Finally. So many others have been comparing this new Sigma to the XF18-55. A great lens, too, but really glad you compared it to the 16-55. The skies have cleared.
To add relevancy to this. I shoot food professionally. The 16-55mm can easily fill a double A4 page. At 160 dpi, I have to turn the threshold down on sharpening as the DPI just won't render it. At 300dpi I use the capture one native export for print sharpening and it is tactic sharp in print. If you're thinking the sigma will give you better, sharper images it will require you to crop on a 8K monitor before you see a fraction of difference. The bigger difference is in the vertical distortion and inter hue tonality. Red will always look like red on the sigma. Subtle tonal contrasts within a hue will be present on the fuji. If you photo food and drink together, the sigma gives the appearance of the two items slightly being torn apart. The fuji at 50-55mm the wine stems are straight and the round plates are preserved. If a slight bump in contrast and unperceived sharpness uncropped is what youre after at the expense of international range and corrected distortion in vertical lines, go sigma. If your needs are oppose, go fuji. The fuji just has more elements to correct across the frame than the sigma. That is why the sigma is smaller, lighter and cheaper. There is more to a lens than contrast and sharpness edge to edge. For many, that is all they need, for others contrast and sharpness is a mute point as both can have their perception changed in post. Fixing distortion without stretching pixels is a harder task. This common to all sigma lens. Very sharp, good contrast..poor colour saturation and fidelity and intertonal variation. If you compare two images of the same subject and scroll your cursor across, the colour data is far deeper in the fuji. Blue is never just one hex code, it shifts as you move across it. The sigma, the colour hex code barely changes. It just doesn't transmit colour data very well. Thats the trade off for contrast and sharpness.
I use the XE4 as a light and compact kit for street and travel. The XF16-55 and the Tamron 17-70 are way to bulky for that body and the 18-55 doesn’t have a constant, bright aperture, so I’m glad to have now the availability of a fast standard zoom for travel photography.
The 16-55 is literally full frame sized zoom, it's just outdated at this point. Doesn't even offer stabilization despite the size. At the very least Tamron offers stabilization and a longer reach, not to mention a useful magnification. Sigma is the best bang for the buck out of all of these, joined by the Fuji 18-55 for those that need OIS.
The 16-55, as optically great as it is, is far too big for an APS-C lens in my opinion. This is such a great alternative to keep that weight down but maintain the f2.8 aperture.
I share the same opinion, new apsc cameras and lensesfrom Fuji are now as big as full frame while being slower! I rather spend money on Sony just for the lens ecosystem and unrivaled af
@@jaegerschtulmann How so? All of their lenses are smaller than full frame. The 33mm and 56mm are way smaller than an 85mm 1.2 or 50mm 1.2/1.4 lens. Third party lenses like Viltrox or sigma or even smaller still.
@@jjchockey yeah i'm with you on this one. the 16-55 is not nearly the size of first party f2.8 normal zooms. it's about as big as the f4 lenses, but those are f4 and demand a different commparison
@@jjchockey I know this is a 7 month old comment, but trying to compare an APS-C lens like the 56mm f/1.2 to a FF 85mm f/1.2 lens is the wrong comparison. f/1.2 on APS-C is equivalent to f/1.8 on FF.
Thanks for the review, the main selling point for me with this lens for this price is fixed aperture and hopefully sharper than the Fuji 18-55 2.8 kit lens. I got rid of two Fuji 18-55 2.8 because the images appeared smudgy and didn't sharpen up to f5.6. By the way I recently purchased the Sigma 56 1.4 which turned out to be a much better and fun lens than the Fuji 56 1.2 that I got rid of last year. I don't miss the aperture ring.
I have the XF-16-55, and I tested it in Capture One Pro and DxO Photolab 5, and Sigma 18-50 does not equal up to the XF16-55. If you can't afford the XF16-55, as a low-cost alternative, I might recommend the Sigma or the Tamron 17-70. Otherwise, I would recommend selecting the XF16-55.
Fully agree. The 16-55 is the best mid-range zoom I have ever used in 40 years of shooting, and arguably the best zoom period. I shoot a lot at 16mm, so the 18mm at the wide end renders the Sigma useless to me (I had the Fuji 18mmf2 and sold it cause that 28mmFF focal length is just not my thing).
Thanks for the comparison, my main problem with the sigma is the missing aperture ring since I always use it. My hope is that fuji will update the 16-55 to get all the use out of the new sensors Mbit I don’t know how likely that is. I mean it’s 7+ years “old”.
The 16-55 has always been a bit of a "lump" as one might have put it (I own one). Given the form factor of Fujifilm's cameras and the age of the design, it really is due for an overhaul.
Thank you! While I love the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 for its gorgeous design, I think they will truly own the Fuji mount if (or when) they bring the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens natively for Fuji. If they can somehow shave 200 grams off the weight of that lens, it will be like a magical setup with 18 mm to 35 mm primes all covered in one
as a X-Pro owner.... the 16-55 was always a no-go.... the lens is just too big.... the Sigma is a really welcome lens! I tried it and just can't get used to zoom lenses so i'll stick to my primes but the quality of the lens was incredible!
The sigma is a complete slam dunk. Price, performance, size, etc. It's going to be cover all basis lens for my XT-5. The CA is annoying but not a show stopper for me.
I always liked the 18-55 2.8-4 more anyway, but I still have an xt3, so the non-aperture ringed sigma is not very compelling. Maybe if I had an xt5 and really cared about the resolution.
Fujifilm fans keeps saying the 16-55 is a unicorn and even many reviewers dismissed this sigma as just an 18-55 competitor. Now imagine an art level sigma.
have a lot of Thx for your clear and true words. Exactly this was my experience with Fujifilm at the time, when I purchased the new X-T5. A lot of Fujifilm lenses was not good enough for this new high demanding sensor. So I sold a lot of my Fujifilm gear and count more on my parallel system: Sony. But I don't want to sell my Fujifilm system. There must be a solution. And in this case I think I will skip the xf16-55 for the Sigma 18-50mm. In the end I think: Fujifilm should announce new zoom lenses for standard and wide angle. New ones that fit perfectly to the new 40 mp sensor
Excellent comparison. Thanks. Hopefully Sigma will produce more high-quality lenses for Fuji, which will encourage Fuji to upgrade the quality of their lenses and make them price competitive.
Honestly, even the objectively "terrible" old XF 35 f/1.4 on my X-T2 (especially pair with my XF 50 f/2 and XF 16 f/2.8) are what I'm keeping over my Z6II with 24-120 f/4 S. Is the Z6II objectively better? Of course. Are my photos with it better? No... surprisingly. I just feel more inspired and enjoy the experience of shooting with the X-T2 and the tiny lenses better. I even got an 18mm f/1.4 because of the glowing reviews and regretted it, not because it is a bad lens, but because the tiny 16mm f/2.8 does what I need for a wide angle for the few times I use wider focal lengths. Do I want the X-T5 and all the new glass? Yes. But the X-T2 does what I need, and the less I try and keep up with the Joneses, the more I find myself inspired in my photographic work.
Caveat: I’m an amateur and hobbyist, so I’m looking at it through that lens. There is 1 glaring difference between the compared lenses: build. The 16-55mm is larger and heavier, but is also much more robust and weather sealed. The comparison ends as soon as you get caught in the rain or knocked into a snowbank, and now need to buy another Sigma. The better comparison would be with the 18-55 f/2.8-4. Still an excellent lens image quality wise for actual, real life comparisons, and has image stabilization which is essential for smaller/lighter cameras with high resolution. Sorry for being blunt; if you’re cropping out more than 50% of the frame for your composition, you have the wrong lens. If you’re doing so still expecting maximum image quality, you may be expecting too much from your equipment. If there is too much of a difference between f/2.8 and f/4 regarding depth of field, neither will actually satisfy and might as well get a cheap, vintage 50mm f/1.4 (resolution won’t matter anyway because everything is out of focus). Pentax made a variant of their 50mm in the 80s-90s that is amazingly sharp at reasonable distances. And the XF 18-55mm is cheaper still when bought as a kit lens, with plenty in the used market as well. If you’re buying into Fujifilm 1st time, and just buying a body separately, the Sigma might be an excellent option. And I’d highly recommend Fujifilm X bodies to serious students; to have the manual, mechanical settings adjustments. I wouldn’t consider the Sigma as an upgrade to what you may already have though.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Reasonable may disagree, and you seem reasonable. While your blunt assertion about cropping is certainly a reasonable position to take for film or lower resolution sensors, you miss the primary reason why Claudia and I use them: so substitute electronics and ride Moore’s law instead of carry bigger, heavier glass. This is not a mistake, but instead a clear and reasoned choice. Have you tried this approach in your own work? As for weather resistance: you may be right about the XF 16-55’s superior weather reinsurance, but I am not certain you are and I wasn’t about to test! 😊🖖🏻
@@3BMEP To continue on with the theme of reasonable… ☺️ My own recent finances have relegated me to continue puttering along with the 24mp sensor camera, which will cloud my judgements somewhat, but that’s still much more image data than film can reproduce until you get into the realm of giant negatives with very fine grained films. There are times when “you work with what you have”, but there is a reasonably higher chance of success, when using tools to match the work. Film or digital, “filling the frame” would be preferable, no? Then there is less chance of digital artifacts, and less chance of deviations like camera motion being noticeable. The smaller the pixels get, and when pairing with smaller/lighter bodies, the chances increase of things “not looking as they should”. Detail can be a double edged sword I would think. Fully accept my wording was likely overly harsh. I’d still think there are more considerations in this than ultimate resolution;and those differences are not so different that the other considerations (like weather dealing and image stabilization) can be factored out. Nice to have options!
Maaaaaaan it’s a great time to be in the 24-26mp Fuji ILC game. Sweet used options for XT/XH/X Pro cameras in the $500 to $1200 range. I still think the XT3 is amazing as is the XT4. Glory days of X-trans sensors making it hard to tell a huge difference between them and the new 26mp stacked sensor in the XH2s, particularly with stills. Hope you’re doing well!
Master reviewer of real world use, practicality and highlighting the big advantage that other reviewer just say and not explaining it in a daily workflow advantage. Good review bro, keep it up
I'd be curious.....if Sigma can make a 2.8 zoom that much smaller than the Fujinon 16-55, I wonder what they could do with a lens the same size? A 1.8. maybe? An 18-55 f/1.8 Art would be interesting to see on the market.
Thanks for the great review! 3 questions: a) is the LMount Sigma Art 24-70/2.8 not as good as the Nikon Z 24-70/2.8? [I use both systems and have to decide for which system i will buy that zoom], b) is the Sigma 18-50/2.8 in your view as good as the LMount Sigma 28-70/2.8?, c) I use also MFT, how would you compare the Lumix 12-35/2.8 II or the FL 15/1.7, 25/1.4 MkII and 42,5/1.7 with this Sigma 18-55/2.8 for Fuji? I would love to see an XPro IV, but unfortunately it will be almost as big as a Lumix S5 and only 200g lighter. Same for XT5 (there is even less differences). So for me a successor of the MFT Lumix GX9 with a new sensor, AF, VF would be almost more attractive - if the older MFT lenses are able to deliver on 24MP or 32MP MFT sensors. If not, I have to look at my Fuji system, clean the table and switch all lenses to the newest designs. Man, this is so difficult to decide. A XPro is still (besides Leica) the only MLU with optical viewfinder. I like that a lot on my Xpro1. My XE3 is just not that joy to use without an optical viewfinder.
Hi Hugh. Love your channel, your thoughtful assessment of what matters when choosing and using camera gear. I have found myself acquiring an extensive set of f2 primes which do the job very well. I do however find myself constantly swapping lenses and there’s the rub. If I were to go for a mid range zoom that would perform at a similar level across the focal lengths from 18 to 50; would you go for the sigma or the Fujifilm 16-55?
it's gonna depend on what you value more. the Sigma is much smaller and handles backlighting better and can close focus pretty well. but the Fujinon doesn't have chromatic aberration issues, has an aperture ring, and can hit the magical and often sought-after 24mm and 85mm (technically 83mm) equivalents.
So you had an XE4, and shoot primarily stills, does the Sigma 18-50's constant aperture out-rank the IS built into the 18-55 Fujifilm 2.8-4 kit lens? Just wondering what would be the best option for a travel zoom.
I’m wondering the same thing for my X-E4 travel camera. Got the XF18-55 f2.8-4 already but prefer using the X-E4 with primes as f4 at the long end doesn’t give shallow enough DOF and it’s a little front heavy. But it is IS. The only benefit ?
i've owned a 16-55 for nearly three years now and have gone back and forth multiple times on selling it in favor of a 16-80 but never could give up its sharpness and f2.8 aperture. now with the 18-50 from sigma the argument to keep the 16-55 seems much smaller, especially since i have the other two f2.8 zooms so that the 16 and the 55 wouldn't really be missed all that much.
I never thought I’d get another zoom after vowing not to get one but it makes sense to get a lens with all the focal lengths 18 23 35 75 .. It was all just confusing which prime lenses to bring sometimes lol
I would really like to see them make a 14 to 40. Yeah that would be the most perfect focal length because that would be 21 mm wide for landscapes and streetscapes and it would be 60 mm for portraits and so on 14 to 40 Would actually be a perfect focal length for many photographers. I actually don’t own a 24 to 70 in full frame on my Nikon system and I’ll tell you why because I had a wipe it goes for 15 to 30. I then have a 50 mm and then I have the 70 to 200 and I sensually just move forward and back with those different lenses to create my 24 to 70 zone and I crop when I edit. I think the days of 2470 should be numbered. I do not see it is a useful focal length at all but I will cop a lot of flack for saying that but that’s okay. I believe 14 to 40 would be so perfect 2.8 right through there you go Fuji make that lens.
I would love you to benchmark these lenses along side Metabones Speedbooster and CONTAX Zeiss glass (Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-85 mm f/ 3.3-4 C/Y) . As I use this combination and the image quality is mindblowing. While not as compact. Think it will knock your socks off
I'm hoping Fuji updates the 16-55 to be smaller, lighter, and more modern. Sony also slimmed down a lot of their lenses while increasing image quality.
I would do the same thing too, i.e. buy the Sigma and a XF 1.4 prime; the 16-55 is way too large for APS-C. After some testing of some of Fujifilm's cameras and lenses, I did find the lenses to be somewhat disappointing in terms of image quality, they aren't bad but are not good enough compared to full-frame lenses of a similar "grade", i.e. like the XF 1.4 primes comparing to the Nikkon Z mount S primes or Sony GM lenses. My worry about Fujifilm's 3rd party lens support is that 3rd party lens makers tend to make more budget orientated APS-C lenses and put most of their effort on full-frame lenses since that market is larger. With the current crop of 40MP cameras from Fujifilm, those budget orientated 3rd party options might not be good match for their newer bodies.
My X-T5 arrives this week after years of Nikon DSLRs. This lens comparison was a factor in that! This Sigma, plus the Fuji 70-300, make a very compelling package for single carry-on travel.
We need to remind ourselves that a 40 megapixel sensor in an aps-c format camera is the equivalent of a 90 megapixel sensor in a full frame camera, which is massive! Obviously, Fuji was looking into the future. It is going to take time and patience on our part for Fuji's new generation of lenses to be released.
Fuji could take card from Nikons deck and licence the design with there own branding and service, corporate Sigma notwithstanding, Given it seems Sigma have found a cracking compromise of design and optical formule where there are likely few permutations of formula that do better and avoid patent. Fuji should probably throw its energy into rolling out latest tech across its model line up and improving the focus AI. Good point on second hand market, its becoming very viable without worrying you are missing out, apart from focusing AI, which although otherworldly on latest canon and Sony has been good enough for 90% for 90% for a couple of generations.
Not specific to this channel, but reviewers seldom seem to consider part to part variability in lenses. I'm not suggesting one purchases 30 lenses of both makes to make a statistically robust argument, but variability in mass manufacturing does exist and can explain differences in lens performance, e.g. sharpness, decentering, CA etc.
Thanks for comparing with the red badge. Others keep comparing against the Fuji kit lens, pretending the kit lense really costs SRP. You've very much given me something to think about but one important edge to even the kit lense, I can take it to sports events, but here in Canada they wouldn't let me bring a 3" lense
Hugh, you do a great job on these videos. They’re intelligent, thoughtful and so thought provoking. It must be challenging when you have such a diverse audience. How can you prioritize features and benefits when many viewers haven’t figured out their own priorities, or assume that theirs are everyone’s? We must convince photographers, especially beginners, that buying a better camera or lens does not automatically make them a better photographer. Advanced tools in unskilled hands does not necessarily produce good output.
Thank you, David. Your end point is well taken. I often say “yes, its about the gear but no, its not about the gear its about the people.” That plus one on one zoom appointments to discuss gear vs a person’s objectives and where they are in their photographic journey; and responding to comments (less and less frequently, due to the increasing size of the audience) are my current tool set for making this point.
@@3BMEP I'll look for your videos about them. I want both too! LOL. I'm trying to sell my Canon 16-35mm III to buy both and 1 more cinema lens. But it's hard to sell such a good lens. But I really prefer lenses that don't always need an adapter. Still thinking...
I bought the Xt-5 with the 16-80 as a kit. Funny that that lens is not listed as one of the best for the Xt-5. However, I still like the results I get. I also have the 18mm 1.4 which is a superb lens.
Just ordered the xt4 with the same lens as a kit. I read a lot of bad stuff about the lens but I think it will be a good way to see if I need the 80mm end or wide, from there I'll probably buy a couple of primes then sell the 16-80 or keep as a walk around lens. Looks like they sell for about £400 2nd hand still.
I don’t think so. The CA is consistent with other Sigma lenses in this class I’ve had before. The real question is: will this level of CA matter to most people? No.
One point that I don't believe was mentioned is that the 16-55 appears to be relatively parfocal, whereas the Sigma is far from it, making zooming during video impossible on the Sigma without erratic focus changes. However it may be somewhat of a moot point since Fuji seems unable to fix the exposure stepping issue when zooming, which continues to be one of the most frustrating downsides to filming on Fujifilm, even on the new PZ lens, from the reviews I've seen; which is even more puzzling when you consider that consistent exposure throughout the zoom range was actually advertised as a feature of the PZ lens.
while the fujinon definitely not parfocal, the linear motor does make for a much smoother zoom if done with even just a little care. the exposure stepping can't really be fixed, but can be smoothed. every zoom, even constant aperture ones are variable aperture to some degree simply because of the physics of lens construction. the 'constant' aperture zooms just limit the aperture blades from opening as wide as possible on the wider focal points, sometimes for mechanically necessary reasons, other times for consistency. f.2.8 at 55mm is an aperture width of 19.6mm. if the blades assumed the same orientation at 16mm then the lens could theoretically be 16-55mm f0.81-2.8. there are myriad reason why this might not be possible with the specific construction of the lens, but shows that the notion of a constant aperture zoom lens is a manufactured idea.
@@AJ-em2rb what you’re saying all makes sense technically. However in practice many camera makers have solved the exposure stepping issue. I can’t tell you whether it’s through lens design or clever firmware to compensate (doesn’t matter from user perspective) but Sony bodies/lenses do not exposure step, so it is certainly a solvable problem.
Loved this video thanks a lot thumbs up from me!! i knowww iknowww its a bittt nitpicky but watching this on a smartphone you'd really help me out if next time maby you could also put the gram variants on the right at 8:32 just a small feedback thingy you did mention the gram diffrence though so thanks:))
Im glad you bring this to light. The truth is that red badge fuji lens is not the best optically, nor the best to carry around for street photography. I quickly sold mine and just go the kit lens. I only missed the WR, but oh well.
I totally see the point of this lens. Small, lightweight, bright aperture and good iq. But it has no aperture - ring. This and the 18mm instead of the 16mm is why i will stick with my 16-55.
I'm suprised that you didn't really address the elephant in the corner... an 18-50 is not the same lens as a 16-55. In 35mm terms, youare comparing a 28mm bottom end to a lens with 24mm bottom end. Huge diifference here. On the top end, you are comparing a lens at about 75mm to about 82mm. Not as huge of a difference, but still significant. However, commbine them, and you are comparing a lens that has a 2.78 zoom ratio to one that has a 3.43 zoom ratio. HUGE difference... This, in part explains why it is a larger and heavier lens, why it is harder to achieve great optical performance, and why it will be more expensive. Honestly, this should really only be compared to the 18-50 zoom... because they are both able to accomplish the same photographic goals for most people in terms of coverage and general applicability. ALSO... I can't believe you didn't even mention the obvious missing element on the Sigma that makes it a non-starter for some (many?) Fujifilm shooters...
I’d venture to suggest that you’ve articulated the proper approach given you, your use cases and your priorities. But I’d also suggest you missed some of what I said, and more importantly the value of humility when asserting there is only one legitimate way to evaluate something. Just a thought. 🖖🏻
Finally. So many others have been comparing this new Sigma to the XF18-55. A great lens, too, but really glad you compared it to the 16-55. The skies have cleared.
😊🖖🏻
Exactly. This is the comparison that all of us we were waiting for
To add relevancy to this. I shoot food professionally. The 16-55mm can easily fill a double A4 page. At 160 dpi, I have to turn the threshold down on sharpening as the DPI just won't render it. At 300dpi I use the capture one native export for print sharpening and it is tactic sharp in print. If you're thinking the sigma will give you better, sharper images it will require you to crop on a 8K monitor before you see a fraction of difference. The bigger difference is in the vertical distortion and inter hue tonality. Red will always look like red on the sigma. Subtle tonal contrasts within a hue will be present on the fuji. If you photo food and drink together, the sigma gives the appearance of the two items slightly being torn apart. The fuji at 50-55mm the wine stems are straight and the round plates are preserved. If a slight bump in contrast and unperceived sharpness uncropped is what youre after at the expense of international range and corrected distortion in vertical lines, go sigma. If your needs are oppose, go fuji. The fuji just has more elements to correct across the frame than the sigma. That is why the sigma is smaller, lighter and cheaper. There is more to a lens than contrast and sharpness edge to edge. For many, that is all they need, for others contrast and sharpness is a mute point as both can have their perception changed in post. Fixing distortion without stretching pixels is a harder task. This common to all sigma lens. Very sharp, good contrast..poor colour saturation and fidelity and intertonal variation. If you compare two images of the same subject and scroll your cursor across, the colour data is far deeper in the fuji. Blue is never just one hex code, it shifts as you move across it. The sigma, the colour hex code barely changes. It just doesn't transmit colour data very well. Thats the trade off for contrast and sharpness.
Fascinating. Would love to see your comparison. Any way we can make that happen?
@@3BMEPDo we still need to wait? 👀
Still waiting 😂
I use the XE4 as a light and compact kit for street and travel. The XF16-55 and the Tamron 17-70 are way to bulky for that body and the 18-55 doesn’t have a constant, bright aperture, so I’m glad to have now the availability of a fast standard zoom for travel photography.
The 16-55 is literally full frame sized zoom, it's just outdated at this point. Doesn't even offer stabilization despite the size. At the very least Tamron offers stabilization and a longer reach, not to mention a useful magnification. Sigma is the best bang for the buck out of all of these, joined by the Fuji 18-55 for those that need OIS.
seems it was build in thoughts of ff fuji body for future
The 16-55, as optically great as it is, is far too big for an APS-C lens in my opinion. This is such a great alternative to keep that weight down but maintain the f2.8 aperture.
I share the same opinion, new apsc cameras and lensesfrom Fuji are now as big as full frame while being slower! I rather spend money on Sony just for the lens ecosystem and unrivaled af
Completely agree. Whenever I use my 16-55 it keeps saying to me "I should've bought full-frame".
@@jaegerschtulmann How so? All of their lenses are smaller than full frame. The 33mm and 56mm are way smaller than an 85mm 1.2 or 50mm 1.2/1.4 lens. Third party lenses like Viltrox or sigma or even smaller still.
@@jjchockey yeah i'm with you on this one. the 16-55 is not nearly the size of first party f2.8 normal zooms. it's about as big as the f4 lenses, but those are f4 and demand a different commparison
@@jjchockey I know this is a 7 month old comment, but trying to compare an APS-C lens like the 56mm f/1.2 to a FF 85mm f/1.2 lens is the wrong comparison. f/1.2 on APS-C is equivalent to f/1.8 on FF.
Thanks for the review, the main selling point for me with this lens for this price is fixed aperture and hopefully sharper than the Fuji 18-55 2.8 kit lens. I got rid of two Fuji 18-55 2.8 because the images appeared smudgy and didn't sharpen up to f5.6. By the way I recently purchased the Sigma 56 1.4 which turned out to be a much better and fun lens than the Fuji 56 1.2 that I got rid of last year. I don't miss the aperture ring.
The Jeff Goldblum of photography with another banger of a video!
I have the XF-16-55, and I tested it in Capture One Pro and DxO Photolab 5, and Sigma 18-50 does not equal up to the XF16-55. If you can't afford the XF16-55, as a low-cost alternative, I might recommend the Sigma or the Tamron 17-70. Otherwise, I would recommend selecting the XF16-55.
Fully agree. The 16-55 is the best mid-range zoom I have ever used in 40 years of shooting, and arguably the best zoom period. I shoot a lot at 16mm, so the 18mm at the wide end renders the Sigma useless to me (I had the Fuji 18mmf2 and sold it cause that 28mmFF focal length is just not my thing).
Nice video! Finally some one said that Fujifilm needs to update the 16-55 f2.8.
Thanks for the comparison, my main problem with the sigma is the missing aperture ring since I always use it. My hope is that fuji will update the 16-55 to get all the use out of the new sensors Mbit I don’t know how likely that is. I mean it’s 7+ years “old”.
The 16-55 has always been a bit of a "lump" as one might have put it (I own one). Given the form factor of Fujifilm's cameras and the age of the design, it really is due for an overhaul.
I’m still using an XT1 for my fun stuff, and I want to go smaller and cheaper with my Fuji gear. So, the Sigma makes sense for me.
Thank you! While I love the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 for its gorgeous design, I think they will truly own the Fuji mount if (or when) they bring the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens natively for Fuji. If they can somehow shave 200 grams off the weight of that lens, it will be like a magical setup with 18 mm to 35 mm primes all covered in one
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is sooo good, I would like to have it for my Fuji, but don't want to use Fringer adapter from Canon to Fuji
@@bear_on_a_bike Yeah. Hopefully some day Sigma will return to that and make it native. It is their greatest APS-C lens
Time for a 18-35 1.8 & 50-100 1.8 sigma art for fuji
Yes!
Thank you for this review! Does this lens have automatic in-camera lens corrections in a Fuji body?
Sold! The 16-55mm is a great lens but it's sooooo heavy. I am working on lightening the load so this lens is now on my list.
as a X-Pro owner.... the 16-55 was always a no-go.... the lens is just too big.... the Sigma is a really welcome lens! I tried it and just can't get used to zoom lenses so i'll stick to my primes but the quality of the lens was incredible!
Hi IDDQD, would you care to elaborate on your favorite lenses for the X-Pro? I'm a new XE4 owner and trying to grow my collection of fuji lenses.
The sigma is a complete slam dunk. Price, performance, size, etc. It's going to be cover all basis lens for my XT-5. The CA is annoying but not a show stopper for me.
I always liked the 18-55 2.8-4 more anyway, but I still have an xt3, so the non-aperture ringed sigma is not very compelling. Maybe if I had an xt5 and really cared about the resolution.
Do you thjnk well get a zoom with an f stop that can give us that full frame equivalent to 2.8? Maybe a 18-55 1.8?
Hi, for video recording specificly, how does auto focus in 2 lens compare to each other?
Fujifilm fans keeps saying the 16-55 is a unicorn and even many reviewers dismissed this sigma as just an 18-55 competitor. Now imagine an art level sigma.
To be totally honest, Fuji should skip making a new 2.8 zoom, and just focus on an f2 zoom in this range.
I REALLY like this idea!
@@JL-fh4qw no one said it was easy. Canon has one, so it’s possible…
@@JL-fh4qw I feel like you enjoy complaining. It’s sad.
@@JL-fh4qw buahahhahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahjahahah
Thanks for the laugh.
have a lot of Thx for your clear and true words. Exactly this was my experience with Fujifilm at the time, when I purchased the new X-T5. A lot of Fujifilm lenses was not good enough for this new high demanding sensor. So I sold a lot of my Fujifilm gear and count more on my parallel system: Sony. But I don't want to sell my Fujifilm system. There must be a solution. And in this case I think I will skip the xf16-55 for the Sigma 18-50mm. In the end I think: Fujifilm should announce new zoom lenses for standard and wide angle. New ones that fit perfectly to the new 40 mp sensor
Excellent comparison. Thanks. Hopefully Sigma will produce more high-quality lenses for Fuji, which will encourage Fuji to upgrade the quality of their lenses and make them price competitive.
Hugh, would you recommend this or the Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4 for the X-S20?
Glad, the wonderful SIGMA standard crop-lens is coming to the Fujifilm cameras. Great match!
Honestly, even the objectively "terrible" old XF 35 f/1.4 on my X-T2 (especially pair with my XF 50 f/2 and XF 16 f/2.8) are what I'm keeping over my Z6II with 24-120 f/4 S. Is the Z6II objectively better? Of course. Are my photos with it better? No... surprisingly. I just feel more inspired and enjoy the experience of shooting with the X-T2 and the tiny lenses better. I even got an 18mm f/1.4 because of the glowing reviews and regretted it, not because it is a bad lens, but because the tiny 16mm f/2.8 does what I need for a wide angle for the few times I use wider focal lengths. Do I want the X-T5 and all the new glass? Yes. But the X-T2 does what I need, and the less I try and keep up with the Joneses, the more I find myself inspired in my photographic work.
Continue to enjoy!
Caveat: I’m an amateur and hobbyist, so I’m looking at it through that lens. There is 1 glaring difference between the compared lenses: build. The 16-55mm is larger and heavier, but is also much more robust and weather sealed. The comparison ends as soon as you get caught in the rain or knocked into a snowbank, and now need to buy another Sigma.
The better comparison would be with the 18-55 f/2.8-4. Still an excellent lens image quality wise for actual, real life comparisons, and has image stabilization which is essential for smaller/lighter cameras with high resolution.
Sorry for being blunt; if you’re cropping out more than 50% of the frame for your composition, you have the wrong lens. If you’re doing so still expecting maximum image quality, you may be expecting too much from your equipment. If there is too much of a difference between f/2.8 and f/4 regarding depth of field, neither will actually satisfy and might as well get a cheap, vintage 50mm f/1.4 (resolution won’t matter anyway because everything is out of focus). Pentax made a variant of their 50mm in the 80s-90s that is amazingly sharp at reasonable distances.
And the XF 18-55mm is cheaper still when bought as a kit lens, with plenty in the used market as well.
If you’re buying into Fujifilm 1st time, and just buying a body separately, the Sigma might be an excellent option. And I’d highly recommend Fujifilm X bodies to serious students; to have the manual, mechanical settings adjustments. I wouldn’t consider the Sigma as an upgrade to what you may already have though.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Reasonable may disagree, and you seem reasonable. While your blunt assertion about cropping is certainly a reasonable position to take for film or lower resolution sensors, you miss the primary reason why Claudia and I use them: so substitute electronics and ride Moore’s law instead of carry bigger, heavier glass. This is not a mistake, but instead a clear and reasoned choice. Have you tried this approach in your own work? As for weather resistance: you may be right about the XF 16-55’s superior weather reinsurance, but I am not certain you are and I wasn’t about to test! 😊🖖🏻
@@3BMEP To continue on with the theme of reasonable… ☺️ My own recent finances have relegated me to continue puttering along with the 24mp sensor camera, which will cloud my judgements somewhat, but that’s still much more image data than film can reproduce until you get into the realm of giant negatives with very fine grained films. There are times when “you work with what you have”, but there is a reasonably higher chance of success, when using tools to match the work. Film or digital, “filling the frame” would be preferable, no? Then there is less chance of digital artifacts, and less chance of deviations like camera motion being noticeable. The smaller the pixels get, and when pairing with smaller/lighter bodies, the chances increase of things “not looking as they should”. Detail can be a double edged sword I would think.
Fully accept my wording was likely overly harsh. I’d still think there are more considerations in this than ultimate resolution;and those differences are not so different that the other considerations (like weather dealing and image stabilization) can be factored out. Nice to have options!
Maaaaaaan it’s a great time to be in the 24-26mp Fuji ILC game. Sweet used options for XT/XH/X Pro cameras in the $500 to $1200 range. I still think the XT3 is amazing as is the XT4. Glory days of X-trans sensors making it hard to tell a huge difference between them and the new 26mp stacked sensor in the XH2s, particularly with stills. Hope you’re doing well!
Nice to see you here, Chris!
@@3BMEP it’s good to be here 😃
Master reviewer of real world use, practicality and highlighting the big advantage that other reviewer just say and not explaining it in a daily workflow advantage. Good review bro, keep it up
how does the weather sealing compare between the two?
I'd be curious.....if Sigma can make a 2.8 zoom that much smaller than the Fujinon 16-55, I wonder what they could do with a lens the same size? A 1.8. maybe? An 18-55 f/1.8 Art would be interesting to see on the market.
hell, just an 18-45mm f2 would make as many waves as Canon's 28-70mm f2 did. even if it weighed a solid 2 pounds (1kg)
Thanks for the great review! 3 questions: a) is the LMount Sigma Art 24-70/2.8 not as good as the Nikon Z 24-70/2.8? [I use both systems and have to decide for which system i will buy that zoom], b) is the Sigma 18-50/2.8 in your view as good as the LMount Sigma 28-70/2.8?, c) I use also MFT, how would you compare the Lumix 12-35/2.8 II or the FL 15/1.7, 25/1.4 MkII and 42,5/1.7 with this Sigma 18-55/2.8 for Fuji?
I would love to see an XPro IV, but unfortunately it will be almost as big as a Lumix S5 and only 200g lighter. Same for XT5 (there is even less differences). So for me a successor of the MFT Lumix GX9 with a new sensor, AF, VF would be almost more attractive - if the older MFT lenses are able to deliver on 24MP or 32MP MFT sensors. If not, I have to look at my Fuji system, clean the table and switch all lenses to the newest designs. Man, this is so difficult to decide. A XPro is still (besides Leica) the only MLU with optical viewfinder. I like that a lot on my Xpro1. My XE3 is just not that joy to use without an optical viewfinder.
Greetings!
How does it compare to Tamron 17-70 f2.8?
Curious to get your thoughts on Tamron 17-70 f2.8 ... but basically best of Fuji cannot compete with basic of Full Frame?
Very compelling and entertaining presentation. Much appreciated!
😊🙏🏻
LOVE the presentation!!! Great information too. I want to upgrade my 18-55mm kit lens. This helps me decide. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent video 😊!
Fuji system is rocking it with many options that's the way consumers like
Hi Hugh. Love your channel, your thoughtful assessment of what matters when choosing and using camera gear. I have found myself acquiring an extensive set of f2 primes which do the job very well. I do however find myself constantly swapping lenses and there’s the rub. If I were to go for a mid range zoom that would perform at a similar level across the focal lengths from 18 to 50; would you go for the sigma or the Fujifilm 16-55?
it's gonna depend on what you value more. the Sigma is much smaller and handles backlighting better and can close focus pretty well. but the Fujinon doesn't have chromatic aberration issues, has an aperture ring, and can hit the magical and often sought-after 24mm and 85mm (technically 83mm) equivalents.
Well put!
A Hugh Brownstone video! Just in time for lunch. Awesomeness 🎉
😉🖖🏻
If Fuji can make the next 16-55 a F1.8 or F1.4 lens for the same weight and size of the current generation I would love that
Thanks for the video, Hugh. Nice eyeglasses you have. Would you mind sharing which brand or model are those?
Zenni magnetic
So you had an XE4, and shoot primarily stills, does the Sigma 18-50's constant aperture out-rank the IS built into the 18-55 Fujifilm 2.8-4 kit lens? Just wondering what would be the best option for a travel zoom.
I’m wondering the same thing for my X-E4 travel camera. Got the XF18-55 f2.8-4 already but prefer using the X-E4 with primes as f4 at the long end doesn’t give shallow enough DOF and it’s a little front heavy. But it is IS. The only benefit ?
Good question that I cannot answer without having them side by side - but that’s why YT is great (others have done that test).
Great review, thanks for taking the time to make it. It would be great if you could also add the weights in grams though!
Indeed. The metric system is alive and well in the camera world!
Google
i've owned a 16-55 for nearly three years now and have gone back and forth multiple times on selling it in favor of a 16-80 but never could give up its sharpness and f2.8 aperture. now with the 18-50 from sigma the argument to keep the 16-55 seems much smaller, especially since i have the other two f2.8 zooms so that the 16 and the 55 wouldn't really be missed all that much.
I like the Sigma more than the XF 16-80.
I never thought I’d get another zoom after vowing not to get one but it makes sense to get a lens with all the focal lengths 18 23 35 75 .. It was all just confusing which prime lenses to bring sometimes lol
I love the look of this lens. 100% getting this as a walk around lens
I'm just waiting for Sigma to announce that they can change the mount on my 18-35mm so I can stop using the fringer adapter
I bought the Sigma. Which Fuji lens is the one you speak so highly of and will not sell?
It’s not for me, but yes yes yes to more choices.
I would really like to see them make a 14 to 40. Yeah that would be the most perfect focal length because that would be 21 mm wide for landscapes and streetscapes and it would be 60 mm for portraits and so on 14 to 40 Would actually be a perfect focal length for many photographers. I actually don’t own a 24 to 70 in full frame on my Nikon system and I’ll tell you why because I had a wipe it goes for 15 to 30. I then have a 50 mm and then I have the 70 to 200 and I sensually just move forward and back with those different lenses to create my 24 to 70 zone and I crop when I edit. I think the days of 2470 should be numbered. I do not see it is a useful focal length at all but I will cop a lot of flack for saying that but that’s okay. I believe 14 to 40 would be so perfect 2.8 right through there you go Fuji make that lens.
I would love you to benchmark these lenses along side Metabones Speedbooster and CONTAX Zeiss glass (Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-85 mm f/ 3.3-4 C/Y) . As I use this combination and the image quality is mindblowing. While not as compact. Think it will knock your socks off
Will Sigma likely ever offer ART lens for Fuji?
I'm hoping Fuji updates the 16-55 to be smaller, lighter, and more modern. Sony also slimmed down a lot of their lenses while increasing image quality.
I would do the same thing too, i.e. buy the Sigma and a XF 1.4 prime; the 16-55 is way too large for APS-C. After some testing of some of Fujifilm's cameras and lenses, I did find the lenses to be somewhat disappointing in terms of image quality, they aren't bad but are not good enough compared to full-frame lenses of a similar "grade", i.e. like the XF 1.4 primes comparing to the Nikkon Z mount S primes or Sony GM lenses.
My worry about Fujifilm's 3rd party lens support is that 3rd party lens makers tend to make more budget orientated APS-C lenses and put most of their effort on full-frame lenses since that market is larger. With the current crop of 40MP cameras from Fujifilm, those budget orientated 3rd party options might not be good match for their newer bodies.
What prime lenses would you recommend? I have the sigma 18/50 already. Now I need one prime
Do you know the Viltrox Pro 27mm and 75mm lenses? They seem like a great option for Fuji.
My X-T5 arrives this week after years of Nikon DSLRs. This lens comparison was a factor in that!
This Sigma, plus the Fuji 70-300, make a very compelling package for single carry-on travel.
We need to remind ourselves that a 40 megapixel sensor in an aps-c format camera is the equivalent of a 90 megapixel sensor in a full frame camera, which is massive! Obviously, Fuji was looking into the future. It is going to take time and patience on our part for Fuji's new generation of lenses to be released.
You should become a writer and read yoyr audiobooks. This is so fun.
You had me at anodyne
Fuji could take card from Nikons deck and licence the design with there own branding and service, corporate Sigma notwithstanding, Given it seems Sigma have found a cracking compromise of design and optical formule where there are likely few permutations of formula that do better and avoid patent. Fuji should probably throw its energy into rolling out latest tech across its model line up and improving the focus AI.
Good point on second hand market, its becoming very viable without worrying you are missing out, apart from focusing AI, which although otherworldly on latest canon and Sony has been good enough for 90% for 90% for a couple of generations.
Not specific to this channel, but reviewers seldom seem to consider part to part variability in lenses. I'm not suggesting one purchases 30 lenses of both makes to make a statistically robust argument, but variability in mass manufacturing does exist and can explain differences in lens performance, e.g. sharpness, decentering, CA etc.
Absolutely right - and I DO mention this from time to time. It’s one reason why I like lensrentals.com’s testing: they include copy to copy variation.
i dont know how many thoughts i can hold. in 4 mins, i've been told to hold 5 different thoughts
Same
Thanks for comparing with the red badge. Others keep comparing against the Fuji kit lens, pretending the kit lense really costs SRP. You've very much given me something to think about but one important edge to even the kit lense, I can take it to sports events, but here in Canada they wouldn't let me bring a 3" lense
Thank you so much for a a wonderfull content
🙏🏻😊🖖🏻
Hugh, you do a great job on these videos. They’re intelligent, thoughtful and so thought provoking. It must be challenging when you have such a diverse audience. How can you prioritize features and benefits when many viewers haven’t figured out their own priorities, or assume that theirs are everyone’s?
We must convince photographers, especially beginners, that buying a better camera or lens does not automatically make them a better photographer. Advanced tools in unskilled hands does not necessarily produce good output.
Thank you, David. Your end point is well taken. I often say “yes, its about the gear but no, its not about the gear its about the people.” That plus one on one zoom appointments to discuss gear vs a person’s objectives and where they are in their photographic journey; and responding to comments (less and less frequently, due to the increasing size of the audience) are my current tool set for making this point.
Do you know the Viltrox Pro 27mm and 75mm lenses? They seem like a great option for Fuji.
I do indeed; see my reviews of both. 😊🖖🏻
@@3BMEP I'll look for your videos about them. I want both too! LOL. I'm trying to sell my Canon 16-35mm III to buy both and 1 more cinema lens. But it's hard to sell such a good lens. But I really prefer lenses that don't always need an adapter. Still thinking...
I bought the Xt-5 with the 16-80 as a kit. Funny that that lens is not listed as one of the best for the Xt-5. However, I still like the results I get. I also have the 18mm 1.4 which is a superb lens.
I don’t love the 16-80, but yes: 18/1.4 is superb!
Just ordered the xt4 with the same lens as a kit. I read a lot of bad stuff about the lens but I think it will be a good way to see if I need the 80mm end or wide, from there I'll probably buy a couple of primes then sell the 16-80 or keep as a walk around lens. Looks like they sell for about £400 2nd hand still.
I think you got a bad copy for CA. Not an issue on mine.
I don’t think so. The CA is consistent with other Sigma lenses in this class I’ve had before. The real question is: will this level of CA matter to most people? No.
One point that I don't believe was mentioned is that the 16-55 appears to be relatively parfocal, whereas the Sigma is far from it, making zooming during video impossible on the Sigma without erratic focus changes. However it may be somewhat of a moot point since Fuji seems unable to fix the exposure stepping issue when zooming, which continues to be one of the most frustrating downsides to filming on Fujifilm, even on the new PZ lens, from the reviews I've seen; which is even more puzzling when you consider that consistent exposure throughout the zoom range was actually advertised as a feature of the PZ lens.
while the fujinon definitely not parfocal, the linear motor does make for a much smoother zoom if done with even just a little care. the exposure stepping can't really be fixed, but can be smoothed. every zoom, even constant aperture ones are variable aperture to some degree simply because of the physics of lens construction. the 'constant' aperture zooms just limit the aperture blades from opening as wide as possible on the wider focal points, sometimes for mechanically necessary reasons, other times for consistency.
f.2.8 at 55mm is an aperture width of 19.6mm. if the blades assumed the same orientation at 16mm then the lens could theoretically be 16-55mm f0.81-2.8. there are myriad reason why this might not be possible with the specific construction of the lens, but shows that the notion of a constant aperture zoom lens is a manufactured idea.
@@AJ-em2rb what you’re saying all makes sense technically. However in practice many camera makers have solved the exposure stepping issue. I can’t tell you whether it’s through lens design or clever firmware to compensate (doesn’t matter from user perspective) but Sony bodies/lenses do not exposure step, so it is certainly a solvable problem.
Loved this video thanks a lot thumbs up from me!! i knowww iknowww its a bittt nitpicky but watching this on a smartphone you'd really help me out if next time maby you could also put the gram variants on the right at 8:32 just a small feedback thingy you did mention the gram diffrence though so thanks:))
This is review triggered me to buy Sigma 18-50, wow what a sharp lense and blown away with the sharpness. Way lighter than 16-55.
Enjoy!
6:38 the xf is no less sharp. the image is just blurry... you did not notice???
Nice lens but no comparison to the 16-55.
But he just compared them across various metrics didnt he?
Bang bang bang. Can't wait for this lens to come in the mail for my X system.
Im glad you bring this to light. The truth is that red badge fuji lens is not the best optically, nor the best to carry around for street photography.
I quickly sold mine and just go the kit lens. I only missed the WR, but oh well.
I totally see the point of this lens. Small, lightweight, bright aperture and good iq. But it has no aperture - ring. This and the 18mm instead of the 16mm is why i will stick with my 16-55.
I understand. I’m not walking away from my 16-55 either.
I love your videos. You remind me of Jeff Goldbloom 😅
😊🙏🏻🖖🏻
Zeus ... No less
I'm suprised that you didn't really address the elephant in the corner... an 18-50 is not the same lens as a 16-55. In 35mm terms, youare comparing a 28mm bottom end to a lens with 24mm bottom end. Huge diifference here. On the top end, you are comparing a lens at about 75mm to about 82mm. Not as huge of a difference, but still significant.
However, commbine them, and you are comparing a lens that has a 2.78 zoom ratio to one that has a 3.43 zoom ratio. HUGE difference...
This, in part explains why it is a larger and heavier lens, why it is harder to achieve great optical performance, and why it will be more expensive.
Honestly, this should really only be compared to the 18-50 zoom... because they are both able to accomplish the same photographic goals for most people in terms of coverage and general applicability.
ALSO... I can't believe you didn't even mention the obvious missing element on the Sigma that makes it a non-starter for some (many?) Fujifilm shooters...
I’d venture to suggest that you’ve articulated the proper approach given you, your use cases and your priorities. But I’d also suggest you missed some of what I said, and more importantly the value of humility when asserting there is only one legitimate way to evaluate something. Just a thought. 🖖🏻
@@JL-fh4qw Whoosh... the point just went completely over your head...
Already had Sigma on preorder for my x-h2. Sounds like I didn’t make a mistake.
Sorry but I’ll stick to the Fuji thanks 🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧
All good! 👍🏻🖖🏻
👍👍👍
what ?
Cost effective, light and great quality. Now please weave your magic on a 50-140 alternative please Sigma!
In my testing Fujifilm is much better. Realistically you could not compare Fuji and Sigma, Fuji 16-55mm dominate in every single way.