I have had the Sigma trio for a few years. I just recently acquired the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. While there is overlap, there are specific contexts and purposes when any given one of the trio is preferable, and there are specific contexts and purposes when the new zoom is preferable. I am happy to have this very flexible quartet.
Great review. In fact that is the review I've been waiting for. Good job Joe. I owned the Sigma Trio, then received the Sigma 18-50 2.8 for Christmas. I agree with everything in your comprehensive review. Well done. I shoot mostly photographic portraits. The sigma 56 is by far my best choice as it is not only super sharp with good contrast, but also is small and light The 56 produces jaw dropping images. The 56 is so sharp I can crop in post which extends it's reach. However having the ability to use the optical zoom of the Sigma 18-50 means, as you said, that it pretty much covers the whole 16-30-56 range of the Sigma primes. I've recently begun to recommend the Sony a6600 + Sigma 18-50 for those asking me what to buy. Since receiving the 18-50 I've done several portrait shoots with it. In a few cases I should have used the 56mm but for most shots the 18-50 does a fine job, and allows zooming across the whole range. Going forward I will plan to use the 18-50 much of the time but will switch to the 56mm when I want better bokeh. I sold the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Why? First because the 18-50 replaces it quite nicely. Second the 30mm isn't the best of the trio. Third because I also have the Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS. For me the Sony 35 vs the Sigma 30 were equal in sharpness. I got more sharp images from the Sony 35mm due to the OSS. I know the Sigma 16mm 1.4 is hugely popular but I rarely use it. It just falls outside my area of use. I don't do city, landscape, or astrophotography. If I need the wide range I can use the 18-50. The extra 2mm just isn't a differentiator for me. So the conclusion for me is the Sigma 18-50 2.8 zoom is now my walk around lens AND my first choice in portrait shoots.
I think a 2.8 zoom is a great compromise for people traveling, or event photographers that can't take the time to swap out lenses. I'm in the camp for max speed on APS-C, or go back to full-frame for any paid work. I think I'm going with the 18-50 for travel or if I run into event stuff. It looks awesome.
The test by the water was really good, apart from showing the autofocus performance, it also showed the bokeh of each lens quite well. Kudos to your wife for modelling work!
Yep Started with the 18-50mm and did a whole roadtrip through Califonia with the lense. No matter if I was at the Grand Canyon or Las Vegas Strip it never disappointed. Added the 16mm and 56mm later though since I wanted something for portrait and astrophotography and I could not be more happy about the lenses.
I have been thinking about getting this lens for a while now but after watching this video, I'm totally sold. Thank you Joe D for making this helpful comparison video.
Fantastic review! I was blown away that the zoom lens had better corner sharpness than the 16mm. If one had to be optimal with their resources, I would get the Zoom lens first, followed by either the 30mm or the 56mm. For RU-vid, I believe the difference an aperture of f1.4 on the 16mm is negligible, and 18mm 2.8 would serve its use case. For family photography and video, 18-50 blows the 30 1.4 out of the water. It's much more versatile-- plus when taking group photos, you have to stop down to about f 2.8 or f 4 anyway to make sure everyone is in focus. Btw I have both the 16mm and the zoom lens. Hope your channel grows!!
Hi Dave! I am thinking of buying 16mm for youtube videos, but if you said that the difderence is negligble, then I will buy the more versatile 18 50. Do you have a shot by 16mm amd 18 50 that I can compare to see if the shot at 18 50 is wide enough. Thanks
Good Video, I agree with your finding. I have the Sigma Trio, but often I want something light and flexible to carry. The Sigma zoom is an easy lens to live with and the results are outstanding.
Patiently waiting for the 18-50 Fuji x mount to arrive. I don’t think it will replace the trio, maybe the 30mm but definitely not the 16mm and the 56mm, they are just too awesome. They are not really substitute but rather great combo all together.
I understand and appreciate your comments. I simply used the wrong word in that moment and will be sure to be more aware of my verbiage. Thank you again for your comments.
@@joe-d9427 Thank you for the video, Joe. I’m sure it took a lot of effort to produce. I enjoyed watching it, and I agree with a lot of points you brought forward. Keep up the good work. 👍
I have the trio and have had since they all came out. I think I would prefer the zoom as I do a lot of Bush walking (hiking ) and dont like changing lenses too often.
Zoom lens is a must have for flexibility. This one is a good choice to have considering the price. This brings me back to the 17-70mm 2.8 sigma I used in my canon 80D before when I was still shooting events and concerts. Zoom lenses really gives you a lot of composition most especially when you have tight environments. Nice video man, love your review!
Hi, never had a camera before. just bought a used Sony a6600 2 days ago. I also bought a used trio (16,30,56 F1.4). That's said. I glad to know that I could replace these 3 lens for 1 when I travel or something. Thank you for taking the time to do this video. Appreciated.
Thank you for your comment. I would say, that if I had the trio, I wouldn’t necessarily “replace” them with the zoom lens. Unless of course you are selling them to buy something else to further meet your needs. The trio, specifically the 30 & 56 mms, are very good as portrait lenses. If I didn’t need the money from the sale of those lenses for something else, I would keep them as great compliments to the zoom for portrait photography in which the extra bokeh can be utilized by the wider aperture of 1.4.
There is another use case: I have a Panasonic Lumix S5 I full frame camera that is my main RU-vid camera. And as something vital for work I tend to take extra care and be a bit on edge if I am taking outside. As I need a B cam, instead of getting a 2000$ Panasonic Lumix S5 II I can get the ZV E-10 and the Sigma 18-50mm for about half price and have a compact, versatile B cam that I can more comfortably take with me with a super versatile high quality lens. The primes are a bit better in certain situations but the zoom is so good that if you do not need the extreme case performance you will probably be better with the zoom. Or you can look at it like this. You can get the zoom and experiment with the different focal lengths. If you rarely shoot at 16mm or 30mm or 56mm maybe you don't need the whole trio.
Thank you for this content I use 95% of the time my a6600 with the sony 35mm f1.8 But I was willing to understand how does the 18-50 f2.8 perform. This was a really well made comparrison, Bravo, Max
@@MaxPhotoGraphic that is a fantastic question. I don’t have any personal experience with a gimbal for my a6600. However I am looking for one. Here’s a couple of links to articles that will provide some good info for gimbal options in 2022. www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-phone-and-camera-gimbals www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/the-best-gimbals-for-your-iphone-gopro-and-camera
Great comparisons! I brought this zoom with us to our Philippines trip, along with the Viltrox 13/1.4 and Sigma 56/1.4. We're still here, and I have to say that the zoom has stayed on my camera for 3/4 of the time due to its convenience, image quality, and autofocus capabilities.
Just mix and match, get the zoom as a base and add the prime that corresponds with your favorite focal length.That way you get the advantages of both worlds and personally I don't know anyone who uses all focal lengths of such a trio to the same degree, most people have a clear preference.
Well thought out and thorough video Joe, really enjoyed it. I have all 4 of these and would not sell any now except for maybe the 16mm 1.4 which I think I'd replace with an ultra-wide. Cheers from Winnipeg. - Brett
I'm acquiring all 4, with my plan for the 18-50 to be the only lens I fly with. Redundant, yes. But each of the primes have perfect use scenarios, as well as slightly better bokeh. The 16 is great for vlogging. The 30 is the first one I bought and is a popular prime every photographer needs. The 56 is a fantastic portrait lens. With these 4 Sigmas, I might be able to avoid buying a single Fuji lens. These 4 lenses might be all I need for the Fuji S-X20.
I was totally going to sell my Rokinon and Pick up this lens (as I love my Sigma 30mm 1.4). I hate collecting lenses and like having a max of 3 lenses at any one time. However Sigma recently released their 18-50mm F2.8 compact zoom which has great quality (maybe 80% of the primes). This makes my choice much easier, keep the 30mm F1.4 since I find it the best versatile walk around/indoor lens, the Rokinon 12mm (maybe swap for Autofocus) for Stars, Landscapes, creatives, and the Sigma for the walk around. Cannot justify the 16mm F 1.4 when I now can have an 18mm F 2.8. If you use your camera for video at night then I can see the advantage of 16mm F1.4 but I am strictly a photographer. Plus if I needed video I'm fine with graining at higher ISO. Thoughts? I'm about to have a baby and am wondering if a fast tele (or even 56mm F1.4) is usefull. I used to use the Sony 18-135mm zoom for travel but never really liked the photos in many of the shots and was forced to really push in lightroom. Sigma always looked good. Any suggestions?
Thank you for the comment…and the questions, Scott! I get it. You don’t want to carry a lot of lenses around with you. I think that your question(s) really are going to rely upon answering a couple other questions. 1. What type of photography are you doing? If it’s gonna be more portrait photography, or something that you need that extra bokeh, you may consider the Sigma 56mm. 2. Are you needing the variable focal lengths of a zoom? If so how long do you want that focal length? 3. The final question that may answer the other two for you…what is your budget? I look forward to hearing what you’ve chosen.
@@joe-d9427 Ended up selling my Sony 18-135mm to pick up the Sigma 18-50. It's a jack of all trades with very good results. May want to add the 56mm F1.4 later if I need more subject separation for my baby on the way.
Great review, thanks! I'm waiting for the release of the Fuji version. It's a fairly good and most importantly compact lens. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a replacement for the f1.4s since in fact there is no replacement for a fast aperture (bokeh is one thing, but 2 extra stops of light come in very handy in low light conditions as well), however, it is a great general-purpose optic and surely a strong recommendation for a first lens. For me a must-have to complete my compact X-E4 street and travel package.
Hi Joe, this is the most helpful video on these lenses, especially the studio example. I am a Reviewer and use studio for 99% of my videos. I am using sigma 30mm for my A-rolls and kit 16-55mm for B-rolls since last 2 years and as you mentioned in the video, the distance adjustment and convenience is quite a issue. Now I am looking to replace both the sigma 30mm and kit 16-55mm with this new lens and would like your opinion on it. Thanks.
Hello Sameer. Thank you for your comment, and question. You do lose an interesting question. Of the three lenses in the Sigma trio, the easiest to replace with the zoom lens is the 30mm. Relative to the kit lens that brings about a couple of other considerations. While, in my opinion, the Sigma 18-50 Zoom lens is far better in quality, the kit lens does give you the added focal length. For me it’s an easy choice. From what you’ve described…it doesn’t necessarily seem like you need, or want, the added focal length. Again, to me, it seems like an easy win for the Sigma Zoom.
This is the list of what have. Purchased them all back when I first got the camera and never have used. I really want that one that covers it all as I learn the a6000 camera and only wish to purchase one more, either the Tamron or Sigma as you can see I was a very unsupervised impulse shopper. Camera-Sony-Lens Kit Sony Selp1650 f3.5-5.6 oss Sony 55-210 f4.5-6.3 oss Sony sel30m35 f3.5 no oss Sony sel35f18 f1.8. oss Sony sel50f18 f1.8 oss Sigma 60mm f2.8 Sony selp18105G f4 oss
As for me, I owned sigma trio but sold the whole, plan to buy 56 1.4 again. 30 has bad fringing, 16 I didn’t used because I have 17-70 tamron with OSS, 56 is very good for size and performance. Zoom also has bad colour fringing.
Thank you for your comment. I have seen some fringing with the zoom. However some of that can probably be taken care of with a simple UV filter. I haven’t tried but would be a good test. Cheers!
I have the trio for the MFT mount, and use them on my Oly E-M1 Mark II and Mark III cameras for both photo and video. I also have the Oly 12-40/2.8 lens, and also use it for photo and video.And, I have the Oly/OM 20/1.4 lens, which is my favorite for 'studio' photography (me sitting at a desk and talking to the camera). It's interesting that you like to use 24mm with the Sigma zoom. With APS-C or MFT sensors, you need a larger aperture to diminish the depth of field to where you can blur the background even on close-up shots in small studios. It's about 8' from my body to the back wall of my studio (a window with a blind, over a desk with a monitor and twin lamps with Wiz LED bulbs that I set to a royal blue color). I want to blur the background enough so details on the desk aren't distinguishable for a nice aesthetic. I tried the Oly 12-40/2.8 at around 18mm, wide open, but too much DoF for the studio. I started with the Sigma 16/1.4, a great lens, but just not enough DoF for my studio with the wider field of view, and because my camera is on a tripod across the desk from me, I couldn't move it forward to narrow the field of view. The Oly/OM 20/1.4 is a great lens for my situation... the increased focal length tightens the field of view and combined with the wide aperture blurs the background nicely. I've also used the Sigma 30/1.4, and I have to move the camera back a bit to where I can't close my office/studio door... but it gives a great upper chest and head shot and REALLY compresses the scene, reduces the field of view, and nicely blurs the background. I used the 56/1.4 when I'm in a different room and the camera is further away. I would think that the Sigma 18-50/2.8 would have the same issues as the Oly 12-40/2.8... the wide aperture is not wide enough to blur the background. In short, the wider f/1.4 aperture lenses (I also have the Oly 75/1.8) REALLY separate the background and isolate the subject in a way you just can't get with the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or the Oly 12-40/2.8.
New subscriber really liked your video. Covering it well and giving some great insight. I am torn between the Sigma 18-50 and Tamron 17-70 as my daily go to on my a6000. They both have a strong draw in their on way, stabilization, size, weight, weather proofing, price point, with similar end result. Don’t know yet which way to turn.
Thank you for the kind comment. That’s a tough call. One consideration to think about is whether you need the extra focal length of the Tamron. If not can you use the money you save to purchase another lens or piece of equipment that can help you in other ways?
@@joe-d9427 I agree with your line of thinking! The price difference between the two would let you buy a nice gimbal, too, which would grant stabilization for all your lenses and not just the Tamron!
If you do a lot of video, the optical stabilization of the Tamron is excellent. The only downside of the Tamron is that it is not as compact as the Sigma. If the camera has IBIS or not may be a deciding factor. I got both the Tamron and recently added the Sigma for a more compact kit.
Thank you very much, It has helped a Lot with the struggle .. im a Prime Lens User and was not Sure to go for the 30 mm or just Take the 18-50 to Match my 56mm
Thank you! Very very informative, I think there’s something to be said by having multiple camera bodies on you if you want to use multiple prime lenses and obviously that’s expensive… so if you stick to aps-c the weight works out about the same using some very compact system cameras that have optical image stabilisation or ibis with a much more compact zoom - I’d only get the 56mm sigma and then a secondary canon compact camera - if I had a kid or no time I would be able to use both!
Great review and recommendation. I use the Sigma 16 mm for outdoors travel and the Sigma 56 mm when I know I will primarily shooting people outdoors. I received the Sigma 18-50 for Christmas and took it to Vegas. This lens was on my camera 95% of the time. Great shots on the strip and at the Grand Canyons.
After few months of using sigma 18-50 I gone back for sigma trio and sold this tiny cute zoom, on aps-c missed so much faster shutter speed, with F/2.8 on crop u still need fairly good light especially if u got body without IBIS, with F/1.4 you can shoot on almost every light conditions without IBIS. One thing that I miss from sigma 18-50 that would like to have in sigma trio is the speed of autofocus, sigma 18-50 AF speed is so fast & accurate like native lens.
I do understand what you are saying. I have taken care of that by using ND filters. I’m actually using them today while at SeaWorld in the bright sun. Worked like a charm.
Great helpful video. Thank you. I just subscribed. I've been researching the Sigma 18-50, comparing it with Tamron 17-70. That's probably another video but still, your video was very helpful as another option for me was the Sigma Trio. I'm new to photography. I have the a6400 body, Sony 18-135 lens, and Sony 1.8 50mm lens. Bought it all a few years ago and now looking to upgrade/add. I like night time and sports photography. I don't do much video. Really still exploring. I think - My goal over time is to own the Tamron 11-20, Sigma 18-50 and Sony 70-350. I'm glad these great options exist and Joe, am really thankful for the work you put into this. It is a huge help to people like me. Really well done and understandable. Thanks!
Funny, you could actually get the 16mm and the 18-50 for less $ than the Sony 16-55. If those last 2mm are really as important as people say, the 16mm would get plenty of use. For me, I just see these as one big happy family, and I'll buy them all piece by piece.
Great review! I am really surprised at how well the zoom compared to the primes in terms of image quality. I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 for my Canon EOS M50 and I love it, but that system is sorely missing a decent standard zoom option. It looks like the end of the line for EOS M, so I'm thinking of switching. I will probably switch to Fuji next year when this lens becomes available for it and get it along with a couple primes. X-S10 has IBIS at a $1000 price point, which you can't find anywhere else.
Nice video very accurate video... very helpful... thanks 🙏 Please sir, A video on the performance of Tamron 17-70mm 2.8 Sony lenses would be very helpful 🙏...It would be great for me if you could provide this video...thanks 🙏
Thank you for commenting. You are correct in that there are trade offs if you are using this lens on a full frame. This could still be a good option for an all around option when you go for a hike or stroll around town. But if you've got a full frame camera, you definitely need to take these things into consideration.
I think of buying 18-50. And im impressed how good quality it is. And At least. ... 1.4 Bokeh sometines looks strange for Me 🤷i dont know Why 🤷 zo if my paid check will let. Im going to purchase 🥰
it’s a hard no from me as far as the 18-50. Doesn’t matter how sharp or convenient it is, it’s still a 2.8 against 1.4. Also the difference between 16 and 18mm is more than most people realise. If you don’t need to shoot in low light and 18mm is wide enough, then the 18-50 is alright but it’ll never compare to prime lenses.
Thank you for your kind comment! As for upgrading…I would say it depends on what you are doing/what your needs are. As I mentioned in the video, I use my Sigma 16mm as my main lens for recording in the studio. The 18-50 Zoom is what I take when I go out to shoot in public. The other consideration is…do you need to sell the 16mm to be able to buy the zoom lens? If not, I would consider keeping the 16mm and simply adding the zoom lens to your bag. I hope that helps.
Actually let me correct that, you definitely have inconsistent focus with your shots on both lenses. Anybody looking at getting the 16mm, don't worry it doesn't actually perform that poorly at f4. Anybody looking at getting the 18-50mm, don't worry it doesn't actually perform that poorly at f8.
Thank you so much for the video it helped me to choose my first lens as a beginner. If you can for the future when putting photos samples it would be nice to know at what f stop, shutter speed and iso you used because it will help me understand more on how to use the lens correctly. Thank you again, God bless you 🙏 I will be going with the zoom first then the trio later.
You do not need to say ‘constant aperture’ for prime lenses, as their focal lengths does not change. You can instead say ‘maximum aperture’ or ‘widest aperture’.
I've watched tons of vids and this is by far the best, im in between the 56mm or the 18-50, i own a sony a6400 +Sigma 16, but i want to do some portraits and night photography (clubs and maybe some streets) how would the 18-50 be for low light scenarios? Seeing as the 18-50 is more versatile im leaning towards it but the 56 bokeh is tempting (and budget friendly atm of my finances xD), thanks for your video you got a new sub, keep up the good work ✌️kind regards from chile.
Thank you for your kind comment! As for using this lens for low light photography…I use it frequently for night photography. I have loved my pics with this lens for night photos. I understand the desire for the bokeh! If you were using it for portraits as your main purpose for the lens, then I would say the 56mm would be the right lens. But the zoom lens is the better option for all around photography.
I own the trio. It seems like I almost never have the right lens on the camera for the conditions. Especially family. I’m always asking people to hold while I grab another lens. The zoom is very tempting. Also Tamron’s 17-70 with stabilization is another option though much bigger and more costly.
@@joe-d9427 I went, I saw, I liked, I bought…this lens is now my smallest and most versatile in the collection. It’s just fun to grab and go. I may liquidate some lesser used ones.
@@bryanevans5398 haha. I’ll actually be doing a review of the Sony 70-50 soon. I bought it and love it. I just used both of these lenses today for some nature and sunset shots.
@@joe-d9427 100% the 70-350 is insanely sharp and I use it a ton. I was in the Philippines recently and loved it but carrying around primes when travelling light wasn't optimal, ergo the 18-50.
Hi Joe, thanks for the video, new subscriber. I focus pretty much 100% on photography. I'm interested in a lean gear bag. I have the 16mm Sigma and it's fantastic. I'll add the 18-50 as my everyday walk around lens. what do you recommend for a telephoto to give me the reach for times when you can't get close? I'm looking to add just one more lens to to my bag. thanks.
That’s a great question. It would all depend on your budget. There are some fantastic lenses when you are able to spend over $1000. For my budget for now. I use the Sony 55-200 kit lens. It’s better than many people give it credit for. Has OSS but not a constant aperture. I have taken some great photos with it and will be doing a video about it soon. Thank you for your comment/question!
I wish Sigma released the 18-50 f2.8 before I bought the Sony 16-55 f2.8. Yes you don’t have the 16mm wide but that lens and the 16mm f1.4 combined is still much cheaper than the Sony.
Thank you for the comment! To answer your question it really depends on what you plan to do with your camera. You have to ask yourself the questions…How much does the extra bokeh make a difference to what you are doing? How much does the extra focal length of the 56mm make a difference for you? How much difference does the convenience of carrying one lens versus multiple lenses make to you? Once you can answer those questions you will have the direction you need to take. Also consider the fact that if you don’t really need those prime lenses because of what you are doing with your camera, you can use that money to put toward other lenses or equipment.
Ultimate 3 lens travelling setup, 18-50, one 1.4 of your preference and another one lens for speciality, either ultra wide like 12mm samyang AF (16mm is too close to 18mm) or the telephoto 70-350 16, 18-50, 56 is just lazy and limiting the perspective you can shoot in one location
Thank you for your comment. Yes, depending on what you are wanting access to, it can be limiting if you only have those three lenses. But it just depends on what you want to do. If you’re wanting access, at all times, to take the widest array of photos at varying focal lengths, I would agree that having a telephoto would be great to have access to in your bag. Thanks again
Great job there! Got allready 16mm Sigma. So this will be best upgrade for next lens for ZV-E10 or should i go for another one? Best recommendations for that? Doing vids in home and some randon B-rolls in outside :)
Thanks for commenting. What a great question! I use my zoom lens everywhere. While I still primarily use my 16mm lens for my videos in studio, I know that I can use the zoom lens anytime as a good substitute. That being said...my zoom lens is the one I take everywhere. My 16mm stays home most of the time. This is a fantastic option for the Sony ZV-E10!
@@joe-d9427 Yep, perhaps is add this to my collection at some point. In most of cases i am so lazy to do b-rolls with ZV, so i prefer use my phone for it; iphone 13mini and new phone is coming - fenfone 9.
Thanks for the comment! I think that the Sigma Zoom will serve that need nicely, giving you multiple options for focal length. As well, the 2.8 aperture can serve that type of photography well because you want more of the car in focus but still get a nice bokeh background. Happy shooting! I love car photos!
@@joe-d9427 Oh thank you very much for you fast reply, I didn't think about what you said for the aperture and thats a really good point, one thing I also realized recently that I didn't know would be useful is that the lens doesn't rotate the filter so its great for a CPL, choosing a lens is hard when you start so thanks for your advice I think this one is the one I need!
Thanks for your review. The 1.4 lenses gives better depth of field -> Looks better to most of the people. The zoom lens has more flexibility. All is a compromise 😄 Could you tell me whats your intro music? I like it 🙂 Subscribed
Sigma 18-50 is a great lens for a zoom type, probably best lens for travel, its really close to 30mm prime sigma, but sigma 16mm and 56mm are definitely sharper and got better corners, also F/1.4 makes huge difference in low light, I think its crucial especially for aps-c, cause sony a6xxx lineup after passing iso 800 loses a lot of quality, at iso 1600-3200 its get so bad that it nearly smartphone quality.
