Anyone using Sigma primes with Panasonic PDAF?

[James Stirling]

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal.

The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I can't speak for the m43 versions as I don't have any which are made from polymer according to reviews

I have the newer Sony mount Sigma 24mm F/2 DG DN and the mechanical quality is excellent . Their APS adapted models are quite large and weighty for m43 , though AF third party lenses of good quality are thin on the ground for m43 certainly compared to Sony

Which reviews say these are plastic? I have four of them on my desk. All metal barrels! Out of curiosity I see that Lenstip concurs.

"The proper body, completely made of metal, starts with a ring which doesn’t move."

As I said in my reply, the DG DN are metal but the older "trinity" three that Interceptor is talking about for M43 are DC DN and plastic.

It is the older sigma lenses I am referring to The review sites and Sigma themselves state they are made from plastic

 

[Hexlord79]

Sorry but you got your information a bit wrong

While Olympus pro are made of plastic and feel like plastic the Sigma contemporary lenses are all metal with some additional plastic rings. In terms of build quality they do feel a superior product at the touch and they are not light considering the size.

With regards to IP1X it is a mild resistance to water that nobody even bothers testing against. Primes with small number of moving parts are not really a concern for weather sealing anyway. No resistance to dust so well not a great achievement

With regards of your confusion about f/1.8 I am referring to full frame lenses.

Other than Voigtlander manual focus nobody makes f/0.95 lenses so your olympus prime can easily be matched by a smaller f/1.8 full frame lens

in terms of size when it comes to lenses that are not telephoto MFT has lost the train a long time ago and with the Sony A7C and Nikon latest also the body size competition

The primary difference between a Sigma lens and other comparable more expensive MFT lenses is that Sigma has the same lens with a different mount for 4-6 systems and they can drive efficiency while the Olympus lens has only MFT as target market so they will cost more.

I can agree that in terms of focus Sigma are a bit slower than an OEM lens on the same OEM body but this is not a realy problem for lenses uses in landscape or potraits and not shooting sports

For the focus point you can recall the exact position with the GH7 regardless of who makes the lens so I don't see this as a major benefit in fact I never use it anyway

Again once you see things in perspective you realise what has a real edge and what not. besides I did not bring the point of the olymus 25mm this came from someone else and while I have never owned the lens (why would I?) there are multiple data source indicating the lens is actuall less sharp than the sigma which indeed have excellent out of focus area except the 30mm that suffers a little from spherical aberration something the 16 and 56 do not

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal. The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I live in a SoCal beach town. My 4 Oly F1.2 primes have been exposed to sand and salt water numerous times over the years. I rinse them off with distilled water if they get sea spray and pat dry with a shammy. I would not dream of using the Sigma's like this. They have no pretense of WR.

I am not confused about F1.8 lens in FF (or M43). I have several!

No interest in Voigtlander outside of some M-mount lenses for my M6, M9 and M11. Even with modern focus aids it is too hard to nail focus with moving subjects unless I stop down and shoot a bunch.

For events I want autofocus. The F1.2 primes on the OM1 will focus faster and more accurately than my F1.8 primes in RF, L-mount or E-mount.

In terms of size, I would love to have FF kit smaller than my M43 kit but it's not even close. My FF gear is much larger. My typical base setups for events:

• R5 + 28-70/2 + 70-200/2.8 + 15-35/2.8 + 50/1.2 + 85/1.2
• A1 + 12-24/2.8 + 24-70/2.8 II + 70-200/2.8 II + 50/1.2 + 85/1.4
• OM1 + 7-14/2.8 or 10-25/1.7 + 40-150/2.8 + 25/1.2 + 45/1.2

Yes the Sigma DC DN have been ported to nearly every system over the years. They are good budget lenses and I do like the way the 56/1.4 renders portraits.

For event photography and PJ, subjects are in motion. I am jostled about at times. Fast, reliable AF is crucial. For sports/action photography OEM lenses are a must in my opinion. I have the same issues with Tamron and Sigma lenses on my A1. They simply don't keep up like the GM's.

Perspective? I have the perspective of owning and using the lenses under discussion. In my experience, over many years of paid and personal use, the Oly 25/1.2 is the best of the bunch. I also have the PL 25/1.4, OM20.1,4 and the Olympus 25/1.8. I can't say I was impressed with the Sigma 30. I felt the lens was unremarkable and eventually sold all my copies. I'm glad it works for you, that's really all that matters.

I think the OP is quite mistaken over the build of the f1.2 pro lenses... they definitely feel metal to me.

For context I have owned at some point all 3 of the contemporary Sigma f1.4 lenses and yes they all feel plasticky even the 16mm one.

 

[Rafael Rivera]

The t-stop for the Oly 25mm f/1.2 is 1.8.

https://www.dxomark.com/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-25mm-f-1-2-pro-lens-review-solid-choice/

Likely due to light loss from the complexity of the optical design/multiple lens elements.

From a light transmittance perspective, it has the same exact value as the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4- a much smaller, lighter, cheaper lens.

But as Jim alluded to, different strokes, different folks. The value proposition differs from person to person.

 

[Hexlord79]

The t-stop for the Oly 25mm f/1.2 is 1.8.

https://www.dxomark.com/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-25mm-f-1-2-pro-lens-review-solid-choice/

Likely due to light loss from the complexity of the optical design/multiple lens elements.

From a light transmittance perspective, it has the same exact value as the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4- a much smaller, lighter, cheaper lens.

But as Jim alluded to, different strokes, different folks. The value proposition differs from person to person.

Yes I am well aware of that, but the rendering is great. So not an issue.

 

[MEDISN]

The t-stop for the Oly 25mm f/1.2 is 1.8.

https://www.dxomark.com/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-25mm-f-1-2-pro-lens-review-solid-choice/

Except when it isn't! Sometimes it is 1.6 or 1.7 according to DxO. Sometimes the Canon EF 85/1.2 has a "transmission score" of 1.6, sometimes 1.8. Does the lens change? What gives?

DxO is not actually measuring the T#. If you are interested, we took the time to measure the T# of the Oly 25/1.2 here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4305815

Likely due to light loss from the complexity of the optical design/multiple lens elements.

Apparently modern glass has very high transmission (Brandon's assertion, not mine).

From a light transmittance perspective, it has the same exact value as the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4- a much smaller, lighter, cheaper lens.

Are you certain? When I mounted the PL 25/1.4 on the GH5 and metered a scene, the shutter speed was 1/2 stop slower than when I mounted the Oly 25/1.2 aimed at the same scene. When I compared images taken at the same shutter speed, wide open, the Oly shows less noise overall (more noticeable in the outer half of the frame). More light is getting through.

But as Jim alluded to, different strokes, different folks. The value proposition differs from person to person.

100% true for any lens in any system. That's why there are so many choices.

 

[MEDISN]

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal.

The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I can't speak for the m43 versions as I don't have any which are made from polymer according to reviews

I have the newer Sony mount Sigma 24mm F/2 DG DN and the mechanical quality is excellent . Their APS adapted models are quite large and weighty for m43 , though AF third party lenses of good quality are thin on the ground for m43 certainly compared to Sony

Which reviews say these are plastic? I have four of them on my desk. All metal barrels! Out of curiosity I see that Lenstip concurs.

"The proper body, completely made of metal, starts with a ring which doesn’t move."

As I said in my reply, the DG DN are metal but the older "trinity" three that Interceptor is talking about for M43 are DC DN and plastic.

It is the older sigma lenses I am referring to The review sites and Sigma themselves state they are made from plastic

I am with you! I thought this was common knowledge, that's why I am confused. Interceptor is saying the opposite.

Here he says he purchased the Sigma "trinity" for M43 - the 16mm, the 30mm and the 56mm. Link

A few posts later he says:

"While Olympus pro are made of plastic and feel like plastic the Sigma contemporary lenses are all metal with some additional plastic rings. In terms of build quality they do feel a superior product at the touch and they are not light considering the size." Link

That's when I said: "Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal."

He has the DC DN...which are plastic. What am I missing? Unless Sigma updated these lenses somewhere along the way, I don't see how he has "all metal" DC DN primes for M43. Furthermore, the Oly PRO primes are not made of plastic and do not feel like plastic so no idea where this is coming from. The whole statement is strange really.

 

[Interceptor121]

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal.

The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I can't speak for the m43 versions as I don't have any which are made from polymer according to reviews

I have the newer Sony mount Sigma 24mm F/2 DG DN and the mechanical quality is excellent . Their APS adapted models are quite large and weighty for m43 , though AF third party lenses of good quality are thin on the ground for m43 certainly compared to Sony

Which reviews say these are plastic? I have four of them on my desk. All metal barrels! Out of curiosity I see that Lenstip concurs.

"The proper body, completely made of metal, starts with a ring which doesn’t move."

As I said in my reply, the DG DN are metal but the older "trinity" three that Interceptor is talking about for M43 are DC DN and plastic.

It is the older sigma lenses I am referring to The review sites and Sigma themselves state they are made from plastic

The lenses I have are metal on the outer and have always been that way I am not aware of any sigma lens with externals made of plastic.

This is an ancient lenstip review

The proper casing of the Sigma starts with a small ring made of plastics on which there is a white dot making an alignment with a camera easier. Then you see the name and the parameters of the lens, the Micro 4/3 system logo and the serial number.

(this part is the joint to the mount part which changes by system)

Next ring, also immobile, is already made of metal; it features a “C” letter meaning the lens is classified as a “Contemporary” series device, the autofocus working range (0.3M/0.98FEET–∞), the year of production (016) and information that the lens was made in Japan.

The outpart of the Olympus lens is also very similar in construction however several people that have disassembled it know inside they are plastic as the sigma ones. And no they dont feel more premium.

There is nothing cheap about Sigma lenses. In fact I do not recall having had any sigma lens made of plastic including the new f/2 series comtemporary

Som extract from sigma website

TSC used for a more compact structure and enhanced performance

Since new material TSC (Thermally Stable Composite) is highly elastic, it exhibits minimal deformation. Parts made of TSC are therefore less prone to develop gaps between each other over time. The SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary features a lens barrel and aperture parts made of TSC, which contribute both to the compactness of the lens and the smooth functioning of the aperture system. TSC helps increase the precision of cells holding lens elements and parts related to the focus lens group, further enhancing lens performance.

The contemporary 16 30 and 56 are solid constructions on par or better than other products and they feel that way

In some cases there are some aberrations that are not corrected properly (30mm) but those lens do not feel any cheaper than my GM master lens that are 10x the price

 

[MEDISN]

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal.

The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I can't speak for the m43 versions as I don't have any which are made from polymer according to reviews

I have the newer Sony mount Sigma 24mm F/2 DG DN and the mechanical quality is excellent . Their APS adapted models are quite large and weighty for m43 , though AF third party lenses of good quality are thin on the ground for m43 certainly compared to Sony

Which reviews say these are plastic? I have four of them on my desk. All metal barrels! Out of curiosity I see that Lenstip concurs.

"The proper body, completely made of metal, starts with a ring which doesn’t move."

As I said in my reply, the DG DN are metal but the older "trinity" three that Interceptor is talking about for M43 are DC DN and plastic.

It is the older sigma lenses I am referring to The review sites and Sigma themselves state they are made from plastic

The lenses I have are metal on the outer and have always been that way I am not aware of any sigma lens with externals made of plastic.

The DC DN lenses are plastic. Even your quote from Sigma below confirms this.

This is an ancient lenstip review

The proper casing of the Sigma starts with a small ring made of plastics on which there is a white dot making an alignment with a camera easier. Then you see the name and the parameters of the lens, the Micro 4/3 system logo and the serial number.

(this part is the joint to the mount part which changes by system)

Next ring, also immobile, is already made of metal; it features a “C” letter meaning the lens is classified as a “Contemporary” series device, the autofocus working range (0.3M/0.98FEET–∞), the year of production (016) and information that the lens was made in Japan.

Yes the barrel is plastic. There is one metal decorative ring.

The outpart of the Olympus lens is also very similar in construction however several people that have disassembled it know inside they are plastic as the sigma ones. And no they dont feel more premium.

The barrel of the Olympus is metal. Yes they feel more premium. I am holding both at the moment.

There is nothing cheap about Sigma lenses. In fact I do not recall having had any sigma lens made of plastic including the new f/2 series comtemporary

Som extract from sigma website

TSC used for a more compact structure and enhanced performance

Since new material TSC (Thermally Stable Composite) is highly elastic, it exhibits minimal deformation. Parts made of TSC are therefore less prone to develop gaps between each other over time. The SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary features a lens barrel and aperture parts made of TSC, which contribute both to the compactness of the lens and the smooth functioning of the aperture system. TSC helps increase the precision of cells holding lens elements and parts related to the focus lens group, further enhancing lens performance.

Yes plastic as was confirmed by Sigma. They switched to metal barrel for DG DN line, none of which are available for M43.

The contemporary 16 30 and 56 are solid constructions on par or better than other products and they feel that way

In some cases there are some aberrations that are not corrected properly (30mm) but those lens do not feel any cheaper than my GM master lens that are 10x the price

That's just funny. The DC DN primes feel nothing like G Master primes.

 

[Interceptor121]

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal.

The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I can't speak for the m43 versions as I don't have any which are made from polymer according to reviews

I have the newer Sony mount Sigma 24mm F/2 DG DN and the mechanical quality is excellent . Their APS adapted models are quite large and weighty for m43 , though AF third party lenses of good quality are thin on the ground for m43 certainly compared to Sony

Which reviews say these are plastic? I have four of them on my desk. All metal barrels! Out of curiosity I see that Lenstip concurs.

"The proper body, completely made of metal, starts with a ring which doesn’t move."

As I said in my reply, the DG DN are metal but the older "trinity" three that Interceptor is talking about for M43 are DC DN and plastic.

It is the older sigma lenses I am referring to The review sites and Sigma themselves state they are made from plastic

The lenses I have are metal on the outer and have always been that way I am not aware of any sigma lens with externals made of plastic.

The DC DN lenses are plastic. Even your quote from Sigma below confirms this.

This is an ancient lenstip review

The proper casing of the Sigma starts with a small ring made of plastics on which there is a white dot making an alignment with a camera easier. Then you see the name and the parameters of the lens, the Micro 4/3 system logo and the serial number.

(this part is the joint to the mount part which changes by system)

Next ring, also immobile, is already made of metal; it features a “C” letter meaning the lens is classified as a “Contemporary” series device, the autofocus working range (0.3M/0.98FEET–∞), the year of production (016) and information that the lens was made in Japan.

Yes the barrel is plastic. There is one metal decorative ring.

The outpart of the Olympus lens is also very similar in construction however several people that have disassembled it know inside they are plastic as the sigma ones. And no they dont feel more premium.

The barrel of the Olympus is metal. Yes they feel more premium. I am holding both at the moment.

There is nothing cheap about Sigma lenses. In fact I do not recall having had any sigma lens made of plastic including the new f/2 series comtemporary

Som extract from sigma website

TSC used for a more compact structure and enhanced performance

Since new material TSC (Thermally Stable Composite) is highly elastic, it exhibits minimal deformation. Parts made of TSC are therefore less prone to develop gaps between each other over time. The SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary features a lens barrel and aperture parts made of TSC, which contribute both to the compactness of the lens and the smooth functioning of the aperture system. TSC helps increase the precision of cells holding lens elements and parts related to the focus lens group, further enhancing lens performance.

Yes plastic as was confirmed by Sigma. They switched to metal barrel for DG DN line, none of which are available for M43.

The contemporary 16 30 and 56 are solid constructions on par or better than other products and they feel that way

In some cases there are some aberrations that are not corrected properly (30mm) but those lens do not feel any cheaper than my GM master lens that are 10x the price

That's just funny. The DC DN primes feel nothing like G Master primes.

The GM master are not all metal while the sigma DC exterior is metal not plastic

and they never were whats plastic is the inside exactly as the olympus

Ultimately who cares? As i said I got 3 lenses for the price of one Olympus and while the 17 and 45 are great optics the 25 isnt and besides dont care about that either as a f/1.8 or f/2 full frame prime lenses eats that foe breakfast and costs less

 

[Interceptor121]

snipped for brevity :

Again once you see things in perspective you realise what has a real edge and what not. besides I did not bring the point of the olymus 25mm this came from someone else and while I have never owned the lens (why would I?) there are multiple data source indicating the lens is actuall less sharp than the sigma which indeed have excellent out of focus area except the 30mm that suffers a little from spherical aberration something the 16 and 56 do not

As a dual system user the F/1.2 m43 primes hold zero appeal for me and there are no shortage of excellent FF options that are often smaller lighter and other than Leica always cheaper

However if you are only using m43 or just want to expand the shooting window of a system you enjoy using then they do just that. And don't forget the feathers

 

[MEDISN]

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal.

The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I can't speak for the m43 versions as I don't have any which are made from polymer according to reviews

I have the newer Sony mount Sigma 24mm F/2 DG DN and the mechanical quality is excellent . Their APS adapted models are quite large and weighty for m43 , though AF third party lenses of good quality are thin on the ground for m43 certainly compared to Sony

Which reviews say these are plastic? I have four of them on my desk. All metal barrels! Out of curiosity I see that Lenstip concurs.

"The proper body, completely made of metal, starts with a ring which doesn’t move."

As I said in my reply, the DG DN are metal but the older "trinity" three that Interceptor is talking about for M43 are DC DN and plastic.

It is the older sigma lenses I am referring to The review sites and Sigma themselves state they are made from plastic

The lenses I have are metal on the outer and have always been that way I am not aware of any sigma lens with externals made of plastic.

The DC DN lenses are plastic. Even your quote from Sigma below confirms this.

This is an ancient lenstip review

The proper casing of the Sigma starts with a small ring made of plastics on which there is a white dot making an alignment with a camera easier. Then you see the name and the parameters of the lens, the Micro 4/3 system logo and the serial number.

(this part is the joint to the mount part which changes by system)

Next ring, also immobile, is already made of metal; it features a “C” letter meaning the lens is classified as a “Contemporary” series device, the autofocus working range (0.3M/0.98FEET–∞), the year of production (016) and information that the lens was made in Japan.

Yes the barrel is plastic. There is one metal decorative ring.

The outpart of the Olympus lens is also very similar in construction however several people that have disassembled it know inside they are plastic as the sigma ones. And no they dont feel more premium.

The barrel of the Olympus is metal. Yes they feel more premium. I am holding both at the moment.

There is nothing cheap about Sigma lenses. In fact I do not recall having had any sigma lens made of plastic including the new f/2 series comtemporary

Som extract from sigma website

TSC used for a more compact structure and enhanced performance

Since new material TSC (Thermally Stable Composite) is highly elastic, it exhibits minimal deformation. Parts made of TSC are therefore less prone to develop gaps between each other over time. The SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary features a lens barrel and aperture parts made of TSC, which contribute both to the compactness of the lens and the smooth functioning of the aperture system. TSC helps increase the precision of cells holding lens elements and parts related to the focus lens group, further enhancing lens performance.

Yes plastic as was confirmed by Sigma. They switched to metal barrel for DG DN line, none of which are available for M43.

The contemporary 16 30 and 56 are solid constructions on par or better than other products and they feel that way

In some cases there are some aberrations that are not corrected properly (30mm) but those lens do not feel any cheaper than my GM master lens that are 10x the price

That's just funny. The DC DN primes feel nothing like G Master primes.

The GM master are not all metal while the sigma DC exterior is metal not plastic

The DC DN barrel is plastic as confirmed by Sigma. You said yours are metal. Only DG DN are metal which don't exist in M43.

and they never were whats plastic is the inside exactly as the olympus

You said the Olympus "are made of plastic and feel like plastic ". How are you feeling the inside of a lens you don't even have?

Ultimately who cares?

People who believe the truth. It was an outlandish statement not based in reality.

As i said I got 3 lenses for the price of one Olympus and while the 17 and 45 are great optics the 25 isnt and besides dont care about that either as a f/1.8 or f/2 full frame prime lenses eats that foe breakfast and costs less

They are cheap for sure! As I said the Sigma are budget lenses and suitable for some purposes. I have owned them all (in several mounts even). I also own and use the Oly PRO primes so I have years of experience comparing them. My FF F1.8 and F2 primes do not eat anything for breakfast I'm afraid. F1.2 lenses in any format excel at low light where reliable AF is necessary. F2.5 or even F1.8 are slower to find and track subjects. That means more hunting with less accuracy. My F2 primes certainly didn't cost less than my M43 F1.2 primes. 5X more in fact.

 

[Frontier Photo]

Got the Sigma trinity very pleased with the 16mm and 56mm

The 30mm is a lens all review rave about however it is my least favourite of the 3

I replaced the 30mm with the Oly 25m f1.2

Quite satisfied with the results so far.

I got the 17m f1.2 recently and now hoping Santa brings me the 25m f1.2. I've been a good boy, really!

 

[Frontier Photo]

Got the Sigma trinity very pleased with the 16mm and 56mm

The 30mm is a lens all review rave about however it is my least favourite of the 3

I replaced the 30mm with the Oly 25m f1.2

Quite satisfied with the results so far.

That lens costs as much as all the sigma primes and is bulky

i didn’t want to spend that money in case I would have got PL 15 and 25 instead of sigma 16/30 but again not wanting to invest as much

No worries about it. Use whatever you can afford.

The Oly is not that bulky, fits into my backpack nicely along with the other lenses.

Affordable is not my issue if you look at my gear list

the Olympus 25/1.2 is the worst of their three primes i have never owned it as I dont like the form factor but it comes behind the sigma 30mm in all tests anlens that is 30% the cost

Have you actually tried it? You might be surprised. I have two copies of the 25/1.2. It is the best 25 in the system in my opinion.

I also have the PL 25/1.4, the Olympus 25/1.8. I have owned the Sigma 30 in the past and I can't say I was impressed with my copy. I liked it better in E-mount and L-mount where it provides ~45mm FoV. However, I felt the lens was unremarkable and eventually sold all my copies.

On M43, the FoV (60mm) is an awkward focal length in my opinion. The Sigma does sharpen up nicely at F2.8-4 in the center but wide open rendering I prefer the Olympus. The lack of weather sealing and slower AF were big factors in selling it. I would rank both the 25/1.2 and the PL 25/1.4 ahead of it in terms of rendering.

the 17/1.2 is a nice lens I owned it but I was always reaching out to the PL15 when i had both

I like both of those lenses but use them differently. The 17 is my go to for video event work in low light and the PL15 is my travel buddy.

the 45/1.2 is a great lens and so is the nocticron but again the sigma 56mm is great and costs less than half is a lens that I had and bought again and got more use of the nocticron

The 56 is my favorite of the Sigma three and the only one I still keep a copy of.

It is a nice portrait lens but the AF hunts too much for indoor sports. I wish they would make it a little more rugged and add WR to it. I doubt Sigma will bother though. It is a budget lens they port across all their supported mounts.

if I wanted as shooting mft only the three primes i would get are pl15 pl25 and sigma 56 all small witha a punch and not over priced

I prefer value over price approach. If I spend 2X as much but use it 10X as much then that is more value. The F1.2 primes offer the widest shooting envelope in the system in a relatively small, inexpensive package. They are rugged and have held up very well to use in harsh environments. I can't use the PL15 etc like I use the F1.2 primes. I use them for other things because they are good enough for that work but if I had to choose, I get more value out of the F1.2 primes. I like my FF F1.2 primes as well.

I have the OM 20 F1.4 - a great compliment to the OM-5. I recently picked up the 17 pro as I want something a little wider. I love it and now hoping for the 25 pro next. Your photos above illustrate why. I love the way these draw. Do you have more examples (people and misc)?

 

[Interceptor121]

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal.

The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I can't speak for the m43 versions as I don't have any which are made from polymer according to reviews

I have the newer Sony mount Sigma 24mm F/2 DG DN and the mechanical quality is excellent . Their APS adapted models are quite large and weighty for m43 , though AF third party lenses of good quality are thin on the ground for m43 certainly compared to Sony

Which reviews say these are plastic? I have four of them on my desk. All metal barrels! Out of curiosity I see that Lenstip concurs.

"The proper body, completely made of metal, starts with a ring which doesn’t move."

As I said in my reply, the DG DN are metal but the older "trinity" three that Interceptor is talking about for M43 are DC DN and plastic.

It is the older sigma lenses I am referring to The review sites and Sigma themselves state they are made from plastic

The lenses I have are metal on the outer and have always been that way I am not aware of any sigma lens with externals made of plastic.

The DC DN lenses are plastic. Even your quote from Sigma below confirms this.

This is an ancient lenstip review

The proper casing of the Sigma starts with a small ring made of plastics on which there is a white dot making an alignment with a camera easier. Then you see the name and the parameters of the lens, the Micro 4/3 system logo and the serial number.

(this part is the joint to the mount part which changes by system)

Next ring, also immobile, is already made of metal; it features a “C” letter meaning the lens is classified as a “Contemporary” series device, the autofocus working range (0.3M/0.98FEET–∞), the year of production (016) and information that the lens was made in Japan.

Yes the barrel is plastic. There is one metal decorative ring.

The outpart of the Olympus lens is also very similar in construction however several people that have disassembled it know inside they are plastic as the sigma ones. And no they dont feel more premium.

The barrel of the Olympus is metal. Yes they feel more premium. I am holding both at the moment.

There is nothing cheap about Sigma lenses. In fact I do not recall having had any sigma lens made of plastic including the new f/2 series comtemporary

Som extract from sigma website

TSC used for a more compact structure and enhanced performance

Since new material TSC (Thermally Stable Composite) is highly elastic, it exhibits minimal deformation. Parts made of TSC are therefore less prone to develop gaps between each other over time. The SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary features a lens barrel and aperture parts made of TSC, which contribute both to the compactness of the lens and the smooth functioning of the aperture system. TSC helps increase the precision of cells holding lens elements and parts related to the focus lens group, further enhancing lens performance.

Yes plastic as was confirmed by Sigma. They switched to metal barrel for DG DN line, none of which are available for M43.

The contemporary 16 30 and 56 are solid constructions on par or better than other products and they feel that way

In some cases there are some aberrations that are not corrected properly (30mm) but those lens do not feel any cheaper than my GM master lens that are 10x the price

That's just funny. The DC DN primes feel nothing like G Master primes.

The GM master are not all metal while the sigma DC exterior is metal not plastic

The DC DN barrel is plastic as confirmed by Sigma. You said yours are metal. Only DG DN are metal which don't exist in M43.

and they never were whats plastic is the inside exactly as the olympus

You said the Olympus "are made of plastic and feel like plastic ". How are you feeling the inside of a lens you don't even have?

Ultimately who cares?

People who believe the truth. It was an outlandish statement not based in reality.

As i said I got 3 lenses for the price of one Olympus and while the 17 and 45 are great optics the 25 isnt and besides dont care about that either as a f/1.8 or f/2 full frame prime lenses eats that foe breakfast and costs less

They are cheap for sure! As I said the Sigma are budget lenses and suitable for some purposes. I have owned them all (in several mounts even). I also own and use the Oly PRO primes so I have years of experience comparing them. My FF F1.8 and F2 primes do not eat anything for breakfast I'm afraid. F1.2 lenses in any format excel at low light where reliable AF is necessary. F2.5 or even F1.8 are slower to find and track subjects. That means more hunting with less accuracy. My F2 primes certainly didn't cost less than my M43 F1.2 primes. 5X more in fact.

The 30mm is sharper than your Olympus live with it

Besides who cares about Oly,mpus anyway?

 

[MEDISN]

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal.

The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I can't speak for the m43 versions as I don't have any which are made from polymer according to reviews

I have the newer Sony mount Sigma 24mm F/2 DG DN and the mechanical quality is excellent . Their APS adapted models are quite large and weighty for m43 , though AF third party lenses of good quality are thin on the ground for m43 certainly compared to Sony

Which reviews say these are plastic? I have four of them on my desk. All metal barrels! Out of curiosity I see that Lenstip concurs.

"The proper body, completely made of metal, starts with a ring which doesn’t move."

As I said in my reply, the DG DN are metal but the older "trinity" three that Interceptor is talking about for M43 are DC DN and plastic.

It is the older sigma lenses I am referring to The review sites and Sigma themselves state they are made from plastic

The lenses I have are metal on the outer and have always been that way I am not aware of any sigma lens with externals made of plastic.

The DC DN lenses are plastic. Even your quote from Sigma below confirms this.

This is an ancient lenstip review

The proper casing of the Sigma starts with a small ring made of plastics on which there is a white dot making an alignment with a camera easier. Then you see the name and the parameters of the lens, the Micro 4/3 system logo and the serial number.

(this part is the joint to the mount part which changes by system)

Next ring, also immobile, is already made of metal; it features a “C” letter meaning the lens is classified as a “Contemporary” series device, the autofocus working range (0.3M/0.98FEET–∞), the year of production (016) and information that the lens was made in Japan.

Yes the barrel is plastic. There is one metal decorative ring.

The outpart of the Olympus lens is also very similar in construction however several people that have disassembled it know inside they are plastic as the sigma ones. And no they dont feel more premium.

The barrel of the Olympus is metal. Yes they feel more premium. I am holding both at the moment.

There is nothing cheap about Sigma lenses. In fact I do not recall having had any sigma lens made of plastic including the new f/2 series comtemporary

Som extract from sigma website

TSC used for a more compact structure and enhanced performance

Since new material TSC (Thermally Stable Composite) is highly elastic, it exhibits minimal deformation. Parts made of TSC are therefore less prone to develop gaps between each other over time. The SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary features a lens barrel and aperture parts made of TSC, which contribute both to the compactness of the lens and the smooth functioning of the aperture system. TSC helps increase the precision of cells holding lens elements and parts related to the focus lens group, further enhancing lens performance.

Yes plastic as was confirmed by Sigma. They switched to metal barrel for DG DN line, none of which are available for M43.

The contemporary 16 30 and 56 are solid constructions on par or better than other products and they feel that way

In some cases there are some aberrations that are not corrected properly (30mm) but those lens do not feel any cheaper than my GM master lens that are 10x the price

That's just funny. The DC DN primes feel nothing like G Master primes.

The GM master are not all metal while the sigma DC exterior is metal not plastic

The DC DN barrel is plastic as confirmed by Sigma. You said yours are metal. Only DG DN are metal which don't exist in M43.

and they never were whats plastic is the inside exactly as the olympus

You said the Olympus "are made of plastic and feel like plastic ". How are you feeling the inside of a lens you don't even have?

Ultimately who cares?

People who believe the truth. It was an outlandish statement not based in reality.

As i said I got 3 lenses for the price of one Olympus and while the 17 and 45 are great optics the 25 isnt and besides dont care about that either as a f/1.8 or f/2 full frame prime lenses eats that foe breakfast and costs less

They are cheap for sure! As I said the Sigma are budget lenses and suitable for some purposes. I have owned them all (in several mounts even). I also own and use the Oly PRO primes so I have years of experience comparing them. My FF F1.8 and F2 primes do not eat anything for breakfast I'm afraid. F1.2 lenses in any format excel at low light where reliable AF is necessary. F2.5 or even F1.8 are slower to find and track subjects. That means more hunting with less accuracy. My F2 primes certainly didn't cost less than my M43 F1.2 primes. 5X more in fact.

The 30mm is sharper than your Olympus live with it

Besides who cares about Oly,mpus anyway?

This really is juvenile. There is nothing to live with. I had several copies of the 30/1.4. I know what it is, and what it isn't. That's the benefit of experience. After using it and the PL 25/1.4 and the Oly 25/1.2 and the Oly 25/1.8, the Sigma was sold off. I have a few thousand images with each of these lenses to draw conclusions from. Hexlord79 replaced his Sigma 30 with the Oly 25 . It sounds like EXtender is headed that way too .

This is the M43 forum. Many people care about and use Olympus alongside Panasonic, Sigma, etc.

Good luck with your Sigma trinity. I hope your question was sufficiently answered and they meet your needs.

 

[Interceptor121]

Holding both in my hand right now. The Oly's are metal body. The new DG DN Sigmas are metal. The old DC DN are plastic. Only the mount is metal.

The DC DN Sigmas in no way feel high quality like the Olympus do.

I can't speak for the m43 versions as I don't have any which are made from polymer according to reviews

I have the newer Sony mount Sigma 24mm F/2 DG DN and the mechanical quality is excellent . Their APS adapted models are quite large and weighty for m43 , though AF third party lenses of good quality are thin on the ground for m43 certainly compared to Sony

Which reviews say these are plastic? I have four of them on my desk. All metal barrels! Out of curiosity I see that Lenstip concurs.

"The proper body, completely made of metal, starts with a ring which doesn’t move."

As I said in my reply, the DG DN are metal but the older "trinity" three that Interceptor is talking about for M43 are DC DN and plastic.

It is the older sigma lenses I am referring to The review sites and Sigma themselves state they are made from plastic

The lenses I have are metal on the outer and have always been that way I am not aware of any sigma lens with externals made of plastic.

The DC DN lenses are plastic. Even your quote from Sigma below confirms this.

This is an ancient lenstip review

The proper casing of the Sigma starts with a small ring made of plastics on which there is a white dot making an alignment with a camera easier. Then you see the name and the parameters of the lens, the Micro 4/3 system logo and the serial number.

(this part is the joint to the mount part which changes by system)

Next ring, also immobile, is already made of metal; it features a “C” letter meaning the lens is classified as a “Contemporary” series device, the autofocus working range (0.3M/0.98FEET–∞), the year of production (016) and information that the lens was made in Japan.

Yes the barrel is plastic. There is one metal decorative ring.

The outpart of the Olympus lens is also very similar in construction however several people that have disassembled it know inside they are plastic as the sigma ones. And no they dont feel more premium.

The barrel of the Olympus is metal. Yes they feel more premium. I am holding both at the moment.

There is nothing cheap about Sigma lenses. In fact I do not recall having had any sigma lens made of plastic including the new f/2 series comtemporary

Som extract from sigma website

TSC used for a more compact structure and enhanced performance

Since new material TSC (Thermally Stable Composite) is highly elastic, it exhibits minimal deformation. Parts made of TSC are therefore less prone to develop gaps between each other over time. The SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary features a lens barrel and aperture parts made of TSC, which contribute both to the compactness of the lens and the smooth functioning of the aperture system. TSC helps increase the precision of cells holding lens elements and parts related to the focus lens group, further enhancing lens performance.

Yes plastic as was confirmed by Sigma. They switched to metal barrel for DG DN line, none of which are available for M43.

The contemporary 16 30 and 56 are solid constructions on par or better than other products and they feel that way

In some cases there are some aberrations that are not corrected properly (30mm) but those lens do not feel any cheaper than my GM master lens that are 10x the price

That's just funny. The DC DN primes feel nothing like G Master primes.

The GM master are not all metal while the sigma DC exterior is metal not plastic

The DC DN barrel is plastic as confirmed by Sigma. You said yours are metal. Only DG DN are metal which don't exist in M43.

and they never were whats plastic is the inside exactly as the olympus

You said the Olympus "are made of plastic and feel like plastic ". How are you feeling the inside of a lens you don't even have?

Ultimately who cares?

People who believe the truth. It was an outlandish statement not based in reality.

As i said I got 3 lenses for the price of one Olympus and while the 17 and 45 are great optics the 25 isnt and besides dont care about that either as a f/1.8 or f/2 full frame prime lenses eats that foe breakfast and costs less

They are cheap for sure! As I said the Sigma are budget lenses and suitable for some purposes. I have owned them all (in several mounts even). I also own and use the Oly PRO primes so I have years of experience comparing them. My FF F1.8 and F2 primes do not eat anything for breakfast I'm afraid. F1.2 lenses in any format excel at low light where reliable AF is necessary. F2.5 or even F1.8 are slower to find and track subjects. That means more hunting with less accuracy. My F2 primes certainly didn't cost less than my M43 F1.2 primes. 5X more in fact.

The 30mm is sharper than your Olympus live with it

Besides who cares about Oly,mpus anyway?

This really is juvenile. There is nothing to live with. I had several copies of the 30/1.4. I know what it is, and what it isn't. That's the benefit of experience. After using it and the PL 25/1.4 and the Oly 25/1.2 and the Oly 25/1.8, the Sigma was sold off. I have a few thousand images with each of these lenses to draw conclusions from. Hexlord79 replaced his Sigma 30 with the Oly 25 . It sounds like EXtender is headed that way too .

This is the M43 forum. Many people care about and use Olympus alongside Panasonic, Sigma, etc.

Good luck with your Sigma trinity. I hope your question was sufficiently answered and they meet your needs.

This forum is always plagues by Olympus fanatics that want to bring this stuff in any conversation

I should have ignored the first post!

 

[James Stirling]

This really is juvenile.

That is how we roll here

There is nothing to live with. I had several copies of the 30/1.4. I know what it is, and what it isn't. That's the benefit of experience. After using it and the PL 25/1.4 and the Oly 25/1.2 and the Oly 25/1.8, the Sigma was sold off. I have a few thousand images with each of these lenses to draw conclusions from. Hexlord79 replaced his Sigma 30 with the Oly 25 . It sounds like EXtender is headed that way too .

Looking at the lenstip tests of the 30mm F/1.4 and 25mm F/1.2 it is a bit of a mixed result . The 25mm is a bit better at F/1.4 has a touch better edges at F/2 . But the peak sharpness both center and edge goes to the Sigma

The sample variance is an interesting topic in its own right. With perhaps the person in the best position to make an observation on this Roger over at lensrentals who did suggest that m43 lenses have more sample variation than others makers. It is a pity having real work to do that they don't do more tests as they have all the requirements { not shared by any of the other main testers } of skilled staff, high end testing gear and critically access to multiple samples of a given lens

Touch wood I have been very lucky over many years and the only lens I have owned that needed replacement was 20yrs ago with an early sample of the APS Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8. It had an obvious left side softness . The replacement worked perfectly and I used it professionally till I moved to Nikon FF.

While I know you do more detailed testing than most of us. I think for a lot of users of lenses there is a strong element of confirmation bias. Beyond the technically measurable factors { resolution etc }. An awful lot of what we like is down to the individual perspective of the photographer. With a lot of what are really emotional observations { I feel, I like etc } that are often in the realm of subjective rather than objective.

The arguments about X brand having better colours being an example. The colorimetry testing to give accurate colours does not stand up to a lot of real use . We shoot in a vast range of lighting and we all have personal likes and dislikes.

I recently edit a wedding gallery for a mate who had injured himself { not acting his age } . He is a very successful wedding photographer using Canon R3's and it is the worst colours I have ever seen . I actually thought he was pranking me using some wacky settings . There were folk of various ethnicity with a range of skin colours some of which were extremely difficult to do justice to. I am sure others will look at the Canon defaults and love them ,same with every make of course . Colour as it applies to normal photography is as much art as science

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Hexlord79]

This forum is always plagues by Olympus fanatics that want to bring this stuff in any conversation

I should have ignored the first post!

I think you should be gracious and just laugh it out. People such as yourself do make mistakes once in a while.

 

[MEDISN]

This really is juvenile.

That is how we roll here

I take no issue with juvenile jokes, but juvenile insults are inappropriate here.

There is nothing to live with. I had several copies of the 30/1.4. I know what it is, and what it isn't. That's the benefit of experience. After using it and the PL 25/1.4 and the Oly 25/1.2 and the Oly 25/1.8, the Sigma was sold off. I have a few thousand images with each of these lenses to draw conclusions from. Hexlord79 replaced his Sigma 30 with the Oly 25 . It sounds like EXtender is headed that way too .

Looking at the lenstip tests of the 30mm F/1.4 and 25mm F/1.2 it is a bit of a mixed result . The 25mm is a bit better at F/1.4 has a touch better edges at F/2 . But the peak sharpness both center and edge goes to the Sigma

I wrote two days ago: "The Sigma does sharpen up nicely at F2.8-4 in the center but wide open rendering I prefer the Olympus." Link

Of course the thread/question was never about center sharpness at F2.8 or F4. As soon as Hexlord79 made mention of the 25/1.2, it seems to have struck a nerve with the OP.

The sample variance is an interesting topic in its own right. With perhaps the person in the best position to make an observation on this Roger over at lensrentals who did suggest that m43 lenses have more sample variation than others makers.

I do recall him saying that about older Panasonic M43 lenses, but have to wonder if this applies to recent lenses, many of which are outstanding. In the 25mm Comparison , Roger pointed out the PL25/1.4 was the worst offender, although both copies I had were consistent with each other (one of my copies has since died).

"Any way you look at it, there’s a lot of copy-to-copy variation, more in overall sharpness. This is getting close to the point where your copy and Bob’s copy are probably noticeably different."

As you point out, these sorts of things can easily lead to internet arguments as people's experience will be both true and different.

It is a pity having real work to do that they don't do more tests as they have all the requirements { not shared by any of the other main testers } of skilled staff, high end testing gear and critically access to multiple samples of a given lens

I do find their blog articles very interesting as they don't just repeat the same mumbo jumbo the typical reviewers regurgitate. They buy, maintain, repair many copies over a long period of time. That gives them experience most reviewers lack.

Touch wood I have been very lucky over many years and the only lens I have owned that needed replacement was 20yrs ago with an early sample of the APS Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8. It had an obvious left side softness . The replacement worked perfectly and I used it professionally till I moved to Nikon FF.

While I know you do more detailed testing than most of us. I think for a lot of users of lenses there is a strong element of confirmation bias. Beyond the technically measurable factors { resolution etc }. An awful lot of what we like is down to the individual perspective of the photographer. With a lot of what are really emotional observations { I feel, I like etc } that are often in the realm of subjective rather than objective.

There is a lot to owning and experiencing a product that isn't readily available reading a rushed review. That's why I am puzzled that people with no experience with a product make sweeping conclusions about it based on something they heard or read somewhere. Specs don't often tell the full story. Using a product over time, under varying conditions in concert with other equipment provides a clear perspective. I shared that experience here (even if not well received).

The arguments about X brand having better colours being an example. The colorimetry testing to give accurate colours does not stand up to a lot of real use . We shoot in a vast range of lighting and we all have personal likes and dislikes.

I recently edit a wedding gallery for a mate who had injured himself { not acting his age } . He is a very successful wedding photographer using Canon R3's and it is the worst colours I have ever seen . I actually thought he was pranking me using some wacky settings . There were folk of various ethnicity with a range of skin colours some of which were extremely difficult to do justice to. I am sure others will look at the Canon defaults and love them ,same with every make of course . Colour as it applies to normal photography is as much art as science

For RAW shooting it matters less if you have time to tweak it, but for those of us who depend on JPG workflow it is important. PJ work, sporting events are instant turnaround so I do have preference for high quality SOOC, specifically WB, metering and color. Connectivity is also important. It needs to be fast, reliable and trouble free. Unfortunately, reviewers never touch on these aspects that are crucial to professional work flow.

Take care Jim, hope all is well with you.

 

[James Stirling]

This really is juvenile.

That is how we roll here

I take no issue with juvenile jokes, but juvenile insults are inappropriate here.

You are of course right

There is nothing to live with. I had several copies of the 30/1.4. I know what it is, and what it isn't. That's the benefit of experience. After using it and the PL 25/1.4 and the Oly 25/1.2 and the Oly 25/1.8, the Sigma was sold off. I have a few thousand images with each of these lenses to draw conclusions from. Hexlord79 replaced his Sigma 30 with the Oly 25 . It sounds like EXtender is headed that way too .

Looking at the lenstip tests of the 30mm F/1.4 and 25mm F/1.2 it is a bit of a mixed result . The 25mm is a bit better at F/1.4 has a touch better edges at F/2 . But the peak sharpness both center and edge goes to the Sigma

I wrote two days ago: "The Sigma does sharpen up nicely at F2.8-4 in the center but wide open rendering I prefer the Olympus." Link

Of course the thread/question was never about center sharpness at F2.8 or F4. As soon as Hexlord79 made mention of the 25/1.2, it seems to have struck a nerve with the OP.

I was just curious to see if there was a like by like test , though I am not the biggest fans of Lenstip they have at least covered a good selection of m43 lenses

The sample variance is an interesting topic in its own right. With perhaps the person in the best position to make an observation on this Roger over at lensrentals who did suggest that m43 lenses have more sample variation than others makers.

I do recall him saying that about older Panasonic M43 lenses, but have to wonder if this applies to recent lenses, many of which are outstanding. In the 25mm Comparison , Roger pointed out the PL25/1.4 was the worst offender, although both copies I had were consistent with each other (one of my copies has since died).

"Any way you look at it, there’s a lot of copy-to-copy variation, more in overall sharpness. This is getting close to the point where your copy and Bob’s copy are probably noticeably different."

As you point out, these sorts of things can easily lead to internet arguments as people's experience will be both true and different.

It is a pity having real work to do that they don't do more tests as they have all the requirements { not shared by any of the other main testers } of skilled staff, high end testing gear and critically access to multiple samples of a given lens

I do find their blog articles very interesting as they don't just repeat the same mumbo jumbo the typical reviewers regurgitate. They buy, maintain, repair many copies over a long period of time. That gives them experience most reviewers lack.

yep a strong advantage to their testing , Obviously it is not practical for most review sites to get access to multiple samples of often expensive lenses. The fact that they are major customers of the various brands with many millions of dollars worth of stock. Also removes them from my sadly cynical "vested interest" be it direct paid ambassadors or whatever the respective brands call them. Salesmen would be the most honest descriptor. Or individuals who rely on early access to the newest gear for their livelihood. Or the fan based "reviewers" who have an endlessly sunny take on anything and everything about their brand

Touch wood I have been very lucky over many years and the only lens I have owned that needed replacement was 20yrs ago with an early sample of the APS Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8. It had an obvious left side softness . The replacement worked perfectly and I used it professionally till I moved to Nikon FF.

While I know you do more detailed testing than most of us. I think for a lot of users of lenses there is a strong element of confirmation bias. Beyond the technically measurable factors { resolution etc }. An awful lot of what we like is down to the individual perspective of the photographer. With a lot of what are really emotional observations { I feel, I like etc } that are often in the realm of subjective rather than objective.

There is a lot to owning and experiencing a product that isn't readily available reading a rushed review. That's why I am puzzled that people with no experience with a product make sweeping conclusions about it based on something they heard or read somewhere. Specs don't often tell the full story. Using a product over time, under varying conditions in concert with other equipment provides a clear perspective. I shared that experience here (even if not well received).

Absolutely , if every Sony "review" on the clickbait world of YT was to be taken at face value . One would assume perfection has been around for years When the reality be it default colours, AF , IBIS or whatever claims, they don't always measure up to these lofty claims in real life

The arguments about X brand having better colours being an example. The colorimetry testing to give accurate colours does not stand up to a lot of real use . We shoot in a vast range of lighting and we all have personal likes and dislikes.

I recently edit a wedding gallery for a mate who had injured himself { not acting his age } . He is a very successful wedding photographer using Canon R3's and it is the worst colours I have ever seen . I actually thought he was pranking me using some wacky settings . There were folk of various ethnicity with a range of skin colours some of which were extremely difficult to do justice to. I am sure others will look at the Canon defaults and love them ,same with every make of course . Colour as it applies to normal photography is as much art as science

For RAW shooting it matters less if you have time to tweak it, but for those of us who depend on JPG workflow it is important. PJ work, sporting events are instant turnaround so I do have preference for high quality SOOC, specifically WB, metering and color. Connectivity is also important. It needs to be fast, reliable and trouble free. Unfortunately, reviewers never touch on these aspects that are crucial to professional work flow.

Back when doing paid work I shot one card RAW and one card JPEG enabling fast turnaround for most shots and if some tricky subject needed extra work. When you are shooting subjects with higher volumes and need a certain turnout time could be crucial. These days I can spend as long as I fancy faffing about in post processing as my personal shooting is of low volume. Out taking photos is always great fun but sometimes in the bleak midwinter sitting front of a PC with a nice cup of tea has its own appeal .

I have been trying out the new generative models on Gigapixel 8 and even with a powerful PC. There is time to eat a multi course dinner never mind a cup of tea

Take care Jim, hope all is well with you.

Doing good , hope you and yours are doing well

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post