–
An important store owner contacted me to tell me about a chat he had with a Sigma manager. The manager confirmed that there will be no Four Thirds version of the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens. And he also to him that from what he know there is no plan to adapt present and future DSLR lenses for the Four Thirds mount. That would be really bad news if confirmed. That said, even Olympus lately didn’t release any new FT lens. And with “lately” I mean something like 3-4 years 🙂
For now only Samyang released some new FT lenses. All can be found under different brand names on eBay: [shoplink 20647 ebay]Samyang [/shoplink], [shoplink 20684 ebay]Walimex [/shoplink], [shoplink 20649 ebay]Rokinon [/shoplink], [shoplink 20650 ebay]Opteka [/shoplink], [shoplink 20651 ebay]Falcon [/shoplink], [shoplink 20653 ebay]Vivitar [/shoplink] and[shoplink 20652 ebay]Bower [/shoplink].
49 Responses
There’s no need, in fact.
Exactly, there is no need.
But I think for other reasons. Olympus has 4/3 focal lengths covered very well with a range of zooms (from dirt cheap, to very expensive ones), and all of them are excellent price/performance wise. It is difficult for Simgma to find a blind spot, where they can jump in with something better/cheaper, Olympus doesn’t have. (OK, maybe with BIGMA, and primes, which should be small). They didn’t sell much lenses for 4/3 mount.
Anyway, Olympus is (without being provoked) giving signals, that they have plans to continue 4/3 line. Maybe not with DSLR, but with something hybrid/mirrorless. I have no reasons not to believe them. According to rumors, we will see in a few months…
Sigma 10-20 is still a perfectly good choice vs. Oly 9-18 & 11-22 =) Maybe that’s why it is still available at B&H 🙂
Had Sigma 10-20 and have Olympus 9-18.
Sigma is/was:
– Much less sharp and contrasty
– Gives slightly yellowish tone
– Bigger, heavier
– Only slightly lower price (when it was available)
– Better build quality
Price/performance wise Sigma hardly ever outperforms Olympus lenses, which does not mean some people do buy Sigma lenses.
Since Sigma 10-20 in Olympus mount is not in production for several years, availability at B&H probably means they can not sell them.
Why would they make a FT lens now for a dead system? Making a mFT-version could make some sense, but the focal length of 18-35 isn’t particulary suited for 2x crop factor anyway and they’d need a complete redesign to take advantage of the shorter flange distance.
Mostly agree, but have to add:
1) Sigma has better geometry,
2) Sigma has less CA,
3) Sigma has normal (FTM) focus ring, scale & dedicated MF switch, so shooting in hyperfocal mode is far easier
4) Sigma loses in the center of the frame, but wins in extreme edges (in particular due to better CA handling mentioned above)
5) Sigma is better at slow aperture settings (F/11 and so on)
🙂
It was intended for Tropical Yeti, sorry…
No suited for 2x crop??? Really???
I wonder, then, what in the world Nikon was thinking when they made their 35-70mm f/2.8…
18-35mm would be an idea range for μ43. It’s a sacrifice at both ends, yes, but it still comfortably fill the roll of a fast standard zoom extremely well. The following would be an awesome trinity zoom kit:
9-18mm
18-35mm
35-100mm
Personally I think Olympus are hoping that if they string out 4/3 users long enough they’ll all die of old age and they’ll never have to officially announce that they’ve abandoned the format.
If I was sigma I wouldn’t release lenses for 4/3 either.
I’d love to see a scaled down version of the 18-35mm though. 12-25mm f1.8 please 🙂
+1 for a 12-25/1.8 zoom!
4/3 is dead. We all know. Even if they’ll make a PDAF capable m43 body it will be just a way to keep those old 4/3 lovers in…
I think that they will make only one body with PDAF for them and they will never update it in the future. Every other m43 body will have CDAF only.
They’ve done that already. It’s the E-3, or is it the E-5?
It’s been so long since I thought of 4/3, I can’t remember.
As they’ll get their sensors from Sony, and since Sony plans to make their A-mount cameras mirrorless, I think all future Olympus will have PDAF.
Shhhhhhhh. Don’t let the militant fanboys over at DPRrview hear you say the “D” word. They will have you hanged for such blasphemy
Admin,
Welcome to the eighties Mr Banks.
As long as we get Speed Booster with electronic contacts for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax or Sigma mount, we won’t complain. On the contrary ;).
+1 that is the most logical option.
So we have indeed a 1.3/13 – 25 mm?
Something like that, around 14-25 F1.2. Two things need to be sorted out, though: whether Speed Booster supports APS-C lenses and AF speed. No review of that Sigma mentions its CDAF speed and m4/3 PDAF on sensor is still in a rumor phase :).
Dose M3/4 speed booster works with this lens? Auto focus too?
I want to buy lens+speed booster if they work.
Old news. Sigma stopped doing that about four years ago – whenever they refreshed a lens, it wasn’t available in the 4/3 mount, and new ones were never produced with it.
Anyway – it takes a special kind of stupid to have 10% of DSLR marketshare, growing and fully profitable, and then decide to throw it all away for a new, radically different and incompatible system which is still irrelevant and is almost certainly losing money by itself.
And if Olympus hadn’t gotten involved in this silly digital craze and had stuck with making the OM-1, they’d be even better off today. Right.
Olympus’s mistake happened in in 1990 when they started developing the iS series at the expense of the OM series. Had OM development kept pace with Canon, Nikon, and Minolta in the 1990s they’d be much better placed in the DSLR market.
Really Bad News? Come on, Admin. Four Thirds is dead. No need for Sigma to develop products, which won’t sell.
If we really want to go photography makers go downhill, we should encourage them to develop products, which are doomed from the beginning.
The members of the Four Thirds consortium should concentrate on the development for Micro Four Thirds products instead of wasting efforts with FT.
This isn’t news, as Sigma discontinued production of all of their 4/3 mount lenses several years ago. I’m surprised that anyone considers this surprising 🙂 I’m not knocking the Sigma lenses in any way, I’ve acquired both the 105mm macro and the 150mm macro, which offer unique abilities in the 4/3 format. They also work just fine on my m4/3 bodies, one is going to use manual focusing in macro situations anyway.
“the 150mm macro, which offer unique abilities in the 4/3 format. They also work just fine on my m4/3 bodies, one is going to use manual focusing in macro situations anyway.”
MF is the only way with this lens, but when using external flash (especially), there is some delay with the closing of the aperture blades. Apart from that, great images are possible.
Honestly. When are you going yo stop talking about four thirds?
Well, the site *is* called “4/3 Rumors”…
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………….yawn.
4/3 is dead. Micro43 is alive. But micro43 needs dedicated lenses, not micro43 version of APS lenses. Especially micro doesn’t need slow f/2.8 primes (macro lens can be exeption).
Sigma can make dedicated lens or do nothing for micro43.
Or to issue camera with Foevon sensor for micro43.
Unfortunately Sigma has always been a cross platform lens maker. In the case of 4/3 they simply discontinued the mount years ago, since the sales were not going anywhere.
Now there is a new management at Sigma, however this does not seem to change. What changed is that succeeded in reducing the sample variation in their main factory, meaning that we won’t hear strage complaints like in the past. That is the real piece of news.
The lens doesn’t make that much sense on mirrorless formats like M4/3. It is designed for a DSLR, with a much longer register distance.
If such a lens would have been designed for mirrorless, it could have been made much more compact, due to the shorter register distance.
When M4/3 become a high volume format (beating DSLR cameras), then Sigma may be looking into designing a smaller lens with the same specs for mirrorless.
Its logical……43 is not the way to go. People are gonna buy the same size, better and versatile sony, fuji and samsung with apsc size sensors. Apsc and FF are the future. This is yet another hint that 43 is gonna be history. Sorry for this reality check.
I am not sorry, you make perfect sense. Why should I throw away 1500 USD for an Oly M43 + lens when I can have a Canon 6D + lens for the same – more or less? With a huge system to back it up? Exc usability? Exc focus? Exc image control? Exc IQ? Guarantee on a long-term investment? If I need small, I get the G1X or G15 – voilà, and I can still use my flashes + extra stuff with them. The same applies to Nikon, and NOT to Sony, Fuji and other candy & whistle manufacturers.
Look how small and light Sony RX1 is! It’s a FF with full FF IQ!
My friend, the IQ you can get out of a tripod + still subject + planar subject + good light may be as good as gold, but the camera has idiotic usability errors and no way to check the focus, except that super dear EVF with SVGA resolution. Not optimal for critical focus, right? Especially if you must catch the pic on the fly. *This* makes a camera good or bad, not the theoretical performance in a lab.
Oh look, adriaanie is now replying to his own posts using someone else’s name?
“am not sorry, you make perfect sense. Why should I throw away 1500 USD for an Oly M43 + lens when I can have a Canon 6D + lens for the same – more or less?”
Because for $1500 you won’t have a 6D body, let alone one with lens. For $1700 you might, with the plasticy 50/1.8 lens, a much less flexible and less functional setup. If you want the same kinf of functionality and flexibility, you’ll be spending a fair bit more then $1500, and end up with a much bigger camera. Add that Gx for portability? adds another $400 or so.
If you want to disprove this, show us the link where we get a 6D, a 28-80 zoom with decent AF and a G12 together for $1500. I’ll grant you a 10% margin, so even $1650 will do. Show us the deal or shut the f*ck up with your silly lies.
Not to mention, you are comparing list prices to street prices. You’ll have to beat $1300 if you were actually trying to make an anywhere honest comparison.
Hello my friend, I am fannying around the forums and what do I see? My favourite imbecile (that would be you) lying through his teeth. Just for your information:
Canon 6D = 1500 USD
Plastic fantastic = 100 USD
There is also a silly amount of affordable legacy glass that fits Canon EOS. Mark my words: M43 has no future, not at those pices. And lower prices would mean tighter margins, so you may be selling carpets soon.
Bollox don’t ‘ave any. Still.
Thats actually 1549 and 119, making for 1678 total. Got it cheaper? Show us the link. Also you are ignoring that g12 that also needs to fit in that $1500 price.
As usual, bollox is bollocks.
Actually, if they could make this for m43 mount, keep the FL, aperture, price, and shrink it down quite a bit, I would consider buying one. 35-70mm is my ideal walk-round focal length.
Why would Sigma plan if Olympus is not planning. You can also aski if they plan lenses of OM system 😉
This lens is supposed to make APSC cameras more competitive against FF DSLR. To make the same sense to 43, the aperture may need to go down to 1.4 – a big challenge. The camera that benefits the most from this lens would be the K5ii. With its in body IS and the already good high ISO performance, it would be the low light king for APSC cameras. Its IQ should be on bar if not surpass a FF + 28-70 f2.8.
4/3 is dead, however M4/3 needs desperately some FAST zooms. By FAST I mean at least F2, even better F1.4. F2.8 zooms are a joke as they are only f5.6 equivalent and extremely expensive for what they are (they should be priced $400 maximum!). I’ll repeat: at least F2, even better f1.4 zooms. Native F2 or F1.4 zooms. If they want the pros to take M4/3 seriously, of course. And great AF for sports, too. Otherwise, M4/3 will remain as an amateur system with high risk of early death.
It is impossible to make f/2 zooms without not making them massive, not to speak about 1.4. And more than the bodies, it was massive zooms that killed 4/3 proper.
So you’d probably be better shooting, and leave the choices about design to the makers. How come that those who clamour for impossible things, are those who shoot the less?
> How come that those who clamour for impossible things, are those who shoot the less?
It’s easy. They can’t shoot, because they don’t have those impossible lenses they need…
Until AF tracking is up there with CDAF, such fast zoom sounds to me like a half baked solution to a niche market. Pro market is not all about sports you know.
Its not to say there is no room for fast zoom, but consider that the current 35-100X is not exactly a best seller despite being a perfectly good zoom. Would a premium f2 constant really change the game?
Great post.I would wish to know if there may be any attribute in FM by which
we are able to edit the text specified in the screenshot or a picture.
Please note I’m not talking about the call-outs.
18mm to 35mm is kinda awkward on APS-C but is a perfect focal length for 4/3, 35mm to 70 equiv! It’s almost as if they developed the lens for 4/3 but it arrived too late!
As it’s been already said here, M4/3 really needs some “star zooms”, actually some “star lenses” just a good really good lens at an attractive price. Sure it’s got a good choice among mirrorless, but it’s just sad when you take a look at what choice Nikon or Canon DSLR users have.