I bought the Tamron and glad that it’s big. My customer thinks it looks more expensive and professional than the little Sigma. I have a cage and a handle and people will pay more for that! Lol
I have the Tamron. I do like a smaller size, but since I shoot with the a6600, it doesn’t seem too big. I enjoy the 17-70 range, and paired with the Sony 70-350 Focal lengths are pretty well covered. And I personally find the Tamron nice and sharp. Thanks for the comparison!
@@rebeccamoore4177 good point, f2.8 can pass through 4x more light vs f5.6, also more bokeh, btw Tamron 18-300mm seems like a perfect all-in-one for travel/hobby & wildlife
I recently got the sigma 18-50 and I absolutely love it. It’s small, light, and the images that come out of it are just *chef kiss*. Granted, I have ibis in my camera so I don’t need the lens stabilization.
I still ended up getting Tamron 17-70 over the Sigma 18-50, and I did not regret it. The extra reach of 20mm zoom with constant F2.8 is so crucial at certain moments, and it also gives greater shallow depth of field. I also appreciate with the extra 1mm wide when I shoot sceneries. Overall it feels great on my A6600 body and it doesn’t seem to be that bulky at all.
@@Nylonscheme no you don’t. The image stabilization in the tamron makes for very smooth handheld shots. A gimbal is only necessary when walking; as far as standing still, that tamron’s Vc + a cam’s IBIS can look just like a gimbal shot when panning with a steady hand.
I chose it too, better reach making it great travel lens, VC, AND it is weather sealed unlike the sigma, more so I managed to get it prices really close to the sigma at a discount !!
I own the Tamron 17-70 and in my opinion: If you need the best picture quality for photography pick the Sony If you need a video/photo lens and you don't have IBIS in your camera pick the Tamron If you don't have much money pick the Sigma that for the price is amazing! Currently i'm using the Tamron with my Sony A6300. Before i was using prime lenses, now i sold all of them and i'm using just the Tamron.
This is the comparison that I have been waiting for. After watching, I don't regret my decision to go with the Tamron this past holiday season. My a6400 doesn't have IBIS, but the Tamron does have VC, it's fully weather sealed, and has a bit more reach. Given my use case - backpacking and cycling - the Tamron was a no brainer. The extra weight than the Sony and the Sigma is offset by the fact that I'll be able to reach further out wildlife and won't have to worry when it rains. All three lenses look great and potential buyers should really consider their use case for determining what's best for them before they buy.
Hey - seeing as you have the exact camera and lens I’m looking at getting, would you say the VC is good enough that you wouldn’t need a gimbal to vlog with? (Not too much camera shake)
@@leeteivans2509 I don't do any vlogging, so I can't give a qualified opinion on VC with vlogging, but I can tell you that VC is great with photography. Arthur and Terry Warfield seem to indicate that that VC is not a gimbal replacement for video.
@@leeteivans2509 VC OSS IBIS is much better then no stabilization, but it's far from vlog-stable, being gentle helps. GoPro hypersmooth is ideal, active ibis is also good like with a7iv a7S3 FX3 A1, unfortunately active ibis hasn't made it to apsc yet (except zv-e10, but gyro is extra extra post work)
Thank you for the great comparison. Got Tamron after all. I couple of reasons: 1) I have Sony a6400 which does not have IBIS, so Tamron's VC was a primary factor. 2) Having already Sony 70-350mm with OSS, adding 17-70mm Tamron completes the range. 3) Also, I frequently travel with Sony 70-350mm and already got used to its dimensions and its center of gravity on my camera. So, when it came to size/weight, I actually compared Tamron to Sony 70-350mm (its companion lense in my collection), rather than to its direct competitors. Thank you again for the great guidance!
I recently bought the tamron 17-70 for $700 and i'm so glad I bought it. A bit late considering the price but when i compare the features that the tamron brought for my a6400. 17-70 is perfect zoom range, vibration control which is perfect for my a6400( no ibis), weather seal. I took it out for a photoshoot today and it performed unexpectedly awesome. For the price, sigma wins clean and clear but for overall features such as price range, vibration control, zoom range, and weather seal. Tamron is a total winner for my a6400 Another great review and comparison video Arthur. Thank you!
I’m thinking of getting an an A6700 and using one of these lenses for headshots and portraits. So approximately a 50 or 85mm on full frame. Does the Tamron shoot nice portraits?
Been waiting for this video. I picked up the sigma 18-50 over the holidays to replace my 16-50 kit lens. I will say I was impressed with the quality of the lens and the sharpness. Granted this is my first nice lens purchase. The only drawbacks I had were that there's no weather sealing and no image stabilization. This is a bummer but I think the price is justifiable for what you get.
Great to see you do the comparison of these three. The Sigma looks like a great deal and very compact as well. I've got the Tamron 17-70mm and although larger than the others I certainly enjoy the greater focal range, lens stabilisation and decent minimum focus distance. The Sony always seemed a bit on the expensive side and I always wonder why they did not include OSS lens stabilisation in this one.
My takeaway is that between the Sigma and Sony, the sigma takes the cake for 95% of use cases. Tamron versus Sigma seems to come down to the trade-off of range vs size (price difference isn't as big either so that helps), and for that I think to each their own.
I bought the sigma 18-50 for my ZV-E10 and I love it! I don't even need OSS because I have to turn off all stabilization anyway in order to use gyro stabilization in catalyst browse anyway and the results are gimbal-like! I love the size. It's my favorite lens I've ever owned because its so compact. The lens is a work of art, really. I even enjoy just looking at the lens.
But doesn't Catalyst Browse also benefit from lens OSS as well? I'm wondering if I should return the Tamron, because I chose it over the Sigma for this very reason.
I love my Tamron 17-70. It is on my a6000 70% of the time. My other workhorse lens is the sigma 100-400. The stabilization is key for me as I don't have the steadiest hands. The extra 20mm is real nice also.
I just love the 18-50mm for all its qualities. It pairs incredibly nicely with the a6400 that it is my favourite combination now. I could easily afford the Sony (in Germany, it's 819€ if you can make use of Welcome to alpha & winter cashbacks) but I can't get over it that Sony did not add OSS to it. It's a behaviour that should not be rewarded. But, now with all those awesome lenses for APS-C, should we start an e-mail campaign towards Sony for updated APS-C bodies with the latest sensor tech?!!! Yes, we should!
@@sushrutachakraborty1136 it‘s good there‘s finally an update. Personally, it isn‘t for me as I made 1/8000s mechanical shutter speed a key criteria for any new camera purchase, and the a6700 stops at 1/4000. Maybe they do it in the next increment in 4-5 years 😆
Do you feel the lack of stabilization in the camera and lens? I'm also on an a6400, with the 16-50mm kit lens that they provide that has image stabilization, and I was thinking if the faster aperture negates the need for IS.
@@benjaminzarkhin1293 For stills: no. I photograph mostly people in every day situations and there a faster shutter speed is anyhow necessary, where the image stabilisation makes not much of a difference (min. 1/125s for adults and 1/250s for kids I would recommend). For video the lack of image stabilisation makes a huge difference tho, but I personally, rarely use the a6400 for filming.
I have Tamron, I bought it before Sigma came out and I do not regret. I tested Sony for a while and as I'm not professional I really missed the stabilization I have in other lenses (Sony 1.8 35mm for example). That's why I picked Tamron as it has stabilization. If I would have A6600 instead of A6100 I would definitely pick Sigma.
I have A6300 with tamron 17-70, it’s kinda heavy with it, but not in my friend’s A6600. I get the grip for it, but the gap between the lens and grip is too small.
I own the Sony lens, it replaced my Sony 18-105 G lens because 18mm was not wide enough for my needs. So the Sigma is no option for me, it is smaller, but that is to be expected starting at 18mm on the wide end. Love the 16-55mm.
@@targh4410 That would be a nice combo for some but I like the 16 to 50mm range in one lens as I use it a lot. Have the Samyang 12mm F2 for wider work.
@@PixelSplash999 I just want some new stuff.. 😀 I have a sigma 11-20, sigma 30mm F1.4, Sony 50mm f1.8, Sony 18-105mm F4 and a few Samsung.. I have been using the same gear for the past 3 years..
I have the Tamron on an a6400. Its range is great and its a useful lens. It has a bit of distortion which is easily taken out in post. The in built stability helps and works well. I find the focus hunts a bit especially in the 50-70 range for close in subjects. Its biggest 'con' for me is the lack of a zoom lock. Whilst the zoom ring is nice and free moving, point the lens down and the weight of the front lenses pulls the zoom, there needs to be a bit more friction there, especially for things like, overhead, ground table top and lay flat pictures. As long as its near horizontal its ok.
Thanks for point out the creep issue, you just made me reconsider the Tamron. Have you heard other people online talk about this? I can't find anything. How bad would you say the creep is?
@@madebyPure It a great lens for shooting most of the time but its no good for tabletop or macro straight down if you are doing multiple shots like focus stacking- it will creep, so I use a prime lens now for that. I did also try some at a show - it was the same. There is no zoom lock. I dont have much to compare it with.
My camera is Sony ZV-E10. My main work is indoor/studio videography. I will also do outdoor videography and photography. My choice is Sigma 18-50 for being lightweight, handy, compact and minimum focusing distance of 12.1cm. On the other hand, Tamron 17-70 has an additional 20mm zoom and Image Stabilization. Since the Sony ZV-E10 doesn't have in-body image stabilization and the Tamron has image stabilization, I think it might be better for outdoor videography and photography. Since I haven't used either of them, I can't judge how effective the Image Stabilization is on the Tamron. Can you tell me which lens should I get for Sony ZV-E10? Reply please 🙏🙏🙏🙏
As a travel photographer I will have to choose the Sigma. But I was really hoping for the extra reach of the Tamron. I currently use the Zeiss 16-70f4 and that extra reach really comes in handy in some street portraiture and street lifestyle photography. But it's just soooo much bigger and heavier and I don't think I can justify that when I need to travel light. I'll rather adjust my photography approach before taking extra weight and space in my rucksack I guess.
yes, but there are situations where you shoot an image, which could be a "100mm" focal lenght already and then there is a noticeable difference in the pixels when cropping from 50 and from 70 @@DrRizuan
I have a zeiss 24-70/4 and I also use it on the a6700. I had this combo now in Jordan and it was enough for 90% of the range. But f4 is limiting, the wide end was also sometimes missing, I replaced it with a phone :) Tamron is the king for traveling for me in terms of range, but also quality and price. You don't need anything extra.
The image stabilization of the Tamron is so good. The sigma is more or less the same size as the Sony zeiss 16-70. The sigma is great for a compact kit. But now the Tamron is $600 I believe. Wider and longer range, great stabilization are really useful. The size is the only con. But it is not that heavy or large.
I used the Sigma on a trip last month and never felt the need to use any of the other lenses that were in my bag. It's not the best for video but it was perfect for photos in both well and dimly lit environments. After comparing it and the Tamron I decided to return the Tamron as it would rarely be used for my needs.
I have the Sony 16-55 for 2.5 years and it is a BLAST of a lens. It's not only the build, focus and sharpness. It also has some character which I really love. This is an astonishing zoom lens that beats many primes (I have Zeiss, Sony, Sigma and other brands to compare). But from what I see in this video the Sigma is also a stellar ! The price and size are absolutely crazy. The benefits of the Sony are important, but if you don't really need them buy the Sigma. The Tamron on the other hand is simply too big, the colors are not accurate enough, and I can't find this compelling. Thanks for this review ! I'll keep my Sony
I also own the 16-55 for over 2 years now. Never looked back, it is indeed a blast of a lens. Yes it whould be nice if it was smaller and had a bit more range but the total package is great. It's sharp (very sharp), wide and the focus is spot on. I sold my 56mm 1.4 Sigma because I didn't used it anymore... Still have the 30mm which I like a lot but the autofocus just isn't that good compared to a native Sony lens. That was the reason I chose the Sony over the Tamron.
To be fair tho, the Sony costs double as much as the tamron and the sigma one. For that price id expect sharper photos. Im still deciding if i should get the sigma or the tamron, because i wanna film too and the build in stabilization on the tamron would be very good for my a6000.
@DK_lma Mine is also a Sony A6000. Which one did you buy in the end, Sigma or Tamron? Thank you very much for your support. I will listen to your voice here.
SIgma - a perfect "default" E-mount lens to carry and use everywhere. Sony - wider, has a button and a powerzoom (which are huge features), but for this heavy price it really needs some stabilization. Tamron - the most capable of three, and best of them for videowork, but a bit bulky for compact aps-c's. My choice is tamron, but honestly i'll probably switch sony 16-50 kit for sigma 18-50 for that sweet continuous f2.8
A wonderful comparison. I bought the Tamron almost immediately after your review of it came out, and although the Sigma gives me a tiny bit of buyers remorse, I'll take the OS and be happy with it. Keep up the great comparisons! I love these kinds of videos.
I just wanted to thank you for your video. I couldn't decide which lens to buy of them since every one of them has its pro and cons. But finally i decided to get the sigma, mainly bc of the sharpness, compactness and price. It arrived few days ago and I'm amazed by the sharpness at 18mm and the IQ in General. Thx 👍
Having 3 of them on my daily use, I’d say that Sigma is losing focus more frequently than the rest. However, I love the tone of the picture from Sigma, and its compact size is really making it different.
I am someone who enjoys the color and contrast from Sigma prime lenses (I have the Sigma 60mm f2.8 Art). Does the 18-50mm produce similar images in that regard?
@@vincetarrosa honestly, I have no experience using Sigma 60mm before, but the image from 18-50mm is in the quality of 56mm f1.4 with the same tone. The 56mm F1.4 is shaper and giving more bokeh by the way.
Thanks for the review! I’ve been debating non stop and have watched tons of reviews on various lenses to get and I decided to get the Sigma, it will be here in a couple of days and I can’t wait to test it out!
I’m looking at the Sigma and Tamron, only concern is my A6400 has no in body stabilization. I only do stills, no video. Any recommendations? I would think stabilization still crucial but reviews seem to prioritize OSS more for video than stills. Any tips?
Good review, however the key missing element from the Sigma is OSS and that little bit of extra zoom. Would have liked the additional $250 in savings, but need the OSS and range. Just ordered the Tamron and can’t wait to get it.
I loved this video. In fact, I love all of your videos! They're so easy for both pros and newbies - like me - to understand. I was also on the fence about the Sigma, but after watching this review, I'm going to commit to the Sigma, so thank you for the comparisons!
For me the difference between 16 and 18 is significant. Of all focal lenghts between 16 and 55, 16 is my most used. For size and price the Sigma is very good. If you like me want to upgrade to full frame the low price of the Sigma makes it impossible to sell the Sony 16-55 for a fair price.
Great in-depth video! I'm here not for Sony but for Fuji as the Tamron was just released for Fujifilm X mount and Sigma is promoting theirs for later this year as well and I was so split. I mostly shoot street photography so I wanted a well all-rounded practical and decently sized lens. Waiting for the Sigma seems like the move! I don't think the extra zoom of the Tamron will justify the extra price, extra size and weight for me regardless of the OSS.
I bought the sigma and I love the lens! Now I don’t use my 56mm very much but it’s still one of my favorites..I did sell my 16mm and now it’s time for my 30mm and now it needs a new Home.
I have been holding off getting any of these lenses because my camera bodies do not have IBIS and the Tamron seemed too big for my intended use (mainly indoor events and museums, galleries etc. ). Now that the a6700 has come out I am going to upgrade from my trusty a6300 so stabilization in the lens will not be as much of an issue. I will go for the Sony 16-55 as I like that it has an aperture ring, focus hold button and auto/manual focus switch. Seems like a great lens based on reviews.
Love the size and price of the Sigma. I already have the Tamron which is my first short zoom after the kit. Mostly used primes until this came out. Advantages of the Tamron over the Sigma are substantial. Its much wider range and stabilization outweigh the beefier size IMO
New to photography/videography just as a hobby. I have a Sony ZV E-10 with the kit lens 16-50. I want upgrade from it and was really feeling one of these 2 lens. I feed like the zoom of the Tamron would be better for me for nature/wildlife, just compared to the kit lens I have. I also would like to shoot astrophotography night lapse. I was also think of getting a Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 but I would really like the zoom. !help🤯
It's always great to consider what type of style you want to shoot with and depends on it's versatility. But, still, goodluck with the lens choice. I'm still looking and struggling in picking for my first lens. Hahahaha. Same here! But i'm eyeing on the Sigma. Compact, and best bang for the buck.
@@shauncastertroy2534 hey man, so I got the sigma. It fits perfectly on my little sony zv e10. I haven’t gotten out to shoot some pics with it yet but I love it. It looks so clean and sleek and is a perfect fit. Goodluck with your choice.
I've the A6600. I bought the Tamron 2 years ago and then last year I saw the Sigma. I sold the Tamron right the way to buy the Sigma. I was really delighted with the result.
Please do a comparison video for Sigma zoom 2.8 18-50 vs Sigma 1.4 trio More interested to know the performance of zoom vs prime lens... Also thoughts about low light photography with Sigma 2.8 zoom lens
Amazon Germany: Sigma 18-50 F2.8 499 €, Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 829 €, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G 1019 €. I bought the Sony last spring, and it's great! Where is the lowlight test?
You have a great family and love that you use them for your demonstration photos. We get to see the details of your wife's face and hair, while the smooth skin and faint hair of your son will cause a lens to shine or fail. I have to say the Sigma is so perfect for the APS-C body that I got one for my son's Christmas present. Sure it is not as big as the Tamron, but the overall sharpness and especially the ability for closeup photography is why I consider it a winner.
It’s interesting that every one of these lenses have similar characteristics but for some reasons I’m leaning more to the Tamron lens for my Sony A6000 since the lens itself have ”oss”. If your APS-C cameras have inbody stabilization Sigma is a big budget win. But I guess it’s a personal preference xD
That is a great reason to go for the Tamron imo. On my a6300 the Sigma 56mm had slight issues in lower light which upgrading to the a6600 completely removed. A very good metric to judge this by - without IBIS I’d agree the Tamron is the best option. With IBIS and not owning any I’d go for the Sigma. As it stands, I do own the Sony and I’m really happy with it - but in either other eventuality I’d have picked one of the other 2.
Well it depends if you need OSS in the first place. If you're shooting people, you need an short enough shutter speed to freeze their movement anyway and so you mostly don't need any Image Stabilisation. At least not for 18-50mm. I own the SIGMA fp now which doesn't have IS and i only owned Cameras with IS before. Its not that much of a difference to be honest. Sure with longer focal lenghts, there is a big difference, but telephoto lenses have IS anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Had tamron and for me was way too big, with tamron I was looking like paparazzi guy. Compact size of the sigma looks amazing, perfect lens for the aps-c! Definitely it's on my wishlist
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 a sigma 17-70 OS HSM contemporary on canon ef fit and that is another really good lens especially on my 7dii, however on the A6600 with the mc-11 adapter the size and Wright is very noticeable. 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 !
I ended up buying the Sigma 18-50mm for my Fuji X-S10 and do not regret it. Beautiful little lens. And now I have the Sigma 10-18mm coming today. Sigma is really doing a great job with their new DC DN lineup
The 56mm is the sharpest lens that exist for the sony APSC. If you ever wana do strictly portraits, with increadible Bokeh, that would be the lens to use.
bought the sony after it was released. It is my go to lens for wedding video. When the tamron came I was sad I spent that much for the sony. Then came the sigma and I was amazed. But ... 18 mm is not wide enough for me (I also have the 18-105 f4), nor 17 mm (I had tamron 17-28 f2.8 before I have bought the sony 16-55, but barely used it). My only problem with all these, that it is not easy to use them on a gimbal. If any of these would be internal zoom, I'd pick that one. I would even accept if only 18-50 in that case.
@Peter Schröder Yes it is, I had it in pre-order, before I the 16-55 came out from sony, and sure find the zoom range limited on aps-c. I was hoping it would work for me,
Happy new year to you and the family Arthur, firstly. It has been a good 2021 for me having found your channel since getting my Sony A6400.. I have picked up 3 lenses further to your reviews so far and can confirm you have been spot on the money.. (Sigma 16mm f1.4 DC DN, Meike's New 35mm F1.4 and the tamron 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 di iii rxd) Here is to 2022 and to what you dig out and bring to us :)
Great comparison, as expected! I partly based my decision on this video. This is my go-to channel when I want some help with figuring out lens purchases. Here are my thoughts, to hopefully make the decision a bit easier for someone: The Sony is of course the most high quality option, that I would pick if I could snap my fingers and get one of these lenses. However, for me it doesn't make any sense to spend that much extra money on a lens that I'll perhaps only slightly prefer over the others. The Sigma is impressively good for its size and price, to a point where I really don't have anything against it. However, I can personally work around the extra weight and size of the Tamron, if it means that I'll get that extra focal range and image stabilization. I find both the extra telephoto and that extra mm on the wide end to be useful. I also do a lot of handheld photos and videos, so the stabilization is a selling point for me. I this lens to perform good in close-ups as well, and the minimum focus distance of the Sigma is better in this regard, but the Tamron isn't bad either. I do prefer the Tamron over the Sigma, but factoring in the price, it could've gone either way. I always buy my lenses second hand, and the best buy I came across was of the Tamron, and I don't regret the purchase at all. It now lives on my camera, and it was probably the most complete all-around option for me.
Very very interesting comparison, thanks Arthur! For me as I am still using Sony A6300, the Tamron image stabilization is crucial. Price hurts a bit, but I´m willing to invest into good lenses as I havn´t bought any lense since 2018.
Very hard choice. I would like to replace my Sony 16-70 f4. Sigma 18-50 is the best choice but I'm used to shoot at 16mm. 18mm is a huge loss of angle. Obviously i have the Sony 10-20 and i can shoot at 16mm but i need to change more often the lens. Sony 16-55 is a very nice lens, but too much expensive and not very light and compact . Tamron 17-70 is the best for the zoom range, stabilization and image quality but the size and the weight are way too high.
I'm about to upgrade from my a6000 to an a6700, mainly for the near bullet-proof auto-focus, and 4K 24fps video, as I have a 6 month old daughter, and I want to nail more of my shots of her in focus, as nearly every day brings new, non-repeatable firsts in her life. I've had enough out-of-focus if-only shots that it's worth the cost to me to do this. I've currently got the Sony 16-50mm and Sony 55-210 kit lenses that I got with the a6000, and a Sony 18-105mm F4 lens I bought for travel, but I'm hoping to get just that extra bit of near-prime sharpness in an F2.8 zoom lens that I can mostly keep on the camera, and I think the Sigma 18-50 F2.8mm is going to be that lens to pair with my new a6700. The only question in my mind is how much will the a6700's IBIS compensate for the lack of IBIS in the Sigma lens? I'm about to watch your 'Top 5 APS-C Lenses 2024' video to see if you answer this question next. Thank you for this review, even though it is 2 years old!
Yesterday I pre-ordered Sigma's new RF-S version of this lens for my APS-C Canon EOS R7 as my new walk-around lens. I sold its 18-150mm f/3.5- 6.3 kit lens to get the faster and sharper EF 24-70mm f/2.8mmL II but that's a monster I reserve for shooting pix at concerts. For walk-around I mainly use a nifty-fifty, which is very similar in size and weight to this Sigma, and will be displaced by it. Your video is good post-sale reinforcement. PS The R7's IBIS is a godsend with non-stabilized lenses.
I have now settled on the Sigma 18-50 with a Sony FE 85 f1.8. This combo with the ZV-E10 fits neatly in a 3l Peak Design Sling bag with a couple of batteries. Perfect for me.
The higher price of the Tamron seems about right considering the extra range, the image stabilization and the additional weather-sealing. It extends your tele-range from 75mm (Sigma) to 105mm (FF equiv.) without compromising in IQ, which is kind of a big deal for a do-it-all lens…
The stabilisation of the Tamron made it a no-brainer for me, I have an A6000. If you don't have in-body stabilisation I would highly recommend it, it's a truly great piece of glass. I have a wide lens with no stabilisation and I do get more wasted shots when handheld, lesson learnt. The extra reach does come in handy at times. It's a great one lens solution.
I have both the Sony and the Tamron, used to have the 16-70 Zeiss years ago. After being used to 16mm at the wide end, I frequently miss that 1mm on the Tamron. From that perspective, Sigma will not be my only zoom. Their focal range is sort of similar, though the difference between 16 and 18mm, as small as it sounds, is BIG. Size/weight of the Sigma is similar to the old Zeiss so I would appreciate that part. No free lunch, it seems.
I am switching from Fuji to an A6700 so this is an incredible video because I have been debating which lens to get. For me all the small benefits of the Sony make it worth it. The 16mm on the wide end, slightly sharper overall, smoother bokeh, best autofocus, weather sealing, build quality. All these small differences are making me want the Sony! Also nowadays you can pick up the Sony used in great condition for around $800 which makes it much more approachable compared to the full retail price!
Could you please test the Sigma 18-50 on a non stabilized camera such as the a6400? I'm curious to see how performs in low light condition (still photos), thanks!
The sigma 18-50mm I believe is the best specially for travelling and you pack light. It really fits the a6000 series and even the zve10 as they are small form factor apsc. The tamron though seems to have the bells and whistles. And pricy too. And as someone said, it does give the vibe that it is a lens for pro's. Not taking away from the sigma as that lens, yes small as it may seem. But it is one of the best sigma lens you can ever buy at that price point. can easily replace the sigma trio of f1.4 lenses. 16mm, 30mm and the 56mm. If you do not wanna carry all them lenses on a travel.
The Sony 16-55 is starting to show up on the used market at prices that are comparable to the Sigma. The review said that if the prices were the same the Sony would win over the Sigma hands down. It seems like the image quality is nearly identical between the two. The fit and finish of the Sony is better but the Sigma is much smaller which would be a big advantage if everything else is equal. Other than the bokeh and the fit and finish is there any other big advantage to the Sony? I have a camera with IBIS.
for my a6400 I will always prefer oss, as I am a hybrid shooter I love creating video and photos, so having OSS would help in two ways, it will remove micro jitters from video while shooting handheld and while shooting photos I can to shutter speed as low as 1/20th, so I can use less ISO and it will produce a hight quality image in low light, I am currently having sony 18-135 , sigma 56 and sayamng 12mm, as 18-135 have oss I can relate, having and not having oss in a lense
I swear this channel is literally the best for whenever I want to buy something. I really was going to go with the Sony 16-55 instead of the Sigma 18-70 + 56 f1.4 but I just don't see the point in paying the price if the Sony doesn't have OSS.
I cant decide. I own a 6400 and use right now the kit lens. So i want to upgrade my setup. I often use the camera for city trips or vacation. The tamron seems very nice cause of the OSS + more zoom. But I love the small size of the sigma. Is OSS really such a big deal for out of the hands shots? I dont use statives or gimbal right now. I love the fact to see something just shot spontaneously with the camera. Thanks for some advice about it. The tamron costs in germany right now 650 Euro vs 450 Euro for the sigma.
Is it worth to upgrade from the ket 18-135 lens to sigma 18-50mm? I hope you will see answer my question. Im about to upgrade my ket ket but I not sure what to buy.
I have the 16-55 but it feels big to me for general home family purpose, I bought it for 800 used because it has a scratch which doesn't affect the image quality at all. I'm gonna get the sigma and see if I use the camera more often. If so I'll be putting my sony up for sale.
Excellent review Arthur, really helped me to make up my mind. Question - will a third party lens such as the Sigma be able to take advantage of Sony's Clear Image Zoom? And if so, does one of the C buttons need to be programmed for that since it is not a PZ lens? Thanks
Awesome video Arthur. I really wish you commented on weather the Sigma is wide enough to vlog on. I have a 16mm prime and I find it just a tad too close to vlog on so I’m wondering weather the 18mm would be too tight. I’m one of those people that doesn’t have any of those lenses but I definitely want a 56mm for portraits and either the Sony or Sigma zoom so those extra 2mm for vlogs might be worth the price for me. Already own the sigma 16mm prime. Anyways thanks for being the go-to-guy for APSC!
How are these lenses on a full frame camera like the a7iii. Is there a noticeable drop off in image quality? I like the idea of a small zoom on a full frame camera
I'm getting into photography and recently bought the Sigma 16mm F1.4. As an amateur I cant believe how good the pictures turn out sometimes. I was planning on buying the Sigma 30mm and 56mm prime's but now I think I will try this 18-50mm zoom. I do like the flexibility of as zoom and it seems it performs really well for $500.
I’m thinking of getting an an A6700 and using one of these lenses for headshots and portraits. So approximately a 50 or 85mm on full frame. Which one would you choose for that? Leaning towards Tamron. Sony too expensive for me.
Thank you for comparing these lenses! Just got a Sony A6700 with 16-50 kit lens and looking to buy an all around lens. I agree, I think Sigma is the best choice for the price and image quality and portability. And it's made in Japan so you can expect good quality. Cheers!
![Tamron 17-70 F2.8 vs Sigma 18-50 F2.8 Lens Comparison | Best APS-C Zoom Lens for Sony [A6400, A6700]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nZA_J1t3eac/mqdefault.jpg)
I bought the Tamron and glad that it’s big. My customer thinks it looks more expensive and professional than the little Sigma. I have a cage and a handle and people will pay more for that! Lol
Haha I like this opposing viewpoint.
This is a good point. Bigger lenses look more professional.
If your worried about what clients think of the gear in comparison to the end results that the camera produces, that's a real shame mate Dx
It's really the case, a bigger lens looks more special. 🤣
Pls make me ur disciple 😃😃
For video/hybrid users the VC image stabilization of Tamron is adding a lot to its value!
hi, do you think I still need the VC, if my camera body has Stabilization?
@@squirtle4519 yes
Definitely on an A6400. All my primes are Sigma, but I would want the VC of the Tamron for video
The VC add further stabilization to video with ibis on? or no difference with ibis on?
@@nightdonutstudio I would say it adds 5 to 10% percent better stabilization. It ain’t that much tbh
I have the Tamron. I do like a smaller size, but since I shoot with the a6600, it doesn’t seem too big. I enjoy the 17-70 range, and paired with the Sony 70-350 Focal lengths are pretty well covered. And I personally find the Tamron nice and sharp. Thanks for the comparison!
They're also my collection too!
@@michaeljkeeney Yes, I swapped out the 18-135 (which I quite frankly loved) for the Tamron because I wanted something better in low light.
@@rebeccamoore4177 good point, f2.8 can pass through 4x more light vs f5.6, also more bokeh, btw Tamron 18-300mm seems like a perfect all-in-one for travel/hobby & wildlife
@@mirrorlessny Thanks for the tip!
Same choices. Awesome!
I recently got the sigma 18-50 and I absolutely love it. It’s small, light, and the images that come out of it are just *chef kiss*. Granted, I have ibis in my camera so I don’t need the lens stabilization.
I still ended up getting Tamron 17-70 over the Sigma 18-50, and I did not regret it. The extra reach of 20mm zoom with constant F2.8 is so crucial at certain moments, and it also gives greater shallow depth of field. I also appreciate with the extra 1mm wide when I shoot sceneries. Overall it feels great on my A6600 body and it doesn’t seem to be that bulky at all.
Does OSS on the Tamron paired with the a6600 iBis make for some really smooth handheld?
@@jordanquinn2769 no, you need gimbals for smooth shots in real life scenarios but it certainly is better then no oss and ibis.
@@Nylonscheme no you don’t.
The image stabilization in the tamron makes for very smooth handheld shots. A gimbal is only necessary when walking; as far as standing still, that tamron’s Vc + a cam’s IBIS can look just like a gimbal shot when panning with a steady hand.
You can use Sony's Clear Image Zoom tho
I chose it too, better reach making it great travel lens, VC, AND it is weather sealed unlike the sigma, more so I managed to get it prices really close to the sigma at a discount !!
I own the Tamron 17-70 and in my opinion:
If you need the best picture quality for photography pick the Sony
If you need a video/photo lens and you don't have IBIS in your camera pick the Tamron
If you don't have much money pick the Sigma that for the price is amazing!
Currently i'm using the Tamron with my Sony A6300. Before i was using prime lenses, now i sold all of them and i'm using just the Tamron.
This is the comparison that I have been waiting for. After watching, I don't regret my decision to go with the Tamron this past holiday season. My a6400 doesn't have IBIS, but the Tamron does have VC, it's fully weather sealed, and has a bit more reach. Given my use case - backpacking and cycling - the Tamron was a no brainer. The extra weight than the Sony and the Sigma is offset by the fact that I'll be able to reach further out wildlife and won't have to worry when it rains. All three lenses look great and potential buyers should really consider their use case for determining what's best for them before they buy.
Hey - seeing as you have the exact camera and lens I’m looking at getting, would you say the VC is good enough that you wouldn’t need a gimbal to vlog with? (Not too much camera shake)
@@leeteivans2509 I don't do any vlogging, so I can't give a qualified opinion on VC with vlogging, but I can tell you that VC is great with photography. Arthur and Terry Warfield seem to indicate that that VC is not a gimbal replacement for video.
@@leeteivans2509 VC OSS IBIS is much better then no stabilization, but it's far from vlog-stable, being gentle helps. GoPro hypersmooth is ideal, active ibis is also good like with a7iv a7S3 FX3 A1, unfortunately active ibis hasn't made it to apsc yet (except zv-e10, but gyro is extra extra post work)
Hi, I’m planning on buying a6400.
Which lens should I buy for portraits?
@@therealmachaa the consensus for portraits seems to be the Sigma 56
Thanks! This made my decision easy and I purchased the Sigma.
Thank you for the great comparison. Got Tamron after all. I couple of reasons: 1) I have Sony a6400 which does not have IBIS, so Tamron's VC was a primary factor. 2) Having already Sony 70-350mm with OSS, adding 17-70mm Tamron completes the range. 3) Also, I frequently travel with Sony 70-350mm and already got used to its dimensions and its center of gravity on my camera. So, when it came to size/weight, I actually compared Tamron to Sony 70-350mm (its companion lense in my collection), rather than to its direct competitors. Thank you again for the great guidance!
Como te resulta ese lente los colores en la fotografía
I recently bought the tamron 17-70 for $700 and i'm so glad I bought it. A bit late considering the price but when i compare the features that the tamron brought for my a6400. 17-70 is perfect zoom range, vibration control which is perfect for my a6400( no ibis), weather seal. I took it out for a photoshoot today and it performed unexpectedly awesome. For the price, sigma wins clean and clear but for overall features such as price range, vibration control, zoom range, and weather seal. Tamron is a total winner for my a6400
Another great review and comparison video Arthur. Thank you!
I’m thinking of getting an an A6700 and using one of these lenses for headshots and portraits. So approximately a 50 or 85mm on full frame. Does the Tamron shoot nice portraits?
Been waiting for this video. I picked up the sigma 18-50 over the holidays to replace my 16-50 kit lens. I will say I was impressed with the quality of the lens and the sharpness. Granted this is my first nice lens purchase. The only drawbacks I had were that there's no weather sealing and no image stabilization. This is a bummer but I think the price is justifiable for what you get.
Great to see you do the comparison of these three. The Sigma looks like a great deal and very compact as well. I've got the Tamron 17-70mm and although larger than the others I certainly enjoy the greater focal range, lens stabilisation and decent minimum focus distance. The Sony always seemed a bit on the expensive side and I always wonder why they did not include OSS lens stabilisation in this one.
Love comparisons from Arthur. I think Tamron wins this battle. Extra 15-20mm (70 range) and VC are the reasons that forces me to buy this lens.
Definitively best option and now in Europe thanks Winter Cashback for very good price too. I ordered mine.
My takeaway is that between the Sigma and Sony, the sigma takes the cake for 95% of use cases. Tamron versus Sigma seems to come down to the trade-off of range vs size (price difference isn't as big either so that helps), and for that I think to each their own.
I bought the sigma 18-50 for my ZV-E10 and I love it! I don't even need OSS because I have to turn off all stabilization anyway in order to use gyro stabilization in catalyst browse anyway and the results are gimbal-like! I love the size. It's my favorite lens I've ever owned because its so compact. The lens is a work of art, really. I even enjoy just looking at the lens.
But doesn't Catalyst Browse also benefit from lens OSS as well? I'm wondering if I should return the Tamron, because I chose it over the Sigma for this very reason.
@@JamesFixIt all stabilization, including OSS, must be turned off in order to access gyro stabilization in catalyst browse
I love my Tamron 17-70. It is on my a6000 70% of the time. My other workhorse lens is the sigma 100-400. The stabilization is key for me as I don't have the steadiest hands. The extra 20mm is real nice also.
I just love the 18-50mm for all its qualities. It pairs incredibly nicely with the a6400 that it is my favourite combination now. I could easily afford the Sony (in Germany, it's 819€ if you can make use of Welcome to alpha & winter cashbacks) but I can't get over it that Sony did not add OSS to it. It's a behaviour that should not be rewarded. But, now with all those awesome lenses for APS-C, should we start an e-mail campaign towards Sony for updated APS-C bodies with the latest sensor tech?!!! Yes, we should!
I guess they just answered your prayers with the a6700
@@sushrutachakraborty1136 it‘s good there‘s finally an update. Personally, it isn‘t for me as I made 1/8000s mechanical shutter speed a key criteria for any new camera purchase, and the a6700 stops at 1/4000. Maybe they do it in the next increment in 4-5 years 😆
Do you feel the lack of stabilization in the camera and lens? I'm also on an a6400, with the 16-50mm kit lens that they provide that has image stabilization, and I was thinking if the faster aperture negates the need for IS.
@@benjaminzarkhin1293 For stills: no. I photograph mostly people in every day situations and there a faster shutter speed is anyhow necessary, where the image stabilisation makes not much of a difference (min. 1/125s for adults and 1/250s for kids I would recommend). For video the lack of image stabilisation makes a huge difference tho, but I personally, rarely use the a6400 for filming.
@@jhirse3547
I don't do video work either, just photography. I might be very interested in getting that lens now.
Sigma is my go-to for now. It's quite literally half the size of the 17-70. And it's MUCH easier to set up on a gimbal.
Hello. I want to buy a tamron 17-70 and plan to use it with my a6300. Do you think I won't have any problems using this kit on a DJI RSC 2 stabilizer?
I have Tamron, I bought it before Sigma came out and I do not regret. I tested Sony for a while and as I'm not professional I really missed the stabilization I have in other lenses (Sony 1.8 35mm for example). That's why I picked Tamron as it has stabilization. If I would have A6600 instead of A6100 I would definitely pick Sigma.
I have A6300 with tamron 17-70, it’s kinda heavy with it, but not in my friend’s A6600. I get the grip for it, but the gap between the lens and grip is too small.
I own the Sony lens, it replaced my Sony 18-105 G lens because 18mm was not wide enough for my needs. So the Sigma is no option for me, it is smaller, but that is to be expected starting at 18mm on the wide end. Love the 16-55mm.
The Tamron 11-20 is fantastic and would complement the Sigma nicely for nearly the same price as the Sony - I say that as a 16-55 owner 😅
@@targh4410 That would be a nice combo for some but I like the 16 to 50mm range in one lens as I use it a lot. Have the Samyang 12mm F2 for wider work.
Is the sharpness and image quality a lot better on the 16-55 compared to the 18-105? I’m stuck on the 18-105 because I use the extra range a lot..
@@gostadk The 16-55 is much sharper and brighter. search youtube for "Sony 16-55 F2.8 G vs The Sigma Trio"
@@PixelSplash999 I just want some new stuff.. 😀 I have a sigma 11-20, sigma 30mm F1.4, Sony 50mm f1.8, Sony 18-105mm F4 and a few Samsung.. I have been using the same gear for the past 3 years..
I have the Tamron on an a6400. Its range is great and its a useful lens. It has a bit of distortion which is easily taken out in post. The in built stability helps and works well.
I find the focus hunts a bit especially in the 50-70 range for close in subjects.
Its biggest 'con' for me is the lack of a zoom lock. Whilst the zoom ring is nice and free moving, point the lens down and the weight of the front lenses pulls the zoom, there needs to be a bit more friction there, especially for things like, overhead, ground table top and lay flat pictures. As long as its near horizontal its ok.
Thanks for point out the creep issue, you just made me reconsider the Tamron. Have you heard other people online talk about this? I can't find anything. How bad would you say the creep is?
@@madebyPure It a great lens for shooting most of the time but its no good for tabletop or macro straight down if you are doing multiple shots like focus stacking- it will creep, so I use a prime lens now for that.
I did also try some at a show - it was the same. There is no zoom lock.
I dont have much to compare it with.
My camera is Sony ZV-E10.
My main work is indoor/studio videography. I will also do outdoor videography and photography.
My choice is Sigma 18-50 for being lightweight, handy, compact and minimum focusing distance of 12.1cm.
On the other hand, Tamron 17-70 has an additional 20mm zoom and Image Stabilization.
Since the Sony ZV-E10 doesn't have in-body image stabilization and the Tamron has image stabilization, I think it might be better for outdoor videography and photography.
Since I haven't used either of them, I can't judge how effective the Image Stabilization is on the Tamron.
Can you tell me which lens should I get for Sony ZV-E10?
Reply please 🙏🙏🙏🙏
As a travel photographer I will have to choose the Sigma. But I was really hoping for the extra reach of the Tamron. I currently use the Zeiss 16-70f4 and that extra reach really comes in handy in some street portraiture and street lifestyle photography. But it's just soooo much bigger and heavier and I don't think I can justify that when I need to travel light. I'll rather adjust my photography approach before taking extra weight and space in my rucksack I guess.
Same
You can just crop in later
yes, but there are situations where you shoot an image, which could be a "100mm" focal lenght already and then there is a noticeable difference in the pixels when cropping from 50 and from 70 @@DrRizuan
I have a zeiss 24-70/4 and I also use it on the a6700. I had this combo now in Jordan and it was enough for 90% of the range. But f4 is limiting, the wide end was also sometimes missing, I replaced it with a phone :) Tamron is the king for traveling for me in terms of range, but also quality and price. You don't need anything extra.
The image stabilization of the Tamron is so good. The sigma is more or less the same size as the Sony zeiss 16-70.
The sigma is great for a compact kit. But now the Tamron is $600 I believe. Wider and longer range, great stabilization are really useful. The size is the only con. But it is not that heavy or large.
I used the Sigma on a trip last month and never felt the need to use any of the other lenses that were in my bag. It's not the best for video but it was perfect for photos in both well and dimly lit environments. After comparing it and the Tamron I decided to return the Tamron as it would rarely be used for my needs.
Do you mean video in regards to quality or because it was too shaky? I ask cause I’m doing all my stuff on a stationary tripod
@@PandaThiefChannel Yes, it's too shaky for handheld video IMO. If you're shooting with a tripod it should be great.
@@zs450 thank ya!
I have the Sony 16-55 for 2.5 years and it is a BLAST of a lens.
It's not only the build, focus and sharpness. It also has some character which I really love.
This is an astonishing zoom lens that beats many primes (I have Zeiss, Sony, Sigma and other brands to compare).
But from what I see in this video the Sigma is also a stellar !
The price and size are absolutely crazy.
The benefits of the Sony are important, but if you don't really need them buy the Sigma.
The Tamron on the other hand is simply too big, the colors are not accurate enough, and I can't find this compelling.
Thanks for this review !
I'll keep my Sony
I also own the 16-55 for over 2 years now. Never looked back, it is indeed a blast of a lens. Yes it whould be nice if it was smaller and had a bit more range but the total package is great. It's sharp (very sharp), wide and the focus is spot on. I sold my 56mm 1.4 Sigma because I didn't used it anymore... Still have the 30mm which I like a lot but the autofocus just isn't that good compared to a native Sony lens. That was the reason I chose the Sony over the Tamron.
To be fair tho, the Sony costs double as much as the tamron and the sigma one. For that price id expect sharper photos. Im still deciding if i should get the sigma or the tamron, because i wanna film too and the build in stabilization on the tamron would be very good for my a6000.
@DK_lma Mine is also a Sony A6000. Which one did you buy in the end, Sigma or Tamron? Thank you very much for your support. I will listen to your voice here.
For me it's the extra 20mm zoom range why I go with the Tamron
Agreed 100%. I tested these lenses deep with my second camera (first is 7smkii) Sony ZVe-10 and a DJI RS 3 mini. The Sigma 18-50mm WON.
SIgma - a perfect "default" E-mount lens to carry and use everywhere.
Sony - wider, has a button and a powerzoom (which are huge features), but for this heavy price it really needs some stabilization.
Tamron - the most capable of three, and best of them for videowork, but a bit bulky for compact aps-c's.
My choice is tamron, but honestly i'll probably switch sony 16-50 kit for sigma 18-50 for that sweet continuous f2.8
the sony is not powerzoom i think
This feature is a beginner level, like kit lens, which is not the case on a 2.8 lens. 😉
A wonderful comparison. I bought the Tamron almost immediately after your review of it came out, and although the Sigma gives me a tiny bit of buyers remorse, I'll take the OS and be happy with it. Keep up the great comparisons! I love these kinds of videos.
I went for the Tamron for the VC stabilization, that is a huge factor for me with my A6000. Strange that you didn't mention that in this comparison.
I just wanted to thank you for your video. I couldn't decide which lens to buy of them since every one of them has its pro and cons. But finally i decided to get the sigma, mainly bc of the sharpness, compactness and price.
It arrived few days ago and I'm amazed by the sharpness at 18mm and the IQ in General.
Thx 👍
Having 3 of them on my daily use, I’d say that Sigma is losing focus more frequently than the rest. However, I love the tone of the picture from Sigma, and its compact size is really making it different.
@Peter Schröder I'd say the Sigma's trio is much better than this 18-50mm for the AF
I am someone who enjoys the color and contrast from Sigma prime lenses (I have the Sigma 60mm f2.8 Art). Does the 18-50mm produce similar images in that regard?
@@vincetarrosa honestly, I have no experience using Sigma 60mm before, but the image from 18-50mm is in the quality of 56mm f1.4 with the same tone. The 56mm F1.4 is shaper and giving more bokeh by the way.
Thanks for the review! I’ve been debating non stop and have watched tons of reviews on various lenses to get and I decided to get the Sigma, it will be here in a couple of days and I can’t wait to test it out!
I’m looking at the Sigma and Tamron, only concern is my A6400 has no in body stabilization. I only do stills, no video. Any recommendations? I would think stabilization still crucial but reviews seem to prioritize OSS more for video than stills. Any tips?
This is the video the photography space needed. Thank you!!!
Glad it was helpful!
Good review, however the key missing element from the Sigma is OSS and that little bit of extra zoom. Would have liked the additional $250 in savings, but need the OSS and range. Just ordered the Tamron and can’t wait to get it.
I loved this video. In fact, I love all of your videos! They're so easy for both pros and newbies - like me - to understand. I was also on the fence about the Sigma, but after watching this review, I'm going to commit to the Sigma, so thank you for the comparisons!
For me the difference between 16 and 18 is significant. Of all focal lenghts between 16 and 55, 16 is my most used. For size and price the Sigma is very good. If you like me want to upgrade to full frame the low price of the Sigma makes it impossible to sell the Sony 16-55 for a fair price.
even 17 vs 18 is significant
Great in-depth video! I'm here not for Sony but for Fuji as the Tamron was just released for Fujifilm X mount and Sigma is promoting theirs for later this year as well and I was so split. I mostly shoot street photography so I wanted a well all-rounded practical and decently sized lens. Waiting for the Sigma seems like the move! I don't think the extra zoom of the Tamron will justify the extra price, extra size and weight for me regardless of the OSS.
I bought the sigma and I love the lens! Now I don’t use my 56mm very much but it’s still one of my favorites..I did sell my 16mm and now it’s time for my 30mm and now it needs a new
Home.
I did the same. Sold the 16 and kept the 18-50 and 56. The 18-50 is on my camera 90% of the time though.
A stunning review of all these lenses, side-by-side. The best I've seen on YT... by a very long way! Thank you.
I have been holding off getting any of these lenses because my camera bodies do not have IBIS and the Tamron seemed too big for my intended use (mainly indoor events and museums, galleries etc. ). Now that the a6700 has come out I am going to upgrade from my trusty a6300 so stabilization in the lens will not be as much of an issue. I will go for the Sony 16-55 as I like that it has an aperture ring, focus hold button and auto/manual focus switch. Seems like a great lens based on reviews.
Love the size and price of the Sigma. I already have the Tamron which is my first short zoom after the kit. Mostly used primes until this came out. Advantages of the Tamron over the Sigma are substantial. Its much wider range and stabilization outweigh the beefier size IMO
This! It is a fair trade.
Hmm interesting point. I've been split between both and that's one reason
Why not mention the image stabilization? It’s an important feature especially considering most people will not have an APSC body with it.
could you compare 18-300, 18-135, 55-210, 70-350?
New to photography/videography just as a hobby. I have a Sony ZV E-10 with the kit lens 16-50. I want upgrade from it and was really feeling one of these 2 lens. I feed like the zoom of the Tamron would be better for me for nature/wildlife, just compared to the kit lens I have. I also would like to shoot astrophotography night lapse. I was also think of getting a Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 but I would really like the zoom. !help🤯
It's always great to consider what type of style you want to shoot with and depends on it's versatility. But, still, goodluck with the lens choice.
I'm still looking and struggling in picking for my first lens. Hahahaha. Same here!
But i'm eyeing on the Sigma. Compact, and best bang for the buck.
@@shauncastertroy2534 hey man, so I got the sigma. It fits perfectly on my little sony zv e10. I haven’t gotten out to shoot some pics with it yet but I love it. It looks so clean and sleek and is a perfect fit. Goodluck with your choice.
I've the A6600. I bought the Tamron 2 years ago and then last year I saw the Sigma. I sold the Tamron right the way to buy the Sigma. I was really delighted with the result.
happy new year to you Arthur and your loving and sweet family!
Please do a comparison video for Sigma zoom 2.8 18-50 vs Sigma 1.4 trio
More interested to know the performance of zoom vs prime lens...
Also thoughts about low light photography with Sigma 2.8 zoom lens
I heard you mention that sigma doesn't have inbody image stabilization.
So can I match it with A6700!!!
Personally i like the Tamron the best. Yes its bigger and heavier, but that extra zoom range and the optical stabilization are worth it imo
Amazon Germany: Sigma 18-50 F2.8 499 €, Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 829 €,
Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G 1019 €. I bought the Sony last spring, and it's great! Where is the lowlight test?
You have a great family and love that you use them for your demonstration photos. We get to see the details of your wife's face and hair, while the smooth skin and faint hair of your son will cause a lens to shine or fail. I have to say the Sigma is so perfect for the APS-C body that I got one for my son's Christmas present. Sure it is not as big as the Tamron, but the overall sharpness and especially the ability for closeup photography is why I consider it a winner.
It’s interesting that every one of these lenses have similar characteristics but for some reasons I’m leaning more to the Tamron lens for my Sony A6000 since the lens itself have ”oss”. If your APS-C cameras have inbody stabilization Sigma is a big budget win. But I guess it’s a personal preference xD
That is a great reason to go for the Tamron imo. On my a6300 the Sigma 56mm had slight issues in lower light which upgrading to the a6600 completely removed. A very good metric to judge this by - without IBIS I’d agree the Tamron is the best option. With IBIS and not owning any I’d go for the Sigma. As it stands, I do own the Sony and I’m really happy with it - but in either other eventuality I’d have picked one of the other 2.
Well it depends if you need OSS in the first place.
If you're shooting people, you need an short enough shutter speed to freeze their movement anyway and so you mostly don't need any Image Stabilisation. At least not for 18-50mm.
I own the SIGMA fp now which doesn't have IS and i only owned Cameras with IS before. Its not that much of a difference to be honest.
Sure with longer focal lenghts, there is a big difference, but telephoto lenses have IS anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Had tamron and for me was way too big, with tamron I was looking like paparazzi guy. Compact size of the sigma looks amazing, perfect lens for the aps-c! Definitely it's on my wishlist
So happy been waiting on this video
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 a sigma 17-70 OS HSM contemporary on canon ef fit and that is another really good lens especially on my 7dii, however on the A6600 with the mc-11 adapter the size and Wright is very noticeable.
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 !
I ended up buying the Sigma 18-50mm for my Fuji X-S10 and do not regret it. Beautiful little lens. And now I have the Sigma 10-18mm coming today. Sigma is really doing a great job with their new DC DN lineup
That‘s definetly the video ive been waiting for
I just own the Sigma 56mm f1.4 on my a6400 and it's brilliant. In your opinion, does it make sense to get the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and keep both?
The 56mm is the sharpest lens that exist for the sony APSC. If you ever wana do strictly portraits, with increadible Bokeh, that would be the lens to use.
bought the sony after it was released. It is my go to lens for wedding video. When the tamron came I was sad I spent that much for the sony. Then came the sigma and I was amazed. But ... 18 mm is not wide enough for me (I also have the 18-105 f4), nor 17 mm (I had tamron 17-28 f2.8 before I have bought the sony 16-55, but barely used it).
My only problem with all these, that it is not easy to use them on a gimbal. If any of these would be internal zoom, I'd pick that one. I would even accept if only 18-50 in that case.
@Peter Schröder Yes it is, I had it in pre-order, before I the 16-55 came out from sony, and sure find the zoom range limited on aps-c. I was hoping it would work for me,
Happy new year to you and the family Arthur, firstly. It has been a good 2021 for me having found your channel since getting my Sony A6400.. I have picked up 3 lenses further to your reviews so far and can confirm you have been spot on the money.. (Sigma 16mm f1.4 DC DN, Meike's New 35mm F1.4 and the tamron 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 di iii rxd) Here is to 2022 and to what you dig out and bring to us :)
I’m saving up for this lens and a new Sony APSC 6000 series camera. Can’t wait after seeing your comparison!
I bought that little Sigma for my A6600, because you told me to. I'm not sorry; it's amazing.
Great comparison, as expected! I partly based my decision on this video. This is my go-to channel when I want some help with figuring out lens purchases. Here are my thoughts, to hopefully make the decision a bit easier for someone:
The Sony is of course the most high quality option, that I would pick if I could snap my fingers and get one of these lenses. However, for me it doesn't make any sense to spend that much extra money on a lens that I'll perhaps only slightly prefer over the others.
The Sigma is impressively good for its size and price, to a point where I really don't have anything against it. However, I can personally work around the extra weight and size of the Tamron, if it means that I'll get that extra focal range and image stabilization. I find both the extra telephoto and that extra mm on the wide end to be useful. I also do a lot of handheld photos and videos, so the stabilization is a selling point for me. I this lens to perform good in close-ups as well, and the minimum focus distance of the Sigma is better in this regard, but the Tamron isn't bad either.
I do prefer the Tamron over the Sigma, but factoring in the price, it could've gone either way. I always buy my lenses second hand, and the best buy I came across was of the Tamron, and I don't regret the purchase at all. It now lives on my camera, and it was probably the most complete all-around option for me.
Very very interesting comparison, thanks Arthur! For me as I am still using Sony A6300, the Tamron image stabilization is crucial. Price hurts a bit, but I´m willing to invest into good lenses as I havn´t bought any lense since 2018.
Very hard choice. I would like to replace my Sony 16-70 f4. Sigma 18-50 is the best choice but I'm used to shoot at 16mm. 18mm is a huge loss of angle. Obviously i have the Sony 10-20 and i can shoot at 16mm but i need to change more often the lens. Sony 16-55 is a very nice lens, but too much expensive and not very light and compact . Tamron 17-70 is the best for the zoom range, stabilization and image quality but the size and the weight are way too high.
I'm about to upgrade from my a6000 to an a6700, mainly for the near bullet-proof auto-focus, and 4K 24fps video, as I have a 6 month old daughter, and I want to nail more of my shots of her in focus, as nearly every day brings new, non-repeatable firsts in her life. I've had enough out-of-focus if-only shots that it's worth the cost to me to do this. I've currently got the Sony 16-50mm and Sony 55-210 kit lenses that I got with the a6000, and a Sony 18-105mm F4 lens I bought for travel, but I'm hoping to get just that extra bit of near-prime sharpness in an F2.8 zoom lens that I can mostly keep on the camera, and I think the Sigma 18-50 F2.8mm is going to be that lens to pair with my new a6700. The only question in my mind is how much will the a6700's IBIS compensate for the lack of IBIS in the Sigma lens? I'm about to watch your 'Top 5 APS-C Lenses 2024' video to see if you answer this question next. Thank you for this review, even though it is 2 years old!
Did you upgrade? I want to upgrade my a6400 to a6700 and am wondering how big of a difference it will be.
Yesterday I pre-ordered Sigma's new RF-S version of this lens for my APS-C Canon EOS R7 as my new walk-around lens. I sold its 18-150mm f/3.5- 6.3 kit lens to get the faster and sharper EF 24-70mm f/2.8mmL II but that's a monster I reserve for shooting pix at concerts. For walk-around I mainly use a nifty-fifty, which is very similar in size and weight to this Sigma, and will be displaced by it. Your video is good post-sale reinforcement. PS The R7's IBIS is a godsend with non-stabilized lenses.
I have now settled on the Sigma 18-50 with a Sony FE 85 f1.8. This combo with the ZV-E10 fits neatly in a 3l Peak Design Sling bag with a couple of batteries. Perfect for me.
Do you sample video with that setup?
@@DrRizuan I'm more into photography but the Sigma 18-50 does work on my little Zhiyun Crane M2 for video.
The higher price of the Tamron seems about right considering the extra range, the image stabilization and the additional weather-sealing. It extends your tele-range from 75mm (Sigma) to 105mm (FF equiv.) without compromising in IQ, which is kind of a big deal for a do-it-all lens…
Tamron's VC and the extra range might be a big deal to A6xxx bodies with no IBIS.
The stabilisation of the Tamron made it a no-brainer for me, I have an A6000. If you don't have in-body stabilisation I would highly recommend it, it's a truly great piece of glass. I have a wide lens with no stabilisation and I do get more wasted shots when handheld, lesson learnt. The extra reach does come in handy at times. It's a great one lens solution.
I have both the Sony and the Tamron, used to have the 16-70 Zeiss years ago. After being used to 16mm at the wide end, I frequently miss that 1mm on the Tamron. From that perspective, Sigma will not be my only zoom. Their focal range is sort of similar, though the difference between 16 and 18mm, as small as it sounds, is BIG. Size/weight of the Sigma is similar to the old Zeiss so I would appreciate that part. No free lunch, it seems.
I am switching from Fuji to an A6700 so this is an incredible video because I have been debating which lens to get. For me all the small benefits of the Sony make it worth it. The 16mm on the wide end, slightly sharper overall, smoother bokeh, best autofocus, weather sealing, build quality. All these small differences are making me want the Sony! Also nowadays you can pick up the Sony used in great condition for around $800 which makes it much more approachable compared to the full retail price!
Could you please test the Sigma 18-50 on a non stabilized camera such as the a6400? I'm curious to see how performs in low light condition (still photos), thanks!
The sigma 18-50mm I believe is the best specially for travelling and you pack light. It really fits the a6000 series and even the zve10 as they are small form factor apsc.
The tamron though seems to have the bells and whistles. And pricy too. And as someone said, it does give the vibe that it is a lens for pro's.
Not taking away from the sigma as that lens, yes small as it may seem.
But it is one of the best sigma lens you can ever buy at that price point.
can easily replace the sigma trio of f1.4 lenses. 16mm, 30mm and the 56mm. If you do not wanna carry all them lenses on a travel.
I got the Tamron a couple weeks ago, super satisfid and planning to get the 11-20 as well!
Finally…waiting for this 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
The Sony 16-55 is starting to show up on the used market at prices that are comparable to the Sigma. The review said that if the prices were the same the Sony would win over the Sigma hands down. It seems like the image quality is nearly identical between the two. The fit and finish of the Sony is better but the Sigma is much smaller which would be a big advantage if everything else is equal. Other than the bokeh and the fit and finish is there any other big advantage to the Sony? I have a camera with IBIS.
for my a6400 I will always prefer oss, as I am a hybrid shooter I love creating video and photos, so having OSS would help in two ways, it will remove micro jitters from video while shooting handheld and while shooting photos I can to shutter speed as low as 1/20th, so I can use less ISO and it will produce a hight quality image in low light, I am currently having sony 18-135 , sigma 56 and sayamng 12mm, as 18-135 have oss I can relate, having and not having oss in a lense
how much of a difference is there in portrait shots with the sigma 1850 at 50mm and sigma 56mm1.4???
I swear this channel is literally the best for whenever I want to buy something. I really was going to go with the Sony 16-55 instead of the Sigma 18-70 + 56 f1.4 but I just don't see the point in paying the price if the Sony doesn't have OSS.
Excellent video, very informative, exactly what I was looking for, subscribed!
I cant decide. I own a 6400 and use right now the kit lens. So i want to upgrade my setup. I often use the camera for city trips or vacation. The tamron seems very nice cause of the OSS + more zoom. But I love the small size of the sigma. Is OSS really such a big deal for out of the hands shots? I dont use statives or gimbal right now. I love the fact to see something just shot spontaneously with the camera. Thanks for some advice about it. The tamron costs in germany right now 650 Euro vs 450 Euro for the sigma.
On 50mm will be an issue without stabilisation!
Is it worth to upgrade from the ket 18-135 lens to sigma 18-50mm? I hope you will see answer my question. Im about to upgrade my ket ket but I not sure what to buy.
I have the 16-55 but it feels big to me for general home family purpose, I bought it for 800 used because it has a scratch which doesn't affect the image quality at all. I'm gonna get the sigma and see if I use the camera more often. If so I'll be putting my sony up for sale.
You think you will use more often the Sigma vs the Sony because of the size?
Excellent review Arthur, really helped me to make up my mind. Question - will a third party lens such as the Sigma be able to take advantage of Sony's Clear Image Zoom? And if so, does one of the C buttons need to be programmed for that since it is not a PZ lens? Thanks
Awesome video Arthur. I really wish you commented on weather the Sigma is wide enough to vlog on. I have a 16mm prime and I find it just a tad too close to vlog on so I’m wondering weather the 18mm would be too tight. I’m one of those people that doesn’t have any of those lenses but I definitely want a 56mm for portraits and either the Sony or Sigma zoom so those extra 2mm for vlogs might be worth the price for me. Already own the sigma 16mm prime. Anyways thanks for being the go-to-guy for APSC!
This is the one I was waiting for, Arthur. Thank you!
Thanks for your work, man! Also great photo in the end;)
How are these lenses on a full frame camera like the a7iii. Is there a noticeable drop off in image quality? I like the idea of a small zoom on a full frame camera
sir you should add label next time in the lens so we don't get confused. very nice review
This may be a dumb question but how does the sigma perform compared to the included kit lens that comes with the a6600?
Yay! Been waiting for this one 😃
Great video! Which lens besides these 3 that has better low light capability and works for prctically everything you recommend? Thanks!
I'm getting into photography and recently bought the Sigma 16mm F1.4. As an amateur I cant believe how good the pictures turn out sometimes. I was planning on buying the Sigma 30mm and 56mm prime's but now I think I will try this 18-50mm zoom. I do like the flexibility of as zoom and it seems it performs really well for $500.
I’m thinking of getting an an A6700 and using one of these lenses for headshots and portraits. So approximately a 50 or 85mm on full frame. Which one would you choose for that? Leaning towards Tamron. Sony too expensive for me.
Completed 4 minutes 44 seconds and I can tell that this is a nice comparison video , no bull shit and straight to the point... Keep up mate.
Thank you for comparing these lenses! Just got a Sony A6700 with 16-50 kit lens and looking to buy an all around lens. I agree, I think Sigma is the best choice for the price and image quality and portability. And it's made in Japan so you can expect good quality. Cheers!