I've been working on this video for far too long not to publish it. Hopefully it gives you some relevant info if you're deciding between the two lenses, or if you're just curious how they compare to one another. Feel free to ask if you have any questions, and I'll help if I can.
I believe the reason for the slower burst rate with continuous autofocus with the olympus is that the aperture needed to be closed to 1.4 from 1.2 which takes longer than shooting wide open. I've tested with other bodies and lenses and the smaller you make the aperture, the slower the burst rate gets.
Glad I finally stumbled on your channel. Best part of my day! Great review in details, fair comparisons and relevance to choices we have in MFT. I have the Sigma 16 and agree with your comments. Yes, a fantastic lens. I've been considering the Oly 17/1.2 used, you have convinced me not to, not enough upgrade for the extra $$. (perhaps, if it was one of my main lenses) Also, I enjoy your sense of humor. All the best from your latest and 400th scriber.
Nice comparison! I'm surprised that so few people are using the Oly 17 1.2 Pro with the GH5. It's an awesome combo really and with a good ND filter you get some amazing shallow DOF shots with it. Also there is something happening with the colors when using a GH5 with the oly lens, the colors looks so good.
Right?! There's barely any Olympus 17mm f1.2 (or the 25mm or the 45mm) videos on UA-cam. It is kinda pricey tho, so I guess that's why. I was debating between Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7 and 25-50mm f1.7 combo, but decided to go with Oly 17-25-45 f1.2 because... three lenses is better than two, hah. And they're much lighter. I might even argue they have a "medium format look" - not so much the depth of field, but the rendering of the image, bokeh especially. Re color: after getting the whole set (17, 25, 45) I was kinda disappointed that they all had their own color-shifts. Not hugely different but enough to require some color correction finessing in post. And sorry, I'm spamming. Went on a rant there. ;P
Hi, thanks for this in depth comparaison. Due to thé Price différence, I bought the Sigma. To me its major limitation IS for video : not having the "linear" MF mode IS a Real contraint when I film from A to B at f 1,4 Since I can't refer to a given rotation angle to get narrow focus. I Can add that I have a GH5-M2. With the latest Firmware version, Sigma 16mm f1.4 IS STILL only capable of NON LINEAR MF. So now, I'm thinking of selling my set of wide angle lenses and to replace them With the Pana 10-25...
Ahh, shucks. I would've guessed the linear focus feature worked with ALL lenses. Too bad. 10-25 sounds like a great option. I decided against it because of the price, size, and - it's only one lens. For the price of it, I can get 17, 25, 45 Olympus lenses and put them on three different cameras. I am missing a wide, however...
I also use the GH5 and GX8, great cameras, I have nothing but praise for their capabilities and functionalities. I recently picked up a GH5II, and it is even better. Some might think it is not worth the upgrade, but they are wrong, there are well over twenty plus improved functions or features. Plus there is the potential for more to come via firmware updates that are not possible on the original GH5, because the processor can not handle it. All of my so called native professional glass are M.Zuiko Pro 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8, 45/1.2, and the 17/1.2. One of the main reasons besides weather-sealing is because of the manual focus clutch. Here is a really neat advantage of that function; if you know you are going to focus on a particular subject or area, you can engage the manual focus clutch, rack focus, then disengage, acquire focus on another subject using AF or touch focus. Then, as needed, engage the manual focus clutch while revisiting that prior subject/area and voila, perfect focus pull. When used with focus transition you can set three in camera, and one with the manual focus clutch for up to four additional precise focus pulls. For filmmakers, the GH5/GH5II are the more perfect cameras for this reason. For an event shooter, one could preset three priority focus distances, and then a fourth using the clutch method. Ex: 1) on the Bride and groom with the officiant, 2) on the brides parents. 3) on the grooms parents. then use the clutch for the wedding party. All transitioning from an initial AF point… Aside from traditional manual focus, the GH5/GH5II can be a totally precision instrument in the hands of a skilled user… …
Using the clutch feature to preset the focus to a set distance - it creates more of a focus SNAP, than a "transition" - I don't see myself ever using it for the transition, but I guess it is neat if you have to quickly switch to a subject. I already had a GH5 and decided to go with another GH5 instead of the GH5II for the sake of color-matching and having all the identical functions. I don't feel like I'm missing out because I won't be using any of the additional features anyway. But can you share - how does sharpness compare between GH5 and GH5II? Mainly thinking about that.... bloom filter? Or whatever it's called, that new coating over the sensor.
@@Lenard_S. Hmmm. I will have to look into that. I don’t really know how much it affects the sharpness. It is my understanding that it is mainly to suppress flares. Though, maybe the combination of the AR coating plus the newer Venus processor engine does contribute to it having better low light. Thus improving AF too. Personally, I have always thought the GH5 was an absolute gem in the video capturing industry. This modest update is well worth it. V-log L alone was $99. I purchased the Mark II over the holiday, due to a $200 discount. I was going to wait until the GH6 official announcement, or even it’s actual release, I felt the discount would happen then. Regardless of what the GH6 offers, the mark II is camera enough for my needs (realistically 95% of most others too)… As long as one has good glass, this little bit of tech is a beast… BTW, I agree with your conclusions regarding the focus with manual clutch, which is why if you notice I mentioned it last each time for the least critical examples. It is perfect in a pinch or something that can be dealt with in post… …
@@Lenard_S. Honestly, with the GH5II, I am good for now. A random vid I just came across. Since the GH5II is essentially the same sensor and processor to the G9. Not sure the G9 has the AR coating though. ua-cam.com/video/i5E4qIVYIhs/v-deo.html …
When filming talking head stuff I just set it to f4 or even f5.6 and forget about it. I'm kinda annoyed by the focus pulsating, even on other cameras. But for handheld, manual focus is clutch. (pun intended)
In deptph comparaison. For Price reasons I bought thé Sigma a year ago. I agree With the fact that it delivers excellent images. Juste a remark regarding the "fuzzy manual focus ring. In GH5-M2, its possible to choose the way the ring drives the optics. I've chosen linear and 230° and have no fuzziness at all.
These are my favorite focal length they are just so large and heavy. I wish OM would make a 17mm Pro F1.8 or even F2.8. Keep it small and fast and weatherized. Shooting street and small groups and landscapes. I am always stopped down to F4 or F5.6 anyway for the added depth of field.
This video was a masterpiece. Very entertaining. I have to watch again because I forgot I was looking for reasons to get the Olympus. I had the Sigma F1.4 but sold it to get another lens. Now i miss having something at this focal length
Very interesting comparison! It seems to me that with this price difference the Sigma is the best buy! The Olympus would be the best choice for those looking for the widest possible aperture and those who use the focus clutch and the fn button. But both lenses are great!
Nice comparison. Am deciding between the two. thanks for the video. Side question - there aren't many video on using olympus as webcam. Wondering how the olympus autofocus compares to Sony's ZV-1 and ZV-E10.
I haven't had a zoom in a while, but I'm planning on getting the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8. Sometimes they're just more practical than switching between two cameras with different focal lenghts. Depends on what you want - for UA-cam videos I find that even the 25mm can look too "formal", so 17mm is more preferable. But for corporate shots, or a B-cam in an interview setup - that 45mm is gorgeous. This video was filmed with 25mm and 45mm, and at 12:30 you can see how tight the 45mm is - not practical for a small room setup. Even the 25mm was pushed all the way back. You can check out my latest video (Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7 review) - same room, same setup - and see how they compare. I like to keep my hands and torso in the frame and not fill up the frame with my face, haha... But if you prefer a more standard "head and shoulders" composition, I think 25mm is the winner. 45mm might even compress the background too much.
@@Lenard_S. using an equalizer would of helped. Use it to cut down the frequencies between 50 - 100 Hz. If you got the coin IZotope’s RX10 is awesome. Cleans up any kind of audio
I would buy the Sigma new and the Olympus used. These Olympus PRO lenses are so well made, I had 3 and after using them for 1 year, I sold them to MPB. They ranked them 'Like New' and paid me accordingly. All 3 looked like I never used them. And when new they are expensive, so better buy used. P.S. The zoom rings of my 12-40 and 40-150 PRO were working like you describe the focus ring on this one. It's like I could hear metal to metal contact when turning. Maybe they were too new, I don't know, but a friend has the 12-100 PRO and he says his zoom ring works like that too. I guess that is the normal way of operation for these.
Thanks for sharing. I got this one as the last out of the set (after the 25 and 45) and thought for sure THIS ONE was the outlier. It's really not that big of an issue, but you do notice the difference when using them side by side.
@@Lenard_S. yeah, it doesn't feel 'normal'. I even thought that my 1st PRO lens, the 12-40 is damaged and I sent it to the official repair center in Portugal. Or the Olympus dealer in my country did, not I personally. And they returned with a written explanation, that no work was done on it or needed and this is how their lenses work. In the same time, my 3rd PRO lens, the 25, did not feel like that, when turning the focus ring. Go figure :)
I was also quite disappointed with the different color shifts on f1.2 primes, coming from the same set and the same design and all. My 17mm is noticably warmer that the 25mm.
The fantastic corner sharpness on the 17mm at every aperture and complete weather sealing made me sell the 16mm. But the 16mm is no slouch and produces fantastic results. If the 16mm would have been more compact then the 17mm I might not have ever tried the 17mm. Have virtually no problems with chromatic aberrations. Maybe bad lens you have? I would disagree with you in your example that sigma was better in the sun flare.
Idk, I just felt like the Olympus would often wash out the frame and put a purple haze over the footage, especially at like f1.2-f1.6. Don't remember anymore what kind of examples I put in the video. I would say the Sigma overall has a more clinical, sharp, crisp look. Whereas Olympus often looks dreamy and soft, while still maintaining resolution. If I could have the same design features (f1.2, weather sealing, focus clutch, etc.) in the same lens and had to choose between the different looks - Idk which one I would pick.
You're the first one to complain. I'll keep that in mind. It was mostly there to cover up the noise - annoying tunes are better than annoying hums imo.
I send a mail to Olympus. My 17mm pro have the same noise by using the manuel focus. You can hear it when you make videos. Olympus says, the noise is normally and the normaly operating noise. What ??!! 1200 Euro lens and this is normally ? No sorry, my 17mm pro was a gift, but when i must pay 1200 Euro, i didnt buy this lens.
Luckily mine doesn't really pick with the Rode Video Micro. It's only when you turn it really fast that it gets loud, so not a huge problem for me. Wow, what a great gift! I was really taken aback by the incosistencies of the set. My 17mm has a noticable yellow shift, while the 25mm pushes towards magenta. One of the reasons I went for this set (17, 25, 45) was precisely the uniformity, because I wanted one less step in editing, but turns out I have to color-match them as well. Oh well, still not too bad.
Bruh. I got two Oly lenses, one prime (17mm.f1.8), one zoom (9-18mm f4-5.6). I like my Oly lenses. I don't travel without my Oly 17mm f1.8. I really like it. But it's not as sharp or as good for portraits as my Sigma 30mm F1.4, not to mention the Sigma is completely usable in continuous autofocus when shooting video while the 17mm Oly is unusable for continuous focus video because its autofocus chatter is so loud. Have you shot with a Sigma lens before?
@@mmartel - I have a tinker toy Sigma 50-150mm f/4. Seems Ok. But it's surely NO comparison to my old Nikon 70-210mm f/4. The only thing I don't like about my Nikon lens is the very slow auto-focus. But after all, the design is more than 30 years old. Moreover, my sigma lenses use plastic gears for auto-focus. My more modern Nikon lenses use a so-called hyper-sonic silent drive auto-focus motor. I don't have a huge stack of Nikon lenses, but I have two of the best of them ever made, the two DC lenses, De-focus Image control - Yes, the 100mm DC f/2 and the 135mm DC f/2. Especially that 100mm. SWEET! Oh, and if memory serves, Olympus has deliberately omitted any video function, which seems sensible enough to me. After all, a video function only increases the cost of a camera, and seriously doesn't add much to a device which is actually a still camera. I say ... leave all of the video toys on the iPhones, because even an iPhone can make quite a very high quality video. Oh yes, and I happen to own that same Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is actually reasonably good. Mine is an older model, and I'm not sure if Sigma has ever updated that lens? Another one of my good old Nikon lens is one I got with my old Nikon F100 - my 50mm f/1.8. Slightly better than the f/1.4 version, as I understand it. I got lucky -
@@mmartel - No, I haven't. But per the actual real experts who I pay attention to - and not the wanna be experts - the current line of Sigma lenses, for example the so-called "art lenses" - are garbage. NOT built to last, especially for heavy professional use. You won't find a single photojournalist working for a reputable outfit who's using a Sigma lens. Take a lens - any random lens from almost any manufacturer - and many of them are definitely NOT built to last. It makes sense, only because the vast majority of photographers surely aren't professional photographers, and most people are not willing to spend real money for real quality. I'm not too sure about the current Olympus company, but Olympus surely had a great set of old film cameras and lenses a half century ago. Back before we all had computers, I discovered that the only good way to judge the quality of a lens was on transparency film, projected on a big screen, rather than examining a big print made from a negative. One amazing print I have is a 20 by 30 inch print made from an old Kodak "Ektar 25" film from a 35 mm negative. My lens was semi cheap; but the ultra fine film grain sort of made up for it in way.
@@scotthullinger4684 sigma 18-35mm f1.8 was definitely used for commercial work although you're probably not aware of it. It was exceptionally popular for a period of time among commercial videographers. But since you're not into video, I'm not sure it would be anywhere on your radar. Also, you wouldn't be aware of the irony of the Oly 17mm f1.8 lens I own having the label MSC stamped on it by Olympus which stands for "Movies and Stills Compatible." Well, I suppose it is as long as you stick to silent movies. Finally, I'd love to handle my Olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 and describe its build quality. You'd almost certainly find "tinker toy" is far too charitable. So yeah, lots of lenses these days are not pro quality lenses made to last for decades, and handle drops and bangs along the way. And some of those "toy" lenses are made by Olympus, too, I'm sorry to say.
I've been working on this video for far too long not to publish it.
Hopefully it gives you some relevant info if you're deciding between the two lenses, or if you're just curious how they compare to one another.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions, and I'll help if I can.
I believe the reason for the slower burst rate with continuous autofocus with the olympus is that the aperture needed to be closed to 1.4 from 1.2 which takes longer than shooting wide open. I've tested with other bodies and lenses and the smaller you make the aperture, the slower the burst rate gets.
Hah, that's interesting. I've never heard anyone mention it before.
Glad I finally stumbled on your channel. Best part of my day! Great review in details, fair comparisons and relevance to choices we have in MFT. I have the Sigma 16 and agree with your comments. Yes, a fantastic lens. I've been considering the Oly 17/1.2 used, you have convinced me not to, not enough upgrade for the extra $$. (perhaps, if it was one of my main lenses) Also, I enjoy your sense of humor. All the best from your latest and 400th scriber.
awwh :')
Nice comparison! I'm surprised that so few people are using the Oly 17 1.2 Pro with the GH5. It's an awesome combo really and with a good ND filter you get some amazing shallow DOF shots with it. Also there is something happening with the colors when using a GH5 with the oly lens, the colors looks so good.
Right?! There's barely any Olympus 17mm f1.2 (or the 25mm or the 45mm) videos on UA-cam.
It is kinda pricey tho, so I guess that's why.
I was debating between Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7 and 25-50mm f1.7 combo, but decided to go with Oly 17-25-45 f1.2 because... three lenses is better than two, hah. And they're much lighter.
I might even argue they have a "medium format look" - not so much the depth of field, but the rendering of the image, bokeh especially.
Re color: after getting the whole set (17, 25, 45) I was kinda disappointed that they all had their own color-shifts. Not hugely different but enough to require some color correction finessing in post.
And sorry, I'm spamming. Went on a rant there. ;P
@@Lenard_S. A friend of mine who is a professional photographer has the three pro lenses you mentioned, and his work has won many awards.
Hi, thanks for this in depth comparaison. Due to thé Price différence, I bought the Sigma. To me its major limitation IS for video : not having the "linear" MF mode IS a Real contraint when I film from A to B at f 1,4 Since I can't refer to a given rotation angle to get narrow focus. I Can add that I have a GH5-M2. With the latest Firmware version, Sigma 16mm f1.4 IS STILL only capable of NON LINEAR MF. So now, I'm thinking of selling my set of wide angle lenses and to replace them With the Pana 10-25...
Ahh, shucks. I would've guessed the linear focus feature worked with ALL lenses. Too bad.
10-25 sounds like a great option. I decided against it because of the price, size, and - it's only one lens. For the price of it, I can get 17, 25, 45 Olympus lenses and put them on three different cameras.
I am missing a wide, however...
I also use the GH5 and GX8, great cameras, I have nothing but praise for their capabilities and functionalities. I recently picked up a GH5II, and it is even better. Some might think it is not worth the upgrade, but they are wrong, there are well over twenty plus improved functions or features. Plus there is the potential for more to come via firmware updates that are not possible on the original GH5, because the processor can not handle it.
All of my so called native professional glass are M.Zuiko Pro 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8, 45/1.2, and the 17/1.2. One of the main reasons besides weather-sealing is because of the manual focus clutch. Here is a really neat advantage of that function; if you know you are going to focus on a particular subject or area, you can engage the manual focus clutch, rack focus, then disengage, acquire focus on another subject using AF or touch focus. Then, as needed, engage the manual focus clutch while revisiting that prior subject/area and voila, perfect focus pull.
When used with focus transition you can set three in camera, and one with the manual focus clutch for up to four additional precise focus pulls. For filmmakers, the GH5/GH5II are the more perfect cameras for this reason. For an event shooter, one could preset three priority focus distances, and then a fourth using the clutch method.
Ex: 1) on the Bride and groom with the officiant, 2) on the brides parents. 3) on the grooms parents. then use the clutch for the wedding party. All transitioning from an initial AF point…
Aside from traditional manual focus, the GH5/GH5II can be a totally precision instrument in the hands of a skilled user…
…
Using the clutch feature to preset the focus to a set distance - it creates more of a focus SNAP, than a "transition" - I don't see myself ever using it for the transition, but I guess it is neat if you have to quickly switch to a subject.
I already had a GH5 and decided to go with another GH5 instead of the GH5II for the sake of color-matching and having all the identical functions. I don't feel like I'm missing out because I won't be using any of the additional features anyway.
But can you share - how does sharpness compare between GH5 and GH5II? Mainly thinking about that.... bloom filter? Or whatever it's called, that new coating over the sensor.
@@Lenard_S. Hmmm. I will have to look into that. I don’t really know how much it affects the sharpness. It is my understanding that it is mainly to suppress flares. Though, maybe the combination of the AR coating plus the newer Venus processor engine does contribute to it having better low light. Thus improving AF too. Personally, I have always thought the GH5 was an absolute gem in the video capturing industry. This modest update is well worth it. V-log L alone was $99. I purchased the Mark II over the holiday, due to a $200 discount. I was going to wait until the GH6 official announcement, or even it’s actual release, I felt the discount would happen then. Regardless of what the GH6 offers, the mark II is camera enough for my needs (realistically 95% of most others too)…
As long as one has good glass, this little bit of tech is a beast…
BTW, I agree with your conclusions regarding the focus with manual clutch, which is why if you notice I mentioned it last each time for the least critical examples. It is perfect in a pinch or something that can be dealt with in post…
…
Ahh, the mythical GH6. Hope it peaks its head soon. ;P
@@Lenard_S. Honestly, with the GH5II, I am good for now. A random vid I just came across. Since the GH5II is essentially the same sensor and processor to the G9. Not sure the G9 has the AR coating though.
ua-cam.com/video/i5E4qIVYIhs/v-deo.html
…
When filming talking head stuff I just set it to f4 or even f5.6 and forget about it. I'm kinda annoyed by the focus pulsating, even on other cameras.
But for handheld, manual focus is clutch. (pun intended)
Finally a comparison of these 2 lenses!! Great Job Lenard!! Great sense of humor!! Thank You!!
I was surprised as well that there was no videos.
Thanks!!
In deptph comparaison. For Price reasons I bought thé Sigma a year ago. I agree With the fact that it delivers excellent images. Juste a remark regarding the "fuzzy manual focus ring. In GH5-M2, its possible to choose the way the ring drives the optics. I've chosen linear and 230° and have no fuzziness at all.
Linear focusing seems like such an obvious feature. I don't know why they didn't implement it earlier.
These are my favorite focal length they are just so large and heavy. I wish OM would make a 17mm Pro F1.8 or even F2.8. Keep it small and fast and weatherized. Shooting street and small groups and landscapes. I am always stopped down to F4 or F5.6 anyway for the added depth of field.
thank you for this video :D
I appreciate the Terminator edit haha
This video was a masterpiece. Very entertaining. I have to watch again because I forgot I was looking for reasons to get the Olympus. I had the Sigma F1.4 but sold it to get another lens. Now i miss having something at this focal length
Glad you enjoyed it! :D
what would you say between lumix 15mm f1.7 and sigma 16mm. for the gh5 specifically
Didn't use the Lumix 15mm.
Is it impossible to use manual focus in video with the signa 16mm 1.4?
It's very jumpy and unpredictable. Horrible experience.
@@Lenard_S. thank you very much. So I'll go with the Olympus!
Thank you for sharing. I guess sigma makes more sense to own.
Very interesting comparison! It seems to me that with this price difference the Sigma is the best buy! The Olympus would be the best choice for those looking for the widest possible aperture and those who use the focus clutch and the fn button. But both lenses are great!
Yep, Sigma is a steal in comparison.
Nice comparison. Am deciding between the two. thanks for the video.
Side question - there aren't many video on using olympus as webcam. Wondering how the olympus autofocus compares to Sony's ZV-1 and ZV-E10.
Glad it was helpful.
I only use Panasonic cameras so can't comment on it, but i'd bet the Sony's are much better.
@@Lenard_S. thanks!
Which of the f1.2 is your favorite for headshot videos? Do you also shoot on zooms?
I haven't had a zoom in a while, but I'm planning on getting the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8. Sometimes they're just more practical than switching between two cameras with different focal lenghts.
Depends on what you want - for UA-cam videos I find that even the 25mm can look too "formal", so 17mm is more preferable. But for corporate shots, or a B-cam in an interview setup - that 45mm is gorgeous.
This video was filmed with 25mm and 45mm, and at 12:30 you can see how tight the 45mm is - not practical for a small room setup. Even the 25mm was pushed all the way back.
You can check out my latest video (Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7 review) - same room, same setup - and see how they compare.
I like to keep my hands and torso in the frame and not fill up the frame with my face, haha... But if you prefer a more standard "head and shoulders" composition, I think 25mm is the winner. 45mm might even compress the background too much.
The music is murder when listening to headphones
I hear you. I put it to cover up some buzzing noise that came from the microphone, but yeah - way too bassy.
@@Lenard_S. using an equalizer would of helped. Use it to cut down the frequencies between 50 - 100 Hz. If you got the coin IZotope’s RX10 is awesome. Cleans up any kind of audio
Thanks. Need to up my audio game ASAP.
exceptional video. how do you have so few subs
I post too infrequently and without a clear theme for the channel?
I would buy the Sigma new and the Olympus used. These Olympus PRO lenses are so well made, I had 3 and after using them for 1 year, I sold them to MPB. They ranked them 'Like New' and paid me accordingly. All 3 looked like I never used them. And when new they are expensive, so better buy used.
P.S. The zoom rings of my 12-40 and 40-150 PRO were working like you describe the focus ring on this one. It's like I could hear metal to metal contact when turning. Maybe they were too new, I don't know, but a friend has the 12-100 PRO and he says his zoom ring works like that too. I guess that is the normal way of operation for these.
Thanks for sharing.
I got this one as the last out of the set (after the 25 and 45) and thought for sure THIS ONE was the outlier.
It's really not that big of an issue, but you do notice the difference when using them side by side.
@@Lenard_S. yeah, it doesn't feel 'normal'. I even thought that my 1st PRO lens, the 12-40 is damaged and I sent it to the official repair center in Portugal. Or the Olympus dealer in my country did, not I personally. And they returned with a written explanation, that no work was done on it or needed and this is how their lenses work. In the same time, my 3rd PRO lens, the 25, did not feel like that, when turning the focus ring. Go figure :)
I was also quite disappointed with the different color shifts on f1.2 primes, coming from the same set and the same design and all.
My 17mm is noticably warmer that the 25mm.
Nice video
The fantastic corner sharpness on the 17mm at every aperture and complete weather sealing made me sell the 16mm. But the 16mm is no slouch and produces fantastic results. If the 16mm would have been more compact then the 17mm I might not have ever tried the 17mm. Have virtually no problems with chromatic aberrations. Maybe bad lens you have?
I would disagree with you in your example that sigma was better in the sun flare.
Idk, I just felt like the Olympus would often wash out the frame and put a purple haze over the footage, especially at like f1.2-f1.6.
Don't remember anymore what kind of examples I put in the video.
I would say the Sigma overall has a more clinical, sharp, crisp look.
Whereas Olympus often looks dreamy and soft, while still maintaining resolution.
If I could have the same design features (f1.2, weather sealing, focus clutch, etc.) in the same lens and had to choose between the different looks - Idk which one I would pick.
Момак, прошла су 2 мјесеца и још нема новог видеа. Кад ће нови видео?
Лп од највећег фана из Ријеке!
photo samples bro, that's is what we want
4:15 i see you let your intrusive thoughts win LOL
haha x)
Mate, that background music is very distracting and annoying...
You're the first one to complain.
I'll keep that in mind.
It was mostly there to cover up the noise - annoying tunes are better than annoying hums imo.
wow thx
Lol @ focus clutch. Have Oly 17mm f1.8. I can relate. 😂
Also, nice review. And great outtakes. 🤣
Thanks! Glad you liked it. :)
I send a mail to Olympus. My 17mm pro have the same noise by using the manuel focus. You can hear it when you make videos. Olympus says, the noise is normally and the normaly operating noise. What ??!! 1200 Euro lens and this is normally ? No sorry, my 17mm pro was a gift, but when i must pay 1200 Euro, i didnt buy this lens.
Luckily mine doesn't really pick with the Rode Video Micro. It's only when you turn it really fast that it gets loud, so not a huge problem for me.
Wow, what a great gift!
I was really taken aback by the incosistencies of the set. My 17mm has a noticable yellow shift, while the 25mm pushes towards magenta.
One of the reasons I went for this set (17, 25, 45) was precisely the uniformity, because I wanted one less step in editing, but turns out I have to color-match them as well.
Oh well, still not too bad.
Great review. For me, pros should take the Olympus and hobbyists should take the Sigma.
Idk, even at high level, it's kinda hard to justify the price of Olympus.
ANY lens is better than a Sigma lens, which of course includes an Olympus lens, because Olympus has always made great lenses.
Bruh. I got two Oly lenses, one prime (17mm.f1.8), one zoom (9-18mm f4-5.6). I like my Oly lenses. I don't travel without my Oly 17mm f1.8. I really like it. But it's not as sharp or as good for portraits as my Sigma 30mm F1.4, not to mention the Sigma is completely usable in continuous autofocus when shooting video while the 17mm Oly is unusable for continuous focus video because its autofocus chatter is so loud. Have you shot with a Sigma lens before?
@@mmartel - I have a tinker toy Sigma 50-150mm f/4. Seems Ok. But it's surely NO comparison to my old Nikon 70-210mm f/4.
The only thing I don't like about my Nikon lens is the very slow auto-focus. But after all, the design is more than 30 years old. Moreover, my sigma lenses use plastic gears for auto-focus. My more modern Nikon lenses use a so-called hyper-sonic silent drive auto-focus motor. I don't have a huge stack of Nikon lenses, but I have two of the best of them ever made, the two DC lenses, De-focus Image control - Yes, the 100mm DC f/2 and the 135mm DC f/2. Especially that 100mm. SWEET!
Oh, and if memory serves, Olympus has deliberately omitted any video function, which seems sensible enough to me.
After all, a video function only increases the cost of a camera, and seriously doesn't add much to a device which is actually a still camera.
I say ... leave all of the video toys on the iPhones, because even an iPhone can make quite a very high quality video.
Oh yes, and I happen to own that same Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is actually reasonably good. Mine is an older model, and I'm not sure if Sigma has ever updated that lens?
Another one of my good old Nikon lens is one I got with my old Nikon F100 - my 50mm f/1.8. Slightly better than the f/1.4 version, as I understand it. I got lucky -
@@scotthullinger4684 cool. So... Have you owned any contemporary Sigma or Olympus lenses?
@@mmartel - No, I haven't. But per the actual real experts who I pay attention to - and not the wanna be experts - the current line of Sigma lenses, for example the so-called "art lenses" - are garbage. NOT built to last, especially for heavy professional use. You won't find a single photojournalist working for a reputable outfit who's using a Sigma lens.
Take a lens - any random lens from almost any manufacturer - and many of them are definitely NOT built to last. It makes sense, only because the vast majority of photographers surely aren't professional photographers, and most people are not willing to spend real money for real quality.
I'm not too sure about the current Olympus company, but Olympus surely had a great set of old film cameras and lenses a half century ago.
Back before we all had computers, I discovered that the only good way to judge the quality of a lens was on transparency film, projected on a big screen, rather than examining a big print made from a negative. One amazing print I have is a 20 by 30 inch print made from an old Kodak "Ektar 25" film from a 35 mm negative. My lens was semi cheap; but the ultra fine film grain sort of made up for it in way.
@@scotthullinger4684 sigma 18-35mm f1.8 was definitely used for commercial work although you're probably not aware of it. It was exceptionally popular for a period of time among commercial videographers. But since you're not into video, I'm not sure it would be anywhere on your radar. Also, you wouldn't be aware of the irony of the Oly 17mm f1.8 lens I own having the label MSC stamped on it by Olympus which stands for "Movies and Stills Compatible." Well, I suppose it is as long as you stick to silent movies. Finally, I'd love to handle my Olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 and describe its build quality. You'd almost certainly find "tinker toy" is far too charitable. So yeah, lots of lenses these days are not pro quality lenses made to last for decades, and handle drops and bangs along the way. And some of those "toy" lenses are made by Olympus, too, I'm sorry to say.