i don’t know if you’ll see this chris but i always wanted to know what lenses you own personally kinda like a what’s in your camera bag video i have never seen anyone request it but i’m sure a few of us would love to see it
@@christopherfrost Hey Chris, I am a member but I cant seem to find that video! Can you tell me the date for this video or statement so I can scroll to it? Thanks:)
Thanks for the review. I bought Fuji 16-55 f2.8. It's one of the best purchases I made last year, after 23mm f1.4 and 33mm f1.4. I am happy with all Fuji lenses I purchased. They thrive to make the best lenses.
Yeah, absolutely! I used to have both of them for my Canon 7D/80D DSLR camera's, before I switched to Fujifilm X. Both lenses are awesome! I do hope they could make them a bit smaller, though. They were quite large and hefty, especially the 50-100mm f1.8 (which was an awesome portrait lens and I shot a lot of rugby matches of my kids with it. The autofocus was great on my 7D and 80D (after calibration)).
I’ve been waiting for this lens for an entire year! Since I use the Fuji X-E4 body, the Fujinon 16-55 and the Tamron 17-70 are way too bulky for this small camera and the Sigma is the standard zoom I’ve always wanted.
@@bartoszpajak2285 yes, I’ve got the XF 18-55mm f2.8-4 on my X-E4 and f4 at the long end just doesn’t provide my shallow enough depth of field for some subjects. Let alone f5.6
I already have 18-55 from Fuji. Only zoom upgrade l can consider is Tamron 17-70. Wider and longer. Don't get me wrong this Sigma is great, but if you already have Fuji super kit...
I now own the Tamron after having owned the 16-55, the 18-55 and the 16-80. I am very happy with the image quality of the Tamrom and its versatility. It isn’t small but it is lighter than the 16-55. I do miss the aperture ring but that isn't a deal breaker for me.
If you have a good version and no IBIS, plenty of sub par 18-55s around as well nowadays, quality control dropped quite a bit on that lens since the early days. If you have IBIS f2.8 at the middle and especially the tele end of the zoom range is huge.
Just got this little 18-50mm in pristine condition for 350 euros on the used market. I'm stunned by the image quality in such a small and lightweight package! It fits perfectly in my old X-T100. I really like shooting with primes but for me it's important to have flexibility, so I'm pretty sure it will live in my camera body haha. During my first tests, AF was acting a bit weird, though. Slower than normal and locking focus (with the green squares and all) while the image was not really focused at all. I realized that the previous ower had not updated the firmware to the 1.10 version. Did it last night but didn't have the chance to shoot again after that. Let's see.
Reading through comments and when looking at your review of this lens for mount E and X side-by-side, I started to wonder about this "not optimized for Fuji's 40MP" rabbit hole. Does it mean that the lens would just see no benefit from 26MP to 40MP upgrade (as opposed to e.g. XF 18mm or 33mm F1.4, which bring extra details), but just look as good as it did on 26MP (if we print with the same dimensions or view on the same screen)? Or is there actually a downgrade in image quality (sharpness & contrast) when you take it off 26MP sensor (e.g. XT-4) and mount onto 40MP (e.g. X-T5)? A lot of comments suggest the latter to be the case.
Would it be too much to ask to include lens AF tests in all of the Fuji lens reviews? Been loving all the reviews but wondered why there wasn't any lens AF reviews for video!
Great review as always. You need to review most of the Fuji lenses to see if it can held up the 40MP sensors. lenses like the 50-140 and 100-400. see where the sharpness and where the defraction starts. thank you
It's almost *too* good - whenever I come to look at a prime I think, 'is it worth it for something that's larger, more expensive, less versatile, noisier and often not much faster than this?'
what a pity, this could have been the one and only for all day APS-C ... now I have to stay with my FUJI 2.8-4.0 zoom ... thx for your honest and detailed reviews ever again 😊💪
Nice review, could be an interesting option as a budget portrait shooter, wonder how it compares to the 16-55mm F2.8. I've struggled to find it for sale in the UK though, who is selling it?
Different class TBH, this video clearly shows that if you asked me. This lens is a budget lens, while Tamron could easily compete with Fuji's best zooms with a similar range.
I too have the H2, but this doesn't feel like much of an upgrade to the 18-55 kit lens which came with my S10. The Fuji images are good corner to corner zoomed in our out and for half the price (when you get it with the body). Not saying it's a wow (like the 50-140), but I must be missing something.. it just looks like the Sigma is a higher price and at best, no better image quality.
The only benefit you'll get is the constant aperture at f/2.8, but creating constant aperture zoom is more difficult, therefore you'll end up with a higher price point. There's a reason why f/2.8 zooms are typically more expensive and larger than this lens. The Sigma targeted budget users who just want a small constant aperture zoom, which this lens actually delivers, with a lot of tradeoffs.
This Sigma lens is less expensive to buy new than the Fuji 18-55. It also has a brighter aperture, and I think it'll be a little sharper when zoomed in. I think it's also a little smaller
@@christopherfrost That's all fair, but a lot of people (like me) got it as a kit for a very good price, and that one has image stabilisation. A lot of budget shooters are on x-t2/x-t20/x-t30 because well. budget and these cameras don't have IS. On the other hand, getting 18-55 as a kit with these cameras was a no-brainer. I guess it's for the x-t5 crowd ?
@@paceyombex The Sigma also has far superior close up capabiities at .35x on wide end and .2x on long end which are superb. It is also better weather sealed.
@@szank I'm on an X-T4 and don't mind a little bit of softness, so I'll definitely be getting rid of my Tamron 17-70. I might just be used to it because I was on the 18-55 kit lens that came with my Nikon D3300
UNFORTUNATELY, the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 DC DN lens that I purchased on 12/8/22 for my Fuji X-T5 camera developed a problem on 7/29/24 that means I can't depend upon it. Up until that time I was pleased with it for both photos & video. BUT after I had taken about 190 photon on the 29th, the aperture froze at F20 & nothing I could do resolved this. I was about 2hrs driving distance from home. Another zoom lens worked just fine on my camera when I got back home. Mysteriously, the Sigma lens now seemed to work again. BUT when I researched online, I found several other situations where Sigma lenses had similar problems. THEREFORE, I have no choice but to stop using this Sigma lens & get the Fuji XF 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR Lens, since I can't run the risk of having the Sigma lens fail again when I'm away from home.
Fantastic video and review as always! Just curious if you believe this is a good step up from Fuji's own 18-55mm "kit" lens? Since quality seems to be on par, and has a bit of weather sealing. God bless!
If you want to upgrade from the kit lens get the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 or Fuji 16-80 f4 OIS, depending which one you like. Going from the fuji 18-55 to the Sigma 18-50 isn't enough of an upgrade to be worth the money. Both are fully weather sealed, unlike the Sigma lens, and they also have aperture rings.
@@finnlikesplanes7110 Thank you! I do own the Fuji 16-80mm f/4.0. It's a fantastic lens, but I keep seeing in so many forums and videos, of photographers still favoring the "kit" 18-55mm, which I didn't get mostly for not having weather sealing...
I have the 2.8-4 was wondering if it was really worth it for the extra stop at the tele-end if I moved on from my X-T3 to the X-T5. I probably just hang onto my camera for now. This seems like it would be a good pair with a X-S10 (or future version of that one). If you got a "T" series camera its cause you like the manual dials and not having a apertrure ring sorta goes against that vibe. For the video selfie types, that fixed 2.8 is a plus over the fuji kit lens.
Those robins are so friendly there in the UK. . I'd need at least 300mm telephoto to photograph them in my country. Anyway, about the lens, what a feat !
Many, perhaps most, agree not all, Fuji X owners aquired the excellent 18-55 image stabilised lens when purchasing their first XT20 or subsequent X body. Also, that so called "kit lens" has been and remains, highly regarded. Whilst standing to be corrected, Fuji has recommended the kit lens for the new mega monster sensor cameras. I am a real fan of Sigma's Art primes and the famed "trilogy" of Sony apsc primes and this lens, in lieu of the seeming inferior kit lens Sony continues to bundle with apsc lower end bodies. However, for Fuji X owners, who already own the excellent 18-55 lens, there doesn't appear to be a compelling reason to purchase the Sigma alternative.
Confused… ;X-S10 only being an amateur-camera ? Thats what everyone say in reviews/youtube but thats confusing as its more or less a X-t4 which is praised as a top-of-the-line-mirrorless. I have a X-H1 today and looking for a slight upgrade in terms of dynamic range and face/eye-detection
X-S10 is meant to be a midrange hybrid camera. The biggest downside to choosing it over your XH1 is it lacks weather sealing. I'd say the XH2s would be a better pick for you [if you can afford it]. If not, the XT3.
I'm sure it's a fine lens, but I have no desire for an APSC kit-like zoom where 18mm is the wide end (and similarly, am not a fan of the full frame 28mm angle of view) C'mon Sigma, would it have killed you to make it 16mm?
Yes, because it probably would have made a big difference in the size of the lens and required redesign since at 28mm the corners are already so-so. As is, its a fantastic travel indoor people photo zoom, where 24mm effective introduces generally undesirable distortion to people's faces anyway.
Its sharper in the center, feels better in the hand, is smaller in size, and has a wider [and constant] aperture. The downside is you lose the stabilization that the 18-55 has. They both perform roughly the same for image quality, except the sigma has slightly better center sharpness.
I'll save you the bother, the only Fuji lens from more than 2 years ago that almost fully resolves the 40MP sensor is the 90mm F2, 8-16mm F2.8 and 200mm F2. The 50-140 is about 60% there while everything else is just a minor improvement over the older sensors. I was hoping for more from the 16-55 especially. And the 16mm F1.4, but that's been superceded by the 18mm F1.4 in every way anyway.
Good to see more options but the first knock off for me is the build quality.Lot of plastic (please spare me on comments about engineering polycarbonate and usage in aerospace) , no aperture ring, no OIS, no WR and than anoying items such as zoom ring turning Canon-ish (counter clock wise) and focus ring is on the back of the lens while all Fujifilm zooms and primes are turning clock wise and focus ring is at the front of the lens (in order to avoid knocking aperture ring in stead). It seems to be on pair or even sub-pair at wide angle (where it counts) to Fujifilm kit lens 18-55 f2.8-4. Now that the most of the Fujifilm body's will about to have 40mpix I'm not sure for who is this Sigma lens?
choosing the lens for videoshooting with xt4, change a lot. What is better, the Sigma or the new 18-120 with fixed physical length of the lens? the Sigma is f2.8, looks more interesting, but I need the best AF. Please any advices...
if you're doing video, no autofocus will be perfect. it's always good to get comfortable with manual focus, as sometimes it'll just be easier to use it over autofocus
@@Yume_Val Thank you for the reply. Yes I know it, tried to make a comfy rig, but it was very heavy. Tomorrow I will receive the 18-120 (its twice lighter than my current sigma) and I will try again. My focus system is Edelkrone, smallrig handles, external display is ok but it's sony type batteries are too heavy...
the fuji 18-55 beats it on some fronts, matches on others and only really loses on the aperture front, since most people either got that lens included with their camera, or can buy excellent used copies for less than the Sigma, this lens seems like it's dead on arrival
Agree. If only this lens has OIS, while maintaining the size and price, that will make this lens a lot more appealing. Their trio prime were a lot more exciting tbh, especially the 56 and the 16. While their design might not be "traditional" for Fuji user, their optics bring a real competition to Fuji's equivalent. They should bring their 18-35 f/1.8, that will be REALLY exciting. If they could make it 16-30, even better. The size is a bit big, so if they could made it smaller by make it a f/2.8 that's still really exciting. Sorry for the little rambling lol
Nice attempt, but too many compromises in the IQ department, especially at its price point. Pick this only if you *absolutely* need the constant aperture, and the compact size.
How is this a “nice attempt” when it blows the 18-55 f/2.8-4 from fuji out of the water (at $100 less) and goes toe-to-toe with the fuji 16-55 f/2.8 at almost half the price?
@@berzoidberg3272 Lol nah, you trippin. Take look at the actual images, the IQ is definitely not on the same level as 16-55, faaaar from it. The IQ is more comparable to the 18-55, which is great, but not "red badge" level. The build quality is also not comparable with XF lenses' metal housing, dampened focus ring, and aperture ring. The only real benefit of the sigma is the constant aperture, and smaller size when compared to 16-55. The msrp is cheaper you said than the 18-55, well yes but remember 18-55 has been around for close to a decade now, so the second-hand market is full with cheaper, good condition 18-55. The sigma only works of you absolutely need the constant aperture, and compact size, with good IQ. Other than that, it's not really winning against the 18-55.
@@paceyombex Look at more video comparisons and mtf charts. The sigma does better in most tests vs a 16 to 55 fuji. But the 16 to 55 fuji was always a tad overrated, it is not even close to being as sharp in the corners as a 16 to 55 Sony. The design is outdated and they used a similar one in the 16 to 80 f4. Advantage of the Sigma is constant 2.8, whereas the Fuji is only 2.8 on the wide end where it is least useful. It has some of the best pseudo macro of any zoom lens on both wide and long end. Any company can make a sharp zoom lens if they don't compromise on size yet the sigma has achieved something reasonably sharp. In reality most of these are just complaints about corner sharpness and even that is hard to discern unless you are pixel peeping. OIS is useful up to a point but also increases probability of shutter shock and lens damage.
18-55 is F2.8 only @ 18-19mm, and then darken fast, so the most time you work with F3.6 to F4, thats two times slower shutter speed at given ISO. Maybe in warm and sunny countries is no difference, but at other it's crucial to have bright glass, for me F/2.8 for aps-c is absolute minimum to keep low ISO or have fast enough shutter speed.
Thanks for the review. Hmm, the corner sharpness of this lens is simply horrible! I think at 18mm, it is totally unusable. It's no surprise why an f/2.8 lens can be so small. There is a heavy compromise on the image quality. It's weird that many photographers today are less discerning about image quality. Been trying to find a good alternative to Fujifilm dismal standard zoom lenses and so far, sadly, I haven't found one yet. (The Fujifilm 16-55 is so large and heavy that I'd rather use a full frame camera instead.)
You cannot sharpen an image to the same degree that an optically excellent lens can achieve. Never said an image is dependent on sharpness alone. Was discussing strictly on the lens performance itself.
I never mentioned anything about the built quality, color or contrast. Was referring to the lens sharpness, as per review. On second thoughts, yeah for the price and weight, it could be accepted for now at least, for the lack of a better choice out there.
@@kwangc6720 I go normally always with my Fuji primes. The Sigma is my first Zoom so far but i always liked how Sigma lenses rendering. It depends what you want to achieve in the end, i’m very happy with that lens. Special for videographer in my opinion a great choice. If u want tech-sharp&sterile may is not for you.
i guess the lens you test on the fuji system has some problems, you have tested the same one with the sony system, and the corner iq is definitely better......
@spc3mky This review shows that clearly. Well, TBH it's not crap, not mind-boggling, kinda below average a little bit. XF 18-55 should be better, not constant aperture, but the IQ across the frame is great, and it has OIS.
@@tomazvajngerl317 You have a point. Just saw DP review comparison. But the Sigma seems to be more prone towards ghosting, and CA compared to the fujinon.
I think you're intentionally missing an important point here. He tested this lens on a 40mp apsc beast of a sensor. I'm sure the fuji 16-55 2.8 and the 18-55 f2.8-4 won't do any better on this sensor. And this is similar in size to the 18-55 and much smaller than the 16-55
Both Sigma and Tamron are ripping off Fuji customers tbh, the exact same lenses for Sony APSC go for anything in or around €200 LESS ... for the same thing! they might fool some ...
i don’t know if you’ll see this chris but i always wanted to know what lenses you own personally kinda like a what’s in your camera bag video i have never seen anyone request it but i’m sure a few of us would love to see it
I would love to know too.
I made a special video about that for my $3/month Patreon supporters :-)
@@christopherfrost well looks like i’m about to subscribe 😂😏
@@SunnySoCal Looks like I'm never gonna find out lol
@@christopherfrost Hey Chris, I am a member but I cant seem to find that video! Can you tell me the date for this video or statement so I can scroll to it? Thanks:)
Thanks for the review. I bought Fuji 16-55 f2.8. It's one of the best purchases I made last year, after 23mm f1.4 and 33mm f1.4. I am happy with all Fuji lenses I purchased. They thrive to make the best lenses.
That red badge 16-55mm is the best zoom!
@absolu222 Very heavy though.
Sigma needs to bring a mirrorless DC DN update to their 18-35 & 50-100mm f1.8 art zooms to X, E and L mounts
THIS
I think they will! And since they'll be made for mirrorless they can likely be smaller and lighter.
*THIS THIS THIS*
Yeah, absolutely! I used to have both of them for my Canon 7D/80D DSLR camera's, before I switched to Fujifilm X. Both lenses are awesome! I do hope they could make them a bit smaller, though. They were quite large and hefty, especially the 50-100mm f1.8 (which was an awesome portrait lens and I shot a lot of rugby matches of my kids with it. The autofocus was great on my 7D and 80D (after calibration)).
I’ve been waiting for this lens for an entire year! Since I use the Fuji X-E4 body, the Fujinon 16-55 and the Tamron 17-70 are way too bulky for this small camera and the Sigma is the standard zoom I’ve always wanted.
I cant tell if calling tamron the tampon was a typo or intentional joke. 😅
@@PlanetaryPenguin321 nope, it was the autocorrection 😂
Don't forget the Fuji XC 16-50mm.. it's compact, and surprisingly good. I purchased one used for my X-T3 and am very happy with it.
@@randyk1919 I don’t argue with that, but f/5.6 on the long end is a bit too limiting for what I need.
@@bartoszpajak2285 yes, I’ve got the XF 18-55mm f2.8-4 on my X-E4 and f4 at the long end just doesn’t provide my shallow enough depth of field for some subjects. Let alone f5.6
How do you think this sigma 18-50 compares to tamron 17-70 on the 40MP sensor? I am curious.
I already have 18-55 from Fuji. Only zoom upgrade l can consider is Tamron 17-70. Wider and longer.
Don't get me wrong this Sigma is great, but if you already have Fuji super kit...
I predict that Tamron is gonna become a photojournalist staple over the next few years. It's almost TOO perfect for that kind of environment
I now own the Tamron after having owned the 16-55, the 18-55 and the 16-80. I am very happy with the image quality of the Tamrom and its versatility. It isn’t small but it is lighter than the 16-55. I do miss the aperture ring but that isn't a deal breaker for me.
If you have a good version and no IBIS, plenty of sub par 18-55s around as well nowadays, quality control dropped quite a bit on that lens since the early days. If you have IBIS f2.8 at the middle and especially the tele end of the zoom range is huge.
Just got this little 18-50mm in pristine condition for 350 euros on the used market. I'm stunned by the image quality in such a small and lightweight package! It fits perfectly in my old X-T100. I really like shooting with primes but for me it's important to have flexibility, so I'm pretty sure it will live in my camera body haha.
During my first tests, AF was acting a bit weird, though. Slower than normal and locking focus (with the green squares and all) while the image was not really focused at all. I realized that the previous ower had not updated the firmware to the 1.10 version. Did it last night but didn't have the chance to shoot again after that. Let's see.
Can you please do a comparision between all available standard zoom for the Fuji system? Great work, helps a lot.
Sigma 18-50: Light, affordable, good low light, well built. Fuji 16-55 F2.8: Weather Sealed, Aperture Ring, good low light, super sharp. Fuji 16-80 F4: Wide zoom range, aperture ring, OIS, weather sealing. Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4: light, affordable, has good OIS.
Are you going to try out the Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 on an X-H2?
wow i remember you fujifilm xt-2 now you have an X-h2 happy to see all your new upgraded gear 😁
Can't want to see Chris' review of this lens on the R7 when the Canon RF mount version is released later this year.
Do you think the Sigma 18-50 is capable of 40MP? How does it compare to Tamron's 17-70?
Reading through comments and when looking at your review of this lens for mount E and X side-by-side, I started to wonder about this "not optimized for Fuji's 40MP" rabbit hole.
Does it mean that the lens would just see no benefit from 26MP to 40MP upgrade (as opposed to e.g. XF 18mm or 33mm F1.4, which bring extra details), but just look as good as it did on 26MP (if we print with the same dimensions or view on the same screen)?
Or is there actually a downgrade in image quality (sharpness & contrast) when you take it off 26MP sensor (e.g. XT-4) and mount onto 40MP (e.g. X-T5)?
A lot of comments suggest the latter to be the case.
nice but I think I'll keep the 16-80 f4 because of aperture ring and extra reach
Would it be too much to ask to include lens AF tests in all of the Fuji lens reviews? Been loving all the reviews but wondered why there wasn't any lens AF reviews for video!
Thank you for testing this on the new sensor.
How I’m the heck am I not subbed to this OG channel? Been watching since golden years. Glad you’re still doing it up :)
Great review as always. You need to review most of the Fuji lenses to see if it can held up the 40MP sensors. lenses like the 50-140 and 100-400. see where the sharpness and where the defraction starts. thank you
How well will this lens stack up against Fuji’s WR zoom lens in terms of weather sealing?
It's almost *too* good - whenever I come to look at a prime I think, 'is it worth it for something that's larger, more expensive, less versatile, noisier and often not much faster than this?'
No diaphragm ring is a bummer. Usually Fujifilm ergonomics built relying on it.
Please compare it to the fujifilm 18-55. Thank you
Please compare it to Fujinon 16-50 2.8-4.8
Great value for the money! 😊
what a pity, this could have been the one and only for all day APS-C ... now I have to stay with my FUJI 2.8-4.0 zoom ... thx for your honest and detailed reviews ever again 😊💪
I was considering the tamron 17-70mm but maybe it's too long? I also mainly use smaller models like th x-t30 so it might not be perfect for my needs
Could you please test the 28-60mm Sony A7C kit lens please? ☺️
Nice review, could be an interesting option as a budget portrait shooter, wonder how it compares to the 16-55mm F2.8. I've struggled to find it for sale in the UK though, who is selling it?
Looking to the results on the Sony body this Sagma is no contest to Fujinon 16-50 f2.8.
Thank you. Is that coastal shot St Bees?
Please do a comparision review for Sigma 18-50 f2.8 vs Tamron 17-70 f2.8(Fuji X mount)
Different class TBH, this video clearly shows that if you asked me. This lens is a budget lens, while Tamron could easily compete with Fuji's best zooms with a similar range.
Don't really think so.
@@robertcudlipp3426 Take a look at the test.
@@paceyombex I have.
@@robertcudlipp3426 Then what's your thought?
Thanks for sharing another wonderful video like always
Hey Mate! Love the videos!
.
.
Can we get TOP 10 SHARPEST LENSES *UPDATE* please?
Next Sigma 70mm 2,8 Macro for X Mount please
Hi Christopher, I do not see any 'link below' for a full review?
Torn between this and the tamron. The Tammy is bigger but has stabe. I do love that small sigma tho. Tough call.
this is my very first lens for my xt5
How you like it so far? Do you get sharp / 3D pop portraits? I’m deciding if buy or not buy this lens
@@wuzcateguiit is perfect 👍
I just got this lens and an a6100 is arriving on a couple of days. I own a7iv but was looking on a small package
I too have the H2, but this doesn't feel like much of an upgrade to the 18-55 kit lens which came with my S10. The Fuji images are good corner to corner zoomed in our out and for half the price (when you get it with the body). Not saying it's a wow (like the 50-140), but I must be missing something.. it just looks like the Sigma is a higher price and at best, no better image quality.
The only benefit you'll get is the constant aperture at f/2.8, but creating constant aperture zoom is more difficult, therefore you'll end up with a higher price point. There's a reason why f/2.8 zooms are typically more expensive and larger than this lens. The Sigma targeted budget users who just want a small constant aperture zoom, which this lens actually delivers, with a lot of tradeoffs.
This Sigma lens is less expensive to buy new than the Fuji 18-55. It also has a brighter aperture, and I think it'll be a little sharper when zoomed in. I think it's also a little smaller
@@christopherfrost That's all fair, but a lot of people (like me) got it as a kit for a very good price, and that one has image stabilisation. A lot of budget shooters are on x-t2/x-t20/x-t30 because well. budget and these cameras don't have IS. On the other hand, getting 18-55 as a kit with these cameras was a no-brainer.
I guess it's for the x-t5 crowd ?
@@paceyombex The Sigma also has far superior close up capabiities at .35x on wide end and .2x on long end which are superb. It is also better weather sealed.
@@szank I'm on an X-T4 and don't mind a little bit of softness, so I'll definitely be getting rid of my Tamron 17-70. I might just be used to it because I was on the 18-55 kit lens that came with my Nikon D3300
UNFORTUNATELY, the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 DC DN lens that I purchased on 12/8/22 for my Fuji X-T5 camera developed a problem on 7/29/24 that means I can't depend upon it. Up until that time I was pleased with it for both photos & video. BUT after I had taken about 190 photon on the 29th, the aperture froze at F20 & nothing I could do resolved this. I was about 2hrs driving distance from home. Another zoom lens worked just fine on my camera when I got back home. Mysteriously, the Sigma lens now seemed to work again. BUT when I researched online, I found several other situations where Sigma lenses had similar problems. THEREFORE, I have no choice but to stop using this Sigma lens & get the Fuji XF 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR Lens, since I can't run the risk of having the Sigma lens fail again when I'm away from home.
Canon and Nikon could do with this lens for APS-C. Not many very interesting lenses there.
ah. I can get rid of my Tamron 17-70 now. it's discouraging, lugging around an oversized lens.
Fantastic video and review as always!
Just curious if you believe this is a good step up from Fuji's own 18-55mm "kit" lens? Since quality seems to be on par, and has a bit of weather sealing.
God bless!
No apperture ring, no OIS - not worthy IMO.
If you want to upgrade from the kit lens get the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 or Fuji 16-80 f4 OIS, depending which one you like. Going from the fuji 18-55 to the Sigma 18-50 isn't enough of an upgrade to be worth the money. Both are fully weather sealed, unlike the Sigma lens, and they also have aperture rings.
@@finnlikesplanes7110 Thank you!
I do own the Fuji 16-80mm f/4.0. It's a fantastic lens, but I keep seeing in so many forums and videos, of photographers still favoring the "kit" 18-55mm, which I didn't get mostly for not having weather sealing...
I have the 2.8-4 was wondering if it was really worth it for the extra stop at the tele-end if I moved on from my X-T3 to the X-T5. I probably just hang onto my camera for now. This seems like it would be a good pair with a X-S10 (or future version of that one). If you got a "T" series camera its cause you like the manual dials and not having a apertrure ring sorta goes against that vibe. For the video selfie types, that fixed 2.8 is a plus over the fuji kit lens.
Probably not worth it
Those robins are so friendly there in the UK. . I'd need at least 300mm telephoto to photograph them in my country. Anyway, about the lens, what a feat !
Gotta compare this to the "bag of primes" that the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 is known to be. The price to performance comparison would be very nice to see.
See Dustin Abbott recent comparison of these
Many, perhaps most, agree not all, Fuji X owners aquired the excellent 18-55 image stabilised lens when purchasing their first XT20 or subsequent X body.
Also, that so called "kit lens" has been and remains, highly regarded.
Whilst standing to be corrected, Fuji has recommended the kit lens for the new mega monster sensor cameras.
I am a real fan of Sigma's Art primes and the famed "trilogy" of Sony apsc primes and this lens, in lieu of the seeming inferior kit lens Sony continues to bundle with apsc lower end bodies.
However, for Fuji X owners, who already own the excellent 18-55 lens, there doesn't appear to be a compelling reason to purchase the Sigma alternative.
18-55 is not fully suitable for 40MP according to FUJI. Compelling reason: f=2.8 if body has IBIS.
hey Chris, it would be great if you would also quote the Euro price tag besides the Pound and Dollar one :)
Good with the 40 megapix? Like really sharp?
Confused… ;X-S10 only being an amateur-camera ? Thats what everyone say in reviews/youtube but thats confusing as its more or less a X-t4 which is praised as a top-of-the-line-mirrorless.
I have a X-H1 today and looking for a slight upgrade in terms of dynamic range and face/eye-detection
X-S10 is meant to be a midrange hybrid camera. The biggest downside to choosing it over your XH1 is it lacks weather sealing. I'd say the XH2s would be a better pick for you [if you can afford it]. If not, the XT3.
Can I use this lens on my Lumix g85 that is micro 4/3 with speedbooster?
I'm sure it's a fine lens, but I have no desire for an APSC kit-like zoom where 18mm is the wide end (and similarly, am not a fan of the full frame 28mm angle of view) C'mon Sigma, would it have killed you to make it 16mm?
Yes, because it probably would have made a big difference in the size of the lens and required redesign since at 28mm the corners are already so-so. As is, its a fantastic travel indoor people photo zoom, where 24mm effective introduces generally undesirable distortion to people's faces anyway.
I am using XE4 now. Do you recommend Sigma 18-50 or Fuji xf18-55?
18-55 if you dont mind F4 at 55mm and if you need IBIS. 18-50 if you want something smaller with a constant aperture.
Been away from this channel for some time and and have recently switched to fujifilm. Songlad to see that you’re doing fuji reviews now 🎉
How I wish efm could come up with this lens. My Canonm62 is just about this zoom.
Can you compare this to 18-55mm kit lens?
Its sharper in the center, feels better in the hand, is smaller in size, and has a wider [and constant] aperture. The downside is you lose the stabilization that the 18-55 has. They both perform roughly the same for image quality, except the sigma has slightly better center sharpness.
Images from Sony system but review Fuji version, I bet you tested with Sony A7r5 so resolution is better
Hi Chris. I'm just wondering, did you test any older XF lenses on the new XH2 to see how they cope with its sensor?
I'll save you the bother, the only Fuji lens from more than 2 years ago that almost fully resolves the 40MP sensor is the 90mm F2, 8-16mm F2.8 and 200mm F2. The 50-140 is about 60% there while everything else is just a minor improvement over the older sensors. I was hoping for more from the 16-55 especially. And the 16mm F1.4, but that's been superceded by the 18mm F1.4 in every way anyway.
I just tested the XF 35mm f2 vs 18-55 @35 and the 35mm fujicron resolved way more detail.
Good to see more options but the first knock off for me is the build quality.Lot of plastic (please spare me on comments about engineering polycarbonate and usage in aerospace) , no aperture ring, no OIS, no WR and than anoying items such as zoom ring turning Canon-ish (counter clock wise) and focus ring is on the back of the lens while all Fujifilm zooms and primes are turning clock wise and focus ring is at the front of the lens (in order to avoid knocking aperture ring in stead). It seems to be on pair or even sub-pair at wide angle (where it counts) to Fujifilm kit lens 18-55 f2.8-4. Now that the most of the Fujifilm body's will about to have 40mpix I'm not sure for who is this Sigma lens?
choosing the lens for videoshooting with xt4, change a lot. What is better, the Sigma or the new 18-120 with fixed physical length of the lens? the Sigma is f2.8, looks more interesting, but I need the best AF. Please any advices...
if you're doing video, no autofocus will be perfect. it's always good to get comfortable with manual focus, as sometimes it'll just be easier to use it over autofocus
@@Yume_Val Thank you for the reply. Yes I know it, tried to make a comfy rig, but it was very heavy. Tomorrow I will receive the 18-120 (its twice lighter than my current sigma) and I will try again. My focus system is Edelkrone, smallrig handles, external display is ok but it's sony type batteries are too heavy...
I am now selling my A6400 with my Sigma 18-50 for a XT-2 with the same lens
X-T2 or X-H2?
Hi! Is it made in japan? Thanks
AFAIK Sigma still makes everything in Japan (for now)
01:04 Korean Money 5,000 won! 😀
Still the 18-35 1.8 adapted is a better option.
Apples and oranges given the size and weight difference.
1:00 😅5천원!!!
Why is corner sharpness so different from the Sony version at 18mm? 40MP can't seems to explain it. Could it be sample variation?
I dint know they still made Crystal Pepsi….
Cheap old fuji 18-55 f2.8-4 is better than sigma 18-50mm f2.8
00:59 Korean Money ~
the fuji 18-55 beats it on some fronts, matches on others and only really loses on the aperture front, since most people either got that lens included with their camera, or can buy excellent used copies for less than the Sigma, this lens seems like it's dead on arrival
Agree. If only this lens has OIS, while maintaining the size and price, that will make this lens a lot more appealing.
Their trio prime were a lot more exciting tbh, especially the 56 and the 16. While their design might not be "traditional" for Fuji user, their optics bring a real competition to Fuji's equivalent.
They should bring their 18-35 f/1.8, that will be REALLY exciting. If they could make it 16-30, even better. The size is a bit big, so if they could made it smaller by make it a f/2.8 that's still really exciting. Sorry for the little rambling lol
오천원 😃
need real world test plz
Nice attempt, but too many compromises in the IQ department, especially at its price point. Pick this only if you *absolutely* need the constant aperture, and the compact size.
How is this a “nice attempt” when it blows the 18-55 f/2.8-4 from fuji out of the water (at $100 less) and goes toe-to-toe with the fuji 16-55 f/2.8 at almost half the price?
@@berzoidberg3272 Lol nah, you trippin. Take look at the actual images, the IQ is definitely not on the same level as 16-55, faaaar from it.
The IQ is more comparable to the 18-55, which is great, but not "red badge" level.
The build quality is also not comparable with XF lenses' metal housing, dampened focus ring, and aperture ring.
The only real benefit of the sigma is the constant aperture, and smaller size when compared to 16-55. The msrp is cheaper you said than the 18-55, well yes but remember 18-55 has been around for close to a decade now, so the second-hand market is full with cheaper, good condition 18-55.
The sigma only works of you absolutely need the constant aperture, and compact size, with good IQ. Other than that, it's not really winning against the 18-55.
@@berzoidberg3272 If you want to say "toe-to-toe with 16-55" 17-70 from Tamron isca better candidate.
@@paceyombex Look at more video comparisons and mtf charts. The sigma does better in most tests vs a 16 to 55 fuji. But the 16 to 55 fuji was always a tad overrated, it is not even close to being as sharp in the corners as a 16 to 55 Sony. The design is outdated and they used a similar one in the 16 to 80 f4. Advantage of the Sigma is constant 2.8, whereas the Fuji is only 2.8 on the wide end where it is least useful. It has some of the best pseudo macro of any zoom lens on both wide and long end. Any company can make a sharp zoom lens if they don't compromise on size yet the sigma has achieved something reasonably sharp. In reality most of these are just complaints about corner sharpness and even that is hard to discern unless you are pixel peeping. OIS is useful up to a point but also increases probability of shutter shock and lens damage.
honestly better get a used fuji 18-55mm f2.8 way better image quality and build as well
18-55 is F2.8 only @ 18-19mm, and then darken fast, so the most time you work with F3.6 to F4, thats two times slower shutter speed at given ISO. Maybe in warm and sunny countries is no difference, but at other it's crucial to have bright glass, for me F/2.8 for aps-c is absolute minimum to keep low ISO or have fast enough shutter speed.
@@Patrick-vi9xr True but the Fujifilm does have O.I.S and the Sigma doesn't
I read the image quality is better on the Sigma
Thanks for the review.
Hmm, the corner sharpness of this lens is simply horrible! I think at 18mm, it is totally unusable. It's no surprise why an f/2.8 lens can be so small. There is a heavy compromise on the image quality.
It's weird that many photographers today are less discerning about image quality.
Been trying to find a good alternative to Fujifilm dismal standard zoom lenses and so far, sadly, I haven't found one yet. (The Fujifilm 16-55 is so large and heavy that I'd rather use a full frame camera instead.)
A good image is not all sharpness and you can sharpen it in post anyways if u do need that extra sharpness.
Super subjective comment. Build quality is excellent from SIGMA incl. color&contrast and by far the best alternative zoom option lens.
You cannot sharpen an image to the same degree that an optically excellent lens can achieve. Never said an image is dependent on sharpness alone. Was discussing strictly on the lens performance itself.
I never mentioned anything about the built quality, color or contrast. Was referring to the lens sharpness, as per review.
On second thoughts, yeah for the price and weight, it could be accepted for now at least, for the lack of a better choice out there.
@@kwangc6720 I go normally always with my Fuji primes. The Sigma is my first Zoom so far but i always liked how Sigma lenses rendering. It depends what you want to achieve in the end, i’m very happy with that lens. Special for videographer in my opinion a great choice. If u want tech-sharp&sterile may is not for you.
i guess the lens you test on the fuji system has some problems, you have tested the same one with the sony system, and the corner iq is definitely better......
First
That’s a crappy lens 😂🤣😂🤣😂
crap on sony, still crap on fuji 😊
@spc3mky if it looks brown and smells funny do you really need to test it yourself if it is really sh*t?
@spc3mky This review shows that clearly. Well, TBH it's not crap, not mind-boggling, kinda below average a little bit. XF 18-55 should be better, not constant aperture, but the IQ across the frame is great, and it has OIS.
@@paceyombex The IQ compared to XF 18-55 seem about the same. Sigma is better at long end while Fuji is at wide.
@@tomazvajngerl317 You have a point. Just saw DP review comparison. But the Sigma seems to be more prone towards ghosting, and CA compared to the fujinon.
I think you're intentionally missing an important point here. He tested this lens on a 40mp apsc beast of a sensor. I'm sure the fuji 16-55 2.8 and the 18-55 f2.8-4 won't do any better on this sensor. And this is similar in size to the 18-55 and much smaller than the 16-55
Both Sigma and Tamron are ripping off Fuji customers tbh, the exact same lenses for Sony APSC go for anything in or around €200 LESS ... for the same thing! they might fool some ...
do you have the biggest hands on planet earth bc every time you handle a piece of equipment it looks lego sized