I almost did that but replaced my 16-55 with the Fuji 16-80 as I wanted the extra 2mm at wide. Also replaced my X-Pro2 with an X-T50 which makes travel carrying much easier.
I chose the Sigma as the "allround" lens when I bought my H2. Now I can see I made a good choice. Thanks for another thorough and excellent review mr. Abbott! 😊
This really is one of the MUST watch Fujifilm videos. This topic comes up so often. AND the fact that you did this on the 40MP sensors is icing on the cake. Well done, Dustin! Also, excited to see this potentially get re-done when the 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR comes out in a few weeks!
I owned two copies of the Fuji 18-55mm lens. Both were slighty disappointing to me. One was not great at the long end and the other just the opposite. Based on several good reviews of the Sigma 18-50mm I got myself one last year, and I'm happy with it. At last I got a more consistent lens 😊
Yes, my XT5's have proved challenging to get properly sharp images on and I've sold a lot of lenses off. Now, I mostly use the newer 18 1.4, 56, 1.2 and 80 macro lenses, but the 50 and 23 f2's are not bad either and I'm going to get the 33 soon. Fuji, IMHO, need to get busier with updating some of the older lenses for 40mp. They could start with the 14 because on 26mp, the current version is wonderful, but struggles at 40. As always, thanks for the video!
Actually I found the 14mm to work quite well with the XT5. I haven’t noticed a major image quality difference in comparison to the new 23mm f1.4 (which is Fuji’s sharpest lens).
Sigma seems like the smart choice for most, moreover, it seems like Fuji is really in need of some updates! I’m curious how the high end primes hold up.
I really wish the newer 16-80mm from fuji had been included, I know that it's outside the range of comparison on the telephoto end but I still would have loved to see how a relatively "newer" fuji lens would have done against the sigma lens and even the other fuji lenses. If you have a video that includes or mentions the 16-80mm please let me know!
Sold 18-55 for sigma and have no regrets on my X-t5. I think is really urgent that fujifilm make a 16-55 mark ii, modern but also smaller and lighter than first Version
No updated Fuji lenses so far have been smaller or lighter (or cheaper), so I highly doubt a new 16-55 that needs to be faster and sharper will be. Personally I’d rather see Fuji drop a bomb by making a 16-50 f/2 red badge, and offer it for like $1,500. That lens could replace my bag of primes if the magnification+bokeh were good enough. Canon’s 28-70 f/2 is a beast, and about $3k, the f/2.8 is like $2,100. Where Fuji’s prices are cranking up as of late for new bodies and lenses, they really need to offer something special, IMO.
Which would you recommend between the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 if size is not an issue and the extra 20mm focal range is not really an issue, hence the main consideration being image quality/sharpness?
The Fuji version of that Tamron lens is worse than the original one designed for Sony e-mount so most youtube reviews don't reflect that. I've had two copies both suffering from extreme field curvature.
Should I choose Sigma 18-50mm or FujiFilm 18-55mm for FujiFilm Xe-3? I know that the Fuji 18-55mm has OIS but Sigma has constant f/2.8. Any advise/opinion? Thankss 😆
Many thanks. Any thoughts on the new Fuji 16-50mm f2.8-f4 update to the kit lens? I’ve seen one review that shows it is sharp on the 40mp sensors but wonder how it compares to the Sigma for overall usage
Hey Dustin! Could you please explain how the 40mp Fuji sensor would translate to a 90mp on a FF camera? I had assumed you would take the 40mp and multiply it by the 1.5 crop factor to get 60mp (essentially, a 24x35 sensor with the same pixel density as the Fuji). However, it appears I was incorrect in my assumptions? Thanks!
It's not that simple. Fuji's sensor size is 23.5mm x 15.6mm (total area of 366.6mm) while the 24x35mm sensor is a total area of 840mm. That makes the full frame sensor nearly 130% larger. The full frame sensor actually has 2.295x more area, so if you do that math, you end up with a resolution of roughly 92MP with a similar pixel density on full frame.
For video, the 18-55 is the only lens that doesn't have exposure stepping when zooming, but only when I set the aperture and ISO to auto. Sigma 18-50 has this problem. The new firmware is supposed to fix this problem on the 16-55 but I'm not sure if it's really fixed.
Hey Dustin, great video. I was just about to buy the sigma when I noticed a lot of the f2 primes going for cheaper on the used market. I have the 27mm so was thinking about getting a 16mm and 50mm prime- either from Fuji or sigma. Do you think primes would beat the sigma zoom here? Their apertures are very close so wondering if the primes will be worth the effort of switching lenses while on the go. They are also small however so a bit torn. Thanks again!
While I'd love to try the Sigma, I won't go without an aperture ring and i'd miss the optical stabilization. Other than the variable aperture, seems like the new Fuji 16-50mm would take the cake for me with it's internal focus and zoom.. can't wait for that comparison!
Another excellent objective review. It’s been difficult finding objective reviews on these Fuji zooms as they’ve been out a while and both have strong advocates. Always wondered if modern lens designs will be better than these old standbys particularly for the 40mp sensor. Thank you again for such a great review. Hope there’s one coming on the wide zooms. Great stuff.
Another awesome review as always! I've been really curious how the sigma stacked up to the 16-55. You put a ton of work into these videos so appreciate it, but my only complaint, I wish you had also included the 16-80 lol
Excellent thanks Dustin. Just one thing I always like to know about close focussing possibilities. I believe that the Sigma has an advantage here also?
Looking forward to you reviewing the mark II of the 16-55. I'm thinking of getting my first Fujifilm, the xh2, so this was super relevant to me, thanks Dustin!
Want to say thanks for the excellent reviews 🤙🏻 I’ve been watching your channel for years your my go to when I’m looking at new cameras and lenses. I just recently purchased the Xh2 with the 16-80 f4, and was wondering what your favorite lenses are for this system? Thanks in advance and keep up the good reviews.
The two Viltrox fast primes (27 and 75mm F1.2) are amazing. I do like the Sigma 18-50mm. I like the Fuji 23mm and 33mm F1.4, and the 56mm F1.2 WR is great as well.
It is always a pleasure to watch your reviews. Thanks. Note: When two lenses are shot under the same lighting conditions with the same local length, aperture number and ISO, but one has a noticable faster shutter speed that tells me it has a better light transmission. This seems to be the case with the Sigma lense here. Having a faster shutter speed is very useful in many situations, but seldom noticed in tests (and never mentioned in data sheets of photography lenses).
Is Tamron 17-70mm better in manual focus category against the Sigma? I'm interested in video only. To me the zooming in is not a big problem and for shooting static shots you can lock the focus.
I was disappointed in the performance of my 16-55 when I moved from the X-T4 to the X-T5 (40mp). In the end, I just got tired of the weight/size of the lens and moved back to the f/2 Fuji primes. These seem to still do well on the higher res sensor.
It's really odd, as I get some responders telling me I'm crazy and that the 16-55mm is tack-sharp, but then many others who feel like you. Either people have radically different standards, or there is some serious sample variation out there.
Nice! I have the Sigma and really happy with it.. I used it a lot more before, now I almost only use the 27 from Viltrox along with the 56 from Sigma. The only thing that bothered me a lot from the Sigma 18-50 is the chromatic aberration and vignetting at the wide end.
I didn't have the Tamron on hand, and I just did a Sigma vs Tamron episode a few months ago when I had both lenses. You can check that out to see how it compares to the Sigma.
Interesting comparison Dustin. I really like your work. Would the slight difference in shutter speed between the Sigma (1/240) and the Fuji 16-55 (1/140) play a part in the results? I would assume not, seeing as you are shooting wide and the building is obviously static.
I have the XF 16-80mm kit lens, was strongly considering the Sigma for an upcoming mountain landscape trip, based on sharpness, size, weight. But I think I’ll stick with the 16-80.
I do like the Sigma a lot, but it is also true that the cost of upgrading can be expensive by the time you take a loss selling something you already have.
10:20 THX for showing that this is the "outdoor" test. I wouldn´t have noticed otherwise! 🙂 Isn´t it snowing even inside in Canada, because it is so cold?
Fuji just really needs to start updating all of their lenses, not only to resolve their own 40MP sensor, but to compete with the new 3rd party lenses. There are some lenses that are absolute gems, but several of these lenses are a decade older than their latest stuff. I understand they have a high interest in the market with the film sims and being a great APSC platform in general, but people are going to start leaving if they don’t compete on the technology front in the coming years
The advantage of now having third party lenses is that it will push Fuji into better lens design. It has certainly done that for Sony. Their lenses over the past few years have been fantastic...and I think Tamron and Sigma helped push them there.
THAT is the reason that I don't consider Fuji as a system these days any more, even though APS-C could be enough for many. By now, especially if one is considering equivalence (and comprehends equivalence to begin with), even Sony full frame appears as an overall better option (you can get an optically much better kit which is even smaller and more lightweight than something equivalent from Fuji). Plus there would be no X-Trans burden to bear.
I’ve never been very impressed with the Fuji zoom lenses. Regardless of which gen of camera body/sensor. Even the 16-55 is quite average, compared to what some others are capable of. When it comes to Fuji, I’d stick to their primes (the 1.4s are great) and perhaps add a Sigma 18-50 or Tamron 17-70 for convenience.
I don't know. I fell in love with Sigma with the 18-35mm 1.8 on my Canon. The AF was a pain in the A**, but the thing was built like a tank and when you held ot in the hand, it just felt special. The new Sigma lenses just don't get to me that way. I must have had a bad copy, because the 18-50 2.8 that I had, was less sharp than my Fuji 18-55 2.8-4.0. I had the n old Fuji model made in Japan, but it was sharper, mostly in the corners. I think I might have to try another Sigma copy... 🤔
Thanks for this comparison Dustin. I am about to go to Europe this summer and my initial thought was to go with xt5 and 16-80 as my main setup as I want to go as compact as possible while still been flexible. Xt5 has good ibis and 40mp gives me a lot of flexibility. Unfortunately 16-80 on my xt5 has not impressed me at all. While it was perfectly fine on my previous 26mp xt3 and xt30. So bad that I was about to scrape the Fuji travel plan and instead thinking about going with a Sony and a 20-70/4 which is a unique lens that goes quite wide which will be appreciated on narrow streets of Paris and Rome. However seeing your Sigma 18-50 review maybe not all is lost for my original Fuji travel plans….
I rented the Sigma for a trip to London and it was really really nice. Small, sharp, and the lack of aperture ring didn't bother me very much as someone who also shoots other brands of camera bodies.
Very interesting. Did not see THAT conclusion coming! That shot at 18:01 minutes is fairly shocking :). Agree that some lenses fare better with the 40MP sensor than others, which is one of the reasons I'm currently shooting a lot with my X-T5 paired with the new Fuji 18mm f/1.4; a phenomenal combination.
Frankly I was surprised as well, but the problem for the Fuji lenses is that they were designed around a much lower resolution standard a decade ago. Their own 40MP sensor has been a wrecking ball to a lot of their older lenses.
Thank you Dustin for another great video. I’m shootings a Sony A6700 but have owned both the Fuji lenses and their cameras until recently. Tuned in for the image quality portion originally but really enjoyed your full back to front comparison. Would be also interested to see a similar comparison on the Sony APS-C system. Also heard rumors about Sony introducing a high Mpixel APS-C body with a similar resolution to Fuji’s. We will see. Take care.
You can see my review of the 16-55mm on 26MP on an X-T3 from years ago. This lens was provided to me by Fuji Canada for my review, so I'm skeptical its a bad copy. But yes, the 40MP sensor REALLY reveals any optical shortcomings. It's been a bit of a bomb dropped on Fuji's older lenses.
Great comparison and review. Obviously it depends on individual shooting styles, but personally I think an aperture ring on the lens is overrated. With my Sigma 10-18 I have the aperture on the front control dial, giving me intuitive and ergonomically friendly access to shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation, all from the right hand thumb and index finger, without taking the eye from the viewfinder.
@@DustinAbbottTWI pulled the trigger on the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. I've got that and the Fujifilm 16-80mm. So far I'm very impressed with the Sigma. I'll give it a few more outings and decide which one to keep. I've also just got hold of the Zeiss Touit 12mm f2.8. If it works out my Fujifilm 10-24mm will be going replaced by 2 non Fujifilm lenses, the Sigma 18-50mm and Zeiss Touit 12mm.
Interesting that the lens causes the pulsing in static shots. I thought this is mainly a camera problem. I just go to manual with static shots. Think i give the sigma a try.
For the price of the big lens I can buy the Sigma 18-55/2.8 AND the Sigma 10-18/2.8. The weight (and space in the bag) of the two combined is the same as the big Fuji. And if 2 mm on the wide end are important, how about 6 or 8 mm ;)
Yeah, I've been also looking for a comparison between that lens and the Sigma, specially to see how they hold up in terms of sharpness. I have the 16-80 which I love on my XT-3, but now that I got an XT-5, it doesn't hold up as well (though I still love the range on that lens and hope they came up with a Mkii version of it as well).
I have found that at a pixel level the older lenses (for the most part) definitely look worse. It's been surprising, actually, as I haven't found that to be as true on, say, the jump to 61MP on Sony's full frame cameras.
@@jmpattillo No, that's not the case. They just weren't optically engineered for a camera with this high of resolution. You can't change the optics via firmware.
@@DustinAbbottTWI my thought was that maybe Fuji could add a mode where pixels are binned to lower the resolution of the raw file. It shouldn’t be the case that your old lenses get worse performance on a better sensor.
Man, I've been trying to decide this for so long. Prices are up for everything photography right now. I think im gonna go with the red badge bigger lens because i want all fujifilm lenses from 10 mm to 600 mm. That's just my own personal goal, however. I alreadybhave the 150-600mm fuji. Was gonna buy a 50-140mm fuji then this 16-55mm
Thank you for digging into this! Just had a discussion with my Fuji-owning friend, and as one can assume Sony will bump the APS-C resolution in the next generation, I, as a Sony owner, have now peace of mind weather or not my Sigma lenses will hold up.
Another very useful and informative review! Fuji are great, they seem to lag a bit with making lenses for the bodies they put out. That is no issue really, when one can wait and get the absolute maximum out of your existing ones in the mean time. But for the X100 VI it is a killer. The lens is not up to the sensor. And you cannot change it.
I’ve had my 18-50 since they became available and I love it. The only thing I don’t like is it renders images differently. But that’s easy fix in post.
@@gilleslast3561 It would be irrelevant anyway, as I've changed the focus mode to center focus and it just targeting a small area. In other tests it looks like human eye detection is enabled, and that would also be irrelevant as there is neither human nor bird subjects in the shot.
After looking at my friend’s Sigma on her X-T5 I starting thinking that I should sell my kit Fuji 18-55mm and get the Sigma. This confirms my thoughts.
Fantastic comparison. Thanks ! I’ve chosen Sigma few months ago and can confirm everything you have said (I am a prime guy but wanted versatility from time to time ;) )
I bought the kit zoom (OMG!) 15-45 kit zoom. So I am the guy that everybody hates, because I just paid 150€ used and use it on my (MOG Rage!) X-H2s - mainly for video. I cannot tell how genius 15 mm are! + extremly light und motor zoo, which is quite nice for video. Of course you can tell that it is a cheap one, like vignetting and the power zoom is only so smooth but it fits in my pocket like that. I like the Sigma for its price and performance and compactness but I am afraid of boring zoom ranges! And 28-70 just is exactly that. It covers...fine. The Tamromn17-70 would have fittet nicely in comparison as well. I know you have been testing that already. Saidly it is huge and interstingly more expensive than the E-Mount version.
If you have a camera with stabilization, the difference is pretty marginal. I didn't really notice the stabilized lens (18-55mm) behaving any differently than the Sigma.
Thanks for doing this review. It is very helpful. I own the 16-55 2.8 and it doesn't impress me on the 40mp XT5. I am curious though if perhaps your loaner copy of the 16-55 could be beat up and perhaps a new copy of the lens could have better image quality?
That's possible, though frankly a lens' optical performance shouldn't deteriorate unless it was actually damaged and decentered. I didn't really see evidence of decentering.
Great overview! Actually in my eyes there is still no really good standard zoom for Fujifilm right now and that with the 16-80 f4 included. I got a second hand 16-80 two years ago and it is okay, but partly underwhelming at 26 mp already. Most of the time I use primes by now anyway, but for traveling light or shooting in rough environments I'd prefer to have a single lens again. So I have hopes for the new rumored 16-50, but as a new lens it will come at a price for sure. Still looking forward for your review.
Thanks for the video! Please be so kind to check the Sigma against the upcoming new Fuji Lens (16-50mm). I think that's where the competition is for the coming years.
Shocking conclusions. I appreciate the indoor/outdoor AF tests a lot, since lenses can and do perform differently in poorer light. For me, I like the optics of both lenses a great deal, and in practice, each can return similarly great resolution at 26mp if focus is nailed etc. The 16-55mm is of course punchier, the 18-55mm more muted. But I think it fits the "Fuji Vibe", it is great for people shots, and adding a little saturation is all that is needed at times. The dividing line is with AF. the 18-55 is just not great IMO, I have to overshoot a lot to be sure I get some strong candidates. Ironically, however, its nailed birds in flight at 6-15 feet away that were true stunners! That's no joke - just lucky that day, I guess. The 16-55mm has been far more consistent in practice, even if it doesn't always feel objectively faster in every way (outdoors anyway - indoors, it smokes the 18-55). Overall, the 16-55 is worth the price and weight (I paid $700 used for mine). I dislike the onion ringing, but that is about it - and it doesn't show up in all photos. I don't like seeing that much CA on the Sigma, I don't like the lack of an aperture ring, and I just would never take that into a professional setting where conditions might get rough. The 18-55mm is a jewel in comparison, much nicer build. Frankly I am not sold on the 40mp sensor yet. I'd love to try it. But I dislike the reduced burst rate of the ES and the rolling shutter performance, since on both counts it is worse, not better, than the 26mp XT3. But one thing I can say is that putting the newer glass on my 26mp sensor has been a noticeable upgrade in terms of overall sharpness and AF performance. Better lenses are 100% worth it even on "older" bodies. Fuji should keep pushing out better glass and modernizing its lineup because it will make a big difference no matter what resolution we're at.
Thanks for video. Sigma true winner. F ring? seriously? just set F with point finger its faster and easier. Fuji needs a 16-55 f2 with sigma size and weight.
the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 is insanely expensive and heavy considering that it doesn't even have image stabilization. Sucks that I got a new Fuji body that didn't have IBIS in 2020 and then Fuji decided to finally acknowledge IBIS so they don't put stabilization in any new lenses : /
Thanks for the comparison review of these lenses. I am glade a third party lens maker is able to resolve the AF "pulses" on the Fuji camera as it is one of the main reason I left the Fuji system for Sony.
Sorry, but you lost some credibility with me at minute 18: I get better image quality even with a TT artisan lens than what you got in your test with the 16-55. This lack of sharpness is definitely not typical for the 16-55.
With all due respect, I've documented my findings thoroughly here. How exactly have I lost credibility if the 16-55mm doesn't perform as you expect it to? I've got no axe to grind here; I gave the 16-55mm a very positive initial review 4-5 years ago, but it just doesn't hold up well to the 40MP sensor.
I think the biggest challenge for the 16-55mm is that it was engineered during a time when the resolution levels were MUCH lower. I doubt Fuji imagined at the time that they would have a 40MP aPS-C sensor. It has been a wrecking ball on these older lenses.
Fuji needs to bang out some super fast pro zooms. Maybe f2. Make them big and heavy and probably. So that with the same system I can pivot from daily use to occasional pro use.
Sold my 16-55 for the sigma 18-50. It is such a great lens for traveling
It is so wonderfully compact that it is very useful for travel.
I almost did that but replaced my 16-55 with the Fuji 16-80 as I wanted the extra 2mm at wide. Also replaced my X-Pro2 with an X-T50 which makes travel carrying much easier.
I chose the Sigma as the "allround" lens when I bought my H2. Now I can see I made a good choice. Thanks for another thorough and excellent review mr. Abbott! 😊
My pleasure.
This really is one of the MUST watch Fujifilm videos. This topic comes up so often. AND the fact that you did this on the 40MP sensors is icing on the cake. Well done, Dustin!
Also, excited to see this potentially get re-done when the 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR comes out in a few weeks!
I won't necessarily redo the video, but I will do a fresh review of the new zoom when it comes out.
I owned two copies of the Fuji 18-55mm lens. Both were slighty disappointing to me. One was not great at the long end and the other just the opposite.
Based on several good reviews of the Sigma 18-50mm I got myself one last year, and I'm happy with it. At last I got a more consistent lens 😊
There does seem to be some QC issues with these older Fuji lenses.
Had the 18-55mm and the sigma. Would never travel without 16mm anymore. The 2mm more make such a difference.
That's fair. It does make a huge difference.
Is the lack of O.I.S anything to worry about?
Yes, my XT5's have proved challenging to get properly sharp images on and I've sold a lot of lenses off. Now, I mostly use the newer 18 1.4, 56, 1.2 and 80 macro lenses, but the 50 and 23 f2's are not bad either and I'm going to get the 33 soon. Fuji, IMHO, need to get busier with updating some of the older lenses for 40mp. They could start with the 14 because on 26mp, the current version is wonderful, but struggles at 40.
As always, thanks for the video!
There's a pretty big gap between the newer and older lenses, for the most part. Quite surprising how big, actually.
Actually I found the 14mm to work quite well with the XT5. I haven’t noticed a major image quality difference in comparison to the new 23mm f1.4 (which is Fuji’s sharpest lens).
Sigma seems like the smart choice for most, moreover, it seems like Fuji is really in need of some updates! I’m curious how the high end primes hold up.
I really wish the newer 16-80mm from fuji had been included, I know that it's outside the range of comparison on the telephoto end but I still would have loved to see how a relatively "newer" fuji lens would have done against the sigma lens and even the other fuji lenses. If you have a video that includes or mentions the 16-80mm please let me know!
I do have a 16-80mm review, but not on the 40MP sensor. I found the performance pretty close to the 18-55mm on 26MP, however, if that helps.
Sold 18-55 for sigma and have no regrets on my X-t5. I think is really urgent that fujifilm make a 16-55 mark ii, modern but also smaller and lighter than first Version
Agreed.
No updated Fuji lenses so far have been smaller or lighter (or cheaper), so I highly doubt a new 16-55 that needs to be faster and sharper will be. Personally I’d rather see Fuji drop a bomb by making a 16-50 f/2 red badge, and offer it for like $1,500. That lens could replace my bag of primes if the magnification+bokeh were good enough. Canon’s 28-70 f/2 is a beast, and about $3k, the f/2.8 is like $2,100. Where Fuji’s prices are cranking up as of late for new bodies and lenses, they really need to offer something special, IMO.
Which would you recommend between the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 if size is not an issue and the extra 20mm focal range is not really an issue, hence the main consideration being image quality/sharpness?
I chose the Sigma, myself.
The Fuji version of that Tamron lens is worse than the original one designed for Sony e-mount so most youtube reviews don't reflect that. I've had two copies both suffering from extreme field curvature.
At 06:30, I'm pretty sure the aperture ring is just an aperture ring, as is covered minutes later, the manual focus ring is at the front of the lens.
That's correct, and if I said otherwise, I misspoke.
I have been waiting for such a video for quite a while now. Thank you
My pleasure
Really, really fantastic comparison. I'd love to see your comparison between the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and the brand new Fuji 16-50 f/2.8-4.8!
That's definitely on my agenda.
Should I choose Sigma 18-50mm or FujiFilm 18-55mm for FujiFilm Xe-3?
I know that the Fuji 18-55mm has OIS but Sigma has constant f/2.8. Any advise/opinion?
Thankss 😆
I chose the Fujifilm 16-55 mm lens and love it. Sun stars are great with this lens, something I use quite often but some testers forget.
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
Many thanks. Any thoughts on the new Fuji 16-50mm f2.8-f4 update to the kit lens? I’ve seen one review that shows it is sharp on the 40mp sensors but wonder how it compares to the Sigma for overall usage
It’s definitely on my list to test.
Thank you for putting in so much effort into your comparisons! It is the best and most thorough side by side, and I really appreciate all your work!
You are so welcome!
Thank you for this clear review. Would you make a review of the new Fuji XF 16-50 vs the Sigma 18-50?
I will. I'm just waiting to get my hands on the new Fuji.
Yours and Chris Frost are best reviews by far. Thanks for that.
Can’t tell but is it the mark 2 of the 2.8 Fuji lens in this video or the old one?
Thanks for the great review! If you can, I'm curious how the upcoming Fuji 16-50mm will hold up on 40MP, especially compared to the Sigma.
I suspect it will be much better, as Fuji's newer lenses have been much more competent on the higher resolution sensor.
Hey Dustin! Could you please explain how the 40mp Fuji sensor would translate to a 90mp on a FF camera? I had assumed you would take the 40mp and multiply it by the 1.5 crop factor to get 60mp (essentially, a 24x35 sensor with the same pixel density as the Fuji). However, it appears I was incorrect in my assumptions? Thanks!
It's not that simple. Fuji's sensor size is 23.5mm x 15.6mm (total area of 366.6mm) while the 24x35mm sensor is a total area of 840mm. That makes the full frame sensor nearly 130% larger. The full frame sensor actually has 2.295x more area, so if you do that math, you end up with a resolution of roughly 92MP with a similar pixel density on full frame.
Would have been nice if you included the tamron 17-70, I’ve had my eye on this lens for a while.
If it helps, I did a similar comparison between the Sigma and Tamron just a couple of months ago.
A very enlightening review. Many thanks for it and best wishes from Germany.
For video, the 18-55 is the only lens that doesn't have exposure stepping when zooming, but only when I set the aperture and ISO to auto. Sigma 18-50 has this problem. The new firmware is supposed to fix this problem on the 16-55 but I'm not sure if it's really fixed.
It's definitely an annoyance.
I wonder how the new ‘kit lens’ 16 - 50 for XT50 compares to the Sigma?
I will compare them when I get a loaner of the 16-50mm
Hey Dustin, great video. I was just about to buy the sigma when I noticed a lot of the f2 primes going for cheaper on the used market. I have the 27mm so was thinking about getting a 16mm and 50mm prime- either from Fuji or sigma. Do you think primes would beat the sigma zoom here? Their apertures are very close so wondering if the primes will be worth the effort of switching lenses while on the go. They are also small however so a bit torn. Thanks again!
That's the big thing - is it going to be worth switching lenses all the time? The Sigma is such a convenient little package.
Nice review. My XT5 came with the 16_80f4 kit lens. Although it’s an F4 it would have been nice to include it since it’s the current kit lens. Thanks
Also the tamron 17-70
Fair enough, though it 's not easy to get that many lenses at the same time.
I'm surprised how well the sigma is holding up in this comparison 👍
While I'd love to try the Sigma, I won't go without an aperture ring and i'd miss the optical stabilization. Other than the variable aperture, seems like the new Fuji 16-50mm would take the cake for me with it's internal focus and zoom.. can't wait for that comparison!
The new Fuji is no OSS, too, though.
Another excellent objective review. It’s been difficult finding objective reviews on these Fuji zooms as they’ve been out a while and both have strong advocates. Always wondered if modern lens designs will be better than these old standbys particularly for the 40mp sensor. Thank you again for such a great review. Hope there’s one coming on the wide zooms. Great stuff.
Another awesome review as always! I've been really curious how the sigma stacked up to the 16-55. You put a ton of work into these videos so appreciate it, but my only complaint, I wish you had also included the 16-80 lol
I've gotten that a few times. It's not easy to get all of those lenses at the same time.
I'll definitely be here for that one to lol
Excellent thanks Dustin. Just one thing I always like to know about close focussing possibilities. I believe that the Sigma has an advantage here also?
That's correct.
Looking forward to you reviewing the mark II of the 16-55. I'm thinking of getting my first Fujifilm, the xh2, so this was super relevant to me, thanks Dustin!
Me too. I've been trying to arrange a loaner.
Want to say thanks for the excellent reviews 🤙🏻 I’ve been watching your channel for years your my go to when I’m looking at new cameras and lenses. I just recently purchased the Xh2 with the 16-80 f4, and was wondering what your favorite lenses are for this system? Thanks in advance and keep up the good reviews.
The two Viltrox fast primes (27 and 75mm F1.2) are amazing. I do like the Sigma 18-50mm. I like the Fuji 23mm and 33mm F1.4, and the 56mm F1.2 WR is great as well.
Thank you for the response 👍 Again you’re very much so appreciated for your diligence in testing all this equipment for us to base our purchases from.
It is always a pleasure to watch your reviews. Thanks. Note: When two lenses are shot under the same lighting conditions with the same local length, aperture number and ISO, but one has a noticable faster shutter speed that tells me it has a better light transmission. This seems to be the case with the Sigma lense here. Having a faster shutter speed is very useful in many situations, but seldom noticed in tests (and never mentioned in data sheets of photography lenses).
Agreed, and I chalk that done to modern coating and optical glass.
Is Tamron 17-70mm better in manual focus category against the Sigma? I'm interested in video only. To me the zooming in is not a big problem and for shooting static shots you can lock the focus.
I wouldn't say it is better. I'd give an edge to the Sigma
I was disappointed in the performance of my 16-55 when I moved from the X-T4 to the X-T5 (40mp). In the end, I just got tired of the weight/size of the lens and moved back to the f/2 Fuji primes. These seem to still do well on the higher res sensor.
It's really odd, as I get some responders telling me I'm crazy and that the 16-55mm is tack-sharp, but then many others who feel like you. Either people have radically different standards, or there is some serious sample variation out there.
Incredible work from Sigma. Thanks for keeping up with the 40MP sensor reviews!
My pleasure!
Nice! I have the Sigma and really happy with it.. I used it a lot more before, now I almost only use the 27 from Viltrox along with the 56 from Sigma. The only thing that bothered me a lot from the Sigma 18-50 is the chromatic aberration and vignetting at the wide end.
Both of those prime lenses are exceptionally sharp, so not surprising that you find them a little more impressive than the zoom.
How about the tamron 17-70mm
I didn't have the Tamron on hand, and I just did a Sigma vs Tamron episode a few months ago when I had both lenses. You can check that out to see how it compares to the Sigma.
Interesting comparison Dustin. I really like your work. Would the slight difference in shutter speed between the Sigma (1/240) and the Fuji 16-55 (1/140) play a part in the results? I would assume not, seeing as you are shooting wide and the building is obviously static.
It shouldn't make any difference.
I have the XF 16-80mm kit lens, was strongly considering the Sigma for an upcoming mountain landscape trip, based on sharpness, size, weight. But I think I’ll stick with the 16-80.
I do like the Sigma a lot, but it is also true that the cost of upgrading can be expensive by the time you take a loss selling something you already have.
10:20
THX for showing that this is the "outdoor" test. I wouldn´t have noticed otherwise!
🙂
Isn´t it snowing even inside in Canada, because it is so cold?
LOL - it feels that way.
Fuji just really needs to start updating all of their lenses, not only to resolve their own 40MP sensor, but to compete with the new 3rd party lenses. There are some lenses that are absolute gems, but several of these lenses are a decade older than their latest stuff. I understand they have a high interest in the market with the film sims and being a great APSC platform in general, but people are going to start leaving if they don’t compete on the technology front in the coming years
The advantage of now having third party lenses is that it will push Fuji into better lens design. It has certainly done that for Sony. Their lenses over the past few years have been fantastic...and I think Tamron and Sigma helped push them there.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I agree with that
THAT is the reason that I don't consider Fuji as a system these days any more, even though APS-C could be enough for many. By now, especially if one is considering equivalence (and comprehends equivalence to begin with), even Sony full frame appears as an overall better option (you can get an optically much better kit which is even smaller and more lightweight than something equivalent from Fuji).
Plus there would be no X-Trans burden to bear.
I’ve never been very impressed with the Fuji zoom lenses. Regardless of which gen of camera body/sensor. Even the 16-55 is quite average, compared to what some others are capable of. When it comes to Fuji, I’d stick to their primes (the 1.4s are great) and perhaps add a Sigma 18-50 or Tamron 17-70 for convenience.
I don't know. I fell in love with Sigma with the 18-35mm 1.8 on my Canon. The AF was a pain in the A**, but the thing was built like a tank and when you held ot in the hand, it just felt special. The new Sigma lenses just don't get to me that way. I must have had a bad copy, because the 18-50 2.8 that I had, was less sharp than my Fuji 18-55 2.8-4.0. I had the n old Fuji model made in Japan, but it was sharper, mostly in the corners. I think I might have to try another Sigma copy... 🤔
That's fair.
Thanks for this comparison Dustin. I am about to go to Europe this summer and my initial thought was to go with xt5 and 16-80 as my main setup as I want to go as compact as possible while still been flexible. Xt5 has good ibis and 40mp gives me a lot of flexibility. Unfortunately 16-80 on my xt5 has not impressed me at all. While it was perfectly fine on my previous 26mp xt3 and xt30. So bad that I was about to scrape the Fuji travel plan and instead thinking about going with a Sony and a 20-70/4 which is a unique lens that goes quite wide which will be appreciated on narrow streets of Paris and Rome. However seeing your Sigma 18-50 review maybe not all is lost for my original Fuji travel plans….
It's a sweet little travel lens.
I rented the Sigma for a trip to London and it was really really nice. Small, sharp, and the lack of aperture ring didn't bother me very much as someone who also shoots other brands of camera bodies.
The size factor is so appealing for this lens.
Thoughts now that Fuji upgraded the kit lens to 16-50 with WR but still variable aperture?
I'll have more thoughts once I've actually reviewed the new lens.
I’m really curious about the warping on the new 16-50 kit lens 🤔
I should be looking at one in the near future.
What about 3-D pop rendering?
Very interesting. Did not see THAT conclusion coming! That shot at 18:01 minutes is fairly shocking :). Agree that some lenses fare better with the 40MP sensor than others, which is one of the reasons I'm currently shooting a lot with my X-T5 paired with the new Fuji 18mm f/1.4; a phenomenal combination.
Frankly I was surprised as well, but the problem for the Fuji lenses is that they were designed around a much lower resolution standard a decade ago. Their own 40MP sensor has been a wrecking ball to a lot of their older lenses.
The shocking shot you mention… well… I have issues with it. Thatˋs definitely not 16-55 like.
Thank you Dustin for another great video. I’m shootings a Sony A6700 but have owned both the Fuji lenses and their cameras until recently. Tuned in for the image quality portion originally but really enjoyed your full back to front comparison. Would be also interested to see a similar comparison on the Sony APS-C system. Also heard rumors about Sony introducing a high Mpixel APS-C body with a similar resolution to Fuji’s. We will see. Take care.
That would be interesting.
Had the fuji it is good just heavy. I have the sigma now because of the weight
Wii you compare the Sigma 18-50 with the new Fuji 16-50 2.8-4.8?
That's my plan.
How does your 16-55 look on Fuji’s 26 MP sensor? Seems like there may be a good chance you have a bad copy.
You can see my review of the 16-55mm on 26MP on an X-T3 from years ago. This lens was provided to me by Fuji Canada for my review, so I'm skeptical its a bad copy. But yes, the 40MP sensor REALLY reveals any optical shortcomings. It's been a bit of a bomb dropped on Fuji's older lenses.
Great comparison and review. Obviously it depends on individual shooting styles, but personally I think an aperture ring on the lens is overrated. With my Sigma 10-18 I have the aperture on the front control dial, giving me intuitive and ergonomically friendly access to shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation, all from the right hand thumb and index finger, without taking the eye from the viewfinder.
I like having an aperture ring, but its definitely not a deal breaker for me.
I've been using the 16-80mm f4 - I'm reluctant to loose the 16mm, but I'd love the f2.8 and the performance of the Sigma.
That's fair. There's always some tradeoff!
@@DustinAbbottTWI pulled the trigger on the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. I've got that and the Fujifilm 16-80mm.
So far I'm very impressed with the Sigma. I'll give it a few more outings and decide which one to keep. I've also just got hold of the Zeiss Touit 12mm f2.8. If it works out my Fujifilm 10-24mm will be going replaced by 2 non Fujifilm lenses, the Sigma 18-50mm and Zeiss Touit 12mm.
Interesting that the lens causes the pulsing in static shots. I thought this is mainly a camera problem. I just go to manual with static shots. Think i give the sigma a try.
It really depends on the lens
For the price of the big lens I can buy the Sigma 18-55/2.8 AND the Sigma 10-18/2.8. The weight (and space in the bag) of the two combined is the same as the big Fuji. And if 2 mm on the wide end are important, how about 6 or 8 mm ;)
That's a very fair observation for those that don't mind changing lenses.
This video would have some value if it would include the new XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR.
Since it was filmed and released before the announcement of that lens, that wasn't likely to happen.
Yeah, I've been also looking for a comparison between that lens and the Sigma, specially to see how they hold up in terms of sharpness. I have the 16-80 which I love on my XT-3, but now that I got an XT-5, it doesn't hold up as well (though I still love the range on that lens and hope they came up with a Mkii version of it as well).
Can you please also include the new xf 16-50 mm to your review?
Not in this one, but I do plan to look at the 16-50mm in October.
Thanks. Really looking forward to it.
Do photos with older lenses look worse on the 40 mp vs the 24? Or is it just that you can’t see the resolution benefits?
I have found that at a pixel level the older lenses (for the most part) definitely look worse. It's been surprising, actually, as I haven't found that to be as true on, say, the jump to 61MP on Sony's full frame cameras.
@@DustinAbbottTWI it seems like Fuji could fix this with software.
@@jmpattillo No, that's not the case. They just weren't optically engineered for a camera with this high of resolution. You can't change the optics via firmware.
@@DustinAbbottTWI my thought was that maybe Fuji could add a mode where pixels are binned to lower the resolution of the raw file. It shouldn’t be the case that your old lenses get worse performance on a better sensor.
Man, I've been trying to decide this for so long. Prices are up for everything photography right now. I think im gonna go with the red badge bigger lens because i want all fujifilm lenses from 10 mm to 600 mm. That's just my own personal goal, however. I alreadybhave the 150-600mm fuji. Was gonna buy a 50-140mm fuji then this 16-55mm
It's a tough decision.
Thank you for digging into this! Just had a discussion with my Fuji-owning friend, and as one can assume Sony will bump the APS-C resolution in the next generation, I, as a Sony owner, have now peace of mind weather or not my Sigma lenses will hold up.
That's true.
Another very useful and informative review! Fuji are great, they seem to lag a bit with making lenses for the bodies they put out. That is no issue really, when one can wait and get the absolute maximum out of your existing ones in the mean time. But for the X100 VI it is a killer. The lens is not up to the sensor. And you cannot change it.
I personally don't see the appeal of fixed lens cameras, but I'm obviously not the targeted market.
I’ve had my 18-50 since they became available and I love it. The only thing I don’t like is it renders images differently. But that’s easy fix in post.
Fair enough.
How does it render differently? Curious to know!
i wonder how the XF16-55mm II fare against the signma 18-50
I certainly hope that it wins that comparison. I'll do it at some point here once I get a loaner.
The Tamron 17-70 should be included in this comparison, TBH.
I didn't have the Tamron on hand, and I just did a Sigma vs Tamron episode a few months ago when I had both lenses.
I noticed you were in bird detection mode when testing the autofocus with the Fuji’s and not with the Sigma, is there a bias here?
Absolutely not. They were done within a few minutes of each other, and no settings were changed.
@@DustinAbbottTWI At 10:50 bird detection mode is activated
@@gilleslast3561 It would be irrelevant anyway, as I've changed the focus mode to center focus and it just targeting a small area. In other tests it looks like human eye detection is enabled, and that would also be irrelevant as there is neither human nor bird subjects in the shot.
Can you do a 40mp comparison of the Sigma 16mm 1.4 vs the Fuji 16mm 1.4mm?
Probably not in the near future. I have an unbelievable demand right now for reviews, and I've just added Nikon, so I'm busier than ever.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for your honesty! I love your channel. Great presentation and mixture of subjective and objective information.
if both the XS20 and A6700 are eache equipped with Sigma 18 50 is the AF closes between the two or sony is way ahead? both video and photos
The problem is with the camera, not the lens. The Sony combo is going to focus faster and more accurately, and work particularly better for video.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks
After looking at my friend’s Sigma on her X-T5 I starting thinking that I should sell my kit Fuji 18-55mm and get the Sigma. This confirms my thoughts.
I definitely personally like the Sigma better.
Great review! Thank you!
My pleasure!
Fantastic comparison. Thanks !
I’ve chosen Sigma few months ago and can confirm everything you have said (I am a prime guy but wanted versatility from time to time ;) )
Nice!
I bought the kit zoom (OMG!) 15-45 kit zoom. So I am the guy that everybody hates, because I just paid 150€ used and use it on my (MOG Rage!) X-H2s - mainly for video.
I cannot tell how genius 15 mm are! + extremly light und motor zoo, which is quite nice for video.
Of course you can tell that it is a cheap one, like vignetting and the power zoom is only so smooth but it fits in my pocket like that.
I like the Sigma for its price and performance and compactness but I am afraid of boring zoom ranges! And 28-70 just is exactly that. It covers...fine.
The Tamromn17-70 would have fittet nicely in comparison as well. I know you have been testing that already. Saidly it is huge and interstingly more expensive than the E-Mount version.
Yes, I no longer had the Tamron on hand for when I did this comaprison.
Hey bro. This was a fun video.
Which is better just for shooting video with your hands on the X-T4 camera (26 mp, IBIS) - Fuji 18-55 (OIS) or Sigma 18-50 (without stabilization)?
If you have a camera with stabilization, the difference is pretty marginal. I didn't really notice the stabilized lens (18-55mm) behaving any differently than the Sigma.
Thank you for your video, I didnt know that sigma resolves 40 megapixel.
Happy to help!
Thanks for doing this review. It is very helpful. I own the 16-55 2.8 and it doesn't impress me on the 40mp XT5. I am curious though if perhaps your loaner copy of the 16-55 could be beat up and perhaps a new copy of the lens could have better image quality?
That's possible, though frankly a lens' optical performance shouldn't deteriorate unless it was actually damaged and decentered. I didn't really see evidence of decentering.
Great overview! Actually in my eyes there is still no really good standard zoom for Fujifilm right now and that with the 16-80 f4 included.
I got a second hand 16-80 two years ago and it is okay, but partly underwhelming at 26 mp already.
Most of the time I use primes by now anyway, but for traveling light or shooting in rough environments I'd prefer to have a single lens again.
So I have hopes for the new rumored 16-50, but as a new lens it will come at a price for sure. Still looking forward for your review.
I do hope the new lens is developed with 40MP in mind (surely it will be!) and will be a big improvement.
Always top content. Thank you
My pleasure!
Gret video. Thanks. Maybe it's time to update it using the new Fuji 16-50/2.8-4.8 kit lens instead of the 18-55/2.8-4. 🤗
Once I've done a review of that lens, I'll definitely compare it to the Sigma, as I own that lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Great. Thanks. And now there is Mark II of Fuji 16-55/2.8 - probably, time to update the whole review with new lenses.
@@IamShopping That's the plan once I can get loaners. Probably in 2025 at this point.
16mm as wide focal length is fundamental! So only xf16-55 is a fully usable standard zoom for me.
Fair enough.
I really like my Sigma lenses. 40MP APSC would not be my choice for portraits though.
With certain lenses, it is amazing, but those lenses have to be very strong optically.
Thanks for the video! Please be so kind to check the Sigma against the upcoming new Fuji Lens (16-50mm). I think that's where the competition is for the coming years.
I do plan to do that.
Shocking conclusions. I appreciate the indoor/outdoor AF tests a lot, since lenses can and do perform differently in poorer light. For me, I like the optics of both lenses a great deal, and in practice, each can return similarly great resolution at 26mp if focus is nailed etc. The 16-55mm is of course punchier, the 18-55mm more muted. But I think it fits the "Fuji Vibe", it is great for people shots, and adding a little saturation is all that is needed at times. The dividing line is with AF. the 18-55 is just not great IMO, I have to overshoot a lot to be sure I get some strong candidates. Ironically, however, its nailed birds in flight at 6-15 feet away that were true stunners! That's no joke - just lucky that day, I guess. The 16-55mm has been far more consistent in practice, even if it doesn't always feel objectively faster in every way (outdoors anyway - indoors, it smokes the 18-55). Overall, the 16-55 is worth the price and weight (I paid $700 used for mine). I dislike the onion ringing, but that is about it - and it doesn't show up in all photos. I don't like seeing that much CA on the Sigma, I don't like the lack of an aperture ring, and I just would never take that into a professional setting where conditions might get rough. The 18-55mm is a jewel in comparison, much nicer build.
Frankly I am not sold on the 40mp sensor yet. I'd love to try it. But I dislike the reduced burst rate of the ES and the rolling shutter performance, since on both counts it is worse, not better, than the 26mp XT3. But one thing I can say is that putting the newer glass on my 26mp sensor has been a noticeable upgrade in terms of overall sharpness and AF performance. Better lenses are 100% worth it even on "older" bodies. Fuji should keep pushing out better glass and modernizing its lineup because it will make a big difference no matter what resolution we're at.
You will find that the dividing line between the newer glass and older lenses on the 40MP sensor becomes even more pronounced.
Using the sigma on the lower resolution Sony a6700 and it's a brilliant lens optically, nice to know it's good for up to 40mpx.
Thanks Dustin!
Thanks for video. Sigma true winner. F ring? seriously? just set F with point finger its faster and easier. Fuji needs a 16-55 f2 with sigma size and weight.
I don't think its realistic to ask for a 16-55mm F2 lens with Sigma size and weight, when Sigma isn't even doing that focal range at F2.8.
@@DustinAbbottTWI ok, f2.8 pls :)
the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 is insanely expensive and heavy considering that it doesn't even have image stabilization.
Sucks that I got a new Fuji body that didn't have IBIS in 2020 and then Fuji decided to finally acknowledge IBIS so they don't put stabilization in any new lenses : /
LOL - that is pretty crazy.
16 mm is a must for me
That's fair, as that extra 2mm makes a huge difference in some situations.
Shoulda thrown the tamron 17-70 in there
I didn't have the Tamron on hand, and I just did a Sigma vs Tamron episode a few months ago when I had both lenses.
I'm waiting for my Sigma 18-50 2.8 for my Sony a6700. Good review, as usual, thank you.
Thanks for the comparison review of these lenses. I am glade a third party lens maker is able to resolve the AF "pulses" on the Fuji camera as it is one of the main reason I left the Fuji system for Sony.
It's still far from perfect.
Sorry, but you lost some credibility with me at minute 18: I get better image quality even with a TT artisan lens than what you got in your test with the 16-55. This lack of sharpness is definitely not typical for the 16-55.
With all due respect, I've documented my findings thoroughly here. How exactly have I lost credibility if the 16-55mm doesn't perform as you expect it to? I've got no axe to grind here; I gave the 16-55mm a very positive initial review 4-5 years ago, but it just doesn't hold up well to the 40MP sensor.
Fuji fanboys love to rave about the 16-55 when it had no competition on X mount. The little sigma beating it means its time for a mark 2.
I think the biggest challenge for the 16-55mm is that it was engineered during a time when the resolution levels were MUCH lower. I doubt Fuji imagined at the time that they would have a 40MP aPS-C sensor. It has been a wrecking ball on these older lenses.
Uh, "home" doesn't read the same when it's out of focus, FYI.
????
Not having 16mm is a deal breaker for me
Fair enough.
Fuji needs to bang out some super fast pro zooms. Maybe f2. Make them big and heavy and probably. So that with the same system I can pivot from daily use to occasional pro use.
I agree that they need to revisit their zoom lineup.