L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Comparing Sigma to Panasonic lenses

dirk

LMF-Founder
Administrator
This question was brought up in a another thera, so I copy it over here.

Any comments on the Sigma choices as compared to the Panasonic f/1.8 series in these focal lengths would be more than welcomed.
 
Some background here:

I have the 20 - 60 and 70 - 300 variable aperture standard S series lenses for my S5 II. I have on order the 14 to 28 from Panasonic so I have the zoom ranges covered. Am looking at primes for 35 mm and 24 mm with f/1.x apertures (f/1.8, f/1.4 or f/1.2) so am looking at both Sigma and Panasonic on the recommendation of the experienced L mount members. Looking for recommendations and experience even if it is on the S1 series or the original S5.
 
I just add her my 2 cents. I did not do any scientific tests and a lot is influenced by personal preferences.

The design goal of the Panasonic Lumix F1.8 lens line was obviously a different one than for the Sigma DG DN line, especially the Sigma I-series within the DG DN line.

In my view, the main target group of the Lumix F1.8 line is videographers. All F1.8 lenses have the same size, filtersize and weight. So it is very easy to use them on a Gimbal without the need to adjust something. This is really a huge selling point as someone told me, who is doing a lot of videos. Also they seem to have almost no focus breathing during videos.

I have used the Lumix 85/1.8 and Lumix 50/1.8 only for still photography I find them both optically excellent and AF also with DFD AF of the S5 very fast and accurate. But since I am a nerd regarding size and weight of photo equipment, I always look for ways to have it even smaller and lighter.

So I was very excited when Sigma launched their i-series. Not all Sigma DG DN lenses are part of the i-series. As far as I understood it, it is a subline of the Contemporary product line.

The lens design goal of the i-series is in my view small, compact, light, metal, aperture ring, relativel cheap compared to its image quality and very good to excellent image quality output, also with the help of firmware (all brands are doing this nowadays).

So the i-series is not only corrected optically, but also optimized to achieve results with software, which were not possible 10 years ago. I do not care. For me the results counts. If I like the image quality I do not care how they achieved it. :D

The Sigma Art series has a different design goal.

What I heard in different YouTube reviews is that with FL of 35mm and wider, the Sigma lenses shall be better, and with the 50 and 85 they are on par.

I am not a pixelpeeper. I find almost all Sigma DG DN lenses which I have excellent. Maybe the 45/2.8 the least among those and the 65/2.0 the best. But the Sigma 65/2.0 is a heavy beast for 65mm.

Optically I am indifferent between Lumix 85/1.8 and i.e. Sigma 90/2.8. But the Sigma is easier to pack in my Billingham Hadley Small shoulder bag. These are the criterias which decide very often how much I use a lens. Size, compactness, weight.

I also love the "old style "aperture ring on the Sigma lenses and the metal. I feel at home. Like in the 80ies with Contax, Leica, Nikon FM2 and F3HP. These good old times... Z04 Troest

Hope that helps a little bit.
 
When you read or see reviews, you also have to think about, how much the review has to magnify the image in PS, to be able to see the differences. I.e. Sigma 24/3.5 vs. Sigma 24/2.0 or Lumix 50/1.8 vs. Lumix 50/1.4.

Will you be able to shoot your subject handhold with such a high shutterspeed or with a tripod or, that you can see the differences between these lenses? Is it worth the price differences? Is it worth the size and weight differences?
 
I just add her my 2 cents. I did not do any scientific tests and a lot is influenced by personal preferences.

The design goal of the Panasonic Lumix F1.8 lens line was obviously a different one than for the Sigma DG DN line, especially the Sigma I-series within the DG DN line.

In my view, the main target group of the Lumix F1.8 line is videographers. All F1.8 lenses have the same size, filtersize and weight. So it is very easy to use them on a Gimbal without the need to adjust something. This is really a huge selling point as someone told me, who is doing a lot of videos. Also they seem to have almost no focus breathing during videos.

I have used the Lumix 85/1.8 and Lumix 50/1.8 only for still photography I find them both optically excellent and AF also with DFD AF of the S5 very fast and accurate. But since I am a nerd regarding size and weight of photo equipment, I always look for ways to have it even smaller and lighter.

So I was very excited when Sigma launched their i-series. Not all Sigma DG DN lenses are part of the i-series.

The lens design goal of the i-series is in my view small, compact, light, metal, aperture ring, relativel cheap compared to its image quality and very good to excellent image quality output, also with the help of firmware (all brands are doing this nowadays).

So the i-series is not only corrected optically, but also optimized to achieve results with software, which were not possible 10 years ago. I do not care. For me the results counts. If I like the image quality I do not care how they achieved it. :D

The Sigma Art series has a different design goal.

What I heard in different YouTube reviews is that with FL of 35mm and wider, the Sigma lenses shall be better, and with the 50 and 85 they are on par.

I am not a pixelpeeper. I find almost all Sigma DG DN lenses which I have excellent. Maybe the 45/2.8 the least among those and the 65/2.0 the best. But the Sigma 65/2.0 is a heavy beast for 65mm.

Optically I am indifferent between Lumix 85/1.8 and i.e. Sigma 90/2.8. But the Sigma is easier to pack in my Billingham Hadley Small shoulder bag. These are the criterias which decide very often how much I use a lens. Size, compactness, weight.

I also love the "old style "aperture ring on the Sigma lenses and the metal. I feel at home. Like in the 80ies with Contax, Leica, Nikon FM2 and F3HP. These good old times... Z04 Troest

Hope that helps a little bit.
Thank you. I am not familiar with the i series of Sigma lenses and simply am aware of the DG DN contemporary and art series. Can you help and maybe link to an example (not Amazon, I no longer use them for photo purchase so someone like BHPhoto who I have used to many years).
 
Sigma is showing it on their website. At least the German one. I do not find it on the US site. So have a look on the German one:


Sigma-Iseries.jpg
 
I found something on the Sigma global website in Englisch:

 
I have a set of Lumix f1.8 primes; 24mm, 50mm, and 85mm. They are great lenses, optically there is not much to complain about. I do a basic test on all lenses just to make sure there aren’t any abnormal issues (bad de-centering, softness, excessive aberration etc). Luckily so far I’ve not received any bad copies. All these lenses have perfectly good centre sharpness at f1.8 and excellent centre sharpness from f2.8. I find the bokeh pleasing on all 3 although there are certainly lenses that can do better. Like most lenses the edges aren’t quite as sharp, but I don’t find the difference problematic.

I also have the sigma 45mm f2.8, and the reason I’ve kept it is the bokeh, the build, and the size. At f2.8 and the right composition it can produce some really outstanding bokeh, on par with more expensive lenses. The metal build and aperture ring give a very connected experience, something about turning a mechanical ring to set aperture makes me feel like I had more impact on the output. If the other lenses give the same feeling then I guess this would be a key difference in the lineups, build and tactile experience.

I’ve seen comparisons where some sigma i series are sharper than the closest Lumix equivalent. Maybe this is true but in my experience this isn’t because lumix lenses are soft, but because the sigma lenses are just extremely sharp.
 
On the Sigma website they say about the i-series:

"They are as much about the journey as the results.
That is the concept behind the letter ‘I’ in this new series. "

This is how it feels Z04 Herz

Another quote:

The SIGMA I series features full-frame compatible lenses that offer new value to mirrorless systems. The combination of superb optical performance with a level of compactness that is perfectly suited to smaller and lighter modern mirrorless cameras will bring you new opportunities for a perfect shot.

SIGMA is aware that in today’s world we have a wide range of camera choices, especially with the increase in mobile phone ownership. But with many photographers looking for something more than something that simply captures images when they choose to own a camera and lens, I series lenses offer the ultimate combination of superb optical performance, outstanding usability and compact form-factor.
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen comparisons where some sigma i series are sharper than the closest Lumix equivalent. Maybe this is true but in my experience this isn’t because lumix lenses are soft, but because the sigma lenses are just extremely sharp.
I think that is a very important point. We are talking about a level of image quality nowadays with all brands, we would not have dreamt of 15 years ago.
 
I found something on the Sigma global website in Englisch:

Found them. There does not seem to be a strong marketing campaign for the I branding in the US, but they are available from BHPhoto and are very reasonably priced. I am going to order the f/2 35 mm and give it a try. I wanted the shallower DOF of the wider apertures but let's try this first. Thanks for the recommendation.
 
Both, the Sigma 35/2.0 DG DN and Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN Art are very good. But there is a huge size and weight difference.

PXL_20230324_202304855.jpg

PXL_20230324_202315350.jpg

Optically the Art is of cause better. You pay what you get for. BUT the difference in image quality is not that big
 
Last edited:
I think that is a very important point. We are talking about a level of image quality nowadays with all brands, we would not have dreamt of 15 years ago.
very true. There is a DPR TV review where they do a head to head comparison of some of the sigma i series to the Lumix S primes. Most of the time the sigmas had an edge particularly in the corners, and so it was fair of them to say “well the sigmas are generally a bit sharper”. From this it would be easy to jump to the conclusion that the Lumix S primes are “not sharp”. But having used them, along with sigmas i series and Art lenses, I can confirm the S primes are more than sharp enough. It turns out you can really only tell the differences in side by side close inspection.
 
It turns out you can really only tell the differences in side by side close inspection.

Even worse or better (depends how you see it), if you shoot handheld with 24MP, it will be even more difficult to distinguish. With 46MP and on a tripod or with shutterspeed of at least 1/500s you might find differences.

All Lumix lenses I have used so far are very, very good. Same goes for the Sigma DG DN lenses. This is why I said earlier, that the personal preferences and the way how you want to use them (i.e. for video) plays a bigger role for your buying decision.

Because of time constraints, in most cases I can only take pictures during vacation with my family or while I travel with small hotel safes. So my setup has to be small and light. But this is not the benchmark. Others do have other preferences and want to have therefore other kind of lenses.

And here is the big, really big advantage of the L-mount system vs. all other systems. If you have 3 brands who use the same lens mount, you will have very fast a lot more choice - even in the same focal length - than any other system. Same like it was with the MFT system.

It took Sony more than 10 years to have a wide choice of lenses for their mount. The L-Mount alliance achieved almost the same within 4 years!

Sigma makes half of the L-Mount lenses. They can afford that, because they offer the same lenses also in Sony mount. This is a huge economy of scale and the small L-Mount benefits of this.
 
Both, the Sigma 35/2.0 DG DN and Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN Art are very good. But there is a huge size and weight difference.

View attachment 153

View attachment 154

Optically the Art is of cause better. You pay what you get for. BUT the difference in image quality is not that big
i have both lenses, and other than more light, i cannot notice any optical superiority of the Art, even pixel-peeping
 
When I bought my S1R in summer 2020, I decided for Lumix also with the intention to buy Sigma Art lenses. The S1R is something like medium format for less more for me... ;-)

At that point the Lumix 1.8 series and the Sigma I-series was not yet released. I bought the ART 50, 85 and 135 as initial lenses for portraits and fashion, the 14-24 and 24-70 for landscape and lost places. I'm very satisfied with the results and therefore I don't regret the decision. The results of the S1R are extremely good and I can do much more then I usually need with the RAW files.

But would I decide today again in this way? I don't know! 2 weeks ago there was an exhibition with a Sigma booth and there I could borrow some i-series lenses for one hour (24, 35 and 90). The small lenses are wonderfully crafted and deliver excellent results (from my test pictures). But on the S1R they are tiny, on the S5 they fit great.
In terms of fashion and portrait (S1R) I think I would go again with the bigger 1.4 Art lenses, but for some other occasions, where I use the S5 the i-series is extremely compelling. But then I would double most of my lenses...

But I think it is much better to have this decision, then not! I owned Canon since the 1980s and was very used to it. In summer 2020 I could also decide for the brand new R5 instead of the S1R. I decided against Canon because of price. The camera would have cost twice and every L lens nearly three times the Sigma. And the cheaper R lenses are no match (for sure in build quality and from hearing also not in picture quality) to the Lumix and Sigma pendants. I maybe would have paid the price for the R5 when I could use Sigma without Adapter for the future, but this is even today not on the horizon...

So I'm curious to see what Sigma will produce in terms of great lenses in the future.
 
i actually found the Z24-200 rather good. I would be happy with similar size, price & quality from Lumix.
i too like my Lumix 24-105; nice, yes. Remarkable? ... not so much
 
i actually found the Z24-200 rather good. I would be happy with similar size, price & quality from Lumix.
i too like my Lumix 24-105; nice, yes. Remarkable? ... not so much
A friend of mine uses Nikon and ordered the 24-200 directly after announcement. He was extremely disappointed about the results and send the lens back after some testing. He now uses the new 24-120 and is very satisfied with the results. But he uses a Z6 and a Z7 and tested both lenses with the Z7. Maybe the Z7 sensor is too much for the 24-200?

If there will be a 24-200 from Pany or Sigma I would also not think about using it on the S1R. For the S5 maybe, but if I use the S1R then because I want to get the resolution as result...
 
Back
Top