Sigma 56mm f1.4 for M4/3 - My Thoughts

[@imagenatura]

There's one really important factor that I think you forgot to mention- it's slightly weather-sealed, at least a rubber gasket on the mount. Only the 42.5 Leica Lumix and the Olympus 45 f/1.2 have that. This lens is available at only $400 now (new) and it's much lighter than those. Take off the hood and it's also much smaller. I think I'll get it.

[@mattfowlerkc]

The Sigma 56mm is my favorite lens for portraits. It even beats out the Canon 85mm f/1.8 on full frame in my opinion.

[@danieldougan269]

One advantage of this over the Nocticron: the Sigma is weather-sealed! I like that this can be used wide open at f1.4 without any real concerns. I'm not so sure that's the case with my Olympus 45mm f1.8.

[@jd5787]

So you would say sigma 56mm over Leica 42.5mm? I am still on the fence...

[@sdrtcacgnrjrc]

Fwiw there's a seal around the mount which is listed as dust and splash proof. So, good, but not quite "weather sealed"

[@gerhardw.933]

​@sdrtcacgnrjrc You are right! According to Sigma, there is only rubber seal around the lens mount.

[@justinward8072]

Thanks for the review! Have you had a chance to try it out for indoor sports yet? I am curious about your thoughts on how it performs in this situation. Is the focal length long enough? How’s the autofocus in gym lighting? I’m looking at this lens for the same application. Want to shoot my kids indoor sports without lugging around a giant 2.8 full frame zoom. Originally was thinking about the Oly 75mm 1.8 but it’s too expensive.

[@Luigiz28]

What a coincidence, I've been looking at this lens along with the Olympus 75mm 1.8. Your images are awesome! I think for the price, this seems to be a no brainer for M43 users especially for shooting portraits. Thanks for making this video!

[@ericrjennings]

i agree.. haven't tried the 75mm or 42.5mm Nocticron, but i heard they're all great

[@PhilippeOrlando]

Do you want a super sharp lens for portraits? Some models might disagree.

[@Ambr-c7j]

You are right!

[@1957PLATO]

Congrats. Looks like a really good lens. Awesome pics, Eric. But did didn’t they tell you ? You can’t get nice dof with m 4/3. At least if you don’t what you’re doing. But obviously you know what you’re doing. I moved from my Canon 5diii to Oly and I have not regretted it for a minute. The only regret is that I did not switch earlier.

[@osiris4260]

I also have invested in Olympus and Panasonic MFT, so sad to hear that Oly is out the business, I love the portability of Olympus MFT system, specially for travel abroad. I keep the full size sensor for work and enjoy my MFT For travel. Maybe technology in the future gets good so MFT is back on track

[@gamingwithstand6886]

Before I got the Olympus 45mm f1.8 I was using a Minolta 50mm F1.7 it was fine just stop down a little for sharpness. In full frame 135mm gets harder as you have to speak louder so people can hear you. This is what u found with the Olympus 75mm f1.8 better images but harder to work with. I like the photos with your dog.

[@JapanLovers]

We have the 30mm and it's also fantastic! Thanks for the review!

[@EdKrisiak]

I thought the body was metal but the focus ring was rubber?

[@billb8262]

Here's my debate. Go with 42.5mm 1.7, 25mm 1.7, and 15mm 1.7 lenses for portraiture, or go with the PL 15mm 1.7, Sigma 30mm 1.4, and 56mm 1.4. Price is obviously higher with the PL and two Sigmas, but is the quality of output worth the added working distance of a 56mm on M43 and higher price of the combo?

[@ericrjennings]

PL + sigma

[@rmgibbs1861]

Thank you! I do love the MFT’s Shoot the G9. Love the size. The FF Eco System is not cheap by any stretch.

[@danieldougan269]

This focal length makes perfect sense for portraiture on Sony APS-C, which is why Sigma made that one first. But does it make sense for portraiture on Micro Four Thirds? With a 1.5X crop factor on APS-C, it ends up being 84mm, which is about ideal for portraits. On Micro Four Thirds, it ends up being 112mm. That's a long portrait lens. Maybe ideal for social distancing? Then again, I sometimes shoot portraits with my Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 PRO all the way at 150mm (so 300mm equivalent). I have the Olympus 45mm f1.8 already, and that one is pretty good. Is this worth the upgrade?

[@bavideomaker29]

Are you still using that Nikon mirrorless?

[@phx44]

Would you use this lens on a Olymus PenF for travel?

[@ericrjennings]

yes although 56 is tight

[@RobShootPhotos]

Nice! Hmm...I guess I should shoot more with my 60mm f/2.8 macro lens to see if 56mm would be a good fit or if I want more reach with 75mm. I'm pretty happy with the 17mm & 45mm combo.

[@Yoko.Kurama]

Have you tried using 60mm 2.8 to double as a portrait lens? I'm thinking it might be good because 60mm legnth could compress the background

[@stillwatertag]

Those pics look pretty good. Ever thought about the 35-100 2.8? I ask b/c I've found (at least in full frame world) that the 70-200 (35-100) give me the best in price/versatility, especially at the longer focal lengths. I haven't tried on on M 4/3 yet

[@ericrjennings]

i've thought about it, but i kinda wanted the f/1.4 to keep higher shutter speeds and lower ISO.

[@danieldougan269]

I use the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 PRO for lots of things, including sports and wildlife, and it's not-so-secretly a pretty good portrait and macro lens as well.

[@GoA7250]

No, the f stop is the same, just the size of what you can capture changes. This is a persistent falsehood. The f stop stays the same, the distance for framing changes which has no bearing on your f stop.

[@exquisitewidget4227]

Well, technically you’re right, however, if we’re talking about equivalent depth of field in terms of the Field of View then it does change. Not the amount of light it lets in, but the depth of field that would typically be associated with any focal length at a certain distance from the subject. I think this is what he was referring to

[@andys844]

@@exquisitewidget4227 you both basically said the same thing. The issue with altering the f stop when comparing lenses, is it makes it sound like the exposure will change or the lens isn't as fast. A 56mm 1.4 will have exactly the same dof on a m45, full frame, or medium foemat sensor. The only thing which changes is the angle of view, but that's not usually stated clearly for a lens. As you both said, as the sensor size gets smaller you either need to back up or choose a wider lens to get a similar scene. Both of those increase your dof.

[@jd5787]

Still can't decide between the sigma 56mm and the Leica 42.5mm...

[@ericrjennings]

If money is no option the Leica or Olympus

[@Yoko.Kurama]

Have you tried using 25mm 1.4 Panasonic for portrait?

[@ericrjennings]

Yes. Good lens with good character but a bit soft wide open (my copy). Good lens and the 1.4 is an advantage on M/43

[@alexrogov7186]

It may sound blasphemous for some people, but the 56/1.4 on a m43 and an 85/1.8 on an FF camera is pretty hard to tell apart by looking at actual pictures. See for yourself: kzbin.info/www/bejne/epnRgXmamrF7r80 However, the difference in DoF is a lot more noticeable with wide angle shots so if you really want that shallow "look" at 24 mm or 35 mm equiv then m43 might be just not your cup of tea. I sold the Oly 45 after I got the Sigma because the latter was hands down better in almost every respect except for size and weight. Still, the 56 feels "right at home" on my OM-D E-M1 mk 1, a bit less so with something like an E-M5 or smaller.

[@jeffhalebopp]

Thanks Eric. Great info. I have a G7 and GX85 :)

[@ericrjennings]

Awesome. Which you like better?

[@sdhute]

paid 398 for mine on amazon. Waiting for it to come

[@petepictures]

you're making me nervous of possibly dropping your lens by an accident.

[@romelhyn]

its metal mixed with plastic