True. Great low light performance very reasonable price, good focal lengths in aps-c, small and compact, autofocus is usable even in video mode, fairly sharp even at 1.4 and the look is incredible. The only thing bothering me were noticeable CAs and the auto focus noises for video. I’m also not a fan of focus by wire but this isn’t really a weakness.
My favorite aps-c lenses: - Sigma 16mm 1.4 - Sigma 30mm 1.4 - Samyang 12mm 2.0 - Sony 18-200mm 3.5 - 6.3 (not the best lens but still fun to use) - Sigma 18-35mm 1.8
I use the 18-35 F1.8 on my R7. That lens changed the low light game for me. Got it when I was still using a T7. I still can’t believe the price when I compare to what canon offers.
F1.8 at 18-35 is just... too good. I don't know how I'm gonna live with normal zoom F2.8 or F4 anymore if I ever go up to FF hahaha I got a used one for 450 USD and it's the best decision of my photography life.
@@ChasWG dead silent. I’ve literally never noticed any sound coming from it. I don’t do video though. So I can’t say if anything gets picked up through the audio side.
I'm literally in doubt between the 18-35 1.8 and the tamron 17-70 2.8 as a replacement for my 18-135 kit lens on Canon. Other lenses i own and love are Samyang 10 2.8 and Canon 70-300 IS L series. What would you buy in my condition?
@@m4ttv4i I would look at your old photos and what focal lengths you used. If most of them are at the wide end, I'd absolutely pick the sigma, it's incredible, but if most of them are in the 40-70 mm range, then the Tamron would be a better choice, since the Sigma would most likely be too wide for your style.
I was just about to comment the same. However in terms of comparable lenses in full frame one has to note that there is the Sigma 105mm f1.8 (and a Nikon one) as well as a few 135mm f1.8 - so with the Viltrox you're in the range of 112.5mm f1.8 and therefore comparable. But the prices for the full frame equivalents are much higher as well as the weight, so it would make sense to stay APS-C for that too.
@@ashleyrogers4077 sorry Ashley I don’t know. However, you can get the Nikon version and buy a Nikon to Sony adapter which should work. You have to do some research as to whether the auto focus will work or not. Hope this helps.
@@braisfragapedreira6279 It results in an equivalent image. You have to consider equivalence. Plain algebra, can't change 1 side of the equation without affecting the other side. Same SS, f2.8 ISO 400 (APSC) vs f4 ISO 800 (FF) will give you the same results.
@@braisfragapedreira6279 APS-C loses on one stop of effective light gathering compared to FF, so yes f2.8 becomes f4 not just in DOF but also in noise performance. This video explains it very well: ua-cam.com/video/Kqf5M3SNwjQ/v-deo.htmlsi=c-PKkX-B2BrEwTMS&t=343 In short, a smaller sensor will have the same exposure at the same aperture, i.e >light intensity per unit areatotal< amount of light/photos collected will be smaller, thus giving more noise.
@@braisfragapedreira6279 What do you mean? Of course a 70mm F2.8 picture on APS-C is identical to a cropped version of 70mm F2.8 on FF. But to get the same field of view, you have to use a larger focal length, so 105. A larger focal length results in more background separation, so you don't need only F4.2 to get the same result on full frame at 105mm. Of course you need a longer shutter speed at F4 vs F2.8, but with the higher ISO to compensate for that you get roughly the same amount of noise on full frame vs one stop less on APS-C. So really, the 24-105 F4 FF and a 16-70 F2.8 APS-C give identical results, and they also weigh roughly the same for that reason.
Completely agree with your recommendation clue on Sigma 16mm f/1.4. It is very hard not to recommend that one. This was my first 3rd party lens that opened my interest and confidence into looking for other third party options. This is one of my go-to lenses for my landscape outings where over years of experimentation, I found that I mostly prefer either going telephoto above 70mm to 300mm (where I actually do my zooming to avoid the necessity to crop in post), or going too wide with this one, and barely shoot something in between. I even sometimes do some environmental or lifestyle portraits for friends with this one when they request. I was also expecting you to mention Sigma 56mm f/1.4 - my go to portrait lens period, which I bought after testing both of Sony's 50mm F/1.8s, and found that better than both. I also would prefer this any day over the the first prime lens I owned when I used to use Canon - the classic nifty fifty. I'm not sure what others have found out in terms of the optical quality comparison for Sigma 56mm, but this one to me feels like the sharpest lens (that was dedicated for APSC systems) I have ever used.
i’ve compared omd 10 mkii with sigmas 16.14 and 56 1.4 vs sony A7 and sigma art 35 1.4 + sony FE 85 1.8 and it was very solid . In same light situations and basic iso i didn’t see differences. What’s more 56 1.4 on 1.4 was sharper that sony on 1.8 😃
@@1duesy not any more, they discontinued K mount lenses years ago. But they produced 18-35/1.8 Art in K mount. Other honorable mentions are Sig 30/1.4, Sig 35/1.4, Sig 8-16. These have no counterpart in Pentax land. Also Sig 17-50/2.8 is better than SMC DA*16-50/2.8. There also was Sigma 50-150/2.8 that is great for APS-C and does not have sudden death motor like DA*50-135/2.8. And there are also long beasts like 50-500/4-6.3 or my beloved Sig 100-300/4 which is surprisingly hi-res capable and IBIS in camera helps it a lot. Also 70-200/2.8 HSMII is fast focusing demon. There are also older FF Sigmas with K mount like 20/1.8, 24/1.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4.. and only existing ultrawide lens for FF K1 the mighty Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6
So, the 18-35/1.8 (great lens) is equivalent to FF 28-55/2.8 (nothing spectacular). And the 17-70/2.8 is equivalent to FF 26-105/4.3 (a kit lens). And the 13/1.4 is equivalent to FF 20/2.1 (I love 20mm too) and 10/2 = 15/3.1 eqv. and 27/1.2 = 40/1.8 eqv. and 35/0.95 = 55/1.5 (not bad for $200). And so on. Therefore, we actually don't need crop. There are FF alternatives for most of these.
The 18-35 1.8 is actually an aps-h lens which means that it can be used with a 1.4 teleconverter to cover the full sensor area It also can be used with a half crop record mode for video (a7rV 8k, a7c2 4k60) The 18-35 also has its big brother the 50-100 also 1.8 which is a fantastic lens as well, and in video on full frame you don't even need to crop if you are OK with a slight vignette.
@@thedarkslide I use the 50-100 on my a7iv at 4k30 crop disabled and there is a vignette, however add a 1.4x tc and it's gone Gotta remove the hood for full performance at 50 but it's otherwise great And even with the teleconverter penalty, it's still razor sharp
Yup, Sigma 18-35 is just awesome. I used in on my Z Fc for A-roll for a while before it got replaced by a Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 because I wanted the wider FOV. Interesting about the 18-35 is when I used on a Nikon D750 it's still awesome from around the 24 onwards, basically once the vignetting is no longer in frame.
you mentioned the viltrox 27mm 1.2 which is a great lens, no question. But for me the 75mm 1.2 is way more important for APSC. 4 years ago i had the Sony A7 III and the Sigma 135 1.8 which was my bread and butter combo for portraits. At half the Price and weight, the Viltrox easily rivals the Sigma-Sony combo, razor sharp wide open and virtually no CA's . Anyone into portraiture shooting with Fuji should get this lens, even over the 50mm f1...
dont buy viltrox or you be regret !! trust me guys buy SIGMA instead ! I had this lens viltrox 75mm f1.2 and got fungus after 2 months, lens with weather shield but it gets moldy easily, bad focus, I really regret why I didn't choose sigma which is more popular and the autofocus is amazing , in indonesia viltrox waranty is totaly bad !
@@dizhera i got that viltrox for 1 and a half year now, I've had schootings in rain and dusty conditions, no issues so far. AF on my X-H2 is perfectly fine, as good as older fuji primes or Sigma lenses. Sorry that you had a bad expierence but i would buy it again if some1 snatched it from me
@@mongini1 you luck man , i think viltrox not a sigma , viltrox have bad quality control / inconsistent , i had viltrox 13 mm too and almost 1 years without problem
@@dizhera about half a year ago I got the 27mm 1.2 as well. It's glued to my first X-H2 because that focal length is so damn versatile, the other body gets either the 75mm , or the Fuji 50-140mm 2.8, or the Tamron 17-70mm 2.8
@@mongini1 try opening your lens to a wide aperture and then release it with the camera on, and looking up at the sky/bright light, hopefully you won't get anything like fungus or spots
Lens 2, Tamron 17-70 f/2.8, isn`t equivalent to Sony 24-105 f/4? both stabilized, considering the APS-C and FX sensor they are ment to be used... It would be very interesting to see the performace of both compared
17-70 f/2.8 is pretty much the same as 24-105 f/4 in FF in terms of depth of focus and reach. Size and weight isn’t far off, either. This is often overlooked in comparisons. One could argue the 18-35 is covered and exceeded by 24-70 f/2.8 lens for FF. What I’ve found is that high-performance crop lens are very similar in size and weight to their FF equivalents.
This is until you start comparing their lens equivalents, and the size/weight advantage generally goes out the window. Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 vs Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 in size/weight. Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 vs Sony 20mm f/1.8 Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 vs Nikon Z 40mm f/2 Generally, the wider the lens and the faster it has to be to overcome the DoF equivalence, it will become heavier.
This is mostly true, and I'm even saying that as a Fuji user. I've made a chart to calculate an APS-C kit vs an FF kit with the equivalent apertures, and there's rarely any advantage to APS-C. I use Fuji because I love the color rendering and handling, and because there are many fun lens options, but I'm not letting myself get delusional and ignore how aperture equivalency works. With that said, there are a few exceptions. In some cases the APS-C lenses can be cheaper even when accounting for quality and equivalent aperture. For example the Viltrox 13mm 1.4 which I have, I don't think has any FF counterpart that matches it in price and optical quality (the Sony 20mm 1.8 is twice the price). The new Sigma 10-18 f2.8 is like a 15-27 f4 on FF, but the closest FF counterpart I can find is the Nikon Z 14-30/4, which weighs 485g compared to the 260g of the Sigma, so almost twice the weight despite "only" having the same equivalent aperture. Even the Canon RF 15-30/4,5-6,3 which is rather crappy optically and much slower than the Sigma even accounting for equivalency is 390g haha. So there are cases where the APS-C options manage to be smaller and lighter, but they're relatively few.
@@fotografalexandernikolis Yes, totally agree. There is some magic going on with new lens designs by Sigma like the 10-18 you mentioned. Pretty cool stuff. One thing Fuji has going is that their lenses are very well corrected optically, especially the new primes. While they may be larger and heavier than equivalents on FF, they are exceptional at MFD whereas a lot of FF counterparts are extremely soft at MFD. That's probably one major advantage thing I miss from Fuji. The ability to use lenses wide open at any focusing distance.
@@professionalpotato4764 Absolutely, I recently got the 23mm 1.4 LM WR and it's absolutely astounding, it's finally good enough to match the Sigma 35 1.4 ART that I had back with full frame.
The Sigma 18-35 is a legend. Many don't understand why anyone would make such a lens for APSC. What most people don't understand is that Sigma didn't design this lens for Canon, Nikon, Sony etc. - Sigma designed this lens for their Sigma Foveon Quattro camera. The Quattro sensor can keep up in resolution with 40MP-50MP full frame sensors, even beating them in some situations. The 18-35 had to be able to match the sensor resolution of the Quattro sensor. For Bayer cameras with an APSC sensor, it is overkill. There is no APSC sensor other than the Foveon sensors which can actually scratch at the resolution ceiling of this lens.
You're my bro! I totally get this. I use the sdQuattro, 18-35 and 50-100 for my slow paced experiments. I only hope Sigma makes an SA to X mount adapter.
Another legendary Sigma lens is the 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM. A design from 2011 that was sadly discontinued very soon due to some patent issues with Nikon over OS. The Fringer adapter doesn't work with the EF version of this lens on X mount when it comes to OS and AF..but if you'd like to manual focus, you'd be very impressed with the images from that lens.
Good start... 18-35mm F/1.8 is a nice lens. But it equates to a 27-52mm F/2.7. Are you sure you can't find that or better in full frame ?? And just as good ??... 🤔
Using the Viltrox 1.2 lenses surprises me the most. Paired with my X-T4 it allows me to achieve the quality of photos that would otherwise cost an arm and leg if I were in a full frame system. With the new 27mm and the upcoming Sirui sniper lenses and more manufacturers releasing pro APSC cameras, today is basically the best time to be an apsc user.
i texted sirui, they said all sniper lineup will use nightwalker glass.. so its not that amazing because that lens does not even sharp at f2.8.. so dont talk about its f1.2.. i cancelled my waiting on that series and bought viltrox 27 and 75 instead.. maybe need to wait for another 2 3 years for sirui to catchup the glass tech from other manufacturer
This is unfortunately false. The Viltrox has a FF equivalent of 40mm f1.8. You can get a FF lens 35mm f1.8 that is cheaper and lighter. There are also FF 35mm f1.4 options that are similar price and similar weight.
@@Wow9193 Yeah but those lenses you mentioned are miles back when it comes to image quality, the 27 f1.2 and 75 1.2 viltrox are really incredible, if you want that type of quality you need to go with top tier full frame 1.2 or 1.4 lenses which cost around 2-3k
If you had to pick one of these for astrophotography what would be your choice/choices? I just got an A6700 with the 16-50 F3.5 lens for a first camera.
I love the 18-35mm lens. I pair it on my r7, and to me the results are next level. F 1.8 is F 1.8 when it comes to iso. That makes this combo a professional level low light monster. Love it.
Mark Wiemels, thanks for this. Your exposures are always so perfect. Is it true the aps-c offers more depth of field than full-frame? Or is it the other way around?
Gotta have at least 1 fuji lens in here. Like the 18mm f1.4 perhaps?
9 місяців тому+2
For example full frame version of 17-70 f/2.8 is 24-120 f/4. It is exact equivalent of APS-C 16-80 f/2,66, so technically better range and even faster. I also thought that there is nothing like Sigma 50-100 f/1.8, but actually now I have Nikkor 70-180 f2.8 which is way lighter and on FX is equivalent of 47-120 f/1,86 on APS-C, faster focusing and even less color fringes. There is also no 45mpix APS-C camera.
I love my sigma 16mm. I only own a SONY a6400, so no stabilization. If I want hand held stabilization I use the SONY 50mm e lens, or my Zeiss 24 to 70mm. When I want portrait pop I use the SONY EF 90mm macro with some great results. Using full frame lenses on APS-c has some great results, if only that they are different.
Your 1st lens of sigma 18-35mm is available in nikon and canon dslr mounts. It is also the case that canon has a fullframe 28-75mm ( or something close) f2 lens on their RF mount
I'm thinking of getting my first camera within the next year or so. I have my eyes on the Sony A6700 as I want to be prepared for both photo and video capture. I would like to be versatile with priority for music events which may be indoors and require good low-light performance. Let's say my budged allows me to get two of those lenses in the video, which ones would you recommend?
I would say the Sigma primes F1.4 or Viltrox F1.2, then the focals would depend on your style of shooting, but those seem to me to be the most efficient options for perf (low light in 1st)/$$. Have you checked the ZV-E10 (V1 & 2)? Did you find any drawbacks in comparison with the 6700? Considering the $$ diff, which could allow for +/better glass. As I'm in a similar search, & the 6700 is just a tad above the budget I'd like to put in, since I already have a FF if I need pro lvl content.
@@bobcoco6047 Hi! I've settled for the A6700. The IBIS does a great job stabilizing my shots for both photos and video. It also allows me to shoot 4K60p. 4K120p also works (with crop) but I don't think I will use it often. Image quality is phenomenal. As for lenses, I settled for this set: - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (my daily driver for the vast majority of shots) - Sony 11mm f1.8 prime lens (for shootings of interior, buildings, large objects, maybe vlogging) - Sony 70-350mm f4.5-6.3 G OSS (small and affordable zoom lens for APS-C. Works great for portraits and wildlife, especially with the A6700 which is super stable at the highest zoom range thanks to IBIS + OSS. I later found another video promoting this exact setup. That was after I purchased everything which makes me quite confident in it.
@@HoshPak I think that's indeed a great choice, I went for M4/3 with the Lumix G9 for the video features, high res photos if needed & the even better IBIS, with 4 primes : Pana/Leica 9mm, 42.5 & 15mm F/1.7, & 25mm Olympus. The only drawback I have is the DoD Contrast AF, which is not reliable, esp. for video 😕 I didn't us it much so far in tricky conditions, but that sacrifice could make some shots impossible (shooting myself alone), if such is, I'll have to derive to the 6700 as well 😁
I love my Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX (APS-C). The body is metal and it feels like a tank. It was made for years in Japan and has only stopped being made in the last two years. It was still approx. £1,500 brand new when production finished but I managed to purchase a used one for £349. I was sceptical at first due to it being so cheap but it is like mint except I had to buy a used lens hood which I was aware of at the time of purchase.
@8:10 stated you sold out Fuji but came back, what system did you experiment with? I have lots of sony APSC lens and other accessories but want to switch to Fuji. Was Sony the system you switched to but switch back fuji?
I sold out or Fuji to fund buying into Sony. I now shoot both, if I absolutely must rely on the autofocus, I shoot Sony. For out of camera color, and the feel of the camera I shoot Fuji.
@@markwiemels Thanks for the prompt response. My A6000 is broken, think I replace that system with the Fujifilm X-T30. Will keep the A7IV for weddings and and events. Thanks Mark!
The Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 was the first super sharp lens that I’ve bought back in 2018 for my Canon 80D back then. Using it on the Canon 90D it was still sharp edge to edge on its 32MP APS-C sensor, which has the same pixel density as an 83MP full frame one. So on the R5 which switches to just about 17MP in APS-C mode it’s just as sharp as it gets.
Why no one talks about or compares to standard kit lens like 18-135 mm that comes with sony. Why should I consider in this case 70 mm tamron when I am getting this range in kit lens?
Off track a little (Q) If you have a Canon 5D Mk IIII with a 500mm lens and you look through the viewfinder, you will see what is going to hit the sensor. Your eye looks into the viewfinder, and it hits the prism down to the mirror and out through the lens. Your view is 500mm. If you use a Canon 7D Mk II APS-C with a 500mm lens, you also see in the viewfinder what is going to hit your sensor. but it is at the equivalent of 800mm. Again you look into the viewfinder, and your eye hits the prism down to the mirror out through the lens. Surely the view is still only 500mm, so the view should be the same as the 5D Mk IIII ? Kind Regards
Viltrox 27 is just fantastic, use it for semi macro work as well! shot a lot of fungi this autumn, sharp like you said from1.2 and the bokeh is great as well
Before watching this video, I had plans to purchase two of the lenses you covered here. The Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 and the Astrhori 18mm F8 were going to be my first two lens purchases to go with the FX-30. I intend to do a lot of smallish product type shots primarily with a small home studio setup.
To be fair, you are not taking into account the fact that for example a 17-70 F2.8 gives identical results to a 25-105 F4 on full frame, which is very common. In terms of field of view and background separation. You can argue that with F2.8 you need 1 full stop lower shutter speed to achieve that result, except that with the same shutter speed (and higher ISO to compensate) on the full frame, you get roughly the same amount of noise as well. The same goes for the 18-35 f1.8 =27-52.5mm f2.7, not exactly available in FF, but a 24-70 F2.8 achieves the same and more and is very common.
For exposure f2.8 is f2.8 on every sensor. For depth-of-field f2.8 on APS-C is the same as f4 on FF. In your comment you are correct that if you want to replicate the look of f2.8 on APS-C using a FF camera you could go to f4. However, this does not mean that a FF camera with higher ISO is going to produce the same amount of noise as APS-C at a lower ISO. Making that comparison requires a lot more data on the specific FF and APS-C cameras and sensors.
Exactly. The Sigma 18-35/50-100 pair were designed to replicate the 24-70 and 70-200 look on APS-C. People need to do math properly and not ignore equivalency for lens calculations.
@@professionalpotato4764 For exposure f2.8 is f2.8 no matter the size of the sensor. People need to do the math for depth-of-field but they need to know when to stop doing the math too. There is no such thing as an equivalent lens between APS-C and FF ever - you either choose equivalency in DoF or Exposure. Most people on UA-cam comments think you do the math everywhere which is just not correct.
@@GrantMcWilliams You are right, for exposure f2.8 is f2.8 no matter the size of the sensor. However, note that if you shoot with a full frame at f4 and 1.5x the focal length to get the same overall look of the APS-C picture at f2.8 you should shoot with the same shutter speed but higher ISO to compensate for the lower exposure. The result is pretty much exactly the same. This is because shooting with an APS-C the noise levels are roughly 1 stop worse than on full frame. This is simply because you capture effectively more light on a larger sensor, f2.8 = f2.8 means that per square mm of sensor you capture the same amount of light on either system, but with a bigger sensor you capture effectively 2.3 times the light, resulting in a better signal to noise overall allowing to shoot with higher iso to still get the same result.
@@professionalpotato4764 Yes, indeed, although they obviously fall short in terms of those in zoom reach, they are a good attempt. I would argue however that if you need out of focus backgrounds and/or low light capabilities like that, you probably shouldn't be using an APS-C. I use my APS-C for travel, landscapes and a little bit of wildlife and generally don't want things out of focus and like it light and small :)
Thanks for the recommendations! Got a good amount of manual lenses on here so I'd love to see your method/settings for using manual focus in these newer cameras (particularly sony), trying to set up custom buttons on my new FX30 and any help with some AF/MF tips would be great!
Thank you very much for the quick response and great information. This video was perfect as it opened up other potential lenses. I already ordered the recommended adapter for ef lenses. Can't wait to use it.
Well done video abd I agree with several of your lens choices as I am an ONLY APS-S (Sony a6500) user. I feeel the following lenses SHOULD be included in the best APS-C range of lenses: 1) Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 as companion to the 17-70mm F2.8, with the 11-20mm being EVEN sharper than the 17-70mm 2) Sigma 56mm F1.4, as companion to the 16mm F1.4. The 56mm is AMAZINg, even better in quality than the very good 16mm 3) Samyang 50mm F1.2 manual, a very sharp lens providing very beautiful colors 4) Sigma 50-100mm F1.8. as companion to the very good 18-35mm F1.8. The 50-100mm is just a bit heavy, but excellent picture quality 5) Rokinon 12mm F2.0, excellent lens, especially for night photography such as astro These are ll lenses I own and use frequently and have been VERY satisfied with their performance and quailty.
Used the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 for many years, absolutely fantastic piece of glass. Adapted really well to Sony E. Right now, my favorite lens is the Sigma 56mm f1.4, really great for the studio. Really interested in getting one of the Sirui anamorphic lenses, but Viltrox 27mm f1.2 is top of the list right now.
That is totally not equivalent! You get a LOT more background separation at 105mm F2.8 than at 70mm F2.8 even if the field of view is the same, the depth of field is very different due to the longer focal length of the full frame lens. To get similar results in field of view and depth of field you need 24-105 F4, a type of lens that every manufacturer offers.
@@Eikenhorst focal length is almost exactly the same. Of course you are gonna get more separation with full frame, I thought this was common knowledge?
@@professionalpotato4764 of course you are gonna get more light transmission and a shallower depth of field on F2.8 full frame vs F2.8 APSC. I thought this was common knowledge. But these lenses are def step brothers. Essentially the same lens just a diff sensor size
@@uptonfilms95 That is why the 24-105mm F2.8 is in not the equivalent full frame lens to the 17-70 F2.8. It produces very different results as you point out (an you pay for that difference in price, size and weight!)
Nice. I love my APS-C 16-55 f2.8 because, if I understand it right, it's got a more usable depth of field (for street photos) than its full frame equivalent at the same f-stops. And a tiny bit lighter. Still worse in low light, of course, and worse subject separation.
Great video. Please add the equivalent focal length when used on MFT sensor. It really helps if you add lens name and focal length when you talk about that lens.
Are we not allowed to know what some of these lenses are? You never said the name or put the name on the screen of number 8. Why not just use their names instead of numbers? So werid
Then you would've skipped the whole video 😂😂.. That is the youtubers technique to create curiosity and hold you on to the video until the end and finally make u to comment angrily and which result in additional perks 😂😂 for the youtuber🫅
In a percentage of environments. Including lighting conditions, both natrual and atifical. The smaller apsc lenses are terrible at letting in. Which is the opposit of full frame and medium format lenses. I would mention large format lenses. But we are sticking with digital here. This guy is just trying to misslead his audience. If he talked all hype about a lense. Like in this case spicific lenses. He would recieve real feedback from actual users of. Both this system and the lenses. Which would make him look like a dumb farse.
I have the canon M50, the first one that came out. I was going to get the canon r8 , but after watching your video about sometimes crop sensor cameras are better than full frame, maybe I stick with it. I need to watch more of your videos, but would you say that the original m50 is worth holding onto and then trying one of these lens in your videos on it with an adapter?
The Sony 24-105 OSS is essentially the FF equivalent of the Tamron, as equivalency also includes aperture. The F4 will perform the same as 2.8 on a crop sensor. The main advantage of the Tamron is that it does it at a little over 100g less and has much closer minimum focus distance and its cheaper than the sony, but the Sony gains a little over 1mm on the wide end which makes a tiny bit of a difference.
FWIW & for Sony users, you might be able to get the Sigma 18-35 in Sony A-mount for less money than in EF-mount. I recently bought an "old stock" (brand new in a never-opened box), for EUR 400 that I am using with the LA-EA5 adapter. A truly fantastic lens! *Note*: as far as I can tell, autofocus only works for stills, not video, with this adapter.
I got that Brightin Star lens a few weeks ago and am still getting the feel for it but, so far, I am loving it. Sharp at all apertures, so sharp that it really makes focus peaking work well so focusing is very straightforward. Though f-stops are notched, there's a really soft slide between apertures that makes it easy to use the in-between. Even at an effective 70mm focal length, IBIS on my Lumix GX85 lets me use it hand-held without issue. f0.95 really lets in a lot of light. Its a beautiful lens with excellent ergonomics. I'm already almost at the point of being able to use it without thinking about using it. It's already become the default lens for me on that camera body. All that for a lens that cost me around $180 new from the maker.
I got mine a couple of days ago and have tested it against the Fujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4. Given images taken with Brightin star 35mm and XF 33mm of the same subject side by side, you are REALLY hard pressed to see any difference. Pixel peeping you can spot a tad more softness in the Brightin star, and slightly more LoCA and possibly fringing, but nothing that a simple click in Lightroom can clean up if you want to. Truly spectacular for the price, and miles ahead the Mitakon, Meike and 7artisans alternatives.
I see you're a fellow Melbournian. I've got an A6700 + Sony 24-105mm F4 & Sigma 35mm 1.4. I'm wanting to do some more street photography (ideally at night). Do you think these are suitable, or should I save up for the 18-35mm?
If you had to choose between / Viltrox AF 13mm f/1.4 & the 10th lense, what would you choose in 2024 ? (needs are : low light photos and vidéos with wide angle)
Last lens has to be the Sigma 16mm f1.4. I love this lens as a photography lens. Haven’t really used it to make any videos yet, but great to know it’s an awesome choice.
That’s hard. I like 27mm better for video and hybrid, and 35mm for photography. For photo only, if you don’t mind manual focus, the Brightin Star. For video, and probably hybrid, the Viltrox.
I’ve been shooting with a canon 24-105 f4 II on the Fuji XH2s with the Metabones .71 speedbooster, which basically makes it a “full frame perspective” with a 25-106 f2.8 equivalent. It even has the IS, and seems to work with the camera ibis and the focal range at that aperture is just fantastic. The best part is that I didn’t have to spend $3000 just to get the lens.
@@professionalpotato4764 Well, it’s showing up as a f2.8 in my camera. So maybe the math is wrong, or at least misleading, but it’s a pretty common practice to use a speedbooster to achieve a faster aperture. If I’m mistaken and you have something to share, feel free to enlighten a stranger on the internet out without as much the snark right out the gate.
Not seen one review, let alone a reference, to the Meike brand or their 10mm UWA lens before. Your review as a whole is bang on. Will trawl through your vids for the Best Zooms/Telephoto lenses now. Nice work.
Im looking for a zoom telephoto that gives me reach on a budget, i have many lenses that are great however in my aps fuji i dont have a long reach one!
Sigma 16 f/1.4 on full frame is a secret gem too. Put the camera in any video format that gives a bit of crop and you get a look you can't get with any other lens for that price.
Some of these lenses you can get on full frame as well. A 24-105, a 24mm f1.8, a 20mm f1.8, several anamorphic lenses and f0.95 equals the DOF of f1.2 lenses commonly found on mirrorless full frame mounts nowadays. Granted the prices are different, but so is the quality. There is for example a 40mm f1.2 Voigtländer for Z Mount matching a 27mm f0.95. And especially with those very cheap Chinese lenses the T stop is often far off the claimed f stop.
Actually the DOF equivalency of f0.95 is closer to f1.4, as the corresponding third stop of f1.2 would be at slightly below f0.9. A f0.95 on full frame would require an aperture below f0.7 on an equivalent APSC lens. The Nokton 50mm f1 on Nikon Z equals a 33mm f0.7 on APSC for example.
Lens 10 - Sigma 16mm F1.4. No doubt.
A really beautiful lens.
I have it. I have no idea why it is so cheap I got one used for 200usd ❤
@@rileyinbali That's a great deal, I paid 400+ for it when they released it for Fuji
@@josuastangl7140 Honestly 400 is reasonable tho for the image you get.
@@rileyinbaliI picked one up for $120 from Facebook marketplace! Bargain! Now I want the 56mm
The Sigma trio of 16mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.4 are worth staying in APS-C. This trio is outstanding.
Also 23mm now
The 16mm 1.4 is so heavy and big though, I kinda hate it. The 23 1.4 is also rather on the heavier side
I have 16mm and 18-50 f2.8 but I will get rid of 16mm get a 11mm f1.8 from sony and 70-350
True. Great low light performance very reasonable price, good focal lengths in aps-c, small and compact, autofocus is usable even in video mode, fairly sharp even at 1.4 and the look is incredible. The only thing bothering me were noticeable CAs and the auto focus noises for video. I’m also not a fan of focus by wire but this isn’t really a weakness.
colected 2 of 3 missing 56 one. They are the best. you need Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 for traveling. and thats it
Sigma 16mm f1.4. The trio of 16, 30 & 56mm f1.4s are one of the reasons why I'll continue to use my EF-M set up for many years to come.
My favorite aps-c lenses:
- Sigma 16mm 1.4
- Sigma 30mm 1.4
- Samyang 12mm 2.0
- Sony 18-200mm 3.5 - 6.3 (not the best lens but still fun to use)
- Sigma 18-35mm 1.8
I use the 18-35 F1.8 on my R7. That lens changed the low light game for me. Got it when I was still using a T7. I still can’t believe the price when I compare to what canon offers.
F1.8 at 18-35 is just... too good. I don't know how I'm gonna live with normal zoom F2.8 or F4 anymore if I ever go up to FF hahaha
I got a used one for 450 USD and it's the best decision of my photography life.
@@ChasWG dead silent. I’ve literally never noticed any sound coming from it. I don’t do video though. So I can’t say if anything gets picked up through the audio side.
@@jnhkx18-35 1.8 is literally a 27-54 2.7 on FF. Tons over lenses which cover that
I'm literally in doubt between the 18-35 1.8 and the tamron 17-70 2.8 as a replacement for my 18-135 kit lens on Canon.
Other lenses i own and love are Samyang 10 2.8 and Canon 70-300 IS L series.
What would you buy in my condition?
@@m4ttv4i I would look at your old photos and what focal lengths you used. If most of them are at the wide end, I'd absolutely pick the sigma, it's incredible, but if most of them are in the 40-70 mm range, then the Tamron would be a better choice, since the Sigma would most likely be too wide for your style.
Have to recommend the Viltrox 75mm f1.2. If you’re looking for a portrait lens this is it. You can do a whole event with just the 75mm and 27mm 1.2.
I was just about to comment the same. However in terms of comparable lenses in full frame one has to note that there is the Sigma 105mm f1.8 (and a Nikon one) as well as a few 135mm f1.8 - so with the Viltrox you're in the range of 112.5mm f1.8 and therefore comparable. But the prices for the full frame equivalents are much higher as well as the weight, so it would make sense to stay APS-C for that too.
One of the best sharpies on the planet. I am very happy and impressed with this lens!
Do you know of an adapter to use the viltroz lens on Sony e?
@@ashleyrogers4077 I believe both models have E-mount versions as well. No need for an adapter.
@@ashleyrogers4077 sorry Ashley I don’t know. However, you can get the Nikon version and buy a Nikon to Sony adapter which should work. You have to do some research as to whether the auto focus will work or not. Hope this helps.
Man, this is the cleanest and most beautiful picture I've seen with a sony fx30 camera so far. Well done
The 17-70 does have an equivalent: any 24-105 f4. APS-C also reduces aperture. But if you really want the 2.8 canon just released a 24-105 f2.8 IS
It reduces depth of field but not aperture
@@braisfragapedreira6279 It results in an equivalent image. You have to consider equivalence. Plain algebra, can't change 1 side of the equation without affecting the other side.
Same SS, f2.8 ISO 400 (APSC) vs f4 ISO 800 (FF) will give you the same results.
@@braisfragapedreira6279 APS-C loses on one stop of effective light gathering compared to FF, so yes f2.8 becomes f4 not just in DOF but also in noise performance. This video explains it very well: ua-cam.com/video/Kqf5M3SNwjQ/v-deo.htmlsi=c-PKkX-B2BrEwTMS&t=343
In short, a smaller sensor will have the same exposure at the same aperture, i.e >light intensity per unit areatotal< amount of light/photos collected will be smaller, thus giving more noise.
@@braisfragapedreira6279 What do you mean? Of course a 70mm F2.8 picture on APS-C is identical to a cropped version of 70mm F2.8 on FF. But to get the same field of view, you have to use a larger focal length, so 105. A larger focal length results in more background separation, so you don't need only F4.2 to get the same result on full frame at 105mm. Of course you need a longer shutter speed at F4 vs F2.8, but with the higher ISO to compensate for that you get roughly the same amount of noise on full frame vs one stop less on APS-C. So really, the 24-105 F4 FF and a 16-70 F2.8 APS-C give identical results, and they also weigh roughly the same for that reason.
For full frame there's the Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Completely agree with your recommendation clue on Sigma 16mm f/1.4. It is very hard not to recommend that one. This was my first 3rd party lens that opened my interest and confidence into looking for other third party options. This is one of my go-to lenses for my landscape outings where over years of experimentation, I found that I mostly prefer either going telephoto above 70mm to 300mm (where I actually do my zooming to avoid the necessity to crop in post), or going too wide with this one, and barely shoot something in between. I even sometimes do some environmental or lifestyle portraits for friends with this one when they request.
I was also expecting you to mention Sigma 56mm f/1.4 - my go to portrait lens period, which I bought after testing both of Sony's 50mm F/1.8s, and found that better than both. I also would prefer this any day over the the first prime lens I owned when I used to use Canon - the classic nifty fifty. I'm not sure what others have found out in terms of the optical quality comparison for Sigma 56mm, but this one to me feels like the sharpest lens (that was dedicated for APSC systems) I have ever used.
The Sigma 16mm 1.4 is incredibly heavy and big though. Heavier than most full frame 24mm and weights almost as much as full frame zooms
i’ve compared omd 10 mkii with sigmas 16.14 and 56 1.4 vs sony A7 and sigma art 35 1.4 + sony FE 85 1.8 and it was very solid . In same light situations and basic iso i didn’t see differences. What’s more 56 1.4 on 1.4 was sharper that sony on 1.8 😃
I have been using the Sigma 18-35mm lens for street photography. Not all the time but when I use it on my Pentax K-1 the results have been amazing.
Also have a K-1! Does Sigma offer lenses in K mount?
@@1duesy I have it in K mount - absolute beauty.
@@1duesy not any more, they discontinued K mount lenses years ago. But they produced 18-35/1.8 Art in K mount. Other honorable mentions are Sig 30/1.4, Sig 35/1.4, Sig 8-16. These have no counterpart in Pentax land. Also Sig 17-50/2.8 is better than SMC DA*16-50/2.8. There also was Sigma 50-150/2.8 that is great for APS-C and does not have sudden death motor like DA*50-135/2.8. And there are also long beasts like 50-500/4-6.3 or my beloved Sig 100-300/4 which is surprisingly hi-res capable and IBIS in camera helps it a lot. Also 70-200/2.8 HSMII is fast focusing demon.
There are also older FF Sigmas with K mount like 20/1.8, 24/1.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4.. and only existing ultrawide lens for FF K1 the mighty Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6
So, the 18-35/1.8 (great lens) is equivalent to FF 28-55/2.8 (nothing spectacular). And the 17-70/2.8 is equivalent to FF 26-105/4.3 (a kit lens). And the 13/1.4 is equivalent to FF 20/2.1 (I love 20mm too) and 10/2 = 15/3.1 eqv. and 27/1.2 = 40/1.8 eqv. and 35/0.95 = 55/1.5 (not bad for $200). And so on. Therefore, we actually don't need crop. There are FF alternatives for most of these.
The 18-35 1.8 is actually an aps-h lens which means that it can be used with a 1.4 teleconverter to cover the full sensor area
It also can be used with a half crop record mode for video (a7rV 8k, a7c2 4k60)
The 18-35 also has its big brother the 50-100 also 1.8 which is a fantastic lens as well, and in video on full frame you don't even need to crop if you are OK with a slight vignette.
No, it's not. On the Sigma sd Quattro H the lens shows vignetting. It's an APS-C lens, not APS-H.
@@thedarkslide I use the 50-100 on my a7iv at 4k30 crop disabled and there is a vignette, however add a 1.4x tc and it's gone
Gotta remove the hood for full performance at 50 but it's otherwise great
And even with the teleconverter penalty, it's still razor sharp
What telecpnverter 1.4x? Do you mean the Sony?
@@michaellim4165 the sony is janky and only compatible with some adapters, i recommend the kenko teleplus one that doesnt have any protruding elements
Yup, Sigma 18-35 is just awesome. I used in on my Z Fc for A-roll for a while before it got replaced by a Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 because I wanted the wider FOV. Interesting about the 18-35 is when I used on a Nikon D750 it's still awesome from around the 24 onwards, basically once the vignetting is no longer in frame.
Were you using the native F mount version adapted to Z using an FTZ adapter?
@@bradl2636 Yes, I was using that.
you mentioned the viltrox 27mm 1.2 which is a great lens, no question. But for me the 75mm 1.2 is way more important for APSC. 4 years ago i had the Sony A7 III and the Sigma 135 1.8 which was my bread and butter combo for portraits. At half the Price and weight, the Viltrox easily rivals the Sigma-Sony combo, razor sharp wide open and virtually no CA's . Anyone into portraiture shooting with Fuji should get this lens, even over the 50mm f1...
dont buy viltrox or you be regret !! trust me guys buy SIGMA instead ! I had this lens viltrox 75mm f1.2 and got fungus after 2 months, lens with weather shield but it gets moldy easily, bad focus, I really regret why I didn't choose sigma which is more popular and the autofocus is amazing , in indonesia viltrox waranty is totaly bad !
@@dizhera i got that viltrox for 1 and a half year now, I've had schootings in rain and dusty conditions, no issues so far. AF on my X-H2 is perfectly fine, as good as older fuji primes or Sigma lenses. Sorry that you had a bad expierence but i would buy it again if some1 snatched it from me
@@mongini1 you luck man , i think viltrox not a sigma , viltrox have bad quality control / inconsistent , i had viltrox 13 mm too and almost 1 years without problem
@@dizhera about half a year ago I got the 27mm 1.2 as well. It's glued to my first X-H2 because that focal length is so damn versatile, the other body gets either the 75mm , or the Fuji 50-140mm 2.8, or the Tamron 17-70mm 2.8
@@mongini1 try opening your lens to a wide aperture and then release it with the camera on, and looking up at the sky/bright light, hopefully you won't get anything like fungus or spots
Lens 2, Tamron 17-70 f/2.8, isn`t equivalent to Sony 24-105 f/4? both stabilized, considering the APS-C and FX sensor they are ment to be used... It would be very interesting to see the performace of both compared
It's F4
@@oscarcerna4782 that's the 2.8 equivalent when you factor in the 1 extra stop of light/DoF of FF compared to APS-C
17-70 f/2.8 is pretty much the same as 24-105 f/4 in FF in terms of depth of focus and reach. Size and weight isn’t far off, either. This is often overlooked in comparisons. One could argue the 18-35 is covered and exceeded by 24-70 f/2.8 lens for FF. What I’ve found is that high-performance crop lens are very similar in size and weight to their FF equivalents.
Thanks!
Nice selection of lenses and video. The Viltrox 75mm would be a nice addition.
If I owned one, it would be in there.
This is until you start comparing their lens equivalents, and the size/weight advantage generally goes out the window.
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 vs Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 in size/weight.
Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 vs Sony 20mm f/1.8
Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 vs Nikon Z 40mm f/2
Generally, the wider the lens and the faster it has to be to overcome the DoF equivalence, it will become heavier.
This is mostly true, and I'm even saying that as a Fuji user. I've made a chart to calculate an APS-C kit vs an FF kit with the equivalent apertures, and there's rarely any advantage to APS-C. I use Fuji because I love the color rendering and handling, and because there are many fun lens options, but I'm not letting myself get delusional and ignore how aperture equivalency works.
With that said, there are a few exceptions. In some cases the APS-C lenses can be cheaper even when accounting for quality and equivalent aperture. For example the Viltrox 13mm 1.4 which I have, I don't think has any FF counterpart that matches it in price and optical quality (the Sony 20mm 1.8 is twice the price). The new Sigma 10-18 f2.8 is like a 15-27 f4 on FF, but the closest FF counterpart I can find is the Nikon Z 14-30/4, which weighs 485g compared to the 260g of the Sigma, so almost twice the weight despite "only" having the same equivalent aperture. Even the Canon RF 15-30/4,5-6,3 which is rather crappy optically and much slower than the Sigma even accounting for equivalency is 390g haha. So there are cases where the APS-C options manage to be smaller and lighter, but they're relatively few.
I could not agree more!
Had Fuji, now Sony FF exactly because of the reasons you mentioned.
I totally agree!
@@fotografalexandernikolis Yes, totally agree. There is some magic going on with new lens designs by Sigma like the 10-18 you mentioned. Pretty cool stuff. One thing Fuji has going is that their lenses are very well corrected optically, especially the new primes. While they may be larger and heavier than equivalents on FF, they are exceptional at MFD whereas a lot of FF counterparts are extremely soft at MFD. That's probably one major advantage thing I miss from Fuji. The ability to use lenses wide open at any focusing distance.
@@professionalpotato4764 Absolutely, I recently got the 23mm 1.4 LM WR and it's absolutely astounding, it's finally good enough to match the Sigma 35 1.4 ART that I had back with full frame.
The Sigma 18-35 is a legend. Many don't understand why anyone would make such a lens for APSC. What most people don't understand is that Sigma didn't design this lens for Canon, Nikon, Sony etc. - Sigma designed this lens for their Sigma Foveon Quattro camera. The Quattro sensor can keep up in resolution with 40MP-50MP full frame sensors, even beating them in some situations. The 18-35 had to be able to match the sensor resolution of the Quattro sensor. For Bayer cameras with an APSC sensor, it is overkill. There is no APSC sensor other than the Foveon sensors which can actually scratch at the resolution ceiling of this lens.
You're my bro! I totally get this. I use the sdQuattro, 18-35 and 50-100 for my slow paced experiments.
I only hope Sigma makes an SA to X mount adapter.
Another legendary Sigma lens is the 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM. A design from 2011 that was sadly discontinued very soon due to some patent issues with Nikon over OS. The Fringer adapter doesn't work with the EF version of this lens on X mount when it comes to OS and AF..but if you'd like to manual focus, you'd be very impressed with the images from that lens.
Good start... 18-35mm F/1.8 is a nice lens.
But it equates to a 27-52mm F/2.7.
Are you sure you can't find that or better in full frame ?? And just as good ??... 🤔
Using the Viltrox 1.2 lenses surprises me the most. Paired with my X-T4 it allows me to achieve the quality of photos that would otherwise cost an arm and leg if I were in a full frame system.
With the new 27mm and the upcoming Sirui sniper lenses and more manufacturers releasing pro APSC cameras, today is basically the best time to be an apsc user.
i texted sirui, they said all sniper lineup will use nightwalker glass.. so its not that amazing because that lens does not even sharp at f2.8.. so dont talk about its f1.2.. i cancelled my waiting on that series and bought viltrox 27 and 75 instead.. maybe need to wait for another 2 3 years for sirui to catchup the glass tech from other manufacturer
This is unfortunately false. The Viltrox has a FF equivalent of 40mm f1.8. You can get a FF lens 35mm f1.8 that is cheaper and lighter. There are also FF 35mm f1.4 options that are similar price and similar weight.
@@Wow9193 Yeah but those lenses you mentioned are miles back when it comes to image quality, the 27 f1.2 and 75 1.2 viltrox are really incredible, if you want that type of quality you need to go with top tier full frame 1.2 or 1.4 lenses which cost around 2-3k
@@Wow9193 not for image quality, Sharpness, CA..
I would like to ask about the Sigma-Fuji adapter for Lens 1. The link in the video description does not work.
The last lens is Sigma 16mm 1.8?
If you had to pick one of these for astrophotography what would be your choice/choices? I just got an A6700 with the 16-50 F3.5 lens for a first camera.
I used sigma art 18-35 for almost a decade and it’s an incredible lens. I’d use it for literally any project bar none.
I love the 18-35mm lens. I pair it on my r7, and to me the results are next level. F 1.8 is F 1.8 when it comes to iso. That makes this combo a professional level low light monster. Love it.
Hi. Great video. Could you please put the full description of lenses next to the links?
Mark Wiemels, thanks for this. Your exposures are always so perfect. Is it true the aps-c offers more depth of field than full-frame? Or is it the other way around?
The simple answer is, yes, more depth of field, less blurry background. It’s a little more complicated than that, but that’s the easy one take on it.
16mm sigma is the 10th lens, but honestly all 3 of their APS primes are awesome. And vilktrox's 70mm 1.2 is also amazing.
I bought the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 for my Nikon Z7ii. I get about 20 mp in crop mode with an effective focal length of 40.5. I love it.
Gotta have at least 1 fuji lens in here. Like the 18mm f1.4 perhaps?
For example full frame version of 17-70 f/2.8 is 24-120 f/4. It is exact equivalent of APS-C 16-80 f/2,66, so technically better range and even faster. I also thought that there is nothing like Sigma 50-100 f/1.8, but actually now I have Nikkor 70-180 f2.8 which is way lighter and on FX is equivalent of 47-120 f/1,86 on APS-C, faster focusing and even less color fringes. There is also no 45mpix APS-C camera.
No mention of Lens 8 brand or mounts? Who makes it?
Brightin Star 35mm F0.95
I love my sigma 16mm. I only own a SONY a6400, so no stabilization. If I want hand held stabilization I use the SONY 50mm e lens, or my Zeiss 24 to 70mm. When I want portrait pop I use the SONY EF 90mm macro with some great results. Using full frame lenses on APS-c has some great results, if only that they are different.
The lense n2 it has an equivalent … I have it … it is the Tamron 2.8 27-70 its very good, you loose a bit of wide but is as crisp as the APSC brother
Your 1st lens of sigma 18-35mm is available in nikon and canon dslr mounts. It is also the case that canon has a fullframe 28-75mm ( or something close) f2 lens on their RF mount
I'm thinking of getting my first camera within the next year or so. I have my eyes on the Sony A6700 as I want to be prepared for both photo and video capture. I would like to be versatile with priority for music events which may be indoors and require good low-light performance. Let's say my budged allows me to get two of those lenses in the video, which ones would you recommend?
I would say the Sigma primes F1.4 or Viltrox F1.2, then the focals would depend on your style of shooting, but those seem to me to be the most efficient options for perf (low light in 1st)/$$.
Have you checked the ZV-E10 (V1 & 2)? Did you find any drawbacks in comparison with the 6700? Considering the $$ diff, which could allow for +/better glass. As I'm in a similar search, & the 6700 is just a tad above the budget I'd like to put in, since I already have a FF if I need pro lvl content.
@@bobcoco6047 Hi! I've settled for the A6700. The IBIS does a great job stabilizing my shots for both photos and video. It also allows me to shoot 4K60p. 4K120p also works (with crop) but I don't think I will use it often. Image quality is phenomenal.
As for lenses, I settled for this set:
- Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (my daily driver for the vast majority of shots)
- Sony 11mm f1.8 prime lens (for shootings of interior, buildings, large objects, maybe vlogging)
- Sony 70-350mm f4.5-6.3 G OSS (small and affordable zoom lens for APS-C. Works great for portraits and wildlife, especially with the A6700 which is super stable at the highest zoom range thanks to IBIS + OSS.
I later found another video promoting this exact setup. That was after I purchased everything which makes me quite confident in it.
@@HoshPak I think that's indeed a great choice, I went for M4/3 with the Lumix G9 for the video features, high res photos if needed & the even better IBIS, with 4 primes :
Pana/Leica 9mm, 42.5 & 15mm F/1.7, & 25mm Olympus.
The only drawback I have is the DoD Contrast AF, which is not reliable, esp. for video 😕
I didn't us it much so far in tricky conditions, but that sacrifice could make some shots impossible (shooting myself alone), if such is, I'll have to derive to the 6700 as well 😁
Please make a video on APS-C lens for Wildlife with focus on bigger lenses like 600mm for birding
I love my Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX (APS-C). The body is metal and it feels like a tank. It was made for years in Japan and has only stopped being made in the last two years. It was still approx. £1,500 brand new when production finished but I managed to purchase a used one for £349. I was sceptical at first due to it being so cheap but it is like mint except I had to buy a used lens hood which I was aware of at the time of purchase.
I had that lens and traded it in for the tamron 24-70mm. That was definitely a good lens
@8:10 stated you sold out Fuji but came back, what system did you experiment with? I have lots of sony APSC lens and other accessories but want to switch to Fuji. Was Sony the system you switched to but switch back fuji?
I sold out or Fuji to fund buying into Sony. I now shoot both, if I absolutely must rely on the autofocus, I shoot Sony. For out of camera color, and the feel of the camera I shoot Fuji.
@@markwiemels Thanks for the prompt response. My A6000 is broken, think I replace that system with the Fujifilm X-T30. Will keep the A7IV for weddings and and events. Thanks Mark!
Which one office these lens has a creamy bokeh effect for videography with Sony ZV-E10 camera ?
Sigma 30mm f.1.4
Viltrox 33mm f.14
The Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 was the first super sharp lens that I’ve bought back in 2018 for my Canon 80D back then. Using it on the Canon 90D it was still sharp edge to edge on its 32MP APS-C sensor, which has the same pixel density as an 83MP full frame one. So on the R5 which switches to just about 17MP in APS-C mode it’s just as sharp as it gets.
Question : Are these lenses for mirrorless cameras? Any lens mount for DSLR for Nikon F mount?
I have the 18-35 on my D500
Why no one talks about or compares to standard kit lens like 18-135 mm that comes with sony. Why should I consider in this case 70 mm tamron when I am getting this range in kit lens?
Off track a little (Q) If you have a Canon 5D Mk IIII with a 500mm lens and you look through the viewfinder, you will see what is going to hit the sensor. Your eye looks into the viewfinder, and it hits the prism down to the mirror and out through the lens. Your view is 500mm. If you use a Canon 7D Mk II APS-C with a 500mm lens, you also see in the viewfinder what is going to hit your sensor. but it is at the equivalent of 800mm. Again you look into the viewfinder, and your eye hits the prism down to the mirror out through the lens. Surely the view is still only 500mm, so the view should be the same as the 5D Mk IIII ? Kind Regards
Viltrox 27 is just fantastic, use it for semi macro work as well!
shot a lot of fungi this autumn, sharp like you said from1.2 and the bokeh is great as well
Before watching this video, I had plans to purchase two of the lenses you covered here. The Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 and the Astrhori 18mm F8 were going to be my first two lens purchases to go with the FX-30. I intend to do a lot of smallish product type shots primarily with a small home studio setup.
To be fair, you are not taking into account the fact that for example a 17-70 F2.8 gives identical results to a 25-105 F4 on full frame, which is very common. In terms of field of view and background separation. You can argue that with F2.8 you need 1 full stop lower shutter speed to achieve that result, except that with the same shutter speed (and higher ISO to compensate) on the full frame, you get roughly the same amount of noise as well. The same goes for the 18-35 f1.8 =27-52.5mm f2.7, not exactly available in FF, but a 24-70 F2.8 achieves the same and more and is very common.
For exposure f2.8 is f2.8 on every sensor. For depth-of-field f2.8 on APS-C is the same as f4 on FF. In your comment you are correct that if you want to replicate the look of f2.8 on APS-C using a FF camera you could go to f4. However, this does not mean that a FF camera with higher ISO is going to produce the same amount of noise as APS-C at a lower ISO. Making that comparison requires a lot more data on the specific FF and APS-C cameras and sensors.
Exactly. The Sigma 18-35/50-100 pair were designed to replicate the 24-70 and 70-200 look on APS-C.
People need to do math properly and not ignore equivalency for lens calculations.
@@professionalpotato4764 For exposure f2.8 is f2.8 no matter the size of the sensor. People need to do the math for depth-of-field but they need to know when to stop doing the math too. There is no such thing as an equivalent lens between APS-C and FF ever - you either choose equivalency in DoF or Exposure. Most people on UA-cam comments think you do the math everywhere which is just not correct.
@@GrantMcWilliams You are right, for exposure f2.8 is f2.8 no matter the size of the sensor. However, note that if you shoot with a full frame at f4 and 1.5x the focal length to get the same overall look of the APS-C picture at f2.8 you should shoot with the same shutter speed but higher ISO to compensate for the lower exposure. The result is pretty much exactly the same. This is because shooting with an APS-C the noise levels are roughly 1 stop worse than on full frame. This is simply because you capture effectively more light on a larger sensor, f2.8 = f2.8 means that per square mm of sensor you capture the same amount of light on either system, but with a bigger sensor you capture effectively 2.3 times the light, resulting in a better signal to noise overall allowing to shoot with higher iso to still get the same result.
@@professionalpotato4764 Yes, indeed, although they obviously fall short in terms of those in zoom reach, they are a good attempt. I would argue however that if you need out of focus backgrounds and/or low light capabilities like that, you probably shouldn't be using an APS-C. I use my APS-C for travel, landscapes and a little bit of wildlife and generally don't want things out of focus and like it light and small :)
Thanks for the recommendations! Got a good amount of manual lenses on here so I'd love to see your method/settings for using manual focus in these newer cameras (particularly sony), trying to set up custom buttons on my new FX30 and any help with some AF/MF tips would be great!
Thank you for the very helpful video. Do you also have a telephoto lens recommendation? Any light you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
TTArtisans 500mm f6.3 is amazing for the price.
Thank you very much for the quick response and great information. This video was perfect as it opened up other potential lenses. I already ordered the recommended adapter for ef lenses. Can't wait to use it.
Great video thank you. The Tamron 17--70mm has an equivalent in the several 24-105mm lenses that are not so uncommon.
Well done video abd I agree with several of your lens choices as I am an ONLY APS-S (Sony a6500) user. I feeel the following lenses SHOULD be included in the best APS-C range of lenses:
1) Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 as companion to the 17-70mm F2.8, with the 11-20mm being EVEN sharper than the 17-70mm
2) Sigma 56mm F1.4, as companion to the 16mm F1.4. The 56mm is AMAZINg, even better in quality than the very good 16mm
3) Samyang 50mm F1.2 manual, a very sharp lens providing very beautiful colors
4) Sigma 50-100mm F1.8. as companion to the very good 18-35mm F1.8. The 50-100mm is just a bit heavy, but excellent picture quality
5) Rokinon 12mm F2.0, excellent lens, especially for night photography such as astro
These are ll lenses I own and use frequently and have been VERY satisfied with their performance and quailty.
Used the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 for many years, absolutely fantastic piece of glass. Adapted really well to Sony E.
Right now, my favorite lens is the Sigma 56mm f1.4, really great for the studio.
Really interested in getting one of the Sirui anamorphic lenses, but Viltrox 27mm f1.2 is top of the list right now.
How is the Autofocus for the Sigma 18-25
I now have a better understanding of a metamorphic lens and how it relates to the sensor size. Definitely in my wish list. Excellent video!!!
14:26 Sigma 16mm f1.4
Amongst the first batch of lenses I got for my first camera.
And the Sigma 30mm f1.4
You have just focused on prime lenses while they are some APS-C zoom pro lenses too! Canon 17-55mm F2.8 as for the Nikon 17-55mm too...
Wonder how badass an anamorphic lens would combine with fuji's h2s open gate recording
Very.
Canon just released an equivalent to the Tamron 17-70 (25.5 to 105). It’s the Canon 24-105 f2.8
Not a true equivalent. The Tamron 17-70 is = 24-105 f/4 full frame.
That is totally not equivalent! You get a LOT more background separation at 105mm F2.8 than at 70mm F2.8 even if the field of view is the same, the depth of field is very different due to the longer focal length of the full frame lens. To get similar results in field of view and depth of field you need 24-105 F4, a type of lens that every manufacturer offers.
@@Eikenhorst focal length is almost exactly the same. Of course you are gonna get more separation with full frame, I thought this was common knowledge?
@@professionalpotato4764 of course you are gonna get more light transmission and a shallower depth of field on F2.8 full frame vs F2.8 APSC. I thought this was common knowledge. But these lenses are def step brothers. Essentially the same lens just a diff sensor size
@@uptonfilms95 That is why the 24-105mm F2.8 is in not the equivalent full frame lens to the 17-70 F2.8. It produces very different results as you point out (an you pay for that difference in price, size and weight!)
Looks like your video has been taken with my favorite lens too. A Sigma 16mm F1.4?
Nice. I love my APS-C 16-55 f2.8 because, if I understand it right, it's got a more usable depth of field (for street photos) than its full frame equivalent at the same f-stops. And a tiny bit lighter. Still worse in low light, of course, and worse subject separation.
Great video. Please add the equivalent focal length when used on MFT sensor. It really helps if you add lens name and focal length when you talk about that lens.
Wouldn't the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 be about equivalent to the full frame 24-105mm f4?
Yes. Just increase 1 stop in ISO and you'll get virtually the same image.
The tamron 17-70mm had a bad weather seal on mine and has a bunch of humidity build up in the front element
Tamron lenses have a 6 year warranty, depending on where you are located.
@@markwiemelssadly the warranty doesn’t cover that kind of damage, i had already tried that as a first option
Well, I‘ve a question; Brighton Star 35mm f0.95 or Meike 35mm f0.95? Both are the same price btw :)
Have you found a reliable AF-capable EF/EF-S to Z adapter at all?
Are we not allowed to know what some of these lenses are? You never said the name or put the name on the screen of number 8. Why not just use their names instead of numbers? So werid
Then you would've skipped the whole video 😂😂.. That is the youtubers technique to create curiosity and hold you on to the video until the end and finally make u to comment angrily and which result in additional perks 😂😂 for the youtuber🫅
He wants you to click on his affiliate links so he gets a cut of your money 😂😂
My dude, how many 35mm 0.95 lenses do you think are out there?
@1RandomToaster that's what I'm saying😂
In a percentage of environments. Including lighting conditions, both natrual and atifical. The smaller apsc lenses are terrible at letting in. Which is the opposit of full frame and medium format lenses. I would mention large format lenses. But we are sticking with digital here.
This guy is just trying to misslead his audience. If he talked all hype about a lense. Like in this case spicific lenses. He would recieve real feedback from actual users of. Both this system and the lenses. Which would make him look like a dumb farse.
So you go to Australia?
I would really see Sigma extending the Trio toawards a little more tele. Maybe a 70 or 80mm 1.4 would be dope.
I'm confused as to why you wouldn't consider the Canon 17-35 f2.8L?
I have the canon M50, the first one that came out. I was going to get the canon r8 , but after watching your video about sometimes crop sensor cameras are better than full frame, maybe I stick with it. I need to watch more of your videos, but would you say that the original m50 is worth holding onto and then trying one of these lens in your videos on it with an adapter?
The Sony 24-105 OSS is essentially the FF equivalent of the Tamron, as equivalency also includes aperture. The F4 will perform the same as 2.8 on a crop sensor. The main advantage of the Tamron is that it does it at a little over 100g less and has much closer minimum focus distance and its cheaper than the sony, but the Sony gains a little over 1mm on the wide end which makes a tiny bit of a difference.
FWIW & for Sony users, you might be able to get the Sigma 18-35 in Sony A-mount for less money than in EF-mount. I recently bought an "old stock" (brand new in a never-opened box), for EUR 400 that I am using with the LA-EA5 adapter. A truly fantastic lens! *Note*: as far as I can tell, autofocus only works for stills, not video, with this adapter.
I got that Brightin Star lens a few weeks ago and am still getting the feel for it but, so far, I am loving it. Sharp at all apertures, so sharp that it really makes focus peaking work well so focusing is very straightforward. Though f-stops are notched, there's a really soft slide between apertures that makes it easy to use the in-between. Even at an effective 70mm focal length, IBIS on my Lumix GX85 lets me use it hand-held without issue. f0.95 really lets in a lot of light. Its a beautiful lens with excellent ergonomics. I'm already almost at the point of being able to use it without thinking about using it. It's already become the default lens for me on that camera body.
All that for a lens that cost me around $180 new from the maker.
I got mine a couple of days ago and have tested it against the Fujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4. Given images taken with Brightin star 35mm and XF 33mm of the same subject side by side, you are REALLY hard pressed to see any difference. Pixel peeping you can spot a tad more softness in the Brightin star, and slightly more LoCA and possibly fringing, but nothing that a simple click in Lightroom can clean up if you want to. Truly spectacular for the price, and miles ahead the Mitakon, Meike and 7artisans alternatives.
Being a Nikon APS-C user, the Tamron 17-70 isn't an option, but the old Sigma 'C' 17-70 is a friendly all-rounder. Thanks for video!
7:04 did you mean 13 on full frame and 20 on crop?
Can you recommend Canon lenses for wildlife? Thank you.
I got the 55-250 STM for my sister and it blew me away, fantastic image quality!
Do you have best recommendations for Canon APS-C EF lenses?
Im looking for a new lense (only have the nifty50i). The More ich Search for infos the More i get confused what to Buy 🙃🥲
I see you're a fellow Melbournian. I've got an A6700 + Sony 24-105mm F4 & Sigma 35mm 1.4. I'm wanting to do some more street photography (ideally at night). Do you think these are suitable, or should I save up for the 18-35mm?
The 35mm f1.4 would be a great lens for that. The 18-35 is too big and heavy, for me, for street.
@@markwiemels thanks mate. I'm keen to try the cheaper manual focus lens too, but I need to practice focusing first
If you had to choose between / Viltrox AF 13mm f/1.4 & the 10th lense, what would you choose in 2024 ? (needs are : low light photos and vidéos with wide angle)
This is really more of a personal preference, because both are great, but I love that 13mm FOV, it's my favourite.
Under the radar. The Fuji 50mm F2. Tiny, incredible sharpness, amazing flare control
What a deal. Small, sharp, no on-board stabilization. Good auto focus.
Nard dawg! Killing it with the content glad I found your channel earlier!
What do you think about the G9 II (m43) with Leica lenses? Have you taken a look yet?
I have not, but the G9 II looks amazing.
Last lens has to be the Sigma 16mm f1.4. I love this lens as a photography lens. Haven’t really used it to make any videos yet, but great to know it’s an awesome choice.
You kinda missed out on the bokeh monster viltrox 75m f1.2 .
Where can I buy the XT1 body? I can't find any XT1 for under $300
A wonderful collection! Which one would you keep between Viltrox 27 f1.2 and Brightin Star 35 f0.95, as a daily use?
That’s hard. I like 27mm better for video and hybrid, and 35mm for photography. For photo only, if you don’t mind manual focus, the Brightin Star. For video, and probably hybrid, the Viltrox.
Is there an adaptor from EF-M to EF or EF-S?
please tell me, how come you shot this with a 16mm but video has no wide angle edge distortions?
You now have an equivalent for the tamron 17-70, the Canon RF 24-105 2.8 IS
I’ve been shooting with a canon 24-105 f4 II on the Fuji XH2s with the Metabones .71 speedbooster, which basically makes it a “full frame perspective” with a 25-106 f2.8 equivalent. It even has the IS, and seems to work with the camera ibis and the focal range at that aperture is just fantastic. The best part is that I didn’t have to spend $3000 just to get the lens.
@@TheJ_G That's not how math works. It will give you roughly 25-106 f/4 equivalent. f4 x 1.5 x 0.71 = f4.26
@@professionalpotato4764 Well, it’s showing up as a f2.8 in my camera. So maybe the math is wrong, or at least misleading, but it’s a pretty common practice to use a speedbooster to achieve a faster aperture.
If I’m mistaken and you have something to share, feel free to enlighten a stranger on the internet out without as much the snark right out the gate.
canon just released a 24-105 f2. 8
cost more than a aps-c camera and tsmron lens tho..
Yes, they released it after I filmed the video, but before I published it. That lens looks nuts, but yea, it’s pricy.
Not seen one review, let alone a reference, to the Meike brand or their 10mm UWA lens before. Your review as a whole is bang on. Will trawl through your vids for the Best Zooms/Telephoto lenses now. Nice work.
Im looking for a zoom telephoto that gives me reach on a budget, i have many lenses that are great however in my aps fuji i dont have a long reach one!
Sigma 16 f/1.4 on full frame is a secret gem too. Put the camera in any video format that gives a bit of crop and you get a look you can't get with any other lens for that price.
Some of these lenses you can get on full frame as well. A 24-105, a 24mm f1.8, a 20mm f1.8, several anamorphic lenses and f0.95 equals the DOF of f1.2 lenses commonly found on mirrorless full frame mounts nowadays. Granted the prices are different, but so is the quality. There is for example a 40mm f1.2 Voigtländer for Z Mount matching a 27mm f0.95. And especially with those very cheap Chinese lenses the T stop is often far off the claimed f stop.
Actually the DOF equivalency of f0.95 is closer to f1.4, as the corresponding third stop of f1.2 would be at slightly below f0.9. A f0.95 on full frame would require an aperture below f0.7 on an equivalent APSC lens. The Nokton 50mm f1 on Nikon Z equals a 33mm f0.7 on APSC for example.
which one of these lenses do you recommend for shooting video?
The Viltrox 27mm/f1.2 is my new To-Go/Always-On Lense, it really is a nice thing on my Z fc, not regretting the buy.
What adapters are best for my Sony FS5mii.... Thanks!
It has to be the Sigma 16mm f1.4. By the way it's not only good for video, very good lens for photography as well. Simply love it.
Pl. tell something on tamron 15-30 mm f2.8
Speaking of Sigma lenses on a Sony 6400 I've had nothing but focus problems with the 16mm F1.4.