Sigma 60mm/2.8 DISCONTINUED!! GRAB ONE WHILE YOU CAN!!

[MichailK]

Just noticed here that it is now listed as officially discontinued along its matching F2.8 brothers - it seems the F1.4 behemoths that replaced them bring higher profit margins for Sigma. OK, I get it for the harshy bokeh 30/2.8 and maybe the not that good 19/2.8 but the 60/2.8 is a fantastic value, great performer and really light as well - only the far more expensive and quite bigger 75mm/1.8 sits above it.

So my advice to anybody considering this Sigma 60mm lens, GRAB ONE WHILE YOU CAN!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Z-Shooter]

Totally Agree! My copy is so sharp I need to wear gloves when I use it!

 

[MichailK]

and that above is a cropped shot on a very cloudy day!

 

[b_rubenstein]

The most probable reason for dropping the 2.8 lenses is that Sigma didn't sell enough to make it economically viable any more. Yes, they'll probably make more money, that's what publically owned companies do.

 

[Turbofrog]

Hmm.

I guess it is being squeezed pretty hard in the market on all sides. The Oly 60mm/f2.8 Macro has been on sale for $349 a lot lately, and offers weather-sealing and macro capabilities as well, so it's pretty tough competition for the Sigma for just $100 more.

And obviously, I imagine many buyers are much more interested in the f/1.4 option, especially since that lens is only 90g more than the f/2.8 version. I would believe it's just as sharp stopped down 2 stops to f/2.8, as well.

 

[tkbslc]

Hmm.

I guess it is being squeezed pretty hard in the market on all sides. The Oly 60mm/f2.8 Macro has been on sale for $349 a lot lately, and offers weather-sealing and macro capabilities as well, so it's pretty tough competition for the Sigma for just $100 more.

I think the f2.8 aperture is a hard sell when the 45mm f1.8 and (and Sony 50mm f1.8) are available for the same price (used). You have to really need the extra FL to give up over a stop of light.

 

[MichailK]

Yes, they'll probably make more money, that's what publically owned companies do.

Indeed, that is how the game always goes and they have an extensive product range over multiple systems and the m43 range seems like a minor contribution to their business, so shy keep production resources underperforming?
However,
I have their 19/2.8, the 30/1.4 and their 60/2.8. I am not interested at all in that jumbo 16mm/1.4 one and the 56/1.4 costs exactly double price of the 60/2.8 over here (400+ euros vs 200+) so if I was in the market today and only had the new lineup to choose from I would be lured hard to make the jump to Fujiland and Sigma would definitely not see my eurodollars...

I guess it is being squeezed pretty hard in the market on all sides. The Oly 60mm/f2.8 Macro has been on sale for $349 a lot lately, and offers weather-sealing and macro capabilities as well, so it's pretty tough competition for the Sigma for just $100 more.

Not over here, its still double price as well for the Oly and I wonder about the bokeh performance of a Macro lens - any leads on comparison?

And obviously, I imagine many buyers are much more interested in the f/1.4 option, especially since that lens is only 90g more than the f/2.8 version. I would believe it's just as sharp stopped down 2 stops to f/2.8, as well.

And I guess it does not rattle around as well as the 60/2.8 does - I do hope it does not suffer as much on the fringing front as my 30/1.4 under F2 making the difference just a stop for double the money is such a case. Indeed, if I had seen on review shots that the 30/2.8 had better bokeh I may have had second thoughts on getting the 30/1.4 instead of the 2.8.

In general I find the 60/2.8 fun to use while the 30/1.4 not so much eventhough it is definitely much more “pro-ish” handling.

I think the f2.8 aperture is a hard sell when the 45mm f1.8 and (and Sony 50mm f1.8) are available for the same price (used). You have to really need the extra FL to give up over a stop of light.

I would not compare the 45/1.8 to the 60/2.8 because as soon as we crop the 45 to the 60 FoV, the DoF equivalance of the F1.8 must be going somewhere close to F2.5 and overall sharpness would suffer for sure.

 

[PakkyT]

That means Sigma only has three m43 lenses left, all of them f1.4 primes.

 

[JLGF1]

Works for me... [purchased]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[MichailK]

excellent choice, sir!! oh, wait.. bought or sold?

 

[JLGF1]

excellent choice, sir!! oh, wait.. bought or sold?

Bought from a Sony photographer who changed from m4/3 to FF.

 

[MichailK]

Bought from a Sony photographer.

he bought the wrong version??

 

[tkbslc]

I would not compare the 45/1.8 to the 60/2.8 because as soon as we crop the 45 to the 60 FoV, the DoF equivalance of the F1.8 must be going somewhere close to F2.5 and overall sharpness would suffer for sure.

It depends on why you bought it. If you bought it because you really, truly, need the reach, then yes. Maybe if you are using it a cheap concert or recital lens, etc. But many people buy it as an affordable portrait or subject isolation lens. And with portraits you can easily just take a half step forward to keep your framing and not need a crop. Both 45 and 60 give pleasing perspective for portraits, so it's not an issue just getting a bit closer with a 45.

 

[MichailK]

no, the 45mm would not cut it for me - take the above shot of Mazou for example: I was shooting out of a window, could not get any closer and I generally do not like coming close to subjects - also I have no idea how much the perspective side of the shot would be changed if I walked closer.

Now, the 60/2.8 being that sharp that it affords considerable cropping is a perfect telephoto prime to throw in my man-purse every time I move around. My also loved 75-300mm is much bigger to carry around “just in case” and it also runs into low light obstacles despite the longer reach.
I guess you could strongly point to valid different choices as well but I love this lens so I am not really listening

 

[Bytesmiths]

that's what publically owned companies do.

Or privately held companies, for that matter! (Sigma is actually privately owned.)

 

[Macroramphosis]

I love the 60. If I had the budget I’d buy another right now as a spare.

 

[alex66]

I like the 60mm it is the nearest I can get to a 135mm equivalent and 2.8 does not really bother me. The IQ for what I paid makes it a bargain and as I don't have the need for a macro and the Oly would be 4+ times what I paid. I may well look on the auction site for a spare or two.

 

[davidzvi]

Just noticed here that it is now listed as officially discontinued along its matching F2.8 brothers - it seems the F1.4 behemoths that replaced them bring higher profit margins for Sigma......

First I completely agree that the Sigma 60mm is one of the true bargain jewels of m4/3, probably "the" bargain jewel IMHO. But while the Sigma 30mm and 16mm f/1.4s are behemoths when compared to their f/2.8 counterparts, the 56mm f/1.4 isn't. Yes it's a lot heavier, but not really that much bigger.

........I would not compare the 45/1.8 to the 60/2.8 because as soon as we crop the 45 to the 60 FoV, the DoF equivalance of the F1.8 must be going somewhere close to F2.5 and overall sharpness would suffer for sure.

It depends on why you bought it. If you bought it because you really, truly, need the reach, then yes. Maybe if you are using it a cheap concert or recital lens, etc. But many people buy it as an affordable portrait or subject isolation lens. And with portraits you can easily just take a half step forward to keep your framing and not need a crop. Both 45 and 60 give pleasing perspective for portraits, so it's not an issue just getting a bit closer with a 45.

Sadly to the general public that doesn't know or hasn't taken the time to learn sees something close to the "classic" 85mm portrait lens that has a faster aperture. They aren't thinking about getting the extra reach or that the Sigma 60mm was sharp wide open while the 45mm wasn't as sharp.

A lot is perception and marketing that you need faster. That''s true with every make and model.

Personally I prefer the 56mm f/1.4 both for the faster aperture (the center is actually pretty good wide open), I actually like the little more weight, and because I actually prefer the closer to 100mm focal range.

 

[MichailK]

Personally I prefer the 56mm f/1.4 both for the faster aperture (the center is actually pretty good wide open), I actually like the little more weight, and because I actually prefer the closer to 100mm focal range.

the big question for me is how “nicer” the bokeh is with the new one - more but harsher bokeh is not good enough for me to spend 100% more cash over here - how about light bulbs during night scenes? With the 56mm do you get a second purple one adjastent to each lit bulb on night scenery shots like with the 30/1.4 @ 1.4 or not? ( I wonder if this is not evident on Panasonic bodies)

 

[davidzvi]

the big question for me is how “nicer” the bokeh is with the new one - more but harsher bokeh is not good enough for me to spend 100% more cash over here - how about light bulbs during night scenes? With the 56mm do you get a second purple one adjastent to each lit bulb on night scenery shots like with the 30/1.4 @ 1.4 or not? ( I wonder if this is not evident on Panasonic bodies)

Sorry but none of those are things I'm really concerned about or have noticed. The only lens I've ever really noticed objectionable purple objects/fringing on is the Pan 7-14 when used on an Oly body. I don't really care about light bulbs during night scenes; sure the star effect can be nice, but it really doesn't matter to me. And I shoot at f/1.4-2.8 when I need to in order to keep the shutter speed up and / or ISO down and not because I'm chasing thin DOF and creamy Bokeh. Again it's nice, but not a priority for me. If it was I wouldn't have sold all my FX gear.