Lense quality

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Simon Mayo, Nov 8, 2006.

  1. Simon Mayo

    Simon Mayo Guest

    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, Nov 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Simon Mayo

    Panos Guest

    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.
    Panos, Nov 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Simon Mayo

    SimonLW Guest

    "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
    SimonLW, Nov 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Simon Mayo

    Skip Guest

    "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
    Skip, Nov 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Simon Mayo

    tomm42 Guest

    On Nov 8, 2:43 am, "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?


    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
    tomm42, Nov 8, 2006
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Floyd

    EOS 10D Lense Question

    Floyd, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    307
    Tony Spadaro
    Jul 14, 2003
  2. N.E.1.
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    779
    Phil Stripling
    Sep 23, 2003
  3. Desmond
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    844
    Bob D.
    Sep 27, 2003
  4. Richard Lee
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    4,609
    Big Bill
    Aug 23, 2004
  5. eh
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    667
Loading...

Share This Page