Just one slight error, at 4:28 the focal length is 28mm, not 18mm as shown in the video. PLEASE NOTE Also that the measurement of minimum focus distance is measured from the sensor. Not from the front of the lens. Also this is an independent review of both lens & not sponsored by either Sony or Sigma. I own both lenses. If you are considering the Sigma 18-50mm lens, have a watch to see how it performs against the Sigma trio Prime lenses here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n9l8hK-izrrbYJ8.html

in my opinion i prefer to have the two images side by side, its easy to the eye

If you buy the Sony lens with a Sony camera it's only $100. I think it's definitely more than worth that just to use it as a really small decent wide angle 16mm (24mm FF equivalent). From your testing it performed very well at 16 in comparison with the Sigma at 18.

I have both and your assessment is spot on. I even bought the Sony kit lens AFTER having the Sigma trifecta as a walkabout zoom, UNTIL Sigma double guessed everyone and seemingly competes with itself by bringing out the 18-50 f2.8. Brilliant, thanks Sigma.

You are a genius for making this video. I just happened to be looking for a replacement to my kit lens with a good aperture. Well played bro

Great comparison, love the zoom in's, the internal sound recordings, and the humor 😅

Liked your video. I bought the Sigma and use it on my A6600. Great lens and camera combination with IBIS. Got rid of the kit lens.

Thanks for the video, just what I was looking for. As an aside: if your are comparing a stabilized lens to a nonstabilized one, the low-light photo test should account for that. The kit lens might get away with a lower ISO if you used a lower shutter speed, which could be possible because of lens stabilization. Or not, which would also be good info.

The minimum focus distance is measured from the sensor but @7:35 it looks like you are measuring from the front of the lens. So in the case of the Sigma the minimum is in reality very close to the glass.

I'm surprised how well the sony held up! And your camera will fit in your pocket in a pinch with it! If you already have it, I would skip the 2.8 and get a fast prime lens (unless I have money to burn, then I'd buy a thousand dollar standard zoom)

Sigma wins out of course in terms of build, image quality, etc. but there is a lot to be said about the compactness AND stabilization in the 16-50.

AGREED. Chalk and cheese, no comparison. Got the Sony, hate the feel and results are as you show. Have had the Sigma for 1 month and love it. Goes well with my Sigma 16,30,&56 f1.4 trio primes which I am increasing leaving at home. A must-have is the Sony 85mm f1.8. I use it on my a7r and a6000 and it is Sony's superb giveaway priced lens giving 80% performance of the GM f1.4 at a fraction £££. Note I seem to consistently get 23MP Raw images from this FE lens (crop factor doesn't seem to apply). It DOES give a sweet, fast 85/127.5mm portrait telephoto prime depending on which camera.

12:24 I may be wrong here but I've read that only power zooms display focal length in the screen. So this shouldn't be listed as a drawback of the Sigma. If any, an advantage on the Sony.

Thanks for the careful comparison. At 3:05 the Sigma at 18mm is nowhere near as wide as the Sony at 18mm - a real negative against the lens, for me.

great video! appreciated the low light analysis

the video I was looking for, thanks!!

I don't understand why nobody does a comparison on low light/night which is the only reason why I'm thinking to buy the sigma

Super helpful review. Been struggling with the a6000 kit lenses and am considering the sigma. Most commonly I am photographing indoors and find the image quality almost always blurry w the Sony kit lens.

Thank you for a detailed comparison review, do you advise the sigma lens will be a good choice for a non stabilised Sony body ( a6000 ) for photos . I’m trying to decide between the Sigma and Tamron 17-70 f 2.8 VC.

Great video. Thanks for the effort!!

I just got the Sigma 18-50, I really like the size. The downside is that the zoom ring rotates the opposite way than all my other zooms for Sony. I have also the Sony 16-50 that came with the camera, but I never use it. Sony should re-design a new kit lens, maybe 16-50 f4 fixed lens. The kit lenses for Fuji and NIkon APSC cameras are better. I have also the Tamron 17-70 f2.8, which is sharper all around than the Sigma beyond the center, and has a wider and longer range, but the Sigma small size makes it a great all around lens for stabilized cameras. The Tamron optical stabilization is great, even on the A6100, but I have read it has issues with IBIS on the A6700 with active stabilization. Anyway great, on point review/ The 16-50 usually costs $100 USD if bought with a camera body. At the wide end at f8 it seems ok.

i prefer to have faster "dissolve" effect when you switched images for comparison. slower dissolve slightly made "forgot" the "before" look 😀

Thank you for a good comparison. There was one thing I would like to mention. The minimum focus distance is not calculated from the front of the lens. In sigma the minimum focus point is practically in front of the lens.

I just bought this sigma lense 2 days ago. I havent used it yet, but am excited to give it a try when I go on vacation next month. I love the kit lense you compared it to so I have high hopes based on peoples revews like yours that I will like the photo quality of this sigma. My only fears are of bokeh and loosing a bit of the wide angle. I will take my old kit lense just in case i need it. With your review it almost looked like 18 on the signa would compare to 20 on the sony. That was indeed very interesting when you tried them both at 18.

I traded in my A7iii with lenses and got the A6700 with the kit lens. The kit lens is fine, but I noticed at night the kit lens was left wanting and images quite dark. The sigma lens is a great edition and was worth the spend. I also gave the 55-210 which I don’t like and I’m going to have to take a hit on it and trade it in. Lots of KZfaq singing its praises, but it’s not that good in my opinion

Thanks for creating a really good video 👍

Have a 55-210mm sony lens I use a lot of the time and the pancake kit lens for the rest of the time that I got with my 6400. Will get a sigma 18-50if I manage to break my kit lens I guess

I suspect you only get the focal length readout on lenses that have power zoom.

08:39 LoL, nothing wrong with the model, he gave us great information. Thanks

very detailed video 👍

Tbh price is a factor here,Sigma is pretty expensive, Sony does the job for it's price can't really complaint.

I own the Sony lens. Great review but my lens feels like reasonable quality and doesn't rattle. Plus it's easy to manipulate. I think you're having problems due to your cage. None the less I'm thinking of getting the Sigma.

"... Feels like a cheap pair of underpants with no elastic." Delivered as dry as the Sahara, in classic British style. I was laughing so hard, I had to stop the video.

kit lens very usable for social media content it seems!

this was the perfect video for me, was thinking about buying the a6700 and didn't know if i wanted it with the kit lens or if i wanted to spend a little more and get the sigma, will definitely be going with the sigma

We'd love to have a bit wider range on the Sigma but it's probably impossible to achieve without a considerable impact on the size, weight and cost. I think that again for this size, weight and cost you can't ask for more.

So, keeping in mind Sony as a bace with cam cost only $100, this two os so uneven compare....also size is matter too. Sigma definitely nice lens. My favorite is 16mm, 1,4.

Now this video unique on the KZfaq, Very helpful video, Thank you so much for this video🥰🥰🥰 (Subscribing 🥳)

Great job man love the comparison just got the sigma myself and love it keep it up I’m subscribing

the sony lens is all about being compact, the sigma is way to big! when sigma can make a lens as compact as the sony then I would aggree its better

What about comparing for video ?

Take the price into consideration if Sigma makes 3 times better than SONY?

The kit is pretty decent, but it completely falls apart at 50mm..

It's a joke right. The tiny kit lens in my photo cabinet is best used for a paperweight. The features are great but the image quality is quite poor. My cell phone takes higher quality photos. The Sigma 18-50 2.8 is far superior, approaching but not beating the Sigma trio.

When comparing 2 things, place them side by side, otherwise we are comparing things using only our memory.

Bedankt

Your Sony lens held up far better than mine would have! And that's a big problem - because it reveals the lacklustre attempts at quality control on this thing leading to variability of outcome. It's pot luck whether your Sony kit lens performs well or is utter garbage right across the frame. Almost anything is better than the kit lens that came with my camera - including a pin hole punched into cardboard!

you can get the kit lens for $80 in aliexpress 95% new

Is good

Why buy a 2.8 lens and test it at f8?

Omg focus breathing

8:45 lol you're a good enough model

Sony is like apple with sigma being like Samsung but in their own rights.

milimi-ah

👍👍👍

18mm instead of 16mm is another con.

i don’t really need to watch it, just the form factor itself i will choose kit lens no question.

Пич, трагичен си.. Очевидно не можеш да правиш съпоставка между два обектива.

It's just silly to just test those lens for sharpness at F8 and not to do it at best aperture, it s just non sense. One of the reason to buy the sigma is the f2.8 aperture, and it s what is the most interesting to see in term of sharpness. Sry for harsh criticism but you just miss the point here, by far.

3x the price tho. 💀

not a relevant comparison.

This is a stupid comparison. For disabled folks like me, weight is the most important thing. That means Kit lens hands down.