Sigma is successful because there's no competition, especially at it's price point. I would expect Panasonic/Olympus 12-35mm f/2.0 or 35-100mm f/2.0 zooms would be priced at $2,500 or higher.
GH5 GH5 M43 depth of field
- Thread starter heguy
- Start date
Sigma is successful because there's no competition, especially at it's price point. I would expect Panasonic/Olympus 12-35mm f/2.0 or 35-100mm f/2.0 zooms would be priced at $2,500 or higher.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Tamron, Canon and Nikon are the competition. Tamron is in the same price range as well so I wouldn't exactly say there is no competition. Tamron may not have a f1.8 zoom but they match most of the other lenses Sigma has including the f2.8 options.
Canon, Nikon, Sony don't try and compete with Sigma or Tamron at their price point, usually the camera brand lenses are significantly higher. I would expect the same type of price gap from Olympus or Panasonic.
A couple of things:
Yes, I'm pretty sure I recall the old 4/3 Olympus f/2 zooms were over $2,000 each when they came out. Ooh, they're still available new! Still almost $2k for 35-100 and $2,300 for the 14-35 now, after the system has long been dead:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404517-REG/Olympus_261012_35_100mm_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000X1P5R4
Second, I recently heard (a theory?) that Sigma can keep their prices lower than first-party camera manufacturers' lenses because they can sell their lenses in a variety of mounts, thus multiplying the size of the market for their lenses relative to the camera makers, and distributing the development costs to drive down the price. It makes sense to me, and it's not likely that the camera manufacturers will ever replicate that.
Yes, I'm pretty sure I recall the old 4/3 Olympus f/2 zooms were over $2,000 each when they came out. Ooh, they're still available new! Still almost $2k for 35-100 and $2,300 for the 14-35 now, after the system has long been dead:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404517-REG/Olympus_261012_35_100mm_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000X1P5R4
Second, I recently heard (a theory?) that Sigma can keep their prices lower than first-party camera manufacturers' lenses because they can sell their lenses in a variety of mounts, thus multiplying the size of the market for their lenses relative to the camera makers, and distributing the development costs to drive down the price. It makes sense to me, and it's not likely that the camera manufacturers will ever replicate that.
Last edited:
...Which pretty much guarantees no Sigma native m4/3 lenses because they can't be used for larger sensor formats.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
There are Sigma native m43 lenses. A series of f2.8 primes.
These have been out for a long time. They are super low cost budget lenses, but I've heard that they are optically pretty good.
I think most of us are looking for native Sigma high speed ART grade lenses for m4/3, which I don't see happening any time soon.
Here's one way Sigma may service the MFT market: https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-new-sigma-16mm-f1-4-mft-lens/
Share one design among MFT, Sony E-mount, and, who knows, perhaps Fuji X and Canon M in the future? They've done these shared MFT/E-mount designs before, as in this 30mm f/1.4:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234027-REG/sigma_302965_30mm_f_1_4_dc_dn.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234026-REG/sigma_302963_30mm_f_1_4_dc_dn.html
Unfortunately the lenses won't be as small as native MFT lenses. Also, ART zooms may be a different story. The market size may not justify the design/manufacturing costs. Who knows? At least they keep trying something.
Share one design among MFT, Sony E-mount, and, who knows, perhaps Fuji X and Canon M in the future? They've done these shared MFT/E-mount designs before, as in this 30mm f/1.4:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234027-REG/sigma_302965_30mm_f_1_4_dc_dn.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234026-REG/sigma_302963_30mm_f_1_4_dc_dn.html
Unfortunately the lenses won't be as small as native MFT lenses. Also, ART zooms may be a different story. The market size may not justify the design/manufacturing costs. Who knows? At least they keep trying something.
Bassman2003
Veteran
This discussion is kind of the problem I see with M4/3rds. The format is always trying to be small and lightweight. We all know that quality sometimes has to be large. In theory, M4/3rds should be able to create f2 zoom lenses because the sensor is physically smaller. If f2.8 zooms exist for FF, then f2.0 lenses for M4/3rds should be the norm, but they are not. So this format chooses to limit your options just to keep the weight down. There are plenty of f2.8 zooms for M4/3rds but the term f2.8 is kind of marketing as f2.0 would be more of an equivalent tool.
Then there is price. If this is a professional format then $2,000 for a zoom lens is normal. But for some reason, this is unacceptable for the M4/3rds community. Sort of implying the format is semi-pro.
This opinion is blended with stills usage but it is something I have noticed over the years and kind of keeps me away from the format.
Then there is price. If this is a professional format then $2,000 for a zoom lens is normal. But for some reason, this is unacceptable for the M4/3rds community. Sort of implying the format is semi-pro.
This opinion is blended with stills usage but it is something I have noticed over the years and kind of keeps me away from the format.
Bruce Foreman
Veteran
I'm a retired professional still photographer. I learned most of my photography on 120 rollfilm medium format and 4x5 sheetfilm where an f2.8 max aperture was pure "luxury". The last 13 years I worked was as a civilian staff photographer at an air force training base with a lot of classified photo support and there my work was split between 35mm, 4x5, and some 120 rollfilm. I always managed to get the DOF effect needed (shallow or deep) with that gear without obsessing over format size.
I switched to M4/3rds for smaller size and less weight around 2010 and haven't looked back since. Of course most of my photography these days is on a personal level, but I've selected several prime lenses for the specific things they do well. You can "call up" all the theory and math you want to compare how things work in different formats, but to me it's a visual thing. I select the lens that I think will do what I want and start looking through the camera, adjusting settings until I "see" what I've previsualized.
An f2 zoom? Sure! I wouldn't mind that a bit. But I've seen some nice selective focus work done using a Canon Rebel with a "kit" zoom at f5.6 by someone who knew what they were doing. I can achieve the same look using a 14-42mm "kit" zoom a lot turn their noses up at.
What I did was jump on a special price offer on an Olympus Pen E-PL1 with "kit" lens for $199 just to try out the format. I was 72 and lugging around a couple of "L" series zooms with a Canon 60D. Suddenly the fun was back with a much lighter basic camera. Followed that with a couple of "pancake" primes and my attitude changed quickly. I sold off my Canon gear and now work with a Panasonic GH4, GH5, G85, and for "knocking around" carry a GX85 in a small bag that fits in the center console of my Honda CR-V.
The gear is lighter to "lug" around, lighter and quicker to work with at 79, and for me is able to do for me pretty much what I used to get with bigger stuff.
You can always come up with "limiting" circumstances, but I'll just work around those and get what I need.
