Sony 16-55 F2.8 G vs The Sigma Trio

This is a long video, but it is 3 comparisons in one. The 16-55 F2.8 G is a surprisingly great performer.

M Y G E A R :
Cameras -

Lenses -

Accessories -

DISCLOSURES:
I participate in the Amazon Affiliates Program, where I earn a small commission if you decide to purchase an item at no cost to you.

[tomverheyen]

I own the trio and personally, I prefered the Sigma colors in your shots. I also use them for a bit of astro-photography and I am addicted to bokeh, so for those reasons I would not want to mis the 1.4 for the world... Keep up the great video's Arthur, You learned me out a lot!

[jhn]

I think the 16-55 along with the 56 1.4 is the perfect combination. Even better if each were on it's own body.

[aryanenzo]

This is honestly currently my favorite youtube channel..

[AndreOliveira-xzdw]

I just started watching the channel 3 days ago as I started searching for lenses for an upcoming a6400 purchase and hands down I would say these videos are extremely helpful. Great work!! Keep them coming.

[betterideas]

Awesome review as always, thanks Arthur!

[tenphann]

Time to throw in Player 3: Tamron 17-70mm

[stantheman]

Arthur, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for doing this comparison. :) I've been waiting for this since the lens was announced and no other creator has put out a legit comparison yet!
From what I gather, it is exactly as expected: Sony 16-55 G is ON PAR with the Sigma 16, 30 and just *slightly* below 56 in terms of sharpness and picture quality. I was surprised that colors on 16-55 are better than Sigma 16/30 though!



Tough decision for sure. $1100 for three lenses with biggest selling point being the 1.4 aperture vs. $1400 for one lens with biggest selling point being convenience/extra focal lengths.

[jeffriart]

The 16-55mm keep impressing me. It's expensive, but I don't want to carry multiple lens with me, so it's quite perfect. Now saving up for that.

[breadandcircuses]

I bought the 16-55 this spring together with an a6700 as part of a deal. I do street, architecture, wildlife and people photographie and this combo hasn't let me down ever. Also it is so compact, together with the other lenses that take me from 10 - 200mm in total it all fits into a small 20l Shimoda Urban Explore.

[stefanterbekke]

Thanks Arthur, really appreciated. I own the A6600 and the Sigma 16 and 56. I do not see a reason for upgrading based on your review, accepting that I bring more lenses with me.

[DetourDJ]

I own the Sigma Trio, and I’m glad to see Sony produce such a great lens for their APS-C cameras. I do get tired of swapping primes, but I’ve learned the view of each lens and try to plan my shoots accordingly. What I love about the Sigma primes though is the wide-open clarity and bokeh. Yes, the sharpness drops off a hair, but that creamy background really sets it apart from more standard lenses. I probably spend 90% of my time shooting at f1.4-2.0 simply for that “pro” look at an amateur budget. Being able to upgrade a few hundred dollars at a time buying the trio has worked well with my wallet over time. Once you start spending north of $1000 for one lens, it’s time to move to full-frame, in my opinion.

[ACDGibson]

I own the 16mm and a 35 1.8 from sony and swapping those on the spot while taking pictures with my wife is slowly driving me nuts :D
I would love to have a sharp zoom like this.
The only problem is that once you taste that 1.4 bokeh you can't go back! :D

[darksideemt]

Your wife does an amazing job modelling all the time. Love this video and it definitely convinced me of what I had already planned and that was to get the 16-55 and sell my 16 & 30. I much prefer having a great lens that I don't have to keep changing. Thanks for the great review.

[DanBlogRO]

This comparison I think was the most wanted video of this year!
Thank you!

[BudionoSukses]

awesome. decide to subscribe this channel for appreciating his effort to compare everything. great job, Arthur!

[TyJen]

Nice that you showed the separation difference of 1.4 and 2.8. I love my Sigma lenses but my Sony camera was purchased for convenience and size. That said, the 16-55 2.8 Sony is a welcome option for light weigh and ease for travel with my Nikon wildlife kit. Great review and comparison.

[rokoe]

I would love to see a low light comparison like at a bar or something, love the content thanks man.

[johndonaldson]

Thanks for the review Arthur. If you go with the zoom lens you have an easier to use setup, no changing lenses. On the other hand the Sigma trio is f1.4 vs the Sony at 2.8. Sharpness seems to be a wash between them. Cost wise the Sigma trio is cheaper, and you can buy them one at a time to reduce the impact on your budget. The Sony looks like a great lens but it is way too expensive for me, and while f2.8 is great f1.4 is much better. I'll stick with my Sigma trio.

[duythanhish]

Your wife takes picture like a model honestly. And your critiques are always on point.

[srb]

Very impressive comparison between the two brands. Thank you. I’m surprised the 16-55 held its own against the sharpness reputation of the Sigmas.