Sigma 18-35 F1.8 VS. Fujifilm 16-55 F2.8 - Comparison Test! 

Which one are you choosing?

I wish Fuji would let Sigma make a native 18-35 1.8

Great video man. I do own native Fuji lenses but I use the same Sigma combo on the 40mp XH2. I'm used to a heavier DSLR setup so the weight doesn't bother me. However, my auto focus performance seems to be better with the Fringer. Did you test with the latest firmware?

Hi, nice comparison! Would love to see your thoughts on the new sigma 18-50 2.8 and a comparison against these two lenses. Size wise it's a no brainier but interested in a comparison of image quality

Great video! Did you use the 16-55 2.8 in the X-T5 or XH2? in tha case, how does it resolve the 40 mpx sensor?

I would say going for both is ideal. The fuji for street/travel, photo/videography plans due to its portability, size, weight and reach. The sigma for interview, corporate type of shoots and if you know you'll want more separation when filming a subject. Honestly for low light even with a 2.8 aperture, at 6400 ISO you're already seeing more than the human eye and you can always clean up noise easily for very specific shots. Thanks for your video !

it seems there’s currently no X mount lens that can do both good AF and MF and doesn’t change exposure/ focus while zooming. Sad :(

Thank you I have been waiting for this video all week! haha I have the Xh2s with 16-55 2.8 and the AutoFocus is amazing for video but I'm a run and gun shooter and Ive needed the low light features (1.8) but idk if it is worth the trade-offs. What do you think?

can you compare samyang 12mm f2 VS. viltrox 13mm f1.4 please

Does it work well with the built in IBIS on the r7?

I have both of these and chose the 16-55mm. The sigma is clinically sharp and I don’t like that. The 16-55 is sharp as well but with a bit of character.

Having had the Sigma 18-35 on my XH2S I could deal with the weight because the XH2S has an amazing grip. The noise of the !8-35 was just distracting and unbearable. I'm a hybrid shooter (hobbyist) and even taking photos is makes your high end camera sound like it's broken. the 50-100 was even worse! moving so much glass is just so loud. Forget about using a shotgun mic on either. I will attest that the 18-35 is super sharp, but I favor my Tamron 17-70 much more. It really is the best of both worlds and is even lighter than the 16-55. With that said both 18-35 and 50-100 are gone. They are a lovely pairing, but rarely used the 50-100 as it actually is too heavy to tote around for long periods. i just default to my Viltrox 75 1.2! One additional note about the Sigma and Fringer combo is that focus speed and sensitivity adjustments in camera have no affect on the lens performance while using autofocus. That was also somewhat of a deal breaker. I meant to make a video, but didn't think it would get much traction. Nice review!

So... what we want is a Fuji XF16-55/1.8 LM R WR, internal zooming with AF/MF switch and mechanical focus ring :D But no seriously, hard to argue with a lot of that. My only issue is I do not find the AF that bad (for Stills) at all on the Sigma and I use it for professional weddings and events all the time, the XH2S gets the shots with this lens if you take enough (see my recent video). There is just something SO YUMMY from a 1.8 shot around this focal range that is just king that I feel the 16-55 can't touch. The PROCESS of taking the shot would be better with the 16-55 but the Sigma ENDS UP with the best looking shots, and I care mostly about the end result. F2.8 on APS-C is rendering depth like f4 in FF world, and who really shoots weddings and events with f4 zooms or primes on FF systems? Yeh.. its not the best look. The Sigma gets you a FF look basically, which is rad on an affordable stacked sensor aps-c cam. And lastly that non internal zooming is not very reassuring long term (and suffers lens creep). Doesn't feel red badgey enough. Word on the street is Sigma are looking to port (at least) this art lens to MILC in the near future (they just need to get the contemporary line out of the way first). I have heard nothing from Fuji on updating this 16-55 and I would not at all be surprised if they think it is fine as is with no upgrades needed. There is the Sigma 18-50 and the Tamron 17-70, tbh I think I would choose either of those over the 16-55 if I could stomach f2.8, because both those are at least cheaper and smaller. IQ (CA, softness in corners etc) I actually don't care that much about (nor do my clients tbh) but 'the look' I do care about (and so do clients, they just don't know what 'the look' is called and how to describe it). Sigma wins for me, but this is a difficult comparison because although it is a sensible comparison to be had (I had this choice to make myself) at the same time its not really comparable. Good vid Jay.

god I wish Sigma will create a mirrorless version of the 18-35mm/1.8. It would shrink it down so much

Sticking with my 16-55 and I'm using it with my XH2s. It has not failed me yet and I need that extra reach.

does this comparison even make sense? completely different focal range. different aperture. 1 needs an adapter

🫶 I like your choice and reasoning. 🩵