Sigma 18-50/2.8 vs Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 comparison shots

MarkMyWords · Apr 24, 2025

Here's another data point if you're considering the Sigma zoom. On the balance of reviews I'd read, and allowing for some hyping, I purchased the Sigma, but did this final quick comparison on my X-S10 before selling the Fuji (which seemed to be a reasonable copy).

Summary: at 18mm, Sigma noticeably sharper across the frame; at 50mm ditto but less so; Sigma's extra stop at long end useful for subject isolation; Sigma chromatic aberration are at times as bad as reviews suggest; Sigma's lack of OIS, aperture ring and and metal body not deal breakers for me; Sigma is light, compact with relatively decent IQ and price - a viable budget standard zoom.

Fuji | Sigma:

a. 18mm f2.8 centre 100% crop

b. 18mm f2.8 outer 100% crop

c. 18mm f2.8 corner 100% crop

d. 18mm f4 centre 100% crop

e. 18mm f8 outer 100% crop

f. 50mm f4 vs f2.8 centre 100% crop

g. 50mm f4 vs f4 centre 100% crop

h. 50mm f4 vs f2.8 corner 100% crop

i. 50mm f4 vs f4 corner 100% crop

A few sample files:

MarkMyWords · Apr 24, 2025

PS Looking more closely at the screenshots of LR comparisons, the screenshot process seems to have lost a lot of detail...for best results, compare the sample files directly.

machoman · Apr 24, 2025

Are these hand held or on a tripod.

MarkMyWords · Apr 25, 2025

machoman said:
Are these hand held or on a tripod.

Handheld, for a quick check. But care taken to minimise camera shake, with reasonable shutter speed. Also, multiple shots show consistent differences which tends to confirm lens characteristics.

MarkMyWords · Apr 25, 2025

A few Sigma sample shots (low light). I guess if the Sigma wasn't noticeably superior to the more than 10 years older Fujifilm, that would be a problem. Bummer the new Fuji 16-55/2.8 is three times the price.

Bielers · Apr 26, 2025

MarkMyWords said:
A few Sigma sample shots (low light). I guess if the Sigma wasn't noticeably superior to the more than 10 years older Fujifilm, that would be a problem. Bummer the new Fuji 16-55/2.8 is three times the price.

With regards the 16-55mm, I guess that sometimes you get what you pay for. There's a reason why it costs so much.

While I acknowledge that technology moves on, there's no reason why a good lens 10 years ago wouldn't still be considered good!

MarkMyWords · Apr 26, 2025

Bielers said:
MarkMyWords said:

A few Sigma sample shots (low light). I guess if the Sigma wasn't noticeably superior to the more than 10 years older Fujifilm, that would be a problem. Bummer the new Fuji 16-55/2.8 is three times the price.

Click to expand...

With regards the 16-55mm, I guess that sometimes you get what you pay for. There's a reason why it costs so much.

The Fuji badge? No, you get what you pay for is presumably largely true.

Bielers said:
While I acknowledge that technology moves on, there's no reason why a good lens 10 years ago wouldn't still be considered good!

Agreed - I recently purchased a mint 14mm, which is a very good lens and the same vintage as the 18-55 (though it too is showing its age alongside the new 40Mpix lenses I believe, though no equivalent refresh yet).

Search

Sigma 18-50/2.8 vs Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 comparison shots

MarkMyWords

Forum Enthusiast

MarkMyWords

Forum Enthusiast

machoman

Forum Enthusiast

MarkMyWords

Forum Enthusiast

MarkMyWords

Forum Enthusiast

Bielers

Leading Member

MarkMyWords

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts