For the first time Sigma patented a lens purely designed for the Micro Four Thirds mount. It’s a new 35mm f/2.0 ART lens! It comes with optical stabilization too. Total length of the lens is 5,77 cm.
This would become the very first MFT “Only” designed Sigma lens. Currently Sigma design their mirrorless lenses for both APS-C and Four Thirds sensor mirrorless system. This makes the MFT lens version bigger than actually needed. So let’s hope this one will become real soon!
via Egami.
143 Responses
what a weird focal length!
I think people at Sigma aren’t aware of the crop factor yet…
lolol
“Wait, what? We have to divide the angle of view in half???”
Hmmm they need some more info about needs of micro 4/3 system – so we need tele lens 70-300S 4-5.6, 100A or 150A macro !!
and maybe 70-200A 2.8 and 150-500C 4.5.6 if they can make it for m43 size..
f2 – great, IS – great! Sigma Art – yes please!! 35mm… oh =(
Unless it means 35m full frame equivalent?
That’s what I’m wondering too.. Not that I need another 35mm eq lens, alreading owning Oly 17 f1.8 and the great Voigty 17.5mm though..
Post here: we talk about the m4/3 17mm offer. There isn’t a real 17(35)mm, for autofucus the maximum is the oly 17 f1,8 (f3,6), if you want a real possibility to play whit the dof you can use the big Voigtl 17,5 0,95 1000 euro for a normal f1,9 WOW. I prefer the super small Voigt 35 f 1,4 or Voigt 40 f 1,4, 500 euro and i can use a real f 1,4!!!
Ps: if you don’t like the dof, a sony rx100 or rx10 is a lot of better!!!
Interesting. Can you tell me the difference between a Voigt 17mm(34mm) F0.95 (F1.9) and a Voigt 35 F1.4 with a ‘real F1.4’ when used on the same camera ?
Who spoke about the same camera? The Voigt 35 f1,4 is for Sony A7, a lot smaller than om-d with voigt 17 0,95.
In the m4/3 there isn’t a real 35mm like Sony, Canon, Nikon ecc.
Way to come swinging your epenis in the MFT forum with yer big badass sensor.
Why not? A lot of people spamming the holy m4/3 graal on the web!!!
And you took time out of your life to come and crap on people’s day. How noble of you. Way to be above the crowd sir, please do continue to enlighten MFT peasants about your glorious camera.
I don’t know how much is needed to “play with dof”: I have never had that problem with the Olympus 17 f1.8 nor with the Voigty 17.5. Actually I bought the f0.95 for night shooting: extreme shallow depth of field is something I don’t like, and personally I think it’s too often a way to escape and distract from a poor composition.
Just to say, I think I still have to use my new Q at f1.7.
(I don’t like Sony compressed files, and personally I can’t “feel” Sony cameras (I have tried everything))
I am agree, sometimes the shallow depth is a fast way to distract from a poor composition, BUT with ff you can choose, with m4/3 no.
I like so much the wide angle lens with FF you don’t have a “shallow” dof, but if you want you can try to isolate the subject, with m4/3 and wide angle lens simply not. In fact for a every day use i prefer a lot a small camera like rx100 than a big m4/3 camera with few possibilities. And for other project a modern and small FF camera is the best.
What is so big about a Panasonic GM1?
That’s what you get when you buy microforturds…the crapfactor… Nice f4 portrait lens u got there m8! #cropiscrap #canonrules
Hooray! I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard MFT users asking for a 70mm/2.0 equivalent lens.
Do we really need a prime to sit between the 42.5/45mm lenses and the 75mm? Have Sigma lost the plot?
No, it’s me who’s lost the plot. Confused myself with focal length equivalences!
This would sit in the even smaller gap between the 25mm and 45mm lenses.
designed mft lens but 35mm ??
Oh, it’s cool but… why not a 65mm or 67mm? We hava a lot of short tele in MFT.
There’s already the 60mm macro and the 75mm/1.8.
Do you really need a 67mm/2.0 as well as a 75mm/1.8?
If Sigma want to stand out, they need to go long (presently only one prime longer than 75mm) or very wide (nothing rectilinear wider than 15mm)
The 60mm macro is a little too slow for portrait work, and the 75mm a little too long. A perfect portrait tool? 67mm f/1.4 soft 😀
Although theres a 4/3 at the corner, have hope that the title shown has already been converted to 35mm terms where in fact the lens is a 17.5mm F1.0 (or F2.0) in MFT terms?
A 17.5mm f1, with IS, Af, and just 5.7 cms long? I doubt it.
Quite. And a 17.5mm/2.0 will struggle to stand out against the existing 17mm/1.8, 15mm/1.7, 14mm/2.5, 20mm/1.7…
Sigma are clearly hoping that including IS will be a big draw for Panasonic users, but I can’t see what this will offer Olympus users unless they can pull amazing price/performance out of the bag (and branding this as an ART lens suggests it won’t be a cheapo option).
Oly 17mm is not very good imo. Build was ok, but the lens is quite soft (even in MFT terms), and freaking thing is ugly as hell as well. Sold it, and got the pana 25mm instead, its not the 35mm i wanted, but its sharp and fast, for almost the same money. I’d say a sharp and inexpensive 17,5mm would do great, I’d buy it for sure.
For fun, the stupid Yongnuo 35mm f2, is better, AF, small, 100 euro and it’s yours. For 470 euro you can buy the super Canon 35 f2 IS.
For fun you can use a pinhole camera and a 5×7 contact sheet film. This is a patent, how can you say that the Yongnuo is better? For the moment its better quality is that it exists. 🙂
The Yongnuo 35/2 is an overpriced piece of c**p, that I would not mount on any camera, and especially not on an FF camera that it is supposedly designed for. And if I needed a crappy 35mm for fun, I’d go with one of many old manual lenses that I can get for 20 bucks.
Nobody converts aperture….
Idiots do….
Only idiots would deny the m43 crapfactor on aperture… Crop is crap
Don’t get you hopes up — the numbers given are actual 35mm focal length for 4/3 sized sensor.
With that said, sometimes actual released products are scaled relative to the patents. So perhaps in the end this ART lens (unless they sell the patent to Panasonic) will be 17/2 or 70/2 or whatever makes sense to manufacture and sell. There seems to be plenty space behind the rear element in the drawing so downscaling to eg half might actually be possible.
12-40 f/2 please.
Dat f4 equivalent, tho…
Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Thank you for having stated the obvious…
17mm would be much better for me…
Actually I agree. Even though we already have 2 options, both the Oly 17 and the Panny 15 are overpriced for what you get.
As is the only 12 available.
At least the 12 is pretty darn excellent if you get a good copy and/or a bargain… The primes around 17 are either not as sharp or have AF quirks, the 15 is probably the least compromised of the bunch and also the pricier one.
I was responding to the ‘over-priced for what you get’ part. Yes, it is a good lens, but IMO, not a great one. I guess part of the cost is the fancy slide-back manual focus ring, which I have no use for. It does have good build quality, but I don’t know that it holds up any better than the lenses with more plastic. And I hate the way the lenses hood fits, I always feel I am scratching the barrel, and screw, really? Comparing the price and performance of the 12 to the 75, I just don’t see that the 12 delivers the value, by far. But it is the only option available.
If Panasonic made a 12mm version of the 25/1.4, I would be all over that (I mean in terms of construction, 2.0 is plenty fast enough for a 24mm equivalent lens, for me at least).
Don’t get the size? Most pro photographers I know ‘tolerate’ the 24-70 zooms because it’s ubiquitous in every camera company, usually made super-sharp, and relatively fast. I’ve heard a lot of people refer to it as their “money lens”; BUT, they’ll all admit that the 70mm part of it is relatively useless, it’s not really a portrait lens, not long enough. That’s why I lot of people talk about how they’d like a 24-50 or 24-55, or a 24-85 (or even a 35-85, which was big back in my day, and Tamron made a great one that was almost no bigger than a normal). Anyway, so, does anyone really need a 70mm?
Yeah, what I’d really like for m43 is a 12-52.5 f/4 “Macro” where macro is at least 1:3 at an affordable price. The only lens I still have on my DSLR is the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. I would love to have a m43 equivalent. Unfortunately the trend among the lens makers now appears to be extremely expensive lenses. There’s nothing in the middle ground between kit / 2.8 zooms.
I think a 10-30 f3.5-4.5 would be a super fantastic all-around lens.
That’s the zoom I’ve wanted as well 12-52.5 f4…the standard 24-105 equivalent with fixed f4 would be great. Too bad the Oly 12-50 was so slow…should have made a mft version of their old 12-60 f2.8/4
another very short tele…and I have the Sigma 30 (which I like) but really would like a longer OS telephoto…either 105 or even 135 equivalent. Like a 52.5 f2 would have been great for Panny users.
Just forget all the odd focal lengths and make it 60mm or 100mm and you have what you want.
The 105mm and 135mm for film SLR cameras were used only because it was easier to mathematically calculate the optics. Now things are computerized and it is just pushing a buttons to get all focal lengths easily.
The 105mm or 135mm like the 85mm are not “best” for something, they were just best choices from limited focal length ranges. 50mm is as good as 85mm, 35mm is as good as 50mm and 150mm is as good as 100mm.
Technically “yes” in terms of quality, but 85mm to 105mm was the “best” for 35mm portraiture because it was the minimum focal length to make the face fore-shorten the features to look natural, so you didn’t get the bulbous nose, etc.; and you could still shoot close enough to interact with the subject. You can certainly use any lens you want to do anything you want, but there are standards to reproducing certain photographic looks. You can certainly use whatever you want to shoot the inside of a house, but if you get back so far and you can’t get everything you want in the room from that angle, then you’ll have to use a wider lens, so there IS a “best” lens focal length for everything an individual photographer want to complete.
’50mm is as good as 85mm, 35mm is as good as 50mm and 150mm is as good as 100mm’
We must have very different ideas about that the phrase ‘as good as’ means. Or how we want people to look in our photos. Or more likely, both, I guess…
Support .
52.5 F2 lens sounds good .
70mm f4 mmm… why?
To teach you how to take a photo that has more that’s in focus than out of focus – I.e a good photo.
Sorry, i want shoot only wrong photos and out of focus. I prefer the ugly photos, the beautiful photos is just for you!
Wow, I am glad I now know the criterion (singular, in case you didn’t know) for a good photo.
I was being facetious, but honestly, if great blobs of gooey colour are your main goal in your photography, then you have to realize that Micro Four Thirds is the wrong option. Get an A7 and a cheap old 50mm/1.4 and go nuts.
I don’t think most users of this system are striving to match equivalent apertures. Because that’s a losing battle that is never going to make sense.
With FF i can CHOOSE if i want everything in focus or nothing in focus, with m4/3 i spend a lot of money for a “big” camera and a fix lens and i can’t choose nothing.
When i saw the extreme quality of 1″ sony sensor (image quality/dimension) i left the entire m4/3 sensor for a very small sony rx100 and a rx10. For my project, work and other a small and modern FF camera it’s a lot better than m4/3 camera.
I’m happy you’re happy.
Why complain here about things that don’t affect you now that you’ve moved on?
Because i like to stay informed of other brands… and a lot of m4/3 fanboy spamming on the web “how their sistem is superb, is like a ff camera and why there is a lot of people with a big stupid ff camera on the shoulder”
And of course, after this speech there is a must have sunset 100 iso f 11 1000×1000 px, is super beautiful !!! WOW WOW WOW
This is the second time you’ve talked about ‘a lot’ of MFT spamming. Where on the web? I haven’t seen it. I’m genuinely curious.
A lot italian forum
Capisco. Those Italians are so passionate.
This I actually agree with, lol.
You have to spend alot of money for a decent lens on your FF camera to shoot it wide open and actually take advantage of the FF sensor’s greatness. I just did an A/B test with my E-M10 and Oly 12-40 versus my friends Nikon D600 with a Nikon superzoom attached. The result? The E-M10 was noticably sharper because… well, lenses matter. Do I think my camera has the potential for more IQ than a D600? Obviously not, but clearly a bigger sensor is only part of the equation.
The RX100 is a nice camera, and I’m glad it works for you. I disliked everything about it but its specs on paper when I tried it.
No, in Canon: 24mm f2,8 is (430 euro ), 35mm f2 is (470 euro), 40mm f 2,8 pancake (150 euro) 50mm f 1.8 stm (120 euro), 85mm f 1,8 (300 euro).
Big zoom Canon: 24-70 f4 (650 euro), 24-105 f4 (600 euro)
Olympus: 12 f 2 (f4) 600 euro, 17 f 1,8 (3,6) 400 euro, 25 f 1,8 (3,6) 400 euro, 45 f 1,8 (3,6) 250 euro.
Big Oly zoom: 12-40 f2,8 (5,6) 800 euro!!!
1650 euro for a f4 fixed lens, i prefer a only big ff canon f4 zoom or a small sony a7 with just a 35 AF or old manual lens.
I’ve owned a Canon with the 50mm f1.8 and the f1.4. The f1.8 was great for the money, but it does not in any way compare to the Oly or Panny 25 in terms of sharpness/microcontrast wide open. Neither does the 50mm f1.4 that I loved when I used it. Also, the F4 zooms at best are as good as the f2.8 zooms for m43’s, and since you’ve lost the added light advantage from full frame, you are left with a heavier system, that doesn’t allow for different shooting styles (ie: shoot from the hip, shoot from a low or high perspective with the touch screen), and the video quality on a Canon today is trapped in 2004.
And: f2.8 is f2.8 is f2.8:
“In optics, the f-number (sometimes called focal ratio, f-ratio, f-stop, or relative aperture[1]) of an optical system is the ratio of the lens’s focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil.”
Ok f 2,8 is f2,8 this is true if you compare just the LENSES, if you put a sensor behind the lenses it’s changes.
In real life i have “almost” the same quality to shoot with canon f5,6 iso 3200 and olympus f 2,8 iso 800, always two stop. This is the point, you can’t compare a f2,8 m4/3 with a f2,8 ff. With f2,8 FF you can do more thing than f2,8 m4/3.
Sometimes (not always) i like to use small dof with wide angle lens (20, 24, 35) for isolate the subject and with FF you can do just until f2,8 or less f1,4, like reportage, environmental portrait, and some street shooting.
With m4/3 zoom lenses you stopped a “f5,6”, with fixed wide lenses you stopped at f4, f3,6, just the overcost pana 25 f 1,4 and 42,5 f 1,2 it’s near f2,8/2,4 but for 1000 euro!!! If you need small dof, only manual Voiglander m4/3 does, but for ff there are a very small and better solution (quality/size) like Voigtlander 35mm 1.4, 40mm 1.4 or the superb zeiss loxia 35 f2.
This is iso and dof real life test:
dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/4
Yes, a full frame DSLR like a Canon 6D (and moreso with a current Nikon or Sony) has greater potential IQ and more control of DoF. I would argue that the practical IQ difference is negligible for most people. By practical IQ, I am taking these factors into account:
1) most common ISOs shot at for most people
2) how the final image will most likely be viewed
3) Some shots require stealth, and/or consideration for others around you and
4) overall system size can determine what you actually bring with you
Yes, on a completely planned photoshoot, you can lug all your full frame gear and accessories with you and get the best possible IQ there is. In reality, even for professional photographers, you can’t carry all the gear you’d like to to do the shoot (ie: travel photography, street, reportage, event photography, etc.).
Here is an example. Its a decent overall image, not fantastic, but it is more than clean enough to print easily to 11×17 without any discernible difference from a full frame shot like this. What is interesting about the photo is the situation to take this shot would have been MUCH more difficult and inconsiderate of me with a FF DSLR. Using a small E-M10 with the equally small Sigma 60mm gave me 120mm of reach. This was shot during a wedding procession. I just leaned my camera down the isle at about hip height and touched the screen to focus and fire. With a DSLR, this would have required me to get out of my chair, crouch down in the middle of the main aisle during the wedding. Sure, I guess I could have done that but it would have been a pretty douche-y thing to do.
The point is, those who use m43’s understand its academic limitations, but the practical use case for a small, discreet, easy to carry camera system actually increases, rather than decreases our shooting envelope compared to larger systems. Basically, we have the power of a Nikon D7000 that fits in the palm of our hand. To us, that is more than worth the gretag mcbeth IQ chart hit.
For me we have to differentiate a causal shoot respect shoot inside a personal project.
A casual shoot you can do with an iphone, sony rx100 ecc. I love the environmental portrait and i think if we know our photographic style/method we need only 1 or 2 fixed lens, for example a small fuji x100, a small sony A7 with 2 fixed lens, a big Canon 6d with a small 35 f2 is.
This type of shooting you could do just with the FF camera and if you know the market you can buy a FF camera small, discrete and easy to shoot like a m4/3 camera with fast lenses.
This is because i didn’t see advantage with the m43 camera respect of a FF small camera.
As you can see the dof is minimun, it just for isolate a little bit the people, but every shoots is from 1,4 to f 2
Pete Muller 35mm f 1,4
worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_main_image/public/archive/2015/stories/GNS/3/owfb60fnek1akvrk5lrn.jpg?itok=W5gAvCVR
35mm f2
worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_main_image/public/archive/2015/stories/GNS/3/m3lhergvb2vm09gqqjid.jpg?itok=3gS2j-ti
Sara Lewkowicz: 24mm f2
worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_main_image/public/CIS1-CL_2.jpg?itok=IxS7Ugwf
Daniel Berehulak 35mm f1,8
worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_main_image/public/GNS3-BL%20copy.png?itok=xyz3fHY9
24 f2
worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_main_image/public/GNS3-EL%20copy.png?itok=Llud24am
35 f1,8
worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_main_image/public/GNS3-HL%20copy.png?itok=j4uOugxP
1: All of those are wide angle lenses
2: There is no Full Frame camera with an articulating touchscreen
While I like the style of those photos, I’m not seeing anything there save for maybe the blur in the first photo that could not be done with an m43’s camera.
1- the environmental portrait does just with wide angle lens, maximum with normal 50mm
2- The important is the articulating screen not the touch screen (helpful just for casual shot) do 500 pic with touch focus 😉
3- There are 2/3 levels with different focus, if you don’t see, you have some problem ehehe… this happens because is f 1,4/2 on FF (open the picture)
4- We are not talking about technical achievement but the potential and the possibilities of the photographic LANGUAGE, and using the NORMAL dof for isolate the subject in the environmental portrait
1. The shot I showed was on a lens that gave equivalent to 120mm in a very small, light and discreet package. That was the point. You sent me wide angle shots in response.
2. The touch screen IS important. It is infinitely faster to touch a point where you want to focus and fire all at once than chimping focus by spamming the D pad on a camera or doing focus/recompose. I’ve shot welll over 500 photos using a touchscreen.
3. Yes I saw that. Only possible on a wide angle lens like a Voigt in m43’s world, or have to stand much farther back with a longer focal length (doesn’t have the same effect). I agree that it looks nice, but personally, I’m not too sure it adds much to the image, and in this case, it would be VERY easy to mimic that using photoshop (since the people are small enough to not have to deal with improper faux-focal blurring).
4. True, right out of the camera, you can achieve greater control over DoF. Though much of the examples you showed me could be done using photoshop on a fully sharp image. This won’t work on EVERY type of photo nor is it as easy I agree, but that tech will continue to improve as well.
You might choose, but the vast number of purchasers of entry-level DSLR shooters just let the camera choose the widest possible f-stop (when shooting groups of people indoors), and end-up forced to choose almost nothing being in focus.
“entry-level DSLR shooters”. Ok, Olympus is for entry level photographers. Mmm good brand!
Do you tend to see everything as absolutes? ‘Cause it kinda seems that way.
And I didn’t say a thing about *matching* equivalent apertures. I was just commenting on your rigid way of looking at ‘what disqualifies something from being a good picture’.
You have to imagine that someone has an agenda to stir sh*t up when right off the bat they call a 35mm f2 lens a 70mm f4.
No, I don’t see things in absolutes. But I also recognize that you can get a whole lot of background separation with a 70mm f4. So framing the initial comment by disparaging that is…shall we say, incendiary to begin with.
Obviously I don’t believe that the only thing that makes a good photo is having more in-focus than not in-focus. But to be honest, it’s probably a good start in the right direction. The power of National Geographic, Magnum Photos, the World Press Photos, BBC Planet Earth, etc… is almost never how little is in focus. Clearly there is plenty of other good photography out there, but those are a few recognizable examples that never use shallow DoF as a crutch.
Differences in subject matter and taste. You are mostly talking about documenting things, and landscapes. Even in photojournalism you usually see a bit of background separation, often a fair amount.
And yeah, I see it functionally as a 70/4, too, lol. But that is just something to keep in mind for me, all systems have their limitations that you bump against. In fact, for me personally, every single other m4/3 user may feel different, DOF control is the primary thing I fight against, more than noise or resolution or any of that. But I love m4/3 in so many other ways that I deal with it.
IKR! What would people use this focal length for?
Sad to see Sigma, a company that can do so many great lens, still only doing “entry to mid-level” lens for micro43… They could definitely do a 12-35mm F/1.8 at about 1000$, it would sells like hot cake for sure !
The Sigma 60mm defies it’s pricepoint. It is the 3rd sharpest lens in the m43’s stable, just behind the Noct and the Oly 75. It’s price is entry level, it’s performance is not. If this 35mm lens sees the light of day and is optically as good as the 60 and priced competitively, this could be a great choice.
On the EM1 body Pana 25mm 1.4 is sharper (marginally though). 10mpx vs 11mpx Pana. Price is great though, for such a sharp lens.
DxO’s esoteric sharpness score shows the PL25 at 11. But when you actually look at MTF50 values, the Sigma resolves more detail at f2.8:
Sigma results: http://www.lenstip.com/376.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_60_mm_f_2.8_DN_Image_resolution.html
PL25 results: http://www.lenstip.com/314.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Summilux_25_mm_f_1.4_ASPH._Image_resolution.html
I believe lenstip is still using a 12MP Oly camera for the sigma and a 12MP GF3 for the PL25.
I also own both lenses and my own experience shows that at f2.8, both lenses are quite sharp, though I find the sigma to be better because it handles flare and chromatic aberrations better than the PL25. That said, the PL25 is a hell of a lot better at f1.4 than the Sigma is ;).
I do agree chroma is pretty bad on the EM1 with Pana25, but i just love this lens. I’m tempted to try sigma now though) Although I’m drooling over 75 1.8 now, gotta love that bokeh)
Yeah, honestly I don’t believe DXO’s perceptual megapixels for even a second.
Their results just don’t align with reality, and defy every other 3rd party organization that happens to report objective numbers. Like Photozone and Lenstip.
Isn’t that number the highest resolution a lens can resolve at its best f-stop? I don’t believe it takes into account corner/edge performance or other potential abberations in a lens. It is sort of a useless number, but can be good to compare potential sharpness in the center across a lens line. It is also fun to use it to compare Sony’s APS-C lenses to m43’s lenses since both systems use the exact same Sigma 60mm lens.
Too big of a range for f/1.8 zoom, it would have to be more like 12-24 or something like that. Which would still be a very useful range, actually. But this is not going to happen. And I’d still not be interested in such a huge lens.
I would prefer sharp, affordable and relatively lightweight 12-60 f/4 or something similar. I’m not really content with the quality of my 14-42 kit lens, but there’s no way I’m buying a heavy and expensive f/2.8 zoom. And there’s lots of people that think the same.
12-25mm F1.8! The native MFT version of their 18-35mm! Do this Sigma!
It would be 14-25mm f1.8…
just slap speedboster on 18-35, and you have f/1.3 zoom
yes you could do that but the advantage to having a native MFT lens would be not having to deal with a fiddly adapter that costs $400, the lens itself being lighter and more compact than the 18-35 and possibly useable with a micro gimbal.
Lens for a long awaited Foveon M4/3 camera? I hope so!
Finally ART lens for mft .
This is lovely but I prefer longer FL .
the 60 f2.8 DN is a art lens too.
(AND a good one! )
Not sure why optical stabilisation is necessary when most micro four thirds cameras have it built into the body.
Eh? Most Olympus maybe, but there are other brands in M43, most of which don’t use IBIS.
Yeah, ones which try to protect their lens sales
You mean other brand. Really.
Kodak will take over the entire system so dont rule them out 😉
“Most Olympus maybe”
All Olympus definitely. 🙂
“most of which”
Kodak uses IBIS too. Panasonic has it, although underuses it.
They need to address the fact the ART range bottoms out at 19mm. While f/2 is nice, f/2.8 is fine. The 19mm is just a bit too narrow – a good wide landscape ~12mm f/2.8 which works to Sigmas legendary strength (corner to corner sharpness) would be a better proposition.
Any u/4/3 user already has any number of zooms and primes that dance around 35mm. I have all Sigma u/4/3 ART lenses – they sit with my GX7 and I love them, but a 35mm – no I wouldn’t buy.
Man, a 12/2.8 would probably sell very well even at $400, if they priced it like their other primes it’d probably sell really well IMO. I already have the Oly so personally I’d rather see a 17.5, tho that’s a crowded space too…
If we’re honest, it’s at the very wide or long ends that they’d really find an underserved space. 7mm, 9mm, 65mm, 100mm… A modestly priced modestly fast lens with AF at any of those focal lengths wouldn’t really have much competition, if it were a M4/3 design.
84mm equivalent on the GH4 shooting 4K. If it’s $200 like the other sigma MFT mount glass I’ll probably give it a shot.
Just make a super wide prime that’s fast, …not a telephoto that’s in a crowded range of faster primes…. doofus sigma
That is why they are not going to make it.
What is really needed is something like a collapsible and/or weather-sealed 11-70/2.8-4 or 11-110/2.8-5.6.
No variable crap thanks, make a parfocal bright zoom with servo? Something useful…
You are talking about pro video zoom. Not exactly the same market as a mass-market wolkaround zoom, and not exactly Sigma’s speciality (they don’t have a single video lens AFAIK).
Hmm nice might be interesting lens. Lookig forward for more high end primes and zooms Sigma.
I’d much rather have a 150-450 MFT!
I love the 18-35mm f/1.8 adapted (Nikon mount adapted with a RJ Lens Turbo or Fotga adapter) for video. For hybrid shooting though, it would be nice if they could take that to native MFT. And maybe they could expand on that with another zoomlens, one a bit wider, to give a coverage similar to the 11-16mm f/2.8 from Tokina. On the other hand, there’s Olympus, with the brilliant 12mm f/2 and 75mm f/1.8. If they could find a way to do something like that and keeping a bit lower price, I’d be sold on those! Olympus now also has the rectilinear design 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO zoom, albeit with quite the pricetag. Would be good to offer something where MFT struggles the most… and that just happens to be on the wide end of things because of the crop. On FF 35mm is great, on the MFT system a bit awkwardly placed.
A much needed focal length.
Went to the originating web site and since all the other lenses listed are their actual focal lengths (and not their equivalents), I’m pretty sure this IS a 35mm, and not a 17.5mm; so again, who needs a 70mm on MFT? Unless this lens, because it’s designed for MFT only, is ridiculously small, then I’ll sell my Sigma 30mm and get it!
5.77cm would make it larger than the Panasonic 42.5 f1.7 w/OIS, which itself is marginally larger than the Oly 45… Maybe it’s meant for 4K video and it’s tighter crop?
Hey Sigma, how about a 7mm prime on the cheap. You’d sell a boat load.
yep, that’s the one we want. though I have to say 30mm with OIS would be tasty for video usage.
You mean like the new 30mm f/2.8 macro 42.5 f/1.7 both with OIS for $400 a piece that Panasonic announced a few months ago?
If this was actual 35mm (so 17.5mm before applying crop factor), and was sharper than current Oly 17mm (which i found soft, and sold it in the end), I’d buy it in an instant. Sigma usually provides very competitive prices, and good optics. If its 70mm, I’d pass, I already own a 45mm Oly, which is all I need currently for portraits and mid telephoto range.
This is great news. Sigma is building beautiful lenses and its about time they realized there is a market of the MFT shooters.
I would not expect this lens as there is no significant market for it.
There’s already the 30/2.8, 42.5/1.7 and 45/1.8. I won’t complain about having more options, but I’d much rather buy some longer Art-lenses.
I’d like to see Sigma do a 12-30 or 12-35 f/1.4 or f/1.2 zoom lens.
Even though the lens specs itself isn’t that interesting, I’d still buy it just to stimulate Sigmas interest in the system.
Ehh… 70mm EFL & f2.0 isn’t very appealing, specially in light of Panasonic’s 42.5 f1.7 w/OIS. I guess this could still be a bargain if they price it low, but the Oly 45mm already sells for $250 and half the M4/3 users have IBIS anyway.
Now if it were a sharp 17.5mm (or anything between 15 & 20mm) WITH OIS and that small size, I’d be much more interested. As spoiled as we are for choices, none of the wide primes manage to hit all the right marks quite like the more excellent 25-45 primes we have.
35mm is just an odd focal length for a dedicated M4/3 design tho, maybe it’s meant for the crop of 4K?
> Now if it were a sharp 17.5mm (or anything between 15 & 20mm) WITH OIS
At what kind of shutter speeds you are shooting?
At say 40mm eq, any SS faster than 1/40 should give you blur-free image. And the 1/40 is slow enough for motion blur to start to creep in.
Kinda like the Oly 75 1.8 which is already a fabulous lens. I have found m43 lenses mostly excellent from Panasonic and Olympus at their respective price points. Seems like a patent without a real product soon.
Nah i already have the 18-35 f1.8 I dont need another 35mm f2 😉
Is it a FF lens, or designed for APS C? Gonna go read some reviews, the 1.8 aperture on a zoom is interesting)
Aps-c. made by sigma. A warning though, its a hefty lens. about the same dimensions like the olympus 40-150mm f2.8
Luckely the 18-35 f1.8 has awsome image quality, better then most primes ^^
That would explain a lot, not really designed for m4/3, just ported over.
Just get Olympus 14-35mm f/2 and you get same T-stop but wider end.
Olympus and Panasonic must introduce a new sensor on their new cameras.
I’m afraid the new Sony 1″ sensor is able to deliver an IQ very similar to the old 16MP m43 sensor…
How has that got anything to do with this lens? I do agree a new sensor is needed in particular one that not only ventures into 20 MP territory but indeed bumps the 30 MP figure. But that is another topic altogether.
Uh. I agree with new sensor wish. I do not agree that the “current” sensor is closely followed by anything at one-inch. The holy grail of DSLR sensor is very deep ISO, and only full frame has it. APS-c and FourThirds sensors lag by about a stop, in the sense that the crop sensors are as noisy at ISO3200 as the full frames are at ISO6400. One-inch noise at ISO1600 is MORE than a stop worse than APS-c or FourThirds. Image Quality is great on all formats, on well-lit subjects.
I love this constant justification of ‘m43’s is same as APS-C and only a stop behind FF, 1″ is way too small though and miles behind the chosen one’. Bahahaha! What a laugh.
Finally. I refushed the very good other primes of them because they were too big. This one is not, thanks very much sigma!
eh?
I have the Sigma 35mm and 50mm Art lenses for my FF…but this does not excite me.
Too late to the party…too slow. See how spoilt we are. 🙂
…OH…..he FF Art lenses are quite exciting!!!!!!
A 8mm f/2.8 non-fisheye lens…Is that too much to ask? Not Kowa with their crazy price.
The Kowa is a very nice lens, with very decent optics. aside from the lens hood holding the filter??? Who made that decision?
So far I REALLY a like my Voigt 10.5mm.
Hmmm the new Holy Trinity has arrived! Well not quite the Trinity but… Oly 8mm f1.8 Pro + Oly 17.5 f1.8 + Sigma 35 f2.0 + Oly 75 1,8.
What do you think guys?
There’s also pana 25 1.4 and oly 45 1.8) MFT line up is growing little by little. I just wish the oly 17 was sharper 🙁
Sorry, the holy trinity are:
Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO + 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO + 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO
Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 + 12-35mm f/2.8 + 45-100mm f/2.8
OR
Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 + 12-32mm f/3.2-5.6 + 45-200mm f/4-5.6
You can easily and clearly see that Olympus is the top dog in sharpness, focal length and aperture, then you need to choose from Panasonic to either go their top line (not far from Olympus) or to their consumer line (great line too if you own small GM5 or GM1).
You guys all have the wrong Trinity. It’s 7-14 pro Oly, 25mm 1.8, 45mm 1.8 and 75mm 1.8.
This is as large as typical APS-C 35/1.8.
I don’t think they will produce this.