Thinking of something narrower: Panasonic 42.5 F/1.7, Olympus 45mm F/1.8 or Sigma 30mm F/2.8

brentbrent wrote:

Ulfric M Douglas wrote:

I'm concerned that this thread is peppered with outright lies denigrating certain lenses by people who have obviously not used them,

Really? I looked back through the thread and didn't see anything of this nature. Perhaps you can quote some or all of the "outright lies" that you've spotted.

No?  Got nothing?  "Outright lies" is a pretty harsh accusation to make, especially if you can't back it up.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

captura wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Hithertoo wrote:

I put my camera at 30mm with the 14-42 and I like it, at 30mm it's a little more than a stop slower than the Sigma 30mm F/2.8 which is significant. I would be using it when I wanted a slightly tighter crop and for portraits. I think having some background in portraits is nicer than an 85mm or 90mm portrait which is basically only the person.

Unless you back up.

If the Sigma was just a bit faster I'd buy it tomorrow.

Yeah, f2.8 on APS is OK, but on MFT it seems a bit slow. Still, the price is right. The only alternative I can think of is Panasonic's new 30mm f2.8 macro, but that costs $360.

Even if its negative space the 60mm frame is nice.

That's 30mm, or 60mm equivalent. Argh, my brain hurts again.

I have the 19 and the 30. They are very sharp and fast.

In MFT land, f2.8 is fast for a zoom, but slow for a prime. Maybe by "fast" you were referring to AF?

Yes I was. In comparison to a previous poster who said his 20/1.7 was slow-focusing. Which is also true, from my own experience.

Harold66 wrote:

captura wrote:

dv312 wrote:

If money is no object the Lumix 42.5 is the easy choice

But if it is the best value is the 45mm

I wouldn't even bother with the Sigma

Cheers,

I have the 45 and it is excellent but my 30/2.8 is equally sharp, half the price. And they say the 60/2.8 is even better.

yes possibly but it really does not matter as much as which focal length is going to be more useful. In real life these focal lengths are very different and this should be the deciding factor

Harold

I own the 20/1.7 and the 45/1.8. The 30/2.8 should occupy a nice position in the middle of those FL's.

When I said that I own the 30/2.8, I left out the fact that mine is S. APSC, not wanting to complicate matters. So I don't actually have the M43 version, but am considering it.

A bit of history. The original in the series of Sigma f2.8 lenses were 19 & 30mm. They were designed with three different systems in mind, and sharing the same body. (but different mounts, obviously)  The 3 systems were Samsung NX, Sony APS-C and M43. The extra length in the bodies of these lenses was because of the slightly longer registry distance required for the Samsung NX system. But after the designs were finalized, Samsung brought out their own 30mm lens, a pancake, so the Sigma-NX was scrubbed. Leaving only the Sony and the M43 versions. A search of Roger Cicala's Imatests on Lensrentals will reveal that the M43 version of the Sigma f2.8 lenses is just as excellent as the one for Sony APS-C.

Thank you.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

captura wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

captura wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Hithertoo wrote:

I put my camera at 30mm with the 14-42 and I like it, at 30mm it's a little more than a stop slower than the Sigma 30mm F/2.8 which is significant. I would be using it when I wanted a slightly tighter crop and for portraits. I think having some background in portraits is nicer than an 85mm or 90mm portrait which is basically only the person.

Unless you back up.

If the Sigma was just a bit faster I'd buy it tomorrow.

Yeah, f2.8 on APS is OK, but on MFT it seems a bit slow. Still, the price is right. The only alternative I can think of is Panasonic's new 30mm f2.8 macro, but that costs $360.

Even if its negative space the 60mm frame is nice.

That's 30mm, or 60mm equivalent. Argh, my brain hurts again.

I have the 19 and the 30. They are very sharp and fast.

In MFT land, f2.8 is fast for a zoom, but slow for a prime. Maybe by "fast" you were referring to AF?

Yes I was. In comparison to a previous poster who said his 20/1.7 was slow-focusing. Which is also true, from my own experience.

Still faster than my old Canon 35mm f2 on a 1-series body. The 20mm is not as lightning fast as my other lenses, but it almost never slows me down.

Mine is the old version of the 20/1.7.  Maybe the new version is faster, (and more silent.)

Paul Boddie wrote:

Hithertoo wrote:

I'm thinking about getting a narrower prime, for closer crop photos. I have the Olympus 12mm F/2 and Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. 30mm is a little different to 20mm and will give me 60mm instead of 40mm, the other options are the 42.5mm and 45mm which are just about the same at around 85 to 90mm, or there abouts. The Sigma is the cheapest option.

I've discounted the Olympus 60mm and 75mm options as they're really too long for indoor use, I've tested it out with my 14-42 at 30mm and 40-150 at 45mm, I can't really decide. I've got a slightly obscure normal lens at 40mm so I could go with a 60mm or an 85mm or 90mm option. I really can't decide, the Sigma option is very cheap, and I like a slightly wider lens, but it just might not do it for me.

I considered the 30mm second version of the Sigma earlier in the year, but I wasn't impressed by the size or the handling, although the optical quality and focusing speed both seemed very good. If you haven't handled the Sigma, I'd recommend doing so. At the discounted price at that time, I decided not to purchase. I wasn't considering the 45mm at the time because I was more interested in wider lenses at that point, but it struck me how much more compact that lens is than any of the Sigma ones (19mm, 30mm, 60mm).

More recently, the 45mm was being discounted and I got tempted, mostly because I was becoming a bit more interested in getting better indoor portrait shots. I can only recommend it: it not only collects more light, but the sharpness is a step above the 14-42; I feel that not having a kit lens with this sharpness sells the system short, but I guess Olympus wants to make money from lenses, too.

For a while, the first version of the Sigma was on sale at a retailer in my region (presumably old stock that they'd discovered/acquired), which might have better ergonomics, but I would have to handle it before considering a purchase. I've mentioned before in some post or other that Sigma would be more competitive if their MFT lenses were smaller. (Apparently, making these for Sony users is very lucrative, however.)

As for whether 30mm or 45mm is right for you, I can only report that 45mm does seem a bit close for a lot of situations, and you might end up needing to back up for a shot. 30mm, then, might be more convenient as a general lens, although I personally wouldn't trade the 45mm for the 30mm for what I use it for. After trying the 30mm, I did think that I might end up holding out for the 25mm f/1.8, and would be considering the Panasonic 25mm recently released as an alternative now, but I'm happy with going the other way. Then again, I have spent a lot of time wandering around with the 40-150 and being mostly happy starting at 40mm.

I see the Sigma 30mm f2.8 ART version up for $ 199 new, from $150 used.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-f2-8-Lens-Micro/dp/B00BQXL6OY/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1442610584&sr=8-3-fkmr2&keywords=m43+sigma+30mm+f2.8+art

I see the Olympus 45mm f1.8 lens up for $349 new, $210 used.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=olympus+45+mm+lens+m43

You can almost get two of the Sigma lenses for the price of one Olympus 45.

Paul Boddie wrote:

captura wrote:

I see the Sigma 30mm f2.8 ART version up for $ 199 new, from $150 used.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-f2-8-Lens-Micro/dp/B00BQXL6OY/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1442610584&sr=8-3-fkmr2&keywords=m43+sigma+30mm+f2.8+art

I see the Olympus 45mm f1.8 lens up for $349 new, $210 used.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=olympus+45+mm+lens+m43

You can almost get two of the Sigma lenses for the price of one Olympus 45.

Good thing that I managed to get the Olympus 45mm new for less than the 30mm ART version, what with fortuitous pricing and the summer cashback! And had I gone for the 30mm when I looked at it, I would only have saved $20 versus that very lucky price.

Currently, the 30mm is probably 60-65% of the price of the 45mm where I live. So, it's often all about the timing with new lens purchases, as people have previously reported. I see that the 30mm EX version is now back on sale at around 60% of the ART version's price, presumably as the retailer concerned tries to shift that stock again. For those who like the way it feels, that could be a great bargain indeed.

You got a deal!

Caution with the 30mm EX version. Mine binds in the barrel so I cannot do manual focusing. I recommend getting the newer ART version for this reason.

Hithertoo wrote:

I'm thinking about getting a narrower prime, for closer crop photos. I have the Olympus 12mm F/2 and Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. 30mm is a little different to 20mm and will give me 60mm instead of 40mm, the other options are the 42.5mm and 45mm which are just about the same at around 85 to 90mm, or there abouts. The Sigma is the cheapest option.

I've discounted the Olympus 60mm and 75mm options as they're really too long for indoor use, I've tested it out with my 14-42 at 30mm and 40-150 at 45mm, I can't really decide. I've got a slightly obscure normal lens at 40mm so I could go with a 60mm or an 85mm or 90mm option. I really can't decide, the Sigma option is very cheap, and I like a slightly wider lens, but it just might not do it for me.

The Zuiko 45mm/f1,8 is great.  
If the 30mm is like their 60mm which I also have, the Sigma may rattle when camera is not powered on.
Also, their hoods all seem designed for (wider) APS coverage and so, are not as effective as they could be
.
Check first