Samsung 16-50mm f/2-2.8 S Reviewed

trac63 wrote:

My big issue with this lens would be value for the dollar.

In Canada it's $1,300 CDN, or about $400 more than the Sigma 18-35/1.8 for Nikon or Canon.

This is a much better value than the Sigma 18-35mm on Samsung NX (Since Sigma would be adapted manual focus only).

The issue I have with the Sigma is it is only 35mm on the long end (not even telephoto), only 18mm on the wide end, so it is very limited. If you compare 35mm f/1.8 it is fairly comparable to 2.8 with a teleconverter, so they really are fairly equivalent lenses in terms of aperture size.

Samsung adds weather sealing and metal construction (don't know if Sigma is or not).

Here is a photo of the Sigma on a Pentax K-3 (similar sized to NX1)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#497.398,485.380,ha,t

Both are certainly great lenses, you can rule out Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 for Samsung NX, but even given its availability I would still take the Samsung due to more flexible zoom range.  Hint, when I shoot a wedding, I rarely shoot less than f/2.8, and often it might be f/4 because I need more depth of field.  An f/2.8 lens does very well at f/4 so they make a lot of sense.  The Samsung does good enough wide open for when I need the extra stop or two.

The Sigma is one of those lenses for when you want an 18mm f/1.8, a 24mm f/1.8, and a 35mm f/1.8 all rolled into one lens. It really is a nice lens at a good price, but I don't get why it always gets compared to a 16-50mm f/2.8.  It is just a slightly more specialized lens which will work for some people, not for others.

Eric