It should clear from the context that I was talking about lenses produced by and sold with the Sigma brand name. Of which they have produced zero so far.
Yes, the M43 and Sony versions should be roughly the same weight, as the only difference is the mount/electronics.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Didn't realize... I extrapolated from another thread where someone used a telephoto lens {don't remember, l think it was APS-C} with a Viltrox focal reducer and wondered why there wasn't a dedicated MFT lens with those spec's and perhaps smaller size /weight. That may be the reason then...
Hey no worries, I'm not an optical engineer but this is how I understand it from reading a bunch of stuff from people smarter than me. From what I understand, the faster the lens the harder it is to correct for aberrations, so a larger and more complex design is generally needed. So the jump from 1.7 to 1.4, and then to 1.2, can be rather significant.
Are you saying that the name on the side of the lens matters more than who designed and manufactured it? This is honestly a pretty bizarre point of view. The reality is that Sigma manufactures at least two m43 only lenses that we know of and significantly more based on some hints from Roger at LR.
Lots of people would argue: Why would you spend almost $500 for the Sigma 56/1.4 when you can get the 42.5/45 f1.7/1.8 in the first place for between $250-350 (and much less used, of course)?
Generally Panasonic cameras correct for distortion in Panasonic lenses and Olympus cameras correct for distortion in Olympus lenses, but I don't know if they do the same for each others' lenses or third party lenses.
I'm dumbfounded as to how you're getting confused here. I can only assume you're being purposefully obtuse at this point.
Because the ratio of size/weight/speed and ability to blur the background vs price is very good for the 56/1.4. Sure, it's bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 1.7 and 1.8 lenses, but not disproportionally so. If you want more background blur than the 1.7 and 1.8, it provides it with the minimum size, weight and price.
Do you not understand that the first and third sentences above are contradictory?
The context of what you originally wrote was clearly aimed at lenses that were designed for m43 btw, not just branded as Sigma.
I agree that you never suggested they were incapable, but you definitely suggested that they have no interest in building m43 only lenses which is simply not true.
we should wait for samples shot on Olympus bodies , and not only for the colours, the ones from cameralabs were shot on APSC Sony A6000
Ah yeah, so let's have a look at that. The Sigma 50-100 with a speed booster would be roughly a 35-70/1.3. It would also weigh about 1600g or so.
More than anything expected at the moment from Panasonic or Olympus - I am not interested in the rumored monster 150-400 F4/F4,5. The PL 1,7/10-25 will be too heavy to carry around, I fear.
Designing or producing for an other company has non trivial differences.
I do not think that the background blur difference should be the deciding factor for choosing between these lenses. Price, size and ABOVE ALL the focal length difference should determine the choice
