Sigma 60mm f1.6 - Would You Buy It?

Assuming Sigma launched a brighter 60mm lens (f1.6 or f1.8) which was at the same level as the 30mm f1.4 and 60mm f2.8, would you be interested?

I definitely be interested as a portrait lens, especially if they price is closer to Sigma 30mm f1.4, e.g. ~$400. (Sigma 30mm f1.4 is currently sold around $330)

I personally like the 60mm focal length more for portraits than ~75mm.

On Sony, there's a decent amount of competition, but on m43 we're missing a fast 'inexpensive' lens around 120mm equivalent. It wouldn't be small as it'd also be for APS-C, but such a lens wouldn't be a walk around lens.

Thoughts?

I would buy the Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro, as it's pretty much 2 lenses in one. A very decent portrait lens, and a cracker for close ups and macro. Shallowest DOF isn't everything when it comes to portraiture IMO. But if that is your main attraction, why not get the Samyang 50mm f/1.2?

markus9 said:

Assuming Sigma launched a brighter 60mm lens (f1.6 or f1.8) which was at the same level as the 30mm f1.4 and 60mm f2.8, would you be interested?

Click to expand...

markus9 said:

I definitely be interested as a portrait lens, especially if they price is closer to Sigma 30mm f1.4, e.g. ~$400. (Sigma 30mm f1.4 is currently sold around $330)

I personally like the 60mm focal length more for portraits than ~75mm.

On Sony, there's a decent amount of competition, but on m43 we're missing a fast 'inexpensive' lens around 120mm equivalent. It wouldn't be small as it'd also be for APS-C, but such a lens wouldn't be a walk around lens.

Click to expand...

markus9 said:

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Indoors, I am more than pleased with the 45 1.8 and outdoors I have the 75 f1.8 so I am happy with this pair.

Cagey75 said:

I would buy the Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro, as it's pretty much 2 lenses in one. A very decent portrait lens, and a cracker for close ups and macro. Shallowest DOF isn't everything when it comes to portraiture IMO. But if that is your main attraction, why not get the Samyang 50mm f/1.2?

Click to expand...

The Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro is definitely a tempting lens (I've been looking at it).

Such a Sigma lens would have some benefits:
- greater light transmission allowing you to keep lower ISO (up to ~1.5 stops)
- greater depth of field control for times you want very shallow focus (lenses like the Fuji f1.2 are well-loved among portraitists)
- it'd presumably be cheaper (e.g. $100 less) as the Olympus currently sells for $500. For those that don't do macro, that would be a definite benefit.

The Samyang is manual focus so it's a different proposition. 50mm is also very close to lenses like the Olympus 45mm f1.8.

If it was a 1.4, in a heart beat (in fact, I'd pre-order it). At 1.6 to 1.8, probably, but I'd wait to see it first hand.

Now, I'm not short on portrait glass. The 45mm 1.8 is my second most used lens. I have the 50mm f2, I have the Sigma 60mm F2.8, and I have a Metabones Speedbooster ultra with a host of FD lenses (50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.8, 100mm F2.8, 135mm F2.8) that all provide interesting shallow DoF possibilities. Of these, only the 45mm and Sigma are quick enough focusing for event photography.

With the sigma 2.8 I'm always wanting better subject isolation at a distance, and in a church or at a concert, every bit of light gathering is welcome.

I realize the 75mm 1.8 could do this, but I find 75mm too long for most my portrait work (I'm usually in a tight space and 60mm is just right), and the cost (even used) always keeps me from pulling the trigger.

I probably wouldn't be interested because I already own Panasonic's 42.5 f/1.7 and the Olympus 75mm f/1.8. I like both of those focal lengths and I don't need a lens that fits in the middle. The hypothetical faster 60mm Sigma would be designed for APS-C coverage, so likely wouldn't be an especially small lens.

Having said that, based on the other Sigma f/1.4 lenses, it would be a great option to have available on the system for anyone else looking for a portrait lens.

Provided:

it is under 500.-,

has IQ like the other 1,4 DN lenses,

has close focus down to about 30cm.

60mm would make more sense than the rumored 50mm.

For E-mount it would be 90mm FFE and there are no other 60mm lenses.

For m43 it would be 120mm and there is just the slow O 2,8/60mm macro lens; also the 6 (!) 42,5-45mm lenses are too close for a 50mm lens.

Peter

No

I thought it is going to be an f1.4? And yes I will buy it as I cant wait to see how they will improve on my amazing Sigma 60mm f2.8. Already got the other two f1.4's and they are stunning.

I hope it's size is closer to the 30 1.4 though, although that probably won't happen as the current 60 is the biggest of the 3 f2.8's. If it is as big as the 16 that may be a problem. The 30 is great as a walk around lens, especially at night but the 16 is more specialist i.e. you need to have a think if it is worth the heft.

mentos77 said:

I hope it's size is closer to the 30 1.4 though, although that probably won't happen as the current 60 is the biggest of the 3 f2.8's. If it is as big as the 16 that may be a problem. The 30 is great as a walk around lens, especially at night but the 16 is more specialist i.e. you need to have a think if it is worth the heft.

Click to expand...

You are right: the 30mm is 73mm long and weighs 265g, while the 16mm is 93mm long and weighs 405g.

I won't buy the 16mm because of the weight, but I already have an excellent 14mm lens (the Ricoh GR).

But I hope/think the 60mm won't as complex to built as the WA 16mm lens, so it could be around 300g.

Wishful thinking, I know, but then, the tele lens might be just 50mm, which would be less tempting as described above: in this case I'd get the lightweight and excellent 1,7/42,5.

Peter

eques said:

mentos77 said:

I hope it's size is closer to the 30 1.4 though, although that probably won't happen as the current 60 is the biggest of the 3 f2.8's. If it is as big as the 16 that may be a problem. The 30 is great as a walk around lens, especially at night but the 16 is more specialist i.e. you need to have a think if it is worth the heft.

Click to expand...

You are right: the 30mm is 73mm long and weighs 265g, while the 16mm is 93mm long and weighs 405g.

I won't buy the 16mm because of the weight, but I already have an excellent 14mm lens (the Ricoh GR).

But I hope/think the 60mm won't as complex to built as the WA 16mm lens, so it could be around 300g.

Wishful thinking, I know, but then, the tele lens might be just 50mm, which would be less tempting as described above: in this case I'd get the lightweight and excellent 1,7/42,5.

Peter

Click to expand...

Also got a GR, but I used that as an excuse to switch from the PL15 to the Sigma 16. The 16 is for landscapes on a tripod, the GR for the street, but the 16 with a G7's viewfinder is too tempting sometimes. Have ordered a GR viewfinder to help with that, apparently it doesn't affect pocketability.

I hope you are right about the new lens and I too would prefer 50mm, so I can keep the 60.

Just thought of a way to procrastinate from work: will compare the GR to the 16 like I did with the 15. The 15 was beaten Vs no crop (no surprise as it is 28mm eq. on APSC) but beat the GR at 35mm crop (similar sensor size used to M43).

mentos77 said:

eques said:

mentos77 said:

I hope it's size is closer to the 30 1.4 though, although that probably won't happen as the current 60 is the biggest of the 3 f2.8's. If it is as big as the 16 that may be a problem. The 30 is great as a walk around lens, especially at night but the 16 is more specialist i.e. you need to have a think if it is worth the heft.

Click to expand...

You are right: the 30mm is 73mm long and weighs 265g, while the 16mm is 93mm long and weighs 405g.

I won't buy the 16mm because of the weight, but I already have an excellent 14mm lens (the Ricoh GR).

But I hope/think the 60mm won't as complex to built as the WA 16mm lens, so it could be around 300g.

Wishful thinking, I know, but then, the tele lens might be just 50mm, which would be less tempting as described above: in this case I'd get the lightweight and excellent 1,7/42,5.

Peter

Click to expand...

Also got a GR, but I used that as an excuse to switch from the PL15 to the Sigma 16. The 16 is for landscapes on a tripod, the GR for the street, but the 16 with a G7's viewfinder is too tempting sometimes. Have ordered a GR viewfinder to help with that, apparently it doesn't affect pocketability.

Click to expand...

Interesting: I use the GR for landscapes with amazing results, but I have problems with the GR for street photography (AF).

mentos77 said:

I hope you are right about the new lens and I too would prefer 50mm, so I can keep the 60.

Click to expand...

In fact, I'm not interested in a 50mm lens.

mentos77 said:

Just thought of a way to procrastinate from work: will compare the GR to the 16 like I did with the 15. The 15 was beaten Vs no crop (no surprise as it is 28mm eq. on APSC) but beat the GR at 35mm crop (similar sensor size used to M43).

Click to expand...

This would be most interesting, please post your results.

Peter

eques said:

eques said:

Just thought of a way to procrastinate from work: will compare the GR to the 16 like I did with the 15. The 15 was beaten Vs no crop (no surprise as it is 28mm eq. on APSC) but beat the GR at 35mm crop (similar sensor size used to M43).

Click to expand...

This would be most interesting, please post your results.

Peter

Click to expand...

I am not posting photos as they will be criticised for being wrong for testing. In my opinion the 16 (on a G7) beats the GR at 28mm and 35mm when both cameras are at f2.8. It shows more detail on long distance foliage miles away, but also close up on a wall. However, the GR is sharper (maybe more aggressive in-camera sharpening) for certain areas of the frame, such as a white wall line along a building 50 meters away. That maybe suggests a difference in focus areas too. So take this with a pinch of salt. The 16 image shows more smearing/artifacts which maybe why it is less clear in some places.

The GR beats the 16 when the G7 is set to f1.4. Without pixel peeping the 16 wins on a very sunny day outdoors, the GR is a little washed out. But I know the GR has awesome colours in other conditions. Moire is more noticeable on the GR. The 16 has CA at 1.4 and even some at 2.8, the GR doesn't. It is very close but I suspect the 16 is better glass but the smaller sensor of the G7 means it can't reach its potential in many areas where there is more detail but the image is less clear/fuzzier.

I will have to redo this soon when I can borrow a GX85 which is sharper than the G7. But the conclusion so far is that the 16 did a much better job against the GR than the PL 15mm. I feel like I made the right choice going for the bigger lens, but I may now have to upgrade the camera to the G85 to let the lens shine more.

eques said:

Provided:

it is under 500.-,

has IQ like the other 1,4 DN lenses,

has close focus down to about 30cm.

60mm would make more sense than the rumored 50mm.

For E-mount it would be 90mm FFE and there are no other 60mm lenses.

For m43 it would be 120mm and there is just the slow O 2,8/60mm macro lens; also the 6 (!) 42,5-45mm lenses are too close for a 50mm lens.

Peter

Click to expand...

It might be 56mm to make it close to the classic 85mm portait on the main market being APSC.

It would be very desirable if it was priced and similar in IQ to the 16 and 30 1.4.

But I have the very nice Oly 75 1.8 for head and shoulders as I like the extra working distance and I have the Oly 45 1.8 for full lengths as anything of longer FL makes working distance too great.

A 60mm for m43 can do both full length and portrait but it is a genre that I don't like a compromise for. If I need to work quickly then the 12-100 Pro gets the job done from one position but if I am going to bother with specialised portraits or full lengths then I must have the right FL.

It will be interesting to see but I reckon 56mm it will be.

From my perspective 112mm-e f1.4 is still good enough to justify owning. I'd rather the 120mm-e, but I'll loose 8mm-e for two stops of light gathering, especially if it is as sharp as the 30mm f1.4

mentos77 said:

I thought it is going to be an f1.4? And yes I will buy it as I cant wait to see how they will improve on my amazing Sigma 60mm f2.8. Already got the other two f1.4's and they are stunning.

I hope it's size is closer to the 30 1.4 though, although that probably won't happen as the current 60 is the biggest of the 3 f2.8's. If it is as big as the 16 that may be a problem. The 30 is great as a walk around lens, especially at night but the 16 is more specialist i.e. you need to have a think if it is worth the heft.

Click to expand...

If Sigma are trying to complete a 3-lens series like the Sigma 19, 30 and 60mm f2.8 - it should be F1.4.

However, f1.4 would be significant larger and more expensive, especially to have it sharp from f1.4. A sharp f1.6 or f1.8 wide open would be much easier and cheaper.

I'd be perfectly happy with f1.6 with similar properties to Sigma 30mm f1.4 - sharpness and smooth bokeh is more important than reducing aperture by f0.2-0.4.

Two reasons:
1) F1.6 is plenty bright for my work, f1.8 the same.
2) The depth of field on a hypothetical 60mm f1.6 would be very narrow.

DoF for an object 4m away:
- 19cm Dof = f1.4
- 21cm DoF = f1.6
- 37cm DoF = f2.8

If we compare vs the Olympus 75mm f1.8 with a head and shoulders portrait, a Sigma 60mm F1.4 would have significantly LESS DoF than Olympus 75mm:
- 6.4cm (75mm, f1.8, model is 267cm away)
- 5cm (60mm, f1.4, model is 213cm away)

Getting focus right at that point is pretty hard!

If you were looking at how much glass would go into an f1.4 vs narrow focal aperture, lens diameter for 60mm:
- f1.4 = 42.9mm
- f1.6 = 37.5mm (-12.5%)
- f1.8 = 33.3mm (-22.4%)
- f2.8 = 21.4mm (-50%)

That directly impacts weight and size and to a lesser extent cost. The amount of glass used decreases/increases non-linearly. (Circle area = π r2 and lenses are 3D so it's even greater).

^^ Entry level maths above, but an indicator I hope(!)

The 50mm 1.4 in the pipeline for MFT is interesting, I can't imagine they will also make a 60 1.6

cerich said:

The 50mm 1.4 in the pipeline for MFT is interesting, I can't imagine they will also make a 60 1.6

Click to expand...

I didn't see that rumor. I just read into it.

The focal length isn't entirely certain. Most thing it'll be 50mm. Others that it could be 55mm.

55mm would be far enough away from the 42.5 and 45mm to make it interesting. 50mm much less so.

I'd still jump on a 50mm f1.4 if it has much smoother bokeh than Oly 45mm f1.8 and Pana 42.5mm f1.7 while having equal or better sharpness than the Pana.

markus9 said:

cerich said:

The 50mm 1.4 in the pipeline for MFT is interesting, I can't imagine they will also make a 60 1.6

Click to expand...

I didn't see that rumor. I just read into it.

The focal length isn't entirely certain. Most thing it'll be 50mm. Others that it could be 55mm.

55mm would be far enough away from the 42.5 and 45mm to make it interesting. 50mm much less so.

I'd still jump on a 50mm f1.4 if it has much smoother bokeh than Oly 45mm f1.8 and Pana 42.5mm f1.7 while having equal or better sharpness than the Pana.

Click to expand...

Sigma ut out a chart showing the 16, 30 and another lens in their 1.4 roadmap, if the 3rd lens is on the scale in the correct place it is a 50, the other two were in the correct place and I don't think a Japanese engineer could force themselves to draw it in the wrong place..LOL

cerich said:

markus9 said:

cerich said:

The 50mm 1.4 in the pipeline for MFT is interesting, I can't imagine they will also make a 60 1.6

Click to expand...

I didn't see that rumor. I just read into it.

The focal length isn't entirely certain. Most thing it'll be 50mm. Others that it could be 55mm.

55mm would be far enough away from the 42.5 and 45mm to make it interesting. 50mm much less so.

I'd still jump on a 50mm f1.4 if it has much smoother bokeh than Oly 45mm f1.8 and Pana 42.5mm f1.7 while having equal or better sharpness than the Pana.

Click to expand...

Sigma ut out a chart showing the 16, 30 and another lens in their 1.4 roadmap, if the 3rd lens is on the scale in the correct place it is a 50, the other two were in the correct place and I don't think a Japanese engineer could force themselves to draw it in the wrong place..LOL

Click to expand...

It's a marketing team diagram - you never know!