Had the 18-50mm since it came out and hardly ever get primes out unless portraightwhich don’t generally do . I have travelled a lot and this lens is amazing and very sharp so very happy
A fantastic video! Refreshingly to the point, reviewing these 4 lenses in 5.5 minutes, containing all you need to know in a comparison of them. Just what I needed. No waffling on about irrelevancies and other b/s. Great job! So great, I've liked and subscribed 😁
@craiyohn not really cause the apsc a6000 series is pretty small and light. Also the lens are pretty light as they are not built with metal parts like more expensive lenses are. But the built quality is still very premium.
This is exactly the video I was looking for! I do all of my cinematography on a 16mm currently but in the market for another lens and was considering the zoom lens for convenience. But mannnn that f1.4 is hard to beat! Thanks!
If you are in for cinematography: films (where this word comes from) are 90% of the time shot in more than f4. There is more than a blurry background to create background separation and not a real need for f1.4 ;)
Zoom lenses are better for intricate composition. Primes are better for low light performance and subject isolation. Sure, you can fall into more creative opportunities with an individual prime lens, but if you really want to make sure you can specifically nail a composition down at a landscape or street photography shoot, zooms will have your back where you can’t always use your legs to “zoom” with primes. Even when you can “zoom with your legs”, it’ll change the compression and alignment of the things in your frame, where with a zoom you can change the parallax of the objects in your frame by using your legs, but also crop in an out of a frame without moving where you’re standing by zooming in or out to avoid shifting the parallax. This is why I prefer zooms over primes personally. If you need background blur and don’t compose very intricately, then the primes are for you.
The background separation is so much better on the primes, I'd love the convenience of having one lens but not worth the tradeoff on aperture, thanks for saving me some money!! 😅 Fantastic review as always.
The great fun factor in the zoom is that you can walk around, taking photo after photo, wide to mid to tele without having to change lenses. The convenience factor more that makes up for any shortcomings, and really, having to change lenses and possibly dropping one, is a real pain in the ass. I have always loved zooms for the versatility it offers. Primes are great for the time you have to set up shots and are not in a rush. So don't diss the lens until you use it. You may find you actually like it.
Don't get fooled by aperture. I shot some great portraits on the oldies but goldies Sony 18-105mm f.4 and on the longer end it blew my mind with the bokeh and everything. And on the topic "sharpness": I would suggest all of you to let it go. I mean, what use is to have super sharpness, then stay and unsharpen the hell out of your photos / videos, in post? I realized that myself. I have the Sigma trios, but what use can I get, except some better low-light, but then waste valuable time on smoothing out the skin out of the people in my photos, cause with the lens you can see their pores and wrinkles are so exaggerated and real :)) I mean, photography / videography is art and you don't have to always be "real" and "raw" (unedited). Back in the days, when I purchased my first DSLR, the Canon 600d, maaaaaan, those photos needed no post-smoothing or anything, just printed all my family photos directly out of the camera. Greets, L.
@@bondgabebond4907 Exactly! I love the primes, especially from Sigma, but... even when shooting portraits, you lose a lot of cool moments. I mean, when the person in front of you eventually starts feeling comfortable and poses, dances or gives you all kind of beautiful looks, you miss out on so much moments, when you tell her/him: "Aaaah, wait the framing is to narrow, let me put the 16mm on..." or viceversa. I finally realized after all these years, why pro and extraordinary photographers carry a superb but heavy ass zoom lens with them, instead of a bag full of primes. Yeah...
Thanks for the lens review! This would be perfect for travel. It's small and lightweight and pairs nicely with a crop sensor camera. The f/2.8 aperture also works well for travel by bringing attention to your subject but also maintaining enough detail in the background to provide context of where you are. If you do any extensive night/astro photography then the primes would also come in handy.
Fantastic review of the lens and great comparisons! If you'll take my advice, I think we'd all like to see more lens comparisons such as this! You do an amazing job of showcasing the strength's and weaknesses of every lens, and if you could manage some sponsorships or even borrow some lenses for reviews, I think your channel would reach new heights. Keep up the great work! I have no doubt you'll grow a lot over the course of 2022 if you keep this quality content up!
Finally, someone made a video about this. Couple months ago, when I last was looking for such a comparison, nobody had a video like this. Strange, since these wannabe RUclipsrs jump on newly released stuff quite fast... Wannabe mushrooms... Thank you, sir!
The way you presented all information in a short, straight video is just amazing, the tests were exactly what we wanted to see, This was very on point, congrats. I just subscribed to the channel, I want to see more of exactly this.
Recently went on a trip and brought my sigma 30mm and sony 50mm with my zve10 kitlens. Ended up using the kit lens 80% of the time since the versatility is much more handy when taking both creative and touristy shots. Sure side by side bokeh is yummier with primes, but if you are on the go, its difficult to work with multiple primes. Unless you are doing events or professional work, zoom is very handy for multiple situations
@@PhilipWallage Sigma primes for APS-C cameras are well under 500€. You must be talking about about other prime lenses. The video was about the APS-C Sigma primes and the Sigma zoom.
@@ElBoyoElectronico Yeah I noticed I was waaaay off with that comment. But once I found out, I couldn't find my comment to edit/remove it. But yes, you're spot on. #LETSGOPRIME
This is the comment I was looking for. I've got the trio for my M50, but the auto focus is so garbage on the 30mm that it back focuses on nearly every photo taken at 1.4 if the subject is any further away than say 3ft. I've tested this multiple times and even bought the USB dock to try to correct it only to figure out that these lenses can't be corrected with the software. The 30mm lens is completely useless for anything but close ups due to these issues. I'm looking at trading in my 30mm and getting the 18-50 to replace it.
@@eafortson The 30mm for Sony is the best lens I own. I almost never leaves my camera. It doesn't have any back focusing issues. But i just prefer its look to the other lenses since the 56mm can be too tight sometimes. Maybe its a different story for Canon?
I think that the 18-50 might actually be the best lens of the 4 tested. I love prime lenses, especially as a gimbal shooter. The extra bokeh, the low light performance and speed are absolutely superior to the 18-50 or really any zoom compared to a quality sub 2.0 prime. But shooters know, you can't underestimate the versatility of a solid zoom lens. That's why the FF 24-70 is such a beloved focal range. It touches the main points. And let's not act like 2.8 aperture is a slouch. Many times it delivers very nice bokeh and low light performance if you know how to use it. This lens might not beat the prime lenses at their game, but the twist is they can't beat this zoom at it's game either. There's a reason why people say this lens "lives" on their camera.
@@juliusespanol6813 ha, well, when I wrote that I was really in love with the separation achieved by the primes in this video. So I thought I was going to buy the prime trio. I talked myself into a compromise, though. I got the 18-50 and the 16mm for video. I've paired them with an a6700 since December. I've found myself mostly shooting photos of friends and family in casual settings, often in low light. Those two extra stops and the ~85mm FF equivalent would really have served me better. So if I could do it again, I'd buy the prime set. The 18-50 is convenient though.
Great video, very clear and to the point. Proves that despite the obvious convenience of a zoom, only primes can push the camera for that higher end look on apsc format. Even the 30mm had a huge difference in bokeh. However it is to be considered that shooting all the time at the widest aperture is an unrealistic scenario, and this new zoom is a real deal, especially with that size and at that price. Cheers
This was such a well made comparison. Thank you for all the effort you put into it. As for the comparison, those 1.4 primes look delicious! 😋 2.8 is great for full frame. For apsc 1.4 is super useful not only for the bokeh but in low light also
The primes are sharper, especially at low light. But I now have the 18-50 pretty much on all the time and the zoom range is surprisingly convenient. It’s different tool, but it’s great.
I use these lenses, Sigma 16mm f/1.4, Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5 - 6.3 mm, on my Sony zv-e10 camera for pretty much al my needs. Which covers photography and videography as an hobbyist. I use Sigma 16mm, when I can use my feet to zoom and when the light are low. Otherwise I use the other lenses accordingly.
After watching the video it would be been nice to add f2.8 to f2.8 comparisons for us pixel peepers and gauge how much better quality the prime is actually.
Was thinking about the new Sigma zoom lens or a 56mm prime (already own the 30mm) and this was just the video i was looking for. A short, simple, nicely edited comparison as always! Probably going to pick up the prime because of the low light performance and bokeh. I appreciate your work and i also bought your presets last year and i use them regularly in my photoshoots. With small situational tweaks they give just the mood i need, thanks!
amazing video and thank you for the comparison! as someone who has never had a fast lens at any of these focal lengths (currently on the sony e 16-50 kit) having a reference on how the bokeh looks on both f2.8 and f1.4 was very useful.
Really good video and comparison - thank you! I have the Sigma 30mm and 16mm for my Sony a6400, and they're both wonderful. I feel like I'm still finding my way with the 16mm, but I've captured more 5-star pics with the 30mm than any other lens I've used. Knowing that there's a zoom that's at least in the ballpark quality-wise and spans the range of the "Sigma Prime" series is really interesting - might need to pick one up sooner or later!
Thanks so much for this comparison. I have the 30m 1.4 and was debating what my next lens should be (I need something longer). While the zoom offers a lot of flexibility in a similar package, I think my next lens should either be the 56mm 1.4 or another longer lens. So thank you for that!
Nice, compact and informative video. Thanks a lot!! I'm a novice photographer and doing mainly street and travel photography so I was wondering how big the difference was between these lenses. For my case of use, I thing I'll go with the Sigma 18-50, yes I'm loosing some background blur but I think I can live with that. Also, since I'll be mainly using while traveling or walking, I think light packing and versatility its primordial so it should be better like that
Coming around to figuring out my lens collection just starting out and I think this comparison would have been better or good by putting the primes at f2.8 and seeing how the bokeh compares. The f1.4 is obviously going to be better, but how would this compare as a travel lens?
This is one of the best videos I’ve seen on this subject. Exactly what I wanted to see. Got the 18-50mm and wanted to know if the 56mm is worth it. Answer. Yes
A bit of background... I shot for many years with Canon crop sensor cameras (from the 30D to the 7D2) and the two lenses that I used for travel with a pair of Canon cameras were the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS. I was quite pleased with this combination and carried it all over the world. However, I now shoot Sony crop cameras and I have grown old (82 at my last birthday) and have had back and knee surgeries. I will be traveling to Washington DC on an Honor Flight for military veterans. The trip will include a lot of walking and standing around. I needed a lightweight lens for my Sony A6600 that will provide decent imagery and a decent focal range and I have decided to order a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. The A6600 with Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 lens weighs 793 grams or 1.74 pounds while my Canon 7D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens weighs a whopping 322 grams or 3.22 pounds - almost twice the weight of the Sony combination. The Sigma is quite close to the focal range of the Canon 17-55mm (one mm longer at the wide end and five mm shorter at the long end). The Sigma doesn't have any image stabilization but, my A6600 has IBIS. Both the Sigma and Canon have a constant f/2.8 aperture which is fine for my needs. I am looking forward to receiving the lens soon and testing it out before I travel to Washington.
@@aleksandersmardzewski6139 At one time, I shot with Canon DSLR cameras but, now I use Sony A7iii and A6600 cameras. I have not used a Canon mirrorless camera of any type. I am very happy with both my Sony cameras. The A7iii is full frame and the A6600 is a 1.5x crop sensor camera.
I like this lens because of its size and weight. I also like the great image quality of the zoom. However, for portraits I will also carry my 85mm f/1.8 Sony lens...
Sorry for the delay in answering. Both Canon and Sony gear produced VG to excellent results. Th big difference would be the skills of the photographer. @@aleksandersmardzewski6139
Great comparison, your findings mirror mine. The look of fast primes are hard to beat but the size, convenience of a zoom is also super useful. I definitely think these 4 lenses represent great value for image quality, bokeh, and size.
I think I would keep the subject distance and framing the same for comparisons even if there's a slight focal length difference, that's because usually the photographer would come closer/back off to get certain framing, especially for potrait.
These comparison videos are the best. Was considering getting this but now I want to just get the 56mm to add to the other two in the trio that I already own.
Looking for video purposes, and as soon as I saw the difference in the images between the 18mm setting next to the Prime 16, my mind was made up. The 16 prime looked so much more cinematic to me. Thank you for the video!
I've just found your channel, I love what you do! Keep it right on! I'm thinking of buying 6700 with Sigma duo 30 & 56 for my B-Roll trial-and-errors :)
I'm a passive subscriber that's watched mostly all of your videos, but as a fellow micro-influencer, I know how much an appreciation comment can go! So just leaving my appreciation - I have the same camera and lenses, and seeing all the content you make with the same equipment inspires me!! You're so talented.
Well explained Stuart Rodwell. I have sigma 56mm. I mainly shoot fashion product. I am thinking to buy another wide lens as i am facing difficulties when shoot in tighter place. What is your recommendation sigma 30 or sigma 18-50? Thanks.
Fantastic review of the lens and great comparisons! But,🤔? l....I own a Sony ZV-E10..I like the 1.4. Prime lenses very much, but is it worth (necessary ) to spend the money to for all three ? Thanks
I'm still not sure whether I should get the Sigma 18-50 (size and weight wise it would suit my compact travel kit perfectly) or the way bigger and heavier Tamron 17-70 for its significantly greater reach and better optical performance.
@@momatyh I purchased the Sigma after trying both and after 1.5k photos I do not regret this decision. The optical performance is identical to the Tamron and due to its size, it is a way better travel and "carry around all day" lens. What you give up is the image stabilization (I don't care, I shoot stills only) and a bit of reach at the long end, which I personally don't really need.
Thanks for sharing your experience with this lens. I bought it a couple months ago. It’s a great lens for video with the ability now to zoom and constant f2.8 aperture. My only complaint is the image distortion and vignetting I experience using it on the a6500. Did you change any in-camera settings to get rid of the distortion? I’m luckily able to fix this issue in post so It’s not a big deal. For photography I still prefer the sigma prime lenses over this zoom lens. But it’s great to travel now using only one lens. :)
This video is exactely what you need when questioning this question. At first i also wanted to buy the 18-50mm but the more research i did between zoom and prime lenses. I got more and more convinced to go for a primelens because the 1.4 aperture and butter soft bokeh. Last friday i finally bought my Sigma 30mm f1.4. 0,000% regret of that choice. Already took many great photo's with my Sony A6000 camera last saturday. Next target the Sigma 56mm f1.4
I've owned the 30 for almost a year, it's fabulous everyone on flickr agrees. I'm getting the 16mm soon. I have a manual Minolta for portraits 58mm 1.4 and the bokeh is fabulous and I use it with the a6000 with an adapter
Have fun, this will teach you a lot about focal lenght and what it does to a photo. But, in time you will do discover, that zoom lenses have their own usage in the photo / video world.
Very good video. In terms of quality, I think the 18-50 is the best of all. As I find it so difficult to choose, I have a question: as the 18-50 is so great, I don't really understand why you should even get a 16, 30 or 56mm lens? What disadvantage does the 18-50mm have for someone?
the 2.8 zoom lens gives rather low quality pictures compared to the prime. but you get the advantage of being able to shoot at different focal lengths. for a photographer, its best to have both a zoom and a prime lens
@@cheapbongs OK, so my situation: I rarely film, 1-2 times in 3 months and then 90% of the time at home, directly in front of the camera, otherwise I'm outside vlogging. I'm now switching from the Lumix GH5 with Metabones SB and Sigma 18-35 F1.8 to Sony, my plan is to switch to the ZV E10, so the Sigma 18-50 is the best choice, I would think, right?
@@iceman-elektrischunterwegs3099 yea i agree the sigma 18-50 is an excellent choice for filming! i have the 18-50 on my sony alpha with a black mist filter and it produces amazing footage.
I was pleasantly surprised by it’s performance at 18 and 30 compared to the primes. At 30 it started to be clear but at 50 the advantage of the 1.4 became very apparent.
The primes have a wider aperture which lets more light in - to compensate for this, either ISO needs to be dropped, or shutter speed needs to be increased. I made this video which might help explain: ruclips.net/video/UuA-OlGLn8I/видео.htmlsi=kKpIsHridYq6RPac. Also check out videos on the 'exposure triangle'.
Displayed on a mobile phone this comparison didn't show anything and it probably doesn't even on a 4K TV. You need to crop in, at least for the sharpness.
Very good video! I take 90% of my pictures with 18mm focal length. Now im not sure whether to go with the Sigma 16mm 1.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8. I only need it for photos. Which do you think has the better picture quality?
Excellent! This is exactly what I am looking for! Can I please get your opinion? if you were to get a lens which one would you prefer over these options? Option 1 : Sigma 18-50mm Option 2: Sigma 16mm + Sigma 30mm (potentially getting the 56mm later in the far future) Option 3: Sigma 30mm + Sigma 56mm (potentially getting the 16mm later in the far future) I will be using the camera for travel vlog, and some portrait and product photography. I also do product reviews occasionally. I would say its 70% video and 30% photo. My current gears are action cams, drone and my iPhone 15 pro max. I also have the osmo pocket 3, but thinking of selling it buy a mirrorless.
Had the 18-50mm since it came out and hardly ever get primes out unless portraightwhich don’t generally do . I have travelled a lot and this lens is amazing and very sharp so very happy
Great review, exactly what I needed to see. Thanks mate!
Reviews should be like this. Informative and straightforward! Thanks a lot!
You’re very welcome 🙌🏻
A fantastic video!
Refreshingly to the point, reviewing these 4 lenses in 5.5 minutes, containing all you need to know in a comparison of them. Just what I needed.
No waffling on about irrelevancies and other b/s.
Great job! So great, I've liked and subscribed 😁
Thanks so much 🙏🏻
I am personally using the 18-50 and the sigma 56 has my daily carry. It's a great combo for getting most of ur desired shots
hi , i am new here .. planning to buy the 18-50 ...how is the lens at wide end @18mm ..is it sharp , any issues ?
Are they heavy carrying both plus the body?
@craiyohn not really cause the apsc a6000 series is pretty small and light. Also the lens are pretty light as they are not built with metal parts like more expensive lenses are. But the built quality is still very premium.
This is exactly the video I was looking for! I do all of my cinematography on a 16mm currently but in the market for another lens and was considering the zoom lens for convenience. But mannnn that f1.4 is hard to beat! Thanks!
Glad it came in useful man 🙌🏻
If you are in for cinematography: films (where this word comes from) are 90% of the time shot in more than f4. There is more than a blurry background to create background separation and not a real need for f1.4 ;)
@@tibfox Hey, thanks for that insight man, appreciate it
@@tibfox Exactly, because that, sigma 18-50 2.8 is better for video...
Zoom lenses are better for intricate composition. Primes are better for low light performance and subject isolation. Sure, you can fall into more creative opportunities with an individual prime lens, but if you really want to make sure you can specifically nail a composition down at a landscape or street photography shoot, zooms will have your back where you can’t always use your legs to “zoom” with primes. Even when you can “zoom with your legs”, it’ll change the compression and alignment of the things in your frame, where with a zoom you can change the parallax of the objects in your frame by using your legs, but also crop in an out of a frame without moving where you’re standing by zooming in or out to avoid shifting the parallax. This is why I prefer zooms over primes personally. If you need background blur and don’t compose very intricately, then the primes are for you.
Excellent comment my friend
thank you! @@jesuslopez6873
That’s it. I’m getting the 18-50mm🤣
What i have been wanting to see, thanks alot for sharing
The background separation is so much better on the primes, I'd love the convenience of having one lens but not worth the tradeoff on aperture, thanks for saving me some money!! 😅 Fantastic review as always.
@@toms3485 he was around 1.5m away from the subject...so around 1m could hav achieved a better bokeh?
@@zarashah Yes, check out the bokeh at 4:02 in this very video, for example
The great fun factor in the zoom is that you can walk around, taking photo after photo, wide to mid to tele without having to change lenses. The convenience factor more that makes up for any shortcomings, and really, having to change lenses and possibly dropping one, is a real pain in the ass. I have always loved zooms for the versatility it offers. Primes are great for the time you have to set up shots and are not in a rush. So don't diss the lens until you use it. You may find you actually like it.
Don't get fooled by aperture.
I shot some great portraits on the oldies but goldies Sony 18-105mm f.4 and on the longer end it blew my mind with the bokeh and everything.
And on the topic "sharpness": I would suggest all of you to let it go. I mean, what use is to have super sharpness, then stay and unsharpen
the hell out of your photos / videos, in post?
I realized that myself. I have the Sigma trios, but what use can I get, except some better low-light, but then waste valuable time
on smoothing out the skin out of the people in my photos, cause with the lens you can see their pores and wrinkles are so exaggerated and real :))
I mean, photography / videography is art and you don't have to always be "real" and "raw" (unedited).
Back in the days, when I purchased my first DSLR, the Canon 600d, maaaaaan, those photos needed no post-smoothing or anything,
just printed all my family photos directly out of the camera.
Greets,
L.
@@bondgabebond4907 Exactly!
I love the primes, especially from Sigma, but... even when shooting portraits, you lose a lot of cool moments.
I mean, when the person in front of you eventually starts feeling comfortable and poses, dances or gives you all kind of beautiful looks,
you miss out on so much moments, when you tell her/him: "Aaaah, wait the framing is to narrow, let me put the 16mm on..." or viceversa.
I finally realized after all these years, why pro and extraordinary photographers carry a superb but heavy ass zoom lens with them,
instead of a bag full of primes.
Yeah...
Thanks for the lens review! This would be perfect for travel. It's small and lightweight and pairs nicely with a crop sensor camera. The f/2.8 aperture also works well for travel by bringing attention to your subject but also maintaining enough detail in the background to provide context of where you are. If you do any extensive night/astro photography then the primes would also come in handy.
This is like one of the last quality consistent APSC content only chanels
Thank you 🙏🏻
I could have never imagined such a perfectly thought out review for the apsc Sigma lenses would exist. Great work bud. Just what I was looking for.
Thanks so much Melvin - appreciate the feedback 🙏🏻
Fantastic review of the lens and great comparisons!
If you'll take my advice, I think we'd all like to see more lens comparisons such as this! You do an amazing job of showcasing the strength's and weaknesses of every lens, and if you could manage some sponsorships or even borrow some lenses for reviews, I think your channel would reach new heights. Keep up the great work! I have no doubt you'll grow a lot over the course of 2022 if you keep this quality content up!
Yes but maybe just rent the lenses or team up with a photographic store and advertise them. 😉
Finally, someone made a video about this.
Couple months ago, when I last was looking for such a comparison, nobody had a video like this.
Strange, since these wannabe RUclipsrs jump on newly released stuff quite fast...
Wannabe mushrooms...
Thank you, sir!
You’re welcome! Glad it came in useful! 🙌🏻
The way you presented all information in a short, straight video is just amazing, the tests were exactly what we wanted to see,
This was very on point, congrats. I just subscribed to the channel, I want to see more of exactly this.
Recently went on a trip and brought my sigma 30mm and sony 50mm with my zve10 kitlens. Ended up using the kit lens 80% of the time since the versatility is much more handy when taking both creative and touristy shots. Sure side by side bokeh is yummier with primes, but if you are on the go, its difficult to work with multiple primes. Unless you are doing events or professional work, zoom is very handy for multiple situations
Those Sigma primes can’t be beaten, especially for their price point.
In the Netherlands the 18-50 is €500 compared to a +€2.000 prime
@@PhilipWallage Sigma primes for APS-C cameras are well under 500€. You must be talking about about other prime lenses. The video was about the APS-C Sigma primes and the Sigma zoom.
@@ElBoyoElectronico Yeah I noticed I was waaaay off with that comment. But once I found out, I couldn't find my comment to edit/remove it. But yes, you're spot on. #LETSGOPRIME
Exactly the video I was looking for. Thanks!
I'd skip the 30, and get only the 16 (or 23 1.4 from Viltrox) and 56 to pair with 18-50.
This is the comment I was looking for. I've got the trio for my M50, but the auto focus is so garbage on the 30mm that it back focuses on nearly every photo taken at 1.4 if the subject is any further away than say 3ft. I've tested this multiple times and even bought the USB dock to try to correct it only to figure out that these lenses can't be corrected with the software. The 30mm lens is completely useless for anything but close ups due to these issues. I'm looking at trading in my 30mm and getting the 18-50 to replace it.
@@eafortson The 30mm for Sony is the best lens I own. I almost never leaves my camera. It doesn't have any back focusing issues. But i just prefer its look to the other lenses since the 56mm can be too tight sometimes. Maybe its a different story for Canon?
I just bougth a Sony a6700 with a sigma 18-50 2.8 and also the sigma 56mm 1.4 for portraits. So great video.
Bro, this is exactly what i was looking for, now I know better what I can expect from these lenses, thank you so much!
I think that the 18-50 might actually be the best lens of the 4 tested. I love prime lenses, especially as a gimbal shooter. The extra bokeh, the low light performance and speed are absolutely superior to the 18-50 or really any zoom compared to a quality sub 2.0 prime. But shooters know, you can't underestimate the versatility of a solid zoom lens. That's why the FF 24-70 is such a beloved focal range. It touches the main points. And let's not act like 2.8 aperture is a slouch. Many times it delivers very nice bokeh and low light performance if you know how to use it. This lens might not beat the prime lenses at their game, but the twist is they can't beat this zoom at it's game either. There's a reason why people say this lens "lives" on their camera.
Exactly the video i was looking for. Thanks, grear vid.
I really wish they redo the 18-35 1.8 for emount natively
Facing this exact dilemma now and you helped me make up my mind. Good stuff. Great shots at the end too! Cheers.
Which lens did you end up choosing? I'm facing a similar choice and would love to hear your thoughts!
@@juliusespanol6813 ha, well, when I wrote that I was really in love with the separation achieved by the primes in this video. So I thought I was going to buy the prime trio. I talked myself into a compromise, though. I got the 18-50 and the 16mm for video. I've paired them with an a6700 since December. I've found myself mostly shooting photos of friends and family in casual settings, often in low light. Those two extra stops and the ~85mm FF equivalent would really have served me better. So if I could do it again, I'd buy the prime set. The 18-50 is convenient though.
Most helpful video on the lens by far. You just gained a subscriber. Keep it up 😊
so I'll buy sigma 18-50 and sigma 56, easy to choose. thank for the great video!
Good choice! 🙌🏻
Great video, very clear and to the point. Proves that despite the obvious convenience of a zoom, only primes can push the camera for that higher end look on apsc format. Even the 30mm had a huge difference in bokeh. However it is to be considered that shooting all the time at the widest aperture is an unrealistic scenario, and this new zoom is a real deal, especially with that size and at that price. Cheers
Yes agreed Dario - the primes definitely have their place but I think it’s going to be a perfect walk around lens 👍🏻
This was such a well made comparison. Thank you for all the effort you put into it. As for the comparison, those 1.4 primes look delicious! 😋
2.8 is great for full frame. For apsc 1.4 is super useful not only for the bokeh but in low light also
Glad it was helpful 🙌🏻
Last of a dying breed for sure
@@OLuvin 😂 Is that all you do?
Good review. I got both the 18-50mm and the 30mm. Was still half of a Zeiss prime and makes traveling so much easier and lighter
Today I went out and purchased the A6400 with this lens thanks to your video's, amazing reviews keep up the great work.
Thanks so much Paul - appreciate it 🙏🏻
The primes are sharper, especially at low light. But I now have the 18-50 pretty much on all the time and the zoom range is surprisingly convenient. It’s different tool, but it’s great.
Hey Jonathan - yeah I kinda knew it would never outshine the primes, but I think as a walk around lens it’ll be perfect 👌🏻
How does this zoom compare to Sony's 18-135 zoom?
The diffrence is huge. Sigma primes are unbeatable ⚡
I have 13mm F1.4 viltrox for vlogging. for making music video, which one? 35 or 56? Both f1.4
In the future I believe 18-55mm F1.4 🔥
I love because you put the distance to the subject and that is something that nobody is doing and I don't know why
Thanks Juan 🙌🏻
I use these lenses, Sigma 16mm f/1.4, Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5 - 6.3 mm, on my Sony zv-e10 camera for pretty much al my needs. Which covers photography and videography as an hobbyist. I use Sigma 16mm, when I can use my feet to zoom and when the light are low. Otherwise I use the other lenses accordingly.
Thank you! Exactly the comparison I was looking for in a short and sweet video :)
Glad it came in useful 👍🏻
Exactly the video I was looking for, thanks.
Perfect video comparition!
After watching the video it would be been nice to add f2.8 to f2.8 comparisons for us pixel peepers and gauge how much better quality the prime is actually.
Was thinking about the new Sigma zoom lens or a 56mm prime (already own the 30mm) and this was just the video i was looking for. A short, simple, nicely edited comparison as always! Probably going to pick up the prime because of the low light performance and bokeh.
I appreciate your work and i also bought your presets last year and i use them regularly in my photoshoots. With small situational tweaks they give just the mood i need, thanks!
Thanks so much for the support 🙌🏻 You won’t be disappointed with the 56mm 👌🏻
Such an informative video. Thanks for making this!
Glad it was helpful! 🙌🏻
Thank you for this great, to the point comparison
Glad it was helpful 🙌🏻
Thank you so much for this video such a good review on the lenses made me decide to go with the prime lenses over the zoom lens!
Glad it came in useful 🙏🏻
amazing video and thank you for the comparison! as someone who has never had a fast lens at any of these focal lengths (currently on the sony e 16-50 kit) having a reference on how the bokeh looks on both f2.8 and f1.4 was very useful.
Really good video and comparison - thank you! I have the Sigma 30mm and 16mm for my Sony a6400, and they're both wonderful. I feel like I'm still finding my way with the 16mm, but I've captured more 5-star pics with the 30mm than any other lens I've used. Knowing that there's a zoom that's at least in the ballpark quality-wise and spans the range of the "Sigma Prime" series is really interesting - might need to pick one up sooner or later!
Yes I purely bought it as a convenient walk around lens which I think it will be perfect for 👍🏻. Thanks for watching 🙏🏻
Thanks so much for this comparison. I have the 30m 1.4 and was debating what my next lens should be (I need something longer). While the zoom offers a lot of flexibility in a similar package, I think my next lens should either be the 56mm 1.4 or another longer lens. So thank you for that!
Nice, compact and informative video. Thanks a lot!! I'm a novice photographer and doing mainly street and travel photography so I was wondering how big the difference was between these lenses. For my case of use, I thing I'll go with the Sigma 18-50, yes I'm loosing some background blur but I think I can live with that. Also, since I'll be mainly using while traveling or walking, I think light packing and versatility its primordial so it should be better like that
Coming around to figuring out my lens collection just starting out and I think this comparison would have been better or good by putting the primes at f2.8 and seeing how the bokeh compares. The f1.4 is obviously going to be better, but how would this compare as a travel lens?
This is one of the best videos I’ve seen on this subject. Exactly what I wanted to see. Got the 18-50mm and wanted to know if the 56mm is worth it. Answer. Yes
Glad it was helpful 🙌🏻
this is exactly what i was looking for, thanks for sharing this.
You’re welcome 🙌🏻
Thanks for the vid! As always, amazingly done with the shortcuts and all!
Thanks Renaat 👍🏻
Again, high quality content from Stuart here. Watching your videos without leaving a sub should be a crime :)
😂 Thanks Thomas - much appreciated 🙏🏻
A bit of background... I shot for many years with Canon crop sensor cameras (from the 30D to the 7D2) and the two lenses that I used for travel with a pair of Canon cameras were the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS. I was quite pleased with this combination and carried it all over the world. However, I now shoot Sony crop cameras and I have grown old (82 at my last birthday) and have had back and knee surgeries.
I will be traveling to Washington DC on an Honor Flight for military veterans. The trip will include a lot of walking and standing around. I needed a lightweight lens for my Sony A6600 that will provide decent imagery and a decent focal range and I have decided to order a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. The A6600 with Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 lens weighs 793 grams or 1.74 pounds while my Canon 7D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens weighs a whopping 322 grams or 3.22 pounds - almost twice the weight of the Sony combination.
The Sigma is quite close to the focal range of the Canon 17-55mm (one mm longer at the wide end and five mm shorter at the long end). The Sigma doesn't have any image stabilization but, my A6600 has IBIS. Both the Sigma and Canon have a constant f/2.8 aperture which is fine for my needs.
I am looking forward to receiving the lens soon and testing it out before I travel to Washington.
With camera do better photos? Sony or Canon?
@@aleksandersmardzewski6139 At one time, I shot with Canon DSLR cameras but, now I use Sony A7iii and A6600 cameras. I have not used a Canon mirrorless camera of any type. I am very happy with both my Sony cameras. The A7iii is full frame and the A6600 is a 1.5x crop sensor camera.
I like this lens because of its size and weight. I also like the great image quality of the zoom. However, for portraits I will also carry my 85mm f/1.8 Sony lens...
Sorry for the delay in answering. Both Canon and Sony gear produced VG to excellent results. Th big difference would be the skills of the photographer. @@aleksandersmardzewski6139
Thanks bruv, this was helpful
Thanks Stuart for the video because I have the Sigma 18-50 2.8 on my Sony A6600 and I
was looking to add possibly two more to my collection.
Great comparison, your findings mirror mine. The look of fast primes are hard to beat but the size, convenience of a zoom is also super useful. I definitely think these 4 lenses represent great value for image quality, bokeh, and size.
Thanks Zues - completely agree! 👍🏻
Another very informative video... Thanks mate!
Glad it was helpful 🙌🏻
I think I would keep the subject distance and framing the same for comparisons even if there's a slight focal length difference, that's because usually the photographer would come closer/back off to get certain framing, especially for potrait.
Just the video I needed. I got my 16mm and 56mm and really needed the opinion of a pro on the 18-50mm vs these primes.
love this video a lot, so clear and easy to compare
Glad it helped 👍🏻
My guy producing quality content! Love it!! I’ll be looking out for the next batch of presets too! 👀
Thanks Michael 🙏🏻 There are some presets in the making 😎
These comparison videos are the best. Was considering getting this but now I want to just get the 56mm to add to the other two in the trio that I already own.
Looking for video purposes, and as soon as I saw the difference in the images between the 18mm setting next to the Prime 16, my mind was made up. The 16 prime looked so much more cinematic to me. Thank you for the video!
I've just found your channel, I love what you do! Keep it right on! I'm thinking of buying 6700 with Sigma duo 30 & 56 for my B-Roll trial-and-errors :)
Great video. I just ordered this lens for my birthday.
Ah awesome - perfect birthday to yourself! 😎
Great video! Just what I needed. Subbed.
Thank you 🙌🏻
Yo thanks for making this video, I appreciated it!
Appreciate it Isaac 🙌🏻
I think you sold me on the 18-50mm as my starter kit lens for the Fujifilm X-S10, and then most likely a 56mm prime down the road.
Very informative and helpful. Thanks for your video
I'm a passive subscriber that's watched mostly all of your videos, but as a fellow micro-influencer, I know how much an appreciation comment can go! So just leaving my appreciation - I have the same camera and lenses, and seeing all the content you make with the same equipment inspires me!! You're so talented.
Hey Dana, thanks so much for watching and your feedback - I’m truly humbled 🙏🏻
Such a well composed and reliable review! Very well explained
Thank you 🙏🏻
Well explained Stuart Rodwell. I have sigma 56mm. I mainly shoot fashion product. I am thinking to buy another wide lens as i am facing difficulties when shoot in tighter place. What is your recommendation sigma 30 or sigma 18-50? Thanks.
Fantastic review of the lens and great comparisons! But,🤔? l....I own a Sony ZV-E10..I like the 1.4. Prime lenses very much, but is it worth (necessary ) to spend the money to for all three ? Thanks
I wish you did the low light as well. That would be interesting.
I'm still not sure whether I should get the Sigma 18-50 (size and weight wise it would suit my compact travel kit perfectly) or the way bigger and heavier Tamron 17-70 for its significantly greater reach and better optical performance.
What did u decide? I’m tryna pick between both of those options too :/
@@momatyh I purchased the Sigma after trying both and after 1.5k photos I do not regret this decision. The optical performance is identical to the Tamron and due to its size, it is a way better travel and "carry around all day" lens. What you give up is the image stabilization (I don't care, I shoot stills only) and a bit of reach at the long end, which I personally don't really need.
Thanks for sharing your experience with this lens. I bought it a couple months ago. It’s a great lens for video with the ability now to zoom and constant f2.8 aperture.
My only complaint is the image distortion and vignetting I experience using it on the a6500. Did you change any in-camera settings to get rid of the distortion?
I’m luckily able to fix this issue in post so It’s not a big deal.
For photography I still prefer the sigma prime lenses over this zoom lens. But it’s great to travel now using only one lens. :)
When exactly do u experience the image distortion?at what focal length?
Yeah I noticed it too especially at 18mm but it can easily be fixed in Lr.
turn the auto correction in the camera
This video is exactely what you need when questioning this question. At first i also wanted to buy the 18-50mm but the more research i did between zoom and prime lenses. I got more and more convinced to go for a primelens because the 1.4 aperture and butter soft bokeh. Last friday i finally bought my Sigma 30mm f1.4. 0,000% regret of that choice. Already took many great photo's with my Sony A6000 camera last saturday. Next target the Sigma 56mm f1.4
I love the 30mm - used to literally shoot everything with that lens 🙌🏻
I've owned the 30 for almost a year, it's fabulous everyone on flickr agrees. I'm getting the 16mm soon. I have a manual Minolta for portraits 58mm 1.4 and the bokeh is fabulous and I use it with the a6000 with an adapter
I'm planning also for 30mm 1.4 💓
Have fun, this will teach you a lot about focal lenght and what it does to a photo.
But, in time you will do discover, that zoom lenses have their own usage in the photo / video world.
Very valuable content here Stuart! Thank you
Hey Nicko - thanks man 👍🏻
Very good video. In terms of quality, I think the 18-50 is the best of all.
As I find it so difficult to choose, I have a question: as the 18-50 is so great, I don't really understand why you should even get a 16, 30 or 56mm lens? What disadvantage does the 18-50mm have for someone?
the 2.8 zoom lens gives rather low quality pictures compared to the prime. but you get the advantage of being able to shoot at different focal lengths. for a photographer, its best to have both a zoom and a prime lens
@@cheapbongs OK, so my situation:
I rarely film, 1-2 times in 3 months and then 90% of the time at home, directly in front of the camera, otherwise I'm outside vlogging.
I'm now switching from the Lumix GH5 with Metabones SB and Sigma 18-35 F1.8 to Sony, my plan is to switch to the ZV E10, so the Sigma 18-50 is the best choice, I would think, right?
@@iceman-elektrischunterwegs3099 yea i agree the sigma 18-50 is an excellent choice for filming! i have the 18-50 on my sony alpha with a black mist filter and it produces amazing footage.
Sir its Full Fream lens?
No it's designed for APSC - although you may be able to use it on Full frame in 'crop mode'. Don't quote me on that though!
amazing vid! big help
Thanks Joey 🙏🏻
The video I needed! Thanks for the comparison 🤙
You’re welcome Frank! ✌🏻
I was pleasantly surprised by it’s performance at 18 and 30 compared to the primes. At 30 it started to be clear but at 50 the advantage of the 1.4 became very apparent.
Great video! The primes show their beauty but dang that zoom lens is so practical if only it had power zoom and reached a little bit further!
1:13 hdr is weak? Why what was body on this shot is it because body or lens?
How to avoid this situation to have clear blue sky? Solution is have flash?
Thanks for this. Was thinking of buying the 56mm or the 18-50
No problem - hope it helps you decide! 🙌🏻
@@StuartRodwell trying to buy your preset but getting an error.
@@pjsales7470 that’s odd - can you email me a screenshot of the error please? (My email address is in the about section)
I definitely plan on picking up this lens for studio work, especially since I rarely shoot wide open using flash
Yes have to say I’m happy with it so far 👌🏻
Thank you for the video! Noob question here, why are you increasing the shutter speed on the prime?
The primes have a wider aperture which lets more light in - to compensate for this, either ISO needs to be dropped, or shutter speed needs to be increased. I made this video which might help explain: ruclips.net/video/UuA-OlGLn8I/видео.htmlsi=kKpIsHridYq6RPac. Also check out videos on the 'exposure triangle'.
Very good and useful comparisson! Great job to Tia also.
Thanks Jomel 👍🏻
Displayed on a mobile phone this comparison didn't show anything and it probably doesn't even on a 4K TV. You need to crop in, at least for the sharpness.
Always enjoy your style. Man!
Thanks Martin - much appreciated 🙌🏻
Exactly what I'm looking for! Thanks!
This is the exact video I needed. I am a bit tight on cash and was debating whether to buy some primes or one zoom lens.
Spot on review! Thanks!
just what i wanted to see thanks you so much for this video!
Thanks for watching 🙏🏻
Very good video! I take 90% of my pictures with 18mm focal length. Now im not sure whether to go with the Sigma 16mm 1.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8. I only need it for photos. Which do you think has the better picture quality?
Excellent! This is exactly what I am looking for! Can I please get your opinion? if you were to get a lens which one would you prefer over these options?
Option 1 : Sigma 18-50mm
Option 2: Sigma 16mm + Sigma 30mm (potentially getting the 56mm later in the far future)
Option 3: Sigma 30mm + Sigma 56mm (potentially getting the 16mm later in the far future)
I will be using the camera for travel vlog, and some portrait and product photography. I also do product reviews occasionally. I would say its 70% video and 30% photo.
My current gears are action cams, drone and my iPhone 15 pro max. I also have the osmo pocket 3, but thinking of selling it buy a mirrorless.
It very usefull for me...Thank you man💝
Thank for doing this video anyways... your side-by-side examples are so helpful!
Thanks for watching ✌🏻