For mechanics: the mechanics makes a clean and stable impression. The metal bayonet is certainly standard for fixed focal lengths, but is of course a positive assessment. The well fed and clean sliding distance ring is a real plus point for me, because it allows a good, fine control of manual focusing. I do not like though, that is the distance ring of smooth metal, but I'm so but then easily cope.
To look: The first practical recordings (. Eg branches and leaves with filigree structures) were very nice, convincing results.
Next, I was interested in the topic of optics which aperture values bring optimal image results. These had to once again serve as a test object and my hardware calibrated 24 "monitor from Eizo for evaluating an adjacent transformer house with its washing concrete walls. The picture set was placed in increments of 1/3 stop (tripod without IS, 2 sec forward and Anti -Schock). Differences in image quality make specifically for this lens only in the 100% view noticeable. All statements I make, of course, to the best knowledge and conscience, but without expensive measuring equipment.
In the 100% view the resolution of the center at f 2.8 appears a bit soft, then well and Aperture 4.5 very good at f 4.0. The resolution in the center is then also to Aperture 6.3 with very fine, barely visible differences very well, then again very easy to give in from Aperture 7.1 very light and at f 8.0 (Effect of diffraction). Aperture 7.1 and 8.0 therefore are still well used for very bright conditions. Only from Aperture 9.0 the degradations are visible. The results in the corners I can - surprisingly - given the identical comments. This is confirmed by several tests, the report by a very small drop in the resolution towards the corners. So the ideal, very good aperture range is from the lens from 4.5 to 6.3. The other aperture I use when the lighting conditions make it imperative. If I make portrait record, of course, the open aperture 2.8 is very welcome to indemnify the background; There is certainly even better if not already every little bump in the face / of those portrayed is mapped unpleasantly sharp.
Supplement on 14.09.2013: Compared to the Olympus 45 mm makes me Sigma 60mm at f 2.8 in the corners even a sharper impression in the middle it looks equally sharp from (always 100% view). The aperture 4.0 to 8.0 I feel both lenses as equivalent.
Many lenses are unfortunately decentered, resulting in more or less unequal resolution Ergebnisen in the corners. Because simply lack the quality control of the individual lenses. I also checked the. Change at 14:09:12: My Objektivexamplar is properly centered, a second comparative specimen was left up a little weaker, but not really bad. A comparative glance in control 100% representation and in all four corners so worth unfortunately repeatedly.
For autofocus: Not as fast as the current Olympus Lenses 45mm f / 1.8 and 75mm f / 1.8, but certainly very spacious and very quiet. In my previous recordings, I'm so well and easily got along.
Accessories: A fixed sunshade and even a lens case are included. If I may be a little "bite": The sunshade will cost the Olympus 60mm f / 2.8 again 50 euros. Dear Marketing of Olympus, Take to Nikon, Sigma and Tamron with free sun visor an example :-)
Conclusion: All in all worth a nice, recommendable lens and five stars. Because I have in my prime lenses in the Olympus Telebreich already 45 mm f / 1.8 and the Olympus 75mm f / 1.8, I have to now, however, wonder how much is the benefit of an additional, third telephoto focal length or which focal lengths have the greatest benefit application. It's your choice, are spoiled ...
Addendum on 14/09/2013: I have said three lenses Olympus 45mm, Sigma 60 mm and 75 mm Olympus again compared. . For those who want to carry around not much, at first the weight including caps and sun visor. 137 g, 209 g and 341 g For me, more important are the results from the diagonal recording angle picture sizes. The Sigma provides objects 38% larger than is the Olympus 45 mm, the Olympus 75 m is 28% larger objects represent as the Sigma 60mm and ultimately makes the Olympus 75 mm Items 76% larger than is the Olympus 45 mm. The Sigma 60 mm is therefore of the image effect her closer to the Olympus 75 mm as the Olympus 45 mm. Of the three Primes I would buy the Olympus 45mm definitely - a great lens with the classic focal length for portraits and also for available light suitable. For portraits I personally the Sigma in many situations already too large focal length and is of course a bit less suited for available light. The Sigma 60 mm is then a very good addition if you have a recognizable greater magnification will as with the Olympus 45 mm, but the Olympus does not want to buy 75mm / can, or if the focal lengths between the Olympus 45 mm and the Olympus 75 wants abstufen mm fine. The other day at Aachen Cathedral I would have liked to have had a finer gradation of focal lengths and will therefore retain the Sigma 60 mm well. . My conclusion: With a street price of currently about 170 to 180 euros including sun visor and quiver can not go wrong - just buy it and look forward to the very good results!
Addendum on 09/22/2014: In recent months, several test publications have classified the Sigma in fact be the best MFT fixed focal length for the Olympus 75 mm. For the supplement important: In the meantime I also own the Olympus 12-40 mm f / 2.8. Mostly I use it for my "travel kit" as "always are top" lens. Down the equipment is then the Olympus 9-18 mm and the Walimex Pro 7.5mm f / 3.5 supplemented; the Sigma 60mm and Olympus 75mm supplement the equipment at the telephoto end. So I have a total of at last the equally flexible, viable and optically high-quality travel gear that I was looking for. The also existing Olympus 25mm f / 1.8 and 45mm f Olympus / 1.8 I use (place) of the Olympus 12-40mm f / 2.8, if I actually plan portrait or available light photography.
Last, but not least: If my review is useful, I would appreciate a click on the "review was helpful" button. Then I know that my effort has also helped others. Thanks!
