.

Though the biggest reason I dont want this lens is because I simply dont need that much reach. I thought I did, but I really dont. At the racing event, I ended up using my 40-150 3.5-4.5 most of the time.

I feel, for me at least, that 200mm will be perfectly sufficient. In my case, it will also allow me to sell my 40-150.

[erikzen]

I found the 70-300 a bit quirky. Sometimes it seemed to perform well and other times it didn't and it was hard to nail down what settings, lighting conditions and distances worked. But I also found it quite versatile had no problems focusing in daytime light, even if it was a bit overcast. Of course, I wasn't trying to photograph race cars with it.

[Photo-John]

Yeah, racing is a whole different ballgame. For that, I would be looking exclusively at the SWV lenses. I have used the 70-300mm for mountain bike races and was pretty impressed. But it often seems like it's not focus when it actually is. And sometimes the focus just locks up and focuses on nothing. And that's with the E-3. I love it for outdoor photos where I can pre-focus. And I especially love it for its size and weight when I'm on the bike or skiing. I always prefocus for that kind of shooting and in those situations, the 70-300mm has not let me down.

[xwingkiller]

the only thing i can add to this is that if you get the 50-200, you will not be sorry or have any regrets. im not saying that you would be sorry for getting the 70-300...ive never used it.
the 50-200 is an amazing lens. to me, it feels pretty huge and heavy because i can only compare it to other lenses that i have used which is limited to the kit lenses and the 12-60. BUT, i take the tripod mount off and it is way different. i use it handheld all the time with no problems.
the other thing ive always thought of though when considering buying lenses is that the olympus lens really doesnt lose value. you buy a cheaper one until you get the rest of the cash and then just sell the cheaper one. thats what im going through now. i want a low light indoor type lens and i just cant imagine spending $1k on the panasonic 25mm, so im thinking of grabbing the sigma 30mm or maybe the olympus 50mm. then if it comes to a time where i feel comfortable spending the extra cash, ill just sell the lens i got for the same as i bought it. buying used is such a great way to go for this too because you litterally lose $0 even after a year+ of having the lens.

[Atomic2]

Yep! Im selling off my 70-300 after about a month of ownership, I think I may actually make a profit!
I bought it for 320 NEW on Amazon, and now its on Craigslist for $340 with one inquiry already after only 2 days.

I guess if I ever need the 70-300 again, ill just buy it again, and then sell it.


for anyone wondering, I sold my 14-42 and the newer 40-150 on craigslist for $125 and $120 respectively [yes the 14-42 sold for more somehow]

[Justintoxicated]

Well it won't be here in time for the race. But thats ok, its not that important I'm going to borrow my friends 40-150.

There is another up on amazon now for $650 (non SWD).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...1258090&sr=8-5

THis is the race I'm going to.
http://www.corracing.com/
The Chula Vista track is awesome, last year someone lost ot downthe 1000 foot or whatever jumped, landed the truck on its nose and flipped end over end all the way down the hill and was ok! Shocking, hopefully I can get some decent picks with the 40-150, at least it will be in bright light.

[Justintoxicated]

I shot this with my new 50-200. its not perfect but I can't wait to get out of the city area(LA) to get a better shot.



would the 70-300 have been better for these types of shots?

[Greg McCary]

The 70-300mm would have certainly brought it in closer but 50-200mm is going to work better in low light since it is a faster lens. I think you will be very happy with your choice.

[erikzen]

Cool moon shot! I've been wanting to get a shot like that with the 70-300. Of course, the last time I tried it it was a disaster.

What is your technique for shooting the moon? I assume this was on a tripod. What about shutter speed and aperture?

[Photo-John]

I shot this with my new 50-200. its not perfect but I can't wait to get out of the city area(LA) to get a better shot.



would the 70-300 have been better for these types of shots?

That's great! Please upload that to the gallery. There's a night photography category it should be in.

[Justintoxicated]

Cool moon shot! I've been wanting to get a shot like that with the 70-300. Of course, the last time I tried it it was a disaster.

What is your technique for shooting the moon? I assume this was on a tripod. What about shutter speed and aperture?

Tripod is a must, I don't have a technique really since this was my first attempt but this is what I did.

Mounted the lens to the tripod (used my 10 cent tripod I got form buy.com a while back when it went on clearance + google checkout lol)...

I used different F-stops and exposures in manual mode until I got a good shot (don't go by the exposure on the camera, but I think it said -2 or -4.... I went out later and took a bunch more and there were more consistently better but this one is still the best over all. I also found the live view helped me to center the photo and should have helped to focus on the moon using the 7x digital screen zoom. But it still showed up overexposed so it was not easy to manually focus (may have still helped so give it a shot). I don't remember if I manually focused this particular shot or not. My later shots were not as sharp as this one but the moon was also brighter and in different location in the sky.

The moon seems to severely over expose. This shot was @ F4.5 1000th of a second. It was slightly underexposed (IMO) so I corrected in lightroom. However your results will vary. I think I will get better shots when I'm out of the city and there is less light pollution.

So basically my technique is to take allot of pics until you get it right

[Atomic2]

I have a moon shot, but this blasted site and its rules, I really dont feel like editing anything. lemme see if its on flickr


it is now
http://flickr.com/photos/25906258@N0...88236/sizes/o/

[Sushigaijin]

Looks good to me! I'm not sure this would be a better shot with the 70-300. Closer perhaps, but the 50-200 is legendary for it's resolving power.

Shooting the moon is easier if you use spot metering. Any kind of evaluative metering will give you a funky exposure since the moon is so bright and the sky is so dark. I'd also stop down to F/6 to F/8, which is the sweet spot for most of the Zuiko lenses where you will get the most detail.

[Justintoxicated]

Looks good to me! I'm not sure this would be a better shot with the 70-300. Closer perhaps, but the 50-200 is legendary for it's resolving power.

Shooting the moon is easier if you use spot metering. Any kind of evaluative metering will give you a funky exposure since the moon is so bright and the sky is so dark. I'd also stop down to F/6 to F/8, which is the sweet spot for most of the Zuiko lenses where you will get the most detail.

Thats right I forgot I put it on spot metering as well.

[xwingkiller]

http://xwingkiller.deviantart.com/art/150mm-85771376

thats a link to a shot i took of the moon with my 40-150(old version) when i first got my camera. looks like it was iso100, f/8, 1/200 sec.