Yep, it really is!! It was so satisfying zooming in and out hahah

Thanks so much Andy! I'm hoping to get my hands on X-mount version of this lens to see how it performs on Fujifilm cameras.

Thanks so much!

How do you find it compared to the Sony, especially on longer focal length above 200?

16-55 F2.8 G?! That lens is a WHOLE different beast. SUPER expensive compared to the 11-20, and they don't really occupy the same functional niche. The ZV-E10 and the 11-20mm combo is ideal for vlogging and streaming. The 16-55 has more features - a linear motor rather than a nonlinear one for focus, for example, and is far better suited to stills rather than video. Also, the minimum focus distance is literally twice as far as the 11-20. It's a great travel still lens, but not a great video lens (IMO). With a gimbal and a ZV-E10, for example, the 16-55 is far too bulky. Whereas with the 11-20 you can mount everything on a tiny 1kg capacity gimbal and even add an external mic and still be fine. The biggest problem is that all of Sony's APS-C cameras have the stupid rolling shutter problem. With a wider lens, you can crop in more (especially with unstabilized footage) to alleviate that somewhat.

I have both of those and the sony 16-55 rarely leaves my camera. It is worth the price. Amazingly sharp and it's a nice size. I just like this 18-300 as a walk around lens for a day out with the fam during daylight.

also the 35-150

Yess! I'm super excited about the 35-150 too 😄

Does a great job on my a6400.

Nice kit! I have the Sigma trio and was considering the Sony 16-55 instead, or get the 18-300 and keep my primes.

@@SilatShooter Sigma are also releasing soon a 16-50 f2.8 zoom lens for Sony Aps-c. Will be interesting to see how it compares to the Sony 16-55 and Sigma primes.

Don't doubt the quality of the Sony wide angle zoom, however the price is a real deterrent.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience. I'm thinking about using the 18-300 also indoors. Reading your post about these limits prepares me at least to not having unreasonable expectations in low light situations. Greetings

Did you end up changing to the 17-70? I have the chance to get both right now at the same price and I’m torn on aperture vs range

@@ReplayTheParadox nah, I got the Sigma 18-50 instead. Cheaper; yet smaller, lighter, and sharper. The 17-70mm have a reputation for losing sharpness beyond 50mm anyway so losing an extra 20mm is not a big deal for me. I kept the 18-300 though, but I only take it out on day trips.

@@TheMonsieurSalty yeah I have seen that mentioned in a few review videos now. Has the 18-300 shown any similar loss of sharpness?

@@ReplayTheParadox with aperture, shutter speed, and ISO dialed in correctly - no significant loss in sharpness. Even more insignificant if you're only taking pics for social media like me. But yeah, a lot of things have to go right for this lens to work perfectly. Bring a monopod at least.

Thank you so much! I can't wait for Monday when restrictions will finally be easing 🥳

Thank you so much!

@@juliatrotti hy! what do you think? How would it perform at home in a darker kinda room with not big windows and poor ceiling lighting for portraits? is it worth buying a separate fast portrait lens or maybe 2 for that scenario if i would use it only for family use?

I do use autofocus for client shoots, but I don't rely on it 100%. When you use a wide focus point, the camera decides where to focus with eye AF but that's not always reliable. Good for testing out lens performance for my videos, but I don't want to miss any shots at a wedding! So usually for my client shoots I'm using eye AF but I also have a small flexible focus point that I keep on my subject in case eye AF decides to not work :) And this is even with GM glass, etc.

The Sony version hits stores for the first time this week. The Fuji version at the very end of the month.

Thank you!

Thank you so much! And yes, I'm working on a couple of new videos where I just go out and shoot on my own :)

Yes! I have the smaller version of it at home, this was the full length one I borrowed at the studio :)

The 18-300 is gonna be a bit worse in quality i suppose. And 70-300 is gonna be less versatile, but better IQ. Depends on what you want then. Versatility - Image quality.

Thank you!

I think it's more a kit replacement, similar aperture but more range

Would the 17-70 2.8 be better?

Tamron has the 28-200mm for full frame, I have a video on that one too!

I think it's still on preorder

Is it really so important? What about pronunciation of ISO ?

Tamron best lans i m use tamron 24.70mm 2.8 and 70.200mm 2.8

Yes, its confusing, but no matter if its aps-c lens or ff, all of the lenses focal lenght are counted as FF, so aps-c lens are also multiplied by crop factor.

Maybe look into an eos rp?

@@godzgift5253 Do you know any sony models like that?

I’ve been using the Sony a6400 and it has been more than enough for me. I’ve shot big conferences and low light photography with it. And the shots I get with it are AMAZING

The a7iii is the best for its price, better cameras such as the Canon r5 and r6 are much more expensive, and anything cheaper won't be as good. Sony a7iii is fantastic

@@anonym5510 a 7ii? What do you think?

You would have to use it in crop mode on FF so it would look the same! I would use it for video on FF on any camera - but for photo probably only the A7R4 since you'd still have large enough photos to work with.

Yeah it's pretty impressive, lots of range, good quality but it's small and light