Olympus are "stupid". Why make silver lenses?

What criteria are you using in determining "poor" photos?

1. The Sigma lenses are at focal lengths that native M43 lenses do not cover. Better to chop the top of someone's head off with the 75? Than to use a 19mm Sigma or even a 30? (which by the way focus very quietly/quickly for video - different strokes/different folks)

2. People are buying the Sigmas not only for price, but for quality for price. The 30mm Sigma (which I don't have) is the nearest (but much slower) alternative to the Pan Leica 25mm 1.4, but does give "good" results. Not all people judge a "good" photo by the qualities of the lens. I've seen many "good" photos taken with "bad" lenses and also the opposite. My Sigma 19 is very sharp (have you used one?)...but somewhat slower than the 20mm Panny or the new Oly 17...and most likely focuses more quickly than the 20.

3. I do understand that photos from some of the top lenses like the Pan/Leica 25 or the 75mm Oly are sharper and have better micro contrast than some of the more reasonably priced lenses, but a good book on photography would do more for 'some' than a top of the line lens no matter the color.

4. Some results from older manual lenses can rival the newer crop...if only for pleasant renderings and color, and less clinical sharpness (which at times "feels" cold) perhaps. And they have a tactile feeling that none of the newer crop has that contribute to the photographic experience for many. The new Metabones Speed Adapter may wake many people up, if it works as good as the manufacturer states (which I hope it does).

5. I do agree that the color of a lens makes no difference.

--
My Gallery is here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
Why so serious? :The Joker