-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sigma 60mm 2.8 vs Olympus 45mm 1.8
- Thread starter haiiyaa
- Start date
As a recent owner of a Sigma 19mm f 2.8 I'd be checking if the 60mm lens is "slow" - my 19mm example noticeably slows down the camera start up or re-awakening compared to the M.Zuiko 14-42 or 40-150 on my Pen E-P3 and E-PL5 bodies. Easily an extra second or so - doesn't sound much, but it has cost me some photos when I was expecting the same quick start as the Zuikos.
(BTW no problems with AF or image quality)
--
Shoot the Light fantastic
(BTW no problems with AF or image quality)
--
Shoot the Light fantastic
Last edited:
Ontario Gone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,183
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,545
I personally went with the Sigma, partially because of the lower cost at first. I have since determined i like it so much, now i wouldn't choose the 45 even if it were the same price. The Sigma is very sharp, it offers a bit more reach which separates it from the walk around lenses IMO and it's very fast to focus.
letsgofishing
Forum Enthusiast
I've had the SIg 60 for about 3 months now - it's incredibly sharp and renders wonderfully. Depends on whether you need the faster lens or more reach - there's quite a difference between 45 and 60.
Corkcampbell
Forum Pro
This is a bogus question; they are complementary and neither is very expensive. I have and really enjoy both. But, they have different reaches and, of course, the Oly is a bit faster - not an issue for me. Both are also okay for video, portraits, and very sharp. I wouldn't want to give up either one. Note that where I live, the Sigma comes with a 4 year warranty, case, and lens hood. Minor considerations, but anyone buying the 45mm is probably going to pick up a JJC hood or similar, adding to the total cost of the lens.
However, if you had asked to choose between the Sigma and the Oly 75mm, I would have said forget the 75 and get the Sigma. I have both of those also, and that is a different situation, with some redundancy (for me).
However, if you had asked to choose between the Sigma and the Oly 75mm, I would have said forget the 75 and get the Sigma. I have both of those also, and that is a different situation, with some redundancy (for me).
bluevellet
Senior Member
I think they overlap quite a bit.
I have the Zuiko 60mm macro and only use it for macro because they're no real point using it as a portrait/short telephoto when you already have the 45mm.
To me, although close in FL, they are operationally for different uses. The 45, of course, is classic portrait FL at appropriate distances and very fast as well. The 60, FX equivalent 120, is very close to the classic prime telephoto distance of 135 f2.8 which was the standard versatile telephoto length for film SLR's before zooms got good enough to obsolete them. So they ae for different purposes, IMO, and the Sigma 60 gets many wonderful lens reviews, regardless of it's very low expense. Whether you want truly longer telephoto and need the 1.8 speed of the 75 depends on what you are going to use it for. It's closer to, say, a Nikon 180 2.8 equivalent than to a portrait or short tele lens and speed.
Allan Brown
Senior Member
I have both + the Sigma 30. All are fine lenses and worth having - especially, at the price the Sigma's are selling for.
Allan
Paulmorgan
Veteran Member
Why are people always comparing lenses of different focal lengths.
Because they will be used for the same thing. Portaits
joseluisherranz
Leading Member
- Messages
- 550
- Reaction score
- 189
What about DOF ? is there much difference between a 45 1.8 and the 60 2.8?
Is the 60 2.8 enough for isolating people in portraits ?
I prefer the 60 focal lenght but love shallowish deoth of field.
Obviously the 75 oly is the answer, but I have to wait a year for that, Meanwhile 45 or 60 is the answer for now
Paulmorgan
Veteran Member
There still totally different focal lengths.
The 60`s as good as useless indoors, unless your shooting in a very large studio.
Dave Lively
Senior Member
When I bought a 60mm f2.8 Olympus macro lens I was originally planning to sell my 45mm f1.8. Before I did that I decided to compare the 2 lenses for portrait use. I had to make do with a couple of selfies since I could not find any good looking people willing to let me take their picture and post it here. The camera focused on the tip of my nose with the 45mm, do not mistake that for softness. Also note that I have the 60mm f2.8 Olympus macro, not the Sigma. DOF will be the same but I would expect the Sigma to have better bokeh. Macro lenses are not known for good bokeh and the Olympus 60 is no exception.
45mm f1.8
View: gallery page
60mm f2.8
View: gallery page
I decided to keep the 45mm too. It is not a macro lens but f1.8 helps in low light, allows for more subject isolation and the 45 is small and light and has better rendering than the macro lens. I find that 45mm works better for pictures of people than 60mm does. The Sigma is not as large as the macro lens and from the samples I have seen in this forum does not have the nervous bokeh the macro lens does either. But I would still go with the 45mm because of the faster aperture and the 60mm being longer than I prefer. Neither lens is a bad choice though.
Last edited:
Worth it if the faster speed and wider focal length work better for you. Not worth it if the longer focal length of the Sigma works better for you, and if the speed difference is insignificant for your intended use.
We can't tell you whether an EFL of 90mm is better than 120mm for you, or whether f/1.8 vs f/2.8 matters to you.
We can't tell you whether an EFL of 90mm is better than 120mm for you, or whether f/1.8 vs f/2.8 matters to you.
MFiftysomething
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,169
- Reaction score
- 517
I have had both but sold the 60mm not because of any complaint other than I found the focal length a bit long for my use; my favourite models are my kids -not that they are that co-operative and with the 60mm I have to run in much larger circles around them than with the 45mm and would need to move to a larger house!
Just the answer I needed. I will use this mainly on my 1 year old son so I think I'll go with the 45mm
Ontario Gone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,183
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,545
It may not matter to people who only view their 16mp photos at 2mp, but the 45 appears to much softer. Either focus was a bit short of your subject, or the 60 is much sharper. I wouldn't doubt there is a sharpness difference, it's easier to make a F2.8 sharp than F1.8. With that being said, the sigma 60 is considerably better in test scores than even the Olympus 60, which is already very good. I will say in my use of the Sigma, that reputation is accurate.
--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"
TheEngineer
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 705
I have both lenses and the sigma 60mm definitely delivers the better images. It is not as fast but definitely a lot sharper and the images have a certain color and look to it that I find amazing.
The oly is faster but I find I get cleaner, sharper and more detailed images with the sigma at iso 3200 than with the oly at iso 1600.
The oly is not bad, its quite good actually. It has faster focus, is smaller and is a great lens. It's just that the sigma is simply special!
Last edited:
William Porter
Senior Member
Both are good or very good lenses. If you were looking to be told that the Olympus 45 is a substantially better lens for a fairly minor difference in price, I can't say that because it's not true. I'm not a lens performance connoisseur, but I own and use them both and I don't see significant differences in optical quality. The price difference is not a big deal either. Keep in mind that the Olympus 45 doesn't come with a lens hood, which strikes me as remarkably dumb.
The focal lengths are quite different, so the lenses are only vaguely comparable. Of course the Olympus 45 has a wider max aperture than the Sigma. Helps with lower light exposure, but that's not the kind of light you're shooting with normally when shooting portraits. As for depth of field, remember that one of the several factors affecting depth of field is focal length: longer focal length --> shallower depth of field, other things being equal (same distance to focal plane, same aperture, same sensor). The Sigma 60 wide open (f2.8), 10 feet from the focal plane, has shallower depth of field than the Olympus 45 wide open (f1.8), from the same distance. Of course, the Sigma also has a narrower angle of view, so to make the same composition you'll have to move away from the subject/focal plane which will increase depth of field. This is part of what makes comparison hard. Apples and oranges.
If I could own just one lens, I wouldn't get either of these lenses. I'd get the Olympus 25 or the Panasonic 20 or something in that range. But if you can own just one lens, in my opinion, you probably shouldn't be shooting with an ILC anyway, since a lot of the point of interchangeable lens cameras is the ability to, um, inter-change lenses. At some point, one really is better off with a Panasonic LX7 or a Sony RX100 MkIII.
So to me, the real question is: which to get first? If you already own, say, the Olympus 14-40, then I'd suggest getting the Sigma 60. If you've only got, say, the Olympus 25 or the Panasonic 20, I'd say, get the Olympus 45 next. But really it's up to you.
Will
The focal lengths are quite different, so the lenses are only vaguely comparable. Of course the Olympus 45 has a wider max aperture than the Sigma. Helps with lower light exposure, but that's not the kind of light you're shooting with normally when shooting portraits. As for depth of field, remember that one of the several factors affecting depth of field is focal length: longer focal length --> shallower depth of field, other things being equal (same distance to focal plane, same aperture, same sensor). The Sigma 60 wide open (f2.8), 10 feet from the focal plane, has shallower depth of field than the Olympus 45 wide open (f1.8), from the same distance. Of course, the Sigma also has a narrower angle of view, so to make the same composition you'll have to move away from the subject/focal plane which will increase depth of field. This is part of what makes comparison hard. Apples and oranges.
If I could own just one lens, I wouldn't get either of these lenses. I'd get the Olympus 25 or the Panasonic 20 or something in that range. But if you can own just one lens, in my opinion, you probably shouldn't be shooting with an ILC anyway, since a lot of the point of interchangeable lens cameras is the ability to, um, inter-change lenses. At some point, one really is better off with a Panasonic LX7 or a Sony RX100 MkIII.
So to me, the real question is: which to get first? If you already own, say, the Olympus 14-40, then I'd suggest getting the Sigma 60. If you've only got, say, the Olympus 25 or the Panasonic 20, I'd say, get the Olympus 45 next. But really it's up to you.
Will
So far I just have the 14-42mm II and the sigma 19mm
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum