It’s been awhile, APS-C Users! Update me, which camera are you using now? Buy Sigma 18-50mm from BH! bhpho.to/3KMVvod Gear Used in the Video! Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 bhpho.to/3KMVvod Sony 16-55mm F/2.8 bhpho.to/3rYPJHs Sony a1 bhpho.to/34c8miR Sony a6600 bhpho.to/3KLXKrI Also, great on the new A7 IV bhpho.to/3GaufMI Sigma F/1.4 Trio Lenses 16mm bhpho.to/3KTfW2M 30mm bhpho.to/3GcHvQS 56mm bhpho.to/3IDCXVw Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 (Great Alternative!) bhpho.to/3uaqOmX
A6400, mostly happy, but I wish it was more usable… if the Sony took a page from the Fuji xt range with all manual dials I’d totally grateful. At least you were not trying to find sunshine in feb in England!
I still want a 70-200 2.8 equivalent (or tbh I wouldn’t mind an f4, while it has limitations my 18-105 Sony f4 has done some good… but) I’m looking forwards to see what tamron /sigma do with that style
For beginners I’d argue get this zoom instead of 3 primes - why? Because you have no way of predicting what the picture composition would be like at different focal lengths and it’s just impractical to swap lenses so frequently. A zoom can help you see the effects right away so it’s the choice.
Hey, I have the A6000 and I'm thinking of buying the A6700. What camera did you have before and how's the A6700 in terms of AF and low light environments?
@@Winkelknife I had theA6000 before, and the AF is much, MUCH improved. Lightning fast, dead on target, and the eye/human detection is pure magic! Low light performance is also improved, a bit cleaner result. Not much, but clearly noticible. And the new battery/grip, paired with the new front dial, makes it much more comfortable to use. Together with the Sigma 18-50, the upgrade is massive! 🙂
Picked up this lens over Christmas. I bought this to replace my 16-50 kit lens and I will say that it was worth it. Going from the kit lens I was impressed with the build quality and feel as well as the sharp images. And of course the f2.8! My main drawback was there being no image stabilization. But taking more photos than video it shouldn’t matter.
Since the kit lens and the sigma one share almost the same focal length, can you really spot the improvement in picture quality? Thinking about upgrade to this one too with the same 6400 & kit lens, I’m afraid that I might not be able to really notice the differences Also, because 6400 doesn’t have ibis and this sigma lens doesn’t have stabilization either How’s shooting video with it feels like? Do you find that as a problem that you will need to work your way around?
@@jackenboot short answer, yes. the difference in sharpness and also the low light performance as you're getting a way brighter aperture, which arguably the more important reason to upgrade from the kitlens
Just bought the A6700 with this lens, and the upgrade from my old A6000/Sony 18-55 3,5-5,6, is huuuge!! The A6000 is still a capable camera, but the combination of eye-detect af, ibis and the 2,8 aperture and much sharper optics, my new package is a revelation!!😃
@@fellouss It would depend on your camera body. If your camera has IBIS(A6500 or better) i dont think youd feel the lack of OSS as much as if your camera lacked IBIS (A6400 and lower)
I picked up the lens a few weeks ago and have to say I'm impressed. It seems as good as the older EOS Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 despite being tiny in size in comparison. Flare resistance, corner sharpness, fringing are all much better controlled on the new lens. I'm using it on the a6600. One note is that you need to enable vignetting and distortion control if you shoot raw on it as it's not meant to be used without it. Those parts of the corners are intended to be cut off and it's still the advertised focal length.
Dude, I REMEMBER that 17-50mm f/2.8. It was game changer for me 10 years ago. I never bought it but I always borrowed it from a good friend of mine 🤣 it's handy as hell
@@JasonVong Ha, yes I bought it about 2013 when I started video as it had OS unlike my former Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I didn't intend to replace this lens as it's still excellent (have shot magazines, websites and even postage stamps with it and a number of documentary films), I just wanted a light lens with video AF. Due to a quirk in Japan's tax system I could pick it up for about $300. Color me impressed with this latest Sigma!
I picked up the Sony 70-350 on boxing day here in Canada for a fantastic price for my a6600 and have loved it. Been eyeing this 18-50 to pair with the Sony to cover a lot of vases for my upcoming trip to the Philippines later this year. Thanks for the helpful review!
I got both the Sony 16-55 and the Sigma 18-50, but I only use the Sigma lately because of the weight. Image quality is excellent and handling is perfect with my A6600. To have a little more zoom I take my RX100 VI with me as well when travelling.
I have the Sony 16-55 and I think it's probably the best zoom lens I ever owned. I wonder how close is the Sigma in optical performance from your experience?
I've had the 18-50 2.8 for a month. It is the only lens I've used, including two portrait shoots. I'll use my 56mm when I want the ultimate sharpness or need the low light feature. I'll use my 16mm for the rare occasion I need some more wide angle and low light. Otherwise this nifty little lens is going to be my every day lens. Great for travel.
For me, Sigma would the one I would buy. I would make a great travel camera lens with my Sony A6600. Sigma's Fast F2.8 18-50mm zoom would cover over 85%+ of my travel photos. Also, Sigma's great close focus (great for closeup pictures in museums, flowers/nature, or food blog posts ) saves the need for a separate macro lens. The Sigma's 18-50mm low weight also helps so you can carry a smaller more travel friendly gimble and the price makes the Sigma my 1st choice. Now if I had school age children who were evolved sports, school plays /music recitals, etc where extra telephoto reach would be handy having, the Tamron 17-70mm would be my choice
The other (bigger, heavier) Sony zooms MIGHT be sharper if you pixel peep, but I make11x14and 16x20 prints of my best pictures, and the Sigma 18 to 50 is just fine at that level. Small, light, plenty fast, I love it. Wish they made it in Canon M mount.
I have the Sony 1655G lens, but still got the Sigma 1850 for 2 reasons - small/light weight and close focus. If I want full range, I pair it with Tamron 1120. I still bring out the 1655 when I want one lens to cover from 16mm (24mm equivalent). I find the Sony just a tad better in image quality. Keep up the good work Jason!
100% agree with you. I'm actually debating between this or the Sony for my a1 for ultimate versatile zoom lens. I can overlook the quality difference for $550.
@@fcurcic When I want a one lens setup with 16mm (24mm FF), my only choice is the Sony 1655. If I want the best image quality, again Sony 1655. Otherwise, Sigma 1850 for its light weight and compact form factor. If I'm walking or cycling a distance, definitely the Sigma 1850.
@@JasonVong after using the Sigma for a while, I find there's a bit of distortion even on jpegs at the wide end, compared to the Sony 1655. It's light and convenient but the Sony is overall better, as it should be.
Extra primes? I like the combo of 18-50mm with the Sony 85mm f/1.8. The 85mm f/1.8 gives me an approximate 127.5mm equivalent which is great as a short telephoto and for head and shoulders portraiture. The Sony 85mm is a pretty lightweight lens for its capabilities,
I used both for several days. The sigma seems more contrasty with saturates colors. I didn't like the barrell distortion the shorter focal length produced. The autofocus was insanely snappy for me, and it was so compact. The images felt editorial like...nice character, and you could adjust the colors to produce nice images. The sony is just a super zoom that acts almost like a prime; the images are just perfectly sharp. It kinda sucks not being able to play with the macro like capabilities that the sigma has....but at every focal length the sony is basically perfect. I enjoyed playing with the sigma more, but the sony produced some images that I'm very happy with. I could probably do the same with the sigma though...and now I'm debating whether to go back to the sigma or not, lol.
Hey ! I saw that you liked both the sony 16-55 and sigma 16-55 did you ever go back to the sigma ?? I have the sigma 18-50 and thinking about getting the Sony because I’m finding the 18 not wide enough and was gonna buy the sony 15mm prime but sent me down a wormhole where maybe I needed the 16-55 lol
@@rsmith02 hey thanks, that’s super good to know! I have been doing more vlogging and definitely feeling the desire for a more compact setup when I’m out with friends and family as well. Loving these smaller, modern options!
Absolutely fantastic video, Jason :). So thorough, fun, lively, and helpful. I just got this lens (Sigma 18-50mm) for my Sony A6600. So, I primarily bought this lens because I'm starting to do videos overseas with the Crane m3 (I wanted the smallest gimbal possible that could work with my Sony A6600 camera. The Sigma 30mm works great but I wanted something more wide. I tried the Sigma 16mm---really too long and heavy for the crane m3 gimbal. Also, no flexibility--just a prime. I sacrificed the 16mm wide open aperture for the lighter weight, great image quality, and flexibility of a zoom all the way to 50mm. This is such a nice lens for the small gimbal.
It would be great if make a direct comparison with the Sony's 18-50mm kits lenses, since this Sigma could be an upgrade from begginers like me. Personally, I've never heard about that other expensive lenses you talked on the video, and for it's price I wouldn't even consider it an option.
Got it and already love it. It's a great ready-to-go all day light-weight setup with any Sony camera. All this lens need is a new APS-C body, hopefully sometime this year.
I think an important factor missed is this is also a macro lens so you get a very close focusing distance which can be good for a variety of shooting. Also a fast lens is great and all but to much toneh (IYKYK) can be a bad thing so having a 2.8 and let some of the background into your heart can add more to the images.
I got my 18-50mm 2 months ago and totally loves it on my a6000, accidently I got 18-50 after 56mm f1.4 just like you said in your video 😂. I experienced myself but still love your review 💪
I've been using the a6100 kit lens, sigma 16mm F1.6, Samyang AF 45/ 1.8 FE, and the Samyang AF35/ 1.4 FE. I've mostly been using the 16mm. I love it a lot. I recently had a dropping accident and it is now in 2 parts. It split near the part where it connects to the camera. The camera still works 100% fine and the lens is not cracked. So I hope if I go to a camera store they can repair it. I've been wanting to add a zoom lens to my line up and with my 16mm being down I decided to try the sigma lens featured in this video. Just got it today and I already love it. I do a lot of landscape and street photography. My favorite places to shoot though are the Zoo and Kings island (Local amusement park). Also my favorite time to go shoot these places are during the winter when they put up the Christmas lights. So I do a lot of low light shooting and I hope the 2.8 will be good enough to get some amazing shots of the lights.
I’m a beginner in photography so atm I’m using A6400 with kit lens 16 50 f3.5 5.6, but I’m looking for other lens options that works well to my current camera, thank you so much this video, really helpful to me, also easy to understand as well. Hope you will create more videos about good lenses for APS-C cameras like this one. I’m still too broke to buy a full frame camera tho 🥲🥲
You don't need full frame, you can achieve a LOT with APS-C. The kit lens is terrible in my experience, you will notice a massive improvement if you get the Sigma to replace it with
I have the A6400 also & I was shooting all my footage & pics in the kit lens also but now I just got the sigma 16mm 1.4f & I love it!! Depending what you plan to do with your camera I recommend to watch a lot of “camera lens review” videos & find the lens that supports best on what you plan to use your camera for.
I recently did a job for a wedding & I was switching off with the sigma 16mm & the sony 55-210mm lens! I love those two lens & never had a problem with them.
@@4thaholyclos3t I'm looking for lens that can help me in event photography, especially wedding and festival, also for product photography as well. Thank you for your reply, really helpful to me, much appreciated
I can't wait to go to dubai right now after my work just to get this lens I've been dreaming to have since last year, your review is as good as always you are my favorite GO TO DUDE when it comes to anything I need specially in photography.
I owed both the A6600 and the sigma 18-50 f2.8 and I am impressed with the sigma. Yes the Sony 16-50 is sharper, however for travelling, city breaks, taking to venues the sigma wins all the time. It is light, compact, very cheap for performance over price while the Sony is better, it is bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive ! I also own canon 7dii and few L grade lenses. Using a sigma mc-11 adapter I mount the Canon lense on the A6600 and the results are impressive. My last outing was to bushy park taking shots of deer and stags using sigma 150- 600 contemporary canon ef mount on my A6600,. Results again very impressive as the eye detection is why I purchased the A6600 !
Why dont you consider the Sony 18-135? Its far slower but its small, good AF, IQ is excellent and it is stabilised. Great if you are traveling and dont want to switch lens. I use it with conjunction with sigma 16mm and 30mm. I find that I end up carrying the 16mm especially when I know I am doing landscapes and night shots, I rarely seem to use the 30mm (which is excellent) which I had got for street photography as I find the 18-135 works for me in most cases. Only time I miss is when I need extreme bokeh but then there are ways around. By itself I have found it quite good would like to see a side by side comparison with the 2.8 lenses
APSC lenses are small enough to begin with. I don't think the lighter weight makes up for the reduced versatility against either the Tamron 17-70mm or the Sony 16-55mm (the latter of which also has OSS).
bro i had exactly the same thought! Might keep my 30mm 1.4 and buy this in addition to that. What u guys thinking abt it? Or is there any better alternative to the 18-50? I‘m using a sony A6300
The only lens I have attached to my A6400 since I bought it. Left behind Canon FF with a bunch of lenses. It does the job 90% of the times and bokeh is good if can play right with DoF. If you want portability this is a go to. If you want super bokeh then this is not the proper lens.
I'm a user of A6300,and i had bought the 18-50 2.8 lens 3 months ago.Although this lens isn't that sharp,but the prices and portability is so perfect to me.The reason why I didn't choose Tamron 17-70 2.8 it's because the it is more heaver then my E 18-105 G,and I don't often shoot video at all.I'll highly recommended this lens to someone who needs a portable large aperture kit lens.
I just got the ZV-e10 at the end of November and have loved it so far! I’ve been mostly shooting on the kit lens for all of my content and a Samyang 35mm f1.8 lens, but really looking to upgrade to some better over all glass. I have the Crane M3 so I want to be sure I’m getting the best lens that’ll also adapt with it and have also considered the Tamron 17-70mm. From your experience, does the Tamron still work well with the Crane or is it too much for the gimbal to handle? Thanks Jason! Your videos have helped a ton with my decision making regarding the ZV-e10 & accessories!
i would have liked a 16-56 f2.8 and it probably could have been the same size (+/- a bit) as the 16mm f1.4, but i understand the decision not to canabalize the 16mm and 56mm primes, but i think most would get the full series (16, 23, 30, 56 f1.4s and 18-50 f2.8) anyway. I have the 56 for portraits and chose the 16-50 as a compact walkaround (arriving today!) for an upcoming trip. I can't wait for the rumored new sony 6700/7000 aps-c. This lens will be great for it. I'm hoping for a 6700 over a 7000 which would be more of the FF body
Thank you Jason for covering the focus on both Sigma and Sony. I've been wanting to know about it and I've made my mind up to save up for the Sony because I'm a guilty pixel peeper and nothing makes my heart flutter than getting photos with good IQ! More power to you and Vivian! Rewatching the video again 🤣
Appreciate the re-watch! 😁 Sony 16-55mm G is always a good benchmark for these other zoom lenses. The quality is just there! There's no denying it! And sometimes that's worth paying 3x the cost! Have fun with the Sony!
@@robertcudlipp3426 Especially not when you can have the Tamron 11-20 and either the Sigma 18-50 or the Tamron 17-70 for less money. Great lens Sony. But not worth it. If it was in the $800 to $900 range, I’d probably bite…. But $1400!?! Sorry!
i own a ZV-E10 with the 16-50 kit lens and had just purchased this Sigma 18-50 2.8. I think te perfect trio for a Sony APSC camera would be: Tamron 11-20 f2.8 Sigma 16 f1.4 Sigma 18-50 f2.8
I just bought this sigma to upgrade from the 16 to 50 kit lens on my a6300. I am hoping the picture qaulitt will be a bit sharper. I will take the kit with me when i travel because it is tiny and light weight and can be switched onto the camera if i find my self needing wider shots.
These are really exciting lenses and have become my go-to recommendations for people getting into Sony APS-C. I already have the Sony G series F2.8: 16-55 and G Series F4: 18-105; Thus, based on your others and your review, I will use GAS for the Trio set and skip the Tamrons or Sigmas. Side note: Your channel production quality is amazing; the entertaining way you talk about scenes and practical situations is really engaging,
Currently I use a6600, ZV-E10, and ZV-1 for portability. I need to find tutorials to really get a refresher on some things. I struggle to get the E10 to work on the M3 via the USB-C cable. ALSO: Your Tutorial 6600 was awesome. It really helped me learn my camera and dial in good default settings to grow from. Now when I start a project I feel confident knowing what the 6600 can do with its software and hardware, you provided a great base to build from. Thank you!
*I just traded in Almost all my Sony Len's the Kit Lens which I bought separate and a Micro 4/3 lens and Keeping my Telephoto Lens the 55-210mm and My (2) Sigma Lens the 30mm & 16mm So that this can Be My Final Lens until I get the a6600. I was waiting for your review on this also, lol. Oh I use the Crane M2 which I don't think this will fit on BUT with the a6600 I'll be fine.*
Hey Jason! A little late here, but I was wondering, would you rather buy this lens, instead of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8? I'm feeling like they do almost the same things but at half the price.
I have the Sigma 56mm 1.4 and love it, but not for in doors and close ups. Been looking for a lens that does close up and long. This might be the perfect versatile solution.
I think you're actually the first prominent YT reviewer to recommend the Sigma primes over getting the 18-50mm for newish photographers who already own the kit lens. I've been asking myself that question for months and wondering exactly how much benefit I'll be noticing with the 18-50mm for walkaround shooting. Will probably get the Sigma 16mm 1.4 prime instead. Thanks so much for your insight!
I'm glad to hear that resonated with you! When I was recording this video, I wasn't sure if I should include that part because the video was already stretching but I'm glad I did now. I think newish photographers will definitely want to see their $$$ spent will give them something drastically different than what their kit lens can offer, and the 16mm will do that for you. I would also say, down the line, pick up the 56mm 1.4 if you can! 16+56 is my favorite combo!
For walkaround shooting I'd get a 24 or 30mm over a 16, it's more versatile and can mimic other lenses if you move closer or farther away. I can't imagine shooting portraits with a 16mm lens on APS-C. Having a faster lens for low light is helpful though.
@@rsmith02 that's a great point. I got the Sony OSS 50mm f1.8 in addition to the kit lens when I bought my a6100, so I think I have the classic "portrait" base covered (though I totally get the Sigma lenses are much sharper). I've been looking for a lens that would give my street photos a greater sense of dynamism, and noticed that most of the time when I shoot on my kit lens I'm taking photos at 16mm f3.5, so that's why I'm thinking 16mm. But your point is well taken - I'd basically be consigning myself to lugging around two primes all day haha. That'll be a hefty bag!
Hi, Justin: I have a strong suggestion---simply go to amazon and buy both of them---the 16mm Sigma and the 18-50mm Sigma, try them both, then decide :). If Amazon won't work there are camera stores around that will allow you to try them both out. Return the one you decide against. I have tried the 16mm Sigma on two separate occasions, and now it's a no-brainer---I'm going with the 18-50mm Sigma simply because the 16mm Sigma is so long and heavy it throws off my Crane m3 gimbal. Yes, I love the wide angle of 16mm, but it's simply too heavy/long a lens to work on my gimbal. Again, try both first, rather than trying to decide without any actual experience with the two lenses.
Ain't it grand! A couple years ago, the only real standard zoom option was the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm F4. Great range, ok IQ, but F4 on a crop body is pretty dim for a one lens solution. Now we have almost too many choices! I had the Tamron 17-70/2.8 until a few weeks ago. Great lens but if I'm going that large, I'll just go FF. I still have the Sony 16-55/2.8, and I love it, but this little guy is calling my name. Decisions, decisions. Knowing me, I'll probably end up with both.😁 BTW, excellent video Jason but you're going to need to mark on your table manners! Ha Ha!
I'm planning to buy zv-e10. I have heard the kit lens is not so good. So planning to buy just the body and a lens separately. I'm a beginner and i have a budget only for 1 lens. Should I get one of the primes ? 16mm/30mm/other or spend a bit more and go for a zoom lens something like Sigma 18-50? Mostly for travel photography, cityscapes and portraits.
Dude.. Are U a sorcerer or something? You clearly read my mind and the questions I had... 1. Should I get the Sigma primes - 16, 30 n 56mm or should I just go with the Sigma 18-56mm 2. Also I was thinking of the Tamron 17-70mm as well... One question I have is the filter system... I have a K&F square filter system... Since the Sigma 18-56mm extends in the front on the longer range, can I still be able to use the square filter system? Really appreciate your help mate!
Thanks for this great video 😊 Concerning stabilisation, do you think Sigma 18-50 or Sony 16-55 would work great with a a6400 for photos only? What about low light situations?
I use the tampon 17-70mm F2.8 with my Sony ZV-E10 and I feel like they are not really compatible. Really hard to get a constant sharp focus in videos with a lot of focus breathing. And I feel like the lens's image stabilization interferes with the built-in one of the body. Picture look fine tho
Hi Jason, do you think 16-55 weight and size are really deal breakers when compared to Sigma? If price isn't an issue. I kinda like that 16mm, so I dont need to carry another lens. I do travel a lot with either my 20L backpack or 6L sling.
Great Video, i've been actually thinking about getting the Tamron 17-70mm because of the OSS. Do you think the Crane M3 can balance the Tamron in combination with the ZV-E10?
