SIGMA 16MM F1.4 For Micro Four Thirds 

And it should be larger considering the aperture. Robin most likely got a wonky lens. I remember being blown away by the quality of their 60mm f2.8 art lens and most of the reports about this f1.4 collection from Sigma have been very good indeed.

Yeah but is kinda a waste using an APSC lens on MFT. 25% of the gathered light is wasted.

By that logic every lens is a waste on MFT.

@@dx3200 every MFT lens is actually APSC?

Read Sulantoblog comment below. There are MFT and APS-C versions.

I completely agree that they're Hidden gems, I've got the complete set and they're brilliant with the g9.

because it is made for APSC not m43.😂

The Olympus 17/1.8 is optically equivalent to the cheapest kit lens, unfortunately. Very soft and tons of CA. I recommend the Laowa 17/1.8 instead, but it’s manual focus. If you need AF, the Olympus 17/1.2 Pro is probably the sharpest and most controlled micro4/3 lens made… but it’s big and expensive.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 I purchased recently, it's quite good. The purple fringing reports are true. Haven't tested it excessively, but so far for the price and results I've been pleased.

I own both and the 16mm is far superior to the 30mm in terms of IQ. Both sharpness and fringing is worse on the 30 mm. It's smaller though and I still like it as my main all purpose lens.

Don't trust Amazon reviews full of paid for 5 star reviews

@@WiziWes I don't think B&H is paying for those reviews, and RU-vid reviews have been pretty positive too

how are you liking the 30mm ? I bought it recently to replace my 25mm 1.7 but I'm not entirely happy, there's alot of purple fringing and it doesn't seem to be that sharp wide open, I got soft results outside, I barely tested it on interiors but compared to the 25mm it looks that the sigma is slightly sharper, but I'm not convinced...

Not only is it oversized but half of the image projected is wasted and not picked up in the sensor. It is an APSC lens being mounted on MFT with a crop. Like mounting full frame e mount on APSC body.

Tiffen still makes 2A UV filters. B&H sells them in just about every size.

@@joeltunnah Thank you.

@@StephenStrangways if you shoot test charts and zoom to 200% to pick lenses, you will see “sample variation”. I own 20 Olympus and Panasonic lenses, they’re all good. I don’t shoot test charts, and I view photos in print and full size on screen.

There are a lot of reasons to buy micro4/3 other than size. Lens selection, video (as you said), file sizes, 7 stops of image stabilization, features (live ND, star AF, high res mode), ergonomics, customization ability, overall system price.

Oly 17/1.8 is soft and overpriced. Panasonic 20/1.7 is sharp and cheap.

I own that lens too, it’s not that heavy actually, as far as 135/2 lenses go.

Not anymore!

Most third party lenses - including Sigma - are repurposed old dslr designs. They’re made for a ~50mm registration distance, rather than the mirrorless ~20mm. That’s also why they’re odd focal lengths like 16mm, 56mm, etc.

I avoid lens companies where people routinely talk about getting “a good copy”. They should all be good, or there’s a QC problem.

And which companies are these, that make 100% perfect samples? Also, a bad copy may be a result of poor treatment. Furthermore there is a thing called lens variance, which can be a factor. Even Leica makes bad copies.

@@d-hell I own 20 Olympus and Panasonic lenses. No “bad copies”, and I’ve never returned a lens for any reason. I also don’t shoot test charts or zoom to 200%.

Please elaborate with some facts, please.

Haha, lol... 😁 Jokes besides, I think Robins copy was just a bad one.

32mm, 60mm, and 112mm (equivalents) are a very odd “trilogy”.

How can you disagree with a fact of its size? Delusion?

That’s a myth. I’ve heard Tony Northrup make that claim also, that putting a full frame lens on aps-c, or aps-c on micro4/3 results in worse sharpness and image quality. Yet if you look at lens test sites like lenstip that do that exact test with many lenses, you consistently see the opposite: the smaller sensor sharpness results are always much higher at the frame edges.

@@joeltunnah You will maintain sharpness across the frame because you are punching out the center of the image circle and using that, but if you go into the lenses themselves and measure the actual resolution across the frame on the sensor end, the lenses really don't resolve as well at that level. It's more pronounced the bigger the format. Some of these lenses were never designed to resolve such fine detail at the pixel level, especially if we are looking at the really small pixels involved. My Olympus has 3.75 micron pixel pitch and my Nikon has 5.97 micron pixel pitch. A lot of places cut corners and only design lenses to resolve reasonably to a certain level. For Olympus cameras they need to resolve well enough for the high resolution pixel shift. A lot of my full frame lenses just don't resolve that high, and my large format lenses for my 4x5 view camera certain don't. My uncle was using Hasselblad lenses on a Nikon, and now with our digital sensors, the weaknesses of those lenses and their difficulties resolving the pixels on the sensor are now very clear. Not to mention that the lenses are slower and way too bulky. Then you have my Olympus TG-6 which has 1.5 micron pixel pitch and a lens that goes past 1:1 magnification. The lens on that is made to really resolve that sensor, and you can see the hairs on flowers. I even use it to photograph the serial numbers on Apple watch bands (they all have a serial number on the central metal button on the piece that slides into the watch). With this Sigma, I think they really cut cost by designing it purposely to a lower resolution or lower tolerances and assuming it would work, but even on APS-C, I'm not sure some examples adequately resolve the sensors we use now. I care about the resolution because I also do some things where I document nature and other things very close up. Lenses need to have good resolving power for what I am doing. A lot of my non critical work I care less about, but for some people it matters in a big way

@@Bunnyisms lenstip measures “the actual resolution across the frame at the sensor end” (what other end would you measure it at?), and an aps-c sensor outresolves a full frame sensor, with the same full frame lens, every time. You may find an example where that isn’t true, but I haven’t seen one yet. Also the tests show that diffraction starts at f/11 (actual, not equivalent) for all formats, unlike the internet myth that you have to use the crop factor.

@@joeltunnah the reason for this is because they are not hitting the resolution limits of the lens. They are hitting the resolution limits of the sensor. APS-C often uses a much finer pixel pitch. For particular lenses, modern ones especially, they will out resolve the sensors you put them on at the native resolution. Diffraction is based on the sensor resolution and pixel pitch, not the lens resolution or format. Apparent diffraction is a different sort of story. Apparent diffraction is also based on the amount of enlargement for the final print. For micro 4/3 we need to enlarge more to get the same final print than we do on medium and large format. This is why diffraction becomes far more apparent much earlier. So at the sensor, diffraction is always the same, but with smaller formats we have to account for all the enlargement when printing or displaying. I find a lot of their measurements to be great experimental data, and I use it to corroborate my own data from my own measurements, but when you actually use the equipment and you produce work for sale, you see flaws and undesirable stuff start creeping in a lot sooner because of the amount of enlargement needed. In real life use there are many other practical considerations that affect lenses. On Micro 4/3 I tend to stop down less because I don't need to stop down as much. On larger formats I stop down more because I don't get as much depth of field for angle of view. This is for the same picture. I may be stopping down to f16 on my large format camera for the same effect as what I get from a much wider aperture on a smaller format. I also use lower ISOs on micro 4/3 because I can get away with it since my aperture is open wider. Many of my full frame lenses do not have great resolution at the apertures I'm using on my micro 4/3 lenses. The lenses are made to have certain characteristics in certain parts of their performance envelope, and it seems to be a better experience using them in their performance envelope. I do not like using full frame, medium format, or large format lenses on my micro 4/3 equipment because of the size and weight. They also are slower for the same size and don't allow me to use my micro 4/3 equipment in its "happy envelope." Putting super wide angles for full frame on the micro 4/3 often makes for even worse results. I can compare a 20mm full frame lens to a 20mm micro 4/3 lens, and I'm definitely getting more out of my micro 4/3 lens. It's faster and I have a much sharper picture with fewer apparent or distracting flaws. Lenses purposely made for micro 4/3 can often produce images that stand up better to the enlargement needed for printing. I have Olympus pro lenses and some other nicer micro 4/3 glass, and it's a night and day difference compared to my adapted lenses which I generally use natively on the format they were made for instead of adapting.

@@Bunnyisms oh maybe you misinterpreted me, I’m definitely NOT arguing that full frame lenses are a better choice for micro4/3! I completely agree with you. The native lenses are always my first choice. In some cases though, like 12mm, the Olympus and Panasonic options are simply too expensive for me. I’ve been very happy using the Rokinon 12/2 manual focus lens instead, which was $250 USD. It’s sharp enough.