Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma Lenses

Go to last post
Sonolta Shooter

Sonolta Shooter

Senior Member
Messages
1,317
Solutions
1
Reaction score
339
Location
Liverpool, UK
Hi all,

A question or two and some advice required. I have the E500 + 14-45mm and 40-150mm lenses. I'm looking at the Sigma 55-200mm lens and was wondering if the 2x rule applies to this as well as the ZD ones.

I'm trying to justify the extra 50mm from the 40-150mm and would really prefer a longer 300mm telephoto (if available) should the 2x rule for Olympus applies to Sigma lenses and budget of course, which is always low.

Many thanks.
--
Mark
 
Mark J Kopczewski said:
Hi all,

A question or two and some advice required. I have the E500 +
14-45mm and 40-150mm lenses. I'm looking at the Sigma 55-200mm
lens and was wondering if the 2x rule applies to this as well as
the ZD ones.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, but...
Sonolta Shooter said:
I'm trying to justify the extra 50mm from the 40-150mm and would
really prefer a longer 300mm telephoto (if available) should the 2x
rule for Olympus applies to Sigma lenses and budget of course,
which is always low.
Click to expand...
Th Sigma is reasonably good up to about 150mm then gets progressively worse. At 200mm it's very soft even when stopped well down.

I'd think long and hard about whether it will do what you want it to do.

--
John Bean

PAW Week 35:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/92625981/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582
 
Hey Mark,

I was thinking about the same thing since I prefer to have the reach however decided not to go for the Sigma 55-200mm but rather wait until I can afford the Zuiko 50-200mm next year. I'll stick with the 40-150mm kit lens for my longer tele until then. Since you already have this lens I wouldn't bother wasting the cash on the Sigma 55-200mm.

Checkout the following link for a comparison between the Zuiko and the Sigma. This was the deciding factor for me and I'll wait. My 40-150mm is sharper!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=16587244&q=55+200&qf=m

Now the Sigma 50-500mm due out soon for the 4/3rd mount has people drooling in wait since it should retail around 900-1000.

Rob
 
Mark J Kopczewski said:
I'm trying to justify the extra 50mm from the 40-150mm and would
really prefer a longer 300mm telephoto (if available) should the 2x
rule for Olympus applies to Sigma lenses and budget of course,
which is always low.
Click to expand...
I recently shot an air show with the Sigma 50-200 and I wished for a longer lens also. Sigma 50-500 is on the way, but it is quite slow. I wish Olympus would make an inexpensive 100-300 f/4

there are several threads on the Sigma 50-200

(most recent thread)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=19905036

Steve
 
Duh, Sigma 55-200 not 50-200, that's what I get for not proofreading.

Since I'm here already here, a pic taken with the infamous Sigma 55-200



Steve
 
Steve Samuelson said:
Since I'm here already here, a pic taken with the infamous Sigma
55-200
Click to expand...
Like the one I had on a Pentax... the sharpness is fake, the USM halos are visible even at this size. The problem I found with mine was lack of any fine detail; sure, you can make the high-contrast edges look sharp with a liberal dose of USM but that doesn't produce any more of the low-contast detail that it lacks.

For my Pentax I sold the Sigma and bought the cheap Pentax equivalent - the DA50-200 - which is in a totally different league despite being not a lot more expensive. Images I've seen from the 40-150 look similar to the results I get from the budget Pentax lens and much better than I ever experienced with the Sigma.

I'm not a Sigma-hater by the way, I rate the good Sigma lenses up there with the best and my prefered "walk around" lens on my Pentax is the excellent Sigma 17-70 which I find is better than the well-regarded and more expensive Pentax DA16-45. Sadly the Sigma 55-200 simply isn't a very good lens IMO.

--
John Bean

PAW Week 35:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/92625981/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582
 
It is no Olympus 50-200mm, that's for sure. But for a $100 telephoto lens. It is not bad at all when you stop down. Here are couple of full size sample with my 55-200mm.

Taken with E-1 at 140mm F8(3mb file)



Taken with E-1 at 200mm F8(3mb file)

 
John Bean (UK) said:
Like the one I had on a Pentax... the sharpness is fake, the USM
halos are visible even at this size. The problem I found with mine
was lack of any fine detail; sure, you can make the high-contrast
edges look sharp with a liberal dose of USM but that doesn't
produce any more of the low-contast detail that it lacks.
Click to expand...
Yes, the photo is oversharpened, but it is hard to get a photo to look good when rezied so small, looses too much detail. The full size image looks fine. Maybe not be as great as your professional photos taken with your perfect equipment, but I enjoy them...

Don't worry, I wont bother all you great photographers, with all your expensive equipment with my garbage any more.

Steve
 
Steve,

How does it look when printed? I use a Sigma reflex (mirror) 600mm lens on my E1 and am perfectly pleased with what it produces. Your lighthouse photo is just a touch oversharpened to my eyes, but only a touch. I suspect it will make a lovely print and a good display, even if printed at a large size.

Best,
HS
--
http://hestamm.smugmug.com
 
Steve,

The truth is that the Sigma just isn't a very sharp lens. So what? It's pretty good for its price. The issue for most on this forum is that the Zuiko 40-150 is simply better for a similar price. True, the Sigma is immeasurably better from 151-200mm. But for a general purpose tele the 40-150 is the better bet.

With that said, my most requested print was taken with a lens that is probably not even up to the standards of the Sigma. The photographer makes the photo and often the best lens to use is the one that's already mounted on the camera.

Bruce
 
And of the 70-300mm Sigmas (or any other manufacturers lenses) with adapters?

Basically, I'm looking for a half decent telephoto (cheap-ish). Can anyone recommend anything that would give decent results at minimal cost?
--
Mark
 
Mark J Kopczewski said:
And of the 70-300mm Sigmas (or any other manufacturers lenses) with
adapters?
Click to expand...
Whole new ball game :-)

Since you'll loose all auto functions including AF you may as well go for a good-quality (but cheap!) used lens from whatever marque. There are lots of top-quality MF lenses of the 70-210/4 type on the used market at silly prices. You could do a lot worse than the Pentax F70-210/4-5.6 I have in my hand; AF (on Pentax) but with quite good manual focus. Very sharp wide open at all focal lengths, built like a tank. Mine is like-new and cost all of £50 in a shop !

That's just be way of an example, the used market is awash with stuff like this from all brands.

--
John Bean

PAW Week 35:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/92625981/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582
 
Why not use Oly's OM telephotos? They require an adaptor, of course, as well as manual focus, but work very well for those on a budget. I currently have the OM 200mm f4 & the OM 300mm f4.5. Both are quite good. I also use the OM 135mm f2.8 when I want a shallower depth of field than I can get with my DZ 40-150mm.

There are many examples here on the forum of folks who use these lenses succcessfully.

Best,
HS
--
http://hestamm.smugmug.com
 
Hello,

Here is a sample taken with E-1 and Sigma 70-300/F4-5.6 APO DG Macro (using Nikon adpater) at 300mm (x2=600mm) F5.6 ISO400, 1/640s. The bottom of the image is softer because of shallow DOF. The lens is pretty good at range 70-250 and sharp from corner to corner. Above that is getting a little softer but it's not bad. No purple fringing/vigneting wide open at 70 and 300mm. Colors are different form Zuikos but some post processing can deliver good results. Manual focus is easy.



Best regards,
wido
 
Mark J Kopczewski said:
And of the 70-300mm Sigmas (or any other manufacturers lenses) with
adapters?

Basically, I'm looking for a half decent telephoto (cheap-ish).
Can anyone recommend anything that would give decent results at
minimal cost?
Click to expand...
If you are willing to go with a MF prime, the screw mount Takumars at 200/4 and 300/4 are light, compact, extremely well-built, and offer very good performance. The 200 is usually available for $50-75 USD and the 300 is in the $150 range depending on condition. I own and use both of these lenses; combined with the 40-150 they are a very realistic telephoto solution at a reasonable price.
 
I've found a 300mm Tukamar with screw mount. What type of adapter ring will be required? I'm not familier with the screw mount options.

Many thanks.

--
Mark
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top