Who would buy a 'Sigma' 12/2.8 Prime @ $399

Started Mar 28, 2013 | Discussions
MatsP
MatsP Senior Member • Posts: 2,318
Re: I would not

mh2000 wrote:

MatsP wrote:

I have the Sigma 19/2,8 and I'm not too impressed of that lens. It's nice sometimes to have 2,8 but it is not much sharper, if at all, than the 12-50 at 19 mm or the 9-18 at 18 mm, and as I have those two lenses I don't use the Sigma very much.

A Sigma 12/2,8 would be slower and bulkier than existing alternative primes, and maybe not much cheaper. And the 12-50 is not too bad at 12 mm and only 1/2 stop slower. Only if Sigma will make a remarkably better lens it would be interesting to me.

I have nothing against Sigma as a brand, they make excellent lenses for APS-C and FF and I have owned a couple of them, but I don't like their policy to only make half-decent cheap lenses for m4/3

Some people prefer a prime. It's not all about sharpness. Also, the 12-50 is a pretty large lens, even compared to the largish Sig 19, right?

The only "alternate prime" that isn't expensive is the Pan 14 and a Sigma wouldn't have to be all that great to be better than the 14.

The Sig 30 is really much better than "half-decent!" They could make a "good" 12.

I have no experience from the 30, it may be excellent. I'm sure Sigma could make a good 12 if they want, I know they have some very fine lenses, but I´m not interested in a 12/2,8, which was the question. I hope they will make some real good m4/3 zooms!

 MatsP's gear list:MatsP's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +3 more
KenBalbari Regular Member • Posts: 276
Re: I would not

marike6 wrote:

 The 19 2.8 even comes with a lens hood, unlike some other m43 lensmakers who I can think of.

The 30mm (newer version) also now comes with a hood.  They also both come with soft padded cases.  Hard to find fault here with build quality, packaging, or optics.  The autofocus speed is about as fast and quiet as the Olympus MSC 14-42 II.  And the size is just right, they look great on my E-PL2. The only place it seems they "skimped" was in making it f2.8 rather than f2.0 or faster.

 KenBalbari's gear list:KenBalbari's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2
mnhoj Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Sigma 11/4 for $199!

I'd probably pass.

The 14mm 2.5 does what I need in that length.

I do wish the upcoming 60mm was F2 though.

KenBalbari Regular Member • Posts: 276
Re: I would not

MatsP wrote:

I have no experience from the 30, it may be excellent. I'm sure Sigma could make a good 12 if they want, I know they have some very fine lenses, but I´m not interested in a 12/2,8, which was the question. I hope they will make some real good m4/3 zooms!

I'd like to see a "DN" version of their 17-70 f2.8-4.0.  It would be a little large, in size somewhere between the 12-50 m4/3 and 12-60 4/3 lenses.  I bet they could get the weight down around 400g with the updated version without HSM.  It's a decent lens for the price, and I think the 34-140 equivalent would actually be pretty useful.

 KenBalbari's gear list:KenBalbari's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2
Fredrik Glckner Veteran Member • Posts: 3,678
Re: Who would buy a 'Sigma' 12/2.8 Prime @ $399

I think there is room for a compact, cheap wide angle prime lens. I don't need f/2.8 for a lens like that, I was more thinking about something like 9mm f/4.5 at around $300. That would be a successful lens, I think.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/

MatsP
MatsP Senior Member • Posts: 2,318
Re: I would not

MatsP wrote:

I have no experience from the 30, it may be excellent. I'm sure Sigma could make a good 12 if they want, I know they have some very fine lenses, but I´m not interested in a 12/2,8, which was the question. I hope they will make some real good m4/3 zooms!

I'd like to see a "DN" version of their 17-70 f2.8-4.0.  It would be a little large, in size somewhere between the 12-50 m4/3 and 12-60 4/3 lenses.  I bet they could get the weight down around 400g with the updated version without HSM.  It's a decent lens for the price, and I think the 34-140 equivalent would actually be pretty useful.

Agree! I had that lens to my 40D. A very good lens. And the could make a m43 version of the 8-16 as well.

 MatsP's gear list:MatsP's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +3 more
KenBalbari Regular Member • Posts: 276
Re: Sigma 11/4 for $199!
1

mnhoj wrote:

I'd probably pass.

The 14mm 2.5 does what I need in that length.

I do wish the upcoming 60mm was F2 though.

Yes, the 14 2.5 is a very good option there already.  Still, there is a difference from 63 degree to 71 degree angle of view.  And MH is suggesting 11mm (76.4 degrees).  Maybe we can even push it to 79 degrees (10.5mm), quite a bit different from the 14mm, and make it f3.5 for under $300?

 KenBalbari's gear list:KenBalbari's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2
al_in_philly Regular Member • Posts: 478
Re: I'd prefer f1.4...

Future user wrote:

f2.8 would be too little difference from the f3.5 kit to me. I'd prefer a f1.4 and sharp wide open. Am I dreaming? There would be a great trinity: 12mm f1.4, 25mm f1.4, 45mm f1.8.

That lens sounds wonderful, but my mind is whirling as I try to imagine the complex lens elements and their shapes necessary to keep the image distortion down to a reasonable level.  Not that it's impossible, just really tricky, both in design as well as in manufacturing.  If it could be made, it'd have to be pretty pricey.

One thing that I keep having to wrap my head around is that there are different economic models used for m4/3 than for FF.  Somebody willing to pay a few thousand dollars for a FF Nikon or Canon might be willing to pay another $2K for a sharp 24mm f1.4, like the AF-S Nikkor 24mm F1.4G ED.  That's because either they are wealthy enough to afford the most expensive toys, or they make a living using their cameras and money spent means even more money earned.  m4/3, as good as it's become, still doesn't draw heavily from the especially well-healed nor professional photographers.  So while the medium is capable of even better optical quality lenses than exist, the consumer base which it draws from limits the economic viability of producing the lovely lenses which you and I might dream about.

But who knows--perhaps Olympus' much alluded to high and low end follow-ups to the OM-D might begin to create a stronger draw to professionals and affluent photo enthusiasts that would create a market base which demands higher quality optics, and would be willing to pay for it.

 al_in_philly's gear list:al_in_philly's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Leica Nocticron 42.5mm +1 more
exdeejjjaaaa
exdeejjjaaaa Veteran Member • Posts: 8,263
Re: no interest

Chez Wimpy wrote:

Chas J wrote:

How much interest is there ? ... Who would buy a 12mm f 2.8 prime from them rather than the Oly f 2.0 ? ... I know that I would.

Seeing as they would simply re purpose a NEX targeted UWA APS-C lens, we would be getting a rather oversized yet under-performing optic for the asking price.  The 14/2.5 is already cheap, small, and optically good, and can be stitched easily enough with two quick shots in vertical orientation.

14/2.5 is small, cheap and optically just average... so Sigma has a window for 12/2.8 for a prime shooter looking for something wider than P14/2.5 and cheaper than O12/2 provided that they can do better than P14/2.5 optically (even at expense of size vs P14/2.5).

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Phase One Capture One Pro +25 more
mh2000 Senior Member • Posts: 2,813
Re: Sigma 11/4 for $199!

mnhoj wrote:

I'd probably pass.

The 14mm 2.5 does what I need in that length.

I do wish the upcoming 60mm was F2 though.

There is a massive difference in FoV from an 11mm lens on m43 when compared to a 14mm lens... much more than from the 14 to the 17.

So I guess you are saying you don't need anything wider than a moderate wide angle lens... many would prefer getting much wider.

Elemental Photography Contributing Member • Posts: 960
Re: Who would buy a 'Sigma' 12/2.8 Prime @ $399

If the lens existed right now, I would take a serious look at it. As it is, I've just ordered an Olympus 12mm f/2.

-- hide signature --

A photograph is a creative interpretation of reality.

 Elemental Photography's gear list:Elemental Photography's gear list
Pentax Optio WG-2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic GH5 +9 more
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 578
Re: no interest

I would. I find the 14mm f2.5 to be not quite wide enough, I also have the 14-45 and the 35-100, I simply cannot afford the 12mm f2.0 as well. But something in the 10-12mm and f2.8 - f4 range and around $399.00 would be within my price range.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 578
Re: Sigma 11/4 for $199!

An 11mm f4 now we're talking.

marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Re: I would not

KenBalbari wrote:

marike6 wrote:

 The 19 2.8 even comes with a lens hood, unlike some other m43 lensmakers who I can think of.

The only place it seems they "skimped" was in making it f2.8 rather than f2.0 or faster.

They are f2.8 because they are APS-C lenses originally, for Sigma's DP1 and DP2 compact line. Had they been f2 lenses, they would have been larger and more expensive, so it wasn't that Sigma was "skimping" as I think the original DP camera had an f4 lens.  Sigma made the DP lens brighter which is why these two lenses are f2.8, not f4.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR +7 more
OP Chas J Contributing Member • Posts: 548
Sigma 12/2.8

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

Chez Wimpy wrote:

Chas J wrote:

How much interest is there ? ... Who would buy a 12mm f 2.8 prime from them rather than the Oly f 2.0 ? ... I know that I would.

Seeing as they would simply re purpose a NEX targeted UWA APS-C lens, we would be getting a rather oversized yet under-performing optic for the asking price.  The 14/2.5 is already cheap, small, and optically good, and can be stitched easily enough with two quick shots in vertical orientation.

14/2.5 is small, cheap and optically just average... so Sigma has a window for 12/2.8 for a prime shooter looking for something wider than P14/2.5 and cheaper than O12/2 provided that they can do better than P14/2.5 optically (even at expense of size vs P14/2.5).

I too have the 14/2.5 and I find it to be an excellent lense.   The reason that I posed the question is that I want to set up a three (3) lense prime outfit for myself.   I find that I am just not 'seeing' properly with zooms _ and I have many of them !

I currently have the 14/2.5, 17/2.8, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 primes.   I find 14 not quite wide enough and 45 not quite long enough.   17 (e.35mm) is my favorite length.

So for me, I think that I am going to end up with a 12mm (but I would rather not pay for an f2.0 that I do not need), a 17/1.7 (or stay with the 20/1.7) and the announced Sigma 60/2.8.   I do not agonise over perfect sharpness or small amounts of chromatic aberations etc ... I think that just having the right lense for the 'situation' (and the way you 'see') is more important ... also as a slight  aside to this discussion ... I am normally looking for more depth of field, not less ... especially with wide angles !.

Happy Shooting.    Chas.

 Chas J's gear list:Chas J's gear list
Nikon D610 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Nikon D810 Nikon D700 Canon PowerShot S95 +28 more
Thorgrem Contributing Member • Posts: 554
no

Chas J wrote:

I do not need a f2.0 lens neither do I want to pay for one.   Sigma are putting out some good primes at circa $199.   I would guess they go do a 12/2.8 for under $399.

How much interest is there ? ... Who would buy a 12mm f 2.8 prime from them rather than the Oly f 2.0 ? ... I know that I would.

Chas.

I don't have any interest in Sigma lenses if they don't make them specially for m4/3. The other Sigma lenses for m4/3 are APS-C lenses with a m4/3 mount. That makes them unnecessary big.

I have the m.Zuiko 12mm and its well worth the money. If I had to make the decision again and there would be a 12 mm Sigma, again I would buy the Zuiko.

 Thorgrem's gear list:Thorgrem's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Apple iPhone 6
KenBalbari Regular Member • Posts: 276
Re: no

Thorgrem wrote:

I don't have any interest in Sigma lenses if they don't make them specially for m4/3. The other Sigma lenses for m4/3 are APS-C lenses with a m4/3 mount. That makes them unnecessary big.

This really isn't true.  First off, the APS-C image circle is only 6.5mm larger.  Second, Sigma keeps costs down partly by not making these large enough to provide really good coverage for APS-C.  They are really only just big enough to perform well on m4/3.

I'm not sure how anyone can say a 5 ounce lens is too big.  They're no bigger than the 14-42 II.  The Panasonic 45 f/2.8 is 70% larger,  and the 25/1.4 is more than 3 times the size of these lenses (by weight or volume).

Other than pancake lenses, what is smaller?

 KenBalbari's gear list:KenBalbari's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2
Corkcampbell
Corkcampbell Forum Pro • Posts: 17,993
No; at that price I'd just get the Oly 2.0 instead. (nt)

no text

 Corkcampbell's gear list:Corkcampbell's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Sony RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Olympus E-M5 II +5 more
rssarma Veteran Member • Posts: 6,400
Even the Oly 12mm F/2 lens is useless...
1

At least in my opinion. I have the Pana 12-35mm lens and for the asking price of the Oly, I largely prefer the Pana lens as it's only a stop slower and offers zoom as well.

Neither lens does a great job when used wide open for night landscapes, with light sources, there's too much bloom. I know some folks may use it for niche portraiture, but not me.

The only other scenario where either lens would prove useful is to capture starlit skies, which means wide open long exposures at high ISO, for that purpose, both lenses would do well enough.

Bottomline, I wouldn't spend money on an ultra wide fast prime on mFT as of now as the Pana is just a stellar lens.

-- hide signature --
 rssarma's gear list:rssarma's gear list
Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D +5 more
Thorgrem Contributing Member • Posts: 554
Re: no

KenBalbari wrote:

I'm not sure how anyone can say a 5 ounce lens is too big.  They're no bigger than the 14-42 II.

That's a standard zoom....

The Panasonic 45 f/2.8 is 70% larger,

A Macro lens...

and the 25/1.4 is more than 3 times the size of these lenses (by weight or volume).

1.4....

Other than pancake lenses, what is smaller?

Does it matter? The current Sigma offerings are not really worth it for m4/3. I understand that NEX users are very happy with the lenses because the have little. For m4/3 I don't really see a point.

 Thorgrem's gear list:Thorgrem's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Apple iPhone 6
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads