I own the sigma 18-35. However it seems a bit soft between f/11-16 on my Fuji XT5. Really looking for something that will resolve the high demands of the 40mp sensor. I did recently see that Fuji are releasing a version 2 on the lens you just reviewed. Considered just buying the 18mm f/1.4 and the 33mm 1.4 (I own the older version of the 56mm 1.2) tho the two together would be more than the zoom lens and I’m a newly wed and would like my marriage to last longer than the time it takes for me to purchase both primes haha. Great video btw.
So... what we want is a Fuji XF16-55/1.8 LM R WR, internal zooming with AF/MF switch and mechanical focus ring :D But no seriously, hard to argue with a lot of that. My only issue is I do not find the AF that bad (for Stills) at all on the Sigma and I use it for professional weddings and events all the time, the XH2S gets the shots with this lens if you take enough (see my recent video). There is just something SO YUMMY from a 1.8 shot around this focal range that is just king that I feel the 16-55 can't touch. The PROCESS of taking the shot would be better with the 16-55 but the Sigma ENDS UP with the best looking shots, and I care mostly about the end result. F2.8 on APS-C is rendering depth like f4 in FF world, and who really shoots weddings and events with f4 zooms or primes on FF systems? Yeh.. its not the best look. The Sigma gets you a FF look basically, which is rad on an affordable stacked sensor aps-c cam. And lastly that non internal zooming is not very reassuring long term (and suffers lens creep). Doesn't feel red badgey enough. Word on the street is Sigma are looking to port (at least) this art lens to MILC in the near future (they just need to get the contemporary line out of the way first). I have heard nothing from Fuji on updating this 16-55 and I would not at all be surprised if they think it is fine as is with no upgrades needed. There is the Sigma 18-50 and the Tamron 17-70, tbh I think I would choose either of those over the 16-55 if I could stomach f2.8, because both those are at least cheaper and smaller. IQ (CA, softness in corners etc) I actually don't care that much about (nor do my clients tbh) but 'the look' I do care about (and so do clients, they just don't know what 'the look' is called and how to describe it). Sigma wins for me, but this is a difficult comparison because although it is a sensible comparison to be had (I had this choice to make myself) at the same time its not really comparable. Good vid Jay.
I would say going for both is ideal. The fuji for street/travel, photo/videography plans due to its portability, size, weight and reach. The sigma for interview, corporate type of shoots and if you know you'll want more separation when filming a subject. Honestly for low light even with a 2.8 aperture, at 6400 ISO you're already seeing more than the human eye and you can always clean up noise easily for very specific shots. Thanks for your video !
Hi, nice comparison! Would love to see your thoughts on the new sigma 18-50 2.8 and a comparison against these two lenses. Size wise it's a no brainier but interested in a comparison of image quality
Great video man. I do own native Fuji lenses but I use the same Sigma combo on the 40mp XH2. I'm used to a heavier DSLR setup so the weight doesn't bother me. However, my auto focus performance seems to be better with the Fringer. Did you test with the latest firmware?
I have both of these and chose the 16-55mm. The sigma is clinically sharp and I don’t like that. The 16-55 is sharp as well but with a bit of character.
Having had the Sigma 18-35 on my XH2S I could deal with the weight because the XH2S has an amazing grip. The noise of the !8-35 was just distracting and unbearable. I'm a hybrid shooter (hobbyist) and even taking photos is makes your high end camera sound like it's broken. the 50-100 was even worse! moving so much glass is just so loud. Forget about using a shotgun mic on either. I will attest that the 18-35 is super sharp, but I favor my Tamron 17-70 much more. It really is the best of both worlds and is even lighter than the 16-55. With that said both 18-35 and 50-100 are gone. They are a lovely pairing, but rarely used the 50-100 as it actually is too heavy to tote around for long periods. i just default to my Viltrox 75 1.2! One additional note about the Sigma and Fringer combo is that focus speed and sensitivity adjustments in camera have no affect on the lens performance while using autofocus. That was also somewhat of a deal breaker. I meant to make a video, but didn't think it would get much traction. Nice review!
Thank you and thank for sharing to the channel. The noise of the sigma is irritating to say the least. I’ve not used the Tamron 17-70 and it keeps getting mentioned but the optics in reviews I’ve watched don’t set me alight. That Viltrox lens is something I do want to get my hands on!
I'm currently behind you with gear, having both the 18-35 and (new to me) 50-100. I actually work in fairly sound sensitive environments such as orchestras and weddings (but I do predominantly Stills). So far the 18-35 has been quiet enough, as long as I am in ES mode I find the noise is on me rather than projecting from me. Of course AF video/shotgun mic etc, yeh, its a deal breaker so you have to use MF if that is the game there. But stills AF.C wise I can get by with the AF (performance and noise), its video AF.C where you will really be punished with a lot of glass noise (would be the same if BBF or half pressing shutter permanently). Season is about to begin, I had one test last week at a public speaking event and I think it went really well. 2x XH2S's with the 18-35 on one and the 50-100 on the other, zero lens swapping required and I could get very prime looking shots, this cannot be overstated enough. Orchestra shoot on Sunday, will see how it goes.
@@SummersSnapsMy B camera is the XT4. I absolutely loved that camera until the XH2S came along lol. It makes me appreciate the 2S every time I pick it up. Again…I am an engineer by trade, so my observations are amateur at best. You seem to have worked out an optimal workflow around those two lenses. They are literally the most ideal pairing of do it all lenses. That’s why I got them. I figure if I wasn’t going full frame with a 2.8 24-70 that this combo would be the next best thing. Keep in mind that with equivalence the 1.8 sigmas are like 2.7 aperture lenses. Unfortunately, being a hybrid shooter I don’t always want to have to boom mics away from the lens and complicate/sacrifice mobility. I will also say that as an amateur I lean more towards primes. So I have replaced that combo with the Viltrox 1.2 27mm and 75mm. Faster lenses, equally as sharp, if not sharper, silent and controllable focus as well as lighter. Someone need to make an updated 1.8 zoom lens. It would sell like hotcakes. 😂
@@ClayspeedGreat insight! I'm also a hobbyist who just got the 27mm. Made do with the 18-55 on my X-T30 for 4.5 years as I went through architecture school, now into a job, got my first prime. Loving it so far. I think I want to get the 13mm and the 75mm next, and will see from there. Was wondering if the 50-100 would be a nice option on an adaptor, but I guess it would be too big for the X-T30.
Thank you I have been waiting for this video all week! haha I have the Xh2s with 16-55 2.8 and the AutoFocus is amazing for video but I'm a run and gun shooter and Ive needed the low light features (1.8) but idk if it is worth the trade-offs. What do you think?
Which one are you choosing?
Sigma all day long
Fuji all day long
I own the sigma 18-35. However it seems a bit soft between f/11-16 on my Fuji XT5. Really looking for something that will resolve the high demands of the 40mp sensor.
I did recently see that Fuji are releasing a version 2 on the lens you just reviewed.
Considered just buying the 18mm f/1.4 and the 33mm 1.4 (I own the older version of the 56mm 1.2) tho the two together would be more than the zoom lens and I’m a newly wed and would like my marriage to last longer than the time it takes for me to purchase both primes haha.
Great video btw.
@@Loki_HighlockEvery lens on earth will be soft between f11-16 on. 40mp apps-c sensor. It is called diffraction!! So simple
I wish Fuji would let Sigma make a native 18-35 1.8
So... what we want is a Fuji XF16-55/1.8 LM R WR, internal zooming with AF/MF switch and mechanical focus ring :D
But no seriously, hard to argue with a lot of that. My only issue is I do not find the AF that bad (for Stills) at all on the Sigma and I use it for professional weddings and events all the time, the XH2S gets the shots with this lens if you take enough (see my recent video). There is just something SO YUMMY from a 1.8 shot around this focal range that is just king that I feel the 16-55 can't touch. The PROCESS of taking the shot would be better with the 16-55 but the Sigma ENDS UP with the best looking shots, and I care mostly about the end result. F2.8 on APS-C is rendering depth like f4 in FF world, and who really shoots weddings and events with f4 zooms or primes on FF systems? Yeh.. its not the best look. The Sigma gets you a FF look basically, which is rad on an affordable stacked sensor aps-c cam.
And lastly that non internal zooming is not very reassuring long term (and suffers lens creep). Doesn't feel red badgey enough.
Word on the street is Sigma are looking to port (at least) this art lens to MILC in the near future (they just need to get the contemporary line out of the way first). I have heard nothing from Fuji on updating this 16-55 and I would not at all be surprised if they think it is fine as is with no upgrades needed. There is the Sigma 18-50 and the Tamron 17-70, tbh I think I would choose either of those over the 16-55 if I could stomach f2.8, because both those are at least cheaper and smaller. IQ (CA, softness in corners etc) I actually don't care that much about (nor do my clients tbh) but 'the look' I do care about (and so do clients, they just don't know what 'the look' is called and how to describe it).
Sigma wins for me, but this is a difficult comparison because although it is a sensible comparison to be had (I had this choice to make myself) at the same time its not really comparable.
Good vid Jay.
I would say going for both is ideal. The fuji for street/travel, photo/videography plans due to its portability, size, weight and reach. The sigma for interview, corporate type of shoots and if you know you'll want more separation when filming a subject. Honestly for low light even with a 2.8 aperture, at 6400 ISO you're already seeing more than the human eye and you can always clean up noise easily for very specific shots. Thanks for your video !
Yeah it’s hard to choose to be perfectly honest!
Hi, nice comparison! Would love to see your thoughts on the new sigma 18-50 2.8 and a comparison against these two lenses. Size wise it's a no brainier but interested in a comparison of image quality
Yeah I’d like to further these comparison videos. I find them helpful for myself alone and would be interested to try another sigma lens
it seems there’s currently no X mount lens that can do both good AF and MF and doesn’t change exposure/ focus while zooming. Sad :(
god I wish Sigma will create a mirrorless version of the 18-35mm/1.8. It would shrink it down so much
You’re damn right!
Great video man. I do own native Fuji lenses but I use the same Sigma combo on the 40mp XH2. I'm used to a heavier DSLR setup so the weight doesn't bother me. However, my auto focus performance seems to be better with the Fringer. Did you test with the latest firmware?
Thanks for sharing - yeah I may need to do the latest update
I have both of these and chose the 16-55mm. The sigma is clinically sharp and I don’t like that. The 16-55 is sharp as well but with a bit of character.
Having had the Sigma 18-35 on my XH2S I could deal with the weight because the XH2S has an amazing grip. The noise of the !8-35 was just distracting and unbearable. I'm a hybrid shooter (hobbyist) and even taking photos is makes your high end camera sound like it's broken. the 50-100 was even worse! moving so much glass is just so loud. Forget about using a shotgun mic on either. I will attest that the 18-35 is super sharp, but I favor my Tamron 17-70 much more. It really is the best of both worlds and is even lighter than the 16-55. With that said both 18-35 and 50-100 are gone. They are a lovely pairing, but rarely used the 50-100 as it actually is too heavy to tote around for long periods. i just default to my Viltrox 75 1.2!
One additional note about the Sigma and Fringer combo is that focus speed and sensitivity adjustments in camera have no affect on the lens performance while using autofocus. That was also somewhat of a deal breaker. I meant to make a video, but didn't think it would get much traction. Nice review!
Thank you and thank for sharing to the channel. The noise of the sigma is irritating to say the least. I’ve not used the Tamron 17-70 and it keeps getting mentioned but the optics in reviews I’ve watched don’t set me alight. That Viltrox lens is something I do want to get my hands on!
I'm currently behind you with gear, having both the 18-35 and (new to me) 50-100. I actually work in fairly sound sensitive environments such as orchestras and weddings (but I do predominantly Stills). So far the 18-35 has been quiet enough, as long as I am in ES mode I find the noise is on me rather than projecting from me. Of course AF video/shotgun mic etc, yeh, its a deal breaker so you have to use MF if that is the game there. But stills AF.C wise I can get by with the AF (performance and noise), its video AF.C where you will really be punished with a lot of glass noise (would be the same if BBF or half pressing shutter permanently).
Season is about to begin, I had one test last week at a public speaking event and I think it went really well. 2x XH2S's with the 18-35 on one and the 50-100 on the other, zero lens swapping required and I could get very prime looking shots, this cannot be overstated enough. Orchestra shoot on Sunday, will see how it goes.
@@SummersSnapsMy B camera is the XT4. I absolutely loved that camera until the XH2S came along lol. It makes me appreciate the 2S every time I pick it up. Again…I am an engineer by trade, so my observations are amateur at best. You seem to have worked out an optimal workflow around those two lenses. They are literally the most ideal pairing of do it all lenses. That’s why I got them. I figure if I wasn’t going full frame with a 2.8 24-70 that this combo would be the next best thing. Keep in mind that with equivalence the 1.8 sigmas are like 2.7 aperture lenses. Unfortunately, being a hybrid shooter I don’t always want to have to boom mics away from the lens and complicate/sacrifice mobility. I will also say that as an amateur I lean more towards primes. So I have replaced that combo with the Viltrox 1.2 27mm and 75mm. Faster lenses, equally as sharp, if not sharper, silent and controllable focus as well as lighter. Someone need to make an updated 1.8 zoom lens. It would sell like hotcakes. 😂
@@ClayspeedGreat insight! I'm also a hobbyist who just got the 27mm. Made do with the 18-55 on my X-T30 for 4.5 years as I went through architecture school, now into a job, got my first prime. Loving it so far. I think I want to get the 13mm and the 75mm next, and will see from there. Was wondering if the 50-100 would be a nice option on an adaptor, but I guess it would be too big for the X-T30.
Great video! Did you use the 16-55 2.8 in the X-T5 or XH2? in tha case, how does it resolve the 40 mpx sensor?
These were all tested on the XH2s
can you compare samyang 12mm f2 VS. viltrox 13mm f1.4 please
Viltrox all day.
Does it work well with the built in IBIS on the r7?
Depends which Fuji camera you have. The XH2s is fine tbh
Thank you I have been waiting for this video all week! haha I have the Xh2s with 16-55 2.8 and the AutoFocus is amazing for video but I'm a run and gun shooter and Ive needed the low light features (1.8) but idk if it is worth the trade-offs. What do you think?
I think for video work it’s hard to deny the sigma. I’ve worked with it for a while now and I use it for all my film work
Sticking with my 16-55 and I'm using it with my XH2s. It has not failed me yet and I need that extra reach.
Woof, adapter.
does this comparison even make sense?
completely different focal range. different aperture. 1 needs an adapter
🫶 I like your choice and reasoning. 🩵