Sigma 18-50 2.8 vs Fuji 18-55 2.8-4

Hi Friends,

Looking for real life opinions of users who have upgraded from their Fuji XF 18-55 kit lens to a Sigma 18-50 2.8. The 2.8 aperture of the Sigma may actually makes the lens more usable indoors at 'candid human/pet photo' shutter speeds.

I've watched a lot of videos comparing the two and the Sigma is clearly the better lens assuming you can live without the control ring, but I'd like to hear your experiences on this.

An additional plus of the Sigma for me is that the zoom direction will match what I have on my Canon FF kit.

Things in particular I'd like to hear your opinions on:

Autofocus speed. It appears that AF speed on the older XF isn't as snappy or accurate. The camera with moving subjects (not trying to shoot sports here) frequently reports focus lock but this isn't a sure thing when you review the pictures. Not sure if this is an issue with the lens or the camera at this point (I am aware that Fuji is non Canon or Sony with regards to AF, and I do have my XT5 setup to do focus priority). I'd also like to point out that I shoot my XT5 like I shoot my Canon, with the tracking focus box activated by the AF ON button, in AFC, with me changing the subject to be tracked as necessary.

Actual usage differences you guys are noticing between one lens and the other? What do you not like about the Sigma?

Thank you!

I had two different Fuji18-55s. Neither met my standards for sharpness. Frustratingly, the sharpness issues appeared to be random, something that I could never pin down, and something I had never experienced in 40 years of photography .

By contrast, my Sigma 18-50 has been a joy to use. It’s sharp, small, lightweight , focuses fast and accurately. I personally don’t miss the aperture ring, but I wish it was weather resistant. But nothing is perfect

David Garth said:

I had two different Fuji18-55s. Neither met my standards for sharpness. Frustratingly, the sharpness issues appeared to be random, something that I could never pin down, and something I had never experienced in 40 years of photography .

By contrast, my Sigma 18-50 has been a joy to use. It’s sharp, small, lightweight , focuses fast and accurately. I personally don’t miss the aperture ring, but I wish it was weather resistant. But nothing is perfect

Click to expand...

Thanks!

I really enjoy the smaller size of the Fuji kit when I want to be a bit more discreet (you can argue that the kit was a result of GAS), and really like the 18-50 focal length but the higher ISOs on the F4 at more 'normal' focal lengths was a bit limiting indoors.

The lack of IS could be offset by the IBIS but this is the first time I'm really 'replacing' what seems to be a good lens with an upgrade. It's a lot easier justifying getting lenses with focal lengths you don't already have

For what you have asked the sigma is better in every way. The 18-55 was around for the XT1 and is an old lens with old motors. Sigma is newer, sharper, faster, better.

AlexBG said:

For what you have asked the sigma is better in every way. The 18-55 was around for the XT1 and is an old lens with old motors. Sigma is newer, sharper, faster, better.

Click to expand...

Actually, the 18-55 has been around for even longer, since the X-E1. It has LM which is still the best Fuji can offer. If you find a good copy it's a pretty good lens optically and has an advantage over the Sigma - OIS.

The Sigma is impressively small for being a constant f/2.8 lens of almost the same range, and offers shorter MFD.

I have sold Fujinon 18-55/2.8-4 and now own Sigma 18-50/2.8
I can't say Sigma 18-50 is revolutionary better.
Based on my copies, both lenses are not completely perfect.
Sigma is fine at middle and long focal length roughly in the range of 27-50mm.
Sharpness is very good to excellent, especially fine at 35-50mm.
Unfortunately, the short end (about 18-24mm) is just acceptable, but no more.
Noticeable CA, sharpness is not the best, though, when aperture goes one step down to f4 optical quality comes to be better, but still quite far compared to Fujinon prime lenses, which are able to provide a much better picture.
I found that Sigma's autofocus is fast and accurate. I didn't face AF issue at all.

Thanks! After half a day, I'm still on the fence with this but am highly considering the Sigma. Hopefully I can find a used copy, cheaper.

I'm not entirely sure what to expect but I have a feeling the IQ issues may not be so bad since I shot with the Canon RF 50mm 1.8 and was generally happy with the photos from that lens...

I'm not a pixel peeper but I did notice purple fringing on the 18-50. Dustin Abbott had reviews on both a Fuji and Sony body. Strangely enough, the Sony reviews says fringing was not an issue, but he cited it on the Fuji. In a recent review of the Fuji 16-55, he said the Sigma out-resolves the Fuji 16-55.

Some of my favorite photos are on the 18-55, but at night with high ISOs, it definitely looked more like a kit lens.

Favorites 18-55







Favorites Sigma



Night 18-55

At night the photos seemed passable at best, often I was disappointed.







Night 18-50

To me I was happy with this quality. Not sure if one stop makes that much of a difference. Also I changed bodies.











--

vcxz said:

I'm not a pixel peeper but I did notice purple fringing on the 18-50. Dustin Abbott had reviews on both a Fuji and Sony body. Strangely enough, the Sony reviews says fringing was not an issue, but he cited it on the Fuji. In a recent review of the Fuji 16-55, he said the Sigma out-resolves the Fuji 16-55.

Some of my favorite photos are on the 18-55, but at night with high ISOs, it definitely looked more like a kit lens.

Click to expand...

Checking the night shots from your 18-55, the first one suffers from heavy noise reduction which has blurred out details.

The second one looks fine to me despite the high ISO (3200). It seems to be shot wide open due to which part of the foreground is slightly out of focus and edges aren't as crips as the middle, but overall it's quite good performance I'd say. It's taken at f/3.2 which is just 1/3 stop slower than the max f/2.8 aperture on the Sigma shots - the difference is minimal.

The Sigma shots were taken at lower ISOs so it's one reason for better image quality.

vcxz said:

I'm not a pixel peeper but I did notice purple fringing on the 18-50. Dustin Abbott had reviews on both a Fuji and Sony body. Strangely enough, the Sony reviews says fringing was not an issue, but he cited it on the Fuji. In a recent review of the Fuji 16-55, he said the Sigma out-resolves the Fuji 16-55.

Some of my favorite photos are on the 18-55, but at night with high ISOs, it definitely looked more like a kit lens.

Favorites 18-55





Favorites Sigma



Night 18-55

At night the photos seemed passable at best, often I was disappointed.





Night 18-50

To me I was happy with this quality. Not sure if one stop makes that much of a difference. Also I changed bodies.

Click to expand...

lovely photos i also used that lens when i was in london. what settings do you use for the night photos and photometry as well? thank you.

unceunce said:

lovely photos i also used that lens when i was in london. what settings do you use for the night photos and photometry as well? thank you.

Click to expand...

Honestly I would look at hardware for night photos. I think the F1.4 or even F2 would outperform the 18-55 even with perfect settings. If you're a dual system user with a full frame kit, I would favor that if there were a lot of night photography.

I bought and returned the Sigma when the first came out. There were AF and exposure issues. Those were apparently fixed via later firmware updates.

Sometime later I sold my much-loved Fuji 18-55, wishing to go with only primes.

Comparing the two, I noticed:

• Sigma was a bit sharper, but not by much.
• Sigma produced better sun stars.
• IIRC, Fuji had less light fall-off.
• Fuji's mount was smoother.
• Fuji's rings turned a bit smoother.
• Sigma is a bit smaller and lighter.
• Sigma's zoom turned the anti-Fuji direction.
• Fuji has an aperture ring, but without marked numbers.
• The Fuji felt like it was "higher build quality" whatever that means.
• AF - Fuji sometimes didn't nail it. I don't know about Sigma, other issues forcing a return appeared before I had a chance to really test it.

My zoom-less existence lasted about a month. I choose the Sigma as my new standard zoom instead of getting another Fuji mainly because of size, weight, sharpness. The zoom will be used only for vacations and family AF snapshots. All other work will be with my primes.

Initially, I felt the 18-55 was a truly inferior lens compared to others in the Fuji stable. It put a lot into a relatively small package making it useful for travel and uncritical shooting situations, but some images fell down. The inconsistency issue was real, and quite odd.

My sense is that changed considerably with the X-T5 for some reason - beyond the inherent improvement that comes with the added pixel density. The lens now is consistent, and that tiny bit sharper to give it more edge when shot wide open... even at 18mm (not quite tack sharp, but close). My current copy is a good one (I'm lucky).

The build quality is an added bonus - giving me confidence shooting with the lens. For those who came from kit zooms on other brands, I think few came close to matching the Fuji quality. We tend to forget how we've been spoiled.

Surely there isn't a bad choice here. The Sigma deserves all the praise it has been getting. I'm not sure if the durability long-term will be competitive. Those who use a kit lens heavily and in poor conditions should think about the long-term consequences.

--
JNR

Searching this topic brings up lots of comparisons to the XF16-55 and the old 18-55 kit lens. Has anyone seen or made a comparison of the Sigma vs the new kit lens? My casual impression of the XF 16-50 is pretty good, but the Sigma is actually cheaper if not buying in a kit. I expect that will change with time, but I can't wait more than 6 weeks to make a purchase.

Rich Jacobson said:

Searching this topic brings up lots of comparisons to the XF16-55 and the old 18-55 kit lens. Has anyone seen or made a comparison of the Sigma vs the new kit lens? My casual impression of the XF 16-50 is pretty good, but the Sigma is actually cheaper if not buying in a kit. I expect that will change with time, but I can't wait more than 6 weeks to make a purchase.

Click to expand...

Not seen a comparison yet but probably close enough not to worry about.

Maybe an over simplification for some but if you need 16mm get the fuji otherwise get the sigma.

Still have original Fuji kit lens on a XE-1 which is sharp as can be

and built like a tank, but can't speak about the newly produced ones.

Tried Fuji primes and none were sharper, dumb luck maybe.

I have the Sigma 18-50, impresses me every day, Sharp as any Fuji zoom Ive had. F2.8 very usable. Not seeing any distortion. worth every penny. would be nice if WR like Fuji

I had two very mediocre Fuji 18-55s. I’m very happy with my Sigma 18-50 that’s much better

Hi David, I know this is an old post but I am still hopeful that you will reply. I have an XE1 and was looking to get the Sigma 18-50 2.8. However, I am not sure whether the newer Sigma will be compatible with the xe1 seeing that it is already an old camera. Also I wanted to know how you control the aperture with this lens and the xt20 body, by that I mean which dial do you map the aperture to, as the xe1 doesn't have the front dial only the back one ?

Should I go for the sigma or the kit lens for my first standard zoom? I am getting the kit lens in near mint condition from FB marketplace for about 265USD. However, after reading some comments here, I am not sure I will be lucky enough to get a good copy of the kit lens which is sharp.

maltmoose said:

Rich Jacobson said:

Searching this topic brings up lots of comparisons to the XF16-55 and the old 18-55 kit lens. Has anyone seen or made a comparison of the Sigma vs the new kit lens? My casual impression of the XF 16-50 is pretty good, but the Sigma is actually cheaper if not buying in a kit. I expect that will change with time, but I can't wait more than 6 weeks to make a purchase.

Click to expand...

Not seen a comparison yet but probably close enough not to worry about.

Maybe an over simplification for some but if you need 16mm get the fuji otherwise get the sigma.

Click to expand...

There are some comparisons on line:

maltmoose said:

Fujinon XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR Review - DustinAbbott.net

Fuji’s original 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS was often used as proof positive that Fuji’s APS-C platform was the best. Before I began to test Fuji, I heard the lens hyped to epic proportions. When I got around to reviewing it in 2019, I was frankly a bit disappointed. In 2024 I revisited the Fuji standard...

dustinabbott.net

Fujifilm XF 16-50mm f2.8-4.8 review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com

Fujifilm XF 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 Review: A Lot To Live Up To

It's made a few compromises but are they worth it?

petapixel.com

Click to expand...

There is a thread on DP Review called "Fujinon 16-50/2.8-4.8 R LM WR mini review" in this Forum.