The Sigma 18-50 has become my vacation+walk around lens. I'm always pleased at how sharp it is. Of course the size and weight are major factors. I have other lenses with a similar range but they sit in the drawer as this little lens gets to go out and play.
@@waddoo1234 I'm wondering about this too... I have the 18-135 and appreciate its flexibility & compactness. The obvious tradeoff is light gathering & less ease of defocusing background than an f2.8 lens would have. I'd be interested in hearing for folks with practical experience using both of these 18-xxxmm lenses also.
I know while everyone is asking for that lens when it comes out all will be pissed! Why? Easy! That lens won't be small and light enough to be balanced good on an apsc body! You seeking for bokeh? Why dnt you try fullframe? I bet a budget ff body paired with sigma's own 28-70 f2.8 will cost you less both in price and weight than that imaginary 1.8 apsc lens in combination with an apsc body. If sigma makes a light weight 14-24 2.8 and a 50-150 2.8 crop lens then I'm all in!
@@networm64 i already use that lens with an adapter. I dont like ff, prefer aps-c. Just would prefer a native alternative. And c'mon, the cameras have almost the same size.
This has turned into my favorite lens, I use it when I’m not sure what I’m going to be capturing because it’s pretty much ready for anything. The only lens I use more is a pancake because despite the review’s emphasis on how compact/light this guy is, it seems big and hefty to me.
Oh man, this is great! I've been using the old Sigma 17-50 f2.8 adapted to E Mount when I need a fast standard zoom but this thing is huge and heavy/cumbersome. This new lens is a perfect match for my a6300.
I remember the old 17-50 we had on dslr, glad to hear its a proper improvement. While the 17-50 had stabilization the bokeh was horrendously onion ringed and the autofocus was very jumpy and inconsistent in video on my 80d. Worked fine for viewfinder shooting but that phase detect and it did not get along
I've been pretty convinced that I should stay with my A6600 given the monstrous FF lenses. Also the A6600 arguably handles better for stills. But then Sony came out with the tiny trio (24, 40, 50 G) and I feel so torn again. And then Sigma just released this beautifully tiny 18-50 for APS-C. Now I'm so confused :D
I just got my first FF zoom after using only primes and boy is it big and heavy! Makes me want to switch back to aps-c for lenses like this. I never fully appreciated how much my enjoyment of cameras is strongly tied to their handling and portability. I hope that Sony will release a beast of a new aps-c camera soon that will have many people switching back.
I've been using a Nikon D7000 + 17-55 2.8f lens for many years, recently I changed to a Sony A6400 with this Sigma lens and I am so delighted with that combo, it's very light, very sharp and very fast focusing, great change.
@@ColinRobertson_LLAP I have that lens but to be honest never a really big fan of that… the corner sharpness is kinda disappointing and not to mention it’s actually more expensive than this sigma if you not buying it in a kit.
I know it's a different system, but I'm surprised I haven't seen any comparisons of this lens to the Fuji 18-55... Sure it's aperture varies from 2.8-4, but it does have OIS and fantastic IQ. Loved it when I had one. I think I liked the range of it more than my 24-70 I use on my full frame camera now...
I prefer a zoom lenses with a macro function in tele mode, like you said; it's a hassle to get close in wide angle mode and if you want to shoot insects they are gone right away.
I expect this will be released for Fuji X as it's an easy cross over and Sigma have been hinting they're going to start offering Fuji X lenses. It would make a smaller WR option over the 16-55 and would eclipse the old Fuji 18-55.
Yeah, this is probably sharper than the 18-55 and with a constant 2.8 but the stabilization on that one is the reason it's such a beloved lens. At such a small size it's probably worth it, though.
Fuji shooter here - I'd be interested, but I'm not sure if it's worth ditching the 18-55 f/2.8-4 for most people. What I'd really love to see is a companion to this from Sigma - maybe a 16-50ish f/2.8 with stabilization and weather sealing. The Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 does not have stabilization, and is $1200.
Fuji shooter here… I doubt they will release this lens for Fuji any time soon, maybe in 5 years. We’re probably going to see a Tamron 35mm before we see this lens
@@AyeBeAPirate I have the 16 to 55 and it is an astonishing lens. It's my most used lens on Fuji. I also have the 16mm F1.4 WR, 55-200, 10-24 WR, 18-55 and a Viltrox 33mm F1.4. If you can afford the 16-55 it's absolutely the way to go. It's a big lens for Fuji but the quality is head and shoulders over the 18-55 which I think a lot of Fuji users over hype. The 18-55 is a decent lens but it's not outstanding. I'd take the Sigma 18-50 over the Fuji 18-55 in that price and weight segment if it came to Fuji X but I don't need as the 16-55 is perfect on my Xt1 and xt3. The smaller size would only matter to me If I had an Xpro or XE body. Which I don't. The ois on the 1855 is nothing special either. I'm also quite comfortable using a Sigma 24 to 70 Art on my Sony A7ii so I'm very tolerant for big glass. Your milage my vary.
I wish they would make an image-stabilized f1.8 version of this lens so we could get a true 24-70 2.8 full-frame equivalent. I find that after about iso 1600 my a6000 just falls apart so it would be great to get that zoom versatility with a wider aperture.
Wouldn't that be enormous though? I have the Tamron 17-70 and it's just ponderously large at only 2.8. The point of this is that it's so small. On a little body like an A6xxx this looks like a better idea.
I would love if you guys created a scoring system for your review videos where at the end you would give your scores maybe from 1 to 10 or 1 to 5 explaining what each number means.
Wow, that focus breathing test! The image quality overall! The price seems reasonable. Hopefully they eventually release this for other mounts like Canon EF-M.
No kidding, E-mount APS-C is LONG overdue for some better zoom options, instead of being stuck with lenses like the overpriced & under-performing Zony 16-70 f/4. Glad Tamron and Sigma are finally showing up there.
@M Tech I never said it does not matter. My point was that it does not matter to everyone. Why did you buy the A6300 if it Does matter to you? Why did you not get the Pentax or Olympus instead? Why don't you get the A6500 or A6600 instead? It's not easy to figure out that a model with more features cost more - that is what my point. You just seem mad that you made a wrong decision in your purchase, which is only your own fault.
One problem that is not mentioned - the zoom ring goes in the wrong direction compared to Sony lenses. It can be very annoying if you mix this lens with Sony / Tamron lenses.
Since I own the Tamron 17-70 this would probably be an extravagance. However I really like the smaller size as I find the Tamron a little too bulky for general walk-a-around. The Sigma is almost like a prime with some range (normal wide to normal). The Tamron gives you normal wide to short telephoto.
Well this does look like a compelling lens, I just wish that it was available in 2014 or 15 or 16. In Canada, they just stopped selling the original a6000. Ironic... Great review guys, you're going to have a great collection of pictures of your kids as they continue to grow!
Tamron is slightly wider and longer @ ~115.5mm focal length. Has image stabe, but too big and heavy for most people. This sigma has the size and weight of typical dslr kit lens which is very very good for walkaround, everyday usages
I'd say Tamron 17-70 is a moderately-sized all-in-one event lens that means you don't need your long zoom for the occasional portrait, Sigma 18-50 is a light-weight walk-around travel lens that pairs well with a longer lens when zooming all the way in on landscape detail.
great video, I would love to start to see some comparison now versus other zoom lenses; in fact, even though I know this lens to be more of a wide zoom it would be great to see a video against the TAMRON 11-20MM F/2.8. Thanks and keep up the great work.
You keep saying that LOCA is hard to get rid of (on this and numerous previous lenses). Both ACR and Lightroom have easy and effective green and purple/red elimination controls. Nothing hard about it.
I guess the main question here is if it's fun to shoot. If it is then it's good alternative for expensive sony kit lenses. Lack of IS throws me a bit off, but for 18-50 is not that important. Size is briliant here.
Chose the Tamron 17-70 because of the stabilisation and bit extra range for our sony a6100 (no ibis). We also have the sony 35mm 1,8 as a really nice portret lens. Now we have a good combination for really nice overal photo capabilities. Anyhow good to see some more really nice lenses for sony aps-c!! Full frame is getting out budget more & more. Much like the booming roadbike market 😂
Nice video, as always 😉 A comparison I would like to see: lightweight always-on zoom lenses for cropped sensors: Panasonic 14-140, Olympus, the new Nikon APS Z Zoom.... Those are lenses for people that want a flexibility beyond smartphones without bulky and expensive gear, eg shooting family, holidays...
Honestly, the 56 1.4 provides enough sharpness to crop ina bit, giving you a "fake" 70 mm. 😏 (I know that it does not affekt the viewing angle however...)
They probably won’t release this lens for Fuji anytime soon, maybe in about 5 years? We’re going to get a tamron 35mm 0.95 among the other 10 different 35mm for Fuji
hi guys, how does the lens work with A6400 + Crane M3 in 4k 24p ? No slowmo. Rock stable ? No shake ? Or better to go for Weebill S and Tamron 17-70mm 2.8 VC? Thanks.
interesting, you think they will cover the 3 major ranges in both full frame & apsc? Tamron is dominating f2.8 ultrawide with 11-20mm apsc & 17-28mm ff
Let's hope so! I would have no complaints even if they make a 14-24 f2.8 lens with the half size of this mighty 18-50 lens! Gives a ff 20-35 focal which will perfect for landscape and vlogging.
Please tell me they're going to make this with a micro four thirds mount like they did with their trio of f/1.4 primes and their trio of f/2.8 primes. This would offer a much better range of focal lengths for portraits than the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro!
I really hope they release this for Fuji too. I was seriously considering getting the brick of a XF 16-55 to replace my pain in the ass primes but this lens would kill everything with its light weight and speed. How in the world did they manage to make it so small at 2.8?!
Probably by cutting 2mm off the short end (huge difference between 16 and 18) and 5mm at the long end (75mm equivalent vs 85mm equivalent). If you can tolerate the compromise, it's a good deal. Personally I might hold out for the Tamron 17-70 because I really like the focal range between 55 and 70 for portraits / events.
Awesome review..if you have SONY a6600 IBIS, which one u wish to buy? Tamron 17-70mm or Sigma 18-55mm? Not so important about focal length difference..
Is it just me or were there no discernable difference in sharpness in the corners wide open vs stopped down? It seemed like vignetting was the only difference or at least the primary difference (would have to compare with vignette adjusted in post for the wide open image).
There wasn't a huge difference, but other reviews have shown corners to be quite poor wide open actually - perhaps, as DPRTV focuses the image on corner for corner sharpness test, the lens suffers from field curvature?