I had a chance to pick up a Sigma 60mm for an excellent price.. and I didn't. A tempting 14-140 Lumix f/4-5.8 also was shunned, a lesser surprise but still: well done.
I'd been sure for quite some time that my new kit would include that 60. So why did I decline? The fact is I already have a nice little 50/1.7 Pentax-A that has not even been tried yet, and being 2/3 stop faster is no little thing. The Lumix bodies have focus peaking for such lenses so their occasional use is hardly painful. Both my zooms include 60mm (with less light grasp) so it's redundant three different ways.
And yet.. a few short hours later I bought the 30mm Sigma EX DN! (the Old One with a grip - shown here)
So why did I make this deal for a lens that must compete with the 4thirds 35mm 1:1 macro? Unlike the 60mm it's less redundant, faster than the 35/3.5 and the 12-60, and also creates a fine little 17/30/45-150 kit for days when the 12-60mm is less appropriate. I don't always need to reach 12mm after all, the 17 and 30mm lenses gather more light, and weather seals on the zoom are less useful on an unsealed body. The 12-60 is still a fine lens though and will get plenty of use!
The 35mm may still win out for image quality.. but with the adapter it becomes a lot larger than the Sigma, so it could win but still lose.
Note that the same arguments can be used for the Pentax 50 vs the Sigma 60mm! To that I suggest that the size difference is smaller between those two, and light penalty greater.
We shall see if the 60mm eventually forces its way back into contention..
Note that the same arguments can be used for the Pentax 50 vs the Sigma 60mm! To that I suggest that the size difference is smaller between those two, and light penalty greater.
We shall see if the 60mm eventually forces its way back into contention..
