POLL: What Four Thirds Sigma lens would you love to see “converted” as a Micro Four Thirds lens?
We got some rumors from Sigma sources saying that some of the current Sigma Four Thirds lenses would be redesigned for the Micro Four Thirds system. It’s time to ask you what lens you would like to see on your Micro Four Thirds camera!
Loading ...P.S.: The percentage near the answers shows how many of ALL voters selected the lens. As you can vote more than one lens the total percentag will be higher than 100%.
And those are the eBay links to the lenses:
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8
Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6
Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6
Sigma 24mm f/1.8
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Sigma 50mm f/1.4
Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3
Sigma 55-500mm f/4-5.6
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
Sigma 105mm f/2.8
Sigma 135-400mm f/4-5.6
Sigma 150mm f/2.8
Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6
MikeS
2 years ago |Panny and Oly have done an impressive job lately of filling out the m4/3 lens lineup, giving us a great selection of compact primes, among other things. All I’d want from Sigma would be something completely new (and maybe a little crazy), like an autofocus f/0.95 lens or a > 200mm equiv f/2 telephoto prime or zoom. I won’t hold my breath.
Nico Foto
2 years ago |I’m thinking exactly the same. Besides rebadging APS-C lenses as m43 makes no sense whatsoever…They should come up with something fresh, like a 135mm equivalent f/2 prime or maybe a fast 35mm equivalent lens…
Hazna
2 years ago |I want the OLY high end F2.0 zoom lenses converted!!!
Nathan
2 years ago |The 18-50 f2.8 constant lens is the one missing lens in micro four thirds. Ordinarily, I would say it’s a bit mismatched to the system, but having used the 4/3 version, while it really isn’t wide enough to stay on the body long-term, it’s a fantastic lens to pop on for portraits and macro purposes, and general walking around when you have a 7-14 or 9-18 with you for any really wide shots.
The close focusing distance and fast aperture really do lead to a very useful lens on micro four thirds. They’re also what’s still missing on micro four thirds.
Eric
2 years ago |I don’t want Sigma lenses converted to µ43. I want Sigma (or else) specifically designed for µ43. Otherwise, they don’t take advantage of smaller picture circle i.e. not top resolution on µ43, not so compact…
Steve
2 years ago |+1
Sigma lenses are too heavy and their quality control sucks too. How about “none of the above” as an option ?
Mr. Reeee
2 years ago |+1 None of the Above sounds about right.
Sigma is low on the list of desirable brand lenses, as far as I’m concerned.
I’d like an 85mm or 100mm f2.8 1:1 macro lens, but not from Sigma and doubt that would ever happen anyway.
Elniorg's Journeys
2 years ago |All brands have suffered from quality control problems. But as far as lenses are concerned you should not worry too much about this because contrast detection autofocus will always get it right. So basically you’ll never get these front/back focus problems which as far as I know are the overwhelming majority of quality issues on lenses.
I’m using a 17-50 2.8 HSM no my Pentax K5. This lens is a superb performer. But yeah I don’t see myself using it on my GF1 that’s for sure…
Elniorg's Journeys
2 years ago |While I didn’t find any of these lenses to be desirable, it’s not for the reasons you mentioned. Indeed covering much more than the sensor has one real advantage: sharp corner and homogeneity. You see that with full-frame lenses used on APS-C sensors: an okay lens on full-frame becomes a superb performer on APS-C.
Ranger 9
2 years ago |I would have voted for the 85/1.4, but it’s not on the list.
Anonymous
2 years ago |85 -> 170 equiv… kinda weird fov. I’d love to have a fast (f/1.4) 35mm (70mm equiv) but the 30mm f/1.4 might be close enough.
jules
2 years ago |perfect for macro
Anonymous
2 years ago |There are plenty of good and cheap SLR macro lenses than can be adapted for u43. For macro, No need for AF thus no need for Sigma.
jules
2 years ago |Short tele FoV is not in a no man’s land range for everyone.
Mr. Reeee
2 years ago |Good, cheap and macro. Which word doesn’t belong?
Cheap, I’d say.
You’re right, AF is next to useless for macro, too.
A longer focal length macro lens for shooting little critters would be quite handy. 85mm or 100mm f2.8 or even f3.5 would be great.
I was crawling around on the ground the other day and the little bastards wouldn’t let me get close enough. Even with my 60mm Nikon macro, I wanted more reach. . I’d forgotten that I have a Nikon TC-201 2x teleconverter stashed with my old SLR gear. I tried it today and it’s a bit dark, but not bad at all.
Andrew Karre
2 years ago |I loved the 30mm f/1.4 on my E30. However, I’d be much more likely to buy something like an 85mm f/1.x. Panny and Oly have more than adequate coverage of medium-tele primes at this point.
Joel
2 years ago |If they redesign it to be u4/3 size then the 150 2.8 as there is nothing already like that (long prime).. f3.5 would be fine though if close focus (not macro) and small..
maitani
2 years ago |none, as the 2x crop makes all of them pretty useless
other than that they should design from scratch a 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 equivalent lens (17mm and 42 in mft terms)
jules
2 years ago |If all of those lenses becomes useless with the 2x crop factor, the same can be said about many already existing m43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic!!
Exit 9-18, 1.4/45, 2.8/45macro, all of the kit lenses, 14-150ish supper zooms, 1.4/25 Leica, and 100-300.
About the only thing you got left are the pancakes and the wide primes.
binoyte
2 years ago |What Olympus body is on the picture ? Never seen before.
shutterwill
2 years ago |E500
Danonino
2 years ago |Hm.. i believe most people that have voted dont realise the the 50mm lens will become a useless 100mm lens on m43..
jules
2 years ago |33% voted for the 50mm, meaning that according to your beliefs, at least 16.5% of the voters have no clue about crop factor? On this forum?
This, of course, is taking the proposition for granted that 50mm on 43 is a useless FoV…
Darko
2 years ago |@Jules
As a proud owner of Sigma 30 mm f1,4 that with all my other lenses (Oly 9-18, 14-42, 40-150 and 70-300) made great photos, I can only tell you that you don’t know what are you talking about.
jules
2 years ago |guess my sarcasm was not obvious enough…
kesztió
2 years ago |What???
My favourite lens is an 55/1.4 Auto Revuenon, that is, an excellent portrait lens with an ideal FoV of 110 mm eqv.
Moreover, I cannot see too much reason for an 50 mm eqv bright lens as the DOF is’t enough shallow anyway…
Anonymous
2 years ago |To quote Andy Westlake from dpreview:
“The portrait range has classically been considered as being between 85mm and 135mm for comfortable ‘head and shoulders’ shots; personally in my book, 100mm counts as ‘about right’. ”
So you think Mr Westlake doesn’t realise that 100mm-equiv would be useless?
Narretz
2 years ago |wait, what, why?
Bizzarrini
2 years ago |Riiiiight, so why are all the legacy 50′s selling like hot cakes then?
jules
2 years ago |Wait wait! Even the columnists in dpreview that have been openly demanding for a fast portrait prime almost from the beginning, they obviously don’t know what a “useful FoV” is!
Luke
2 years ago |my favorite lens I have is an old Super Takumar 50mm 1.4
It’s certainly not useless. And I wonder if Olympus knew it was useless, when they just released the wonderful 45mm? Are you living under a rock?
Mr. Reeee
2 years ago |+100
Yep, fantastic lens! I love mine, too! Compact, beautifully made and excellent IQ!
I’ve got a 105mm f2.8 and have my eye on a 135mm f2.5.
You’ve simply GOT to realize that if a lens doesn’t transmit EXIF info, doesn’t have auto-focus or auto-aperture or have any form of stabilization, it’s impossible to use, useless, or both.
alienchow
2 years ago |Ah, what is useless about a 100mm lens?
anentropic
2 years ago |Do they autofocus etc?
There’s plenty of good fast 50mm manual primes from other systems available second hand + adapter otherwise.
Thomas
2 years ago |I would love a 135mm equiv. lens, so around 65mm f1.4
This would be an amazing portrait lens
Ben
2 years ago |Ahhh, exciting times
kesztió
2 years ago |FAST PRIME LENSES
jasonk
2 years ago |Please don’t just convert it, I don’t want a Bigma.
Leendert
2 years ago |Bigma is too big.
A 135-400mm or 200-400mm is better for m43.
good for wildlife, and same range as the expensive 500mm primes of Canon and Nikon.
Sascha
2 years ago |I miss the 200-500mm F2.8 APO EX DG.
Sorry, just kidding.
MP Burke
2 years ago |I would be more interested in the 70mm f2.8 macro than any of the options listed in the poll. Though a 150mm f2.8 macro seems useful on paper the lens is rather heavy and I would want an OIS system to aid with manual focusing.
ron
2 years ago |I think the question is kind of dumb – are people going to answer based on effective focal length or actual?
Bottom line is that the biggest lack right now in the m43 category is a good super-wide rectilinear. So what I’m hoping for is a 5-11mm non-fisheye zoom (mimicking a full-frame 10-22) or at least an 8-17 or so…
Anonymous
2 years ago |300-800mm……………..THEN IT WILL BE 600 – 1600 AT M4/3 XD
in my opinion , the APS-C based lens are not very suitable to re-fit for M4/3use , except the prime lens. so i choose the lens of 24/1.8 (equal to 48mm…) and 50/1.4 (equal to 100mm) , this two will be a good choice.
i’ve select the 10-20 , as i don’t think the other lense will doing well on m4/3 body .
BTW, where is 50-150/2.8 II HSM? This lens will be a very good lens if use on M4/3 , small size with F2.8 Aperture , around 100-300mm range will be a very nice lens for sport. 70-200/2.8 is a bit to big and heavy …..
physica
2 years ago |300-800? then it will be 600-1600 ?? XD
btw , where is 50-150/2.8 II HSM. this lens will be a very good match with M4/3 body
Sören
2 years ago |Give me a Tele-Macro Sigma
Alfons
2 years ago |m43 version meaning lens would have 4/3 specific image circle? I recommended 17-70mm F2.8-4 for my friends 550D. Closest to my 12-60mm Zuiko.
Simon
2 years ago |Why are all people so obsessed with 50mm (100mm equ.)?
What I want is a 60mm equivalent as a short tele, a long portrait tele around 120/140mm equivalent, and a medium zoom 24-140 equ. That’s it!
Ulli
2 years ago |i wouldn’t feel the difference between a 50 or 60….whats your reason for a 60 above a 50? flatter perspective?
Mr. Reeee
2 years ago |50mm primes are easy to find, can be inexpensive and many are excellent.
I have a Nikon 60mm f2.8D macro lens and the 120mm equivalent is nice vs. 100mm equivalent. Although, Ulli is correct, the difference is marginal.
And the 60mm is huge compared to my Pentax 50mm.
Boooo!
2 years ago |“Why are all people so obsessed with 50mm (100mm equ.)?”
It’s a reasonably nice portrait length.
That said – why are there so many votes for a 50mm f/1.4? It’s not going to be cheaper, smaller or better than the Oly 45mm f/1.8, and the extra 2/3 of a stop won’t make a lick of a difference.
Why a 30mm f/1.4? There’s the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4, a vastly better lens. The Sigma can’t compare, plus it’s more narrow compared to the 25 than it seems at first (had the 4/3 version of the Sigma – sucks compared to the 4/3 25mm, both in IQ and usability).
Why an 18-50? Because of the constant aperture? Well, let me tell you something – 18mm is narrow on 4/3. The lens is decent, but doesn’t hold a candle to the 4/3 14-54.
A 70-200 f/2.8? Seriously? Do you have any idea how big it’s going to be? No? Well, Google it. The lens won’t be any smaller on m4/3 – they’ll be changing the mount, not the optics. Same goes for the 150, which is a very big and heavy lens (1 kg with the tripod collar!!!), making it utterly, utterly unusable on m4/3 cameras. Guess what happens to a plastic PEN if you attach it to a 1kg lens and mistakenly pick up the camera instead of the lens? That’s right, the mount breaks. Your camera is broken and you can’t have it repaired for free. Seen that with the 50-200.
The only choice that somewhat makes sense is the 105mm, because it’s a macro lens with plenty of working distance and mechanical focusing, and m4/3 only had one single macro lens made so far.
DanL
2 years ago |The only sensible way for me to answer this poll was assuming that the lenses would be redesigned for m43.
If they’re just mount changes none of them are even the slightest bit interesting.
Assuming redesign, I’m optimistic enough to hope that some fast primes in the 85-150mm range might be possible to make small and light enough to be interesting. That’s what I see as the biggest hole
in the current Olympus lineup.
While I don’t think a redesigned 70-200 f2.8 would have to be *as* big and heavy as the current one, I do agree that it would be too big and heavy to be practical for m43.
peroni
2 years ago |how come these polls are always off with their percentages?
Mar
2 years ago |None of these lenses are suitable for m43, at least until we get working PDAF on sensor, otherwise these lenses are not good for CDAF.
Janie
2 years ago |I’d like to see a more affordable alternative to Oly and Pana superwide zooms. With AF and designed for m43.
Something in a 7-14mm range
David Bateman
2 years ago |I don’t want Sigma mount swapped off. But rather, completely from scratch as small as possible point of view, new lenses. This would make sense as the market in NEX, M43rds and even Samsung is growing. The register distance is about the same, and the coverage should be set for APC, thus the quality will be much better on M4/3rds (less vignetting and distortion).
Since Olympus/Panasonic have a good 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4, 45mm f1.8. With 7-14mm f4, 14-42mm f3.5/5.6, 100-300mm f4/5.6, Then whats missing?
A good AF 85mm F1.4 or 90mm f2 with AF. And the 180mm is useful.
Also missing are the classic Sigma Macro’s. My favorite is the 150mm f2.8 macro. If this could be redesigned to be smaller than the current. Then I might buy it again (I have it in 4/3rds) as a macro 300mm.
And constant fast aperture zoom lenses are missing. Like a 12-50 f2.8, Sigmas 17-70 or 17-50mm would be good if F2.8. Also Sigma’s famous 100-300 f4 would be nice (if could be made smaller, big if!).
Eric
2 years ago |For me, a compact 12-60mm is missing. Something like f/3.5~5.6. The ZD 12-60 is just setting in front of me on the E-620. It is to big. When mountaineering, I switch back to the 14-42. So I would be ready to lose 1 stop at high end and close focus capability to get a much more compact lens (and body).
avds
2 years ago |I think Sigma should consider designing native, smaller m43 lenses now instead of slapping an integrated adapter on APS-C lenses from the Nex. Because they can now sell the native, smaller m43 lenses for the Nikon system using an integrated adapter!
svem
2 years ago |Would Sigma lenses for Panasonic M43 support continuous autofocus?
jiamflash
2 years ago |I want a 14-250mm OS!
Nick Clark
2 years ago |The excellent telephoto macro’s would be nice, mainly because it’s an area I don’t think Pana/Oly will cater for, but generally I don’t see the value of ‘converting’ APS and Full Frame lenses to Micro Four Thirds (keeping in mind that none of Sigma’s Four Thirds lenses were actually designed for Four Thirds…)
Too big, too expensive, too slow.
Native lenses if they’re going to bother.
Rob. S.
2 years ago |Okay, so I’m a bit late.
Anyway, my checkbox was missing:
None.
I’d rather like to see some of those Sigma lenses reintroduced for Four Thirds, not introduced for Micro Four Thirds. If someone would want to use them on a MFT body, give them an FT to MFT adapter (which ought to be much cheaper than what Panasonic and Olympus offer)…
Robert
2 years ago |Why there is no 40mm f1.4 or even 1.2
12-24-40mm (or, 50mm of course) line-up seems nice.
If Sigma makes something that should be one way different than Oly and Pana.