The difference between 24mm & 28mm equivalent is huge in my book. I also thought I could live w/o an aperture ring on my Fuji setups and learned the hard way I just can't. That said this is a fantastic offering, love the compact size. This would be great for shooting video on the S10 w/ IBIS.
I wasn't expecting the Sigma lens to perform so well here - this is precisely why I went Fuji when I first got into photography, third party lenses are genuinely worth their typically lower cost / better value.
Surprising results, especially sharpness and back-lighting. Tony if I'm being honest, I've seen you do more precise comparisons. The shot by which the Sigma wins the close-focus test appears blurry, and I have a hard time believing there wasn't a better choice of backdrop for the bokeh test than the small clumps of string lights which didn't render as round. Also a tongue slip at 3:29, but now I'm just nitpicking. All this harshness from me aside, I appreciate the time to put this head-to-head together, a lot of valuable info! Overall the Fuji still seems like the more premium product.
Tony, If you haven't already, you gotta get your hands on Tamron's 17-70 f/2.8. it's significantly larger, but it's got the extra reach, optical stabilization and it has close-focusing abilities like the Sigma. Appreciate the review!
Hi Tony. Thanks for your comparison. Did you not think Tamron 17-70/2.8 in Fuji mount that costs in between these two lenses, does not belong in this comparison?
Bro, please tell me, I can't find any information. Does this lens have a real, mechanical focus ring? Or it's electronic as on all native Fujifilm glasses?
I’ve been using the 18-50 since release on my a6400 and it’s by far my favorite that i’ve ever owned. Sold my sony 24-70 for my a7riii because the 18-50 on my a6400 was better for me covering the docs range
Build quality and durability was omitted -the fuji lense is a tank. Nor is the 18-55 2.8 -4 which is an amazing lense. (best kit lense on the market) Also in camera disitortion correction and most importantly for fuji colour renditioning and AF speeds .Nor was the focusing ring mentioned. I have both and after owning Sigmaa plastic lens would have no hesitation picking the fuji,
Fuji is all aluminum but it comes at the cost of an overweight lens which kind of defeats the purpose of an APSC body. It's also not particularly sharp for such a big lens and has decent amount of barrel distortion. The 16-80 F4 has superb OIS and uses almost the same optical design (even similar MTF sharpness) but with some adjustments for F4 and longer range, that is also a good bargain for $400 and only a $100 more than the 18-55. Another important advantage of the Sigma is the macro capability. Neither the Sony nor the Fuji 16-55s have anywhere near the close focusing capability which is highly useful. Fuji colors are all software adjustments within the camera and easily obtained in RAW across all systems. The real reason I'd consider a Fuji lens is for the aperture ring and potentially OIS for video use if IBIS isn't available.
I'm thinking about doing the same thing, my 16-80 is a good lens but a bit chunky. Now honestly, I also have a 15-45 Fuji which is sharp as hell and extremely light weight, but the power zoom sucks. If Sigma would come out with a lens like that without power zoom I'd grab it.
@@mr.b4444 hi, I'm about to buy a fuji XS-10 and I'm in doubt whether to buy the fujifilm kit lens (18-55 f2.8-f4 or 16-80 f4) or this Sigma f2.8. My use will be both for photography and videos in particular landscapes, architecture, streephotos even nocturnes so the idea was to have a versatile lens eventually combined with a prime. I'm not a professional, but I'd like to get the best result and quality. What would you suggest me to purchase? Sigma? the 2 above-mentioned fuji lens? I'd be pleased to have your advice. Thanks
Interesting that you found the sigma and the fuji 16-55 similar and dpreview found the sigma and the fuji 18-55 similar when most people think the fuji 16-55 is better than the fuji 18-55. Group test including the Tamrom 17-70 perhaps?
18-55 is known for a very big distribution of quality, from really bad to excellent ones, the good and excellent can absolutely outperform or at least draw an average copy of the 16-55. At the same time there are 18-55 that are so decentered that they are unusable.
I'm keeping my 16-55. It fits my xh1 pretty well and i got this in mint condition for around $500. But the sigma is pretty good for people who are tight on a budget and provides a better alternative for getting a zoom lens on par with fuji's red badge zoom.
Yep, it will make the same photos for half the price. It wouldn't make sense for you to sell off your xf for a sigma, though, unless weight was a bother. Frankly, the weight and size difference is probably the biggest pro to the sigma, besides the equal image quality.
@@user-ww3by4mf8j well the person who sold it needed money for emergency hence the price is at 500 only and also fuji's were cheap back then during the pandemic. Now, fuji gear's are expensive.
Not putting an aperture ring on their Fuji lenses is such an epic fail for Sigma. The traditional controls are one of, if not the main, reason a lot of people shoot Fuji in the first place. How hard would it be to include that?
These lenses aren't just made for Fujifilm. Hence redesign a part of the production line just to add a aperture ring aimed to a small part of the market would probably cost more than they earn. That's why it's so hard to put it there.
It would probably be very hard as they would need to redesign the lens instead of slapping a different mount on it, no way that would be the same price point and the lower price with equal or sometimes better IQ is what sells the lenses in the first place. Also Fuji has some pasm cameras and a good number of lenses without aperture rings. I actually think the traditional controls are nice but a bit overrated, especially the aperture ring. I never got too much into the habit of using it since there was always a lens without it in my lineup with an important niche like the old pancake XF 27mm mark 1 or the video zoom XC 15-45.
The aperture ring is not the main reason people shoot Fuji, it depends on you style of shooting. Other brands have aperture rings and I was a Nikon shooter for over 40 years. I would say the main reason would be compactness, costs, and yes retro aesthetics. I have the Sigma 56 1.4 and got rid of my Fuji 56 1.2 . The SIgma 56 1.4 is the better lens as well as half the price, I don't miss the aperture ring.
@@murmor6890 You can basically "slap" an aperture ring on it because there are no mechanics - it's just a metal ring with a tiny electronic detector. The rest is all electronic fly-by-wire, same as the already built-in aperture setting from the mount contact.
Hi Tony and Chelsea Northrup, I always love what you do. I'm letting you know that a photographer was badly beaten up at gunpoint by two thugs in San Francisco. This was covered on the news and two RU-vidrs have started a challenge to bring awareness to this issue. I think that the two of you would be perfect to bring this up on your channel regarding safety. The two RU-vidrs are Amar from 247 Media and Vahagraphy. This is as you know extremely important and threatens all of us
LOL, actually the best choice here is... XF 18-55 f/2.8-4 LM OIS, expecially if bought used. Sigma really dropped the ball with the lack of apperture ring.
The comparison that truly matters for this lens. I'm still unable to decide though. As a hybrid shooter that prefers manual focus in narrative style films and video but also needs reliable AF in event photography, I feel I still haven't found a decent replacement to my trusty but aging Sigma 17-50. It's not the best at photoshoot AF once adapted but the 18-55 takes care of that for me. I'm afraid the 16-55 still doesn't make a lot of sense to me with the electronically coupled Manual Focus, weight and price. Then there's the Tamron 17-70 at the other end of the spectrum. I'm certainly spoiled for choice but sadly none of these lenses fulfill my requirements on their own and living in the UAE means, we don't get the luxury of rentals for anything other than Canon/Nikon/Sony. I think I'll eventually end up settling for the Sigma 18-50 as that will cover photo, video as well as gimbal video work. Wondering if they'll relaunch a mirrorless version of their limited run 50-150 OS DSLR lens. (I'll probably never sell my copy) Maybe 50-140 and smaller but without OS to match the 18-50. Of course, the absolute best would be the 18-35/50-100 mirrorless redesigns. Considering this one is so tiny and affordable, I feel they might just do another uncompromised redesign.
The Tamron 17-70mm is about as good optically as the Fuji 16-55mm in practice, fwiw. Every so often I notice a little less contrast, a little more fringing/wash out on high-contrast borders, but it's only noticeable when splitting hairs and viewing photos very zoomed in. I chose the Tamron for work specifically because it had more reach, OIS (nice for when mounted on an X-T4), and bokeh is a bit smoother (not to mention better separation at 70mm when needed). It's also a lot lighter than the 16-55mm, so gimbal work/balancing is much easier.
@@joshuatatro4503 thank you so much for taking the time Joshua. :) The Tamron has been in my Amazon list for a while now and it does seem like the best all rounder for both fields and I do have the 18-55 for times when absolute compactness is paramount. I'll certainly keep it in my list. How is it for manual focus pulls?
Hey there! Old comment but I'm wondering if you ended up getting the Sigma 18-50mm? I'm in a similar boat to you in that I'm looking for an X-mount zoom that has good autofocus but also a useable manual focus experience for cinematic work.
@@jesselimproduction Hey Jesse. Oh I haven't bought anything yet. In my opinion, the only current best option is to get a used 18-35 and adapt it for manual focus pulls in video. Personally, I'm considering the Tamron because it also has negligible focus breathing and I already have the f/2 primes along with the 18-55 and the Tamron 17-70 will pair nicely with my Viltrox 75mm for event photography. For video, eventually, I'll consider getting the Cinematics rehoused 18-35 for higher budget work that absolutely need manual focus. But by the time I get some funds that I can justify towards either purchase, who knows, maybe Sigma will have a redesigned 18-35 announced. For now, I'm still clearing off past bills.(🙈)
@@JoaquimGonsalves Cheers appreciate the reply! Love the 18-35 optically but it's so big and unweildy and the AF motor is noisy. I'm hoping they have a mirrorless redesign soon too!
Hi, my comment is irrelevant to this video in particular but I was listening to your podcast and noticed that the audio quality is below average with weird audio artifact/hissing. I checked 3 other episodes with the same results.
neither of these unless you want to play around manually (XT5). Instead of the XH-2 i would take the stacked sensor for weddings, the XH-2S. The Autofocus nails just better and you get better results handheld. With the XT5 or XH2 you have to be much more sensitive and relaxed because with the 40 MP you will see much more blur from each movement. Here the stacked sensor is way faster.
Pixel peeping could show differences between two copies of the exact same lens, no? Despite the fine tooth combing, in real world use, these two lenses will produce nearly identical results in the right hands. Sigma makes some killer glass for half the price of the XF line.
Testing image quality with the pixel shift is just plain silly! It tells us nothing about how these lenses will perform how 99.99999999999999999% of us shoot.
I think the opposite, using pixel shift will highlight the sharpness difference between the two further because there are more megapixels, any softness will be because of the lens and not because of the sensor used.
A poor comparison. Wrong focal length named for the Sigma lens. Did not mention build quality and weather sealing, also ignored the AF speed and accuracy. Also you should have not ignored the fact that 16-55 is really a much wider range than 18-50 and that is why FUJI lens is so much bigger and heavier in the first place.
Yes and he does not even give an opinion at the end. Sub par video this with lots of mistakes. Feels like a phoned in effort rather than the usual quality I expect from this channel. Seems rushed.
Год назад
Sorry, but the Fujinon has a 16-55mm range, but the Sigma only has the 18-50. I know it's not that big of a difference, but even those few millimeters make a big difference in lens size...
I own the Fuji 16-55mm, but more often than not it stays at home because of the weight. I am considering swapping for the Sigma based on that alone. I will miss the aperture ring though! But given that the 55-200mm does not have it either, maybe I'll just live with it on my zooms.
Hi Tony, request you to do the ANIMAL/bird photography review for XH2s/XH2/XT5 along with xf 100-400 or 200 f2 lens How does it compare with other cameras for wildlife like R5/R6/A1 ? Thanks for sharing those great videos 👌🏻👍🏻
I have the fuji system for the size. It's so much better for travel and family stuff than my Z9. I love the options for smaller lenses. Thank you for the review!
UNFORTUNATELY, the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 DC DN lens that I purchased on 12/8/22 for my Fuji X-T5 camera developed a problem on 7/29/24 that means I can't depend upon it. Up until that time I was pleased with it for both photos & video. BUT after I had taken about 190 photon on the 29th, the aperture froze at F20 & nothing I could do resolved this. I was about 2hrs driving distance from home. Another zoom lens worked just fine on my camera when I got back home. Mysteriously, the Sigma lens now seemed to work again. BUT when I researched online, I found several other situations where Sigma lenses had similar problems. THEREFORE, I have no choice but to stop using this Sigma lens & get the Fuji XF 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR Lens, since I can't run the risk of having the Sigma lens fail again when I'm away from home.
They are both excellent lens. The Sigma is great on the multiple Sony apsc models. The Fuji is great on Fuji's. Any criticism of the Fuji not having the "anolog dials".
Sigma has no aperture ring, loses 2mm at wide end (big loss) and 5 mm at longer end. Not so much of a problem but still a loss. That all makes the Sigma a non starter for me.
It depends though, a lenses sharpness for a zoom varies depending on its focal length. So it’s hard to compare apples to apples. One reviewer might be on 50mm and say oh the sigma is so sharp, then another will be on the 18mm and say it’s so soft. Both are true. The general consensus however is that the sigma is pretty sharp, at least for its price point.
Fujinon xf 16-55mm f2.8 r lm wr Un obiettivo di notevole qualità in termini ottici e meccanici, ottima luminosità ma un grande grandissimo difetto: la gomma dello zoom (grip anello) si è usurata e scollata utilizzando l'obiettivo in maniera poco intensiva e per brevi periodi. Considerando il costo dell'obiettivo mi aspettavo il massimo in tutto, anche perchè viene venduto come "obiettivo tropicalizzato" cioè resistente alle intemperie, polvere, ecc; per la sostituzione va mandato unicamente al centro assistenza a Milano a vostre spese, costo del cambio gomma tra 100 e 150 euro. Un vecchio obiettivo zoom usato per oltre 20 anni su una reflex analogica le gomme sono praticamente indenni. GRANDISSIMA DELUSIONE (disponibile video)
Same. I've also owned the Sigma 30mm and they both suffered from fringing in high contrast conditions. Fuji microcontrast is much better too, something most 3rd party lenses lack and render much flatter or 2D looking. Only 3rd party X mount I've felt really held up to the native lenses so far are a few Viltrox lenses.
Thank you for this video. I own the 16-55 and really like it even though it is well deserving of it's nickname The Brick. The Sigma is very nice but I'd probably go for the original 18-55/2.8-4 in stead. But @Tony i think you missed quite a few mistakes in this video during editing. Especially in the beginning where you get your recommendations for the different body types mixed up. Otherwise really liked the comparison.
On my Fuji while working depending on the situation, you don’t have to move them much. Like inside I keep my ISO dial 600-1600 and outside it ranges from 160-1200. That’s on auto after changing. Aperture is extremely easy to change in the fly with the ring. Shutter is on 250 usually and my dial only lets me go a few under or over. Inside it drops to like 125. You can even lock them in place so they don’t change and studio sessions it’s perfect. But to each their own. I only had Fuji for less than a year. Was a canon shooter. Not using the ap ring isn’t that hard at all
DPReview compared it to the 18-55 if you're interested. I just thought the 16-55 was more appropriate since they're both f/2.8 throughout the zoom range.
@@carlosqueiros1 no one is selling anything to anyone in this video, there is a comparison being conducted and so the differencies are in the spotlight. A buyer should be advised by a seller, on that i agree.
Seriously? If a review video fails to mention something about a product you just buy it and never know more than the video told you about it? You may want to look up and research a product before laying out hundreds on it. But that's just me.
Everyone knows, and who doesn't should know, that the 16-55 does not have IS, and that if you pair it with a camnera without IBIS it will be hard to handle, specially for video. That's a reason, with the size and amount of glass, it would be difficult to put the IS on it. As the Sigma is smaller, likewise the 18-55, you should mention that this smaller lens don't have IS either, and mention that Sigma lost the opportunity to include it. Talking about every aspect, which happened in this video, and left that issue aside, is a major flaw.
One of the most important thing not discussed is the Image Stabilization. That's a very important topic missed out. Average Video. Need more intelligent material.
Good job Sigma! But you gotta be kidding about being able to see the lens itself in the viewfinder! What the heck is that?! Is that what you see when you're trying to frame a shot?!
You don't use that optical viewfinder if you care about efficiency and the best information feed back in the first place. It is a gimmick and nostalgia trip.
@@murmor6890 ah, okay. I'm not a Fuji shooter so I'm not hep to the system. But now I'm wondering what the whole story is on it? I'm going to look that up. This just seems silly. But I'm going to try to be open minded.
@@swistedfilms XC is the cheaper line of lenses that don't come with an aperture ring, some of them are good though as they have the same optics inside or fill specific roles. Also some of them don't fully function on the best body's to force people into buying more XF models. XF is the expensive line which usually comes with an aperture ring and they even upgraded the 27mm pancake now which didn't have one for example, but that is very recent. Regarding cameras they have some models that are aimed at people who use pasm cameras, often those are the more more video or hybrid shooting focussed models like the S10 and the new H-line cameras. H-Line and XT line are the flag ship models, XT is analoge style, current H Line is PASM.
