Sigma 30/1.4 or Olympus 35/3.5

[OlyFlyer]

Which one of the two above would you buy?

I am planning to get a new lens and would like to know your opinion. The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is about double the price of the Oly 35mm 3.5. But is it better or is it just faster? Assume I only use both lenses at f/4.5 or smaller, which would you say is better? I hear Sigma is not nice in the color it produces so why is then so much more expensive? I also hear it is not good at 1.4. What is the verdict on these lenses compared to each other? The Sigma is not macro, which gives Oly a big plus also. But just assume we forget that also and only use the Oly where the Sigma is also usable, comparing the two in the range where they are comparable. Is there any good reason to pay more for the Sigma?

[tomcat]

I think the only advantage of the Sigma is if you want to shoot in available light without flash.

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by tomcat I think the only advantage of the Sigma is if you want to shoot in available light without flash.

Just wondering, if you close down the Sigma to f5.6-8, would it be as sharp as the 35mm Macro?

[tomcat]

I think tao bought Hacker's Sigma 30mm. Maybe we can ask him to do a comparison test between the 2 lenses.

[microcosm]

That would be good. Just to compare the sharpness between both lenses.

Tao, if you want to use a 50mm to add to the test, please let me know and I will lend mine to you for the test.

[wind30]

Originally Posted by OlyFlyer Which one of the two above would you buy? I am planning to get a new lens and would like to know your opinion. The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is about double the price of the Oly 35mm 3.5. But is it better or is it just faster? Assume I only use both lenses at f/4.5 or smaller, which would you say is better? I hear Sigma is not nice in the color it produces so why is then so much more expensive? I also hear it is not good at 1.4. What is the verdict on these lenses compared to each other? The Sigma is not macro, which gives Oly a big plus also. But just assume we forget that also and only use the Oly where the Sigma is also usable, comparing the two in the range where they are comparable. Is there any good reason to pay more for the Sigma?

?? if you shoot at only f4.5 or smaller then why you buy a f1.4 lens? The reason the sigma is more expensive is because it is a f1.4 lens. If you shoot at f4.5, don't think the sigma is signficantly better or anything unless you are those kind of super pixel peepers...

I tried my friends sigma f1.4 on a nikon DSLR and found it surprisingly sharp at the center even at f1.4. It is a bit soft on the edges but on the smaller 4/3 mount the edges may not even be there.... Or you can stop it to f2.0 and the edges will probably improve a lot. So if you want to shoot at f1.4 or f2, then you need the sigma. I think the sigma 30mm f1.4 competes more with the zuiko 50mm f2....

[koolz]

Get both.

[OlyFlyer]

Originally Posted by wind30 ?? if you shoot at only f4.5 or smaller then why you buy a f1.4 lens?

For the higher quality? I have no idea. That is what I am asking for here. Is there anything else than the speed of the Sigma? Maybe that is balanced with the 1:1 macro capabilities of the Oly 35? I would be interested in camparing them the only way you really can compare two lenses, identical settings. No need to know how good the Sigma is in between 1.4 and 3.5 or how bad the Sigma is for macro because that is not a fair comparision. The only way to compare according to me is using the same way. Sharpness? Color? Chromatic? And so on. As far as I know, the Oly is usable from 3.5 while I have heard the Sigma is less good below 3.5.

[tao]

Guys, I bought Hacker's 30mm F1.4 indeed, news travel fast huh?

I do not have the Zuiko 35mm F3.5 but the Zuiko 50mm F2.0.

I am just an amateur through and through and not qualified to evaluate lenses and things such as sharpness and pixel sharpness, etc. Therefore, issues such as sharpness and large aperture sharpness notwithstanding, all I can say is that if I can only choose between the Sigma 30mm F1.4 and Olympus Zuiko 50mm F2.0 now, I will take for the Sigma for the following reasons:

1. I seldom shoot macros, probably make up at most 10% of all things I shoot. I bought the Zuiko 50mm more for portraiture, people shots.
2. The Sigma's ultra quiet USM motor is amazing when you compare it with the Zuiko's much noisier motor.
3. The Sigma's focusing is so fast on my E-500 that it felt as though I am using a Canon 20D with a prime lens. It focus faster than the 14-54mm, which is considered fast among the Zuikos. The Zuiko 50mm can only focus fast in good light, it tends to hunt a lot, not its fault as it has a large focusing range as all macros do.
4. The F1.4 on the Sigma, even though it gives you soft corners (which F1.4 lens doesn't?), means you can get that shot without flash in poor lighting. Difference in handholdability between the 2 lenses is very noticeable as it not only has a shorter focal length and faster by one full stop. I can walk around with it at night and nick sharp shots lit by street lamps that I could never do by only using ISO 200~800 and F1.4~1.8.
5. It is probably my style of shooting that I find the Sigma perfect for me. It is magic to me when I see the scene in front of me that is just the way I read it, I bring the viewfinder to my eyes and what I see through the lens (ie. 60mm eq.) is about the same as what my eyes saw, no need to zoom in or zoom out, no need to move myself around, just snap and I get the shot in my mind. It is the perfect street shooting lens for me and brings me back to the film days when I was using a Nikkor 50mm F1.8 on a FE2. The Zuiko 50mm is a bit too long for that.
6. I am very pleased with the so called contrast, tonality and sharpness of the Sigma, it also has no vignetting or CA in harsh light, it is good enough for me, better than most lenses anyway.

Well, I am lucky that I have both, so when shooting portraiture, macros or when I want the absolute best quality, I will drop the Sigma 30mm and use the Zuiko 50mm.

[Hacker]

The Sigma has more advantages than just a larger aperture. My own take:

(1) Not as soft when compared to N&C mounts at the edges as this could be due to a smaller sensor.

(2) Build is high, actually higher than the 50mm and definitely higher than the plasticky 35mm.

(3) Very sharp from f2.8 to f8.

(4) Barrel distortion is mild at the edges, but can be easily corrected.

(5) Fast AF. Sometimes, I'm not even sure it moved as it is very silent and fast.

(6) Better than the 14-54mm at in terms of sharpness and barrel distortion but not in terms of contrast.

PS: This was my first Sigma lens and instead of reading what people were saying about non- 4/3 mounts, I actually bought this to test it. Same with Tao.

[snapperkid]

simple... if you shoot macro, get the olympus 35mm. If you shoot portraits, get the sigma 30mm. But even though I need a portrait lens the 50mm oly will I choose.

I have the olympus 35mm and i'm happy. I love the close focusing range and the 1:1 magnification. But I hate it's slow focusing speed ( it tends to hunt a lot). The sigma has a USM which enables the 30mm lens to focus faster(and quieter i think). But the 40cm focusing range is not enough for me.

I have been working on my bro's bike with the 35mm lens. Despite the close focusing range, I do not face any lighting problems. Results were very pleasing although a little soft. Just need a little sharpening will do.

I wish I had a 30mm to play with too!!

[drakon09]

Or, you could hold off the purchase and wait for the 25mm Leica, gives you another option to look at.

[OlyFlyer]

Actually I think I changed my mind and decided for the Oly 50mm f2.0. I need the lens for more low light work also and I think the 35mm will be difficult to use for 1:1 macro anyway because I'll have to be about 1cm from the subject. That is very close, I think I get better results with the 50mm and if I need 1:1 I can always use the EX-25. I would also like to have a lens with focusing distance marks. As far as I know the 35mm has no distance marks, I don't know if Sigma has, but as I can see the 50mm has it. The difference between the 30mm 1.4 and the 50mm 2.0 is not big in regard to aperture, and since I would like to have a sharp lens (even at the edges), to my understanding the Oly is the one to take.

I just feel the 50mm is the right one for me. I wish there was a 25mm or 35mm f2 (or larger) made by Oly. I don't know anything about the Leica.

[Hacker]

Leica 45mm f2.

[OlyFlyer]

Originally Posted by Hacker Leica 45mm f2.

Sorry, Hacker. I know that much but whate else is there? Why? In which aspects does it beats Oly 50mm? I guess price is one aspect. But what is the verdict on 50mm Oly against 45mm Leica?

[snapperkid]

Despite the fact that there will be a Leica 45mm, I'll stilol go for the 50mm for the next upgrade as portrait lens. First, it has a longer range. Furthermore, it's an e-system lens.

If i've enough money then i'll go for a leica 25mm.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by OlyFlyer Sorry, Hacker. I know that much but whate else is there? Why? In which aspects does it beats Oly 50mm? I guess price is one aspect. But what is the verdict on 50mm Oly against 45mm Leica?

50mm is slow when focusing under even slightly low light.

[OlyFlyer]

Originally Posted by Hacker 50mm is slow when focusing under even slightly low light.

I tested it and I did not find it slow at all. Anyway, I don't understand this common issue of slow focus in low ligt. Either it can or it can not focus. If it can focus, it is always faster than I would be with my old OM2n manual focus lenses, unless it starts haunting. There may be lenses that focus faster but I want a sharp lens, so Sigma is out. Leica may still be able to match the Oly 50mm but I am not ready to pay extra just for the brand name. So far there is no information that it would be better than Oly 50mm.

Do you have the Leica? How can you know it is faster if not? The fact is that I was changeing my 14-45mm at Oly when I tested the 50mm and I found my new 14-45 being faster than the old one and the 50mm feels fastest of them all. The office where I tested the lenses had very dimmed light and I was happy with the results. My guess is that since that lens is already about $130 more expensive than the Sigma 30mm the Leica would add at least another couple of hundreds without contributing to the end result with much more.

Anyway, now it is too late, I ordered the lens and it should be in my hands within one week or so.

[drewdam]

congret for your new purchase!!!

[tao]

Originally Posted by OlyFlyer There may be lenses that focus faster but I want a sharp lens, so Sigma is out.

I want to say something for the much maligned Sigma 30mm F1.4 as it is a very sharp lens actually. From F2.0 onwards, it can already be considered sharp; from F2.8 onwards, very sharp; from F4.0 onwards, you will be smiling at the quality of your images. F1.4~1.8 is not that sharp if you compare with the Zuiko 50mm at F2.0 but the center is sharp enough and you net the shots you want in low light with greater ease, say when you are doing street photography.

But of course, for maximum optical quality at all aperture settings, the Zuiko 50mm F2.0 is hard to beat, which is why it is still the lens I reach for when doing portraits and product photography. Focusing speed really depends on the quality of light you get and in good light, sports such as soccer and basketball are actually do-able.

All in all, congratulations on your purchase, you will be stunned by how the the Zuiko 50mm F2.0 unlocks the image quality that your E-500 suddenly seems to be capable of!