Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:32 am

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:46 am 
Does anybody have any thoughts on what would be the best way to go between a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro versus the Oly 50m f2.0 macro. They are of a similar price and both seem very well regarded. However, would I be right in thinking the Sigma would be the more versatile lens given its zoom range and still offer excellent image, macro and low light capabilty versus the Oly which may well offer superlative image, macro and low light capability in exchange for the restriction of being a single focal length? Reason for asking is I can see a savings in ordering my new E520 body only with the Sigma taking over the role of the 14-42 kit lens, but I would still require the 14-42 if I went for the Oly 50mm. Hope this makes some kind of sense, quite happy to be told its crazy to be making this choice as the lenses are not comparable in any way.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:25 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9886
Location: UK
Hi Michael,

May I wish you a warm welcome to the CameraLabs forums.

I'm outside my comfort zone, unfortunately, as my last Olympus SLR was an OM-2 so just a couple of thoughts. The Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX macro was reviewed by PhotoZone here and, looking at the results, I think it has issues. That said, remember that the review was on a 1.6c FOVCF camera so some of the vignetting and corner sharpness issues will go away on a 4/3rds body.

Would the E-520 kit lens be such a bad investment? The chances are that in a few years time you might want to upgrade/refresh your camera body and get another Oly to take advantage of your investment in glass. Having the kit lens might make it easier to sell on the E-520.


Sony RX1R II. Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/2.8 + 1.4x T/C, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8
M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8, Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:32 am 
and good point about the standard lens

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 6:04 pm 
Well i have the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro on my E-510, and all i can say is that it been nothing short of superb both for macro use, thou it not a dedicated macro lens and for general shooting.

A big plus with this lens is it's constant F2.8 meaning on the E-510/E-520 with it built in body IS you can get some really good low light shots handheld, you pay top wack on either Canon or Nikon to have this kind of luxury with a lens.

Another good point with the E-510/E-520 or any other Oly DSLR being 4/3 it only uses the center bit of the Glass meaning their is hardly any vignetting and is sharp corner to corner.

Now the downside with 4/3 being x2 you effectly got 36-100mm on this lens, so is not very wide if your into your wide angle shots, so your going to need to invest in either the up and coming 9-18mm in September or the excellent Oly 11-22mm which i just bought, both these lenses compliment the Sigma nicley.

Now for macro pics i found it does what i need it to, it get fairly close in thou is nothing on the 50mm Macro you could also consider the 35mm macro which is alot cheaper, but is just as sharp thou nowere near as fast as the 50mm.

If you bought the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro i don't think you be dissapointed at all.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:25 am 
Did you consider the Oly 14-54 when you went for the Sigma?

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:11 am 
i would go for the 14-54mm, it might be a tad bit slower at the end but will give you a decent wide angle and that little extra reach, and believe me, it goes a long way.

not to mention weather sealing, which is a big plus, if even for that one time you're able to capture a shot that you would have otherwise been hesitant to if your equipments was susceptible to the conditions.
not to mention it will almost certainly focus faster than that sigma. and if the 14-54 is anything like the 12-60, it should still be wonderful for macro work

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:51 pm 
Yeah did consider the 14-54mm I was all set to buy it new, but came across the Sigma with a Sigma 72mm UV filter for £190 on ebay in as new condition.

When it arrived it was as the seller said there was not a mark on either body, glass or hood and not a single spec of dust inside lens.

Now if this lens wasn't much cop i was going to sell it on and get the 14-54mm,but like i said it been superb it really sharp,i'll show an example at the bottom of this post.

Not to fussed about weather sealing really as i tend to only go out when it sunny anroads, not a fan of the rain.

Ok here a quick snap i took with the Sigma when i first went testing it out.

AP F8 ISO100 E-510


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group