1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Oly 17mm 1.8 or Sigma 19mm 2.8?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by letsgofishing, Mar 4, 2014.

  1. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    352
    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    I looking at a compact walk-around lens for my EM5 .... here in South Africa, the Sigma is half the price of the Oly.
    Is there a big difference in quality between these 2 lenses? I don't need "razor thin" DOF....
    I'll be printing images up to 20" wide...
    Many thankks,
    Mike
     
  2. homerusan

    homerusan Mu-43 Regular

    130
    Dec 25, 2012
    izmir, TURKEY
    i am in the same situation... i am so curious about suggestions
     
  3. fritsk

    fritsk Mu-43 Regular

    32
    Feb 11, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  4. hrsy1234

    hrsy1234 Mu-43 Regular

    72
    Mar 29, 2013
    East London
    As someone who owns both, they're incomparable, at least on my OM-D body. The Olympus is better in every aspect, but it's most noticeable in focus speed. The Sigma now sits in a drawer unused.
     
  5. Halaking

    Halaking Mu-43 Top Veteran

    667
    Dec 17, 2012
    Los Angeles
    Morris
    sigma 19mm

    OMD50565.
     
  6. mrjr

    mrjr Mu-43 Top Veteran

    518
    Sep 25, 2012
    I've shot both, and I must say the Sigma is a very, very good lens. If you don't need the slightly wider angle of view, or the fastest autofocus available, I'd say your choice is pretty easy: get the Sigma.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    352
    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    Thanks for the reply - surprised to hear this - I have the Sig 60mm and it focuses just fine....
     
  8. Dramaturg

    Dramaturg Mu-43 Top Veteran

    614
    Jun 7, 2013
    Ukraine
    Yevgen
    I love 17mm 1.8 lens and wouldn't bother with Sigma. If you wait for a deal you can get 17mm for $350 (be it refurbished or some kind of sale). With f2.8 you'd need to raise your ISO pretty high if you shoot indoors. Moreover 2.8 on m43 produces the same DOF as FF at 5.6. It is OK for the street but very boring for portraits, or any type of aesthetic photography. I think a walkaround lens should be versitable enough for both indoors and outdoors, for landscape and portrat. 17mm 1.8 is a lens with a character.
     
  9. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    448
    Feb 15, 2011
    I believe the Sigma won't AF for video either.
     
  10. hit_and_misanthrope

    hit_and_misanthrope Mu-43 Rookie

    14
    Jan 19, 2014
    I have the Oly 17mm f1.8, and I love this lens! The size is very nice...so compact. The autofocus is excellent - silent and quick. The sharpness is phenomenal. The focal length is just about ideal as a walking around lens, I think. Just my 2 cents.
     
  11. verbatimium

    verbatimium Mu-43 Veteran

    204
    Jul 17, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario
    Martin
    I also have the 17mm f1.8 lens and it is a great lens. Definitely worth the extra price compared to the Sigma. You will probably use a lens like this indoors quite a bit, so the extra speed goes a long way. I find it plenty sharp, and don't understand why this lens didn't get much better reviews. Remember, glass is generally a good investment as the value of used lenses doesn't fall that much below the original price (as long as you keep it in nice condition). So don't cheap out, or you will regret it in the end.
     
  12. nixapatfan

    nixapatfan Mu-43 Regular

    27
    Feb 26, 2014
    Oly 17mm smaller, faster, metal body, focal length is better for indoor photos, AF a hair faster, zone focus. Sigma 19mm, much cheaper, focuses closer. Picture quality judge for yourself, quick photos below all with the same settings except for shutter. If you have the cash get the 17mm if not Sigma isn't bad.

    P3044466. P3044463.

    Oly 17mm f1.8 1/30
    P3044459.
    Oly 17mm f2.8 1/10
    P3044461.
    Sigma 19mm f2.8 1/10
    P3044457.
     
  13. charcoalblack

    charcoalblack Mu-43 Regular

    159
    Dec 26, 2012
    I had the sigma and then I got the 17mm 1.8. Try and try I just can not warm up to it. Not sure if it's the focal length, the average sharpness or what. I just can't embrace it. I sold the sigma but I'm considering picking it up again.
     
  14. Bull Winkle

    Bull Winkle Mu-43 Regular

    28
    Feb 5, 2014
    SoCal
    after reading the reviews, and starting from scratch I got both the sig 19 and 30. I have nothing to compare to as this is my first real camera. Going out this coming weekend for some around town pics using both lenses. I know nothing about photography except what I've read. They seem well built, Focus is quick for both. I might find a need for a faster lens, I will cross that road when it presents itself.
     
  15. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    19/2.8 is good, but the 17/1.8 is great. It all comes down to how important the FL is for you and your budget.
     
  16. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    I don't have the Oly so I can't speak for it, but neither the 17 nor 19 is considered as the sharpest lens of our system. I think the choice really depend on FOV, DOF and price that you need. I love the colour, operation and FOV of my Sigma 19, though from my experience the 19 isn't as sharp in close focus as it gets when you're focusing on something further.
     
  17. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    352
    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    Thanks for all the replies - much appreciated. I'll be shooting 90% outdoors so the low light ability isn't paramount.
    Thanks for the comparo pics Nixapatfan - the Oly does seem sharper....
    Just double checked the prices over here - Oly = $740 Sig = $277 !!!
    Reckon I'll go the Sig route unless I win the lotto this weekend!
     
  18. hrsy1234

    hrsy1234 Mu-43 Regular

    72
    Mar 29, 2013
    East London
    If you're not shooting in Low Light much, then the Sigma should be fine. My photography is often indoors in available light (parties, weddings, friends, events) and the Sigma's AF was poor indoors in comparison to the 17. That is a huge price difference.
     
  19. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    352
    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    Thanks for the reply - I mainly shoot outdoors....
     
  20. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    Here's my take. First of all, only YOU can decide on the FL. The 17.5 is obviously a popular length, more so than a 19 or 20, but again, that's subjective. For me personally, I wouldn't buy the 19/2.8 (I can get it for $200) because I can get the legendary Panasonic 20/1.7 (faster, smaller) for $150 more (people complain about its focus but I can just MF so who cares). Then there's the 17/1.8 which I can also get for around $400. Again, the difference here is the speed and size, and for $200 more, I say I'd probably take this one. For you, you can't get the 17 for $400 and if that lens is really $700 I wouldn't touch it!

    Now, for the Sigmas, they are very, very good lenses and in all honesty they don't fail at anything except for only being f2.8s. They say the 60 is one of the sharpest ever. I have the 30 and would be shocked if anything at that appx FL were sharper (still waiting to see someone compare it to the 12-40 at 30mm). And I'm assuming the 19 is great as well. Personally, I'd pay for speed. If you don't care about speed, BY ALL MEANS get the Sigma 19 and save a bundle!