I bought this lens twice (Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Fujifilm)

[@snapsbyfox]

I forgot to add labels as follows: Orange flower - f2.8 Yellow flower - f8 purple flower - f20

[@drchtct]

This lens is a masterpiece, 290g constant f2.8 and sharper than the 16-55 across the board. Would be perfect with an aperture ring, but rather this than 600g with an aperture ring or not a constant aperture like on the new kit lens. By the way, I also own the 23mm f1.4 from Fuji and I don't think this Sigma lens feels cheap at all. It's a matte premium finish, no cheap feeling plastic at all. I actually prefer how the Sigma is resistent to fingerprints while the Fuji collects dust and fingerprints like crazy.

[@StevanNetto-qg7gx]

Agree with you in everything. This is my go to lens for nearly everything, especially street photography. The image quality is soo good! Imo the build quality is fantastic and the plastic is so solid. It has happened I've wondered if parts of it were actually metal with a coat paint. Unlike the fuji XC, this has a metal mount, which I think is what matters for durability. I personally prefer the trade off of the high quality plastic sigma uses over the weight of a full metal lens. The lack of aperture ring was a nuisance in the first days, but I've got pretty used now on setting it on the camera's ring. Given it's price point it is a true gift for the Fuji platform!

[@jmtphotographymedia]

It's a great lens and bargain for what it does. I also have the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8. They both serve different purposes for me. The Sigma is my bag of primes alternative all in one package. The Tamron is my event do it all lens with the extra reach and image stabilization.

[@stuartburrows8747]

I think your videos are great. I have a low tolerance for photographers on KZbin who simply want to show off they have the latest and best gear, yet manage to produce mediocre shots. Your advice and honesty is refreshing

[@felixsebastien906]

I absolutely love this lense, just finished a 7 month trip around Asia, with this and a couple primes f2 primes, and the number of keepers I got from this lense was so impressive! I’m also not a pixel peeper. love the close focus features, makes the lense feel so versatile. I also hesitated due to the aperture ring, I miss it, but I kinda forget about it once using it.

[@andreabeccarisi1126]

It is my go-to lens for general purpose, so it covers 90% of my needs when travelling. I suggest pairing it with a wider lens for landscapes (either a prime or the 10-18, also from Sigma), while for portraits you want a prime with faster aperture (I recommend a 56mm). But, sadly, my 18-50 unit has accumulated a lot of dust beneath the front element, although it doesn't really affect image quality

[@erin.v.z]

I feel like this lens just rounds out my kit so well. I love shooting with a wide focal length, so i have this, the much larger 13 1.4 for when i need ever wider and 16 2.8 when the size of the lens really matters to my ability to carry the lens or not be noticed. I have my first gallery exhibit (in over a decade)in just a couple weeks and almost all of the photos i choose to frame (18 of them) are with the 18-50 because it was on my camera the most when i was out shooting. I actually love the feel of it- it’s so light and packs such a good punch and i love what it’s producing (even more than fujis 16 2.8).

[@Jidccruz]

Finally the review that i’ve been waiting for. It is a gem!

[@gusandrianos]

I got this as my first lens and paired it with a used X-T3 and i can't really complain. I noticed chromatic aberration yesterday in bright sunlight when shooting at 18mm but other than that, i have got some amazing shots and its super convenient for shooting things like car events where there's not too much space to play with a prime and you want to catch something that's happening a bit further from you without moving.

[@JaapKroon]

I'm using the Fuji 16-50 2.8/48 with the XT50, and that lens surprised me a lot on my last travel. It's beautiful sharp and for my traveling I don't need the 2.8 that much. If I need it, I will use one of my primes.

[@AlainMellan]

I went for the new XF 16-50. Does't have constant aperture, but there is an aperture ring and internal zoom, that did it for me.

[@mdw1927]

Well balanced review. I also owned the 16-55 and after a couple of months of using the 18-50 I sold the 16-55. No regrets.

[@thiagout]

I have this lens for Sony, paired with an a6300. For me, the compromises in this lens makes the most sense for a light travel lens, therefore is my go too in this scenario. Apart from some specific shots I had in mind with a super telephoto and and a super wide lens, all other pictures from my last vacation were with this lens, and the lightweight and discreetness were great pros. Great review!

[@CaptainJonathan]

This is my primary lens at the moment for my X-T4. The only real downside is not having an aperture ring. But I can't stand variable aperture, so I went with it instead of the kit lens.

[@bogdanradu5247]

The latest Fuji and Sigma firmware largely address the AF speed of this lens on my X-H2. I do use AF-C for most of my shooting and the speed is quite snappy, snappy enough for somebody accustomed with the uncompromising speed of a pro Nikon body. I’m overall very pleased with this lens, it might be made out of plastic but almost two years of use, ranging from my steamy hot kitchen to some Romanian cave spelunking, it looks almost new save a couple of scuffs and it still operates without any creep or wobbles or any discernible wear. Add a modicum of macro capability plus a constant aperture for the perfect combo to even a hi resolution pro body. As for the pixel peepers… it holds up rather well.

[@darksideemt]

I have this on my a6700 and believe it is a great lens for pretty much all types of photography but especially street pics. I understand your complaint about the aperture ring but believe that is probably camera specific as the back ring on the Sony alphas is super easy to change aperture. Definitely the lens I recommend most to anyone that asks. FYI speed isn't an issue on the Sony's in case someone has using that.

[@pictorest]

I've used this lens since it was on the market and yes, an aperture ring would be nice. The only issue of this lens is its distortion. I only shoot jpgs when using it, so the camera can do the corrections. This can also be fixed in post, if your software is up to the task. Anyway, thanks for the video and have a nice weekend!

[@Tardsmat]

I know that lenses made of metal look and feel nice but just from a practicality standpoint, plastic is a great material to use. it's durable (when it's high quality plastic) and importantly, it's light.

[@charliejg]

Very good, detailed and practical review of this lens. Thanks and have a great day!

[@davidholt8937]

I love this lens on my full frame Sony. I even used it to shoot some very dark hardcore gigs in Budapest this week and it held up so well. Amazing lens

[@davidholt8937]

Also fast focussing issues aren’t apparent with a Sony

[@paulasimson4939]

Squirrel demo - epic!

[@ZeyarWinHtet]

This lens autofocus and minimum distance is really really amazing.

[@daijoubu4529]

Yeah compared to the 18-55, so much better

[@benejpocock]

Great video Roman and I agree with you entirely. I picked this lens up because I found the 16-55 just too chunky for a travel lens. At less than half the weight I'm fine to lose the 2mm at the wide end and 5mm at the tele end. The plastic construction doesn't bother me too much - I'd say it's a quality plastic, and I guess we have to make sacrifices somewhere if we want the weight saving. The only thing I don't think you mentioned is that the zoom ring turns the opposite way to the Fuji lenses. It doesn't bother me, and some people don't even notice - but I know some people that just can't get to grips with it - totally messes with their Zen!

[@daijoubu4529]

I'm still trying to turn the wrong way lol

[@winc06]

What a good, practical review. Thank you.

[@tuftyhill]

I bought the 16-80mm for travel or hiking in the fells. I already own the fantastic 16-55mm but the 16-80mm offers IS and is lighter. I'm aware it's not recommended for the 40MP sensor but for me it's a very versatile lens (as long as you don't pixel peep) 😊

[@steffen_r]

Thx for sharing your thoughts on the lens. I was using the 16-80 on our trip to south tyrol as my only lens. It's really versatile, but the size/ weight are heavy. Since i'm using the long end of the 16-80 from time-to-time, i would miss the length for the some time. But compared to the weight, the 18-50 should be a better fit as a general travel lens.

[@washingtonradio]

In general, you noted the considerations for buying a lens is not always which has the best nominal specs but does the lens fit your needs and budget

[@daijoubu4529]

There's one notable issue, the barrel rotates backwards than Fuji lens, muscle memory needs some adjusting, if it's your only lens fine but if you carry other zoom lens it gets confusing lol, I come from Nikon DSLR and they rotate the same way as Fuji so that's a first for me haha

[@davidsmithson9236]

I’m with you on the aperture ring issue.👍

[@yourtallness]

Got this one for a trip last year, it had a scuff on it out of the box, but the shop didn't have another copy at that time so I took it anyway. Doesn't really lend itself to the 40 Mp sensor of the X-T5 and the Sigma zoom direction drives me nuts. Ended up selling it to fund another purchase. That being said, the tiny size and the nice macro capability make me consider buying it again, along with the 10-18.

[@Powerland56]

Wait for the XF16-55 2.8 MkII in this year.

[@gusandrianos]

This will be double the price tho...

[@Powerland56]

@@gusandrianos and double the quality. Lenses you buy once in a lifetime, if they are brilliant. Cameras all 4-5 years.

[@dingbat19]

@@Powerland56 Absolutely not, there is no way IQ will be "double the quality". What it will be is likely double the weight of the Sigma. If you are blinkered into thinking only Fuji lenses are good on Fuji you really are missing out, there are some awesome third party lenses out there. FWIW I own the 16-55 f2.8 Fuji red badge lens as well as this Sigma. I would say that with my copy of both lenses the Sigma is at least as sharp as the Fuji, possibly better at some FLs. It draws images with slightly less saturation and contrast, but only slightly. If weight and bulk are not a consideration I take the Fuji, mostly because of it giving me 24mm FF equivalent at the wide end. But if I want to travel light, the Sigma is a no-brainer, it is the lightest and smallest constant f2.8 APS-C standard zoom lens in the world and what they have done with this lens is pretty incredible. It is absolutely capable of delivering professional images. Similar to Sony, I have some Sony G Master lenses but the Sigmas I have on Sony FE mount, like the 85 1.4 Art, are absolutely stellar.

[@Powerland56]

@@dingbat19maybe, but the new 16-55 will be lighter, has an aperture ring and 16mm. 2 essential things.

[@dingbat19]

@@Powerland56 What's essential is different for different users, clearly for you the new 16-55 will be the right choice, for others who wish to travel light and have a compact setup, the Sigma will remain a compelling option. As I said, I have both the Fuji and the Sigma so I have no bias one way or the other, both have advantages/disadvantages

[@jordhall]

I'm considering picking this up at some point. I run my Canon 17-55 2.8 just fine, but the Sigma is less than half the weight of the Canon. Only big thing missing is IS but my R7 has IBIS so it's not a great loss. I'm also eyeing up the Sigma 10-18mm 2.8 as well but don't want to splash too much cash at once.

[@snapsbyfox]

I have the 10-18 but happy with the compromises as I rarely use that focal length. But it’s so small it’s crazy. I think if this lens had an aperture ring, it would be a winner

[@rick-deckard]

I'm with the you version that sold it 😅. But more power to you if you can appreciate its good sides even without the ring.

[@MiguelMorenoGP]

Ahah I also bought this twice! Sold mine to upgrade to the Sony 16-55, but that's way too expensive at this point. I also turned a little profit because of the Sigma cashback 🤫 And the "slow" focus is more of a Fuji issue, on my Sony its basically instant all the time and just as good as native lenses

[@sunildoshi1489]

I have this and it’s great. I tried the new XF 16-50 lens over the weekend, I couldn’t get on with it. I much prefer the Sigma.

[@johndoherty1336]

Purchased the lens and whilst the build is not as good as Fuji I have found the lens great for street work, light, compact and sharp,

[@moonlitnguyen5281]

I got this lens the same they I got my XT5. Love it. I just wish it had 55mm instead of 50. Super nice for travelling

[@incharliewetrust]

I m debating between the sigma 18 50mm and the 23mm f2, as I already have a 35mm 1.4. Hmm, now I m torn towards the sigma, if you say there's not much difference in terms of image quality.

[@corentincailleau5811]

Always hesitating between buying this one or keeping my 16-80 f4 for travel or when I need more range (in addition to my 23 and 35mm prime)

[@buck02]

You should look at your photos taken with 1680. I personally found that I dont shoot longer than 50 so I switched to sigma

[@corentincailleau5811]

@@buck02 I've already done this. I shoot a lot between 18 and 50mm and at the min and max focal. Not a lot between 50 and 80mm though, with many photos at the 80mm

[@nevaknowmanamesame5089]

Aperture ring is useful, but I somehow could get by not having it on Sony a6000 + 18-50, the top right dial was aperture if I'm not mistaken and it was okay. It is indeed a nice lens, I'm not sure but it might be a tad bit sharper than 18-55

[@nevaknowmanamesame5089]

It was a cool combo now that I think about it, minus that body is a bit old and IQ isn't top notch

[@GregoryLopez1]

At 11:15 , you mention that the Sigma is the only "do everything" go-to lens for all types of photography that's not a prime. What prime would you recommend that fits the same bill?

[@tonyhayes9827]

I own a Nikon ZF because I like changing settings with dials . But Nikon cant match Fuji because they don't have aperture rings on their lenses. The x100F I used to own was a pleasure to use.

[@garethmcfarland7244]

Apologies if this is already in the comments Roman, but I was wondering how you find the zoom on this lens being that it is in the opposite direction from other Fuji lenses? Personally I think that is the one feature that would put me off however you never mentioned it so maybe you didn't see it as an issue?

[@StarrysLostandFound]

Nice lens review and photo walk. 👍👊✨

[@joshfogel9966]

Is the new 16-50 fuji lens sharper/better IQ than this lens. Giving up the constant aperture, but if it's noticeably better might be worth it.

[@nigelwest3430]

Great Squirrel shots 😃

[@christophergibbons8748]

I can honestly see it still being sharper then the 16-55 mk2. It's interesting that your saying the 16-55 is sharper.

[@deeperton]

Have you tested Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 for Fuji? It's slightly bigger.

[@bloomylicious]

I was wondering similar, I'm considering that to go with my X-T30 due to it having good ois also.

[@chryseass.5143]

Actually, the Tamron is a lot larger. I went with the Sigma ( using it on a Sony a6700)

[@rogerhampton2844]

I can’t enjoy using a lens with no aperture ring which is why I’ll never buy one again. The 16-55 is great but too big and heavy for me. I stick with the 16-80, not that sharp, or fast but very flexible, stabilised, weather resistant no need to carry other lenses.

[@surajravindrababu8986]

Yea the 16-80 is weirdly good. It’s not sharp but somehow I cannot leave it behind.

[@iaincphotography6051]

I don't have a problem with sharpness on my 16/80, however it was a later one. I do have boost switched all the time and pre focus.

[@SJMPhotography]

Have you used the Fuji 16-50 F2.8-4.8 Roman?

[@tasossaros8375]

Thanks❤🙏

[@Buckeye-ish]

I was reluctant to buy it when I briefly owned the XT-50 but all of the kit lenses were just SOOOOO heavy on it. The one I bought had dust which isn't uncommon on Sigma lenses which drives me nuts! I really wanted the f2.8 as well. That all said, I ended up really liking it.

[@daijoubu4529]

Take it apart and clean it? Or to a shop

[@Buckeye-ish]

@ not worth it for the price and sigma has dust issues

[@natekong3596]

Fuji 16-55 F2.8 MKII is certainly around the corner and it will be substantially smaller than the current 16-55.

[@daijoubu4529]

Still 40% heavier tho

[@nevaknowmanamesame5089]

Btw explanations of shots are useful, thanks

[@antdenzic7977]

What do you think of the Fuji XF 55-230mm? Personally I think It's great. A video on it would be great, if you're taking requests.

[@dingbat19]

Isn't the 55-230 an XC lens?

[@antdenzic7977]

@@dingbat19 Yeah I think you're right.

[@istvann.huszar420]

You'll sell this lens again... :D But nice photos for now, and glad to see you can be found in London sometimes too! ;)

[@martij75]

Anyone is getting new 16-50/2,8-4,8? I know the variable aperture is bit of a bummer, but dedicated aperture ring, weather sealed and in bundle with camera for good price.

[@ozuidema]

Not to mention internal zooming, 50 grams lighter and better build quality. I bought the new Fuji 16-50 and man, what a great zoomlens it is. The variable aperture does not worry me; for lowlight or portraits, I’ll use prime lenses anyway.

[@pifilos]

It is great really. Nothing to complain. I second what ozuidema said, including the "prime lenses" part.

[@grahamfield1570]

Which camera wrist strap do you use?

[@brauliomillalaf1709]

I want everything you recommend… I don’t need more lenses 🤣

[@ChrisBrogan]

1:43 Look at all that color! They won't know where you're from if you get stuck too much longer on that layover. ;) 7:27 good to know you pay your models.

[@adamulc]

How does it compare to the kit zoom lens Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4?

[@andreabeccarisi1126]

I used to have that kit lens before switching to sigma. The sharpness at the center was about equal, but the difference in the corners was night and day. The Sigma is significantly sharper there, with the Fuji being a lot blurrier (despite the Sigma lacking IS). I still have shots taken for comparison purposes, I should upload them somewhere. But the Fuji has better build quality, however that is less relevant compared to the superior Sigma's IQ

[@dingbat19]

Dustin Abbott has a side by side with the Fuji 16-55 red badge lens and his copy of this Sigma is sharper than the Fuji Roman so don’t necessarily assume this Sigma is inferior optically. In fact his AF tests show the Sigma To match the Fuji for stills, so again, quite different to your observations.

[@snapsbyfox]

I had the 16-55 for 5 years so my comparison is to that. My comparison is also based on real world use and not artificial charts or other nerdy stuff, which of course has its place for exact technical discussions. It’s very possible his copy was sharper than the Fuji. At this price point I suspect the tolerances are a little wider than on something like a G master or a hassy lens. So the answer you will get will really depend on specific copies… if you get lucky or not kinda thing

[@awake780]

I tested both lenses side by side. The Sigma was sharper at every focal length except 50 mm. I travelled with the Sigma glued to my X-T5 (and the 10-18 glued to my backup camera) and it was an awesome companion.

[@Llmhj0805]

soothing

[@titlecade]

I don't give a shit about aperture rings. Fuji cameras have plenty of dials to make up for that. I own 4 Sigma lens and they've all been work horses and a third of the price of Fuji's high end series.

[@buck02]

Thinking of replacing my 16-80 with sigma just to reduce weight haha

[@JSAiKO]

I had the 16-55 also, but after a day out with it in London and only a wrist strap on my xt4, my god my wrist hurt for a while. I got the Sigma lens because i wanted an equivalent, and it's been great.

[@umairshah968]

I do not like this lens to be honest. Sold it recently and moved to 33mm prime lens from fuji and its so much sharper and low light for example indoors performance is great. Also the autofocus is faster.

[@juliette-mansour]

I had it, sold it and haven’t bought it again because I sold most of my Fujifilm gear so Fuji is no longer my main camera. When I had it, it felt practical for events. There’s a character about Sigma lenses that works but not for me. Love your videos Roman!

[@wilfs1196]

I do have the (rarely used ) 16-55 , but I should probably dig out my trusty 18-55 lens that I've had with my first Fuji, an XT-3. XT-4 & XS20 now.Putting the 16-55 for sale now is probably a losing proposition.

[@eltinjones4542]

Why am I watching this? I don't even shoot Fuji 🤣📷👍

[@axtran]

So far, I have not been able to take the 50 F1 off of my X-H2S since I love it so much.

[@production4080]

Fuji 18-55 king lens

[@hfinally]

woop

[@pifilos]

It is a solid choice but no aperture ring, backwards zoom rotation, differently placed zoom - manual focus rings can spoil the experience for some people. Also both the 16-55 f/2.8 and the new 16-50mm variable aperture are optically better so unless someone absolutely needs a small constant aperture the other two choices are more capable. But I guess for people that don't own primes and need a constant 2.8 it is a decent choice.

[@dingbat19]

define optically better? In terms of aberrations and the need for geometric distortion correction, yes possibly. In terms of resolution, nope, a majority of reviews suggest the Sigma is a match for the 16-55 Fuji and I am in the company of a number of posters here who own both and have seen it for ourselves, the Sigma is at least as good as the Fuji in terms of sharpness

[@pifilos]

​@@dingbat19 definitely worse in terms of CA, distortion, vignette, sunstars. Bokeh and coma well they are both ok-ish for what they are. In terms of resolution it also worse. I don't really bother much with reviews because they usually don't even check lenses for decentering before reviewing them and often test them at a fixed, somewhat close distance. My opinion is based on real life shots. Also the new kit 16-50mm is better at all of the above. Don't get me wrong. It is a nice lens (like every modern lens) and I am glad it exists since it expands the range of available zooms which is what matters to a lot of people. P.S. I also don't mind that it is worse, for me at least. Resolution and abberations handling isn't everything by a large margin. I own the original 56mm which has crazy ammount of optical flaws, except for distortion, is worse wide open in terms of resolution compared to pretty much every third party lens including the Sigma 56mm but its overall output is outstanding and unsurpassed (again for my liking).

[@dingbat19]

@@pifilos Not my conclusion owning both lenses, nor the conclusion of a number of other users commenting here, but I imagine there is sample variation so I don't doubt this is your own experience. FWIW I have found there to be some severe sample variations in Fuji lenses. particularly their zooms. Had three 18-55s and all different, had a poor copy of 10-24 XF and my 16-55 2.8 is "OK". This Sigma is clearly designed for light weight travel when weight and size are a priority, and as such it will inevitably have compromises. The best 24-70 equivalents like the Sony GM on FE mount etc are free of many of these issues but look at the size and weight. Let's see what the refresh of the Fuji 16-55 brings but I suspect it will be a lot heavier, bigger and more expensive. Bottom line is I still manage to get good images from the Sigma when I want to travel light and the optical issues you mention are mostly taken care of by raw processors. Yes I agree it is not without its faults, there are few lenses of this type that are perfect.

[@pifilos]

@@dingbat19 I know most people here disagree with me based on the comments I read which is why I felt the urge to comment my experience, not just for the sake of argument. I totally agree, Fujifilm zooms are all over the place with the 10-24mm specifically being prone to decentering much more than the rest. No wonder many people don't like it. There are bad copies of the 16-55mm as well. Yeah the Sigma is designed for travel and excels at that. Every lens is a compromise, that being performance/price or weight/size. I don't get how some people travel with the 16-55mm and they can't get how I travel with the new 16-50mm being variable aperture. The Sigma is the happy medium. In fact I would use one if the new kit lens didn't exist. Preferences, preferences.... Judging by the new kit lens, I will make a guess that the new 16-55mm f/2.8 will be exceptional even with the rumored ~30% reduction in weight/size. You can get great images - not just good - with the Sigma as well as with pretty much any lens. Like I said, I mostly commented due to the rest of the comments I read.

[@vinrom]

Had this as my only lens when i went to Europe. Size and Weight are really a plus however, the vignetting here is a bit unacceptable for me. Specially shooting at the longer end. Also saw some ring patterns on images with gradient colors (sky etc). Maybe it’s just my copy but my friend also bought this and notice the same issue.

[@TRISTRAMY]

I bought this but just couldn’t get over how goofy it looks, it’s just got weird proportions. I know it shouldn’t matter as it takes decent pictures.

[@petpeevepaul]

If you don't have an XF 18-55, then the sigma may be worth a look. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to change. The Fuji has better build, aperture ring, OIS and virtually the same image quality. Just my 2 cents.