One of the greatest advantages of the Sigma that is not mentioned here is the extremely close minimum focal distance, you can almost touch your subject at 18mm which opens up a lot of possibilities for macro photography.
Slightly soft corners at 55mm with the Fuji, no problem. If I'm shooting a portrait the corners will be in the out of focus area anyway, so as long as the center is sharp, I'm happy. The edge to edge sharpness at 18mm with the Fuji is more important to me, and it delivers even at f/2.8. Add to that the image stabilization and aperture ring and the fantastic (based on years of use) 18-55mm Fuji will continue to be my general zoom of choice.
Just sold my Fujifilm 18-55mm F2.8-4 because if I only need this focal range I prefer prime lenses. Bought the 18-135mm instead (and yes, not the 16-80). *This* is a real zoom. Cheers from Switzerland and thanks for the good work!
Did exactly the same in 2014. Sold my 18-135 in 2017. IQ started to be visibly low on the zoom when compared to prime. Apple to orange I know but still. Looking now for something that can give me the 18-23-35-50 in one single lens and I think I will go for the Sigma. Happy photos from Belgium.
Interessting how different the price points are in different countries. In Germany most retailers (besides Black Friday deals) sell the Fuji for 799€, while the new Sigma is listed at 499€. And this makes much more impact for people with less money.
Just happily 'downgraded' from the Fuji XF 16-55 to the Fuji XF 18-55 and I don't think you can beat that lens on value for money, especially used! It depends on what you really need from the lens (WR, OIS, f2.8 etc.) in terms of compromises on either lens.
The 16-55 despite of its quality, seems to be disliked by many enthusiasts, probably due to its sheer weight. That lens also notoriously reported to have suffered from dust infestation problem on the rear lens element, rendering it unusable at slower aperture.
Would have been curious to see the verdict for the XF Fuji lens at 50mm, as my experience is that is sharpens up a lot when going a little away from the most extreme end of the range. This could easily have been a design consideration for the Sigma, as well.
The main attraction 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. I also have the Fuji 16-80 f4 which is a good lens but a bit chunky and a Fuji 15-45 which is sharp as hell and extremely light weight, but the power zoom sucks. If Sigma would come out with a lens like that without power zoom I'd grab it. 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.
Do you know you don't have to use the power zoom to zoom? You can convert the manual focus ring to a zoom ring in the camera software (in my X-T30), assuming you don't mind losing manual focus ability. I agree the power zoom sucks. I wish Fuji had made the lens without the power zoom and better lens sharpness on its telephoto end. It's very sharp from 15 to ~28.
@@peacefulremedy1233 Sorry for the late response here. The Sigma lens was much lighter and seemed sharper than the Fuji, and auto-focus is much faster than the Fuji. The Sigma images look more 3D like and contrasty. And of course, the price. An aperture ring would have been nice, but i really don't miss it. I've owned that Sigma lens for over a year now and still love it.
Thanks for that. I was looking forward to this lens, but I think I'll keep my 18-55mm instead. And maybe get the Sigma 56mm. There are loads of second hand 18-55mm to be had here in the UK too for anyone looking for one.
I would go with the Sigma lense. Not mentioned in the video, but the Sigma lense has the close-up capability (maximum magnification x0.35/1:2.8 on wide, x0.2/1:5 on Telephoto compared to Fuji's maximum magnification is only x0.15 on Telephoto). F2.8 is also better than F2.8-4 IMO.
Though I most often shoot with manual lenses on my X-E3, I love the 18-55 kit lens it came with for anything that requires autofocus or images stabilization.
I shoot Sony FF and my backup / light weight gear is aFuji X-E4 with 27mm / 18-55mm / 70-300. The 18-55 turns out super results and the stabilisation is really helpful. I bought mine used through MPB in as new condition. It is good that Sigma have produced this lens. I just don't see a use case for getting it. For those it suits I can see it being a very good buy.
This review was so timely and just perfect. Thank you. I'd been umming and aaahing about the sigma 18-50 given I have the fuji f2.8-4 and I have the simga 50mm f1.4 which is amazing but I think you've convinced me not to bother.
The aperture ring is a really big factor for many users of the Fuji ecosystem. The only lens I have without it is the 50-230 and I miss it terribly when I switch from my other lenses. The two stops at the long end could be a factor if you plan on using it in low light a lot. The 18-55 Fuji is still a stellar all round lens. Personally I don’t really see why Sigma bothered with this focal length. So many other zooms would’ve made much more sense imo. Oh well
You don't see why Sigma bothered with this focal length? Bc an f2.8 standard zoom that's lightweight and compact is what many fuji users (myself included) are after. The lack of aperture ring is a minor annoyance but for all the other benefits, this lens is incredible.
The 18-55 it's a fantastic lense but in my modest opinion, it would benefit from an upgrade: 1) weather sealed. 2) fixed aperture at f2.8 3) improved clickable aperture ring, just like the one on the XF27. 4) not sure if possible but slightly smaller size to make it even more portable, it would be nice. I know, call me a dreamer but I'd love to see such a lense. Thank you for the comparison.
@@donjulioanejo Absolutely. I see no way that the 18-55 can be changed into a constant F2.8 *and* also be smaller. We saw what had to be done to make a smaller f2.8 zoom (i.e. the Sigma 18-50).
It would be nice if tamron or sigma made lenses for APS-C cameras with wider apertures like 16mm f1.0 , 23mm f1.0 , 33mm f1.0 , 56mm f1.0 , 70mm f1.0 , 90mm f1.2 , 11-23mm f2.0 , 16-50mm f2.0 , 50-140mm f2.0 etc. so it can go head to head with full frame cameras in low light and autofocus performance
Making equivalent lenses for smaller sensors is more difficult and more expensive. At that point it's better to buy full frame or buy something that has a full frame upgrade path atleast like E mount, if you have the desire to buy APSC but want FF results.
Just go full frame dude. Just see Fuji 50 1.0 weight vs 85 1.4 or the newest trio xf 1.4/1.2 vs 1.8 FF primes. You don't really save any weight or size with those. I doubt the AF is great either due to big lens elements
It might be expensive, but it won't cost much more than Fujifilm native lenses! And it may be heavier than Sony GM lenses, but not as heavy as Canon RF L lenses APS-C cameras such as the Canon Eos R7, Fujifilm X-H2 and X-H2S have better specifications and lower price than fullframe cameras such as the Sony A7IV, Canon Eos R6 1st gen, Nikon Z6II or Nikon Z7II. It will be a great alternative for users of cameras like the Fujifilm X-H2 or X-H2S to get results on par with fullframe cameras.
@@trym2121 in general you are absolutely right. Equivalent lenses will generally be pretty much on par in size and weight. But i found one exception so far... The Viltrox 75mm 1.2 if you ignore the missing 20mm, you got a contestant for a 135mm 1.8. Since i owned a Sony A7 III and the Sigma 135 1.8 i can tell you: the Viltrox is waaaaay lighter, smaller AND (this really surprised me) sharper than the Sigma. And as the icing on the cake less CA. I get very very similar looks for half the price and half the weight - and thats really freakin awesome. I just bought the X-H2 and that lens even resolves the 40 MP very well. There is only one downside, which might turn some people down, but that depends on the shooting style... The AF isnt as quick compared to the Sigma. But if you can deal with that... damn you're in for a treat. Used X-S10 plus this lens will run you 1200 bucks, which is roghly the price for a new 135mm 1.8 Sigma (Sony E-Mount) - its ridiculous...
Test charts tell little sadly about how a lens really performs unless you only do copy work, you need to get them out in the field - I found the Fuji 18-55 suffered pretty strong curvature at 55mm at long range to infinity (landscapes etc) which ruined everywhere outside the centre area , the wide end suffered curvature too and maybe a bit of focus shift - this may be where the Sigma could shine ? . I`ve seen quite a bit of sample variation with the Fuji too regarding tilted optics - though again Sigma have been notorious for this over the years also , ....... also Check EDGES rather than the rarely ever needed corners - I`ve seen lenses where the extreme corners are soft but the edges are bang on ..
Based on this review, I don't think I would side-grade (neither up nor down) to the Sigma from the Fuji (which basically lives on my XT3) - especially considering my fuji camera is just my 'I want to just take pictures as jpgs for fun and not have to worry about editing them' camera. BUT the 2.8 constant is tempting since most of my other lenses for my 'professional' camera are constant aperture. In any case, I'm just excited to see fuji opening up the x-mount to more lens options! Thank you for your review ^_^
I have a Fujifilm XC 15-45. Its compact, has power zoom I am not fan of, and produces decent images along with my Fujifilm XE4. Can someone suggest if this Sigma will have better images quality than XC 15-45, specially given the fact that Sigma doesn't have Vibration reduction and is less wider compared to Fuji ? I use the camera for street photography, just to give a better perspective of what I need the recommendation for.
Im selling my 18-55 going for the Sigma for sharpness and constant aperture. I really like the Tamton 17-70 but i may keep that and the sigma- one for walk-around and the other for travel.
Sigma needs to bring a mirrorless update to their 1.8 zooms (18-35 & 50-100). I would even pay a premium if they made those with the I series styling and made it their first DC DN Art lenses and first zoom I-series lenses.
For some reason my 18-55 kit lens quality is very “mid”. It’s a night and Day difference when I switch to my 35mm f2 prime. ..I going to sell for the sigma or either Fuji 16-80mm
Does the Sigma handle the new 40mp sensors well? I'm buying the X-H2 and read that it handles their primes excellent. But i wonder for this lens. The f2.8 all the way is what gets me to choose this lens. Just to have it, i almost always shoot prime's tho.
Just in time, getting a xh2s tomorrow and been contemplating to upgrade my kit lens ,i do feel its still pretty good and reminds me a lot of the 24-105 F4L from canon, so yeah no need to upgrade, ill stick with my prime if I need more speed.
I have the Fuji 16-50 which is a fantastic lens. Recently I had to send it in for repair. I borrowed my daughter's Fuji 18-55 lens to tide me over. I really love the size but disappointed at the comparison with the 16-50. But for "street photography"? Hmm... I was hoping the Sigma would do a lot better against the Fuji and I would have considered it for those times when I want to travel lighter. But if the two lower-end lenses are about the same, I think I'll forget about traveling lighter.
Unless you really, really need the Sigma's f/2.8 at 50mm for its shallow DOF (and there are other lenses for that), Fuji's f/4 at 55mm 'handicap' is offset by its image stabilisation if you want to use it in for instance, low-light situations. The street price of a brandnew Fuji too, is sometimes even lower than that of the Sigma, and there are lots of near-mint secondhand Fujis avalaible for an even better deal. Add to that the aperture ring on the Fuji which sorely lacks on the Sigma, and it makes you wonder why Sigma bothered at all to produce their lens. iMHO, the Fuji is a clear winner here.
Aperture ring on the Fujifilm is there but it is not marked. This zoom is supposed to replace all fujicrons f2 lenses in one single lens. This lens is for the budget, not for the pros. You only get benefits from OIS on static subject. For people or moving object, faster shutter speed is important so is the brighter aperture. More importantly, one stop is two times less light in your picture. Either you will need to crank up the ISO or wil end up with a dark image. 2.8 constant is important for people who don't want to mess up with different focal in fast environment shooting. This is not a street lens purpose by definition. Of course it can be used as such but it is best suited for events/family/travel. Keyword is convenience. This has a sealed rubber gasket vs. none on the Fuji. And it has greater macro possibilities. Agree with you on one point. Cheap XF 18-55 can be found second hand. It's a matter of time before the Sigma follows the same way. After all, the Fuji is 10 years ahead.
@@jeremiebotte1259 None of Fuji's XF zooms (with a few exceptions) are pro-grade. It's also not really the pro market they're aiming for, for that you have to go GTX within the narrow field it caters for. That said, you can still get excellent results with the XF line of products. My point is that the Sigma product doesn't really complement Fuji's XF product line which makes me wonder why they did it in the first place.
Im a xf18-55 user. This Video is awsome! Thanks for the comparison. However, Im still winderig which is best for me, Sigma 18-50, xf18-55 or Tamron 17-70 and this topic has never been dicussed so far. Hope you might find it interesting!
I have to say an APS-C lens starting at 18mm doesn't impress me anymore and I won't buy. I'm sticking to the 15-45 mm as there's no alternative although it's some kind of weird (electric zoom), but I'd love to have a desent 15-45 f/2.8 with zoom, aperture and focus rings.
@@fellowcitizen 15 mm is quite different to 18 mm and I'd expect better performance. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 was a good lens but with quite crappy mechanics.
Yeah, I've been wondering the same. Not sure why they compared it to a kit-lens with OIS, when Fujis fixed aperture zoom should be the clear competitor.
In 2020 I would have said “why isn’t DPReview filming on an R5? It’s going to be better than MFT. But now that we see a mix of GH6 and R5C videos, I kind of prefer the Pannyboy. It’s more neutral, even when similarly-saturated.
Great review thanks! Just wondering, the 18-55 Fuji isnt listed as a 'makes the most of the high resolution sensor' lens for the XH2. I have the XH2. Does anyone know if the Sigma is? Cheers
My guess is image quality is a combination of both lenses at the strongest, extra 2mm at wide end and extra 5mm at long end. Biggest difference, marginally worse image quality but with a huge weight advantage for the Sigma. I’ve got the 16-55 and it’s a monster lens for more than one reason. Still haven’t seen anything worth ditching the 16-55 for, both native and third party. The 16-55 is just so good that it’s worth the extra weight when I want the image quality.
If Sigma can do it , why not Fujifilm? They could come with a XF 18-50 f2.8 constant aperture, an aperture ring an WR. No need for OIS at this point as IBIS is getting feature in pretty much every camera. And no, it won't be an XF 16-55 MK2 because focal length on both sides are different.
They've been "let in" a long time ago, just didn't want to because they weren't sure if the system is a good seller. Seems like Tamron and Sigma have finally been convinced, after Viltrox was cleaning up with their third party lenses.
IS Fuji 16-80 f4 better then the 18-50 f2,8 ? I love to replace Mi travel camera Nikon D7200 and zoomlens DX 16-80 ED with the Fuji X-S20. Just can't decide witch lens to by. Thanks
Fujinon xf 16-55mm f2.8 r lm wr A lens of remarkable quality in optical and mechanical terms, excellent brightness but a very big flaw: the rubber of the zoom (ring grip) is worn and detached when using the lens in a non-intensive way and for short periods. Considering the cost of the lens, I expected the best in everything, also because it is sold as a "tropicalized lens" that is resistant to bad weather, dust, etc.; for the replacement it must be sent only to the assistance center in Milan at your expense, the cost of the tire change between 100 and 150 euros. An old zoom lens used for over 20 years on an analog SLR the tires are practically undamaged. BIG DISAPPOINTMENT (video available)
Just got this little 18-50mm in pristine condition for 350 euros on the used market. I'm stunned by the image quality in such a small and lightweight package! It fits perfectly in my old X-T100. I really like shooting with primes but for me it's important to have flexibility, so I'm pretty sure it will live in my camera body haha. During my first tests, AF was acting a bit weird, though. Slower than normal and locking focus (with the green squares and all) while the image was not really focused at all. I realized that the previous ower had not updated the firmware to the 1.10 version. Did it last night but didn't have the chance to shoot again after that. Let's see.
Widzę że ten obiektyw można kupić czasem nawet za 1000zł. Pewnie nie miałeś okazji testować Sigmy 18-50 ale myślisz że warto dołożyć 500-600zł do niej czy wybrać ten systemowy 18-55? Kusi w sigmie mnie stałe 2.8 i lepsze makro ..ale różnica to aż 50% całej kwoty + mój fuji Xt200 nie posiada stabilizacji (a obiektyw fuji ma) więc zaczynam się zastanawiać czy nie lepszym wyborem cena/jakość byłby ten fuji właśnie. Dużo ludzi chwali widzę. ..
The Fuji 16-55 F2.8-4 is indeed the best kit lens available but as a standard zoom it is quite boring to be honest cause of the F4 at the long end as well as the long minimal focus distance - that's why my wife and I are getting the Sigma - cause it's constant f2.8 and the amazing close up capability. Most cheap kit lenses also allow for close focusing, this makes it very versatile!
The Sigma lens looks like a great compliment to the X-S10 - since it has IBIS and PASM dial, I won't really miss the lack of IBIS or aperture ring very much. Looks like a dream for hybrid shooters. The 18-55 is still great for video but a constant aperture is huge.
There's a plethora of good used copies of the Fuji around for $300, which will be the smartest buy for most people. With OIS and an aperture ring, it's a great deal
As a new Fuji user (6 months in with a x-t3) I thought the 18-55 was just a regular kit lens but then I saw people raving about it. I decided to do a few shoots with it only and now it’s my favorite lens. It’s also great for video. The image quality is nuts. I would recommend anyone to have the 18-55.
The 18-55/2.8-4 has been my take everywhere lens since my first Fuji X --an X-E1 I got as a D platform for my Leica & Voigtländer lenses since Leica wasn't offering anything decent then (the M8 times). I've been through 4 of those as selling a lens less body is harder in my country and the latest iteration sits in my X-T4. It is a _Jack of all trades_ that is very hard to fault. In an IBIS body it can get you sharp handheld images at 1/8" or even lower at the long end. IQ is *perfect* in real life situations, unless you want it for test pattern evaluation. A steal even at MSRP. Pointless to look at the Sigma unless you need a cheap alternative to the Fuji 18-50/2.8.
Well, I wasn't expecting that. I was kinda hoping the Sigma would blow the Fuji away optically, to the point where the stabilisation wasn't enough to swing it. Guess I'll stick with the 18-55mm for now!
Great video! It would have been great to see some comparison portrait shot with the Fuji @F4 55m vs Sigma @F2.8 50mm, because the Sigma gives up 5 mm while having a larger aperture, so the difference might be relatively small. There also seems to be some confusion about whether its Sigma 18-55 or Sigma 18-50 in the various video and article titles..
Thanks Chris! I'm still waiting for a slightly lighter version of the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 to be released for Fuji X mount. That one would definitely have found a place in my bag, mostly as an alternate to carrying the f/2 primes trio (18, 23 and 35). If Sigma manages to get that down to the 600-650 gram range, it would be hands down their most popular lens in its category. For now, I will stick with my 18-55/18-135 set for travel and general photography :)
You missed the biggest difference between these two lenses. The magnification and minimum focus distance. Like many Fuji lenses the 18-55 is weak in this department which makes it less versatile, while the Sigma has excellent magnification (0,36x and 12 cm, vs the Fuji's 0,08x-0,15x). This plus the constant f2.8 makes me want to upgrade, but I probably wont since the price gap between a new Sigma and the second hand value of the Fuji will be big in northern Europe.
In all my years of shooting and teaching I've never seen a kit lens as good as the Fujifilm 18-55. I found it tack sharp, compact and tough as nails. The OIS makes the variable aperture bearable and adds to its versatility as an EDC lens. In my teaching (college) I've seen thousands (and thousands?) of images shot with Nikon and Canon 18-55 kit lenses and not one of them was sharp when viewed critically. Not so the Fuji 18-55. Yes it's got it's limits but there's never been a better kit lens built.
I just bought an x-t1 body with some accessories for $50 from a coworker and I bought a used Fujinon 18-55mm. I'm loving it. It's my first camera since the Nikon Coolpix 980! 😂 It takes amazing pictures so far, as a beginner! I do need to clean the sensor and found this video because I watched your sensor cleaning video. I'll be cleaning it tonight after work. I'll leave the blowtorch aside for this time though. I'm still a Padawan learner lol
Mirrorless cameras can use inexpensive mount adapters for adapting older film SLR lenses which can be run to play around with like a 135mm F2.8 for some portraits or flipping a 24mm for some macro shots. The modern fuji lenses are usually better for sharpness though, and the small size and weight for apsc lenses is great. My fav fuji x lens is the Laowa macro that is super sharp at F4
@@TetraTimboman I will definitely be purchasing some vintage lenses. I did get a macro tube set that came with a 10mm and 16mm that are stackable and have the Fuji contacts. I've taken some pretty cool macro shots with them. Worth the 26 bucks for sure. I'm taking a trip to Florida in December and now I'm most excited about having a good camera to take with me. I've never been there and it's going to be a huge difference from WA state.
I have to admit this lens does not excite me for APS-C. I would like to see Sigma bring new generations of its 18-35mm and 50-100mm f/1.8 Art lenses over to the native Fuji mount instead of with adapters. That would be nice competition to see.
I had both of those lenses on the canon. Biggest issues were weight and auto-focus bugs. They are 2x the weight of the comparable Fuji lenses (2.8 instead of 1.8). Otherwise, they were super nice.
I would be interested in corner sharpness while focused in the center. I had a copy of XF18-55 that I found pretty poor at 18mm and landscape distances. It felt like field curvature.
What do you mean by 'landscape distances', and why do you believe field curvature is a problem for landscapes? A flat plane facing you is closest to you in the center and further away as the angle increases (towards the edges of the frame as you take an image). Human-made flat surfaces, such as walls and papers, have planar surfaces like that and a lens mirroring this plane can be useful when imaging them. Such a lens has a longer focus distance from the camera further away from the center of the frame, and shortest in the center. The natural world, however, is not a constructed flat surface. It is random and on average equidistant; that means ideally you'd have a custom field curvature for each scene, but if you have to pick one then a spherical field of focus is on average the least wrong for nature photography; same focus distance in every direction. Planar focus lenses are particularly useful art reproduction and industrial users who photograph planar objects, but outside of that it just doesn't have the real-world effects that many in the photo community seem to believe. If you perceive a lack of sharpness in images from the 18-55mm you are not the only one. It has widely varying reviews, some say it's great others that it's far from. Could be for a myriad of different reasons, but if it's not good for you then that's what's important for you.
Over the years, it seems that the Fuji 18-55mm has had an unusual amount of sample-to-sample variation. Some people love them, and others hate them. Respected reviewers gave different verdicts. A few years ago I owned two that were both terrible-never really critically sharp, and randomly very unsharp. It drove me crazy because I could never pin it down to autofocus misses or OIS problems. This inconsistency was something I had never experienced with any of the other 10 Fuji lenses I own. (Maybe the recent firmware update resolved this.) The 16-80 I replaced these lenses with is significantly sharper at all overlapping focal lengths.
That is exactly my experience as well, which came in a kit. The images are flat, corners blurred and a weird sharpness corridor. I even had it sent to maintenance for correction and it came back slightly but not substantially improved. However it’s Color rendition is wonderful so I use it for nature and slow apertures. Maybe I should sell it and buy some other guys kit lens, but I’m not in for this lottery.
I had the same exact experience, so much so that I thought the camera was acting up or even broken. Traded it in for the 90mm f/2 Fujinon and man what a difference in AF performance (also the same situation with my 7 other Fujinon lenses I've bought afterwards). My friend also has the same issue with the 18-55mm at work (he shoots school happenings among other things). Just unreliable AF performance backfocusing or frontfocusing or perhaps as you said, OiS issues. This camera and lens is about 1 year newer than mine was, so no improvement there. I don't have an issue with it, since I switched camps to Fuji entirely and wouldn't have wanted a variable aperture lens anyway, but I can't recommend that lens to anyone with this limited experience.
Thank you for mentioning this I have the 18-55 a while now and all I read are rave reviews but I've had mixed results. I took some terribly out of focus photos, I lost a whole evening worth of photos because they were all out of focus. Other times the focus seems fine, I wondered if it might be broken somehow and thought of taking it in to get looked at.
Ditto, that's exactly what I did. I replaced two poor 18-55 samples and purchased the 16-80 instead. I was much happier with the image results 16-80 even though it's a little chunky in comparison.
Fuji 18-55 when bought as part of a kit is probably the best value on the market. If I were making my living with photography I would probably get the Fuji 16-55 for its superior build quality. As far as optical quality, photographers care about such things but clients only care about the end result and the differences in optical quality between these two and the 16-55 is not enough to have an appreciable effect on the end result. It's only when you pixel peep at high magnifications that you can really notice such things.
Dear Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 mirror-less, 18-35mm f1.8 please, 18-35mm f1.8 it's about time, for your sake, for our sake 18-35mm f1.8 People say Amen , 18-35mm f1.8 at 800 $ less than 700 grams if possible for Sony and Fuji forget about Canon and Nikon because this lens if produced from scratch for mirror-less those 2 companies will feel the heat to open they mounts Thank you DP review but I'll wait for the 18-35mm F1.8, when it comes out I'll subscribe
The Fuji XF 18-55 should being upgraded to firmware 3.24 before the test, i hope it was being made so. 🙂 The Sigma is one year old, now avialable for X-Mount. The corner performance was being mentioned already into serveral the E-Mount reviews 2021...and please consider also sample variation, Lens Rentals would test 10 samples like always of each - to rule out exactly that, sample variation for a specific lens. I keep my XF 18-55, it served me quite well for many years. Fuji should release a updated XF 18-55, perhaps also F2.8 all through, and especially with WR here, updated for the 40 MP Sensor gen.
Just to make sure that Jordan knows we do notice/care, I'm leaving a comment to say that the 60fps feels pretty weird to watch. o.o There was some video a while back where no one commented and the takeaway was that the audience didn't notice or care, so you know, just doing my part ...anyway, I hope you're doing well and I hope the GH6 is still treating you well!
For me it's no brainer. f2.8 on both sides and better contrast. I would choose Sigma if I had a Fuji camera withI IBIS and if not, I would bought a new camera with IBIS :)
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the greatest advantages of the Sigma that is not mentioned here is the extremely close minimum focal distance, you can almost touch your subject at 18mm which opens up a lot of possibilities for macro photography.
Slightly soft corners at 55mm with the Fuji, no problem. If I'm shooting a portrait the corners will be in the out of focus area anyway, so as long as the center is sharp, I'm happy. The edge to edge sharpness at 18mm with the Fuji is more important to me, and it delivers even at f/2.8.
Add to that the image stabilization and aperture ring and the fantastic (based on years of use) 18-55mm Fuji will continue to be my general zoom of choice.
Just wish the 18-55 had a rubber gasket for some weather resistance.
Just sold my Fujifilm 18-55mm F2.8-4 because if I only need this focal range I prefer prime lenses. Bought the 18-135mm instead (and yes, not the 16-80). *This* is a real zoom. Cheers from Switzerland and thanks for the good work!
Did exactly the same in 2014. Sold my 18-135 in 2017. IQ started to be visibly low on the zoom when compared to prime. Apple to orange I know but still. Looking now for something that can give me the 18-23-35-50 in one single lens and I think I will go for the Sigma. Happy photos from Belgium.
Interessting how different the price points are in different countries. In Germany most retailers (besides Black Friday deals) sell the Fuji for 799€, while the new Sigma is listed at 499€. And this makes much more impact for people with less money.
Just happily 'downgraded' from the Fuji XF 16-55 to the Fuji XF 18-55 and I don't think you can beat that lens on value for money, especially used! It depends on what you really need from the lens (WR, OIS, f2.8 etc.) in terms of compromises on either lens.
The 16-55 despite of its quality, seems to be disliked by many enthusiasts, probably due to its sheer weight. That lens also notoriously reported to have suffered from dust infestation problem on the rear lens element, rendering it unusable at slower aperture.
I really miss my X-E3 kit with this lens. I had a few great primes too, but nothing beat the 18-55 versatility.
Would have been curious to see the verdict for the XF Fuji lens at 50mm, as my experience is that is sharpens up a lot when going a little away from the most extreme end of the range. This could easily have been a design consideration for the Sigma, as well.
The main attraction 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. I also have the Fuji 16-80 f4 which is a good lens but a bit chunky and a Fuji 15-45 which is sharp as hell and extremely light weight, but the power zoom sucks. If Sigma would come out with a lens like that without power zoom I'd grab it. 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.
Do you know you don't have to use the power zoom to zoom? You can convert the manual focus ring to a zoom ring in the camera software (in my X-T30), assuming you don't mind losing manual focus ability. I agree the power zoom sucks. I wish Fuji had made the lens without the power zoom and better lens sharpness on its telephoto end. It's very sharp from 15 to ~28.
@@scottallen6172 Thanks I was not aware of the manual zoom setting in camera but I would still want the auto-focus.
That sigma 50mm 1.4 is amazing
why do you prefer the sigma over the fuji 1.2?
@@peacefulremedy1233 Sorry for the late response here. The Sigma lens was much lighter and seemed sharper than the Fuji, and auto-focus is much faster than the Fuji. The Sigma images look more 3D like and contrasty. And of course, the price. An aperture ring would have been nice, but i really don't miss it. I've owned that Sigma lens for over a year now and still love it.
Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 is a very solid unit in this focal length range that deserves some review time.
I agree 💯. I have this lens for almost 3 months and it's a great value.
Thanks for that. I was looking forward to this lens, but I think I'll keep my 18-55mm instead. And maybe get the Sigma 56mm. There are loads of second hand 18-55mm to be had here in the UK too for anyone looking for one.
I would go with the Sigma lense. Not mentioned in the video, but the Sigma lense has the close-up capability (maximum magnification x0.35/1:2.8 on wide, x0.2/1:5 on Telephoto compared to Fuji's maximum magnification is only x0.15 on Telephoto). F2.8 is also better than F2.8-4 IMO.
Plus is weather resistant
Weather resistent, superb close up performance, and tons of bokeh. It just a wet dream for GAS patient like me🎉
Wrong title...Sigma should be 18-50mm.....looks like some other people also made same mistake.
Constant 2.8 ap. is a winner. I love the small factor as well. Sigma 18-50 will be very successfull on the market.
Though I most often shoot with manual lenses on my X-E3, I love the 18-55 kit lens it came with for anything that requires autofocus or images stabilization.
I shoot Sony FF and my backup / light weight gear is aFuji X-E4 with 27mm / 18-55mm / 70-300. The 18-55 turns out super results and the stabilisation is really helpful. I bought mine used through MPB in as new condition.
It is good that Sigma have produced this lens. I just don't see a use case for getting it. For those it suits I can see it being a very good buy.
This review was so timely and just perfect. Thank you. I'd been umming and aaahing about the sigma 18-50 given I have the fuji f2.8-4 and I have the simga 50mm f1.4 which is amazing but I think you've convinced me not to bother.
The aperture ring is a really big factor for many users of the Fuji ecosystem. The only lens I have without it is the 50-230 and I miss it terribly when I switch from my other lenses. The two stops at the long end could be a factor if you plan on using it in low light a lot. The 18-55 Fuji is still a stellar all round lens. Personally I don’t really see why Sigma bothered with this focal length. So many other zooms would’ve made much more sense imo. Oh well
The aperture ring is a deal breaker for me.
You don't see why Sigma bothered with this focal length? Bc an f2.8 standard zoom that's lightweight and compact is what many fuji users (myself included) are after. The lack of aperture ring is a minor annoyance but for all the other benefits, this lens is incredible.
@@guitartutorialmaster i own the Sigma and the Fuji. The Sigma has much worse AFc pumping in video on my X-T3.. Which Fuji-cam do you use?
nice review, glad to know the Fuji still kicks butt!
The 18-55 it's a fantastic lense but in my modest opinion, it would benefit from an upgrade:
1) weather sealed.
2) fixed aperture at f2.8
3) improved clickable aperture ring, just like the one on the XF27.
4) not sure if possible but slightly smaller size to make it even more portable, it would be nice.
I know, call me a dreamer but I'd love to see such a lense. Thank you for the comparison.
At that point you want the 16-55 f/2.8 which is like twice the weight and 3x the money!
@@donjulioanejo Absolutely. I see no way that the 18-55 can be changed into a constant F2.8 *and* also be smaller. We saw what had to be done to make a smaller f2.8 zoom (i.e. the Sigma 18-50).
Bring the 18-35 1.8 to mirrorless or better yet make it 16-30 or something
I don't know how to put heart to this comment
It would be nice if tamron or sigma made lenses for APS-C cameras with wider apertures like 16mm f1.0 , 23mm f1.0 , 33mm f1.0 , 56mm f1.0 , 70mm f1.0 , 90mm f1.2 , 11-23mm f2.0 , 16-50mm f2.0 , 50-140mm f2.0 etc.
so it can go head to head with full frame cameras in low light and autofocus performance
Making equivalent lenses for smaller sensors is more difficult and more expensive. At that point it's better to buy full frame or buy something that has a full frame upgrade path atleast like E mount, if you have the desire to buy APSC but want FF results.
Just go full frame dude. Just see Fuji 50 1.0 weight vs 85 1.4 or the newest trio xf 1.4/1.2 vs 1.8 FF primes. You don't really save any weight or size with those. I doubt the AF is great either due to big lens elements
It might be expensive, but it won't cost much more than Fujifilm native lenses! And it may be heavier than Sony GM lenses, but not as heavy as Canon RF L lenses
APS-C cameras such as the Canon Eos R7, Fujifilm X-H2 and X-H2S have better specifications and lower price than fullframe cameras such as the Sony A7IV, Canon Eos R6 1st gen, Nikon Z6II or Nikon Z7II. It will be a great alternative for users of cameras like the Fujifilm X-H2 or X-H2S to get results on par with fullframe cameras.
@@trym2121 in general you are absolutely right. Equivalent lenses will generally be pretty much on par in size and weight. But i found one exception so far... The Viltrox 75mm 1.2
if you ignore the missing 20mm, you got a contestant for a 135mm 1.8. Since i owned a Sony A7 III and the Sigma 135 1.8 i can tell you: the Viltrox is waaaaay lighter, smaller AND (this really surprised me) sharper than the Sigma. And as the icing on the cake less CA. I get very very similar looks for half the price and half the weight - and thats really freakin awesome. I just bought the X-H2 and that lens even resolves the 40 MP very well. There is only one downside, which might turn some people down, but that depends on the shooting style... The AF isnt as quick compared to the Sigma. But if you can deal with that... damn you're in for a treat. Used X-S10 plus this lens will run you 1200 bucks, which is roghly the price for a new 135mm 1.8 Sigma (Sony E-Mount) - its ridiculous...
R5C video quality is so good but the 60p was an interesting choice
yet used for a talking head, could go unnoticed
but that constant focus hunt was troublesome.
Test charts tell little sadly about how a lens really performs unless you only do copy work, you need to get them out in the field - I found the Fuji 18-55 suffered pretty strong curvature at 55mm at long range to infinity (landscapes etc) which ruined everywhere outside the centre area , the wide end suffered curvature too and maybe a bit of focus shift - this may be where the Sigma could shine ? . I`ve seen quite a bit of sample variation with the Fuji too regarding tilted optics - though again Sigma have been notorious for this over the years also , ....... also Check EDGES rather than the rarely ever needed corners - I`ve seen lenses where the extreme corners are soft but the edges are bang on ..
Great, thanks a lot guys! Exactly the comparison I was super curious for.
Based on this review, I don't think I would side-grade (neither up nor down) to the Sigma from the Fuji (which basically lives on my XT3) - especially considering my fuji camera is just my 'I want to just take pictures as jpgs for fun and not have to worry about editing them' camera. BUT the 2.8 constant is tempting since most of my other lenses for my 'professional' camera are constant aperture.
In any case, I'm just excited to see fuji opening up the x-mount to more lens options! Thank you for your review ^_^
I have a Fujifilm XC 15-45. Its compact, has power zoom I am not fan of, and produces decent images along with my Fujifilm XE4. Can someone suggest if this Sigma will have better images quality than XC 15-45, specially given the fact that Sigma doesn't have Vibration reduction and is less wider compared to Fuji ?
I use the camera for street photography, just to give a better perspective of what I need the recommendation for.
Im selling my 18-55 going for the Sigma for sharpness and constant aperture. I really like the Tamton 17-70 but i may keep that and the sigma- one for walk-around and the other for travel.
Sigma needs to bring a mirrorless update to their 1.8 zooms (18-35 & 50-100). I would even pay a premium if they made those with the I series styling and made it their first DC DN Art lenses and first zoom I-series lenses.
My 18-55 died and looking to replace. This was very helpful in adding to the data for my decision making.
Which one you got finallly
Sigma is smaller, constant aperture, closer focusing distance. It's a no brainer.
I feel like all Fuji users have XF18-55 since they bought camera
For some reason my 18-55 kit lens quality is very “mid”. It’s a night and Day difference when I switch to my 35mm f2 prime. ..I going to sell for the sigma or either Fuji 16-80mm
I find the Fuji lens is poor when focused to infinity ….. seems very good for closer subjects ….. so for landscapes isn’t great.
Does the Sigma handle the new 40mp sensors well? I'm buying the X-H2 and read that it handles their primes excellent. But i wonder for this lens. The f2.8 all the way is what gets me to choose this lens. Just to have it, i almost always shoot prime's tho.
thank you! I was just thinking about this exact choice!
thanks but I miss a comparaison in Video mode! Apparently the sigma doesn´t do so well in video mode unfortunatelly!
No aperture ring is a no-go for me...
Just in time, getting a xh2s tomorrow and been contemplating to upgrade my kit lens ,i do feel its still pretty good and reminds me a lot of the 24-105 F4L from canon, so yeah no need to upgrade, ill stick with my prime if I need more speed.
I have the Fuji 16-50 which is a fantastic lens. Recently I had to send it in for repair. I borrowed my daughter's Fuji 18-55 lens to tide me over. I really love the size but disappointed at the comparison with the 16-50. But for "street photography"? Hmm... I was hoping the Sigma would do a lot better against the Fuji and I would have considered it for those times when I want to travel lighter. But if the two lower-end lenses are about the same, I think I'll forget about traveling lighter.
Unless you really, really need the Sigma's f/2.8 at 50mm for its shallow DOF (and there are other lenses for that), Fuji's f/4 at 55mm 'handicap' is offset by its image stabilisation if you want to use it in for instance, low-light situations. The street price of a brandnew Fuji too, is sometimes even lower than that of the Sigma, and there are lots of near-mint secondhand Fujis avalaible for an even better deal. Add to that the aperture ring on the Fuji which sorely lacks on the Sigma, and it makes you wonder why Sigma bothered at all to produce their lens. iMHO, the Fuji is a clear winner here.
Aperture ring on the Fujifilm is there but it is not marked.
This zoom is supposed to replace all fujicrons f2 lenses in one single lens.
This lens is for the budget, not for the pros.
You only get benefits from OIS on static subject. For people or moving object, faster shutter speed is important so is the brighter aperture.
More importantly, one stop is two times less light in your picture. Either you will need to crank up the ISO or wil end up with a dark image.
2.8 constant is important for people who don't want to mess up with different focal in fast environment shooting.
This is not a street lens purpose by definition. Of course it can be used as such but it is best suited for events/family/travel. Keyword is convenience.
This has a sealed rubber gasket vs. none on the Fuji. And it has greater macro possibilities.
Agree with you on one point. Cheap XF 18-55 can be found second hand.
It's a matter of time before the Sigma follows the same way. After all, the Fuji is 10 years ahead.
@@jeremiebotte1259 None of Fuji's XF zooms (with a few exceptions) are pro-grade. It's also not really the pro market they're aiming for, for that you have to go GTX within the narrow field it caters for. That said, you can still get excellent results with the XF line of products. My point is that the Sigma product doesn't really complement Fuji's XF product line which makes me wonder why they did it in the first place.
Im a xf18-55 user. This Video is awsome! Thanks for the comparison. However, Im still winderig which is best for me, Sigma 18-50, xf18-55 or Tamron 17-70 and this topic has never been dicussed so far. Hope you might find it interesting!
Fuji 18-55 $300 used is pretty much a must own for any Fuji shooter.
I have to say an APS-C lens starting at 18mm doesn't impress me anymore and I won't buy. I'm sticking to the 15-45 mm as there's no alternative although it's some kind of weird (electric zoom), but I'd love to have a desent 15-45 f/2.8 with zoom, aperture and focus rings.
It would be bigger, heavier, more expensive for the same or worse performance, though
@@fellowcitizen 15 mm is quite different to 18 mm and I'd expect better performance. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 was a good lens but with quite crappy mechanics.
how about versus with Fujinon XF 16-50/2.8?
Yeah, I've been wondering the same. Not sure why they compared it to a kit-lens with OIS, when Fujis fixed aperture zoom should be the clear competitor.
In 2020 I would have said “why isn’t DPReview filming on an R5? It’s going to be better than MFT. But now that we see a mix of GH6 and R5C videos, I kind of prefer the Pannyboy. It’s more neutral, even when similarly-saturated.
interested to see Sigma 50mm vs Fuji 50mm instead of 55mm
Did Jordan switch to r5c?
Probably in preparation for a review video to have footage to show
Great review thanks! Just wondering, the 18-55 Fuji isnt listed as a 'makes the most of the high resolution sensor' lens for the XH2. I have the XH2. Does anyone know if the Sigma is? Cheers
What about Sigma vs. XF 16-55 2.8?
My guess is image quality is a combination of both lenses at the strongest, extra 2mm at wide end and extra 5mm at long end. Biggest difference, marginally worse image quality but with a huge weight advantage for the Sigma. I’ve got the 16-55 and it’s a monster lens for more than one reason. Still haven’t seen anything worth ditching the 16-55 for, both native and third party. The 16-55 is just so good that it’s worth the extra weight when I want the image quality.
If Sigma can do it , why not Fujifilm?
They could come with a XF 18-50 f2.8 constant aperture, an aperture ring an WR. No need for OIS at this point as IBIS is getting feature in pretty much every camera.
And no, it won't be an XF 16-55 MK2 because focal length on both sides are different.
Then fuji would charge 800 bucks for it lol
that really helped me make a decision :) thank you so much
greetings from germany
I’m waiting for the updated 18-35 1.8 on Fuji
When are you going to update the sharpness mat to have the King on it?
Awesome video quality!
Sigma please make an x-mount 18-35 f1.8
Nice to see outsiders finally being let in on X-Mount. A Fuji body and a (hopefully lighter) 50-100 f1.8 would be a wedding/portrait dream combo.
They've been "let in" a long time ago, just didn't want to because they weren't sure if the system is a good seller. Seems like Tamron and Sigma have finally been convinced, after Viltrox was cleaning up with their third party lenses.
Why not stack the sigma against the similarly constant apertured XF 16-55 2.8?
I love that 60FPS
My Sigma 18-50 has much worse af pumping than the old Fuji 18-55 on my x-t3. Very disappointing for video😥
so would you recommend the Sigma for the XS10?
Great idea to compare
IS Fuji 16-80 f4 better then the 18-50 f2,8 ? I love to replace Mi travel camera Nikon D7200 and zoomlens DX 16-80 ED with the Fuji X-S20. Just can't decide witch lens to by. Thanks
does the ois of the fuji add up to ibis of the fuji camera like the Xh1? which would extend the stabilization to a couple more stops Thanks
Fujinon xf 16-55mm f2.8 r lm wr
A lens of remarkable quality in optical and mechanical terms, excellent brightness but a very big flaw: the rubber of the zoom (ring grip) is worn and detached when using the lens in a non-intensive way and for short periods. Considering the cost of the lens, I expected the best in everything, also because it is sold as a "tropicalized lens" that is resistant to bad weather, dust, etc.; for the replacement it must be sent only to the assistance center in Milan at your expense, the cost of the tire change between 100 and 150 euros. An old zoom lens used for over 20 years on an analog SLR the tires are practically undamaged.
BIG DISAPPOINTMENT (video available)
the big question is - does sigma have 3d pop?
you mean pop-corn? because in reality it is fantasy...
Careful. You'll trigger a bunch of fun hating Asperger's outpatients.
And then there’s the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 with lens stabilization that pairs with camera stabilization that basically outperforms both of these lenses.
Just got this little 18-50mm in pristine condition for 350 euros on the used market. I'm stunned by the image quality in such a small and lightweight package! It fits perfectly in my old X-T100. I really like shooting with primes but for me it's important to have flexibility, so I'm pretty sure it will live in my camera body haha.
During my first tests, AF was acting a bit weird, though. Slower than normal and locking focus (with the green squares and all) while the image was not really focused at all. I realized that the previous ower had not updated the firmware to the 1.10 version. Did it last night but didn't have the chance to shoot again after that. Let's see.
1080p 60? Really?
I don't mind the 1080p, it looks fine. But the 60p cadence drives me nuts.
I can bet this is a test / experiment. Did I pass?
Posiadam XT3 z obiektywem systemowym 18-55mm i bardzo go sobie cenię za stabilizację a do portretów mam genialną 80mm f/2,8 , pozdrawiam.
Widzę że ten obiektyw można kupić czasem nawet za 1000zł. Pewnie nie miałeś okazji testować Sigmy 18-50 ale myślisz że warto dołożyć 500-600zł do niej czy wybrać ten systemowy 18-55? Kusi w sigmie mnie stałe 2.8 i lepsze makro ..ale różnica to aż 50% całej kwoty + mój fuji Xt200 nie posiada stabilizacji (a obiektyw fuji ma) więc zaczynam się zastanawiać czy nie lepszym wyborem cena/jakość byłby ten fuji właśnie. Dużo ludzi chwali widzę. ..
Still using my XT1 🙂
compare this with the tamron 17-70 please!
nothing to compare... Tamron is the FF size (sony 24-105) not sharp at 70mm, only goes to 17 mm, and it is a disgrace to aps-c community
The 18-55 is a fantastic lens
I was able to purchase the Fuji for $350 a while back. Where did the $700 price tag come from? Geez
Sigma 18-55 or 18-50?
The Fuji 16-55 F2.8-4 is indeed the best kit lens available but as a standard zoom it is quite boring to be honest cause of the F4 at the long end as well as the long minimal focus distance - that's why my wife and I are getting the Sigma - cause it's constant f2.8 and the amazing close up capability. Most cheap kit lenses also allow for close focusing, this makes it very versatile!
Well, my XF 18-55 is sharper between F9 and F10, which is uncommon for a lens.
This guys are the real Fuji guys.👍
Damn should have seen this video before
2 lens have 10 years difference…
You might want to correct your video title. Says Sigma 18-55. Should be 18-50.
Is it 30fps? 😅
Already have Tamron 17-70/2.8. Tnx, don't need it
OIS FTW. Shame that Sigma is not 16-50 :)
The Sigma lens looks like a great compliment to the X-S10 - since it has IBIS and PASM dial, I won't really miss the lack of IBIS or aperture ring very much. Looks like a dream for hybrid shooters. The 18-55 is still great for video but a constant aperture is huge.
There's a plethora of good used copies of the Fuji around for $300, which will be the smartest buy for most people. With OIS and an aperture ring, it's a great deal
As a new Fuji user (6 months in with a x-t3) I thought the 18-55 was just a regular kit lens but then I saw people raving about it. I decided to do a few shoots with it only and now it’s my favorite lens. It’s also great for video. The image quality is nuts. I would recommend anyone to have the 18-55.
The 18-55/2.8-4 has been my take everywhere lens since my first Fuji X --an X-E1 I got as a D platform for my Leica & Voigtländer lenses since Leica wasn't offering anything decent then (the M8 times). I've been through 4 of those as selling a lens less body is harder in my country and the latest iteration sits in my X-T4. It is a _Jack of all trades_ that is very hard to fault. In an IBIS body it can get you sharp handheld images at 1/8" or even lower at the long end. IQ is *perfect* in real life situations, unless you want it for test pattern evaluation. A steal even at
MSRP.
Pointless to look at the Sigma unless you need a cheap alternative to the Fuji 18-50/2.8.
I had a 18-55mm Fuji and my copy was not sharp at all. Even the lowly 15-45mm cheap plastic pancake was sharper which was shocking.
@@soupnazi81 sounds like an outlier/bad copy
@@soupnazi81 Mine is very sharp!
Well, I wasn't expecting that. I was kinda hoping the Sigma would blow the Fuji away optically, to the point where the stabilisation wasn't enough to swing it. Guess I'll stick with the 18-55mm for now!
Great video!
It would have been great to see some comparison portrait shot with the Fuji @F4 55m vs Sigma @F2.8 50mm, because the Sigma gives up 5 mm while having a larger aperture, so the difference might be relatively small. There also seems to be some confusion about whether its Sigma 18-55 or Sigma 18-50 in the various video and article titles..
Thanks Chris! I'm still waiting for a slightly lighter version of the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 to be released for Fuji X mount. That one would definitely have found a place in my bag, mostly as an alternate to carrying the f/2 primes trio (18, 23 and 35). If Sigma manages to get that down to the 600-650 gram range, it would be hands down their most popular lens in its category. For now, I will stick with my 18-55/18-135 set for travel and general photography :)
You missed the biggest difference between these two lenses. The magnification and minimum focus distance. Like many Fuji lenses the 18-55 is weak in this department which makes it less versatile, while the Sigma has excellent magnification (0,36x and 12 cm, vs the Fuji's 0,08x-0,15x). This plus the constant f2.8 makes me want to upgrade, but I probably wont since the price gap between a new Sigma and the second hand value of the Fuji will be big in northern Europe.
Holy shit that's a great point. Can't believe they missed that.
In all my years of shooting and teaching I've never seen a kit lens as good as the Fujifilm 18-55. I found it tack sharp, compact and tough as nails. The OIS makes the variable aperture bearable and adds to its versatility as an EDC lens. In my teaching (college) I've seen thousands (and thousands?) of images shot with Nikon and Canon 18-55 kit lenses and not one of them was sharp when viewed critically. Not so the Fuji 18-55. Yes it's got it's limits but there's never been a better kit lens built.
I just bought an x-t1 body with some accessories for $50 from a coworker and I bought a used Fujinon 18-55mm. I'm loving it. It's my first camera since the Nikon Coolpix 980! 😂 It takes amazing pictures so far, as a beginner! I do need to clean the sensor and found this video because I watched your sensor cleaning video. I'll be cleaning it tonight after work. I'll leave the blowtorch aside for this time though. I'm still a Padawan learner lol
Oh man. That's an absolute steal
50$ 😱
@@Henrikzen yeah, I was shocked when he said 50 bucks!
Mirrorless cameras can use inexpensive mount adapters for adapting older film SLR lenses which can be run to play around with like a 135mm F2.8 for some portraits or flipping a 24mm for some macro shots.
The modern fuji lenses are usually better for sharpness though, and the small size and weight for apsc lenses is great.
My fav fuji x lens is the Laowa macro that is super sharp at F4
@@TetraTimboman I will definitely be purchasing some vintage lenses. I did get a macro tube set that came with a 10mm and 16mm that are stackable and have the Fuji contacts. I've taken some pretty cool macro shots with them. Worth the 26 bucks for sure. I'm taking a trip to Florida in December and now I'm most excited about having a good camera to take with me. I've never been there and it's going to be a huge difference from WA state.
I have to admit this lens does not excite me for APS-C. I would like to see Sigma bring new generations of its 18-35mm and 50-100mm f/1.8 Art lenses over to the native Fuji mount instead of with adapters. That would be nice competition to see.
Yes! I agree 😁 i wabt those as well, epic lenses.
I had both of those lenses on the canon. Biggest issues were weight and auto-focus bugs. They are 2x the weight of the comparable Fuji lenses (2.8 instead of 1.8). Otherwise, they were super nice.
I love my Sigma 18-35 EF-S lens. You can always adapt it to mirrorless as I do.
Yes. Exactly this.
I would love to have a 18-35mm 1.8 native to Fuji!
I would be interested in corner sharpness while focused in the center. I had a copy of XF18-55 that I found pretty poor at 18mm and landscape distances. It felt like field curvature.
I agree with this comment, corner sharpness while focusing in the center is not good with this lens
What do you mean by 'landscape distances', and why do you believe field curvature is a problem for landscapes?
A flat plane facing you is closest to you in the center and further away as the angle increases (towards the edges of the frame as you take an image). Human-made flat surfaces, such as walls and papers, have planar surfaces like that and a lens mirroring this plane can be useful when imaging them. Such a lens has a longer focus distance from the camera further away from the center of the frame, and shortest in the center.
The natural world, however, is not a constructed flat surface. It is random and on average equidistant; that means ideally you'd have a custom field curvature for each scene, but if you have to pick one then a spherical field of focus is on average the least wrong for nature photography; same focus distance in every direction. Planar focus lenses are particularly useful art reproduction and industrial users who photograph planar objects, but outside of that it just doesn't have the real-world effects that many in the photo community seem to believe.
If you perceive a lack of sharpness in images from the 18-55mm you are not the only one. It has widely varying reviews, some say it's great others that it's far from. Could be for a myriad of different reasons, but if it's not good for you then that's what's important for you.
Over the years, it seems that the Fuji 18-55mm has had an unusual amount of sample-to-sample variation. Some people love them, and others hate them. Respected reviewers gave different verdicts.
A few years ago I owned two that were both terrible-never really critically sharp, and randomly very unsharp. It drove me crazy because I could never pin it down to autofocus misses or OIS problems. This inconsistency was something I had never experienced with any of the other 10 Fuji lenses I own. (Maybe the recent firmware update resolved this.) The 16-80 I replaced these lenses with is significantly sharper at all overlapping focal lengths.
That is exactly my experience as well, which came in a kit. The images are flat, corners blurred and a weird sharpness corridor. I even had it sent to maintenance for correction and it came back slightly but not substantially improved. However it’s Color rendition is wonderful so I use it for nature and slow apertures. Maybe I should sell it and buy some other guys kit
lens, but I’m not in for this lottery.
I had the same exact experience, so much so that I thought the camera was acting up or even broken. Traded it in for the 90mm f/2 Fujinon and man what a difference in AF performance (also the same situation with my 7 other Fujinon lenses I've bought afterwards).
My friend also has the same issue with the 18-55mm at work (he shoots school happenings among other things). Just unreliable AF performance backfocusing or frontfocusing or perhaps as you said, OiS issues. This camera and lens is about 1 year newer than mine was, so no improvement there.
I don't have an issue with it, since I switched camps to Fuji entirely and wouldn't have wanted a variable aperture lens anyway, but I can't recommend that lens to anyone with this limited experience.
Thank you for mentioning this I have the 18-55 a while now and all I read are rave reviews but I've had mixed results. I took some terribly out of focus photos, I lost a whole evening worth of photos because they were all out of focus. Other times the focus seems fine, I wondered if it might be broken somehow and thought of taking it in to get looked at.
Ditto, that's exactly what I did. I replaced two poor 18-55 samples and purchased the 16-80 instead. I was much happier with the image results 16-80 even though it's a little chunky in comparison.
Fuji 18-55 when bought as part of a kit is probably the best value on the market. If I were making my living with photography I would probably get the Fuji 16-55 for its superior build quality. As far as optical quality, photographers care about such things but clients only care about the end result and the differences in optical quality between these two and the 16-55 is not enough to have an appreciable effect on the end result. It's only when you pixel peep at high magnifications that you can really notice such things.
Dear Sigma
18-35mm f1.8 mirror-less, 18-35mm f1.8 please, 18-35mm f1.8 it's about time, for your sake, for our sake
18-35mm f1.8 People say Amen , 18-35mm f1.8 at 800 $ less than 700 grams if possible for Sony and Fuji
forget about Canon and Nikon because this lens if produced from scratch for mirror-less those 2 companies will feel the heat to open they mounts
Thank you DP review but I'll wait for the 18-35mm F1.8, when it comes out I'll subscribe
The Fuji XF 18-55 should being upgraded to firmware 3.24 before the test, i hope it was being made so. 🙂 The Sigma is one year old, now avialable for X-Mount. The corner performance was being mentioned already into serveral the E-Mount reviews 2021...and please consider also sample variation, Lens Rentals would test 10 samples like always of each - to rule out exactly that, sample variation for a specific lens. I keep my XF 18-55, it served me quite well for many years. Fuji should release a updated XF 18-55, perhaps also F2.8 all through, and especially with WR here, updated for the 40 MP Sensor gen.
Just to make sure that Jordan knows we do notice/care, I'm leaving a comment to say that the 60fps feels pretty weird to watch. o.o
There was some video a while back where no one commented and the takeaway was that the audience didn't notice or care, so you know, just doing my part ...anyway, I hope you're doing well and I hope the GH6 is still treating you well!
I’ve been so happy with my Fuji 18-55 on my x-s10 for two ish years now. It just works, and produces fine images and videos
For me it's no brainer. f2.8 on both sides and better contrast. I would choose Sigma if I had a Fuji camera withI IBIS and if not, I would bought a new camera with IBIS :)