If I have the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro lens, is the Olympus 35mm macro redundant?

[dkayuk]

Hi all

I guess the title says it all. Got the Sigma yesterday and took my first shots today. AF seems a bit erratic but I use MF most of the time, so not a serious problem. I like the quality of the shots. They were shot handheld this afternoon (cloudy sky).

I wanted to extra working distance provided by the 105mm lens so that's why I bought it.

Aside from the shorter focus distance which is not really of interest to me, is there any other reason for keeping (as in,not selling..) the 35mm macro ZD lens? Would I be losing out on anything?

Here are two shots taken with very little effort & handheld (with the Sigma) this afternoon at the London Wetlands Trust in Barnes (SW13). Maybe not perfect, but I like them

My camera is the E-520.

thx

DK

[Garrie]

Re: If I have the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro lens, is the Olympus 35mm macro redundant?

Great shots however I think they look alittle soft only imho though.. The bokeh is very pleasing for me

I'd keep the Zuiko 35macro aswell. Great little lens

[tlove]

Re: If I have the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro lens, is the Olympus 35mm macro redundant?

Lovely shots !

As Garrie says, they are just a little soft, but don't despair.

I've got the Sigma 150mm macro, and get the same sort of shots as above handheld. A fellow Olympus user (who uses same lenses) told me to always use either a monopod or tripod when using these Sigma lenses. I hate tripods but have a monopod, so I tried that and the results were much sharper.

Keep an eye on the focusing issue though - if it's a new lens, don't take any nonsense if it won't focus properly, it should be sent back (I should know).

As to the 35mm macro - I've got the 50mm macro and have no intention of getting rid of mine. It's a fantastic bit of glass. The Sigma is great for taking shots of butterflies, dragonflies etc. that would move off if you came any where near them, but the 35mm can't be beaten for flowers, bugs etc. that don't run\fly off if you so much as breathe! Image quality wise, the Olympus glass can't be beaten either.

What I'm trying to say in my usual clumsy way is 'horses for courses'. Only you can decide if you should move your 35mm out in favour of the Sigma, but I wouldn't jump to a quick decision you may later regret .

[PeterD]

Re: If I have the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro lens, is the Olympus 35mm macro redundant?

Dk not bad shots for the new lens. I agree with all the comments. For Macro work IMHO you need to steady the camera on a tripod/monopod to get the very best results from the lens.

Keep an eye on the focusing issue though - if it's a new lens, don't take any nonsense if it won't focus properly, it should be sent back (I should know).

Thea

Did you manage to get the Bigma sorted in the end? Sounds like you have.

Peter

[tlove]

Re: If I have the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro lens, is the Olympus 35mm macro redundant?

Did you manage to get the Bigma sorted in the end? Sounds like you have.

Peter

Still with them Peter - 3 weeks and counting . Could have done with it today though - typical! Just as well I've got the 50-200 and 1.4 TC We're going to give them a nudge this week and see what they say - they must have been able to diagnose it by now .

[PeterD]

Re: If I have the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro lens, is the Olympus 35mm macro redundant?

Thea
I have my fingers crossed for you.
Peter