A Look At Three Wide Aperture Sigma Lenses For Micro Four Thirds 

Still a trusty authority on MFT what a legacy!

What happened to him ?

@@dalking6739 he passed away after a long illness

Thank you, Paul.

Yes, a 12 and 7 or 8mm would be nice.

Good to hear that! Olympus do some great lenses but it's always good to have some alternatives. Keeps them on their toes, at least!

A neat summary of the point of the Micro Four Thirds system, Gary - thanks!

I'm not surprised - and thanks!

Thanks, Keith. The Sigmas, yes certainly worth considering of the focal lengths suits.

My head is swelling, André - thank you! I love the guitar and Kalimba video on your channel - never heard that before.

Thanks, Kenny!

Thanks you, Joe!

Best to you too, Rich.

Thank so much, ImpManiac, much appreciated.

😀

It takes me a while to do the books which takes me away from the videos sometimes. Nice to be missed - thanks!

It's pleasing to get confirmation of my own thoughts like that, Gearoid, thanks for posting.

I don't think it will disappoint you but it is a good bit bigger than the Panasonic and Olympus alternatives. Other than the f/1.2 Olympus of course.

Thanks. Agreed, a great set of lenses.

Thanks, Andrea.

Thanks, Ernie, glad it was helpful.

I'm flattered, Kit, thank you. I constantly have to remind myself to pace my words. So tempting to garble on when you are familiar with a subject. And sometimes lack of resources means you must keep things simple, no music etc. I consider my main claim to fame that I don't have a baseball cap and I'm too old to dsay "hi guys" :-)

@@DavidThorpeMFT And what a claim to fame that is! I don't wear a cap either! :)

All agreed - of the 3 the 16mm is the weakest competitor on account of its size.

Yes, it's the start of Sigma's three lenses as far as Micro Four Thirds users are concerned.

Yes, and wouldn't it be nice if they did a specific Micro Four Thirds range, especially a 12mm.

It's great having the Sigma lenses as well as the native ones. I was knocked out with the 30mm f/2.8.

:-)

:-)

You're welcome, Jermaine. I like the f/1.4 lenses, not as large as an f/1.2 but almost as fast.

Appreciate that - thanks Gordon!

The Olympus is sharper at the edges but needs to be stopped down to f/8 or so to become so. The Olympus 7-14 f/2.8 is about as good as it gets in this focal range and that is very good indeed but costs a lot more. If you want a lens only for astro, then I'd be inclined to the 9-18 and stop it down. If you want it for general use as well, I'd get the Laowa.

Thanks Thomas - the only downside of the Sigma is its size. While not big for an f/1.4 wide angle, it is much bigger than the Olympus.

@@minorrhoads5318 Nice to hear that - and also nice that you have the 20mm and use that for what it is good for. It has its weaknesses but they are not apparent in street wrok where compactness and the actual focal length are more important.

@@DavidThorpeMFT AND THANK'S DAVID AGAIN FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ENCOURAGE US ALL . BEST REGARDS

If you haven't bought a lens yet maybe consider even Panasonic 15mm f1.7. It is splendid lens

🙂

It's a point often missed that when stopped down to f/5.6 or so, it's hard to tell the difference between a £250 and a £1000 lens. It doesn't look to me that you have any logical need for the 56mm but when what's logic got to do with it?

Thank you!

:-)

It's all a matter of where you place your values, I guess. The 14-140 covers most eventualities in one very convenient lens but involves compromises in ultimate IQ and speed. Sacrifice a bit of convenience and you get a raft of advantages. You have a very good set of lenses there and while I'm sure the 10-25mm will be very good, it's price and size will make it a bit of a niche item. I aslo doubt that its performance will be as good as your primes.

Yes, they're a genuine competitor. It's always good to have alternatives.

Some tasty lenses you have there! Yes, the 16mm is bigger than I'd wish for and that appears to be the price for the extra bit of speed. I can't see that you have much need for the 56mm......but I'm not supposed to say that, right? :-)

David Thorpe I see a space between 42.5 and 75mm :) since the 60mm (although excellent is limited to f2.8) ...

@@TITAOSTEIN You've convinced me :-)

Glad you like the reviews, good to hear that. I bought my 45mm Olympus back in 2011 and I've not found anything better all round since then. It's as sharp as any of the newer ones, and a fraction of the size, weight and price of the faster ones. I really loved the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron but never for a moment thought of it replacing the little 45mm. If anyone ever wanted to know what the Micro Four Thirds system was really about, that lens would tell them.

The 30mm is stunningly sharp, isn't it? And the 56mm is similar. Hey, what the heck, it's only money. It grows on trees, they tell me :-)

Thank you, Leigh!

Thanks! They're good for video. Quiet focusing and AF pretty much identical to the Panasonics.

James, somehow your post got lost in my RU-vid Comments - sorry! That's a conundrum. I think I'd keep the 42.5 and buy the Panasonic f/1.4. You'd lose a lot of money on the 42.5 but it and the 25mm give you a top quality combo. Sigma wouldn't add enough to that for the extra expense to be worthwhile.

Tony you might want to check out this You Tuber, lots of Olympus m43 info ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yNwboafjTfA.html

Thanks, Tony. I actually do a range of books which do exactly what you are asking. You can see them in the blurb below the intro to each of my video. The problem with doing it via video is that each cameras is different and it would take forever to go though all of them. See Rusting Gently's suggestion below, though.

:-)

@@DavidThorpeMFT CHUCKLE'S , AND THANKS FOR TEACHING ME A NEW SYMBOL. BRILLIANT STUFF ,AND 🎧 BRILLIANT AUDIO .

Hi Tony - I have a problem with equipment like the forthcoming 10-25 zoom in that it is likely to be so expensive that I can't afford it. That's the case with the Olympus E-M1X, too. Olympus and Panasonic don't even answer my emails, let alone loan me any gear. ePHOTOzine help me out a lot - (thank you Josh!) with Panasonic but if I do get hold of a 10-25mm it would be after everyone else has finished with it. I don't mind that, being at the bottom of the food chain, as it were. Olympus, I can't help thinking they prefer to only have their stuff commented on by people they can control.

@@DavidThorpeMFT Well, I'm happy to wait if ePhotozine lend you one. I suspect that most lens/camera reviews are driven to say something positive about equipment because they want RU-vid viewers to click through to Amazon and buy, with commission to the reviewers. Regarding the lens, it is likely to be expensive but where could I buy a 20-50mm full frame with f1.7 light gathering capability? And at what price when even the Sony 16-35 f2.8 is ~£2k?

The Olympus is lovely, one of my longest serving and most used lenses. If I was starting up a new outfit, I'd go with the three Sigmas for a uniform f/1.4 aperture but it would be a toss-up.

Interesting comment and thank you. There's the 10mm Laowa f/2 but that is manual focus only.

Check out my review on DP Review MFT Forum a few weeks ago.

Thanks you too!

Yes, great portrait lens. It was on a Panasonic G9.

I had no idea - glad you liked the review and thanks for a very interesting insight into the lens world.

The 10-25 will surely be ridiculously big and expensive, don't you think? Where is an unpretentious, small 10mm? Shocked no brand has done that for us yet.

Very true but I only have to carry 1 lens instead of 3! There's always trade offs, but yes... I'd luv a light weight compact f1.4 10mm MFT from Sigma for sure :)

The 10-25 is here - and expensive!

Thanks, James. Yes, they'll work just fine for video. Not with the Metabones, of course. If the 16mm worked with the MB it's be a supersharp 11mm f/1 - nice! Real life not like that, though :-(

I found the 56mm good in every way - my favourite of all these lenses.

Thanks Kent - actually, I find quite a lot of difference in colour rendering and contrast between the same makes of lenses, let alone different makers so it is very hard to predict. Photographing an 18% grey card under identical conditions is the only way I can think of trying this but in the end I come back to my regular way of doing things, which is shoot RAW, decide on colours afterwards. I think that is probably because lighting conditions are so varied in the real world.

It's almost impossible to get hold of Olympus lenses for review and they are too expensive for me to buy and sell on. I'd love to try them, though. The E-M1X, I probably won't review one. It's not a camera that interests me greatly because it's simply too big for my camera bag whereas an E-M1 MkII is beautifully compact and a fraction of the price. I recoup some of the price with my books sometimes but the Olympus is so specialist I can't see many people buying it. I'm usually very excited at the prospect of a new camera bodies but this one just doesn't grab me. I hate saying that!

@@DavidThorpeMFT Yeah I agree with you. Olympus is kind of creating things that weird and pricey such the 75mm f1.8 also those three classic primes. Panasonic, in the other hand, is uncertain after launching full frame line up. I wish they still keep up the MFT as their products are excellent, too.

@@alvin9007 I'm sure Panasonic will keep up the Micro Four Thirds format. I have their S1 at the moment and it is a dead ringer for the G9. The way I see it, any research on either format will cross fertilize with the other so the money spent on R&D has an outlet in their bridge, Micro Four Thirds and full frame cameras. The next logical addition would be a medium frame profession body with a 55 or 60mm wide sensor maybe.

That was quick! And thanks, Gordon.

Thanks Robert. I didn't know that about Peak design.

Hi Adam. I'd use the 45mm. It gives you more distance between you and the subject which gives a nicer perspective on the human face. 30mm can have you too close, making the nose look longer and the features sharper.

I'd be inclined to the Sigma myself. I have the 60mm and use it all the time for my video product type shots and closeups of camera switches etc. If I didn't to that, the Sigma has all that speed and focuses down to 0.5m which should be close enough for your daughter's hands and eyes anyway. You may find you don't need the Raynox.

@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks for the very fast response David... You've read my mind. I'm still pondering but I'll probably pull the trigger as soon as I'll be back in the UK in about a month - hoping covid numbers there (and in Spain and Italy, where I'm spending the summer) won't grow again! Hope you and your dearest ones are well.

Yes, I'd be very happy if Sigma extended their lens range for Micro Four Thirds. Perhaps they will.

@@DavidThorpeMFT Right after I wrote that I remembered why not - Dual IS. Pan/Oly won't play with the others so the IBIS would be body or lens only, and would not be nearly as good as OEM brand lenses at long telephoto lengths.

Nice situation when you have exactly the gear you want for what you want to do.

That 12-35mm f/2.8 is such a wonderful lens. It's expensive but so very well worth its cost, especially for fast zooming by hand during shooting.

Hmmm. 42 mm 1.7 bad for you? I really love this lense it is super sharp, an absolute fantastic lense 42 and the 15mm 1.7 are my absolute favourites. I also own olympus pro lenses. They are worth every penny and very cheap compared to full frame lenses. What do you pay for a 50mm canon 1.2? 2800 euros? To me 1200 for a oly pro lense is a steal compared to that

Highly highly HIGHLY recommend the Oly 75mm. It is a CRAZY sharp lens, my absolute favorite and go to lens.

Robert Ivaniszyn i am sure it is great but can you use a 75mm often? Its a bit long to me

That's interesting information. Given the cost of developing lenses it must make sense to not redo research already done bu someone else.

Vale @@DavidThorpeMFT Thank you for sharing your understanding with such wit and joy. We will miss you, and keep the story going

Hi Castiel - 16mm is 16mm and nothing changes that. On Micro Four Thirds, 16mm gives a 57° horizontal angle of view. The crop thing is a red herring, really since the lens won't fit a FF camera and wouldn't cover the sensor if it did. If you wanted the same angle of view on a FF camera, you'd need a 32mm lens but again that just confuses things. Micro Four Thirds is a system in itself and lenses are made for it to work within that system. In other words, Panasonic/ Olympus 16mm is the same 16mm as Sigma or anyone else's.

Thanks, Paul!

It's the f/1.8.

Overall, I'd prefer smaller form factors for the 16 and 30mm - for any Micro Four Thirds camera, really but the E-M10 in particular. The 56mm is a convenient size for an f/1.4 small tele already. I'd probably get the Olympus 17mm and 25mm f/1.8s for the E-M10 since I'd want to keep the compactness. In other words, Sigmas feel just fine on the E-M10 since, small as it is, it always feels a bigger camera. The Sigmas are faster and sharper but the Olympus lenses are no slouches and they would be a better match for a camera probably bought for its compact nature.

@@DavidThorpeMFT that's really helpful, thank you

I went straight to primes once I had cash and I love zooming with my feet. Got the Leica 15, 25 and the Lumix 42.5 . These sigma are even sharper than all of the Panasonic lenses. The Olympus 12-40 is great and sharp enough but the whites are a bit grey and the colors are green in the yellow. The Leica 12-60 recently impressed me with performance quite close to my 15mm in colors and sharpness, in micro contrast or 'pop' it was really good for a zoom and only slightly behind the Leica 15. The sigma are so sharp but they are also flat and dark in the shadows which will sometimes require editing. But the colours are stunning. Red and blue especially.

@@soundknight Zooming with the feet is a fairy tale - you will never change focal length by distance. But this is no argument against primes and moving!

​@@soundknight I do love my primes, but I got my Panasonic G80 in addition to my X-T1 partially to be able to use bigger lenses more comfortably, and have access to high quality zooms (and lenses generally) with IS - on the Fuji I shoot almost exclusively with the 27mm 2.8, sometimes 16 1.4 or my Zeiss Planar 50 1.8. And if I'm honest, the latter two make me think twice before taking them already due to the compromised ergonomics with the body. I absolutely adore the colours out of MFT cameras, and of the Olympus lenses. Out of all the zooms I've looked at and tried, I think only the Fuji 18-55 2.8 and Olympus Pro really satisfy me since they produce images with a bit more life than you'd usually get. They're not as flat looking, in a 3D sense, a lot more like primes (still different, but not inferior unlike most others). With all this said, maybe the Sigma 56 is the right choice for now, since I already have the dual IS 12-60 kit zoom if I really needed that flexibility.. it's a choice between getting an excellent portrait lens and freeing me up from fiddling with manual focus on the Zeiss to get a head and torso shot, and getting something that'd just be an overall (very, very welcome) improvement over my existing zoom. The choice between one excellent but tailored prime, and a bag of no less excellent but slower ones in one slightly bigger lens. I can see myself very happy with both. My heart is drawn to Olympus if I'm being honest, but I'm just not satisfied on the portrait end as it is. Is there a way to make them work with f5.6 equivalent? Maybe. It sounds tough, or at the very least restricting. Wouldn't want to catch myself missing more great shots due to slight misfocus on the Zeiss or lack of IS though.. oh if money were no object. 😶

The sharpness of all of them is excellent and the differences wouldn't be apparent in everyday use. It was the edge sharpness of the 16mm that impressed me. I have very limited expectations of edge performance on high speed wide angles but the 16mm holds up very well. Very different lenses in other ways of course.

Thanks for the reply (and the review). I love me little Panny 20mm, but sometimes you want something a little wider. I have the Oly 12-40 f 2/8, but sadly it's nowhere near as sharp as the Panny (which I intercut with constantly).

They are all good lenses with the Panasonic f/1.4 and the Sigma being exceptional. I'd probably go for the Sigma, myself.

@@DavidThorpeMFT Would you say that the focal length of Sigma 30mm is comparable to 25mm focal length in everyday use and street photography? Or is it visibly different when I am used to 25mm or 45mm focal lengths. And have you encountered CA on Panasonic lens on Olympus body (I use M10 II).

@@Seleslav if you have a 45mm, I'd say the 25mm would be better since it'll give a more noticeable change of subject/camera distance and therefore perspective for a given shot. If you don't then 20/25/30 is just a matter of personal preference. The purple fringing, it is corrected in Olympus cameras of the last 5 years or so. It never worried me much since it is pretty easily corrected in software. But if you are concerned, the Olympus is a very good lens and its only because the Sigma and Pan/Leica are exceptional that it can be said to be not so good. As a lens in its own right you'll find no fault with it.

@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks for you advice. I do have 15mm and 45mm, so today I bought PanyLeica, mainly because of the 25mm focal length and I snatched a second hand one for a super deal of 240Ł. Although because of this video I am seriously thinking about Sigma 56mm, that looks like unbeatable lens that can replace both 45 and 75mm, which is crazy.

The Olympus 1.2 lenses are about as sharp as a lens could be. I doubt that there is a sensor for them that can do then full justice at the moment. They are also beautifully designed and made. The Sigmas, I doubt you could tell the difference between them and the Olympuses in sharpness in normal use, ie not pixel peeping but the Olympuses are, as i say, exceptional. The 56mm Sigma and the 45mm Olympus, I'd say are pretty much on the same level.

It'd be about 15 feet/ 5 metres.

Since you have had the 15mm and liked it so much, I think replacing that would make the most sense. The Kowa is so different from the 15mm or Sigma 16 that I'd see it as a separate, extra, purchase with little overlap with the 15mm.

I'll see what I can do but that's a bit specialist for me. My standard of video knowledge can be seen from my own videos, I'm sorry to say.

:-)

Yes, those Sigmas are remarkable. A case where the price is not reflected in the quality

Either one would be useful but I'd be inclined to the 56mm for the totally different aspect from the 16mm. But all three together makes sense,

@@DavidThorpeMFT thx

It's a it wider and a bit faster and works natively with Micro Four Thirds so I guess it might be worth it. But 16 and 18mm are a bit close and would probably duplicate a lot of the time. I wouldn't think it is necessary.

I agree there's no such thing as a free lunch but even the lenses for the new mirrorless FF cameras need software correction. It's a fact of modern lens design. The thinking is that the extra freedom in lens design is worth the downside. Increasingly, video makers will need to buy specialist lenses, I think, because the requirements for video are very different from stills.

@@DavidThorpeMFT thank you very much for the reply. Do you remember how severe was the distortion on these 3 lenses you reviewed?

@@raspas99 Nothing to report on distortion, really, certainly nothing that compromised stills work. However, without the software correction, I'd imagine that CA and distortion would be as awful as it would be on most Micro Four Thirds lenses. Sorry, I can't be more helpful, Ra but I do approach things from a stills point of view.

@@DavidThorpeMFTThanks.

It's not my fault, honest guv :-)

Interesting. For Micro Four Thirds the corners will be better, simply because the smaller sensor is cropping the extreme corners. As you say, very good value.

@@DavidThorpeMFT Yes, M43 uses a smaller part of the image circle, and thereby only the better part of the lens. But I'm also very satisfied with the lens at my Sony a6400. Compared to my Sony zooms it's razor sharp.

Thanks Jasper. No, I'll keep the 17mm for its size. If I were buying from scratch, I'd most likely go with the three Sigmas for the sake of standardisation and f/1.4 across the range. But already having the Olympus, it isn't worth changing.

Yes, it would.

For outdoor use, I'd much prefer 56mm for a half-body shot. With a 45mm you'd be 7 to 8ft away, with the 56mm 8½ -9½. For headshots, the extra difference is a definite advantage. A 45mm might be better indoors in a small room, of course.

@@DavidThorpeMFT advantage in terms of perspective/distortion reduction or in terms of intrusion? I forget to mention that most of these photos will be of my family members during our travels. Would it then not matter so much any more? I do like the pop and FF look of the 56mm more, although the 42.5 can be gotten for half the price of the 56 (USD200 vs USD400)

@@evenaicantfigurethisout All of those, really. It's not that there is any huge advantage to the 56 over the 42.5 or vice versa. Each is perfectly capable of doing what the other does and the 43.5 is usefully smaller and lighter. Really it's just a personal choice. In terms of sharpness, there's no real world difference and both are superb (as is usual with modern lenses). I'd opt or the longer length overall but would wish I had the 42.5mm sometimes. The price differential would totally seal my choice - I'd go for the 42.5mm.

Yes, the 16mm is the widest they do. For very high speed wide angle there is the Panasonic 12mm f/14 but that's in a different price bracket. If you wanted really wide angle the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 is a beauty. Yes, a 67mm filter.

Thanks David! I`ll check out both those lenses. :)

No, I don't know of anything. I can't see Panasonic doing anything like that at the moment because a high IQ 16x zoom is beyond our present technical capabilities in any affordable or practical form.

Hi David - I was thinking of something along the lines of Olympus ‘s 12-200 lens

@@micwarmington1 No, I don't think so. I haven't tried the 12-200 but it doesn't seem to have many friends. Just a step too far for the present, I think

:-)

Thanks! I'm glad you like my approach, my whole background is in using equipment for practical purposes so it's what I enjoy. Both those lenses are excellent and I see no reason to choose between them on any grounds except price and focal length. Personally, I think 75mm is a little too long for general purpose use, the 56mm being just about that bit more versatile.You might get away with an indoor close-up portrait indoors with the 56mm where the 75mm is likely to be too long. Both lenses will give great isolation for portraits and in fact you'd probably want to stop them down a stop quite often to prevent the depth of field being too shallow. There has somehow come about an idea that shallower depth of field = better, where in reality it is an artistic consideration and can just as easily be too shallow. To get to the point, personally I'd favour the Sigma, simply for its focal length. The fact that it is half the price is a bonus!

David Thorpe David Thorpe Thank you so much for sharing your thoughtful opinion and extra knowledge on my question. Yes, I will go and hand on - Sigma 56mm. F 1.4 first as if suit my budget more and it is more versatile. I shall be able to use this for all-propose portrait.

Yes, I think so. The 56mm length is obviously intended for APS-C but works well for Micro Four Thirds too. For me especially because I like to do frame filling head shots. The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is minimal and the price difference over the Nocticron is enough to buy another lens. Which is to take nothing away from the Nocticron which remains one of Micro Four Thirds' best lenses - along with Olympus's 40-150 f/2.8.

@@DavidThorpeMFT This is where I'll show a bit of my lack of experience, but I have the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8. When you look at a lens such as the Sigma 56mm, is a prime going to be that noticeably sharper than the 35-100 at 55mm? Given the increased stops with the 1.4 VS 2.8, do you feel it's worth spending the money to get the Sigma prime lens rather than shoot the 35-100 at, 45mm or 55mm for portraits?

@@oldschoolwarrior I'm not one to advocate spending more than you have to but in this case, I think the difference between the two lenses is enough to merit buying it, if you do a lot of portraiture. Is the prime going to be noticeably sharper than the zoom? Under most circumstances, no. With a close in head shot or anything tightly framed, the zoom is as sharp as you need. However, if you have a bit of space around your subject, it is less tightly framed, the out of focus areas on the image will take a bigger area of the picture and the 56mm at f/2 or wider will draw them more blurred and more smoothly. That, in turn, draws more attention to the subject and the subject appears sharper by comparison to the out of focus areas. I actually used this lens at f/1.4 most of the time and the difference is quite marked between that and f/2.8. Sorry about the length of my answer, thinking aloud. Basically, yes, I think a two stop wider aperture is well worth having where you wish to isolate your subject and the Sigma is a very economical way of getting it. If, however, you are shooting general subjects and using any aperture from f/2.8 downwards, the Sigma shows no advantage. You really are paying only for that f/1.4 aperture. A final point in favour of buying it - the shallow depth of field given by f/1.4 can make an ordinary picture jump out at you. One flower in a bunch isolated from the others so that the others provide a totally blurred multi-coloured background can look stunning. Shoot it at f/2.8, not so much.

I have the 16 and the 30. The Video AF performance on my G9 is exactly the same with these lenses as with the native lumix lenses I have. These are actually my favorite lenses. They truly are an excellent value. And when you need to manual focus their design in that area is awesome.

Nice to hear that! I'm always glad to see that others share my opinion and you obviously have plenty of experience with the Sigmas.

As Liquid Valium says, there's no apparent difference AF speed and no more hunting. No, the lenses don't have the DfD information so won't work with it. For myself, I find DfD only makes a difference under certain conditions and not that much even then. It may be that I just don't shoot under conditions where it counts but I've never seen any definitive test showing any great benefit. Benefits from PDAF can be shown, however, even if they are not as good on mirrorless as DSLR cameras.

@@RockyColaFizz if the autofocus good for video? I remember the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 good lens with a terrible, just terrible autofocus

@@Federico84 It is very good for a Contrast based autofocus. In video its not as good as the Lumix branded lenses though. But it really is an awesome lens. If you go Area AF, and make the box pretty big it does well.

I haven't got a 15mm Panasonic to hand, Kate but I'll see if I can get hold of one.

@@DavidThorpeMFT Yes, I was thinking of buying one of those two lenses, too. I'd be great if you could do a comparative review on those. Great reviews, thanks!

@@CGT-lu8gw Thanks, Claude!

@@CGT-lu8gw Thanks, Claude!

Hi Tony - the only difference is that it has weather sealing where the older one doesn't, so probably not worth another review. I will if one comes my way, though.

David Thorpe David Thorpe Thank you David- I plan to trade in the 12-60 kit lens that came with my g85 for this new weather sealed 14-140. Paired with my 25mm f1.7 for night use it seems a perfect mobile setup for a trip to Japan. Now on to your Sigma review...

@@PhylumFile I don't know if you've seen my 14-140mm review but it is quite exceptional in its performance.

David Thorpe I have indeed David- more than twice :). I’ll be interested to see what I can get in exchange for the 12-60. It still lists at +/-$500 US. FYI it appears that both versions of the 14-140 list for +/-$600 US. That would confirm your view they are essentially the same save the weather-sealing.

One more thing (and sorry for hijacking your attention away from the Sigma review, another quality video BTW) but bhphotovideo.com seems to imply the new 14-140 doesn’t trombone- “An internal focusing design maintains the overall lens length during operation and also quickens focusing speeds.“ So perhaps it is different enough to deserve a review?“ Hope all is well.

I take your point, Adrian but I've often used bar codes and detailed things to illustrate a point. What is unusual about the Sigma lenses is that f/1.4 aperture and I wanted to show that it wasn't at the expense of edge sharpness and that the lenses could compete on level terms with Panasonic and Olympus items. There's a general unease about third party lenses (which I share to some extent) so I felt it was important to explicitly show that.

The lenses were made - as is obvious from the focal lengths - for APS-C so given your perspective you really shouldn't buy them. Plenty of choice, luckily. I don't agree that they are useless, though. If they were, I'd have said so.

@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks! I didn't mean that the lenses were useless, just the extra glass that's not needed for m43. Your sample photos do look really awesome. I wish someone other than Panasonic + Olympus would actually sell good autofocus lenses designed for m43. I wonder, have you tried any of the DJI m43 lenses?

@@CoolerQ understood. I can only assume that lens makers don't consider the Micro Four Thirds market big enough to address directly. Also, following your point, a lens designed for the smaller sensor won't cover the larger one but APS-C lenses will cover MFT but at rhe cost of greater bulk than is necessary. Economics, as it all is in the end, I suppose.

I didn't notice that - maybe only occurs on some copies.

@@DavidThorpeMFT ya maybe it was something i was doing i dont know but it was with the g7

I'd have thought the 56mm was a little long for the purposes you mention. Good for portraits of the bride etc but not so general purpose.The Sigma 18-35/ Metabones is widely used, I know but less convenient than a native lens in give and take situations. Wouldn't the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 be suitable?

@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks for your input. I am looking for a fast lens so to make sure I am covered for those lower light shoots. Will the 56mm be suitable for bride and groom close ups and detail shots or do you think it is still too tight for those uses?

@@AmazingKitchen I think it is a little too tight. It's always easier to move in a little closer than to move further back. Don't overlook the Olympus 45mm f/1.8, it is tiny but its performance gives nothing away. Or otherwise, the 42.5mm f/1.7 Panasonic.

@@DavidThorpeMFT That is a good suggestion. If I use a Sigma with an Olympus lens for the same shoot, will the colour match for the shots or is negligible?

@@AmazingKitchen There will always be differences even between lenses from the same maker but they are not likely to be glaringly obvious.

The 56mm was my favourite. The 25mm Panasonic/Leica is a class act for sure.