Sigma 55-200 or Zuiko 40-150 ? Which one is better ?

I am considering Sigma 55-200 mm and Zuiko Digital 40-150 mm as a second lens for E-1. Which one is better ? Sigma is pretty cheap but I can get Zuiko 40-150 and 14-54 with E-1 body for 1350 USD. So I have to decide whether to buy whole set or just the body with 14-54 and then Sigma. Please help me with this choice.

devilbynight

I think the best lens of the three is the 14-54mm and whe worst is the Sigma 55-200mm. The Sigma lens never really gets a sharp image at the edges even stopped way down and the center is pretty soft until stopped down 2-3 stops. Both DZ lenses have significantly better performance and the 14-54mm has weather sealing which may or may not be important to you.

--
Good Shooting,
English Bob

I got the sigma and.. while acceptable.. I think the 40-150 would have been better. Why?

First off, you loose the AEL button 'AF-in-MF' setting (when in MF, you can have the camera focus with AF by pressing the AEL button) That doesn't work on the sigma.

Then it's a ƒ4-5.6 lens that goes to 400mm. As EB says, you 'should' stop down (narrow the aperture) so it is sharper. So, at 400mm when you need a shutter speed of 1/400th (and above) the lens is at ƒ5.6 and add to that the need for stopping down some. So you have to use it at 1/400th @ ƒ8. Thisis sunny day weather in the UK.. or rare!

Simply put, I'd have been better with the Olympus lens...

Then if you factor in that you are buying sigma glass which renders colours slightly differently than olympus glass.. slightly I'll grant you but.

Then there's the EC-14 tele convertor, the sigma isn't compatible with it while the 40-150 is.. along with the EX-25 (extension tube) and the TF-22 (twin flash)

So while the sigma is cheaper and 100mm 'longer', it's not part of the 'E system'.

That said, you can get usable results from the sigma... it's just that you need brightish conditions to do so (which is the same for the 40-150 only less so)

IMHO anyway
paul

See the reviews at: http://www.wrotniak.net . Mr. Wrotniak likes the Zuiko better, but was surprised by the Sigman considering its low price.

Both are good, 40-150 is better. If you need more length, though, the Sigma has it.

I sold the Sigma and got the Zuiko. The 40mm end of the Zuiko is more useful for me than the 200mm end of the Sigma.

Zuiko build quality is much better than Sigma. Ofcourse the price reflects that.

I have both Sigma 55-200 and Oly 40-150 and I intend to keep them both.

Consider the use of the Oly converter extends the range from max 150 to max 210. Just 10 mm more then the Siigma. The converter alone is 3 times the price of the Sigma. Look at the size and weight difference.

Even when I eventually buy the converter for some reason (I win the lottery for instance) I still keep the Sigma.
BTW I also keep the Sigma 18-125 for simular reasons.
--

devilbynight said:

I am considering Sigma 55-200 mm and Zuiko Digital 40-150 mm as a
second lens for E-1. Which one is better ? Sigma is pretty cheap
but I can get Zuiko 40-150 and 14-54 with E-1 body for 1350 USD. So
I have to decide whether to buy whole set or just the body with
14-54 and then Sigma. Please help me with this choice.

Click to expand...

I've had the Sigma 55-200 since it became available, and I have never liked people pictures with it, since I really have to crank up the USM. After missing the demo lens 50-200 sale at Samys, I went out and got the 40-150mm at my local store. I just took some quick pictures in my backyard, comparing the Sigma 18-125mm and the Olympus 40-150mm (both Sigma lenses are really soft when photographing stuff 30-40' away, so it should apply to the 55-200 as well), and the Olympus was the hands down winner. I'm sure the 50-200mm will be even better (though the size of the lens is kind of overwhelming), but for a lot of what I do, the 40-150mm will be just the ticket.

Note, I did discover that the Lowepro TLZ mini zoom that I picked up and has held my UZI and E1 with the other lenses isn't big enough for the 40-150 with filter attached, and neither is the Promaster softlens can I just got.

Where do you see the E1 with 40-150 and 14-54 for $1350?

Thanks.
Bao

devilbynight said:

I am considering Sigma 55-200 mm and Zuiko Digital 40-150 mm as a
second lens for E-1. Which one is better ? Sigma is pretty cheap
but I can get Zuiko 40-150 and 14-54 with E-1 body for 1350 USD. So
I have to decide whether to buy whole set or just the body with
14-54 and then Sigma. Please help me with this choice.

devilbynight

Click to expand...

Hi,

devilbynight said:

I am considering Sigma 55-200 mm and Zuiko Digital 40-150 mm as a
second lens for E-1. Which one is better ? Sigma is pretty cheap
but I can get Zuiko 40-150 and 14-54 with E-1 body for 1350 USD. So
I have to decide whether to buy whole set or just the body with
14-54 and then Sigma. Please help me with this choice.

Click to expand...

I'd definitely vote for the 40-150. On the whole it's a pretty amazing lens for the price. It's really quite sharp, and doesn't have any major flaws throughout the zoom range. The only major issue with it is the focusing, which is a little bit slower than the 14-54.

The 14-54 and 40-150 are an excellent combination, nice and light too.

David

--



Dear Green Place : Updated 16/06/05
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/zerosignal/deargreenplace/

I wish I'd never bought my Sigma. However, I know I won't be happy with the Oly 40-150 either so I'll make do until I figure out a solution

I have not read the other responses to your topic but I can say that the Sigma 55-200 which I had with a Canon 20D did not give me nearly the quality of pictures that I get with the Zuiko 40-150 on my E-300.
--
Leo P
http://www.pbase.com/leopr/olympus_e300