I have owned both and vastly prefer the Zuiko, well worth the extra bucks.
The Sigma (I owned anyway) was bulky and heavy compared to the Zuiko and I
rarely carried it. The Zuiko is often carries and used as a consequence.
Build quality on the Sigma SEEMED fine but the thing tended to continually
fall apart (screws loosening, ect) on cycle and backpacking trips, repair
was always easy for me to do, but I never really trusted the thing.
Optically it was fine, maybe not quite as much sharpness or contrast as the
Zuiko. Optically what I did not care for was the color balance was
noticeably different than the Zuiko lenses (generally a little 'colder')
and the lens suffered from a noticeable amount of distortion compared to
the Zuiko.
Note that there is more than one version of this lens, mine was the early
version with the built in filters at the rear.
Jim Couch
Alan wrote:
> Formally compared the sigma 24f2.8 to the zuiko 24f2.8 ? Does anyone do
> informal comparisons like these besides Gary ?
>
> Alan
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
--
Jim Couch
Tacoma, WA USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|