Sony 16-55 F2.8 G vs The Sigma Trio

[@betterideas]

Awesome review as always, thanks Arthur!

[@jhn011100]

I think the 16-55 along with the 56 1.4 is the perfect combination. Even better if each were on it's own body.

[@dimitris470]

I am slowly coming to the same conclusion. The one thing missing is a discreet sharp 16mm. Like the sony f/2.8 but actually usable.

[@breadandcircuses5644]

I bought the 16-55 this spring together with an a6700 as part of a deal. I do street, architecture, wildlife and people photographie and this combo hasn't let me down ever. Also it is so compact, together with the other lenses that take me from 10 - 200mm in total it all fits into a small 20l Shimoda Urban Explore.

[@chesslover8829]

If I were a photojournalist using the APSC format, the Sony 16-55mm f/2.8 would be a no-brainer. For amateur street shooting, I would go with either the Sigma 23mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Because of its size, the Sony zoom lens would be a bit tiresome for me to carry around my neck for eight hours a day.

[@breadandcircuses5644]

@chesslover8829 I agree about the weight on the neck. That's why I don't carry the system on a strap around my neck, but rather on a wrist strap from peak design.

[@chesslover8829]

@@breadandcircuses5644 Thanks for the tip regarding the wrist strap. I have it on order from Amazon. Currently, I'm using a climbing rope neck strap, which I really like.

[@tomverheyen8858]

I own the trio and personally, I prefered the Sigma colors in your shots. I also use them for a bit of astro-photography and I am addicted to bokeh, so for those reasons I would not want to mis the 1.4 for the world... Keep up the great video's Arthur, You learned me out a lot!

[@andrewfreeman88]

@Adam Craig How do you take Astro shots on the 18-105mm at F4? I think to get this one or the 16-70mm F4 cant decide.

[@kelvincaban5724]

Do you need fast lenses for Astro? Can’t you just do a long exposure?

[@tomverheyen8858]

@@kelvincaban5724 you can, if you have a star tracker or want to capture star-trails. But if you want dotted stars and want to keep it simple / affordable, a fast prime is an excellent option.

[@winstonpx]

@@MPD90 Why do I feel like ur triggered by an opinion lol

[@kiyoshim9593]

@Adam Craig behave kid

[@AndreOliveira-xz7dw]

I just started watching the channel 3 days ago as I started searching for lenses for an upcoming a6400 purchase and hands down I would say these videos are extremely helpful. Great work!! Keep them coming.

[@supercrazpianomanaic]

NEVER CLICKED A VIDEO SO FAST

[@aryanenzo]

This is honestly currently my favorite youtube channel..

[@stantheman3674]

Arthur, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for doing this comparison. :) I've been waiting for this since the lens was announced and no other creator has put out a legit comparison yet! From what I gather, it is exactly as expected: Sony 16-55 G is ON PAR with the Sigma 16, 30 and just *slightly* below 56 in terms of sharpness and picture quality. I was surprised that colors on 16-55 are better than Sigma 16/30 though! Tough decision for sure. $1100 for three lenses with biggest selling point being the 1.4 aperture vs. $1400 for one lens with biggest selling point being convenience/extra focal lengths.

[@ArthurR]

Indeed. The biggest take away though is Sony finally has a zoom lens that gives you near-prime-level sharpness!

[@NickL0VIN]

Depends. I love bokeh and low light shooting so I’m not making the switch. If you’re into good lighting shooting than the 16-55 G is the better option IMO. If you like creamy Bokeh and low light than stick with the trio IMO.

[@DanBlogRO]

This comparison I think was the most wanted video of this year! Thank you!

[@duythanhish]

Your wife takes picture like a model honestly. And your critiques are always on point.

[@rokoe3336]

I would love to see a low light comparison like at a bar or something, love the content thanks man.

[@mirrorlessny]

would be quiet unfair, f1.4 aperture lets in four times as much light as f2.8

[@kalani2356]

1.4 would destroy it

[@stefanterbekke8506]

Thanks Arthur, really appreciated. I own the A6600 and the Sigma 16 and 56. I do not see a reason for upgrading based on your review, accepting that I bring more lenses with me.

[@ArraialHD]

Absolutely I have an a6000 and both 16 and 56 : )

[@g43654]

Lol, I have the same setup! I'm considering getting the 30mm for a natural perspective, just because my wife didn't like how fat her face looks in my pictures (the 56mm does that). If only the 30mm weren't the weakest in the three. Sign...

[@ArthurR]

How do you have the A6600 already?! It hasnt been released yet!

[@stefanterbekke8506]

Arthur R in Holland it is already available. Same with the Sony 70-350, already at home although Amazon is selling it as of 20th of Nov. Sometimes we are lucky :)

[@ArraialHD]

@@ArthurR ...🤔 I was without my glasses 🤣

[@BudionoSukses]

awesome. decide to subscribe this channel for appreciating his effort to compare everything. great job, Arthur!

[@clodvonclout]

Thanks for the review, will it be possible to include a comparison using 'night' shots? at F2.8 for both lenses, then another with F2.8 vs F1.4? Thanks.

[@TyJen73]

Nice that you showed the separation difference of 1.4 and 2.8. I love my Sigma lenses but my Sony camera was purchased for convenience and size. That said, the 16-55 2.8 Sony is a welcome option for light weigh and ease for travel with my Nikon wildlife kit. Great review and comparison.

[@tenphan0n0]

Time to throw in Player 3: Tamron 17-70mm

[@Hi-how-are-you-today.]

Or sigma 18-50😂

[@francoisleduff6246]

After 2 months with the 16-55mm, i can say that it's a really good lense, but i miss the 1.4 aperture of the SIGMA trio. For me, 2.8 aperture is not enough these days for the sony APSC bodies when you know the cost of a 1.4 lense... It's very hard to shoot in low light situation, even when it's 5pm the ISO goes straight 3200 and it become noisy. And the shutter speed...I had some trouble to take sharp photographies of my family during christmas dinner. I would say 2.8 aperture for a APSC zoom is different of a Full frame camera because your picture is still sharp at 6400 ISO on full frame, wich is not the case of a sony APSC series. I will consider upgrade to full frame or buy a new Sigma for lowlight situation because i really miss it.

[@TravellLove]

Your point of increased noise in indoor lights with F2.8 APSC is pretty valid. That's why I am sticking to F1.4 trio

[@IntoTheMystery13]

With the crop factor 1.4 becomes 2.1 and 2.8 becomes 4.2. You have to double your iso or half your shutter speed to make up for the difference. The primes are not as convenient, but I’d rather have the low light. I only use my Sony for video. If I was trying to shoot action stills and didn’t care about low light as much I might be a little more inclined to get the zoom.

[@IntoTheMystery13]

Plus the fact lens are rarely their sharpest with the lowest f stop

[@lonelyroamer]

@@IntoTheMystery13 ƒ1.4 remain ƒ1.4. and ƒ2.8 remain ƒ2.8. T-value isn't affected by crop factor. Crop factor just affects depth of field (of course field of view...). You don't have to double nothing.

[@lonelyroamer]

@@IntoTheMystery13 Considering your theory, my iPhone has a 7x crop factor. So... ƒ1.8 * 7 = ƒ12.6 (tele lens ƒ2.8 * 7 = ƒ19.6 😱). And considering that iPhone has a value of 25 of base ISO... I could use it only at noon, pointing the sun. But isn't. T-stop doesn't change with the crop factor.

[@davidweihs7476]

I really like your videos, you are the one that talked me into Sigma 56 and your comparsion showed, that it was the right choice. Now I'm thinking of adding the Sony so I can make portraits with my sigma 56 but for travelling and other events I don't have to switch objectives. Thank you for making this channel...

[@jeffriart]

The 16-55mm keep impressing me. It's expensive, but I don't want to carry multiple lens with me, so it's quite perfect. Now saving up for that.

[@dudeiusmannigast1543]

Comparing the sigma trio in cost vs that 16-55 and the diffrence is not that big imo. And there is obvious upsides with carry around lens weight in form of fewer lenses..👌🏻

[@jeffriart]

@@dudeiusmannigast1543 yeah, for me that haven't got any of the Sigma trio, it makes sense to spend a bit more for 16-55mm and getting the convenience.

[@codeofcodedotorg]

Don’t expect the performance to be so similar in low light. That f1.4 sees in the dark, I have it. Also, you can get away with just getting sigma 16 and 56 and skip the weakest one in the trio which is unsurprisingly the cheapest.

[@jeffriart]

@@codeofcodedotorg yeah, low light won't be the same, that's a given I think when comparing zoom and prime. Still, the f2.8 should be pretty decent, and framing will be easier as we have all the focal length in between 16-55. I think it's a good compromise.

[@codeofcodedotorg]

jeffri I seriously thought about buying this lens as well, but that f1.4 is what keeps me from going full frame as well as the flip screen. Once you get this lens, you’re fully investing in aps-c for the long term in my opinion. If f4.2 (in full frame terms) is enough for your needs go for it.

[@marin_real_estate_photography]

Minimum focusing distance? Focus breathing? AF performance in video? Enquiring minds want to know.

[@ACDGibson]

I own the 16mm and a 35 1.8 from sony and swapping those on the spot while taking pictures with my wife is slowly driving me nuts :D I would love to have a sharp zoom like this. The only problem is that once you taste that 1.4 bokeh you can't go back! :D

[@TheOtherChef]

I"m in the same situation, I own the Sigma 16 and 30 as well as the Sony 35. I'm debating about selling the Sony 35/1.8 to get the Sigma 56 or invest the money to get the 16-55/F2.8 G. But I do love the F1.4 off the Sigma line. Once you go 1.4... it's hard to go back to a 2.8 native Sony even.

[@TidesOnEarth]

This is the debate! I have the sigma 16 and 30... plus the Sony 18-105 f4. I love the bokeh on the primes. And the Sony gives me a zoom to play with but I rarely zoom beyond 50-60 and 1 lens is pretty tempting, but that bokeh!

[@MonicaHolly143]

@@TheOtherChef there's no point for u to keep two 35mm lens

[@TheOtherChef]

@@MonicaHolly143 As stated before, yes, I'm planning to sell my Sony 35. It was a gift because I already had the Sigma 30 which was on sale for $209 USD. Plus... I don't own 2 "35mm" lens... only one :)

[@MonicaHolly143]

@@TheOtherChef u own 2 and yes it is stupid to have 2 lens which are the same

[@srb980]

Very impressive comparison between the two brands. Thank you. I’m surprised the 16-55 held its own against the sharpness reputation of the Sigmas.

[@acme9538]

Thanks for another great review! Thanks to you, I am happy with my kit for my needs after selling all my canon gear. I now own a 6500 . . . an 18-105 for daytime point & shoot walk around, Sigma 16 for low light/ astro/ and landscape, and 70-200 f4G for sports, and light wildlife. My next lens will be the Sigma 56 . . . . with that kit, i've pretty much got all my basis covered for my needs, and it all packs VERY nicely and didn't break the bank . . . plus I tend to just 'grab my Sony' way more than I did with my Canon dslr. Thanks again for all your help, and taking the time to do these reviews!

[@sugarmice]

This is pretty much what I plan to have. Currently rocking an A6400 with the Sigma 16mm. Planning to get the 18-105 and the Sigma 56mm next. That should cover all my bases

[@johndonaldson5126]

Thanks for the review Arthur. If you go with the zoom lens you have an easier to use setup, no changing lenses. On the other hand the Sigma trio is f1.4 vs the Sony at 2.8. Sharpness seems to be a wash between them. Cost wise the Sigma trio is cheaper, and you can buy them one at a time to reduce the impact on your budget. The Sony looks like a great lens but it is way too expensive for me, and while f2.8 is great f1.4 is much better. I'll stick with my Sigma trio.

[@ArthurR]

Very smart analysis and excellent points to consider!

[@jamesmorrell2901]

I primarily use photography to document my travels, and I found that carrying multiple prime lenses around and having to change lenses is not for me. The Sony 16-55 f2.8 is the perfect lens for me, and I now own one. In the past two days I've sold my Sigma 30 and 56 on eBay, and the Sigma 16 is up for sale as I write this.

[@OregonFlunder47]

Nice comparison with no clear winner. The new Sony lens is great for sure, hovewer I still convinced that the good old 18105/f4 is by far more "allroundy" and versatile in most aspects. Pricewise I would prefer the combo of 18105 + Sigma 16 + Sigma 56 instead of the new 1655.

[@cantkeepitin]

Consider a 2n body, and a SEL70350 as complenent.

[@travissmarion]

I too own almost the same trio of prime lenses for my Sony A6500. The first lens I purchased was the Sigma 30mm F1.4 for the "nifty fifty" normal day to day use. At that time it was the second highest rated lens according to DXO Mark's testing for the Sony APS-C system (behind only the "highly acclaimed" Sony 85mm F1.4 G Master), and only cost just under $400. My second lens was the Sony 55mm F1.8, which came highly recommended for portraits by all the KZbin reviewers (with the 1.5x crop factor it being an 82.5mm focal length). And my most recent lens was the Sigma 16mm F1.4 for interior photos (real estate), and 3-axis gimbal videography. I would have loved having this option almost 2½ to 3 years ago, but I still do not think I would have spent $1400 for the camera body only to turn around and spend another $1400 on a zoom lens. I would have just purchased the full frame Sony A7III. But alas that wasn't out yet at that time either. The main advantage of the Sigma prime trio is it allows you to piece together a little bit at a time for a more economical route. Plus I personally prefer to own the highest possible quality lenses available for the overall superior photo. For the price of the APS-C system (Sony A6600) nowadays I would go get the Sony A7III and Tamron 28-75mm F2.8.

[@berryiquesims1643]

Hi I love your review and I was wondering what lens to get as I’m doing an interior architecture course and need the camera for interior and exterior shots as well as maybe some portraits/selfie if I travel. Many thanks.

[@patrickoneill3193]

I just purchased this lens. I also have the Sony 35mm f/1.8. These are in my opinion the only two lenses I need for the work/hobby I do. The 35mm gives me a flexible 52mm equiv with good low light performance. And the 16-55 is my everyday shooter (great for travel) I think this lens paired with a fast and flexible prime is a good set up for someone who wants to travel light.

[@PetersonBlanc]

Great video, would love to see a comparison between the sony 16-55 f2.8 g vs the new sigma 18-50mm 2.8; to tell if spending more make a difference?

[@XanderEwald]

I use the Sigma trio for video and it’s rather frustrating. On my A6400, the 30mm and 56mm are unusable with any aperture above f2. The autofocus pretty much breaks down and the lenses are hunting and pulsing like crazy. My Sony 18-105 f4 has no issues whatsoever at the same settings. I will not be getting Sigma glass for video work again anytime soon.

[@vadimoz4109]

So. As I thought, this is the best lens for travelers. Perfect.

[@chrischrisly4071]

Thank you for the review. Can you do a comparison to the 16-70 Zeiss please. Btw. the Sigma 56 is awesome, never got that kind of clear images with any other lens.

[@liuby33]

I own the zeiss and kind of regretted it. No way I've seen images as sharp as these coming from my A6000. I am now debating whether I want the 1.4 or this G because I don't want to sell the Zeiss given how much I'm gonna get from it.

[@darksideemt]

Your wife does an amazing job modelling all the time. Love this video and it definitely convinced me of what I had already planned and that was to get the 16-55 and sell my 16 & 30. I much prefer having a great lens that I don't have to keep changing. Thanks for the great review.

[@guystokes454]

Yeah that switching lenses can be a hassle.

[@noorur]

I'd never sell the 16 & 56

[@antonmakogon8542]

The main reason why I want additional lenses for my A6500 + 18-105 f/4 combo is that max apperture f/4 is not enough for low light conditions like evening or indoors shooting. Sony 16-55 f/2.8 with just 1 stop brighter will not help significaly. But Sigma lenses with f/1.4 are brighter then my lens by 3 stops. This is huge difference. And they perform really good sharpness at open wide. So next my purchase will be Sigma 30mm or 56mm, didn't decide yet.

[@twentyfifthjt7888]

I remember watching this three months ago.. I rewatched this since the price of the 16-55 went down to $1200.. I have the sigma trio & was thinking of selling the 56 and (maybe, but probably not) also one of the other sigma primes & buy the 16-55. I'd generally use the 16-55 2.8 for most things & I'd bring the remaining one or two primes along if I was sure activities were going to extend until night time. I didn't really consider the 16-55 at the 1st watch.. but this time when I got to the end & you recommended to have all four of them, I hope you know that you gave my bank account an existential crisis. Great stuff as always!!

[@DetourDJ]

I own the Sigma Trio, and I’m glad to see Sony produce such a great lens for their APS-C cameras. I do get tired of swapping primes, but I’ve learned the view of each lens and try to plan my shoots accordingly. What I love about the Sigma primes though is the wide-open clarity and bokeh. Yes, the sharpness drops off a hair, but that creamy background really sets it apart from more standard lenses. I probably spend 90% of my time shooting at f1.4-2.0 simply for that “pro” look at an amateur budget. Being able to upgrade a few hundred dollars at a time buying the trio has worked well with my wallet over time. Once you start spending north of $1000 for one lens, it’s time to move to full-frame, in my opinion.

[@DetourDJ]

@@MPD90 The 30mm is my most used, then the 16mm, then the 56mm. The 30mm is a 45mm FF equivalent, so it's the best overall lens for me. Since the firmware update, it does really well with auto-focus. When I do tight inside shots, the 16mm is stellar. The 56mm doesn't see much use for the kind of shooting I usually do, but it's really nice to have a great short-telephoto lens when I want a little reach.

[@TidesOnEarth]

Mike D so interesting! I was thinking of a similar scenario! I shoot most KZbin vids with my sigma 30. So I thought I’d keep it. I have a sigma 16 and a Sony 18-105 f4. It’s a great combo, but like you I find the idea of 2 lenses especially appealing. Did you end up going this route? I’m interested to know if it worked!

[@markrobinson891]

It’s rare to see discussion on Sony’s FE 28 f2.0. I love it on my a6400. Sharp, small, light, fast. Reasonably low cost.

[@ArthurR]

It's a great lens - I have tried it on my A6000. The Sigma 30mm in this video is a lot sharper though.

[@withoutpassid]

I will pick the 16-55 G any day over the Sigma's trio. It's cumbersome to change the lenses all the time.

[@beeballer10]

Ive recently upgraded from the 18-135mm to the Sigma 16mm with the 56mm on the way as well as the Sony 70-350mm pre-ordered, and really enjoy shooting with the Sigma prime, cant see me ever wanting to get the 16-55mm for that price, would only ever consider it if it were half the price. Waiting for your the review of the 70-350mm, keep up the great videos!

[@sanghuloom6943]

Awesome! sigma 16mm performed really well! Hoping for a low light comparison between those lenses on the next video.

[@marcoschram222]

For APS-C sensors I find the larger aperture a must have feature to keep iso down to a minimum so i’m sticking with my Sigma 16, Sony 35 en Sigma 56 combo! Great comparison though, the 1.4 vs 2.8 shots were much appreciated!

[@ArthurR]

You arent losing anything except for the inconvenience of swapping lenses - which for most people isnt a huge issue!

[@stang8913]

Your choices are the same as my collection, but 1 lens to carry out for fun for sometimes would be good too.

[@gordonyz4]

I will keep my 30 1.4, while 16mm is heavy, and outdone by a ZOOM! Glad i skipped 16mm.

[@BestmobilesInUa]

Sony does great job. But also i love Sigma for sharp high quality and cheap lenses. How about comparison 16-55 2.8 with Sigma 18-35 1.8?

[@johnatanlopez8510]

The video I was waiting!! Thanks for your review.

[@Tobilegacy]

Thank you for the review..I am selling my sigma 16 mm and 30 mm lenses to carry this one lens from Sony. Less load to carry around for me . It just makes sense to me.

[@TimK-1971]

My choice would be 2 lenses. For starters, the Sony 18-135, and for portraits, the Sigma 56 mm

[@artmaltman]

Fascinating. Did you notice any difference in speed of autofocus? Did the Sigma's hunt more than the Sony? Thank you..

[@stantheman3674]

He mentioned in previous videos about Sigma 16 and 56 about how those two lenses are incredible with autofocus, on par with native sony lenses. The only one he had slight issues with was Sigma 30mm autofocus, which was later improved through firmware updates.

[@artmaltman]

@@stantheman3674 Thanks for letting me know!

[@TyJen73]

@@artmaltman 20:18 he mentions the Sony being among the best for auto focus of the lenses he has tested over the years

[@artmaltman]

Tyler Jenne Yes I remember him saying that. I was hoping for a more clear comparison. Someone else cited prior reviews that answer the question.

[@stang8913]

I’ve tried 16-55, and personally own 16mm/56mm, I’d say Sigma spent more time on autofocus, but I still love my Sigma though

[@vincenzodaquino2039]

I would like to see a comparison between the Sony 16-55 and Tamron 28-75 full frame lens. I know the focal range Is different, I'm asking because Tamron could be a good choicee for people that are not sure of staying in aps-c forever. Thank for your videos !!

[@simontumpach1442]

The sony is better.

[@Sunscribes]

Great videos man! You are always thorough with your reviews, by far most knowledgable lens reviewer i've come across. Keep up the great work!

[@flyinb45]

I just bought the Sigma 16 again just to shoot indoors at my house. The f/2.8 isn't getting it done without cranking the ISO to get the shutter speed I need to shoot an active infant. Still keeping the 16-55 for everyday but I had hoped it would replace the fast prime. Would you take the Sigma 56 over the Sony FE 85 that you reviewed?

[@kdbmichael]

Combination of 16mm & 30mm vs 18-35mm. Which one you prefer and which should be better on a6300

[@seongyeekhoo7961]

I hope sigma will come out with a 16-55 f2.8 in future with cheaper price tag

[@swordnd88]

mc-11 + sigma 16-35/1.8 EF 😏

[@seongyeekhoo7961]

@@swordnd88 this combo is too damn heavy for apsc haha

[@creativhaus]

The 24-70 that just came out isn’t a bad alternative :)

[@creativhaus]

@@MPD90 Not the Zeiss, I was talking about the new sigma lens: www.sigmaphoto.com/24-70mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-a

[@lowisl289]

Sigma 16-56 f1.4 is much better XD

[@anthonylee5305]

I just wanted to say THANK YOU for making these videos. I have recently purchased a Sony a6500 and based on your videos and recommendations I have since purchased the Sony 18-105 f/4 and today I got the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and boy is it sharp. I think the Sigma 16mm might be next..maybe Christmas! Once again THANK YOU (from Brisbane Australia).

[@jeffsiemens4485]

Really great comparison! I think you covered off all the important topics in very good detail! Nice job!

[@keithancajas4623]

i've only been in this rather expensive have for 3 days so i'm an absolute newbie.. your videos helped me big time in lens selection! thanks! you have a new subscriber in me!

[@kenneth6102]

My heart beat was just shooting through the roof when you walk round waving the sigma trio in one hand. Thanks for video.

[@damongupta4266]

comparison with the Sigma 56mm f1.4 is at 14:03 - in case anyone else comes here specifically for that

[@NewEarthAwakening]

But don't forget, with the clear image sensor zoom, you also get many additional focal lengths with the prime lenses. You could even skip buying the 56mm and still have various focal lengths from 16-60mm with just two nicer, faster, and cheaper lenses from Sigma. As someone else said, once you work with one of these Sigmas, you don't want to give it up. I absolutely love the 30mm and am about to get the 16 for professional video work, which requires a gimbal anyway. Will use the Sony 18-105 g lens for travel.

[@gordonyz4]

Couldn't wait your video and already bought the 16-55! $1030(7200 CNY) from authentic source in China (shipped to Chinese address) Expect gray market version to be $1100+ soon.

[@ArthurR]

That would be amazing!

[@DentargPL]

Peak Design Sling 5L fits A6400 with Sigma Trio perfectly. And you got 2 additional stops of light. Also you more careful with composition with primes (you learn it) and if you really want to zoom in or out, just move your feet.

[@scottimage1]

I was a little nervous watching you wave 3 Sigma lenses around in one hand. A great review as always.

[@MatWeb1]

I've got the Sigma 56 1.4, the Sigma 16 1.4 and I go for the Zeiss Batis 40 2.0 instead of the Sigma 30 1.4. All in use on a Sony A6500.

[@bennielaars]

Very helpful review and kudos for your wife for looking exactly the same between shots. That really helps the comparison.

[@akirahojo2]

The 16-55 G seems like a better choice for travel lens, specially when u hv to be on the move with the family (no time swapping lenses). How do you compare the 16-55 G to 18-105 G, Arthur?

[@Garbid]

look at the first comparison of 16mm sigma and 16-55, both are at 1/500, iso100 and f2.8 but sigma has almost 4 stops extra up to 1.4! Pity that Arthur didn't show the difference in exposition at 1.4 and 2.8 in low light.

[@Mikesnav]

You want the Sigma’s for the 1.4. Two full stop advantage. ISO6400 VS ISO1600. 1/120th vs 1/30th. Exceptional low-light performance vs convenience of zoom

[@victorcano7832]

Can you review the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 for APSC? I'm interested to know how these compare: Sony 16-55 f2.8 G vs Sigma Trio vs Tamron 17-28 f2.8 + Sigma 56 f1.4

[@munshimohammadumarfarooq6665]

you review good man. where can I find someone who reviews like this in automobile industry

[@TheInsicor]

Great review. So the comparison gets even tougher up here in Canada with our pricing of the Sony. It only cost $1449, while the Sigma trio in total is actually more, roughly $1500.

[@DennisMeetsWorld]

I was really tempted to pick up the Sony 16-55 but the price is just too damn high (cheapest secondhand option was still $1000). As of yesterday, I was able to do some bargain hunting and picked up the Sigma trio (purchased separately, of course) for only $870 and all are in mint condition with original boxes & paperwork. The deals are out there...

[@TheFandangovideoguy]

how about for video on the Sony FX30? I have the Sony 18-105mm f4. Would the 16-55mm f2.8 be a LOT better in low light? (Not total darkness!I bring LED panels to live events). Can only 1 f stop make a huge difference? I wish Sigma made the 18-35mm f1.8 for Sony E mount...big lens but great one...I have it for my Canon 90D.

[@alexandrah.4244]

I use the Sigma Trio and i‘m very happy with the results. All lenses makes a good Job . They are very Sharp and the colours are great. I see no reason to change .

[@grauraum]

Had the 16f1.4 , 30f1.4 and the 18135. Then I tried the 1655f2.8. Sold the 16f1.4 and the 18135. 1655f2.8 is a beast. But I'm also keeping the 30f1.4 for lowlights...

[@Marc_Yu]

The beast is, unfortunately, a bit heavy, nearly 500grams.

[@grauraum]

@@Marc_Yu quality glass...

[@rogfol]

Wow, very well done! One of the best reviews about whatever. Thumbs up

[@johnatanlopez8510]

You should compare sharpness against the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 on your a6400, I know the loss of quality when using a FF lens on a crop body, but im curious to see how much is the difference comparing it to the Sony 16-55 f2.8

[@Marlon5k]

Had a little Heart at 2:15 with those 'hand-holding skills' ufff!!

[@salvatorediciaccio376]

Great video, the only thing you were missing were some low light comparative pictures. I own the Sony and am looking for a good prime for indoor pictures low light.

[@networm64]

Wow! What a monster sony has made! I was shocked by the price at first but now with such a wonderful performance....idk about focus breafing of this little gem but I think for videography that's a total beast which can beat any other package even in fullframes comparing price and weight!

[@JoEpunkt]

Super great Comparison, thanks a lot! Suggestion: a Comparison-update between a A7iii and the 6400 with Sigma 56

[@ArthurR]

That means I have to buy an A7III first!

[@Conceptx9]

Or rent it for few days, i would love to see this video too

[@NickL0VIN]

I just finished traveling to 6 countries (Belgium, Tanzania, South Africa, Ethiopia, Singapore, Indonesia) carrying the Sigma Trio. Pictures? Amazing. Bokeh? Amazing. Convenience? Horrible. Switching between 3 lenses all day everyday was absolutely ridiculous. Selling all 3 now and Sony 16-55 here I come! Thanks for the video comparison.

[@jackryder6732]

Great. Do you think sony s7c with similar lenses would be much much better or little better. Tks

[@ifeanyi_maduka]

Great stuff. Can you please do a comparison between the sony 16-55 and the sigma 18-50.

[@SEM-Y]

Excellent and very complete and useful review! Thank you very much!

[@TheVelf]

Good day. Have you tried tamron 28-75 28 on crop 6400? How do you think it will handle to it? I don't use wide angles and have a plan to buy full frame sony) so how tamron will with on crop in compare with sigma primes and I have sony 18-135 kit lens.

[@mirrorlessny]

it will act like 42-112.5mm aps-c lens, no OSS, good buy if you like this range & planning on full frame in future, it's a fantastic FF general purpose medium zoom

[@KyleHu]

I really like your last review. Awesome. Thank you so much for your effort.😊

[@tggentil]

Please Arthur a comparison with the A7 III 24-105 F4!

[@g43654]

I clicked so quickly when I saw this video lol. Edit: at this price, I think I'll just rent it to play around for a while.

[@Saber422]

Can you compare sigma 19mm,30mm,60mm f2.8 trio with sel1655g f2.8？I think that could be interested

[@fellowcitizen]

I replied with this below, but thought I'd add it here: Also, the Digital Neo line of Sigma ART zooms are beginning to release, and are notably lighter and smaller due to being completely re-designed for the short-flange: 14-24mmF2.8: reflex@1,150g vs mirrourless@795g DN 24-70mmF2.8: reflex@1,020g vs mirrourless@835g DN They're full-frame, so they could've been smaller for APS-C, but obviously this makes them far more practical for both FF and APS-C, whereas the adapted reflex lenses were often impractically large (except perhaps the ART 70mm macro, 35mm, and 24mm)

[@tropicaldany9306]

Beautiful review! I’d love to see how the sigma trio compares to Sony a7iii primes, and perhaps zooms like the tamrons. All in all, I’m surprised how great the g master really is. Thanks again!

[@JohnFrancisMountain]

I own the -outstanding- Sigma Trio and I love it. Seeing your video, I bougth the Sony 16-55 for my trips, coupled w/ a a6600. At last, a very good zoom from Sony for apsc! Thank you Arthur!

[@vanessasanchez7309]

Hi! Thank you for the really great video, seems like a great choice for travel. Wish you would have talked more about how they perform in video comparatively! Also please compare this lense to the Zeiss 16-70!!

[@DFIR]

I think its gonna be 16-55mm as a winner, but personally I own the Zeiss 16-70 and loved the colors. So yes, one more vote for comparing this with the Zeiss 16-70

[@redskinfaithful]

Another vote here. :)

[@jimmeyer4530]

For hiking and general family photography, I'll get the Sony because of the light weight and not having to swap lenses. Pretty good for a zoom lens!

[@kian8382]

Now imagine for the weight, size, price and even the lack of OIS of the 16-55, you get a f/2 zoom with roughly the same range, Sigma please!!!

[@RidwanAzeez00]

sigma just dropped the 18-50mm f/2.8.... guess they heard you lol

[@timohoffmann1888]

I would really like to see an comparison between the Sony 16-55 2.8 and sigma 24-70 2.8. If possible, could you please compare them. Thanks

[@nikoh7292]

I have the sigma trio and an a6000. Wonderful camera and lenses with consistent quality, even after many years. I’m interested in the 16-55 but currently it’s out of my budget

[@mirrorlessny]

cost is the problem with this 16-55 apsc lens, might as well go with A7C & a Tamron 28-75

[@muhammadnour4403]

same as me, the price is to high

[@LucaBorghesan]

Well done Sony. The 16-55 is a great option and looking at this I would say perfectly priced: you get the same performance plus a premium for the convenience of a single lens. I already have the 16 and 56 so I won't run to the shop, but when it will drop a few hundreds I will surely go buy one. Thanks for putting this video together!

[@maxmeier787]

You don't get the same performance. F2.8 vs 1.4 ist a big difference.

[@LucaBorghesan]

@@maxmeier787 Fair point. As always it goes down to personal use: for traveling this 16-55 it's a really great all around option, for specific scenarios that f2.8 - 1.4 gap can make a difference. For portraits the 56 stays clearly on top.

[@ataozcan5180]

F2.8 On a crop is not much of a bokeh and still requires a bit of bumped up ISO in low light, so I'm not really convinced to fork out the 1.4kusd and stay crop. If I'm going to carry other lenses around anyway I might as well go FF with a 2.8 zoom for not much more money.

[@phplaw]

I have Sigma trio and this lens as well. After one week playing with It I have to say that you guys should not buy It if you have tight budget. It good, AF very fast but not perfect as I have expected. It is heavy and works badly in lowlight It ‘s also overpriced. Sigma trio better than this lens and are able to work very well in low light, cheaper, portrail photo on Sigma trio is also better, sharper than this lens. Spending money for this lens is not worth for sure. I am going to sell this lens.

[@professionalpotato4764]

Agreed. f/2.8 lenses in general is not fast enough on any crop sensor body, unless it's for non-moving subjects or landscapes. I shoot workout, portraits, products. When it's portraits and workout, f/2.8 just doesn't have enough bokeh and low-light performance. Imo, f/2.8 is only usable on full frame where the ISO performance can overpower the 1-1/3 ~ 2 stops of light lost. With APS-C being 1-1/3 ~ 1.5 stops poorer ISO performance to full frame, throw in another almost 2 stops loss, and it's huge.

[@Jgheiler]

@sonnyNguyen Did you end up selling your lens? What are you using now?

[@wtfgadget]

@@professionalpotato4764 couldn't be more agree bro. and no OSS is a huge bum

[@wtfgadget]

you rich bastard haha

[@achraf9946]

in my mind the only 2 arguments for the 16-55 would be IBIS wich it doesn't has and second to dont need to carry 3 lenses around. its simply too expensive in my opinion.

[@Digvj1726]

I am an ardent fan Arthur. 1st view. Love from India 🇮🇳