Did Sigma design the Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm F1.8?

@yabokkie: "no matter who makes the lens how much does it worth if it can have similar resolution and aberrations as say Canon 135/2L?"

These arguments are garbage. If the Oly 75mm f/1.8 and Canon 135 f/2 are equally sharp with similar distortion on bodies with a similar MP count, then they are worth the same money. On DxOmark it seems that their sharpness is similar.

The light gathering / DOF argument is garbage. Usually you either want to maximize or minimize the DOF. In one case the FF sensor wins, in the other case the m43 sensor wins. If smaller sensors were to cost more than big ones, you'd probably be arguing the opposite argument.

The light gathering of a sensor is directly defined by how much of the surface gathers light and how much goes to waste to wiring. You can project the exact same light on a FF and a m43 sensor. 10 years ago, FF might have been much more efficient because so much sensor was wasted, but nowadays the difference in efficiency is minute.

Ieeeeesh I thought I was on a rumors site.

This happens all the time with all brands. Olympus has done it before with the ZD 70-300 and a few others . Its a optical copy of the Sigma 70-300. But that's about where it stops you can't really compare the two . Things like glass quality , components, materials , QC , manufacturing processes etc. give you the final product. There are different grades of optical glass at massively varying prices and quality also coatings etc.

It not does mean because you can design it you can build . Although Sigma seem to have upped their game and have excellent lenses. They may even have built it. (75mm) who knows and no one is telling.

Hahaha, and Oly fanboys used this lens as a prime example on how great Olympus engineers are.
fail

HOLY CRAP !!!!! I sell mine right away on ebay cuz Sigma's are noobs !!!!!
Just kidding but this could have been a true reaction few months ago.

no matter who makes the lens how much does it worth if it can have similar resolution and aberrations as say Canon 135/2L?

135/2L got a 1.4 stops larger aperture (the difference of focal lengths also considered), more elements thus costs more to make. but if we ignore the internal formula issue, the lens should worth 1.4 stops less than 135/2L thus 989 * 2 ^ (-1.4) = 375 US.

This is stupid. Please stop. I thought this was a professional review site, not a gossip "I-heard-from" non-sense trash site.

Wish Sigma would start some nice Fuji-X lenses such as this. My X-E1 is waiting!

Sony E 50mm F1.8 and Leica 25mm 1.4 is also designed by Sigma too

I would have no problems whatsoever to know that Sigma designed my 75mm 1.8. I love Sigma.

Still:

- Olympus 75mm f1.8 lens: Officially announced on February 8, 2012. Prototypes in the works at least months prior to that. Rumored at least a month prior to the official announcement. Don't remember if there were photos leaked or not prior to the official announcement.

- Sigma patent: dated February 3, 2012.
So if the 75mm was their doing, they designed it, tested it, finalized it and ONLY AFTER thought about FILING a patent to protect their concept ?

I find this naive, at the least.

Wow. the 75mm f/1.8 is the sharpest m43 lens and Sigma made it.

Who cares who designed it.
If you really want to know who designed it, just give credit to mr Taylor, who designed Cooke Triplet well over 100 years ago. This lens is heavily modified Triplet Derivative.

So thank you mr Taylor and TTH Cooke company.
Also huge thank you to Dr. H. Lee also of TTH Cooke company, who designed a Double Gauss f2 lens in 1920, commonly used today on most 50mm fast lenses, including Noctilux.

It's one thing to design the optics, another completely to design the mechanical and electrical components and figure out how to get it manufactured to the price point and quality level that is desired.

Sigma has likely had the capability to design excellent optics for years, but the mechanical/electrical design & manufacturing may be on Oly's side of things.

I think a lot of companies are capable of stellar optical designs, but getting them to be made small enough, cheap enough, reliable enough can be a skill that perhaps only a few have.

There is further evidence not mentioned in the DPR article:

Both designs (the patent according to Egami and Olympus according to their website) use a 10 elements in 9 Groups - 3 ED lenses, 2 HR lenses design.

Where the usage of same ED and HR cannot be pure coincidence (even if similiar software optimizations are applied) and Olympus would then break Sigma's patent anyway.

So yes, this is a Sigma patented design licensed to Olympus.

Although I perfectly understand the enthusiasm about this lens given the stellar performance as to the reviews, its focal lenght somehow makes me think: too long for studio work (if you do not have very large room), for location shootings I prefer (quality) zooms.
Different tastes, all legitimate. That's why I love m4/3: you have choices!

Interesting - but these days they probably all use the same software, or similar software, to design lenses. Put in the same parameters and you're likely to get the same result.

How much does one lens design have to differ from another to qualify for a patent?

Well, it wouldn't be a first. Back in the pre-m4/3's days, weren't the Zuiko 18-180mm and 70-300mm Sigma designed? The only difference is that those were low end "standard" lenses. The 75mm 1.8mm is a higher end product.

What I'd be more interested in finding out is if Olympus is actually manufacturing the 75mm. Considering that almost everything else in their product line is made in China, and sales of the old regular 4/3's lenses that were made in Japan are pretty much as dead as that system, it wouldn't surprise me if the 75mm is made in Japan by Sigma. I can't imagine Olympus are keeping a lens factory running to produce only 2 high end, limited market lenses (the 75mm and 12mm).

Another company manufacturing for Olympus wouldn't be a first either. If I remember correctly, the original E-1 camera, the only E system camera to have been manufactured in Japan, was built by Sanyo.

Some years ago, I had a Tamron 70-200 that was optically, mechanically and physically identical to the Nikon equivalent. It wasn't particularly good under either brand name but that's not the point.

Since you "know for a fact" that some big name OEM lenses are made by other companies, it might be useful to say so. Why? A lot of the negative, fan stuff here has to to with "It's an "L" lens, what more do you need to know?" or "You pay more but you get Nikon's legendary quality", etc. What if people knew that everybody makes stuff for everybody else?

Ask me if I really give a rat's rear who designed it....

It's a great lens.

DPReview takes so long to review products, obscure patents for same products can surface first.

The old preview from May 2012 is still listed. Like so many previews, it is not followed by a review.

Though my optical design knowledge is rudimentary, but looking at the two designs above, they would have different light collecting properties.

The middle element in the Sigma design is thicker. Unless Sigma decided to use ED or Super ED glass, the refraction of that lens will be significantly larger, and light traveling pattern after that would be different. The front element of Sigma's is over-engineered compared with m.Zuiko's. Don't know how much those etches around the edge of m.Zuiko lenses would affect the optical quality.

So yes, different proportion of element's size and glass used will change the final IQ. They're still of the similar design, but IQs would be different. And production costs would be very different due to whether ED elements are used or not (and Olympus's production technology is higher than Sigmas's).

Here, lens design diagrams. As you can see, many lenses from different manufacturers use similar designs, just different element sizes or switch around certain elements from the basic design, but most of them are stemmed from Zeiss designs. http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html

Before CAD, design your own lens from ground up without following Zeiss formula is just too difficult. Now with CAD, even zoom lenses can be designed with high quality. And Olympus is the pioneer of using CAD for optical designs.

Something is very strange in this history.

The Zuiko 75mm F1.8 lens was announced in Feb 8, 2012. However, according to the Egami blog the Sigma patent's filing date is Feb 3, 2012, that is, only five days before the announcement.

On the other hand, after a lens design starts, it takes months, if not years, until the production (and announcement) effectively happens. So, it is not reasonable to think that Sigma started the design process of that lens long before filing the patent application.

Most lenses are based on Zeiss formulas, so it's not surprising many lenses designs are similar (but not identical, because that would patent fringing). This is especially true for telephoto lenses (not super telephoto) where elements are smaller in number.

Sigma rocks.

Third party OEM is nothing new, so long as they have the tools and talent to meet the clients specs and stick to them. Who cares what the origination address is?

In my search for vintage lenses, I remember an article (for which I can't find the link), that the majority of early Japanese lens manufacturers were all based a stones throw from one another, and consequently, copied each other.

In the 80's Sear's had a few good lenses made by Tokina, and it requires some research to know which ones were gems hiding under the name. Vivitar was well known for utilizing many different OEMs for their lens designs. There were several different OEM's for a given lens (i.e. 4 different 70-200 series 1), and their serial numbers were all telling of those of whom made them, (Tokina, Komine and Kino are regarded as the worthy versions).

It all basically boils down to a great design, supported by a vendor with solid capability. Sigma sells some very decent lenses, so it's no surprise.

I had a contractor build me a house. He's a good builder, an excellent builder. He could have designed the house also and it would have been a lovely house. But I enlisted the help of a professional designer to make it an excellent house.
BTW, has anyone seen the tear-down from Lens Rental of the Olympus 75? cut'n paste >> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/the-olympus-75mm-f1-8-is-expensive-because-its-worth-it

This really isn't that shocking.

There were rumors that the 4/3 18-180mm lens was based on the design of the Sigma 18-200mm lens, and was limited to 180mm because the far end performance was lacking. The lens design is identical.

Since these designs can be patented, we should assume that Olympus is paying a royalty to Sigma for the design. And it's a good thing they are doing this, because they ended up with a popular and superb lens that commands a premium price.

The reason Sigma may not be able to "do it by themselves" is that there is more to building a lens than the design. Olympus seems to do a better job making lenses for their own cameras than even their partner Panasonic does. (And... the reverse seems to be true... if you own an EM5 get the MZuiko 12-40mm... if you own a GH3, then get the Lumix 12-35mm).

Sigma specializes in making lenses that can be adapted for multiple platforms, which means they can have compromises in them that cause focusing issues.

Would be intesting to see if anyone has ever used the m43's - NEX adapter to see if it covers an APS-C sensor?

I wonder what the business side of this looks like. Is it a one-off commissioned design, or does Sigma license the design to Oly and get paid per lens made. If its an m43 specific design, it seems like some type of commission. Maybe its even made in a Sigma factory or another third party manufacturer like Cosina.

With the proliferation of mirrorless formats now, being a lens designer/manufacturer seems like a good position to be in.

Sigma makes some great products. I hope they design some more m4/3s lenses. I would love to see a nifty 50mm F1.4 from them for a reasonable price.

Sigma also designed the Pana-Leica 25mm F1.4 for full size four-thirds and the Pana-Leica 25mm F1.4 for micro 43rds, they designed the Olympus 90-250mm F2.8 and the 75-300mm F4.8-6.3. The designed one of the 40-150 slower lenses too. I'm sure there are others. the thing is all companies have the ability to design great lenses and all companies sometimes cut too many corners and design junk so no need to be a Sigma basher as they're actually pretty good. Why does Sigma get to make lenses for Olympus, Panasonic and Leica? I supposed these companies fished around for a design so they don't tie up their resources that are actually being put to other things. its either a resources issue or Sigma designs these lenses for the sole purpose of selling the design to another company. Another case is the Tokina 16.5-135mm that patent is owned by Pentax. and if you look hard enough you'll find such collaboration or sharing across many companies.

Still not convinced..
If sigma could make a lens this good for the m43 format, why are their other Sigma branded m43 lenses pretty average?

If its the case, kudos to Olympus for seeing the quality in that patent. The 1.8/75 isn't short of very favorable reviews!

It must be pleasure to work for Sigma...

Sigma has been on a roll lately first with the excellent 35 1.4 FF lens and then the absolutely fantastic 18-35 f/1.8 which is one of the sharpest and THE brightest APS-C zoom ever created, AFAIK.

Now this news. Wow. I have to wonder how Olympus fans feel about the fact that Sigma seems to have designed their very best lens.

I have the Olympus 75mm and if Sigma designed it all I can say is WOW.

"Sigma designed" - lens design does not end at the patent like this, Olympus could have licensed the patent for example and go from there. Interesting that filing date of the patent is 2012.2.3, and Olympus started to sell its lens 6 months later - usually the way from design to sales is many times longer (see 200-400, or still not released Pana 150/2.8 for recent examples).