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

After 45 days with Sigma 30mm f1.4, I have only good words.

i used it at both my cameras. Mostly in EM10 mk2 because has much better IBIS and I can shoot nice pictures with 1" shooter speed.

it is very sharp. Not only when I shoot close to me but also far. Much sharper than Oly 12-40 f2.8 Pro. Also I like its colors.

Focus is fast. I didn't calculate the time but I don't feel any difference when I use my Oly lenses. So was one more big lie from some they have never used it before.

It came with updated software.

At day light scenes is better to shoot with -0.3 or - 0.7 EV  depends the sun or use vivid.

Perfect for portraits.

I carry all the day everywhere my EM10 mk2 in my small bag and I prefer sigma on it because I am sure for the results at any situation.

Yes it is big but no problem for any OMD.  Isn't the lens length the problem in my bag, but the cameras height. You fell that you have a real lens on your camera not plastic toys.

Ok EPL & F-Pen users can go at Oly or Panasonic lenses, but for OMD owners is must at this price.

There isn't connection between the cheap Panasonic 25mm f1.7 and Sigma.

I've owned this lens for a couple of weeks now and I love it. It has a lovely rendering quality, and the focal length is perfect for me as a people photographer - tight enough for portraits, wide enough for context.

Is it big? Not noticeably so on my EM1, and it's very light for its size. It's a bit more cumbersome on my GX7, but I'd rarely use it with that camera and it certainly dies not feel unbalanced. I understand those that prefer smaller lenses - I have the P20 and O45 and they are great - but for me it's about results, and the sigma delivers.

I can't compare it in use with the panaleica, or the other normal primes, but looking at the images created I can say that I'm very, very satisfied. On the negative side, chromatic aberration is problematic with backlighting wide open, but is removable in post.

I thought I'd add this here as there don't seem to be many user experiences for this lens on the micro four thirds platform, and that's surprising because it is a total bargain.

ionian21 wrote:  I understand those that prefer smaller lenses - I have the P20 and O45 and they are great - but for me it's about results, and the sigma delivers.

Curious.  After you bought your Sigma 30/1.4, do you still use Olympus 45/1.8.  Doesn't both lens seem rather redundant?  If you have to keep one, which would you keep?

Also, does Sigma 30/1.4 negatively affect your usage of 20/1.7?  or no effect @all?

007peter wrote:

ionian21 wrote: I understand those that prefer smaller lenses - I have the P20 and O45 and they are great - but for me it's about results, and the sigma delivers.

Curious. After you bought your Sigma 30/1.4, do you still use Olympus 45/1.8. Doesn't both lens seem rather redundant? If you have to keep one, which would you keep?

Also, does Sigma 30/1.4 negatively affect your usage of 20/1.7? or no effect @all?

I've only had the Sigma for a couple of weeks so it still has that "new" appeal - I haven't used the 45 since I got it, but that's not to say I want to get rid of it. I'd pack the 45 if I wanted a little portrait lens when travelling light.

I'm not the greatest fan of the 20mm - I find the focal length a little awkward, although the quality of the images are great - but it lives on my GX7 which is always with me, and it's tiny.

I guess I'm fortunate in that I can keep all three if I want to.  They would be used in different circumstances. However, if I was starting again or if I was limited in budget, I think the 30mm can replace both lenses, at least for the sort of photography that I enjoy.

ionian21 wrote:

007peter wrote:

ionian21 wrote: I understand those that prefer smaller lenses - I have the P20 and O45 and they are great - but for me it's about results, and the sigma delivers.

Curious. After you bought your Sigma 30/1.4, do you still use Olympus 45/1.8. Doesn't both lens seem rather redundant? If you have to keep one, which would you keep?

Also, does Sigma 30/1.4 negatively affect your usage of 20/1.7? or no effect @all?

I've only had the Sigma for a couple of weeks so it still has that "new" appeal - I haven't used the 45 since I got it, but that's not to say I want to get rid of it. I'd pack the 45 if I wanted a little portrait lens when travelling light.

I'm not the greatest fan of the 20mm - I find the focal length a little awkward, although the quality of the images are great - but it lives on my GX7 which is always with me, and it's tiny.

I guess I'm fortunate in that I can keep all three if I want to. They would be used in different circumstances. However, if I was starting again or if I was limited in budget, I think the 30mm can replace both lenses, at least for the sort of photography that I enjoy.

I also bought the Olympus 45/1.8 2 summers ago, but never used it. Very disappointed with it.

Maybe I should get the Sigma 1.4, but will I find it too large for my E-M10?

I appreciate your input.  Do you have any portrait photo between Sigma 30/1.4 vs Olympus 45/1.8?  I'm very curious to see their Focal Length + Bokeh Ball + Bokeh quality difference taking portraits.

007peter wrote:

ionian21 wrote: I understand those that prefer smaller lenses - I have the P20 and O45 and they are great - but for me it's about results, and the sigma delivers.

Curious. After you bought your Sigma 30/1.4, do you still use Olympus 45/1.8. Doesn't both lens seem rather redundant? If you have to keep one, which would you keep?

Also, does Sigma 30/1.4 negatively affect your usage of 20/1.7? or no effect @all?

In my similar situation, I use the 20 for landscapes and street, the 30 for indoor portraits, and the 45 for outdoor portraits. Sold my O25/1.8. I keep the 12-40 on the camera as a quick response lens in between times.

007peter wrote:

I appreciate your input. Do you have any portrait photo between Sigma 30/1.4 vs Olympus 45/1.8? I'm very curious to see their Focal Length + Bokeh Ball + Bokeh quality difference taking portraits.

I'm not one to do technical tests - I go more by feel than by which bokeh ball is the rounded if I'm honest - but both produce very smooth broken in my experience. At f1.4 and at close to the minimum focal distance, the background is completely obliterated. This is much better than on the 45,bexause the min focal distance is much shorter. At portrait length I'd suggest they are a wash.

If you have the 45 and you use it for portraits, you already have one of the finest lenses in the system for that job. The sigma offers more versatility but it may not be worth you changing.

addlightness wrote:

captura wrote:

ionian21 wrote:

007peter wrote:

ionian21 wrote: I understand those that prefer smaller lenses - I have the P20 and O45 and they are great - but for me it's about results, and the sigma delivers.

Curious. After you bought your Sigma 30/1.4, do you still use Olympus 45/1.8. Doesn't both lens seem rather redundant? If you have to keep one, which would you keep?

Also, does Sigma 30/1.4 negatively affect your usage of 20/1.7? or no effect @all?

I've only had the Sigma for a couple of weeks so it still has that "new" appeal - I haven't used the 45 since I got it, but that's not to say I want to get rid of it. I'd pack the 45 if I wanted a little portrait lens when travelling light.

I'm not the greatest fan of the 20mm - I find the focal length a little awkward, although the quality of the images are great - but it lives on my GX7 which is always with me, and it's tiny.

I guess I'm fortunate in that I can keep all three if I want to. They would be used in different circumstances. However, if I was starting again or if I was limited in budget, I think the 30mm can replace both lenses, at least for the sort of photography that I enjoy.

I also bought the Olympus 45/1.8 2 summers ago, but never used it. Very disappointed with it.

I'm curious why you're disappointed?

I too have a 45/1.8 but after a few shots with my EM10, it sat on the shelf until 2 months ago when I bought my PEN-F. Somehow, PEN-F pairs better(focal length-wise) with it than my 25/1.8 or 15/1.7. Weird ::TADTS::

Maybe I should get the Sigma 1.4, but will I find it too large for my E-M10?

My thoughts too.

A  fair question.  I believe it is defective....very un-sharp. I bought it new from a local store but it's too late to return it now.

ionian21 wrote:

I've owned this lens for a couple of weeks now and I love it. It has a lovely rendering quality, and the focal length is perfect for me as a people photographer - tight enough for portraits, wide enough for context.

Is it big? Not noticeably so on my EM1, and it's very light for its size. It's a bit more cumbersome on my GX7, but I'd rarely use it with that camera and it certainly dies not feel unbalanced. I understand those that prefer smaller lenses - I have the P20 and O45 and they are great - but for me it's about results, and the sigma delivers.

I can't compare it in use with the panaleica, or the other normal primes, but looking at the images created I can say that I'm very, very satisfied. On the negative side, chromatic aberration is problematic with backlighting wide open, but is removable in post.

I thought I'd add this here as there don't seem to be many user experiences for this lens on the micro four thirds platform, and that's surprising because it is a total bargain.

After comparison with 12-40 f2.8 pro (at 30mm from f2.8 and up), I tested it against Sigma 60mm f2.8 in portraits. Of course with Sigma 30 I shoot at the half distance. It was winner for one more time. Sharper than sigma 60 mm and less noise.

Sigma 30mm is the first lens that doesn't need to increase the clarity at eyes when shoot portraits. Some times I must reduce it 😊

It's a good lens. If you don't like its size don't buy it.

Upon scanning the reviews, comparing the Sigma 30mm F1.4 DN for M43 vs the same lens for Sony e-mount, I concluded that:

- The Sony version has much superior centre sharpness, and

- TheM43 version is superior in most other aspects.

My cameras are the 24mp Sony NEX-7 (which is STILL an excellent landscape camera)

and the Olympus OMD E-M10.

The Olympus offers 3-axis image stabilization, the Sony does not.

My quandary....which lens to get?

Sergey_Green wrote:

Kostaseg wrote:

ionian21 wrote:

I've owned this lens for a couple of weeks now and I love it. It has a lovely rendering quality, and the focal length is perfect for me as a people photographer - tight enough for portraits, wide enough for context.

Is it big? Not noticeably so on my EM1, and it's very light for its size. It's a bit more cumbersome on my GX7, but I'd rarely use it with that camera and it certainly dies not feel unbalanced. I understand those that prefer smaller lenses - I have the P20 and O45 and they are great - but for me it's about results, and the sigma delivers.

I can't compare it in use with the panaleica, or the other normal primes, but looking at the images created I can say that I'm very, very satisfied. On the negative side, chromatic aberration is problematic with backlighting wide open, but is removable in post.

I thought I'd add this here as there don't seem to be many user experiences for this lens on the micro four thirds platform, and that's surprising because it is a total bargain.

After comparison with 12-40 f2.8 pro (at 30mm from f2.8 and up), I tested it against Sigma 60mm f2.8 in portraits. Of course with Sigma 30 I shoot at the half distance. It was winner for one more time. Sharper than sigma 60 mm and less noise.

Sigma 30mm is the first lens that doesn't need to increase the clarity at eyes when shoot portraits. Some times I must reduce it 😊

You mean the detail is so good from Sigma, or?

Yes sigma 30mm f1.4 is sharper

Martian Flatcat wrote:

captura wrote:

Upon scanning the reviews, comparing the Sigma 30mm F1.4 DN for M43 vs the same lens for Sony e-mount, I concluded that:

- The Sony version has much superior centre sharpness, and

- TheM43 version is superior in most other aspects.

My cameras are the 24mp Sony NEX-7 (which is STILL an excellent landscape camera)

and the Olympus OMD E-M10.

The Olympus offers 3-axis image stabilization, the Sony does not.

My quandary....which lens to get?

Assuming "both" isn't the answer you're looking for.

I wouldn't describe 30mm as the goto focal length for landscapes. The equivalent 45mm on the Sony isn't bad though.

Probably the M43 version would be more useful for you. I find it a great lens for indoors.

Great quandary to have.

Thanks, but the issue for me is not which has the best focal length. (I have a number of 'other' lenses that cover these ranges. ) The M43 version is 60mm equivalent and the Sony APSC version is 45mm; both are useful for me on their respective cameras.

I am attracted by the high quality results of these lenses, and the bright f1.4 image. Come to think of it, the Sony version should offer very thin DOF (maybe smooth bokeh) opportunities.