explain Panasonic 20mm vs. Sigma 19mm

[tpani]

Just happened to see some sample images taken with the Sigma. Seemed very good.

But, I don't understand these lenses. Can somebody please explain?

Sigma is 1. cheaper 2. slower and 3. bigger (twice as?) than the Panasonic.

Faster should be bigger.

Smaller should be cheaper.

Did Panasonic use special (expensive) glass/coatings/whatever to make something both smaller and faster, or did they come up with a particularly great optical design that Sigma could not match? (I doubt)

What's the deal?

 

[honeyiscool]

For one thing, Panasonic designed the lens to be tiny, whereas Sigma designed the lens without trying to make it tiny.

Also, there's a mitigating factor here. The Sigma is basically an APS-C lens with an M43 mount attached. The image circle is APS-C sized, as the lens was designed for their DP1.

 

[s_grins]

Just happened to see some sample images taken with the Sigma. Seemed very good.

But, I don't understand these lenses. Can somebody please explain?

Sigma is 1. cheaper 2. slower and 3. bigger (twice as?) than the Panasonic.

Faster should be bigger.

Fasted should be more expensive

Smaller should be cheaper.

Not necessarily.

Did Panasonic use special (expensive) glass/coatings/whatever to make something both smaller and faster, or did they come up with a particularly great optical design that Sigma could not match? (I doubt)

What's the deal?

Panasonic is faster. If you are OK with F2.8, buy Sigma which is F2.8 and slightly bigger. Optically Sigma is v

 

[Elemental Photography]

The Sigma is basically an APS-C lens with an M43 mount attached.

This is pretty much it.

 

[amalric]

Sigma is telecentric, while P is probably SW corrected. S has aperture optimised for resolution, across 3 systems.

Therefore it is excellent *and* cheap. It also has ultrafast AF.

Am.

 

[Vlad S]

Just happened to see some sample images taken with the Sigma. Seemed very good.

But, I don't understand these lenses. Can somebody please explain?

Sigma is 1. cheaper 2. slower and 3. bigger (twice as?) than the Panasonic.

Faster should be bigger.

Panasonic lens has a very significant distortion that is corrected with software. Sigma corrects distortion optically. The bulk of the lens is also occupied by the focusing and aperture motors, which have nothing to do with speed of the lens.

Smaller should be cheaper.

No, size does not have bearing on the price. Price is determined by marketing as much as by manufacturing costs.

Vlad

 

[tt321]

Just happened to see some sample images taken with the Sigma. Seemed very good.

But, I don't understand these lenses. Can somebody please explain?

Sigma is 1. cheaper 2. slower and 3. bigger (twice as?) than the Panasonic.

Faster should be bigger.

Panasonic lens has a very significant distortion that is corrected with software. Sigma corrects distortion optically. The bulk of the lens is also occupied by the focusing and aperture motors, which have nothing to do with speed of the lens.

Smaller should be cheaper.

No, size does not have bearing on the price. Price is determined by marketing as much as by manufacturing costs.

And manufacturing costs are not necessarily positively related to size either. Many cars are more expensive to make than buses, for instance.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Just happened to see some sample images taken with the Sigma. Seemed very good.

But, I don't understand these lenses. Can somebody please explain?

Sigma is 1. cheaper 2. slower and 3. bigger (twice as?) than the Panasonic.

Faster should be bigger.

Smaller should be cheaper.

Did Panasonic use special (expensive) glass/coatings/whatever to make something both smaller and faster, or did they come up with a particularly great optical design that Sigma could not match? (I doubt)

What's the deal?

I bought the Sigma 19, 30 and 60 at prices that left me wondering. Three lenses bought together and delivered for less than any (as far as I know) half decent Panasonic lens. They are excellent lenses and I can recommend them to anyone. Focus fast, very good imaging and their outer body acts as one big focus ring in MF situations. Have not noticed their theoretical lack of speed as a couple of extra notches of ISO on the latest 4/3 sensor is not dertrimental.

Size is relative. They are still compact lenses. I use them on the tiny GM1 where they are well balanced. I never saw the GM1 as a pocket camera and what the lenses lose on size the GM1 makes up on the other side of the balance scale. Anyone with a larger M4/3 body should be even less concerned as they have already opted for a larger form factor. Why opt for the physically smallest lens when you prefer a larger body to wrap your hand around and one that has all the "mod-cons" of an evf and tilt lcd?

More basically: Sigma does make the DP camera but cameras are a sideline for them - they live or die by making lenses that sell. Panasonic on the othe hand use their camera bodies as loss-leaders and make their profits selling lenses. Unburdened by the need to recover profits from lens sales Sigma can probably sell lenses closer to their true worth.

In the case of Sigma their "Art series" lenses might be "cheaper" but their quality is high.

 

[Fredrik Glckner]

Designing a good, compact, fast lens takes more effort than a larger, slower lens. That explains some of the price difference.

In my experience, the Sigma lens is not as good as the Panasonic lens. The Panasonic lens is sharper. See a comparison here.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2013/02/sigma-19mm-f28-ex-dn.html

On the other hand, the Sigma lens focuses faster.

 

[honeyiscool]

Tom Caldwell wrote:

I bought the Sigma 19, 30 and 60 at prices that left me wondering. Three lenses bought together and delivered for less than any (as far as I know) half decent Panasonic lens.

How? Each of those lenses retail for $199-239. There are many good Panasonic lenses that you can get for $639. And if we're talking used, the Panasonic 14mm can be had for $150ish on eBay all day, and I consider that lens more than half decent, so I don't know how you managed to get three Sigma Art lenses for less than $150 combined.

 

[Paulmorgan]

Just happened to see some sample images taken with the Sigma. Seemed very good.

But, I don't understand these lenses. Can somebody please explain?

Sigma is 1. cheaper 2. slower and 3. bigger (twice as?) than the Panasonic.

Faster should be bigger.

Panasonic lens has a very significant distortion that is corrected with software. Sigma corrects distortion optically. The bulk of the lens is also occupied by the focusing and aperture motors, which have nothing to do with speed of the lens.

Smaller should be cheaper.

No, size does not have bearing on the price. Price is determined by marketing as much as by manufacturing costs.

Vlad

Panasonic lens has a very significant distortion that is corrected with software. Sigma corrects distortion optically. The bulk of the lens is also occupied by the focusing and aperture motors, which have nothing to do with speed of the lens.

The distortion of the Sigma is also corrected by software.

 

[Paulmorgan]

For one thing, Panasonic designed the lens to be tiny, whereas Sigma designed the lens without trying to make it tiny.

Also, there's a mitigating factor here. The Sigma is basically an APS-C lens with an M43 mount attached. The image circle is APS-C sized, as the lens was designed for their DP1.

The image circle is APS-C sized, as the lens was designed for their DP1.

No the lens was not designed for the DP1, it was designed with Sony and M4/3 in mind.

 

[Paulmorgan]

Sigma is telecentric, while P is probably SW corrected. S has aperture optimised for resolution, across 3 systems.

Therefore it is excellent *and* cheap. It also has ultrafast AF.

Am.

 

[Paulmorgan]

Designing a good, compact, fast lens takes more effort than a larger, slower lens. That explains some of the price difference.

In my experience, the Sigma lens is not as good as the Panasonic lens. The Panasonic lens is sharper. See a comparison here.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2013/02/sigma-19mm-f28-ex-dn.html

On the other hand, the Sigma lens focuses faster.

In most cases you will not see any difference in sharpness, there really is, very little in it.

 

[baxters]

There's a lot of margin built into the price of these lenses, and the price is not completely connected to features. Panasonic is able to hold the price of the 20mm at 2010 levels for 4 years because they can sell every one they make, but it doesn't cost that much more than the Sigma's to build.

Look at how the whole supply chain made money on the Panasonic 14mm when it was selling on ebay for $160 shipped out of Korea/Japan last summer? That lens is hardly different from the 20mm in construction, except for a better/faster focus mechanism and a smaller f-stop, yet the seller, his supplier, and Panasonic makes money at that pirce, including a cut for Ebay and Paypal.

And by the way, two years ago, the older SIgma 19 and 30mm were being sold on sale for $199 together. Only difference was Sigma put a new barrel on the current lenses to make them look prettier.

 

[dougjgreen1]

Tom Caldwell wrote:
I bought the Sigma 19, 30 and 60 at prices that left me wondering. Three lenses bought together and delivered for less than any (as far as I know) half decent Panasonic lens.

How? Each of those lenses retail for $199-239. There are many good Panasonic lenses that you can get for $639. And if we're talking used, the Panasonic 14mm can be had for $150ish on eBay all day, and I consider that lens more than half decent, so I don't know how you managed to get three Sigma Art lenses for less than $150 combined.

What would you say to my having bought all 3 Sigma lenses for under $350 mint used? $95 each for the 19 and the 30mm and $158 for the 60mm. I subsequently sold the 30mm for slightly more than I bought it for, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because I have little use for that focal length in Micro 4/3, especially if it's not particularly fast aperture. So my Sigma 19 and 60mm lenses together cost me ~ $253 for the pair. My other 2 primes, the Panaleica 25mm and the Panasonic 14mm cost me $570 for the pair, also mint used.

 

[dougjgreen1]

Designing a good, compact, fast lens takes more effort than a larger, slower lens. That explains some of the price difference.

In my experience, the Sigma lens is not as good as the Panasonic lens. The Panasonic lens is sharper. See a comparison here.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2013/02/sigma-19mm-f28-ex-dn.html

On the other hand, the Sigma lens focuses faster.

In most cases you will not see any difference in sharpness, there really is, very little in it.

Nothing to fault at all about the sharpness of the Sigma 19mm, and the 60mm is in the same league as the Olympus 75mm (albeit 1.3 stops slower).

 

[Vlad S]

The distortion of the Sigma is also corrected by software.

The distortion with the Sigma lens before the software correction (-1.44%) is less than half of the Panasonic lens (-3.66%). Lenstip test

 

[Paulmorgan]

The distortion of the Sigma is also corrected by software.

The distortion with the Sigma lens before the software correction (-1.44%) is less than half of the Panasonic lens (-3.66%). Lenstip test

Yes optically the Sigma and Olympus lenses are very good in comparison to Panasonic. Enabling the lens correction in LR only makes a very small change to the file, its barely noticeable.

With some Olympus lenses you can only see what is really happening by opening the raw files in a program that does not automatically correct for distortion in the software.

The Olympus 12mm and the wide end of the 12-50mm looking very different loaded into software like raw therapy compared to LR.

 

[Fredrik Glckner]

In my opinion, the Sigma 19mm lens has better bokeh than the Lumix 20mm lens. Here is a bokeh comparison across a number of lenses:

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2013/09/bokeh-part-2.html

Generally, the Sigma lenses are quite good on bokeh, I think.