A Look At Three Wide Aperture Sigma Lenses For Micro Four Thirds

At a time when Olympus and Panasonic lens prices are going through the roof, Sigma offers these three f/1.4 'Contemporary' lenses at sensible prices.
Do they sacrifice sharpness, focus speed or build quality to price? Having owned, used and reviewed - many Sigma lenses over the years, I didn't anticipate any nasty surprises and I didn't find any. There were some nice surprises, though.
----------
Help keep my channel going - Buy though my Amazon shop at
www.amazon.co....
In association with ePHOTOzine - www.ephotozine.com
Sound post production by Charles Walkowski at www.walkowski.co.uk
See my M43 blog at m43blog.dthorpe...

[@JAYZWORKSHOP]

Miss Davids style of reviewing, buy even thou he's no longer with us he is still influencing my lens choices .

[@alistairlambert3275]

Still a trusty authority on MFT what a legacy!

[@dalking6739]

What happened to him ?

[@JAYZWORKSHOP]

@@dalking6739 he passed away after a long illness

[@TheDIYFilmmaker]

Yes I agree, the 3 Sigma Lenses + the Laowa 7.5 f2.0 make the perfect primes set. Thank you David for this great review!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

😀

[@garydubberly6608]

Thanks for the review, as always very informative and concise. I purchased the Sigma 16mm about six months ago to complete my G9 8-18 & 12-60 2.8-4 travel kit. I was rewarded with excellent night shots of Milan’s Piazza Del Duomo. My back was rewarded with the M4/3 kit that only weighed 59.5 ounces vs twice that for my previous full frame kit.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

A neat summary of the point of the Micro Four Thirds system, Gary - thanks!

[@buildingsheriff]

Good to have you back, David. I love my 16mm.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I'm not surprised - and thanks!

[@qt31415]

i saw the notif and stopped every i was doing~ such an exquisite spectacular review. yay man those were sharp shots. I wish they did a more uwa lens

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, a 12 and 7 or 8mm would be nice.

[@johansphoto]

Great lenses! 56 mm is one of the best portrait lenses in the system. 30mm is perfect for those of us primarily shooting people and portraits with our 50 mm equivalents, since it is a bit longer. It gives a more flattering result and is a great event glass. However, the 16 mm is a bit too big in my opinion. With 35 mm being my favorite focal length I managed to find a bargain deal on Oly 17 1.2 for full weather sealing, slightly shallower dof and a bit smaller size. Also have the little Laowa 7.5, great set of primes! However, I think it is only the 56 mm that is dust and splash proof, not the 30 mm at least.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

All agreed - of the 3 the 16mm is the weakest competitor on account of its size.

[@freddie8812]

I wanted this review so bad and then I see that you have done one. It couldn't believe any better! You got me in to m43 a few years ago with the E-M10. It's been a great time with Olympus since then 🙌🙌

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Good to hear that! Olympus do some great lenses but it's always good to have some alternatives. Keeps them on their toes, at least!

[@snowwalker9999]

These three Sigma lenses are revolutionary. If you know how to take good photos, they will cover 80% of one's photography needs (except for macro wide & wildlife). Great video as always.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks. Agreed, a great set of lenses.

[@edsassler285]

I'm trying to break my lens buying habit, and just as I convince myself that I don't need the 56mm f1.4 this comes out. I own the 19mm, 30mm and 60mm Sigma Art series lenses - the other "sharper than they should be" budget lenses from Sigma. They're all f2.8 and not weather sealed or very durable for that matter, but I use them in studio, stopped down to f5.6 where they do the job as well as lenses that cost $1K more. I also own the 16mm f1.4 which produces image quality that more than makes up for anything else you can say about it. "it's way too big for street use" - Yeh, but look at the results!!! it's 4 times as large as the Lumix/Leica 15mm, but I don't care. I haven't pulled the trigger on the 56mm f1.4 yet, but now that you've blessed it... I don't need it. I own the Lumix 42.5mm f1.7, the Rokinon 50mm f1.2 and the Sigma 60mm f2.8, and my studio is too small to do full body shots with any of those focal lengths. On the other hand, it's splash proof, dust proof and Dave says I should buy it.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's a point often missed that when stopped down to f/5.6 or so, it's hard to tell the difference between a £250 and a £1000 lens. It doesn't look to me that you have any logical need for the 56mm but when what's logic got to do with it?

[@katamere]

never really loved my 42,5mm 1.7 panasonic lens due to its noisy ois and a kinda scratchy feel of the manual focus ring. The 1.2 olympus & panleica lenses were too expensive in my eyes and i was always kinda curious about the 75mm olympus aswell... Then Sigma released that 56mm and it was just the right answer to me. sold the 42,5/1.7 and got one, never looked back. Now for the most time i only travel with 2 lenses (lumix 12-35 II 2.8 & the Sigma 56mm 1.4) and this covers 95% of what i ever care about in a compact set. happy times

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Nice situation when you have exactly the gear you want for what you want to do.

[@JodyBruchon]

That 12-35mm f/2.8 is such a wonderful lens. It's expensive but so very well worth its cost, especially for fast zooming by hand during shooting.

[@castielvargastv7931]

Hmmm. 42 mm 1.7 bad for you? I really love this lense it is super sharp, an absolute fantastic lense 42 and the 15mm 1.7 are my absolute favourites. I also own olympus pro lenses. They are worth every penny and very cheap compared to full frame lenses. What do you pay for a 50mm canon 1.2? 2800 euros? To me 1200 for a oly pro lense is a steal compared to that

[@robertivaniszyn840]

Highly highly HIGHLY recommend the Oly 75mm. It is a CRAZY sharp lens, my absolute favorite and go to lens.

[@castielvargastv7931]

Robert Ivaniszyn i am sure it is great but can you use a 75mm often? Its a bit long to me

[@paulstevenson200]

Really pleased to see another m4/3 posting from you. Another excellent review as always - sharp, accurate and always focussed; just like a good lens really. Many thanks.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thank you, Paul.

[@KitLaughlin]

David: a truly excellent review, and your vocal pacing is enviable (speaking here as another YT presenter). I will take notes: this is an excellent video, my friend. And no music (a massive blessing!).

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I'm flattered, Kit, thank you. I constantly have to remind myself to pace my words. So tempting to garble on when you are familiar with a subject. And sometimes lack of resources means you must keep things simple, no music etc. I consider my main claim to fame that I don't have a baseball cap and I'm too old to dsay "hi guys" :-)

[@KitLaughlin]

@@DavidThorpeMFT And what a claim to fame that is! I don't wear a cap either! :)

[@andrenerao]

David, this channel is one of a kind. Perfectly balanced between information, opinion and youtube stupidity (no youtube stupidity). The videos always deliver further more than I expect. Thank you! Keep on!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

My head is swelling, André - thank you! I love the guitar and Kalimba video on your channel - never heard that before.

[@tablameister]

Thanks for the excellent review. Note that Sigma actually designed the superb Olympus 75mm f1.8 lens (Sigma filed for a patent on the design for the 75mm).

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I had no idea - glad you liked the review and thanks for a very interesting insight into the lens world.

[@TITAOSTEIN]

Great Review David! Thank You! I Own the Nokton 10.5, PanaLeica 15, Nokton 25, Sigma 30, Lumix 42,5, Oly 60 Makro und the Oly 75. I agree that it is difficult to find a better lens at such a good price. they are excellent! Just do not change my Pana Leica for a 16, because of the size. The Sigma 56 is very tempting, excellent quality, compact and with good price, but I'm having a hard time finding a space for it in the aforementioned set. But your Review again ignited the desire to buy it.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Some tasty lenses you have there! Yes, the 16mm is bigger than I'd wish for and that appears to be the price for the extra bit of speed. I can't see that you have much need for the 56mm......but I'm not supposed to say that, right? :-)

[@TITAOSTEIN]

David Thorpe I see a space between 42.5 and 75mm :) since the 60mm (although excellent is limited to f2.8) ...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@TITAOSTEIN You've convinced me :-)

[@DivisionStreetDrums]

Awesome video, saved me some money as I am about to purchase the Oly 17mm but now I will get the Sigma 16mm. Thanks again David

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks Thomas - the only downside of the Sigma is its size. While not big for an f/1.4 wide angle, it is much bigger than the Olympus.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@minorrhoads5318 Nice to hear that - and also nice that you have the 20mm and use that for what it is good for. It has its weaknesses but they are not apparent in street wrok where compactness and the actual focal length are more important.

[@minorrhoads5318]

@@DavidThorpeMFT AND THANK'S DAVID AGAIN FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ENCOURAGE US ALL . BEST REGARDS

[@Seleslav]

If you haven't bought a lens yet maybe consider even Panasonic 15mm f1.7. It is splendid lens

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

🙂

[@villemononen5303]

The older Sigma lenses are nice and sharp, but i always keep selling them away. Sharpness isn't enough, it has to have many other characteristic aswell. But for the longest of time, the 56mm f1.4 has really peaked my interested! Long and fast, but really such a small lens. This is something special, this is something i need to get.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I found the 56mm good in every way - my favourite of all these lenses.

[@keithrjoseph9528]

Great to have you posting honest reviews again. I'll definitely look at this Sigma range for my Olympus system and might even invest in a few.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Keith. The Sigmas, yes certainly worth considering of the focal lengths suits.

[@drpork1360]

The legend is back! :D

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

:-)

[@golaoi]

I have all three. I bought the 56 first and it was so good that I completed the set. I'm delighted with them.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's pleasing to get confirmation of my own thoughts like that, Gearoid, thanks for posting.

[@serjorom5510]

Having the prime set of Pan 20 1.7, Oly 45 and 75 1.8 - I always come back to my set of 30 and 60 2.8 Sigma lenses for fun, and they never disappoint.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's great having the Sigma lenses as well as the native ones. I was knocked out with the 30mm f/2.8.

[@datapro007]

I was just suffering the d.t.s (no David Thorpe review, not delirium tremins) when lo and behold, another fabulous review appears! Timely too, as I was contemplating buying the Lumix 42.5 f1.7. I think I'll try the Sigma 56mm instead. Thanks David.

[@soundknight]

Check out my review on DP Review MFT Forum a few weeks ago.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks you too!

[@alpcns]

Good to see you back, David. My experience too - Sigma has spectacular, affordable lenses.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It takes me a while to do the books which takes me away from the videos sometimes. Nice to be missed - thanks!

[@htoddgriffin4787]

I just ordered the 30mm two days ago to compliment the 16mm and 56mm I already owned. Funny you mention the Laowa 7.5mm, as I bought this a few months back as well. When I started getting into cameras just a few years ago, I thought the 14-140mm kit lens would be all I ever needed. Then I discovered primes via the Panasonic 25mm f1.7. I still like and use the 14-140, but the quality and speed of the Sigma's has won me over. I was planning to get the new Panasonic 10-25mm, thinking it was coming out this March, but when I found out it would likely be Sept/Oct and cost $2000+ USD, I decided to go with the Laowa/Sigma line up. I don't think I've made a bad choice. With the 100-300mm I'm planning to buy later this year, I think(hope) I will finally cure my addiction and also be able to cover most any situation. We'll see. I'm still looking at the 8-18mm. If I see it on sale, I can't make any guarantees.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's all a matter of where you place your values, I guess. The 14-140 covers most eventualities in one very convenient lens but involves compromises in ultimate IQ and speed. Sacrifice a bit of convenience and you get a raft of advantages. You have a very good set of lenses there and while I'm sure the 10-25mm will be very good, it's price and size will make it a bit of a niche item. I aslo doubt that its performance will be as good as your primes.

[@datapro007]

I love your reviews David. I was looking for a portrait lens for my GX-85. After I watched this one a hundred times, as well as your reviews of the Olympus 45mm and Lumix 42.5mm, I ordered the Oly 45mm today. Why? Price, focal length, size, weight. Clearly, these focal lengths make more sense for APS-C than for MFT, as you mention.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Glad you like the reviews, good to hear that. I bought my 45mm Olympus back in 2011 and I've not found anything better all round since then. It's as sharp as any of the newer ones, and a fraction of the size, weight and price of the faster ones. I really loved the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron but never for a moment thought of it replacing the little 45mm. If anyone ever wanted to know what the Micro Four Thirds system was really about, that lens would tell them.

[@tim1398]

Just got a 56mm, very nice lens, lovely portraits. I wish DxO already had support for it. The Nocticron would be more tempting if it was just bit less expensive - 2x this lens vs 3x. It adds the improve AF of DFD and optimized AF system as well as a bit more light and sharpness. Now if only Sigma would offer a super-telephoto lens for MFT.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, I'd be very happy if Sigma extended their lens range for Micro Four Thirds. Perhaps they will.

[@tim1398]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Right after I wrote that I remembered why not - Dual IS. Pan/Oly won't play with the others so the IBIS would be body or lens only, and would not be nearly as good as OEM brand lenses at long telephoto lengths.

[@IslandFilmMaker]

Interesting alternatives that seem better than native glass at an exception price! I agree it would be perfect to see a 10 or 12mm f1.4!! I'm going to wait to see what Panasonic prices the new 10-25mm f1.8 MFT zoom coming to market later this year before deciding. Thx David

[@keith_pictures]

The 10-25 will surely be ridiculously big and expensive, don't you think? Where is an unpretentious, small 10mm? Shocked no brand has done that for us yet.

[@IslandFilmMaker]

Very true but I only have to carry 1 lens instead of 3! There's always trade offs, but yes... I'd luv a light weight compact f1.4 10mm MFT from Sigma for sure :)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The 10-25 is here - and expensive!

[@artistjoh]

They are great lenses. I can add another reason to get them, and the decider for me. Their lens circle covers APS-C, and because I have ordered the JVC LS300, which has a MFT mount with a Super 35 sensor, these lenses will maximise the shallow depth of field possibilities on that cinema camera while also working natively on the GH5S/BGH1. It should also be pointed out that while Sigma gave these the C Contemporary designation, they have the same sharpness levels as their A Art line lenses. They really hit these lenses for a six. Very highly recommended. BTW - as to the focal length choices, they were chosen as standard lengths for APS-C and the MFT lengths are out of kilter as a result (they would be out of kilter for APS-C if they were chosen as standard lengths for MFT. However, the fact that they are out of kilter for MFT I consider a bonus as it means lens choices in lengths on MFT that are not well served by alternatives. The 56mm I find particularly useful. 85mm equivalent is too short for portrait for me, and the 112mm equivalent of the 56 I really like. I also prefer 55-60mm equivalents for standard, and 30mm-ish for a standard wide, so the 16, 30, and 56 lengths I find close to perfect for my preferences. I just hope they decide to introduce a 10mm f1.4 at some point. 10mm is poorly served in MFT, and I can see it being a hit, plus 15mm equivalent on APS-C would be unique in a 1.4 aperture.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Interesting comment and thank you. There's the 10mm Laowa f/2 but that is manual focus only.

[@jasperlai]

Do you see the Sigma 16/1.4 taking the place of your Olympus 17/1.8, or does the smaller size of the Olympus still outweigh the better output from the Sigma? (Thanks for another nuanced and well written review-as always!)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks Jasper. No, I'll keep the 17mm for its size. If I were buying from scratch, I'd most likely go with the three Sigmas for the sake of standardisation and f/1.4 across the range. But already having the Olympus, it isn't worth changing.

[@ImpManiac]

Superb review. Thorough, succinct, concise and professional. Thank you, David! 👍🏻 IM 😎

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thank so much, ImpManiac, much appreciated.

[@DRAGON-zh9mk]

this is an excellent summation

[@Jimmyageek]

I miss you

[@jaywalker.]

Great perspective. Having previously owned the Nocticron-had to sell it for financial reasons, sadly-I have been using the f/2.8 Sigma Art 19 and 60, based on your review. And loving them for the price! But I have missed the extra speed, and this review is just what I needed to edge out the Panasonic offerings. Thanks, again!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

You're welcome, Jermaine. I like the f/1.4 lenses, not as large as an f/1.2 but almost as fast.

[@JeevesTCW]

Only just noticed this, thank you for the review David v interesting options. Best Wishes for the New Year, Rich

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Best to you too, Rich.

[@jamesk8131]

Hi David! Loved your review of these Sigma lenses. I just purchased your G80/85 menu system simplified book from Amazon and can't wait to get it. I was thinking of buying the Panasonic 25mm F/1.4 lens until I saw your review. I also have a Panasonic 42.5 f/1.7 lens. My question is should I sell my 42.5MM lens and buy the sigma 30mm and 56mm lenses? Thanks!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

James, somehow your post got lost in my KZbin Comments - sorry! That's a conundrum. I think I'd keep the 42.5 and buy the Panasonic f/1.4. You'd lose a lot of money on the 42.5 but it and the 25mm give you a top quality combo. Sigma wouldn't add enough to that for the extra expense to be worthwhile.

[@tonypower9315]

Great review as normal, thank you. I was wondering if you would ever consider doing some educational help videos on how to use and set up some of the features on the micro 4/3rds range cameras like the gx80 and em series cameras? They are quite complicated to set up and understand for beginners plus there's not to many people doing stuff on 4/3rds. Not trying to find you more work by the way! Haha. Just be nice for you to share some of those 80 odd years of experience you have!

[@rustinggently]

Tony you might want to check out this You Tuber, lots of Olympus m43 info kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3_ak6KXm8-HnKM

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Tony. I actually do a range of books which do exactly what you are asking. You can see them in the blurb below the intro to each of my video. The problem with doing it via video is that each cameras is different and it would take forever to go though all of them. See Rusting Gently's suggestion below, though.

[@joec.1030]

Welcome back and thank you!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks you, Joe!

[@Ekuahx]

Ah damnit, now I have to buy one...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's not my fault, honest guv :-)

[@Kshitij.Sharma]

You are truly missed, Sir!!

[@KennyTjahyadi]

Glad to see u again!! awesome review as always

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Kenny!

[@DavidSmith-gj2dm]

Thanks Dave ,another well prepared review , that’s a large two handed gauntlet that’s been thrown down at the feet of Olympus ,Panasonic and the full frame brigade ! Well done , agree about the UWA. Thinking of the Laowa 7.5 F2 for Astro , looks like a good lens , how does it compare with the oly 9-18mm f4 aside from the F number ?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The Olympus is sharper at the edges but needs to be stopped down to f/8 or so to become so. The Olympus 7-14 f/2.8 is about as good as it gets in this focal range and that is very good indeed but costs a lot more. If you want a lens only for astro, then I'd be inclined to the 9-18 and stop it down. If you want it for general use as well, I'd get the Laowa.

[@AndySnap]

I had a very quick go with the 56mm on my GX9 at The Photo' Show, and was very impressed with the build and sharpness. Good to see your tests and opinions on the others too. I'm liking that 30mm to go 'between' my 15mm and 42.5mm f1.7...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, and wouldn't it be nice if they did a specific Micro Four Thirds range, especially a 12mm.

[@richardyasushiii3848]

Great review, David! It was very detailed and typical of your rigorous approach. I was on the fence with Sigma, but not any more.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, they're a genuine competitor. It's always good to have alternatives.

[@ellene331]

Timing is everything, I guess. After debating back and forth between the sigma 16 mm and the oly 17 mm, Just purchased the oly 17 mm 1.8 yesterday. It's scheduled to be delivered tomorrow.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The Olympus is lovely, one of my longest serving and most used lenses. If I was starting up a new outfit, I'd go with the three Sigmas for a uniform f/1.4 aperture but it would be a toss-up.

[@ronzack4572]

Since I found out about the Sigma 56mm f/1.4, it's been on my wish list. I can easily see it taking the place of all the 42.5mm, 45mm and the Oly 75mm in my book. That 30mm would be most useful as well. The only downside is that the Sigmas are larger and heavier than what I prefer for micro 43 primes, but if the image quality is there, I could probably live with their bigger size. :-)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I agree, Ron. The 56mm is a very reasonable size for what it is but the others are bigger than ideal. But the IQ and price are there, so livable with, as you say.

[@bjnslc]

Did you test AF speed and hunting? DFD doesn't even work with all Panasonic's lenses, I'm curious if Sigma lenses communicate the characteristics that DFD needs to work.

[@RockyColaFizz]

I have the 16 and the 30. The Video AF performance on my G9 is exactly the same with these lenses as with the native lumix lenses I have. These are actually my favorite lenses. They truly are an excellent value. And when you need to manual focus their design in that area is awesome.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Nice to hear that! I'm always glad to see that others share my opinion and you obviously have plenty of experience with the Sigmas.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

As Liquid Valium says, there's no apparent difference AF speed and no more hunting. No, the lenses don't have the DfD information so won't work with it. For myself, I find DfD only makes a difference under certain conditions and not that much even then. It may be that I just don't shoot under conditions where it counts but I've never seen any definitive test showing any great benefit. Benefits from PDAF can be shown, however, even if they are not as good on mirrorless as DSLR cameras.

[@Federico84]

@@RockyColaFizz if the autofocus good for video? I remember the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 good lens with a terrible, just terrible autofocus

[@RockyColaFizz]

@@Federico84 It is very good for a Contrast based autofocus. In video its not as good as the Lumix branded lenses though. But it really is an awesome lens. If you go Area AF, and make the box pretty big it does well.

[@KarlAdamsAudio]

Another excellent review. I'm really enjoying the 30mm, but now you've got me seriously considering the 56mm - thanks for that, I think...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The 30mm is stunningly sharp, isn't it? And the 56mm is similar. Hey, what the heck, it's only money. It grows on trees, they tell me :-)

[@olesheim]

My experience from testing the Sigma 1.4/30mm for Sony E (aps-c) I found the corner sharpness at 1.4 was not excellent, but acceptable. Center sharpness was excellent. Still a very good value for money.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Interesting. For Micro Four Thirds the corners will be better, simply because the smaller sensor is cropping the extreme corners. As you say, very good value.

[@olesheim]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Yes, M43 uses a smaller part of the image circle, and thereby only the better part of the lens. But I'm also very satisfied with the lens at my Sony a6400. Compared to my Sony zooms it's razor sharp.

[@8thom00]

Hi David, and once more thank you for your informative and cheerful videos... Searching for a bit of advice here, if you can: my main kit at the moment is Leica 8-18, Leica 25mm II and Olympus 60mm macro. I used them on an e-m5 mark ii. I don’t do much real macro (though I have fun from time to time at 1:1) but I enjoy the ability to close-focus on my little daughter’s eyes and hands while she’s playing for instance. Otherwise I use it also for street and architectural details. The added two stops of light of the Sigma 56mm would help, and I was thinking of getting it paired to a raynox 250 for those occasional macro sessions. I could do the same with a second hand 75mm by Olympus, but the latter would need a longer working distance so I’d probably end up using it mostly on the streets only. What do you think, should I keep enjoying the Oly 60 (and its weather sealing!) at higher ISOs, get more reach with the 75mm, or surrender to the obviousness of the Sigma 56mm compromise? :) Thanks!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I'd be inclined to the Sigma myself. I have the 60mm and use it all the time for my video product type shots and closeups of camera switches etc. If I didn't to that, the Sigma has all that speed and focuses down to 0.5m which should be close enough for your daughter's hands and eyes anyway. You may find you don't need the Raynox.

[@8thom00]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks for the very fast response David... You've read my mind. I'm still pondering but I'll probably pull the trigger as soon as I'll be back in the UK in about a month - hoping covid numbers there (and in Spain and Italy, where I'm spending the summer) won't grow again! Hope you and your dearest ones are well.

[@JennyDarukat]

Very tempted to get that 56 1.4, to the point where I'm unsure where to go first - Olympus 12-40 Pro, or this one.. some tough thinking ahead.

[@soundknight]

I went straight to primes once I had cash and I love zooming with my feet. Got the Leica 15, 25 and the Lumix 42.5 . These sigma are even sharper than all of the Panasonic lenses. The Olympus 12-40 is great and sharp enough but the whites are a bit grey and the colors are green in the yellow. The Leica 12-60 recently impressed me with performance quite close to my 15mm in colors and sharpness, in micro contrast or 'pop' it was really good for a zoom and only slightly behind the Leica 15. The sigma are so sharp but they are also flat and dark in the shadows which will sometimes require editing. But the colours are stunning. Red and blue especially.

[@WMedl]

@@soundknight Zooming with the feet is a fairy tale - you will never change focal length by distance. But this is no argument against primes and moving!

[@JennyDarukat]

​@@soundknight I do love my primes, but I got my Panasonic G80 in addition to my X-T1 partially to be able to use bigger lenses more comfortably, and have access to high quality zooms (and lenses generally) with IS - on the Fuji I shoot almost exclusively with the 27mm 2.8, sometimes 16 1.4 or my Zeiss Planar 50 1.8. And if I'm honest, the latter two make me think twice before taking them already due to the compromised ergonomics with the body. I absolutely adore the colours out of MFT cameras, and of the Olympus lenses. Out of all the zooms I've looked at and tried, I think only the Fuji 18-55 2.8 and Olympus Pro really satisfy me since they produce images with a bit more life than you'd usually get. They're not as flat looking, in a 3D sense, a lot more like primes (still different, but not inferior unlike most others). With all this said, maybe the Sigma 56 is the right choice for now, since I already have the dual IS 12-60 kit zoom if I really needed that flexibility.. it's a choice between getting an excellent portrait lens and freeing me up from fiddling with manual focus on the Zeiss to get a head and torso shot, and getting something that'd just be an overall (very, very welcome) improvement over my existing zoom. The choice between one excellent but tailored prime, and a bag of no less excellent but slower ones in one slightly bigger lens. I can see myself very happy with both. My heart is drawn to Olympus if I'm being honest, but I'm just not satisfied on the portrait end as it is. Is there a way to make them work with f5.6 equivalent? Maybe. It sounds tough, or at the very least restricting. Wouldn't want to catch myself missing more great shots due to slight misfocus on the Zeiss or lack of IS though.. oh if money were no object. 😶

[@andreathode3782]

Outstanding review. Great as ever.👍

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Andrea.

[@minorrhoads5318]

SPOT ON REVIEW , WELL WORTH THE WEIGHT , AND FOR THE LENSES , ONLY GOT THE 16 SO FAR , A KEEPER WITH OUT ANY DOUBT . CHEERS DAVID .

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

:-)

[@minorrhoads5318]

@@DavidThorpeMFT CHUCKLE'S , AND THANKS FOR TEACHING ME A NEW SYMBOL. BRILLIANT STUFF ,AND 🎧 BRILLIANT AUDIO .

[@evilgeniusentertainment]

Thanks for the review David! How does the sharpness of the 16mm compare to the original Panasonic 20mm or the newer 15mm? Thanks again -

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The sharpness of all of them is excellent and the differences wouldn't be apparent in everyday use. It was the edge sharpness of the 16mm that impressed me. I have very limited expectations of edge performance on high speed wide angles but the 16mm holds up very well. Very different lenses in other ways of course.

[@evilgeniusentertainment]

Thanks for the reply (and the review). I love me little Panny 20mm, but sometimes you want something a little wider. I have the Oly 12-40 f 2/8, but sadly it's nowhere near as sharp as the Panny (which I intercut with constantly).

[@soundknight]

HELP DAVID! You wouldn't believe it David but I'm here in Japan going from store to store trying these lenses and the Kowa, and the Panasonic Olympus primes and zooms. The Sigma are sharper and the colors are wonderful! but the shadows are darker and the image flatter which I think comes as a compromise to the sharpness. I found the manual focus on the 16mm very awkward personally. The sigma also make a flatter looking image than the Panasonic Olympus lenses, great for passport photos (seriously) but not as good for portraiture IMO. They are so much sharper than any other MFT lens though that I am seriously tempted. But, I'm thinking of going with the Kowa 8.5 for the unusual perspective, Astro landscape and manual controls. It's also a little cheaper here in Japan than if I were to try and buy it in Australia. I broke my little Leica 15mm which I love and I have to choose (hate having choices) - the Leica 15 for plenty enough sharpness pop and aperture AF/MF control, the Sigma for its supreme sharpness and color rendition or the Kowa for its perspective and fun value. Which do I chose? I mostly shoot family vacation, kids at the park but I also want to shoot astro.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Since you have had the 15mm and liked it so much, I think replacing that would make the most sense. The Kowa is so different from the 15mm or Sigma 16 that I'd see it as a separate, extra, purchase with little overlap with the 15mm.

[@gwarlow]

Best youtube vocal cords out there. Cheers. Oh, and a great reviewer as well.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Appreciate that - thanks Gordon!

[@karol-julienwild]

Hi David, the portrait that you have made with the 56mm is stunning, what camera did you used? Thank you in advance!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, great portrait lens. It was on a Panasonic G9.

[@hauke3644]

First I had the 56mm. Because that’s just so perfect, I got the 30mm for a good price, because the Leica 25 does not function perfectly with my Olympus cameras. The optical performance is at least similar, but on most occasions I put the Leica in the bag, because I find the Sigma 30mm a bit too bulky. But if I had gotten the Sigma first, there would be no point in purchasing the Leica for double the price...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, the Leica is a fine lens but at a price.

[@adriancoleman1120]

Hi David. I must admit I was surprised that you used 'brick wall' shots to demonstrate sharpness when you've always talked about real world use

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I take your point, Adrian but I've often used bar codes and detailed things to illustrate a point. What is unusual about the Sigma lenses is that f/1.4 aperture and I wanted to show that it wasn't at the expense of edge sharpness and that the lenses could compete on level terms with Panasonic and Olympus items. There's a general unease about third party lenses (which I share to some extent) so I felt it was important to explicitly show that.

[@LonStar3000]

Thank you, Mr. Thorpe! Great information! I will now purchase the Sigma 16!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I don't think it will disappoint you but it is a good bit bigger than the Panasonic and Olympus alternatives. Other than the f/1.2 Olympus of course.

[@vic_the_roman]

Loved it. Been looking to go for the 56mm for a while now.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, it's the start of Sigma's three lenses as far as Micro Four Thirds users are concerned.

[@MarkoKoskenoja]

Excellent review David - makes me want to buy all 3 Sigma lenses :)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

:-)

[@Random-yz8gb]

I am tight on a budget and no professional and want to get good with cameras for my future as I am still young. Anyways. With that being said, do you recommend the sigma 16mm for abt 400. Or just get it over with and get the sigma 18 35 for abt 850 with speedbooster.

[@Princeton_James]

These are truely the best lenses available considering the price point.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, Sigma has stripped the lenses back to the bare bone and concentrated the funds on optical performance. That's as it should be, I think.

[@fellowcitizen]

Thanks for covering these! I'm keen to try the 56mm. FYI: these are releasing as first-party lenses for the L Mount Alliance in 2020 Q1 :) PS: Apparently the Olympus 75mmF1.8 is a Sigma design (and the Leica 12mmF1.4!)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

That's interesting information. Given the cost of developing lenses it must make sense to not redo research already done bu someone else.

[@fellowcitizen]

Vale @@DavidThorpeMFT Thank you for sharing your understanding with such wit and joy. We will miss you, and keep the story going

[@adamjones1278]

Hi David, for portrait would you use the 30mm Sigma or the Olympus 45mm ?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Hi Adam. I'd use the 45mm. It gives you more distance between you and the subject which gives a nicer perspective on the human face. 30mm can have you too close, making the nose look longer and the features sharper.

[@mfcdubai]

Peak Design will replace your anchors for free!! Great review too...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks Robert. I didn't know that about Peak design.

[@gordon4385]

Still the most soothing voice ever.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

That was quick! And thanks, Gordon.

[@570films]

Great post. Do you think these lenses would work with videos. I have the GH5S with metabones booster? Thank again mate James

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, James. Yes, they'll work just fine for video. Not with the Metabones, of course. If the 16mm worked with the MB it's be a supersharp 11mm f/1 - nice! Real life not like that, though :-(

[@onthemove301]

Been looking for one of your reviews for a while David, and this did not disappoint. I will also be interested in your review of the forthcoming Lumix 10-25mm f1.7 zoom which, according to a man on the Panasonic stand at the Photography show, is due for release July of this year.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Hi Tony - I have a problem with equipment like the forthcoming 10-25 zoom in that it is likely to be so expensive that I can't afford it. That's the case with the Olympus E-M1X, too. Olympus and Panasonic don't even answer my emails, let alone loan me any gear. ePHOTOzine help me out a lot - (thank you Josh!) with Panasonic but if I do get hold of a 10-25mm it would be after everyone else has finished with it. I don't mind that, being at the bottom of the food chain, as it were. Olympus, I can't help thinking they prefer to only have their stuff commented on by people they can control.

[@onthemove301]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Well, I'm happy to wait if ePhotozine lend you one. I suspect that most lens/camera reviews are driven to say something positive about equipment because they want KZbin viewers to click through to Amazon and buy, with commission to the reviewers. Regarding the lens, it is likely to be expensive but where could I buy a 20-50mm full frame with f1.7 light gathering capability? And at what price when even the Sony 16-35 f2.8 is ~£2k?

[@Vikingdescendent]

The Sigma 16mm f 1.4 DC DN e mount, is the sharpest lens I've ever used on my Sony a6500 or any camera! Samples kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHPaeJSfpq2Ko7M

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, those Sigmas are remarkable. A case where the price is not reflected in the quality

[@Seleslav]

David love your reviews, watching them helped me chose m43 when I was deciding which camera system would suit me. I have a question, how would you compare Panasonic Leica 25mm, Olympus 25mm and Sigma 30mm. I can't decide between them ( I used to have Pany 1.7, but got rid of it, because I had bad copy, that was always unsharp and blury. Later I realized I really miss the focal length).

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

They are all good lenses with the Panasonic f/1.4 and the Sigma being exceptional. I'd probably go for the Sigma, myself.

[@Seleslav]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Would you say that the focal length of Sigma 30mm is comparable to 25mm focal length in everyday use and street photography? Or is it visibly different when I am used to 25mm or 45mm focal lengths. And have you encountered CA on Panasonic lens on Olympus body (I use M10 II).

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@Seleslav if you have a 45mm, I'd say the 25mm would be better since it'll give a more noticeable change of subject/camera distance and therefore perspective for a given shot. If you don't then 20/25/30 is just a matter of personal preference. The purple fringing, it is corrected in Olympus cameras of the last 5 years or so. It never worried me much since it is pretty easily corrected in software. But if you are concerned, the Olympus is a very good lens and its only because the Sigma and Pan/Leica are exceptional that it can be said to be not so good. As a lens in its own right you'll find no fault with it.

[@Seleslav]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks for you advice. I do have 15mm and 45mm, so today I bought PanyLeica, mainly because of the 25mm focal length and I snatched a second hand one for a super deal of 240Ł. Although because of this video I am seriously thinking about Sigma 56mm, that looks like unbeatable lens that can replace both 45 and 75mm, which is crazy.

[@Filmmaker809]

Hi David, I have the Sigma 18-35mm for my GH5. And I love it for shooting video. I guess if I wanted to shoot video at a wide angle, the Sigma 16mm is the widest? I believe this lens takes a 67mm filter.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, the 16mm is the widest they do. For very high speed wide angle there is the Panasonic 12mm f/14 but that's in a different price bracket. If you wanted really wide angle the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 is a beauty. Yes, a 67mm filter.

[@Filmmaker809]

Thanks David! I`ll check out both those lenses. :)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, that's the case I'm sure.

[@TangerineTux]

At 2:22, which Olympus 45mm is that? the f/1.8 or f/1.2 pro?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's the f/1.8.

[@tanapoomch]

Hi David, I am just wondering about your perspective on this regard. If you can buy one between Sigma 56mm f1.4 and Olympus 75mm f1.8; which one will you choose or will you choose both? is DOF too close to see none of difference, is difference aperture on these also influence in object isolation in portrait? I really enjoy your point of view towards these MFT lens as your opinion really embrace the real world usage.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks! I'm glad you like my approach, my whole background is in using equipment for practical purposes so it's what I enjoy. Both those lenses are excellent and I see no reason to choose between them on any grounds except price and focal length. Personally, I think 75mm is a little too long for general purpose use, the 56mm being just about that bit more versatile.You might get away with an indoor close-up portrait indoors with the 56mm where the 75mm is likely to be too long. Both lenses will give great isolation for portraits and in fact you'd probably want to stop them down a stop quite often to prevent the depth of field being too shallow. There has somehow come about an idea that shallower depth of field = better, where in reality it is an artistic consideration and can just as easily be too shallow. To get to the point, personally I'd favour the Sigma, simply for its focal length. The fact that it is half the price is a bonus!

[@tanapoomch]

David Thorpe David Thorpe Thank you so much for sharing your thoughtful opinion and extra knowledge on my question. Yes, I will go and hand on - Sigma 56mm. F 1.4 first as if suit my budget more and it is more versatile. I shall be able to use this for all-propose portrait.

[@soundknight]

I offer the Panasonic and Olympus to these because the character is different. I would only buy one of these if it were 10mm for very sharp landscape use.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The 56mm is the star of the show. As good and relevant as any Micro Four Thirds native lens.

[@erniefay5127]

Excellent video, thanks for the information.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Ernie, glad it was helpful.

[@thatchinaboi]

Video shooters would want to know how bad is the focus breathing. Can you do another short video to accompany this one with rack focusing tests?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I'll see what I can do but that's a bit specialist for me. My standard of video knowledge can be seen from my own videos, I'm sorry to say.

[@AmazingKitchen]

I am thinking if I should get the 56mm f1.4 mft since I already own the 16mm f1.4. Do you think there is a use for the 56mm in wedding videography and corporate shoots? What is your opinion on the usefulness of the 56mm? Do you think I should just sell the 16mm and go the Sigma 18-35mm speedbooster route?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I'd have thought the 56mm was a little long for the purposes you mention. Good for portraits of the bride etc but not so general purpose.The Sigma 18-35/ Metabones is widely used, I know but less convenient than a native lens in give and take situations. Wouldn't the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 be suitable?

[@AmazingKitchen]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks for your input. I am looking for a fast lens so to make sure I am covered for those lower light shoots. Will the 56mm be suitable for bride and groom close ups and detail shots or do you think it is still too tight for those uses?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@AmazingKitchen I think it is a little too tight. It's always easier to move in a little closer than to move further back. Don't overlook the Olympus 45mm f/1.8, it is tiny but its performance gives nothing away. Or otherwise, the 42.5mm f/1.7 Panasonic.

[@AmazingKitchen]

@@DavidThorpeMFT That is a good suggestion. If I use a Sigma with an Olympus lens for the same shoot, will the colour match for the shots or is negligible?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@AmazingKitchen There will always be differences even between lenses from the same maker but they are not likely to be glaringly obvious.

[@effuseakay]

I agree with you, those lenses are amazing.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

:-)

[@oldschoolwarrior]

You piqued my interest right away then answered the question I was going to ask: would you consider the 56mm a realistic alternative to the Nocticron? I’ve been eyeing the Nocticron up for a while now but can’t seem to pull the trigger, even at a (relatively) low price of $1100. This seems like a great, affordable alternative.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, I think so. The 56mm length is obviously intended for APS-C but works well for Micro Four Thirds too. For me especially because I like to do frame filling head shots. The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is minimal and the price difference over the Nocticron is enough to buy another lens. Which is to take nothing away from the Nocticron which remains one of Micro Four Thirds' best lenses - along with Olympus's 40-150 f/2.8.

[@oldschoolwarrior]

@@DavidThorpeMFT This is where I'll show a bit of my lack of experience, but I have the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8. When you look at a lens such as the Sigma 56mm, is a prime going to be that noticeably sharper than the 35-100 at 55mm? Given the increased stops with the 1.4 VS 2.8, do you feel it's worth spending the money to get the Sigma prime lens rather than shoot the 35-100 at, 45mm or 55mm for portraits?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@oldschoolwarrior I'm not one to advocate spending more than you have to but in this case, I think the difference between the two lenses is enough to merit buying it, if you do a lot of portraiture. Is the prime going to be noticeably sharper than the zoom? Under most circumstances, no. With a close in head shot or anything tightly framed, the zoom is as sharp as you need. However, if you have a bit of space around your subject, it is less tightly framed, the out of focus areas on the image will take a bigger area of the picture and the 56mm at f/2 or wider will draw them more blurred and more smoothly. That, in turn, draws more attention to the subject and the subject appears sharper by comparison to the out of focus areas. I actually used this lens at f/1.4 most of the time and the difference is quite marked between that and f/2.8. Sorry about the length of my answer, thinking aloud. Basically, yes, I think a two stop wider aperture is well worth having where you wish to isolate your subject and the Sigma is a very economical way of getting it. If, however, you are shooting general subjects and using any aperture from f/2.8 downwards, the Sigma shows no advantage. You really are paying only for that f/1.4 aperture. A final point in favour of buying it - the shallow depth of field given by f/1.4 can make an ordinary picture jump out at you. One flower in a bunch isolated from the others so that the others provide a totally blurred multi-coloured background can look stunning. Shoot it at f/2.8, not so much.

[@JeffBourke]

They’re not actually MFT lenses. They are APSC lenses with MFT mounts.

[@JeanV1986]

I absolutely love the 56 mm. But I recently got the 30 and I'm a bit disappointed as I still prefer the Panasonic 25 1.4. They're great lenses, and for a great price.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The 56mm was my favourite. The 25mm Panasonic/Leica is a class act for sure.

[@AmazingKitchen]

Love this trio set. I currently own the 16mm on my panasonic. Do you think the 30mm or the 56mm should be my next buy? I do mainly video. Thanks

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Either one would be useful but I'd be inclined to the 56mm for the totally different aspect from the 16mm. But all three together makes sense,

[@AmazingKitchen]

@@DavidThorpeMFT thx

[@marc6652]

Thanks for sharing. The 16mm could have been a first choice on my G9, but unfortunately it's 2 or 3 times bigger than the 15 F/1.7. Concerning the 30mm, I really hesitate. Currently I use the 25 F/1.4 rather good but not excellent and this Sigma 30 is much sharper. But 50mm equivalent is my favorite focal lens... a real dilemma :-) However, the 56 Sigma is very compact and with 265 g there's no competing product. Except the excellent 75 F/1.8 Olympus.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I'm surprised at your Panasonic 25mm f/1.4. Mine is the sharpest lens I own. No question that the 56mm is the real star here, a very useful focal length for Micro Four Thirds even though it is designed for APS-C.

[@marc6652]

@@DavidThorpeMFT The sharpest is unquestionably the 75, then the 12-40. If you've never tested them, just try. Thanks for your video.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@marc6652 glad you liked the video. I have a 12-40 and use it regularly. That and all my Micro Four Thirds lenses - I have 14 at the last count including the 10-25 f/1.7, 40-150 Pro, 50-200 etc etc - must sell some :-) - are more than sharp enough for my needs. Including my favourite 12-32 zoom and 17 f/1.8. This whole sharpness thing is overrated. Who cares except other photographers?

[@castielvargastv7931]

Are the olympus 1.2 lenses better in optical quality? I know there are more expensive but there also nicer to use and have weather sealing

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The Olympus 1.2 lenses are about as sharp as a lens could be. I doubt that there is a sensor for them that can do then full justice at the moment. They are also beautifully designed and made. The Sigmas, I doubt you could tell the difference between them and the Olympuses in sharpness in normal use, ie not pixel peeping but the Olympuses are, as i say, exceptional. The 56mm Sigma and the 45mm Olympus, I'd say are pretty much on the same level.

[@MovieTrailersHD2]

will this work with Fuji X cameras? Thanks

[@raspas99]

Thank you for the review. I was left wondering what was the distortion of the lens? You said that camera takes care of that which doesn't mean too much to me lately. Especially if I use it for video in a camera that doesn't do lens distortion correction . Also if there is some heavy vignetting and camera corrects that also- note that you will get less dynamic range in areas where correction is applied since correction is brightening of the image. That's why "camera corrects that internally" is not a free lunch in my opinion.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I agree there's no such thing as a free lunch but even the lenses for the new mirrorless FF cameras need software correction. It's a fact of modern lens design. The thinking is that the extra freedom in lens design is worth the downside. Increasingly, video makers will need to buy specialist lenses, I think, because the requirements for video are very different from stills.

[@raspas99]

@@DavidThorpeMFT thank you very much for the reply. Do you remember how severe was the distortion on these 3 lenses you reviewed?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@raspas99 Nothing to report on distortion, really, certainly nothing that compromised stills work. However, without the software correction, I'd imagine that CA and distortion would be as awful as it would be on most Micro Four Thirds lenses. Sorry, I can't be more helpful, Ra but I do approach things from a stills point of view.

[@raspas99]

@@DavidThorpeMFTThanks.

[@kentmemories]

thanks for great review as usual.. All three are very good m43 lens.. For 56mm, I find a bit long for various 1-3 person portrait scenarios (42.5mm is better), and a bit short for sport/stage (75mm FL has more reach, thus better).. Spec aside, how do you find the difference in color and contrast between Sigmas' vs Pana's vs Oly's..? I have Sigma 60/2.8 ART, and curious if they deliver the same color/tone as these Contemporary lines?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks Kent - actually, I find quite a lot of difference in colour rendering and contrast between the same makes of lenses, let alone different makers so it is very hard to predict. Photographing an 18% grey card under identical conditions is the only way I can think of trying this but in the end I come back to my regular way of doing things, which is shoot RAW, decide on colours afterwards. I think that is probably because lighting conditions are so varied in the real world.

[@alvin9007]

Good review as always David, thanks. Any plan for the 17, 25, 45mm pro review or maybe the EM1x? Curious to know your opinion on those. Thanks David

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's almost impossible to get hold of Olympus lenses for review and they are too expensive for me to buy and sell on. I'd love to try them, though. The E-M1X, I probably won't review one. It's not a camera that interests me greatly because it's simply too big for my camera bag whereas an E-M1 MkII is beautifully compact and a fraction of the price. I recoup some of the price with my books sometimes but the Olympus is so specialist I can't see many people buying it. I'm usually very excited at the prospect of a new camera bodies but this one just doesn't grab me. I hate saying that!

[@alvin9007]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Yeah I agree with you. Olympus is kind of creating things that weird and pricey such the 75mm f1.8 also those three classic primes. Panasonic, in the other hand, is uncertain after launching full frame line up. I wish they still keep up the MFT as their products are excellent, too.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@alvin9007 I'm sure Panasonic will keep up the Micro Four Thirds format. I have their S1 at the moment and it is a dead ringer for the G9. The way I see it, any research on either format will cross fertilize with the other so the money spent on R&D has an outlet in their bridge, Micro Four Thirds and full frame cameras. The next logical addition would be a medium frame profession body with a 55 or 60mm wide sensor maybe.

[@Mrcherrardcohen]

Another great video!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thank you!

[@Emind7]

Peace So I have watch this video multiple times as well as others in an attempt to decide on the Olympus 45mm 1.8 or the sigma 56mm 1.4. I have a gh5 for video, however have been using it for photos as well. I have an 18-35mm, 12-40mm and just bought the sigma 16mm. Both the 45mm and 56mm are praised! I appreciate the way you review lens, especially that you buy the lens and actually use them. Plus your reviews don't seem like you are selling me on a lens. You have great points. Thus why I'm asking for your wisdom/possible recommendation...45mm or 56mm. I know everyone shots different and needs are different so recommending lens isn't easy. I'm just looking for insight from someone with your experience. Peace

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Neither lens will disappoint, so no wrong choice. Personally I have kept my 45mm because it so compact and just slips in a bag or pocket without hassle. For me the compactness means more than the extra speed of the Sigma yet I do think the 56mm focal length is a bit better for a portrait lens. For video, though, 45mm is more versatile, especially indoors. On the other hand, you already have 40mm in the Olympus zoom so the Sigma is better differentiated. If you didn't have the 12-40, I'd say get the 45mm. But you do and on balance it points to the 56mm being better for you, with a bit of a bonus in speed thrown in.

[@Emind7]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Many blessings for taking time to respond and share your needed wisdom. I look forward to more reviews from you as micro four thirds is on an interesting journey... Be Blessed!!!!

[@KathyXie]

How about the sigma 16mm 1.4 vs the pana leica 15 1.7?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I haven't got a 15mm Panasonic to hand, Kate but I'll see if I can get hold of one.

[@CGT-lu8gw]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Yes, I was thinking of buying one of those two lenses, too. I'd be great if you could do a comparative review on those. Great reviews, thanks!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@CGT-lu8gw Thanks, Claude!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@CGT-lu8gw Thanks, Claude!

[@castielvargastv7931]

Are the 16mm 16 mm like it would be on a panasonic lense or do you have to do the x2 crop thing?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Hi Castiel - 16mm is 16mm and nothing changes that. On Micro Four Thirds, 16mm gives a 57° horizontal angle of view. The crop thing is a red herring, really since the lens won't fit a FF camera and wouldn't cover the sensor if it did. If you wanted the same angle of view on a FF camera, you'd need a 32mm lens but again that just confuses things. Micro Four Thirds is a system in itself and lenses are made for it to work within that system. In other words, Panasonic/ Olympus 16mm is the same 16mm as Sigma or anyone else's.

[@siroz1]

david great review as usual. How are they for video? thinking about pairing them with panasonic G7 or 85 and jyc-gy-ls300.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks! They're good for video. Quiet focusing and AF pretty much identical to the Panasonics.

[@CoolerQ]

Are these APS-C lenses with the mount swapped out, or did Sigma actually design lenses for m43? I don't want to use lenses designed for a larger sensor because I'd have to carry around extra glass that is ~useless.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The lenses were made - as is obvious from the focal lengths - for APS-C so given your perspective you really shouldn't buy them. Plenty of choice, luckily. I don't agree that they are useless, though. If they were, I'd have said so.

[@CoolerQ]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks! I didn't mean that the lenses were useless, just the extra glass that's not needed for m43. Your sample photos do look really awesome. I wish someone other than Panasonic + Olympus would actually sell good autofocus lenses designed for m43. I wonder, have you tried any of the DJI m43 lenses?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@CoolerQ understood. I can only assume that lens makers don't consider the Micro Four Thirds market big enough to address directly. Also, following your point, a lens designed for the smaller sensor won't cover the larger one but APS-C lenses will cover MFT but at rhe cost of greater bulk than is necessary. Economics, as it all is in the end, I suppose.

[@ferrysarmanella7328]

Hi, i have already a sigma 18-35, would it be necessary to buy a 16 mm sigma 16 f1,4 ? since i heard so many good reviews about it.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's a it wider and a bit faster and works natively with Micro Four Thirds so I guess it might be worth it. But 16 and 18mm are a bit close and would probably duplicate a lot of the time. I wouldn't think it is necessary.

[@wongbryson]

Sold my 16mm as it was too lens heavy with my Lumix G85. Otherwise, it was a great lens.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, I can understand that. High speed wide angles do seem to be rayher large. Except Laowa's 7.5mm f/2.

[@wongbryson]

forgewire I agree.

[@evenaicantfigurethisout]

Is the 56mm FL a lot harder to use outdoors vs the 45/42.5? How much farther will I have to stand from my subject for say, a half body shot?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

For outdoor use, I'd much prefer 56mm for a half-body shot. With a 45mm you'd be 7 to 8ft away, with the 56mm 8½ -9½. For headshots, the extra difference is a definite advantage. A 45mm might be better indoors in a small room, of course.

[@evenaicantfigurethisout]

@@DavidThorpeMFT advantage in terms of perspective/distortion reduction or in terms of intrusion? I forget to mention that most of these photos will be of my family members during our travels. Would it then not matter so much any more? I do like the pop and FF look of the 56mm more, although the 42.5 can be gotten for half the price of the 56 (USD200 vs USD400)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@evenaicantfigurethisout All of those, really. It's not that there is any huge advantage to the 56 over the 42.5 or vice versa. Each is perfectly capable of doing what the other does and the 43.5 is usefully smaller and lighter. Really it's just a personal choice. In terms of sharpness, there's no real world difference and both are superb (as is usual with modern lenses). I'd opt or the longer length overall but would wish I had the 42.5mm sometimes. The price differential would totally seal my choice - I'd go for the 42.5mm.

[@josealphonso2848]

How far did you place the testing chart before your camera？

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It'd be about 15 feet/ 5 metres.