The Sigma 18-50 is wonderful on the X-E4

You're putting it to great effect here. Superb.

Have you noticed any exposure inconsistencies at the long end of the zoom as others have seen and described here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4692974

tater8 wrote:

Have you noticed any exposure inconsistencies at the long end of the zoom as others have seen and described here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4692974

I didn't notice anything weird while out shooting last weekend.

Nunataks wrote:

tater8 wrote:

Have you noticed any exposure inconsistencies at the long end of the zoom as others have seen and described here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4692974

I didn't notice anything weird while out shooting last weekend.

Can you try shooting in A mode at a set ISO at 50mm using f2.8 and then see if just changing to f4.0 results in the shutter speed time doubling as would be expected?

tater8 wrote:

Nunataks wrote:

tater8 wrote:

Have you noticed any exposure inconsistencies at the long end of the zoom as others have seen and described here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4692974

I didn't notice anything weird while out shooting last weekend.

Can you try shooting in A mode at a set ISO at 50mm using f2.8 and then see if just changing to f4.0 results in the shutter speed time doubling as would be expected?

This does happen with mine on my xt20, but I don’t think I would have noticed if I hadn’t sat going through F stops and focal lengths.

I’ve used this lens pretty extensively now and I can’t say I’ve noticed it being an issue in real world shooting. It’s such an impressive lens overall that I can live with the odd quirk.

NickD81 wrote:

Lovely photos! How's the handling of the 18-50 on the X-E4? Do you use the additional grip / thumb rest? Considering picking up this combo myself.

It honestly balances perfectly without anything. It's such a light lens and is around the same size as the Fuji 18-55.

Tom Schum wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

1. jrmacd wrote:

Very nice pictures, and you had me sold . . . until I looked and saw the 18-50 has no stabilization. I just use my X-E4 too often in low light, and my hand-holding skills only get me to around 1/60, 1/30 if I'm lucky. Maybe if a possible X-E5 comes with IBIS. I've been thinking about the 18-55, but constant 2.8 is very appealing.

Tamaron has a stabilized 17-70 f2.8

Looks like it is about $200 more. Also the weight and the length might be greater. Does anyone know how well it works?

I have both lenses and I would say the IQ is excellent on both, although I have not made a direct comparison. I can say that both are noticeably better than the 16-80. The main difference is size. The Tamron is considerably larger and heavier than the Sigma, although you do get a longer zoom range.

Michael Everett wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

1. jrmacd wrote:

Very nice pictures, and you had me sold . . . until I looked and saw the 18-50 has no stabilization. I just use my X-E4 too often in low light, and my hand-holding skills only get me to around 1/60, 1/30 if I'm lucky. Maybe if a possible X-E5 comes with IBIS. I've been thinking about the 18-55, but constant 2.8 is very appealing.

Tamaron has a stabilized 17-70 f2.8

Looks like it is about $200 more. Also the weight and the length might be greater. Does anyone know how well it works?

I have both lenses and I would say the IQ is excellent on both, although I have not made a direct comparison. I can say that both are noticeably better than the 16-80. The main difference is size. The Tamron is considerably larger and heavier than the Sigma, although you do get a longer zoom range.

Tamron is better than Sigma, reasons :

- focus length 17-70

- with image stablization

Sigma is better than Tamron, reasons :

- small size and weight

- price

For X-E4, without ibis, Tamron is a better choice

For X-S10 with ibis, Sigma is a better choice