«

I am considering the purchase of some Sigma lenses and wondered what the
difference would be compared to genuine Olympus Zuiko lenses which cost 5
times as much?

Simon Mayo wrote:
> I am considering the purchase of some Sigma lenses and wondered what the
> difference would be compared to genuine Olympus Zuiko lenses which cost 5
> times as much?

The difference is that Sigma lenses cost 1/5th the price of Zuiko
lenses.

"Simon Mayo" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I am considering the purchase of some Sigma lenses and wondered what the
>difference would be compared to genuine Olympus Zuiko lenses which cost 5
>times as much?
>
Yes, the Olympus lenses are overpriced. I couldn't believe the price they
were asking for them considering they have to cover a much smaller sensor
area. Given their smaller sensor can't match the noise performance of bigger
SLRs, I don't know what the hell Olympus is thinking.

Anyhow, It really depends on the lens. Sigma makes some good and bad glass.
They have some cheap entry level lenses that aren't so hot, but lenses like
the 17-70mm zoom is nearly at the top of its game.
-S

"Simon Mayo" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I am considering the purchase of some Sigma lenses and wondered what the
>difference would be compared to genuine Olympus Zuiko lenses which cost 5
>times as much?
>
Build quality, optical quality, reliability. Other than that, there's no
difference.
Actually, there are no Oly lenses that cost five times what the equivalent
Sigma does. For instance, the Oly 50-200 f2.8-3.5 is $850, the Sigma 55-200
f4-5.6 is $150, but they are far from equivalent lenses. The Oly is an
excellent lens, both optically and in build quality, and 1-2.5 stops faster
throughout its zoom range. The Sigma is a bottom feeder plastic barreled
lens of questionable quality, both optically and in build quality.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

On Nov 8, 2:43 am, "Simon Mayo" <simon.m...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> I am considering the purchase of some Sigma lenses and wondered what the
> difference would be compared to genuine Olympus Zuiko lenses which cost 5
> times as much?

Sigma has some stars in their lenses, like all their macros, some
telephotos, and the 10-20. But most of their lenses suffer from QC
problems. Because Sigma make so many lenses, and many are poor quality,
I wouldn't make a blanket judgement. Zuiko lenses are generally
excellent, but as you noticed you pay for what you get. Almost any
Zuiko will be a good lens, with Sigma you have to pick carefully.

Tom