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

007peter wrote:

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.

First off, while I agree that this lens is larger than it needs to be (because it is designed to cover and APS-C image circle), and I have no interest in the lens as I love my 25/1.4, I think what you're saying about the new 30/1.4 vs the old DSLR 30/1.4 is misleading.

I've owned the 30/1.4, the new lens will be both noticeably smaller and lighter. Take a look at the specs:

30/1.4 C (new sony/m43 mount): 64.8 x 73.3 mm, 265g

30/1.4 (DSLR): 74 x 63 mm, 435g

Looking at these numbers, yes, they appear similar. the M43 mount 30/1.4 C is actually longer by about 10mm! But wait, this is ignoring the fact that the old 30/1.4 is designed for a camera with a longer flange. Throw the old 30/1.4 on an M43 body and you'll have to add 20mm to the length due to the adapter (alternatively, put it on a DSLR and see for yourself the difference in length). When we account for the difference in flange/adapter, the old 34/1.4 is 74 x 83mm, meaning the new 30/1.4 is about 77% smaller.

Admittedly, that isn't a huge difference in size. However, if we look at weight it's a bigger difference, the new 30/1.4 weights only 60% of what the old one does. If we include the weight of the required adapter, the weight of the new lens is less than half.

Rusk wrote:

If you get 1/3 stop brightness difference to Olympus 25mm f/1.8, you don't benefit so much for low light operations. If you get 2/3 stop brightness difference, then it would still be little difficult to say it is worth as +5mm focal length and 2/3 f-stops is for better subject separation in portraiture!

Subject at 100cm distance

• 30mm f1/4 gives 4.58cm DOF
• 25mm f/1.8 gives 8.34cm DOF

Subject at 200cm distance

• 30mm f/1.4 gives 18.6cm DOF
• 25mm f/1.8 gives 34cm DOF

That DOF is for 25cm viewing distance of 8x10" 300DPI print. Change image size or PPI/DPI or viewing distance and DOF is different.

If I would want to have great portrait lens, that 30mm f/1.4 would be it, far better than even a Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 because price, weight and size. And likely this Sigma will be ART sharp.

(@200cm 7.92cm DOF and @100cm 1.94cm DOF for comparison)

That means the Sigma is very optimal for portraits as you get shoot wide open and you get eyes likely in focus. Olympus is best if wanted to get face/head in focus (100-200cm distance) and Leica is best if distance is over 250-400cm.

For price Sigma is hard to beat but it is 2x bigger than Olympus, 1/3 stop brightness difference and costs about 1/3-1/4 more than Olympus.

It's rather odd to compare the 30/1.4 to the Nocticron. The Olympus 45/1.8 and Panasonic 42.5/1.7 are both significantly smaller (around half or less the volume and weight), around the same price and produce roughly the same amount of background blur. However, the 4*mm lenses provide an angle of view that gives a more natural working distance for portraiture, moving the camera further from the subject for a given framing resulting in a flatter, generally more appealing perspective.

For me, 30mm is too narrow for a general purpose lens (I like my 25/1.4 very much for that, but even then I find it a bit too narrow sometimes, luckily I have the 12-35/2.8 and 7-14/4) and too short for a portrait lens (my Nocti is ideal there). I guess if you wanted one lens to sort of do both of those things, the 30/1.4 might be it, but given the options, I wouldn't personally select it for either. That's not to say that I don't think it will be a good lens, and certainly it won't be much bigger/heavier than both the 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 combined, and it will cost a good deal less.

SwedishPhoto wrote:

mrc4nl wrote:

JoostL wrote:

mrc4nl wrote:

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

1. Stop exaggerating, its not huge. Just a little bigger than the others.

2.Choice is great, if u don't want to buy the 30 f1.4 but something smaller, than don't complain.

3. The better the the lens the bigger they get, m43 has lots of compromise design lenses. That compromise iq or f stop . But there are few that are "no compromise" designs. I am glad sigma made this lens.

I don't own the PL25mm, but from all the reviews and user opnions I never got the impression it is a compromise design. Do you expect the Sigma to be that much better to justify it being "just a little bigger"?

The 25 f1.4 is a good performer, but its also one of the few 1.4 lenses, faster than most. I expect the 30 1.4 to be very sharp, even wide open. It should be. Otherwise it's a failure. Sigma also has a 30 1.4 for slrs but it's not great.

My point: m43 is nice and compact. I don't need the smallest lenses. I want great iq and am willing to invest in some bigger lenses to accomplish that. I have a Nikon 105 macro lens, it's not small but the output it solid. Like I said, I am not bothered by extra size and weight of the sigma. But it has to deliver, if it's not better then the leica than yeah, I don't understand why it's bigger.

Not that great? I've owned the Sigma 30 1.4 Art, and it was great.

Well i did own the sigma 18-35 f1.8, and that one is even better. yes its f0.3 slower, but just look it IQ wise: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=838&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

All I could think of while going through the 5 pages is: but the Sigma has a lens hood attached, while the other 2 doesn't...

Sorry for the image quality - was a quick one-handed snap with an Iphone. Couldnt take too long, as the camera was balanced delicately and could fall at any moment.

• In the middle is the new Sigma 30mm f1.4.
• Mounted on GM5 is the Oly 45mm 1.7.
• Left side is Sigma 30mm 28. 
• Right side is Sigma 60mm 2.8.

As you see, it's kind of a big'un. But lovely image quality, so its a tough call. I've been playing around with the Oly 45mm as a "walkabout" lens recently and this would be an interesting alternative. But hard to justify so close to the PL 25mm, which is smaller and produces beatiful image quality.

Unfortunately the end result is not to so clear cut:

http://www.lenstip.com/477.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_30_mm_f_1.4_DC_DN_Image_resolution.html

...and the vignetting is worse than you were thinking

http://www.lenstip.com/477.8-Lens_review-Sigma_C_30_mm_f_1.4_DC_DN_Vignetting.html

".....At the maximum relative aperture the brightness loss in frame corners amounts to 38% (−1.39 EV). That value can be hardly called low especially if you take into account the fact that the Sigma was designed to cooperate with APS-C/DX sensors. On the other hand it still remains by 11% lower than the vignetting of the Panaleica 1.4/25....."

marike6 wrote:

Big or not, and I don't happen to think any f/1.4 lens with a 52mm filter can be considered "huge", The Sigma 30 f/1.4 is the new resolution champ for m43.

From Lenstip:

"I hereby declare that the record resolution value doesn’t belong to the Voigtlander 0.95/25 anymore – our new champion is the Sigma with a result of 83.8 lpmm."

http://www.lenstip.com/477.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_30_mm_f_1.4_DC_DN_Image_resolution.html

".....Are there any reservations concerning the performance of the Sigma 1.4/30 DN? With such a high resolution by f/2.8 and f/4.0 you could expect a tad better results at the maximum relative aperture. They are not bad mind you, but it’s worth reminding here that the Panaleica 1.4/25, even if suffering a resounding defeat in the duel with the Sigma when it comes to the maximum resolution value (it managed just 75 mm), at the maximum relative aperture fares by 5 lpmm better..."

Tissie wrote:

Here's another perspective:

Compared at http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.htmlSigma 30mm F1.4 doesn't look that huge anymore.

What - only 50% longer than the 25mm and twice as big as the 45mm?  Even Sigma wouldn't protest this much if asked....