Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro vs Sigma 60mm 2.8 for portraits / wildlife

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by aphasiac, Apr 20, 2016.

  1. aphasiac

    aphasiac Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 18, 2015
    How does the Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro do when not being used for macro? Focus speed and sharpness ok?

    I'm wondering how it stacks up against the Sigma 60mm for portraits and as a short telephoto. Anyone owned both of these lenses??
  2. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    I don't have a head to head comparison for you, but I will say that the Olympus 60mm is absolutely outstanding as a general lens. It has a focus limiter setting to keep focus in the non-macro ranges to keep the AF peppy, too. Bokeh is pleasing and it's also one of the few weather-sealed primes. As far as sharpness, I can't imagine anyone being disappointed; it's very sharp.

    It is about 50% longer than the Sigma, but the same weight. The overall length of the lens was the one thing that made me not like using it as a general lens (compared to the 45mm f1.8, etc). It's about the exact same size as the 12-50 if you have used that.

    I'm not sure what kind of wildlife you had in mind, but 60mm is pretty short for animals and birds. Obviously the 60mm macro is better for small creatures.
  3. Tenpenny

    Tenpenny Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 16, 2015
    Nampa, Idaho
    Brent Watkins
    I haven't owned both lenses, hopefully somebody here will chime in that does. I do have the Sigma 60mm and my cousin has owned the Oly 60mm. We've shot them side by side by side on a few occasions. Of the lenses I own, I use the Oly 12-40 2.8 gets the most use but, the Sigma 60 is hands down my favorite lens. I know it's relatively cheap but I frigging love the way my photos look when I shoot with that lens. Images are sharp and there is fantastic color and contrast rendering that I really dig. The photos shot with my cousin's O60 just didn't ring that bell for me the same way.

    I'm very very amateur, bear that in mind and credit my opinion accordingly. The showcase for the Sigma 60mm lens on this forum has wonderful examples though, shot by folks far more talented than I. Restating that if macro is what you are going for, then yeah... the Oly fer sure.
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. dwkdnvr

    dwkdnvr Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    Aug 8, 2012
    I have the Oly 60 since I wanted macro functionality, but I've always seen pretty much universally positive opinions on the Sigma 60. I'm quite happy with the O60 in general, but if macro isn't important then the Sigma seems to be a resonable choice. The obvious question I'd ask though is that if macro isn't a consideration, why not consider the Oly 75mm? Yes, more expensive, but one of the shining stars of the M43 system and if you are patient you can find it for ~$500 or so used.
  5. WendyK

    WendyK Super Moderator

    Feb 28, 2014
    Northern Virginia
    I still own both - I got the Sigma first, and absolutely loved it, but after discovering how much I loved macro thanks to a macro adapter I bought a refurb Oly 60 during a sale and I loved that, too. I planned to sell the Sigma. The Oly 60 is a very good lens, for both macro and other stuff, but I STILL have not been able to let go of the Sigma because it's so special. In my opinion it is a better lens for the non-macro stuff. Unless you really think you will use the macro option (I do a lot of macro so I do use the Oly more), I'd get the Sigma. If the Sigma had been a more expensive lens I would not have kept it but it is a bargain and I wouldn't get a lot of money for it so I haven't sold it.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. ahinesdesign

    ahinesdesign Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 6, 2011
    NC, USA
    I have owned both 60mm lenses, and agree with what others have written. I currently have the Sigma, having sold the Oly a while back.

    The Oly is a great lens, and is good for more than just macro work. The Sigma certainly has a special rendering quality that the Oly doesn't have, but I wouldn't say the Oly is lacking by any stretch of the imagination.

    I found the Oly to be a little slower to focus than I was used to with other m4/3 lenses, and sometimes prone to hunt, but the limiter helps on both fronts.

    24197032404_318daeaab2_b.jpg Olympus 60mm f/2.8 by aaronhines, on Flickr

    26482983681_d6f036115a_b.jpg Sigma 60mm f/2.8 by aaronhines, on Flickr
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  7. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    If you want to do macro, the choice between the two is clear. If you want to do portraits, a 45,1.8 or 42.5,1.7 will isolate your subject better on in the oly 45's case be cheap.

    Another option though is Oly's 4/3 50mm,f2 lens. It is a fantastic portrait lens, renders beautifully. It is a .5 magnification macro lens as well and with the inexpensive extension tubes produces 1:1 macro images. Prices have dropped on these lately and they can be had for very reasonable prices if you're patient.

    Really, other than the macro capability, there is more of the result in you than in the difference between any of these lenses.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. ledanipo

    ledanipo New to Mu-43

    Apr 23, 2016
    I have this lens (oly 60) and was wondering the same thing as I've never used it. From what I've read it makes for a great portrait lens, and seems like the comments on this site in this thread and others seem to say the same.

    Sent from my Nexus 6P
  9. Taurahe

    Taurahe Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 24, 2015
    If you don't need macro, the Sigma 60 is a stellar lens. Af is fast, it is super sharp and it's a lot of fun

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.