Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 pro vs sigma 18-35mm

Any experience with the quality of these, not sure what lens to stick to. Have the olympus already and is pretty good but seen incredible footage with the Sigma and considering swapping but bit torn

Cheers

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

Depends on your shooting conditions. Both good glass.
The Sigma is much heavier, but also faster. And it covers S-35, while the Olympus is MFT.

I had both. Major differences are obvious and you may or may not need both.

Also depends on the camera you have. You can use both glasses on an MFT mount, natively with the Oly and an adapter with the Sigma. On an EF mount for example, you can only use the Sigma.

Both are good performing lenses in terms of optics.

The Sigma is significantly faster.

The Olympus is weatherproof, you could basically run it under a tap and it would be fine.

It’s also got manual focus hard stops, not something you often see on modern lenses, which can be useful for some.

They’re very different lenses features wise delivering similar optical results.

JB

A big thing to consider when comparing these on Blackmagic is the extreme distortion, (barrel and to a lesser extent pincushion) on the Olympus.

Most MFT cameras digitally correct for it (kinda cheating) but the Pocket 4k doesn't.

https://www.opticallimits.com/m43/862_oly1240?start=1

I had sigma and I’m happy with it, it miss only internal lens stabilisation, do the Olympus had it?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Most MFT cameras digitally correct for it (kinda cheating) but the Pocket 4k doesn't.

I wouldn't really call it cheating. Any lens is a complex balance between parameters that can adversely affect each other. So, if you take a factor out of the equation that can be achieved by electronics these days, you can improve on others.
That said, yes, it's an important point to note. The Sigma doesn't rely on in-camera corrections.

I had sigma and I’m happy with it, it miss only internal lens stabilisation, do the Olympus had it?

No, because it is primarily designed to be paired with cameras which offer very strong IBIS, eliminating the need to have it in each lens.

I had sigma and I’m happy with it, it miss only internal lens stabilisation, do the Olympus had it?

No, because it is primarily designed to be paired with cameras which offer very strong IBIS, eliminating the need to have it in each lens.

The Olympus 12-100 F4 has image stabilization. If it was F2.8, it would be the perfect lens. As it is, many sing its praises. I like it because I can shoot handheld on the OG BMPCC and get decent results.

I had sigma and I’m happy with it, it miss only internal lens stabilisation, do the Olympus had it?

No, because it is primarily designed to be paired with cameras which offer very strong IBIS, eliminating the need to have it in each lens.

The Olympus 12-100 F4 has image stabilization. If it was F2.8, it would be the perfect lens. As it is, many sing its praises. I like it because I can shoot handheld on the OG BMPCC and get decent results.

Yes, that lens was designed to pair with the IBIS on the newer Olympus (now OM Systems) cameras which can use both the IBIS and the in-lens stabilization at the same time to improve the stabilization even further. That technology did not exist when the 12-40mm f2.8 was released.

The 12-100 is a fantastic lens and F4 is not an issue compared to 2.8 on M43 as the DOF difference is negligible. AN ideal setup for the OP would be the Sigma for low light and shallow DOF and the 12-100 for general use.