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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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..
I think of 18-50mm as the perfect indoor friends and family lens. For that purpose, the constant f2.8 tips the balance to the Sigma for me (both for lower ISO/less noise at the longer end and for shallower depth of field). I understand that the Sigma also has nicer bokeh, which also serves the purpose of an indoor portrait oriented lens.
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.
The XF18-55/2.8-4 is a bargain when you buy it pre-owned or together with a camera. It still is one of the best kit lenses I’ve ever had. In fact, the more expensive and much heavier XF16-55/2.8 is only slightly better esp. at the long end. When you combine the 18-55 with an XF14/2.8 (same filter size) you have a great compact travel kit with excellent IQ at a bargain price.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 like my Sigma 18-50 F2.8 very much but I have a big problem with it for video. He lost the focus a lot during the zooming. I just bought a used FUJI 18-55 only for video to fit my XH2S and also because I will use the IBIS in conjonction with the OIS to minimize the movements.
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).
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.
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.
Oh man, I know why you did it, but it's weird seeing in Chris in 60fps! It did make panning around during the sharpness chart buttery smooth, though. It's also strange seeing how the manual focus jumps on the Fuji lens during the breathing test. It's also worth mentioning that Sigma lenses have a zoom ring that turns backwards compared to Fuji's native lenses. Sony as well. I'm really not sure why, as Sigma only matches nikon for that zoom direction. Is there a chance we could get a direct comparison with the E-mount version versus the Sony 2.8/16-55G and maybe the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8?
Yes, I noticed the "jumpy" focus, too. Notably, the Fuji lenses are focus by wire, and cameras are configured to focus non-linearly, depending on how fast you pull focus. I've set my camera bodies to linear focus, wondering which setting they used here.
@@problemat1que Almost all mirrorless lenses are focus by wire at this point (including the Sigma 18-50). In fact, I think that's the norm for everything mirrorless now outside of cinema lenses. Do you mean the Fuji's are usually nonlinear focus?
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.
To me, the Fuji is the best kit lens I've ever seen. I even forgot it was a f2.8-4 because I assumed it was f3.5-5.6 like many many others. Great sharpness and autofocus in many situations.
I have the Fuji 18-55 and it is my best walkaround lens, and it came bundled with the XT3 when I bought it a great lens with image stabilization very important.
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!
The price relationship seems to be completely different here in Australia with the Fujifilm being somewhat cheaper than the Sigma at the moment, and surpisingly much less than the price you quoted - even as an individual rather than purchased as a package.
You can easily get it under $300 on r/photomarket and even mpb. A bargain. But I would say try to buy a XF 16-80 F4. Better OIS, a lot sharper in the corners than 18-55, bigger range, better macro (not as good as sigma however). Similar price to the new Sigma used.
In my country (Bulgaria), if buying new from a traditional (not online) store, the Fuji lens is noticeably more expensive. The current prices are $800 USD for the Fuji and $525 USD for the Sigma
Constant f2.8.sounds great, but what a pity that it has no aperture ring. I wonder why they didn't add one, as this is one of the features which sets the Fuji-X-System apart from others.
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...
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!
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.
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.
If Fuji made lenses with a Sony e mount, I would consider it. But, Sigma makes their lenses for Sony, so I would most likely choose the Sigma in the end, as I'm not a fan of using adapters if I don't have to. Plus, the Sigma has the f2.8 across the zoom range. EDIT: The whole corner sharpness thing is more of a photographer's obsession than for filmmakers. I think photographing black and white patterns in the corner of an image is quite unrealistic when compared to real world imagery. Plus, I've never squinted and looked at the corners of any photograph I've ever looked at or taken myself. I think it's a weird idea.
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 ..
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 :)
You should put the sigma against the tamron on the Fuji system. The 3rd party standard zoom with a constant aperture of 2.8. I think that could be good video there is a difference in the range, but there is also a difference in the weight. And how does the image quality stack up against each other? I really think this would be a good video. And you could also credit me with the idea. 😂😂😂
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.
I'm waited for the video AF performance comparisation because the other Sigma Contemporary lenses are horrible in this task. The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 is amazing in photo mode, but in video it's just bad, constantly hunting and misfocusing meanwhile the Fuji XF 18-55mm is one of the best lenses for video in this system (not just because the OIS is almost as good as an IBIS, but the AF is accurate and smooth). If you don't mind the f/4 aperture in the tele end, the Fujifilm XF 18-55mm is a better lens in overall.
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.
Hi Chris and Jordon, I love the work that you are doing. There was an incident in San Francisco, where a photographer while working on a wedding was beaten by two-armed gunmen and pistol-whipped. This photographer never let go of his camera gear and unfortunately, he took a beating. Two photography channels offered up a challenge for the Community with Channels to speak up on the safety and awareness of photographers and videographers alike. You are such a Photography and Videography channel. The two channels that are talking about this and offering this challenge are Vahagraphy and 247 Media Group. If you get time out of your busy schedule, check this out starting with Vahagraphy, who brought this out to the community on his channel and please make some noise about this on your channel as well as it threatens our art and it is often forgotten!!!
I hope Fujifilm can make a new 18-55(or 18-50) lens that have better optical performance, which means can support 40MP CMOS, and about 80-120 expensive.
Maybe a gen-2 of the venerable 16-55 f 2.8 instead… increased focal range, and a way better lens, optically… comparing the sigma to this one, would completely wipe out the sigma… the price of the Fuji 16-55 being the main differentiator right now
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
how does the tamron 17-70 f2 factor into this? I don't really see any benefit to comparing the corners and sharpness levels when zoomed in at 100%. Fuji's 18-55 with a variable app seems to make the Sigma the clear winner since it's less than the fuji lens that is a kit lens with a variable aperture. To me I'd expect the real test to be between the Tamron 17-70 and the sigma 18-50.
One point that was not addressed is vignetting. The Fujifilm has a 58mm filter thread, while the Sigma is 55mm. That makes me worry a little about the Sigma, especially at the wide end.
I plan on getting the Fuji XT-5 with the Fuji lens as a kit. I currently use a Sony A6600 (which has IBIS) with the Sigma and it is an excellent lens. Your reviews, as usual, are the greatest.
If only had I a better copy of the XF18-55. I love it for its beautiful silky colours, but it’s flat in resolution and nil in the corners. I got the Sigma 18-50 for my Sony A6400 when it came out and it’s a great handy lens but in no way as good as a Tamron 28-75/2.8 for FF. So in the end I’ll most likely look for a better copy of the XF 18-55.
I’ve done a little shootout today XF18-55 vs Sigma 18-50 and the finding simple: the Sigma outperformed my copy of XF18-55 in any single respect. The XF proved to be flat, low contrast, washed out corners and edges, purple fringes against light whatever the fstop. Plus poor AF performance when OIS on. So obviously mine is simply a very poor copy.
I think that it really depends on the sensor size. I have the 18-55mm on my 16MB X-Pro1 and the Canon 24-105 L lens on my 16MB 1Ds MK II and while neither lens may be the sharpest in town, they are in my opinion perfectly matched to those sensor sizes. When one pixel-peeps at hard edges in an image, there will be exactly one line of pixels on each side of a hard line or edge in the image. At that sensor size, extra sharpness would be wasted.
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 ^_^
A lot of people don't realise just how much experience Fuji has at building lenses. They made motion picture lenses and large format camera lenses, and 35mm camera lenses for decades.
Great video and much needed. Looking to buy the shorter zoom to compliment my Fuji 35 f1.4 on an X-Pro2 body. Currently there are several used copies of the Fuji lens available in the UK for around £250 which, on balance, presents the better value for money option. I do like OIS and an aperture ring too.
I'd rather go with the Tamron 17-70 because it has both 2.8 constant aperture and OIS but it's bigger and more expensive. Out of these two i'd take used Fuji because there are no used Sigma lenses obviously. I wish Sigma made their 18-35 1.8 for mirrorless, because it was a truly unique APS-C lens.
Yes, I was surprised the Tamron wasn't brought up. It's less compact but much longer zoom range and F2.8 for flexible portrait applications where you prefer a zoom over a prime. (Where a 70mm prime unfortunately does not exist.)
I agree. I have the fuji but I've recently got the Tamron and day to day I've got used to the extra size and weight straight away, it's not an issue. Yes it's more expensive but you get more.
@@problemat1que you can have a 75mm 1.2 now for fuji... and spoiler alert: its freakin nuts. half the price of the 56 1.2... i own it already and this lens is almost weldet to my camera because its that good ^^ just search on youtube and you'll be blown away (i think)
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.
That’s exactly the comparison I’ve been waiting for! Thank you Chris! Since I use the X-E4 body as a base for a light travel kit, Fuji’s 16-55 and the Tamron 17-70 are a bit too bulky to fit the purpose.
With an xe4, the Fuji is better because of the image stabilization and aperture ring, for sure. The lack of dual dials on the xe4 makes lenses without aperture rings somewhat difficult to use.
@@balboa0621 I’ve got the Sigma 56mm/f1.4 and it’s OK, although not ideal. Obviously having that aperture ring is a huge benefit on that ascetic body, but I can deal with it.
@@bartoszpajak2285 yeah, it's a personal choice. I have the 27 mk1 without the aperture ring and using the push in front dial is a hassle. I often end up accidentally changing the iso. I don't think this would be an issue on a dual dials camera such as the xt5.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 :)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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..
I think of 18-50mm as the perfect indoor friends and family lens. For that purpose, the constant f2.8 tips the balance to the Sigma for me (both for lower ISO/less noise at the longer end and for shallower depth of field). I understand that the Sigma also has nicer bokeh, which also serves the purpose of an indoor portrait oriented lens.
According to my experience 2.8 is not enough for indoor shoots.
@@DerJohnnyWalker Unless the light is extremely low, f/2.8 is definitely sufficient. I'd still much rather shoot with an f/1.4 prime though.
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.
The XF18-55/2.8-4 is a bargain when you buy it pre-owned or together with a camera. It still is one of the best kit lenses I’ve ever had. In fact, the more expensive and much heavier XF16-55/2.8 is only slightly better esp. at the long end. When you combine the 18-55 with an XF14/2.8 (same filter size) you have a great compact travel kit with excellent IQ at a bargain price.
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🎉
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 like my Sigma 18-50 F2.8 very much but I have a big problem with it for video. He lost the focus a lot during the zooming. I just bought a used FUJI 18-55 only for video to fit my XH2S and also because I will use the IBIS in conjonction with the OIS to minimize the movements.
I use the 18-55 for video. I'm even confident in it to use the rack focus or to dolly in on a subject instead of manually doing it.
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).
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?
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.
Oh man, I know why you did it, but it's weird seeing in Chris in 60fps! It did make panning around during the sharpness chart buttery smooth, though.
It's also strange seeing how the manual focus jumps on the Fuji lens during the breathing test.
It's also worth mentioning that Sigma lenses have a zoom ring that turns backwards compared to Fuji's native lenses. Sony as well. I'm really not sure why, as Sigma only matches nikon for that zoom direction.
Is there a chance we could get a direct comparison with the E-mount version versus the Sony 2.8/16-55G and maybe the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8?
Yes, I noticed the "jumpy" focus, too. Notably, the Fuji lenses are focus by wire, and cameras are configured to focus non-linearly, depending on how fast you pull focus. I've set my camera bodies to linear focus, wondering which setting they used here.
@@problemat1que Almost all mirrorless lenses are focus by wire at this point (including the Sigma 18-50). In fact, I think that's the norm for everything mirrorless now outside of cinema lenses. Do you mean the Fuji's are usually nonlinear focus?
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.
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.
I love 60P 4K DP Review videos! It’s like I’m actually there listening to Chris IRL!
As an owner of the 18-55, I’m happy with it, minus the lack of weather sealing.
To me, the Fuji is the best kit lens I've ever seen. I even forgot it was a f2.8-4 because I assumed it was f3.5-5.6 like many many others. Great sharpness and autofocus in many situations.
I have the Fuji 18-55 and it is my best walkaround lens, and it came bundled with the XT3 when I bought it a great lens with image stabilization very important.
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!
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.
The price relationship seems to be completely different here in Australia with the Fujifilm being somewhat cheaper than the Sigma at the moment, and surpisingly much less than the price you quoted - even as an individual rather than purchased as a package.
You can easily get it under $300 on r/photomarket and even mpb. A bargain.
But I would say try to buy a XF 16-80 F4. Better OIS, a lot sharper in the corners than 18-55, bigger range, better macro (not as good as sigma however). Similar price to the new Sigma used.
In my country (Bulgaria), if buying new from a traditional (not online) store, the Fuji lens is noticeably more expensive. The current prices are $800 USD for the Fuji and $525 USD for the Sigma
I just got a new 18-55mm from a body kit for AU $350 (around 230 USD), way cheaper than the Sigma one
Constant f2.8.sounds great, but what a pity that it has no aperture ring. I wonder why they didn't add one, as this is one of the features which sets the Fuji-X-System apart from others.
I think they just adapted the Sony E mount copy they already have on the market.
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...
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!
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.
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.
If Fuji made lenses with a Sony e mount, I would consider it. But, Sigma makes their lenses for Sony, so I would most likely choose the Sigma in the end, as I'm not a fan of using adapters if I don't have to. Plus, the Sigma has the f2.8 across the zoom range.
EDIT: The whole corner sharpness thing is more of a photographer's obsession than for filmmakers. I think photographing black and white patterns in the corner of an image is quite unrealistic when compared to real world imagery. Plus, I've never squinted and looked at the corners of any photograph I've ever looked at or taken myself. I think it's a weird idea.
Wrong title...Sigma should be 18-50mm.....looks like some other people also made same mistake.
Fantastic- useful review. Fully answered all the questions I had.
Can you review the Voigtlander Nokton series for Fuji X mount? There’s no reviews on it. I have the 23 f1.2 Nokton and it’s my favorite!
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 ..
nice review, glad to know the Fuji still kicks butt!
The image quality on this videos is nuts😵💫
What happened to GH6? Suddenly Jordan prefers to shoot the non stabilised R5C instead...
Constant 2.8 ap. is a winner. I love the small factor as well. Sigma 18-50 will be very successfull on the market.
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 :)
You should put the sigma against the tamron on the Fuji system. The 3rd party standard zoom with a constant aperture of 2.8. I think that could be good video there is a difference in the range, but there is also a difference in the weight. And how does the image quality stack up against each other? I really think this would be a good video. And you could also credit me with the idea. 😂😂😂
Chris, Jordan. Please compare 17-70 and 18-50 on XH2 or XT5.
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
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.
I'm waited for the video AF performance comparisation because the other Sigma Contemporary lenses are horrible in this task. The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 is amazing in photo mode, but in video it's just bad, constantly hunting and misfocusing meanwhile the Fuji XF 18-55mm is one of the best lenses for video in this system (not just because the OIS is almost as good as an IBIS, but the AF is accurate and smooth). If you don't mind the f/4 aperture in the tele end, the Fujifilm XF 18-55mm is a better lens in overall.
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.
Hi Chris and Jordon, I love the work that you are doing. There was an incident in San Francisco, where a photographer while working on a wedding was beaten by two-armed gunmen and pistol-whipped. This photographer never let go of his camera gear and unfortunately, he took a beating. Two photography channels offered up a challenge for the Community with Channels to speak up on the safety and awareness of photographers and videographers alike.
You are such a Photography and Videography channel. The two channels that are talking about this and offering this challenge are Vahagraphy and 247 Media Group. If you get time out of your busy schedule, check this out starting with Vahagraphy, who brought this out to the community on his channel and please make some noise about this on your channel as well as it threatens our art and it is often forgotten!!!
Why are you guys pulling a Toneh 60p on us? Really good video though.
I hope Fujifilm can make a new 18-55(or 18-50) lens that have better optical performance, which means can support 40MP CMOS, and about 80-120 expensive.
Maybe a gen-2 of the venerable 16-55 f 2.8 instead… increased focal range, and a way better lens, optically… comparing the sigma to this one, would completely wipe out the sigma… the price of the Fuji 16-55 being the main differentiator right now
@@mortenthorpe16-55 is a much bigger lens. But I do hope they update that lens, so users can have a better choice.
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
LM on Fuji is important for Videograghers like me. Better stay on top of it in autofocus comparisons. Nice comparison, thanks.
thanks but I miss a comparaison in Video mode! Apparently the sigma doesn´t do so well in video mode unfortunatelly!
I got the 16-55mm f2. 8 Fuji which I ADORE but that’s why I love Fuji, so many good choices!
how does the tamron 17-70 f2 factor into this? I don't really see any benefit to comparing the corners and sharpness levels when zoomed in at 100%. Fuji's 18-55 with a variable app seems to make the Sigma the clear winner since it's less than the fuji lens that is a kit lens with a variable aperture. To me I'd expect the real test to be between the Tamron 17-70 and the sigma 18-50.
I've shot a wedding with xt30 and 18-55 (I'm not a pro). Amazing results, married were very happy.
One point that was not addressed is vignetting. The Fujifilm has a 58mm filter thread, while the Sigma is 55mm. That makes me worry a little about the Sigma, especially at the wide end.
My wife just said you give her "Al from Tool Time" vibes. (90s kids would know) I couldn't agree more. Now, back to Lens Time.
Awesome Video! are you guys going to review the new 56mm?
I plan on getting the Fuji XT-5 with the Fuji lens as a kit. I currently use a Sony A6600 (which has IBIS) with the Sigma and it is an excellent lens. Your reviews, as usual, are the greatest.
Thanks ...saved me a hassle changing. Not thrilled about the sharpness of the Fuji for this new project.
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
If only had I a better copy of the XF18-55. I love it for its beautiful silky colours, but it’s flat in resolution and nil in the corners. I got the Sigma 18-50 for my Sony A6400 when it came out and it’s a great handy lens but in no way as good as a Tamron 28-75/2.8 for FF. So in the end I’ll most likely look for a better copy of the XF 18-55.
I’ve done a little shootout today XF18-55 vs Sigma 18-50 and the finding simple: the Sigma outperformed my copy of XF18-55 in any single respect. The XF proved to be flat, low contrast, washed out corners and edges, purple fringes against light whatever the fstop. Plus poor AF performance when OIS on. So obviously mine is simply a very poor copy.
I think you should also test both lens on 40mp sensor
I would have liked to have seen how the sharpness holds up on the new 40 mp Fuji sensor.
I think that it really depends on the sensor size. I have the 18-55mm on my 16MB X-Pro1 and the Canon 24-105 L lens on my 16MB 1Ds MK II and while neither lens may be the sharpest in town, they are in my opinion perfectly matched to those sensor sizes. When one pixel-peeps at hard edges in an image, there will be exactly one line of pixels on each side of a hard line or edge in the image. At that sensor size, extra sharpness would be wasted.
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 ^_^
A lot of people don't realise just how much experience Fuji has at building lenses. They made motion picture lenses and large format camera lenses, and 35mm camera lenses for decades.
Sigma is smaller, constant aperture, closer focusing distance. It's a no brainer.
Great video and much needed. Looking to buy the shorter zoom to compliment my Fuji 35 f1.4 on an X-Pro2 body. Currently there are several used copies of the Fuji lens available in the UK for around £250 which, on balance, presents the better value for money option. I do like OIS and an aperture ring too.
@DP.ReviewTV505 here's a gift for you... 🖕🏻
Great, thanks a lot guys! Exactly the comparison I was super curious for.
I'd rather go with the Tamron 17-70 because it has both 2.8 constant aperture and OIS but it's bigger and more expensive. Out of these two i'd take used Fuji because there are no used Sigma lenses obviously. I wish Sigma made their 18-35 1.8 for mirrorless, because it was a truly unique APS-C lens.
Yes, I was surprised the Tamron wasn't brought up. It's less compact but much longer zoom range and F2.8 for flexible portrait applications where you prefer a zoom over a prime. (Where a 70mm prime unfortunately does not exist.)
I agree. I have the fuji but I've recently got the Tamron and day to day I've got used to the extra size and weight straight away, it's not an issue. Yes it's more expensive but you get more.
H if wi
@@problemat1que you can have a 75mm 1.2 now for fuji... and spoiler alert: its freakin nuts. half the price of the 56 1.2... i own it already and this lens is almost weldet to my camera because its that good ^^
just search on youtube and you'll be blown away (i think)
Why not comparing the minimum focusing distance? As for me it is very important parameter and may be decisive in this test.
Great review you just forgot to giove us the sharpness test from the sigma at 55mm 2.8.
so would you recommend the Sigma for the XS10?
How well will they hold up to 40mp? I know the Fujinon is not on the recommended list from Fujifilm.
Why not stack the sigma against the similarly constant apertured XF 16-55 2.8?
When are you going to update the sharpness mat to have the King on it?
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.
Very useful stuff! Thanks for all the good videos.
A 60fps timeline? Do you hate Jordan?
That’s exactly the comparison I’ve been waiting for! Thank you Chris! Since I use the X-E4 body as a base for a light travel kit, Fuji’s 16-55 and the Tamron 17-70 are a bit too bulky to fit the purpose.
With an xe4, the Fuji is better because of the image stabilization and aperture ring, for sure. The lack of dual dials on the xe4 makes lenses without aperture rings somewhat difficult to use.
@@balboa0621 I’ve got the Sigma 56mm/f1.4 and it’s OK, although not ideal. Obviously having that aperture ring is a huge benefit on that ascetic body, but I can deal with it.
@@bartoszpajak2285 yeah, it's a personal choice. I have the 27 mk1 without the aperture ring and using the push in front dial is a hassle. I often end up accidentally changing the iso.
I don't think this would be an issue on a dual dials camera such as the xt5.
I find the Fuji lens is poor when focused to infinity ….. seems very good for closer subjects ….. so for landscapes isn’t great.
18-55mm has one advantage, there are plenty of them in second hand market, you can easily find one at $300 price
good review. I need more examples of pictures shoots and differences than like watching a news channel on TV
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
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.