[shoplink 18952 ebay]
[/shoplink]
This really a no surprise to anyone. But a source close to Sigma told me they killed any Four Thirds lens development project. FT lens development is officially dead.
Reminder for “older” Four Thirds user: List of Four Thirds Sigma lenses (Click on link to see them on eBay):
[shoplink 18947 ebay]Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18948 ebay]Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18948 ebay]Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18949 ebay]Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18950 ebay]Sigma 24mm f/1.8[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18951 ebay]Sigma 30mm f/1.4[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18952 ebay]Sigma 50mm f/1.4[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18953 ebay]Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18955 ebay]Sigma 55-500mm f/4-5.6[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18956 ebay]Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18957 ebay]Sigma 105mm f/2.8[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18958 ebay]Sigma 135-400mm f/4-5.6[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18959 ebay]Sigma 150mm f/2.8[/shoplink]
[shoplink 18960 ebay]Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6[/shoplink]
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
106 Responses
With the user base shrinking why would they?
They only release apsc lenses with mft mount and therefore people don’t buy them. So basically sigma found that people don’t want their half assed efforts and would prefer to buy the quality lenses we can get from Panasonic, Olympus, voigtlander and soon Schneider kreuznach
Schneider?
This news is about four thirds, not micro four thirds.
if that is the reason, then sigma would be as bad informed as you are.
Don’t say stupid thing, moderator doesn’t like it.
Too bad, but not really surprising. Sigma never marketed (under their own brand) any purpose-built MFT lenses; all were adapted from larger formats. And MFT already has the largest lens selection in mirrorless. They could have been successful with something like an MFT version of their 18-35 f/1.8 (e.g. 12-24 f/1.8 or faster), or a fast & sharp long-zoom, or something else that is not an also-ran duplicate from APS-C.
Tis is about FT not MFT
OK thanks, I stand corrected. I did notice that it said Four Thirds; I simply didn’t think _that_ decision was still on the table, but should have understood.
If they are continuing with MFT, well that’s great – but the comments about how to maximize success still stand. Try designing & marketing a couple of optimized, purpose-built designs.
If you girls could read you’d notice that rumor says FT lensens, not MFT lenses.
Yeah, there’s no excuse for confusing the two unless the title was changed. Right now it says “Sigma will no more make Four Thirds mount lenses”. Aside from the Hulk speak (“Hulk will no more smash Four Thirds mount lenses!”) it’s pretty clear that it refers to Four Thirds (i.e. non-Micro) lenses.
Admin should clarify things a little so that people don’t get misinformed. Sigma said they won’t release any FT lenses. MFT has a different mount entirely.
Some people only see what they want to see…
I had no idea they had still be making them. I’m pretty sure that most were abandoned ages ago. I did manage to find a second-hand Bigma though – I was pleased at the time but it’s never performed brilliantly.
I considered buying one of those when I had a 43 SLR. But the consensus on the forums was that the 50-200 with a 2xTC and a little cropping gave better results than the Bigma at 500. Yours sounds pretty typical.
I’m finding the Bigma more than a little hazy compared to the 100-300
Workaround, as for most other extra-long lenses is to increase contrast and saturation.
Plus it takes some lifting as it weighs in at 2225g with adaptor
The old Oly 70-300 lens was possibly better IQ in reality too (although, that was possibly made by Sigma anyhow as it matches their design & has an AF/MF switch).
The 70-300 is what I ended up with but I was not really happy with the results at 300. Now that I have switched to m43 I get better results with my 100-300 and sometimes use an old Canon FD 300mm f2.8 with a 1.4 TC. I think both of those work deliver better results than the samples I saw from the 50-500. I really hope the Olympus 300mm f4 will be great optically and within my budget. Pretty confident it will be great optically but not very hopeful I will be able to afford it.
I was tempted by a mint/display 150mm macro (four thirds mount, I read carefully), to be used on my em1, but its bulkiness (and most of all price) stopped my curiosity.
What I treally hope is that Sigma will keep developping and producing those little beasts like dpQuttros.
I thought about the 12-60mm…
which has a MUCH more useful range than the 12-35mm or 12-40mm…
UNTIL I saw the size, weight, and price, coupled with the added size/weight/price and complexity of 4/3 to M4/3 lens adaptor.
Solly Cholly!
12-40mm is the way to go… for now.
The 12-60mm had serious distortion too. I considered one when the E-3 was announced but waited for the 14-35mm f/2.0 to arrive.
I got mine (via a grey market) before the E-M5 emerged & am pleased with its performance on the E-M1. It was a pain on the E-M5 (with only MF usable & a delayed response with flash), although I did get some keepers with that combination.
Didn’t they actually stop making them years ago? Perhaps this is just an official statement of a policy long in place?
One thing I remember about their FT lens reviews and user comments was that these lenses could be very good, but quality control was inconsistent. I happen to have eventually acquired both the 105mm and 150mm macro lenses and have been happy with my examples 🙂
Argh, Four Thirds. It reminds me of the fact that the awesome 12-60mm F2.8-4 is still missing a replacement for native Micro Four Thirds. 🙁
What’s wrong with the 12-40 2.8? Wonderful lens.
I have both and on my samples the 12-60mm looks better. I think it’s the microcontrast. It makes images ‘pop’ more.
I haven’t pixel peeped in a comparison so the 12-40mm may win on resolution etc. And it is the one I tend to use mostly because of the size.
But I do like the extra range of the 12-60mm.
M43 LOL
don’t laugh, moderator is not gonna be happy with this.
listen, Kim Jong Un, you better stop deleting comments.
Why so mad? I already complimented your musical interpretation of ‘Hamlet’.
LOL, how many people are getting confused with Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds
I was. And it felt like a cold glass of water poured over my head 😮
Thanks God it was not m43 😉
Why, does Sigma make anything important for micro Four-Thirds?
Seriously?
Very seriously.
Is the 18-35mm f/1.8 available or the 150-600mm or any number of newer, high quality lenses? No, we get the 19mm, 30mm, and 60mm f/2.8 lenses.
But at least they are native m43 lenses, and not adapted APS-C or FF lenses. And they are not bad at all. The 60 is highly regarded.
I hope we see more native glass from Sigma soon.
They seem to me to be the same lenses available for Sony, with different mount but okay.
I’m kind of sick of third party lens manufactururers that simply changes the mount of a nikon or canon full frame lens to a four thirds or m43 and calls it, m43 50mm 1.4 lens, it weights a ton being made for FX and is just a stupid lens to have.
Also, sigma has some strange lenses that make no sense for m43, all primes for m43 have 2.8 apperture, it’s m43 for christ sake, 2.8 is like have 5.6 on FX, cheap ass lens.
m43 line will probably die too.
Agree, especially about their 2.8 lenses. I think at least for me it would be better to buy their Nikon lenses and use a passive adapter to use them on m4/3, or even better a Metabones Speed booster to get some use of that extra glass and weight.
Because no one shoots at f5.6 on full frame, right? Except for all those landscape photographers that stop down to f/8, f/11, f/16. Or macro at f/22, f/32, just to get enough DoF…
You are missing the point, making a prime for a small sensor that starts at 2.8 means you are a cheap ass company, very little glass there and premium price of a prime lens.
What is the point of prime if it isn’t fast, i can get 2.8 on a pana 12-35mm.
Remember, the amount of glass to cover a m43 sensor is 2 times less than what you would need for a full frame lens, so please spare me the bullshit, when i see a 2.8 prime in the range of 12-100mm, i laugh at the poor people who bought a tiny lens, hugely overpriced.
Way back when, we would have been happy for a 25mm f/1.4 from a third party, but until Leica designed one for the Digilux 3 (when the E-330 and L1 and LiveView were announced) and had Panasonic build it, Sigma was the only one with anything close but they were not very good.
Some time ago, I compared the Summilux D 25mm f/1.4 I had back then with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on a Canon 7D, and my impression was that the Sigma wasn’t really so much worse. Unfortunately I never had the chance to test the FT version of the Sigma lens against the Summilux.
The 30mm f/1.4 with a Canon mount was probably given three times the quality inspection of the Four-Thirds version.
From what I was told by 20+ users of the 30mm f/1.4 lens was that the back-focusing issues were 100% and were corrected at the Sigma service center in Singapore, which was convenient, but there was a yellow cast to most of them, as well.
Sadly, I’m hearing that Sigma’s fantastic 18-35mm f/1.8 lens has back-focusing issues with a Nikon mount. I’m probably going to buy it, along with the USB configuration device and a Metabones SpeedBooster.
I could very well imagine Sigma to make such a lens for mirrorless mounts some time in the future, with contrast detection AF eliminating most focus accuracy issues, and much more compact to boot…
It would be interesting, 20-40 years from now, when they’re ready. I’m wondering if Tamron would be aggressively making lenses for micro Four-Thirds, if they saw a clear path.
It wouldn’t harm if one or two more camera manufacturers would join Micro Four Thirds, too. The “Kodak” Pixpro S-1 would have been a nice addition, if it was just a bit more ambitious – and if it was really available. I wouldn’t know where to buy one in Europe…
Regarding the MFT lens lineup, I have to say all in all my personal view is quite relaxed. Although I surely could wish for one thing or another, I’m very, very content with what I have now thanks to the E-M1 and the lenses there are, from MFT over FT up to manual legacy lenses which, under Four Thirds sensor size restrictions, climb to new heights when used with a Speed Booster, regarding both angle of view and image quality.
I disagree. The Sigma f/2.8 lenses are slow, but they deliver excellent image quality and decent AF performance, and they are solidly built to boot – all for a low price. That’s not “cheap ass”, those are decent lenses with a really good price-performance ratio. It’s just that if you need something faster than f/2.8, they’re not made for you.
Personally, I plan to give the 19mm f/2.8 a try sooner or later, for lack of a really good 17mm lens. As far as I can see, the 19mm Sigma is significantly better than both the 17/2.8 and the 17/1.8 Olympus lens.
One wonders, Is Olympus itself making any Four Thirds lenses or selling off a stockpile? The whole thing is something of a nostalgic goodbye. I sometimes wonder if the Oly club was done a painful, but delicious favor with the introduction of the OM-D. Although it was hard, at first, to part with the optical viewfinder, we soon discovered that these smaller cameras take way better pictures than the noisy 12-megapixel E series ever did. After I got used to the excellent viewfinder on the E-M5, didn’t take that long actually, I never again made any white-balance mistakes. So, saying goodbye to the big lenses is no fun. Micro Four Thirds is well established and surging forward with sales of PRO lenses. Where is the downside? Olympus gave us a wean camera, the E-M1. I am gonna assume that Olympus will retain the phase-detect autofocus feature for a while (necessary to support the Four Thirds lens catalog) but I have a hunch that the PRO lenses will quickly lure the former users so fully into the new situation that the pain of the transition will be quickly forgotten. This future is better.
I think I must be insane, but I just bought the HG 11-22mm and an MMF-3. Couldn’t resist the renowned quality at the price I found it.
The adapter should be arriving today or on Monday, so I’ll see what I think…
I’m using the 11-22 with the E-M1, and while I think it to be significantly worse than its reputation suggests, especially when it comes to edge IQ, I don’t plan to substitute it with any of the available M43 wide-angle zooms any time soon, because I find them either to mediocre in built and/or IQ, or too expensive, or both. I might be tempted to get the 7-14/2.8 some time in the future, but that will depend on the price tag, too, and my budget, of course.
Do you have the 12-40mm f2.8 to compare against? Honestly, I’m not expecting anywhere near the same corner image quality as that, but I’m only paying 1/3 as much (and getting a slightly wider FOV).
If it’s better than the kit lenses like the 12-50mm or 12-32mm, or similar to the 9-18 (either 4/3 or M4/3), I’d be pretty happy, to be honest.
I haven’t made any real comparisons lately and I wouldn’t know any of the lenses you mention from using them myself, but, all in all and stopped down to f/5.6~8, I find the 11-22 quite acceptable even at 11mm, and it’s perfectly usable wide-open, too, as long as the edge IQ is not critical. It might be better than the 12-50, and it might be about as good as the 9-18mm lenses. Moreover, it’s significantly faster than these. Even if it’s not perfect, I do like it somehow, and the FOV gain compared to 12mm is significant enough for me that I didn’t swap my 11-22 & 14-54 (which I owned both in the beginning of my DSLR era) for a 12-50/2.8-4 SWD when it came out. (Later, I replaced the 14-54 with the Panasonic/Leica Vario Elmar 14-150/3.5-5.6, but that’s another story 😉
Thanks for your insights. I mostly got it because I want to do more architectural photography (particularly at night – I find city lights really interesting), and as a fast(ish) wide-angle that didn’t break the bank, the 11-22 seemed like a really nice option. I sometimes de-fish the Bower 7.5mm fisheye, but I want to be able to frame in camera more easily, and a fisheye is a bit too radical a perspective anyway, most of the time.
To all of you who replied with insight about FourThirds lenses, thank you.
I still cannot see myself replacing the 50-200/2.8-3.5 that I use with the E-M1, which can be extended through the EC-14 and, with limitations, through the EC-20, with any of the existing or announced PRO lenses (40-150mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4), because neither of them is as versatile as the 50-200, and neither can I see myself going from DSLR to mirrorless only to replace one good lens that is just acceptable in size and weight with two similarly sized lenses, either.
It’s about the same with the 50mm f/2 Macro, which is good for portraits, too, and can be used with the 1.4x and the 2x converter as well. Both the 45mm Leica macro and the 60mm Olympus macro are slower and not really as good for a portrait lens, so I would have to buy an additional lens just for portraits (like the Olympus 45mm f/1.8, which, without question, is a very nice lens, but I have several manual lenses which are similarly suited for the purpose).
And then there are the f/2 Four Thirds lenses and the 300mm f/2.8 and the 90-250mm f/2.8, which have no hint of a substitute in Micro Four Thirds yet. Budget questions aside, I might rather keep the 50-200 and actually add a 300mm f/2.8 instead of going for the upcoming 300mm f/4.
While Olympus could have made their FT-compatible PDAF part of their strategy, since incorporating it in every camera they make would give them much more flexibility in designing Micro Four Thirds lenses, too, I don’t think it will last forever, either, as nothing so far hints at Olympus giving more cameras that option except the E-M1 and some successors.
Agree. If the upcoming 300/4 had been a 500/4 or 600/ I might have considered it, but my 300/2.8 is just amazing and I see no real reason to get the 300/4.
I’m still waiting for great lenses, although the 12-40mm f/2.8 is very good. Nothing can replace my 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 from 2004 or my 14-35mm f/2.0 or my 35-100mm f/2.0 so far.
The E-M1 has better technology than my E-5 but it’s lacking for constant use for sports. The GH4 is a better substitute.
If I’m not mistaken Olympus claims the PRO-lenses to be the even sharper than the old SHG-lenses. So that leaves the extra stop as the only advantage..
Between the 14-35mm f/2.0 and the 12-40mm f/2.8, my experience says that the 12-40mm is not as good, though it is quite good. It seems clearly between the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the 14-35mm f/2.0.
That’s interesting. Wondering if anyone else can confirm what I wrote. Don’t remember where it was stated, but I believe I read it on this site.
Oh, I believe that they said it. I just haven’t see it in my own experience. Robin Wong had similar feelings about the three lenses.
43 is dead anyway.
aps-c and fullframe at the only formats (below medium format) that will survive.
every other market will be covered by smartphones.
maybe 1″ sensors in compacts will survive for a bit longer but 43 is dead and m43 is a dead end too.
Good luck in 5 years if you read this comment again 😛
Given the whopping 10% of the interchangeable lens camera market that full-frame has, you make a compelling argument… /s
If you like shooting in a squarer aspect ratio, APS-C is barely bigger than M4/3. If you like the lenses and the bodies in M4/3, 2/3 of a stop of high ISO performance is a very trivial reason to choose APS-C…
http://i.imgur.com/bQtgd7Q.png
Nice try. You’re comparing m43 to the smallest APS-C format (Sigma). The one in Nikon, Sony, Pentax, and Fuji is about 70% bigger than m43. Not all APS-C are the same size. There is no comparing a real APS-C sensor with the slightly bigger than 1″ sensor in m43.
No, you’re absolutely, 100% wrong. That is not compared to Sigma. That is made from the real pixel values of a 24MP APS-C (i.e. Sony A6000), to a 16MP M4/3 sensor, then scaled by the relative difference in pixel pitch.
I could do the same comparison with the exact dimensions in a CAD program.
Oh, and FWIW, a 1″ sensor is 116 mm^2, whereas an M4/3 sensor is 225 mm^2. Since when is 1.94x the size “slightly bigger?”
Here it is with the real linear dimensions so you aren’t able to get confused.
http://i.imgur.com/qs48t6P.png
Theyll all live a healthy life. But The only thing keeping APS-C relevant is Big Box store DSLR cams bought by soccer moms. Olympus and Panasonic mft cams meet or surpass all APS-C DSLR cams at or under their price point by a nice margin. And the system is much more compact than aps mirrorless and slr.
You HAVE to go full frame to beat mft. And sony is the affordable technology advanced sweet spot for full frame. In that sense, aps is kind of useless. But it will stick around
Between m43 and 24×36 there are Fujifilm and Samsung, ready to fight with their systems.
No you dont. Just go Fujifilm to beat M43 easily. Cameras are cheaper than M43 flagship ones, IQ is better and even though M43 has ibis and touch screens, Fujifilm has full manual controls, so no need for touchscreens.
Or get an Ricoh GR (one of the smallest Bodies an APS-C sensor can fit in), which even beats Fuji X in my book.
I have tried a few of the best mft-cameras and will keep my E-P2 with the Pana/Leica DG Summilux 25mm (just because of the really nice lens), but in the most cases APS-C proves to be clearly more capable.
Simply not true. Fuji’s high ISO capabilities are in many cases worse than m43’s even shooting RAW due to the demosaicing process of the x-trans files. Their manual controls are a step backwards, as the dials are pre-set and you cannot change how they function (unlike an OMD camera which you can change the dial to do what YOU want it to do). Also, Fuji’s AF system is decent but is beaten by m43’s and their lenses are significantly larger. Honestly, once samsung fleshes out their lens library to include some other high end primes (like their 85mm f1.4), there will be no compelling reason to choose a Fuji.
Apparently here to justify your Fuji purchase. That’s ok.
IQ is hardly better than Mft, and the lack of touch screen is a defect, not a feature.
XD
aps-c will die before. Only FF and m43 idifferentiate enough. More people are switching from DSLR to m43. m43 gives similar aps-c performance in much smaller size. Lens are cheaper with higher quality. If you want full IQ, FF is the king still.
Olympus and Panasonic needs to market more in U.S., put OMD and GH4 in bestbuy and reduce the price a little bit more and you will see a much different results.
FF is still the king? Not while medium format exists…
Chuck – which medium format camera gives you better image quality than FF?
This is about regular 4/3rd, not micro 4/3rd. But it will be interesting to see which survives, it or aps-c.
I vote that you’re right, at the moment. But as a Sony NEX owner, I’d love for Olympus or Panasonic to give me a good enough reason to come switch to m43. Sony does just enough wrong in their cameras to always make me want something else. And @OlyFanBoy has a point: aps-c is the mid-point between FF and m43. M43 lenses are so much smaller AND with Sony is attempting to push users to FF. Those two factors might just be enough to get users who don’t move up to FF to say goodbye to Sony/aps-c, and down shift to m43.
If m43 could make a jump in MP or other comparable IQ improvement I’d switch. With Sony controlling a lot of sensor development I don’t see it happening, though. They’ve got a big incentive to keep m43 sensor technology a generation behind what they release on their aps-c models.
I’ve just got the Bigma 50-500 working on the GH4 and E-M5ii. It is recognised, it’s not quick and it makes a racket but it does auto-focus reasonably accurately. I have found that this lens is too big and heavy for the E-M5ii’s IS to cope with, not surprised. Workaround is to switch the E-M5ii to S-priority and select a sensible shutter speed; 1/80 seems to work but 1/8 which it calculated in A-priority is silly. The GH4 also allows the lens to be hand held much slower than the rule of thumb (1/focal_length) despite being completely unstabilised.
Not entirely sure all those lenses listed above ever existed as four-thirds mount.
You mean Auto-ISO gave you 1/8s for the Bigma? At 50mm, or 500? While there was enough light and ISO still could have been upped?
Why not shoot in manual rather than tossing the dice in an auto mode?
This is very sad.
A few weeks ago was mentioned that launch the 24mm f2.8 ART.
http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-there-may-be-a-new-sigma-24mm-f2-8-art-dn-lens-in-september/
That would be a Micro Four Thirds lens.
This is only the old Four Thirds DSLR mount.
I used some of them myself for a while (18-50mm f/3.5-5.6, 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6, 55-500mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm f/2.8, 135-400mm f/4-5.6) and I still think one day I might look out for a
105mm f/2.8 Macro which I know to be an excellent lens. Not all of the
others were, though. Most of the samples I had were significantly
decentered, and focus often was a hit-and-miss affair with wide angles –
two problems the Four Thirds versions of Sigma’s lenses seemed to be especially prone of. The AF used to be slow and noisy with most of those lenses, too.
Sigma’s new mirrorless lenses seem to be a completely different matter, with excellent image quality and reliable AF. Let’s hope they’ll broaden their selection of mirrorless lenses further in terms of focal length and aperture…
They were fairly sloppy back then. What’s sad is that their 18-35mm f/1.8 lens apparently isn’t calibrated properly, which is why their USB dock is such an important accessory, to correct back focusing issues.
So, this is news?
Nope. An FT4 rumor. Not confirmed. 😉
:/
I hear that they won’t be doing any Minolta SR mount either. 😉
Funny that you should say that – my current lens lineup for use with the E-M1 (lenses which I really take with me then and again) consists of five Minolta SR lenses (plus Speed Booster), four Four Thirds lenses and two Micro Four Thirds lenses. 😉
They’re supposed to be great stuff (and probably still something of a bargain). I always wonder how long old glass will be able to out resolve sensor development. Then I remember that I don’t shoot charts, so it doesn’t matter. 🙂
One thing I know for sure – while I’ve found modern lenses to be less than robust, rather prone to becoming decentered or even breaking something inside, the SR Mount lenses I have are between 35 and 55 years old and most of them are in perfect working order…
The 30mm f/1.4 was fairly popular, but had typical Sigma back focusing issues. Bigma and the two macro lenses were good though. Never saw that they made the 50mm f/1.4 available for Four-Thirds, nor several of the others.
Thankfully, the company has become better in the last two years.
Because R&D doesn’t cost anything, and aperture is the only indicator of lens quality, right?
Come on, the f2.8 Sigma lenses that we’re talking about cost under $200. There aren’t very many primes out there that cost that little, for any system.
Tubofrog, a nikon 50m 1.8g costs 200$, and has glass to cover a full frame sensor, at a 1.8 aperture, a sigma lens specialy made for m43 system starts at 2.8 and most of them primes costs 199$ or little over, depeding on focal range.
Now tell me, what lens do you think is more expensive to make and what lens is hugely overpriced.
And what r&d are you talking about ? for christ sake, panasonic has a 12-35mm opticaly stabilized lens, constant 2.8 and ridicoulous sharpnes and very fast autofocus, what chance can sigma have with a 2.8 prime ?
Actually lenses in the 40mm to 80mm range are cheaper to make than smaller and longer focal lengths. Even with smaller formats. It’s one reason the Oly 45mm is so cheap.
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/26648/why-are-50mm-lenses-cheaper
so will these work on Micro Four Thirds or is this for an older format?
Those were built for Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs, but can be attached to Micro Four Thirds cameras with an adapter. The electronic aperture will work, and autofocus, in theory, too, but will be very slow and possibly erratic, except on the Olympus E-M1, which has on-sensor phase detection AF for DSLR lenses.
Oh, and by the way: it must have been quite a few years ago, probably Photokina 2008, when I talked to the Sigma people at their booth where they still did have three or four of those lenses for us visitors to try, and they said I better shouldn’t expect Sigma to expand on that selection.
(Some time earlier Sigma Japan had confirmed to me by personal E-Mail that they were about to make virtually all of their lenses available for Four Thirds, too. It’s just a guess, but 2008 was the year the Micro Four Thirds body was introduced. Being a Four Thirds consortium member, Sigma probably knew more back then about how things would develop in the Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds world, which would have made stopping Four Thirds development the only possible decision.)
Not surprised at all. Why would any lens manufacturer want their product associated with the photographic equivalent of Scientology? Micro Four Turds has been a mockery of photography and an insult to it from the start. Good riddance when it dies, as more and more manufacturers create APS-C and Full Frame systems, why would anyone want to compromise on quality with a joke of a sensor?
Why would anyone make lenses for the old FT when no cameras are made in that format anymore (as far as I know). What is interesting is if they will make more MFT-lenses. I am hoping that some manufacturer will step in and make the good long zoom that we miss. 100-400 mm f4-5.6 with better IQ than the existing 75/100-400. Should not be so hard considering what is offered for other systems. Or maybe a MFT version of Sigmas old 100-300 f4. I know Oly is coming with the 300 f4 prime. I like Oly glass and I like primes but at that focal length I feel that primes are somewhat limiting, and on top of that it will be big and pricey.
75/100-300 I meant regarding the existing lenses…
..funy..” APS-C relevant is Big Box store DSLR cams bought by soccer moms…”
so waht does the sensor, the sesorsice do with what?
-samsung nx-1 APS-C 6k, 1400,-$ bargain, chearleader-cam?
-sony fs-7( s35 aps-c format +-..) 6890,- not bargain, olympic warior super mom?
use 4/3 gh-4 s35 pana( yes super pprn expensive but not so tiny low qaulity like some..)
F55, Arri Amira, Red Dragon, BMC-poked-masta, Pana 3 chip 4k, and so on…
funny to see taht after 8 years brainwashing ( gen smartphone) you hae a new class of human.
e-slave-idiot 2.0
but:: you make much money with this liposomal antagonistic maybess..
Sigma would stay with one 18-55 f1,8 straight for aps-c , and simple Adaptic idea and it
works on next GH-4 Gh-5 JVC s35 4k–and someboy will make a kikas-stata project and bring
us a biological clear Multi-mount-adapter… and for the e-slave-idiot 2.0
– android
-w10
-ios————————– penisring with the e-funktion ” now you can— pipi!
Does anyone around here remember Mirsky’s drunk browsing test?
NNooooooooooooo……!!!!