Sigma 30mm F1.4 DN is Horribly HUGE :(

No text.

I pre ordered the Sigma but on opening up decided to return it - it is far bigger than the Panasonic Leica and heavier

it is far bigger than the Sigma 30mm f2.8 (which is to be expected)

as for compromised design the Pana Leica was designed from the outset for M43 and I have read a huge number of posts on forums where it is highly praised for its rendering and bokeh - which indicates that it is far from a compromised design ( any more than any similar product will be a compromise due to size and cost issues)

whereas the Sigma was designed with APSC in mind and has been adapted for use with M43 -

which of the two is compromised !

Isn't it great how mFT has spoiled us on small, quality optics😀.

Fredrik Glckner wrote:

dennis tennis wrote:

well, it is made for APS-C sensor. If it is too big for you, don't buy it.

I would guess that the main reason for its size is not that it is made for APS-C, but rather that it (probably) doesn't need any in-camera geometric distortion correction (like the other Sigma prime lenses).

The Lumix/Leica 25mm f/1.4 requires distortion correction in post processing, which is a design compromise that allows them to make it much smaller and cheaper:

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2013/10/lumix-leica-dg-summilux-25mm-f14-review_27.html (scroll down halfway)

Fredrik --

Hmmm. Not so much. Our friends at Zeiss are perfectly willing to throw elements, weight, and cost into the optical formula to remove optical flaws. Here's what Photozone has to say about one of their 25mm lenses:

"The Zeiss Distagon 25mm f/2.8 produces a moderate degree (~1.7%) of barrel distortion. This is about average for a prime lens in this class."

A much better suspect for size of this lens is the exit pupil required to hit a 28mm APSC sensor image circle vs 21mm needed for m4/3.  The engineers in my office claim that, all else equal, mass and cost of an optical system vary with the cube of the diameter of the physical aperture (largest lens element).

Fredrik Glckner wrote:

dennis tennis wrote:

well, it is made for APS-C sensor. If it is too big for you, don't buy it.

I would guess that the main reason for its size is not that it is made for APS-C, but rather that it (probably) doesn't need any in-camera geometric distortion correction (like the other Sigma prime lenses).

Agree, and that's what I said.

Glass optical quality factors aside, this should pretty much guarantee better results in the end.

The Lumix/Leica 25mm f/1.4 requires distortion correction in post processing, which is a design compromise that allows them to make it much smaller and cheaper:

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2013/10/lumix-leica-dg-summilux-25mm-f14-review_27.html (scroll down halfway)

LeitzKameraAktion wrote:

I have the original f2.8 version of the Sigma 30mm, and like it very much. I only wish it was a stop or two faster...

I have it too, and it is OK but the lens barrel binds when rotated. They corrected that with the newer 'ART' version.

So, the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 DN looked like the answer to my prayers. But you're right - it is 'horribly huge'; quite a bit bigger than the Pana/Leica and Oly 25mm lenses which I already own.

I didn't say that.

I was definitely considering buying one - but now I think I'll pass...

If, as I expect, the image quality turns out to be very much better, I will be buying one.

cerich wrote:

captura wrote:

If, as I expect, the image quality turns out to be very much better, I will be buying one.

me too...then have the 2.8 collect dust

You could sell that one.

But I might use my 2.8 version for times when it's smaller size is convenient. And take the 1.4 out for times when more accurate/ low light shooting is desired.

I had high hopes for this lens, too bad it's so big. If it's as good as the Sigma 50mm "Art" then it'd be fine. Since it's a "C" instead of an Art lens I kind of doubt that's the case.

Better than the PanLeica 25mm 1.4 (and the others), and it's cheap enough, I would consider it, otherwise it's too large to be of any use to me.

007peter wrote:

"Horribly Huge" is an exaggeration, but after being spoiled by M43 tiny prime (switch from canon), I have lost my appetite for "Normal Size" lens.

Here is a comparison of Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 vs Olympus 25mm f/1.8, vs Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DN

http://camerasize.com/compact/#621.411,621.352,621.548,ha,t

on Panasonic G7 body

To quote Trump, "It's gonna be Yuuuuuge."

Seriosly though, it's not that bad, and the hood skews the visual comparison.

This comparison is completely unfair and borderline useless: the Pana-Leica is missing its enormous and non-reversible hood.

If the Pana-Leica were wearing its hood, it'd be just about the same length and functional width--the hood basically doubles that lens's size. You'd know this if you had one or had ever seen one.

That the Pana-Leica hood can't be reversed for storage is pretty meaningful information for this sort of comparison. If you're using the hood, there's no compacting the rig in your bag. If you do reverse your hoods, it'd possible for the Sigma (hood reversed) to be shorter or smaller in your bag.

Anyone else remember similarly unfair comparisons when the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 came out? I do. Lots of pictures of m4/3 rigs wearing the Olympus without its hood vs. those with the Pana-Leica, hooded-up and huge. Sure, the Olympus is still a lot smaller even with its (reversible) hood deployed--but why not just post an honest, useful comparison rather than jerking around with misleading half-truths and emotional rhetoric?

Now watch: someone will chime in about not needing or never using her Pana-Leica hood, and the otherwise relentless lenshood police--who've shot themselves in the foot by declaring this comparison legit--will be mysteriously quiet . . . .

Ugh.

007peter wrote:

"Horribly Huge" is an exaggeration, but after being spoiled by M43 tiny prime (switch from canon), I have lost my appetite for "Normal Size" lens.

Here is a comparison of Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 vs Olympus 25mm f/1.8, vs Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DN

http://camerasize.com/compact/#621.411,621.352,621.548,ha,t

on Panasonic G7 body

No, it's a FAIR comparison. If you visually Cut Away the hood. Sigma is still almost 2x taller than Olympus 25mm F1.8.

Go ahead crying fauls & make all the excuses you want. You CANNOT TWIST THE REALITY THIS IS A BIG LENS.

I get it, you like the lens, and so DID I before I saw the comparison photo. You should take the Complain to CameraSize.com, for putting up a photo of a Sigma with a hood on.

Also, I am one of those people who shoot with it a hood. I never have any flare unless light it Shrining directly onto my lens, which I rarely do.

Nonetheless, you can visually removed the hood and the Sigma is still unnecessary big.

More importantly, the lens appear to be similar if not bigger than old Sigma 30/1.4 DC for the DSLR. This us rather disappointing to me.

It's not like my point is hard to understand. Three facts:

(1) The Pana Leica's hood doubles the lens's size. It can't be reversed.

(2) If you shoot both lenses with hoods, the Pana Leica + hood is just as big as the Sigma + hood.

(3) If you shoot both lenses with hoods, you can reverse the Sigma's hood in your bag and the rig is shorter. Again, you can't reverse the Pana-Leica's hood.

That's it. Three facts. The comparison photograph you posted hides them. Your response attempts to marginalize them.

When we talk about lens size, what else matters but deployed shooting and rig space in your bag? Your comparison doesn't address either. Ergo, it's useless. Or worse if it creates misleading impressions. I think it does.

Make all the emotional accusations you like, but what's really happening, here, is that you're just refusing to acknowledge a pretty useful fact (and, to your argument, an inconvenient truth) about the Pana-Leica.

You didn't make the picture? It sure isn't stopping you from making a crap argument based on it.

I don't really understand (or care) what your rhetorical agenda is, but the net result is that you're creating false impressions and advancing a lie.

And then there's this:

007peter wrote:

More importantly, the lens appear to be similar if not bigger than old Sigma 30/1.4 DC for the DSLR. This us rather disappointing to me.

Have you not compared the MTF data for these two lenses? The old Sigma 30/1.4 for DSLR doesn't do nearly as well. It's not even close.

It's not hugely bigger than the 25 - which is, admittedly, about as big as it should be on m4/3.

Apparently the smaller PL 45mm 2.8 hood also fits the 25mm 1.4.

F.