Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma Prime Lens Vs. Fujinon

Go to last post
Yes, I do know that. I am from the analog era myself.

I shoot Pentax and a little bit of Nikon and am well aware if the control wheel method of camera control.

That "fairly unique" quailty of Fuji is the exact reason I shoot Fuji: the traditional analog style controls. There are certainly a lot of other great things to like: excellent jpegs, good selection of interesting prime lenses, etc. but I fell in love with my first Fuji because it was the first digital camera I ever picked up that works like a "real camera"- aperture ring and all.

And that's why I keep buying Fuji cameras and Fujinon lenses, and very probably will buy more. If I wanted to control my aperture with a dial on the camera, I would stick with my DSLR, or maybe add Olympus as my mirrorless system.
 
Last edited:
The only lens I kept from my canon days was my sigma 18-35 Art. It's an amazing lens and I can use it fully now with my fringer pro adapter.

I say the quality is at least equal to that of Fujinon lenses. I would guess that Sigma doesn't see a profitable market yet as Fuji lenses don't tend to be that overpriced and Sigma wouldn't be able to sell the Art series at a price that would undercut Fuji enough and the difference in quality and price wouldn't be significant enough for people to choose the sigma.

I would love to see sigma enter the market though, just for choice. They proved with the 18-35 that they can make lenses that no other brand is producing.
 
sadtomato said:
The only lens I kept from my canon days was my sigma 18-35 Art. It's an amazing lens and I can use it fully now with my fringer pro adapter.

I say the quality is at least equal to that of Fujinon lenses. I would guess that Sigma doesn't see a profitable market yet as Fuji lenses don't tend to be that overpriced and Sigma wouldn't be able to sell the Art series at a price that would undercut Fuji enough and the difference in quality and price wouldn't be significant enough for people to choose the sigma.

I would love to see sigma enter the market though, just for choice. They proved with the 18-35 that they can make lenses that no other brand is producing.
Click to expand...
I used to have the 18-35/1.8 as well and it was a great lens. Both my current Fuji lenses(16/1.4 and 80/2.8 macro) are better, though.

However the biggest downsides to the 18-35/1.8 is that it's made of plastic and that it weighs a ton :P

I would love it if Fuji could make something similiar, like a nice 18-35/1.8 or perhaps even 16-35/1.8. It would be an awesome lens for landscape and astrophotography :)
 
Last edited:
sadtomato said:
I say the quality is at least equal to that of Fujinon lenses. I would guess that Sigma doesn't see a profitable market yet as Fuji lenses don't tend to be that overpriced and Sigma wouldn't be able to sell the Art series at a price that would undercut Fuji enough and the difference in quality and price wouldn't be significant enough for people to choose the sigma.
Click to expand...
Sigmas E-Mount mirrorless lenses are cheap and optical very good.
  • 16mm F1.4
  • 19mm F2.8
  • 30mm F2.8
  • 30mm F1.4
  • 60mm F2.8
My impression is that Sigma was to much involved in the DSLR market. Mirrorless was an experiment only for them. Fuji proved that there is a market for very good APSC lenses in mirrorless systems. I think the wind is changing slowly at Sigma too. They started with the 30mm F1.4 Art and now the 16mm F1.4. But they are insecure as always. Only releasing new lenses for Sony and mFT leaves Fuji and even Canon out. It seems to me all 3d party lens manufacturers wait for Nikon and Canon to go full speed with mirrorless. Until then its only 1 mirrorless lens every (2, 3, ...) year.

Tamron, Sigma or Tokina should be brave and bring some lenses people will buy like hotcake for mirrorless systems: APSC: 18-70mm F4.0, 18-100mm 2.8-F4, 70-230mm F2.8-F4.0, 23mm F2.0 pancake, 35mm F1.4, 60mm F2.8 Makro, 75mm F1.8, 85mm F1.4, 90mm F2.0, 135mm F2.0, 200mm F2.0, 100-400mm F4.0-5.6
 
JayPhizzt said:
sadtomato said:
The only lens I kept from my canon days was my sigma 18-35 Art. It's an amazing lens and I can use it fully now with my fringer pro adapter.

I say the quality is at least equal to that of Fujinon lenses. I would guess that Sigma doesn't see a profitable market yet as Fuji lenses don't tend to be that overpriced and Sigma wouldn't be able to sell the Art series at a price that would undercut Fuji enough and the difference in quality and price wouldn't be significant enough for people to choose the sigma.

I would love to see sigma enter the market though, just for choice. They proved with the 18-35 that they can make lenses that no other brand is producing.
Click to expand...
I used to have the 18-35/1.8 as well and it was a great lens. Both my current Fuji lenses(16/1.4 and 80/2.8 macro) are better, though.

However the biggest downsides to the 18-35/1.8 is that it's made of plastic and that it weighs a ton :P

I would love it if Fuji could make something similiar, like a nice 18-35/1.8 or perhaps even 16-35/1.8. It would be an awesome lens for landscape and astrophotography :)
Click to expand...
That's 3 times now on this thread that you refer to Sigma lenses as inferior because they are made of plastic.... from the DPR visit to the Sigma lens factory at page 18

These are pellets of glass-reinforced plastic, (Sigma calls it 'Thermally Stable Composite') used in the construction of various components in Sigma's lenses, prior to being heated up and shaped into their final form.

Although sometimes dismissed by the uninformed as being inferior to metal in the construction of precision optics, this kind of material can be shaped in ways that would be impossible with metal, and much more simply, too. Mr Yamaki tells me that injection-molded parts can be created with tolerances of +/- 1 micron.

For the full article https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0773575852/making-art-inside-sigma-s-lens-factory it is very informative.
 
PT said:
That's 3 times now on this thread that you refer to Sigma lenses as inferior because they are made of plastic.... from the DPR visit to the Sigma lens factory at page 18

These are pellets of glass-reinforced plastic, (Sigma calls it 'Thermally Stable Composite') used in the construction of various components in Sigma's lenses, prior to being heated up and shaped into their final form.

Although sometimes dismissed by the uninformed as being inferior to metal in the construction of precision optics, this kind of material can be shaped in ways that would be impossible with metal, and much more simply, too. Mr Yamaki tells me that injection-molded parts can be created with tolerances of +/- 1 micron.

For the full article https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0773575852/making-art-inside-sigma-s-lens-factory it is very informative.
Click to expand...
I just prefer metal, that's all :) The build quality of the 18-35/1.8 was by no means bad, but I would have prefered a full metal construction.
 
JayPhizzt said:
I used to have the 18-35/1.8 as well and it was a great lens. Both my current Fuji lenses(16/1.4 and 80/2.8 macro) are better, though.

However the biggest downsides to the 18-35/1.8 is that it's made of plastic and that it weighs a ton :P

I would love it if Fuji could make something similiar, like a nice 18-35/1.8 or perhaps even 16-35/1.8. It would be an awesome lens for landscape and astrophotography :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, unfortunately it does still weigh a tonne despite the plastic - Makes you realize how much engineering has going into in and how much glass there is inside. It wasn't quite balanced on my X-pro2, but on the XH1 it feels alright.
 
RMGoodLight said:
sadtomato said:
I say the quality is at least equal to that of Fujinon lenses. I would guess that Sigma doesn't see a profitable market yet as Fuji lenses don't tend to be that overpriced and Sigma wouldn't be able to sell the Art series at a price that would undercut Fuji enough and the difference in quality and price wouldn't be significant enough for people to choose the sigma.
Click to expand...
Sigmas E-Mount mirrorless lenses are cheap and optical very good.
  • 16mm F1.4
  • 19mm F2.8
  • 30mm F2.8
  • 30mm F1.4
  • 60mm F2.8
My impression is that Sigma was to much involved in the DSLR market. Mirrorless was an experiment only for them. Fuji proved that there is a market for very good APSC lenses in mirrorless systems. I think the wind is changing slowly at Sigma too. They started with the 30mm F1.4 Art and now the 16mm F1.4. But they are insecure as always. Only releasing new lenses for Sony and mFT leaves Fuji and even Canon out. It seems to me all 3d party lens manufacturers wait for Nikon and Canon to go full speed with mirrorless. Until then its only 1 mirrorless lens every (2, 3, ...) year.

Tamron, Sigma or Tokina should be brave and bring some lenses people will buy like hotcake for mirrorless systems: APSC: 18-70mm F4.0, 18-100mm 2.8-F4, 70-230mm F2.8-F4.0, 23mm F2.0 pancake, 35mm F1.4, 60mm F2.8 Makro, 75mm F1.8, 85mm F1.4, 90mm F2.0, 135mm F2.0, 200mm F2.0, 100-400mm F4.0-5.6
Click to expand...
I agree that the wind is changing. Also I think with E-mount it was an easy decision because the regular lenses seem average and the good lenses cost a lot more, so they were able to offer good lenses for that middle range price. However, it's not the same situation when it comes to Fujinon lenses.
 
The Sigma Art lenses are absolutely stunning. I had the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and 24/1.4 Art on the Nikon D810 and they had absolutely no problems with rendering sharp photos from one extreme corner to the other. And all aberations were very low.

I am quite new to Fuji, but from what I've seen in reviews and sample galleries the 35/1.4 or 35/2 (just to name examples) can't match the Sigma Art lenses. They still are very good though and you have to bear in mind that the Sigma 50/1.4 weighs four times (!) what the Fuji 35/1.4 weighs.

I love getting great image quality but lugging around more than 800g for the 50/1.4 Art alone is pretty annoying on a hike. To me it would be ideal if the Fuji lenses were optically a bit better. I wouldn't mind a couple of extra grams to achieve this because I'm used to far heavier equipment. But as it is the Fuji lenses offer great Image quality (in respect to their size and weight).
 
Last edited:
JayPhizzt said:
JayPhizzt said:
That's 3 times now on this thread that you refer to Sigma lenses as inferior because they are made of plastic.... from the DPR visit to the Sigma lens factory at page 18

These are pellets of glass-reinforced plastic, (Sigma calls it 'Thermally Stable Composite') used in the construction of various components in Sigma's lenses, prior to being heated up and shaped into their final form.

Although sometimes dismissed by the uninformed as being inferior to metal in the construction of precision optics, this kind of material can be shaped in ways that would be impossible with metal, and much more simply, too. Mr Yamaki tells me that injection-molded parts can be created with tolerances of +/- 1 micron.

For the full article https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0773575852/making-art-inside-sigma-s-lens-factory it is very informative.
Click to expand...
I just prefer metal, that's all :) The build quality of the 18-35/1.8 was by no means bad, but I would have prefered a full metal construction.
Click to expand...
So stop dissing the Sigma lenses to the general forum because of a personal choice. You have not made a single point that they are inferior because of plastics. Do the optics perform? That is the critical question. No one here cares a whit whether you like metal, plastics or composite,s or whatever.
 
quintana said:
The Sigma Art lenses are absolutely stunning. I had the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and 24/1.4 Art on the Nikon D810 and they had absolutely no problems with rendering sharp photos from one extreme corner to the other. And all aberations were very low.

I am quite new to Fuji, but from what I've seen in reviews and sample galleries the 35/1.4 or 35/2 (just to name examples) can't match the Sigma Art lenses. They still are very good though and you have to bear in mind that the Sigma 50/1.4 weighs four times (!) what the Fuji 35/1.4 weighs.

I love getting great image quality but lugging around more than 800g for the 50/1.4 Art alone is pretty annoying on a hike. To me it would be ideal if the Fuji lenses were optically a bit better. I wouldn't mind a couple of extra grams to achieve this because I'm used to far heavier equipment. But as it is the Fuji lenses offer great Image quality (in respect to their size and weight).
Click to expand...
Do keep in mind that the inferior sharpness you perceive in the Fuji lenses can also at least in part be because of X-trans files that haven't been properly processed.

I have Fuji's 80mm macro and it's the most amazing lens I've ever owned, I highly doubt that any of Sigma's art-lenses are better or even as good. It's definitely better than the Sigma 18-35/1.8 art that I used to have. You do have to make sure to use the right software for X-trans files to experience the true performance of the lenses, though.
 
JayPhizzt said:
Do keep in mind that the inferior sharpness you perceive in the Fuji lenses can also at least in part be because of X-trans files that haven't been properly processed.

I have Fuji's 80mm macro and it's the most amazing lens I've ever owned, I highly doubt that any of Sigma's art-lenses are better or even as good. It's definitely better than the Sigma 18-35/1.8 art that I used to have. You do have to make sure to use the right software for X-trans files to experience the true performance of the lenses, though.
Click to expand...
I don't think that the inferior sharpness (which isn't overly dramatic but noticable) in corners that I've seen in reviews and sample pictures is due to the processing of X-trans files. The reason for that is that the sharpness in the center was absolutely fine and this should have suffered also if the processing was to blame.

The 80mm is just an excellent lens, that's all. And you should not compare a tele macro prime (which are usually optically superior to other lenses in any manufacturer's lineup) with a wide angle zoom.
 
JayPhizzt said:
quintana said:
The Sigma Art lenses are absolutely stunning. I had the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and 24/1.4 Art on the Nikon D810 and they had absolutely no problems with rendering sharp photos from one extreme corner to the other. And all aberations were very low.

I am quite new to Fuji, but from what I've seen in reviews and sample galleries the 35/1.4 or 35/2 (just to name examples) can't match the Sigma Art lenses. They still are very good though and you have to bear in mind that the Sigma 50/1.4 weighs four times (!) what the Fuji 35/1.4 weighs.

I love getting great image quality but lugging around more than 800g for the 50/1.4 Art alone is pretty annoying on a hike. To me it would be ideal if the Fuji lenses were optically a bit better. I wouldn't mind a couple of extra grams to achieve this because I'm used to far heavier equipment. But as it is the Fuji lenses offer great Image quality (in respect to their size and weight).
Click to expand...
Do keep in mind that the inferior sharpness you perceive in the Fuji lenses can also at least in part be because of X-trans files that haven't been properly processed.

I have Fuji's 80mm macro and it's the most amazing lens I've ever owned, I highly doubt that any of Sigma's art-lenses are better or even as good. It's definitely better than the Sigma 18-35/1.8 art that I used to have. You do have to make sure to use the right software for X-trans files to experience the true performance of the lenses, though.
Click to expand...
Wow, you are the Legend! Compare the Macro prime lens to the zoom lens and discredit the whole Sigma ART line. Sigma ART prime lens are simply amazing. ART 24, 35, 85, 105, 135 are all stunning. The only problem is the weight. Nikon 105 F1.4 and Sigam 105 F1.4 ART produce excellent images so far from all the reviews I have read and no other manufacturer can match them at the moment at 100/105mm. I will own either one day.

The only zoom lens that close to, equal to or even exceed prime lens at it range is Nikon 14-24 F2.8 when it was released years ago. Now it shows it aged compared to more modern prime lens now.
 
KeithF said:
Wow, you are the Legend! Compare the Macro prime lens to the zoom lens and discredit the whole Sigma ART line. Sigma ART prime lens are simply amazing. ART 24, 35, 85, 105, 135 are all stunning. The only problem is the weight. Nikon 105 F1.4 and Sigam 105 F1.4 ART produce excellent images so far from all the reviews I have read and no other manufacturer can match them at the moment at 100/105mm. I will own either one day.

The only zoom lens that close to, equal to or even exceed prime lens at it range is Nikon 14-24 F2.8 when it was released years ago. Now it shows it aged compared to more modern prime lens now.
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm not and I'm not at all discrediting Sigmas art lenses as I know they're amazing. If I had FF one or two of the art primes would have been my first choices :) I'm just saying that several of Fuji's lenses are equally amazing if not even more amazing :) But sure, comparing a macro lens to a zoom might not have been the most fair thing to do, I admit. However the 18-35/1.8 art is very impressive and as good and even better than a lot of primes.
 
Sigma produced excelent lenses even before the ART line. The E-Mount 60mm F2.8 is one or maybe the sharpest lens for APSC. I wish Sigma would release this lens for Fuji X-Mount.

I used the E-Mount 30mm F2.8 and its very sharp wide open. Unfortunately it is big for an F2.8 lens and to slow for a multipurpose prime lens. Lukily there is the Sigma 30mm F1.4 ART for APSC.

Sigma should put more effort into mirrorless lenses. Make them good, small with fast AF. And bring it for Fuji and Canon!
 
PT said:
JayPhizzt said:
However the biggest downsides to the 18-35/1.8 is that it's made of plastic ...
Click to expand...
That's 3 times now on this thread that you refer to Sigma lenses as inferior because they are made of plastic.... from the DPR visit to the Sigma lens factory at page 18

These are pellets of glass-reinforced plastic, (Sigma calls it 'Thermally Stable Composite') used in the construction of various components in Sigma's lenses, prior to being heated up and shaped into their final form.

Although sometimes dismissed by the uninformed as being inferior to metal in the construction of precision optics, this kind of material can be shaped in ways that would be impossible with metal, and much more simply, too. Mr Yamaki tells me that injection-molded parts can be created with tolerances of +/- 1 micron.
Click to expand...
Today's polymer resins ("plastics") are quite remarkable for their durability and stability, particularly in extreme temperatures. After all, if they're good enough to make this:

Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Boeing 787 Dreamliner

They're certainly good enough for camera lenses.

--
Tony-S
 
JayPhizzt said:
lijingwgp said:
I am just curious, now that Sigma releases new ART prime lens to Sony E-mount. Just how good are those ART lens, better than Fuji's? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Well, they're not really new, they're just new for Sony :P But Sigma's art lenses are generally very good. However many of Fuji's lenses are just as good and some I would say are even better. If we're just talking image quality that is.

Fuji's lenses are also superior in other ways, like the fact that they're made of metal(
Click to expand...
JayPhizzt said:
Sigma's art lenses are mostly made of plastic),
Click to expand...
Since when??? Sigma Art lenses are tanks made of mostly metal.
JayPhizzt said:
they're generally lighter and several of them have OIS and weather sealing(two things few Sigma art lenses have, if any).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top