If you’re looking for an APS-C lens that is ideal for portraits, weddings and low-light photography, you have many options to choose from.

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air was released in late 2024, and delivers great optical quality at a very affordable price.

The Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S is one of the first Z lenses for Nikon’s new mirrorless system. It’s extremely popular and well designed, both internally and externally.

In this comparison, I will go over the advantages for each lens, show you some sample images, as well as how they both compare at different photography types.

If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air

Max. Aperture

f/1.7 vs f/1.8

Brighter images

Filter Size

52mm vs 62mm

Cheaper filters

Dimensions

64x56mm vs 73x86mm

30mm shorter

Weight

180g vs 370g

190g lighter

Price

$179 vs $846

$667 cheaper

---

Advantages of Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S

Max. Magnification

0.19x vs 0.13x

Better for macro

Min. Focus Distance

25cm vs 33cm

8cm closer focusing

Weather-Sealed

vs

Protects in difficult weather

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8: Detailed Comparison

1. Focal Length

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 35mm
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8: 35mm

Both lenses provide an identical focal length of 35mm.

I find 35mm on APS-C to be ideal for portraits, weddings, traveling, street and casual photography. It’s not too wide, but it’s also not too long.

2. Maximum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Aperture f/1.7
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8: Aperture f/1.8
• Winner: Viltrox 

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air brings in a little bit more light. To be honest, it’s such a small difference that it’s not worth even stressing about. It’s less than 1/3rd of a stop of extra light, so let’s pretend both lenses are the same.

For weddings, concerts and indoor events, an aperture of f/1.7 and f/1.8 will allow you to shoot with a very low ISO.

3. Dimensions & Weight

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 180g / 0.40lb
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8: 370g / 0.82lb
• Winner: Viltrox 

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air weighs 190g less, hence the “Air” in its name. At times, it really does feel like you’re not even shooting with a lens attached to your camera.

The Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S is noticeably heavier, mainly due to more robust design and overall function. It’s “heavy” for an 35mm lens with this aperture size, but it’s definitely not a heavy lens overall.

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.20″
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8: 73 x 86mm / 2.87″ x 3.39″
• Winner: Viltrox 

Similar story here. The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 is less bulkier than the Nikon, which makes it more attractive for traveling and casual day to day photography.

4. Minimum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: f/16
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8: f/16
• Winner: Tie

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air and Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S both share the same smallest aperture size of f/16.

This is pretty common for 35mm lenses, and I’ve never really wished that it could go smaller than that. Aperture f/16 is more than enough for landscape and time-lapses on a bright day. If you’re looking for smaller aperture sizes, then I suggest you get an ND filter as it will make your life much easier.

Plus, shooting with f/16 or smaller raises the risk of losing image quality due to diffraction. Here’s my aperture tutorial where you can see more tips to improve your shots.

5. Minimum Focusing Distance

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Minimum focusing distance of 33cm / 12.99″
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8: Minimum focusing distance of 25cm / 9.84″
• Winner: Nikon 

The Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S is better suited for close-up photography due to its 8cm (3 inches) shorter focusing distance. It will make a difference when taking pictures of flowers, products, food or details closely.

The same goes for Viltrox with its 33cm (12.99″) minimum focusing distance. Enough to cover needs of 90% situations, but you might miss those super close situations every now and then.

Remember, these distances are measured from your camera’s sensor, so in reality your subject will actually be closer to the front element of your lens by a couple of inches.

6. Weather-Sealing

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8:
• Winner: Nikon

In order to keep the price down, the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air doesn’t feature any weather-sealing.

For casual use, all lenses can handle a normal amount of rain, snow and dust. It won’t simply stop working if a little bit of rain falls onto it, but the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S will allow you to travel worry-free.

For photographing in difficult weather (blizzards, near waterfalls, humid areas), it helps having a lens that won’t break down. This is a huge plus for the Nikon lens, especially if your camera is also weather-sealed.

7. Image Stabilization

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8:
• Winner: Tie

Neither of these lenses feature Image Stabilization technology.

If your mirrorless camera has built-in stabilization, you’re not missing out on anything.

8. Aperture Blades

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 9 diaphragm blades
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8: 9 diaphragm blades
• Winner: Tie

Both lenses feature 9 diaphragm blades, which makes them equally good for portraits, pets and food photos with a smooth looking bokeh.

9. Filter Size

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 52mm filter size
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8: 62mm filter size
• Winner: Viltrox

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air uses smaller filters that are cheaper and more common in all photography stores.

The Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S uses 62mm filters, and they’re still very affordable, just expect to pay a little bit more.

10. Price

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: $179
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8: $846
• Winner: Viltrox 

You could get 5 x Viltrox lenses for the price of 1 x Nikon.

That’s a huge price difference!

For $667 more, the Nikon delivers slightly better optical performance, especially wide open and in corners. It’s weather-sealed and feels better in hand. It gets the job done, but that comes at a cost.

The Viltrox gets you 90% the performance of the Nikon, at a way lower price. If you’re just starting out, or don’t want to spend too much for a focal length you don’t know if you’ll enjoy, it doesn’t get better than this.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

It’s best to choose a lens that suits your favorite photography types, or offers you something that your current gear is not good enough for.

Photography Type	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8
Portrait	4.5	4.5
Travel	4	4.5
Wildlife	3	3.5
Sport	3.5	3.5
Wedding	4.5	4.5
Street	4.5	4.5
Landscape	3	3.5
Macro	2	2
Low-Light	4.5	4.5
Video	4	4

No major advantages for one over the other, but the weather-sealing of the Nikon gives it a slight advantage in travel, wildlife and landscape.

In those scenarios, the weather can often make a difference between being able to shoot or not.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Lens Specification	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S
Focal Length	35mm	35mm
35mm Equivalent	52.5mm	52.5mm
Mount	Nikon Z	Nikon Z
Maximum Aperture	f/1.7	f/1.8
Minimum Aperture	f/16	f/16
Filter Size	52 mm	62 mm
Maximum Magnification	0.13x	0.19x
Minimum Focus Distance	33cm / 12.99″	25cm / 9.84″
Aperture Ring	No	No
Focus Type	Autofocus	Autofocus
Motor Type	Stepper Motor	Stepper Motor
Lens Construction	11 elements in 9 groups	11 elements in 9 groups
Aperture Blades	9	9
Image Stabilization
Weather Sealing
Dimensions (mm)	64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.2″	73 x 86mm / 2.87″ x 3.39″
Weight (g)	180g / 0.40lb	370g / 0.82lb
Hood Included	Yes	Yes
Released	2024	2018
Price	Amazon	Amazon

So, which lens is the better one?

Choose the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air if:

• You want to spend a ton less money
• You want to shoot weddings, portraits, indoor events, low-light
• You want a super compact, lightweight lens

Choose the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 if:

• You want an optically excellent lens at all aperture sizes
• You want weather-sealing for any type of situation
• You do a lot of close-ups and need the closer focusing distance

The post Viltrox AF 35mm f/1.7 Air vs Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S appeared first on Futuredly.

Viltrox makes optically great and affordable lenses, and the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air is no exception. It’s small, cheap and delivers great image quality.

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a little bit older, and perhaps one of the most popular prime lenses for the APS-C shooters. It’s got a slightly bigger f/1.4 aperture, but does that justify the higher price tag?

In this comparison, I will go over the advantages for each lens, show you some sample images, as well as how they both compare at different photography types.

If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air

Dimensions

64x56mm vs 65x73mm

17mm shorter

Weight

180g vs 265g

85g lighter

Price

$179 vs $279

$100 cheaper

---

Advantages of Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN

Max. Aperture

f/1.4 vs f/1.7

Brighter images

Max. Magnification

0.14x vs 0.13x

Better for macro

Min. Focus Distance

30cm vs 33cm

3cm closer focusing

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Sigma 30mm f/1.4: Detailed Comparison

1. Focal Length

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 35mm
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4: 30mm

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air gets you a little bit closer to your subject.

Neither lens is better, it simply depends on what you’re looking for.

Both are excellent for portraits, weddings, street photography and day to day walks. If you can’t decide between 35mm and 30mm, look at where you’re using your current lenses at. Do you feel like 35mm is too limiting, or that 30mm is too wide?

If we’re talking about full-frame equivalents, then the Viltrox 35mm is equivalent to a 52.5mm. The Sigma 30mm is equivalent to a 45mm lens.

2. Maximum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Aperture f/1.7
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4: Aperture f/1.4
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN is brighter by a half-stop, which makes a noticeable difference when shooting in really dark conditions.

This will come handy for weddings, night portraits or indoor events. You’ll be able to shoot with a slightly faster shutter speed, or keep the ISO to a relatively low number to not increase the noise.

Both lenses are excellent for low-light photography, so the f/1.7 versus f/1.4 is not going to limit you from doing the same activities.

3. Dimensions & Weight

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 180g / 0.40lb
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4: 256g / 0.58lb
• Winner: Viltrox 

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air weighs 85g less, hence the “Air” in its name. At times, it really does feel like you’re not even shooting with a lens attached to your camera.

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 isn’t heavy by any means, but compared to competition (besides the Viltrox), it does stand out a little bit. For example, the much older Sony 35mm f/1.8 for APS-C is also noticeably smaller and lighter.

Still, both are excellent choices for traveling lightweight.

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.20″
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4: 65 x 73mm / 2.56″ x 2.87″
• Winner: Viltrox 

Similar story here. The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 has an almost identical diameter, but is 17mm shorter.

It will be easier to put it in your pocket or pack into a small camera bag.

4. Minimum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: f/16
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4: f/16
• Winner: Tie

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN both share the same smallest aperture size; f/16.

This is pretty common for 35mm lenses, and I’ve never really wished that it could go smaller than that. Aperture f/16 is more than enough for landscape and time-lapses on a bright day. If you’re looking for smaller aperture sizes, then I suggest you get an ND filter as it will make your life much easier.

Plus, shooting with f/16 or smaller raises the risk of losing image quality due to diffraction. Here’s my aperture tutorial where you can see more tips to improve your shots.

5. Minimum Focusing Distance

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Minimum focusing distance of 33cm / 12.99″
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4: Minimum focusing distance of 30cm / 11.81″
• Winner: Sigma 

Another feature where both Viltrox and Sigma are pretty much identical.

The 30cm (11.81″) closest focusing distance of the Sigma is good enough for some close-up photography, such as food or flowers, but it’s absolutely not a crazy macro distance.

The same goes for Viltrox with its 33cm (12.99″) minimum focusing distance. Enough to cover needs of 90% situations, but you might miss those super close situations every now and then. Remember, these distances are measured from your camera’s sensor, so in reality your subject will actually be closer to the front element of your lens by a couple of inches.

6. Weather-Sealing

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4:
• Winner: Tie

Nothing special here, as both lenses are so cheap due to a lack of proper weather-resistance.

Does this mean they will dissolve in rain?

No, of course not. Almost all lenses can handle light amount of rain, snow and bad weather. I own a ton of non-sealed gear and have never had any issues.

However, it’s true that if I do go on trips or places where there’s a high chance of storms/high humidity/sand, I do bring some weather-resistant gear to make my life easier. You’ll just have to be a bit more careful in such scenarios.

Plus, if your camera isn’t weather-sealed, then you wouldn’t shoot in such scenarios regardless.

7. Image Stabilization

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4:
• Winner: Tie

Neither of these lenses feature Image Stabilization technology.

That’s why they’re so compact and affordable! Plus, if your mirrorless camera has built-in stabilization, you’re not missing out on anything.

8. Aperture Blades

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 9 diaphragm blades
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4: 9 diaphragm blades
• Winner: Tie

Same bokeh performance for both Viltrox and Sigma lenses. 9 blades makes them both equally good for portraits, pets and food photos with a smooth looking bokeh.

9. Filter Size

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 52mm filter size
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4: 52mm filter size
• Winner: Tie

Both lenses use 52mm filters, which are super common and affordable.

10. Price

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: $179
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4: $279
• Winner: Viltrox 

It’s amazing that we have so many cheap options for APS-C cameras.

Neither of these two are expensive, but the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air costs $100 less and that’s enough of an advantage for most photographers.

Image quality and sharpness are more or less the same for both. The Viltrox is not cheaper because it would be bad, but simply because they need to stand out due to their lack of recognition.

You can’t go wrong with either of these two lenses, but do consider if the extra $100 could be going towards something else if you don’t need the f/1.4 aperture.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Sigma 30mm f/1.4: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

It’s best to choose a lens that suits your favorite photography types, or offers you something that your current gear is not good enough for.

Photography Type	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Portrait	4.5	5
Travel	4	4
Wildlife	3	3
Sport	3.5	3.5
Wedding	4.5	5
Street	4.5	5
Landscape	3	3.5
Macro	2	2
Low-Light	4.5	5
Video	4	4

The slightly bigger aperture of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 gives it a minor advantage for portraits, weddings and low-light scenarios.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Sigma 30mm f/1.4: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Lens Specification	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Focal Length	35mm	30mm
35mm Equivalent	52.5mm	45mm
Mount	Sony E, Fuji X, Nikon Z	Sony E, Fuji X, Nikon Z
Maximum Aperture	f/1.7	f/1.4
Minimum Aperture	f/16	f/16
Filter Size	52 mm	52 mm
Maximum Magnification	0.13x	0.14x
Minimum Focus Distance	33cm / 12.99″	30cm / 11.81″
Aperture Ring	No	No
Focus Type	Autofocus	Autofocus
Motor Type	Stepper Motor	Stepper Motor
Lens Construction	11 elements in 9 groups	9 elements in 7 groups
Aperture Blades	9	9
Image Stabilization
Weather Sealing
Dimensions (mm)	64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.2″	65 x 73mm / 2.56″ x 2.87″”
Weight (g)	180g / 0.40lb	265g / 0.58lb
Hood Included	Yes	No
Released	2024	2016
Price	Amazon	Amazon

So, which lens is the better one?

Choose the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air if:

• You want to spend $100 less for almost identical optical performance
• You want a lighter and more compact lens

Choose the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if:

• You want the biggest aperture for low-light scenarios (weddings, portraits)

The post Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air vs Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN appeared first on Futuredly.

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air has a slightly bigger aperture, renders colors beautifully, and costs even less than the already affordable Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2.

In this comparison, I will go over the advantages for each lens, show you some sample images, as well as how they both compare at different photography types.

If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air

Max. Aperture

f/1.7 vs f/2

Brighter images

Min. Focus Distance

33cm vs 35mm

2cm closer focusing

Price

$179 vs $199

$20 cheaper

---

Advantages of Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2

Filter Size

43mm vs 52mm

Cheaper filters

Aperture Ring

vs

Manual aperture control

Max. Magnification

0.14x vs 0.13x

Better for macro

Dimensions

58x47mm vs 64x56mm

9mm shorter

Weight

130g vs 180g

50g lighter lens

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2: Detailed Comparison

1. Focal Length

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 35mm
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 35mm

Both lenses provide an identical focal length range of 35mm.

I find this focal length to be ideal for portraits, weddings, traveling, street and casual photography. It’s not too wide, but it’s also not too long.

35mm is actually equivalent to a 52.5mm lens on a full-frame camera, and this is one of the most popular lengths of all time.

2. Maximum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Aperture f/1.7
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: Aperture f/2
• Winner: Viltrox 

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air brings in a little bit more light. Not by a full stop, but 1/2 stop, which is enough to make a difference in low-light situations.

For weddings, concerts and indoor events, the extra light will allow you to shoot with a slightly faster shutter speed. This helps reduce the blur and make your subject appear more “frozen”.

If you do a lot of portraits, it also helps that the slightly bigger f/1.7 results in a shallower depth of field, thus nicer looking bokeh. It makes the Viltrox a bit better for wedding and professional portrait use, but the bokeh difference will be minimal.

3. Dimensions & Weight

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 180g / 0.40lb
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 130g / 0.29lb
• Winner: Fujifilm 

The Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2 weighs 50g less, largely due to its smaller aperture.

Let me put it this way. If the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 weighs just enough that you don’t completely forget you have it mounted, the Fujifilm XC 35mm 35mm f/2 is pretty much as light as air.

it doesn’t get better than either of these two lenses if you’re looking for an ultra lightweight companion to travel with.

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.20″
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 58 x 47mm / 2.28″ x 1.85″
• Winner: Fujifilm 

Similar story here. The Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2 is a little bit smaller than the Viltrox, and it’s enough to make a difference.

Both lenses are small, but the Fujifilm will fit easier into any pocket/part of your camera bag.

For casual, day to day photography where you have the camera on your wrist strap or want to hide the camera, the Fuji will be a bit easier to do that with. A liiittle bit.

4. Minimum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: f/16
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: f/16
• Winner: Tie

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air and Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2 both share the same smallest aperture size; f/16.

This is pretty common for 35mm lenses, and I’ve never really wished that it could go smaller than that. Aperture f/16 is more than enough for landscape and time-lapses on a bright day. If you’re looking for smaller aperture sizes, then I suggest you get an ND filter as it will make your life much easier.

Plus, shooting with f/16 or smaller raises the risk of losing image quality due to diffraction.

5. Minimum Focusing Distance

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Minimum focusing distance of 33cm / 12.99″
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: Minimum focusing distance of 35cm / 13.78″
• Winner: Viltrox 

Another feature where both Viltrox and Fujifilm are pretty much identical.

The 33cm (12.99″) closest focusing distance of the Viltrox is good enough for some close-up photography, such as food or flowers, but it’s absolutely not a crazy macro distance.

The same goes for Fujifilm with its 35cm (13.80″) minimum focusing distance. Enough to cover needs of 90% situations, but you might miss those super close situations every now and then (I know I do, but it’s the same for most 35mm lenses).

6. Weather-Sealing

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2:
• Winner: Tie

Nothing special here, as both lenses are so cheap due to a lack of proper weather-resistance.

Does this mean they will dissolve in rain?

No, of course not. Almost all lenses can handle light amount of rain, snow and bad weather. I own a ton of non-sealed gear and have never had any issues.

However, it’s true that if I do go on trips or places where there’s a high chance of storms/high humidity, or dust/sand, I do bring some weather-resistant gear to make my life easier. You’ll just have to be a bit more careful in such scenarios.

7. Image Stabilization

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2:
• Winner: Tie

Neither of these lenses feature Image Stabilization technology.

That’s why they’re so compact and affordable! Plus, if your Fuji camera has built-in stabilization, you’re not missing out on anything.

8. Aperture Blades

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 9 diaphragm blades
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 9 diaphragm blades
• Winner: Tie

Same bokeh performance for both Viltrox and Fujifilm lenses. 9 blades makes them both equally good for portraits, pets, food and photos with a smooth looking bokeh.

9. Filter Size

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 52mm filter size
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 43mm filter size
• Winner: Fujifilm

The Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2 uses much smaller filters, which means you’ll spend less money on them.

While 52mm filters of the Viltrox 35mm are also super cheap and easy to find, there’s a noticeable price difference between them. This is even more true if you plan on buying UV, ND, Polarizing filters etc., as the costs can add up quickly.

10. Price

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: $179
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: $199
• Winner: Viltrox 

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 is around $20 cheaper, which makes this buying decision quite challenging.

However, with both lenses having similarly good image quality, colors, and overall performance, the bigger f/1.7 aperture does make the Viltrox more appealing in my eyes.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

It’s best to choose a lens that suits your favorite photography types, or offers you something that your current gear is not good enough for.

Photography Type	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2
Portrait	4.5	4
Travel	4	4
Wildlife	3	3
Sport	3.5	3
Wedding	4.5	4
Street	4.5	4
Landscape	3	3
Macro	2	2
Low-Light	4.5	4
Video	4	4

Due to their 35mm focal length, they’re pretty much the same for most types of photography scenarios.

However, the slightly bigger f/1.7 gives the Viltrox an advantage in portrait and low-light photography. It results in brighter images and a shallower depth of field.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Lens Specification	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2
Focal Length	35mm	35mm
35mm Equivalent	52.5mm	52.5mm
Mount	Fujifilm X	Fujifilm X
Maximum Aperture	f/1.7	f/2
Minimum Aperture	f/16	f/16
Filter Size	52 mm	43 mm
Maximum Magnification	0.13x	0.14x
Minimum Focus Distance	33cm / 12.99″	35cm / 13.78″
Aperture Ring	No	No
Focus Type	Autofocus	Autofocus
Motor Type	Stepper Motor	Stepper Motor
Lens Construction	11 elements in 9 groups	9 elements in 6 groups
Aperture Blades	9	9
Image Stabilization
Weather Sealing
Dimensions (mm)	64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.2″	58 x 47mm / 2.28″ x 1.85″
Weight (g)	180g / 0.40lb	130g / 0.29lb
Hood Included	Yes	No
Released	2024	2020
Price	Amazon	Amazon

So, which lens is the better one?

Choose the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air if:

• You often shoot in low-light and need every bit of light
• You often shoot portraits and wish for the biggest aperture

Choose the Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2 if:

• You want an incredibly lightweight lens

The post Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air vs Fujifilm XC 35mm f/2 appeared first on Futuredly.

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air is a brand new lens that goes for less than $200, and delivers optically great images. It’s also got a slightly bigger aperture of f/1.7, which is ideal for low-light and traveling.

In this comparison, I will go over the advantages for each lens, show you some sample images, as well as how they both compare at different photography types.

If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air

Max. Aperture

f/1.7 vs f/1.8

Brighter images

Aperture Blades

9 vs 7

Smoother bokeh

Price

$179 vs $473

$294 cheaper

Released

2024 vs 2012

12 years newer

---

Advantages of Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS

Min. Aperture

f/22 vs f/16

Greater depth of field

Filter Size

49mm vs 52mm

Cheaper filters

Max. Magnification

0.15x vs 0.13x

Better for macro

Dimensions

63x45mm x 64x56mm

11mm shorter

Weight

155g vs 180g

25g lighter lens

Image Stabilization

vs

Helps stabilize images

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS: Detailed Comparison

1. Focal Length

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 35mm
• Sony 35mm f/1.8: 35mm

Both lenses provide an identical focal length range of 35mm.

I find this focal length to be ideal for portraits, weddings, traveling, street and casual photography. It’s not too wide, but it’s also not too long.

35mm is actually equivalent to a 52.5mm lens on a full-frame camera, and this is one of the most popular lengths of all time, since the film days.

2. Maximum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Aperture f/1.7
• Sony 35mm f/1.8: Aperture f/1.8
• Winner: Viltrox 

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air brings in a little bit more light. To be honest, it’s such a small difference that it’s not worth even stressing about. It’s less than 1/3rd of a stop of extra light, so let’s pretend both lenses are the same.

For weddings, concerts and indoor events, an aperture of f/1.7 and f/1.8 will allow you to shoot with a very low ISO.

If you do a lot of portraits, it also helps that the slightly bigger f/1.7 results in a shallower depth of field, thus nicer looking bokeh.

3. Dimensions & Weight

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 180g / 0.40lb
• Sony 35mm f/1.8: 155g / 0.34lb
• Winner: Sony 

The Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS manages to weigh 25g less, and while you most likely won’t feel the difference, it’s still nice to have something so light. Both lenses are perfect for traveling and long photoshoots.

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.20″
• Sony 35mm f/1.8: 63 x 45mm / 2.48″ x 1.77″
• Winner: Sony 

Similar story here. The Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS is a little bit smaller than the Viltrox, and it’s enough to make a difference. You’ll most often see this when carrying the camera in your pocket, or packing all of your gear in a small backpack.

To put it simply, both Viltrox and Sony are incredibly small and easy to carry around! They make the APS-C system fun to use, which is what got me into shooting with it once again. These third-party lens options are too good to ignore.

4. Minimum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: f/16
• Sony 35mm f/1.8: f/22
• Winner: Sony

The Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS has a 1 f-stop smaller aperture; f/22 versus f/16.

Is this a big deal?

Not really, especially since 90% of photographers rarely shoot with anything smaller than f/16 due to diffraction (loss of image quality). For certain landscape scenarios, or time-lapses on a bright day, you might miss f/22, but that is sooo rare.

5. Minimum Focusing Distance

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Minimum focusing distance of 33cm / 12.99″
• Sony 35mm f/1.8: Minimum focusing distance of 30cm / 11.81″
• Winner: Sony 

Another feature where both Viltrox and Sony are pretty much identical.

The 33cm (12.99″) closest focusing distance of the Viltrox is good enough for some close-up photography, such as food or flowers, but it’s absolutely not a crazy macro distance.

The Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS allows you to get 3cm closer to your subject than the Viltrox. How often will you appreciate this?

Unless you’re really into close-up photography of food, bugs, flowers, the miniscule 3cm difference will never be noticed. It’s nice that the Sony is better, but it’s not what I would base my purchase on.

6. Weather-Sealing

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Sony 35mm f/1.8:
• Winner: Tie

Almost all lenses can handle a light amount of rain, snow and bad weather.

Neither of these 2 lenses are weather-sealed, which is a big reason for their lower price. Well, at least in Viltrox’s case!

7. Image Stabilization

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Sony 35mm f/1.8:
• Winner: Sony

If your Sony mirrorless camera doesn’t have built-in stabilization, then the Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS might be a better deal if you often shoot in low-light, or do plenty of video recording.

Having OSS (Optical SteadyShot) helps you shoot with slower shutter speeds and still get clear results. Sometimes, this can be a difference between shooting with 1/30 instead of 1/250 and still getting a good shot!

If you’re using the Sony A6500, A6600 or the latest A6700, there’s no need to worry if your lens has OSS or not.

8. Aperture Blades

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 9 diaphragm blades
• Sony 35mm f/1.8: 7 diaphragm blades
• Winner: Viltrox

The more aperture blades your lens has, the smoother the bokeh is.

What’s bokeh?

The out-of-focus part of your image; usually the background. You want it to look smooth, creamy and pleasing to the eye. This is especially true for portraits or close-ups!

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air has more rounder bokeh due to a higher number of diaphragm blades.

9. Filter Size

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 52mm filter size
• Sony 35mm f/1.8: 49mm filter size
• Winner: Sony 

The Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS uses smaller filters, which means you’ll spend less money on them.

It’s not a big difference, and we’re mostly talking about spending $20 instead of $25. If you plan on getting multiple filters (UV, Polarizers, ND), then the costs can add up quickly.

10. Price

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: $179
• Sony 35mm f/1.8: $473
• Winner: Viltrox 

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 wins hands down.

It’s less than $200 but is optically better than the Sony 35mm f/1.8.

It’s not a fair comparison to be honest, because the 13 years older Sony simply doesn’t hold up as well as new third-party lenses.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Sony E 35mm f/1.8: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

It’s best to choose a lens that suits your favorite photography types, or offers you something that your current gear is not good enough for.

Photography Type	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Sony E 35mm f/1.8
Portrait	4.5	4.5
Travel	4	4
Wildlife	3	3
Sport	3.5	3.5
Wedding	4.5	4.5
Street	4.5	4.5
Landscape	3	3
Macro	2	2
Low-Light	4.5	4.5
Video	4	4.5

Due to their 35mm focal length, they’re pretty much the same for most types of photography scenarios.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Sony E 35mm f/1.8: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Lens Specification	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS
Focal Length	35mm	35mm
35mm Equivalent	52.5mm	52.5mm
Mount	Sony E	Sony E
Maximum Aperture	f/1.7	f/1.8
Minimum Aperture	f/16	f/22
Filter Size	52 mm	49 mm
Maximum Magnification	0.13x	0.15x
Minimum Focus Distance	33cm / 12.99″	30cm / 11.81″
Aperture Ring	No	No
Focus Type	Autofocus	Autofocus
Motor Type	Stepper Motor	Stepper Motor
Lens Construction	11 elements in 9 groups	8 elements in 6 groups
Aperture Blades	9	7
Image Stabilization
Weather Sealing
Dimensions (mm)	64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.2″	63 x 45mm / 2.48″ x 1.77″
Weight (g)	180g / 0.40lb	155g
Hood Included	Yes	Yes
Released	2024	2012
Price	Amazon	Amazon

So, which lens is the better one?

Choose the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air if:

• You want better image quality for ~$300 less
• You want a slightly bigger aperture

Choose the Sony E 35mm f/1.8 if:

• You need a super compact 35mm with stabilization

The winner is Viltrox 35mm f/1.7.

Better performance for way less money.

The post Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air vs Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS appeared first on Futuredly.

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air was announced at the end of 2024, and gives you excellent image quality and f/1.7 for less than $200.

In this comparison, I will go over the advantages for each lens, show you sample images, as well as how they both compare at different photography types.

If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air

Max. Aperture

f/1.7 vs f/2

Brighter images

Min. Focus Distance

33cm vs 35mm

2cm closer focusing

Price

$179 vs $399

$220 cheaper

---

Advantages of Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R WR

Filter Size

43mm vs 52mm

Cheaper filters

Aperture Ring

vs

Manual aperture control

Weather-Sealed

vs

Protects in difficult weather

Dimensions

60×45.9mm vs 64x56mm

4mm shorter

Weight

170g vs 180g

10g lighter lens

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Fujifilm 35mm f/2: Detailed Comparison

1. Focal Length

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 35mm
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 35mm
• Winner: Tie

Both lenses provide an identical focal length range of 35mm.

I find this focal length to be ideal for portraits, weddings, traveling, street and casual photography. It’s not too wide, but it’s also not too long.

35mm is actually equivalent to a 52.5mm lens on a full-frame camera, and this is one of the most popular lengths of all time.

2. Maximum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Aperture f/1.7
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: Aperture f/2
• Winner: Viltrox 

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air brings in a little bit more light. Not by a full stop, but 1/2 stop, which is enough to make a difference in low-light situations.

For weddings, concerts and indoor events, the extra light will allow you to shoot with a lower ISO.

However, as of 2025, all Fujifilm mirrorless cameras have such good ISO performance that the difference between f/1.7 and f/2 isn’t really a deal breaker.

If you do a lot of portraits, it also helps that the slightly bigger f/1.7 results in a shallower depth of field, thus nicer looking bokeh.

3. Dimensions & Weight

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 180g / 0.40lb
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 170g / 0.37lb
• Winner: Fujifilm 

The Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R WR manages to weight a tiny bit less, but this difference mainly sounds good on paper.

In the real world, you’ll never notice a 10g difference. Therefore, both lenses are ideal for traveling and compact shooting.

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.20″
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 60 x 45.9mm / 2.36″ x 1.80″
• Winner: Fujifilm 

Similar story here. The Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R WR is a little bit smaller than the Viltrox, and it’s enough to make a difference.

Both lenses are small, but the Fujifilm will fit easier into any pocket/part of your camera bag.

4. Minimum Aperture

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: f/16
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: f/16
• Winner: Tie

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air and Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R WR both share the same smallest aperture size; f/16.

This is pretty common for 35mm lenses, and I’ve pretty much never wished that it could go smaller than that. Aperture f/16 is more than enough for landscape and time-lapses on a bright day. If you’re looking for smaller aperture sizes, then I suggest you get an ND filter as it will make your life much easier

Plus, shooting with f/16 or smaller raises the risk of losing image quality due to diffraction.

5. Minimum Focusing Distance

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: Minimum focusing distance of 33cm / 12.99″
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: Minimum focusing distance of 35cm / 13.80″
• Winner: Viltrox 

Another feature where both Viltrox and Fujifilm are pretty much identical.

The 33cm (12.99″) closest focusing distance of the Viltrox is good enough for some close-up photography, such as food or flowers, but it’s absolutely not a crazy macro distance.

The same goes for Fujifilm with its 35cm (13.80″) minimum focusing distance. Enough to cover needs of 90% situations, but you might miss those super close situations every now and then (I know I do, but it’s the same for most 35mm lenses).

6. Weather-Sealing

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2:
• Winner: Fujifilm

This is the biggest advantage of the Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R WR!

The WR in its name stands for Weather Resistant, which means you can travel much more stress-free.

Almost all lenses (non-WR) can handle light amount of rain, snow and bad weather, but for those who do most of their work in difficult environments, the Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R WR is a better lens.

7. Image Stabilization

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7:
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2:
• Winner: Tie

Neither of these lenses feature Image Stabilization technology.

That’s why they’re so compact and affordable! Plus, if your Fuji camera has built-in stabilization, you’re not missing out on anything.

8. Aperture Blades

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 9 diaphragm blades
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 9 diaphragm blades
• Winner: Tie

Same bokeh performance for both Viltrox and Fujifilm lenses. 9 blades makes them both equally good for portraits, pets, food and photos with a smooth looking bokeh.

9. Filter Size

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: 52mm filter size
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: 43mm filter size
• Winner: Fujifilm

The Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R WR uses much smaller filters, which means you’ll spend less money on them.

While 52mm filters of the Viltrox 35mm are also super cheap and easy to find, there’s a noticeable price difference between them. This is even more true if you plan on buying UV, ND, Polarizing filters etc., as the costs can add up quickly.

10. Price

• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7: $179
• Fujifilm 35mm f/2: $399
• Winner: Viltrox 

The Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 is much cheaper.

You could actually get 2 x Viltrox 35mm lenses for the price of one Fujifilm 35mm! The ~$210 you save is enough for filters and maybe even another Viltrox lens.

Seeing as image quality and performance between these two is pretty much identical, it makes the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air an absolute steal!

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Fujifilm 35mm f/2: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

It’s best to choose a lens that suits your favorite photography types, or offers you something that your current gear is not good enough for.

Photography Type	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R
Portrait	4.5	4
Travel	4	4.5
Wildlife	3	3
Sport	3.5	3
Wedding	4.5	4
Street	4.5	4
Landscape	3	3.5
Macro	2	2
Low-Light	4.5	4
Video	4	4

Due to their 35mm focal length, they’re pretty much the same for most types of photography scenarios.

However, the slightly bigger f/1.7 gives the Viltrox an advantage in portrait and low-light photography. It results in brighter images and a shallower depth of field.

Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 vs Fujifilm 35mm f/2: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Lens Specification	Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air	Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R WR
Focal Length	35mm	35mm
35mm Equivalent	52.5mm	52.5mm
Mount	Fujifilm X	Fujifilm X
Maximum Aperture	f/1.7	f/2
Minimum Aperture	f/16	f/16
Filter Size	52 mm	43 mm
Maximum Magnification	0.13x	0.13x
Minimum Focus Distance	33cm / 12.99″	35cm / 13.8″
Aperture Ring	No	Yes
Focus Type	Autofocus	Autofocus
Motor Type	Stepper Motor	Stepper Motor
Lens Construction	11 elements in 9 groups	9 elements in 6 groups
Aperture Blades	9	9
Image Stabilization
Weather Sealing
Dimensions (mm)	64 x 56mm / 2.52″ x 2.2″	60 x 45.9mm / 2.36″ x 1.80″
Weight (g)	180g / 0.40lb	170g
Hood Included	Yes	Yes
Released	2024	2015
Price	Amazon	Amazon

So, which lens is the better one?

Choose the Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air if:

• You want to save around $200 for a high quality 35mm lens
• You want better low-light performance (portraits, astro, night time)
• You don’t need the best weather-sealing
• You don’t need an aperture ring

Choose the Fujifilm 35mm f/2. R WR if:

• You need weather-sealing for challenging weather situations
• You prefer using an aperture ring

The post Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air vs Fujifilm 35mm f/2 R WR appeared first on Futuredly.

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN is a small, lightweight lens with an amazing f/2.8 aperture. This makes it ideal for ultra-wide and low-light photography in almost any scenario.

The Canon RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 is an extremely compact ultra-wide lens that weighs a mere 150g (0.33 lb). It’s great for outdoor activities, but will struggle in dark situations.

In this comparison, I will also go over how they both compare at different photography types, along with a detailed table of their most important features and some sample images.

If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN

Max. Aperture

f/2.8 vs f/4.5-6.3

Brighter images

Hood

vs

Includes a lens hood

---

Advantages of Canon RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Min. Aperture

f/32 vs f/22

Greater depth of field

Filter Size

49mm vs 67mm

Cheaper filters

Max. Magnification

0.25x vs 0.50x (MF)

Better for macro

Min. Focus Distance

9cm vs 12cm

3cm closer focusing

Image Stabilization

vs

Helps stabilize images

Dimensions

69x45mm vs 72x62mm

Easier to travel

Weight

150g vs 280g

130g lighter lens

Price

$299 vs $579

$280 cheaper

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Sigma 10-18mm vs Canon 10-18mm: Detailed Comparison

1. Focal Length

• Sigma 10-18mm: From 10mm to 18mm
• Canon 10-18mm: From 11mm to 20mm
• Winner: Tie

Both lenses provide an identical focal length range, from 10 to 18mm.

This is equivalent to a 16-28mm lens on full-frame, which makes them both ideal for ultra-wide photography.

If you’re into landscape, nature, indoor or astrophotography, they are both the best zoom options for APS-C shooters. 10mm is extremely wide!

2. Maximum Aperture

• Sigma 10-18mm: Constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 at all focal lengths
• Canon 10-18mm: Variable aperture; f/4.5 at 10mm and f/6.3 at 18mm
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN is much better here, with its larger aperture of f/2.8.

How does this apply to your photographs?

When shooting in low-light (concerts, indoor events, night time), the Canon RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 will struggle to have a decently bright exposure, at least not without raising the ISO by a lot.

On the other hand, the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN lets in between 1.5 and 2.5 stops of more light. That’s 2x-4x brighter images. Here’s my Sigma 18-50mm review with some low-light images as well.

That’s a huge difference!

It means you can use a shutter speed of 1/125 (with Sigma) instead of 1/50 or even worse, 1/20 in the exact same situation (with Canon). Slower shutter speeds result in more blur, so the Sigma will help you get brighter and less blurry images.

If you don’t plan on doing a lot of low-light photography, or are absolutely fine with raising the ISO on your Canon camera, then this might not necessarily be a big deal for you.

That f/2.8 aperture of the Sigma is the major reason for its higher price tag.

3. Dimensions & Weight

• Sigma 10-18mm: 260g
• Canon 10-18mm: 150g
• Winner: Canon 

The Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM is almost half the weight of the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN.

Both lenses feel very light when taking pictures, but the Canon is just on another level.

If you’re looking for that travel ultra-wide companion, the Canon will never give you an excuse to not bring your camera along. It’s probably lighter than your smartphone.

• Sigma 10-18mm: 62 x 76mm
• Canon 10-18mm: 69 x 45mm
• Winner: Canon 

Similar story here, the Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM manages to shed off even a few extra millimeters compared to the already compact Sigma 10-18mm.

I’ve had the Sigma since it first came out and can hardly imagine an even smaller ultra-wide lens.

Both lenses are amazing when it comes to portability, but Canon takes it a step further.

4. Minimum Aperture

• Sigma 10-18mm: f/22
• Canon 10-18mm: f/32
• Winner: Canon 

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN can stop down to f/22, whereas the Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM can go all the way to f/32.

Is this a big deal?

No, not really. Even f/22 is more than what 99% of photographers need (for landscape or time-lapses). Plus, you do risk losing some image quality due to diffraction.

5. Minimum Focusing Distance

• Sigma 10-18mm: Minimum focusing distance of 12cm
• Canon 10-18mm: Minimum focusing distance of 9cm
• Winner: Canon 

This is another feature where the Sigma is great, but the Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM manages to come ahead anyways.

With its 9cm (3.53″) minimum focusing distance, there’s no limit to what you can’t photograph. It will literally be able to focus on your subject even if it’s touching the lens itself!

You wouldn’t normally think of ultra-wide lenses and close focusing distances, but it’s their perspective that can make your shots look absolutely amazing and unlike any other lens!

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN is not far behind with only 3cm (1.1″) less working space. For macro and close-up photography, these two will be great.

6. Weather-Sealing

• Sigma 10-18mm:
• Canon 10-18mm:
• Winner: Tie

At these price levels, you can’t expect any weather-sealing.

For casual use, all lenses can handle a normal amount of rain, snow and dust. It won’t simply stop working if a little bit of rain falls onto them. Hundreds of thousands of photographers travel with gear that isn’t completely weather-sealed.

If you need a weather-sealed ultra-wide zoom, check out the Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 comparison.

7. Image Stabilization

• Sigma 10-18mm:
• Canon 10-18mm:
• Winner: Canon 

Image stabilization helps make your images appear less blurry when shooting with slow shutter speeds.

The Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 comes with IS (Image Stabilization) even though it’s a much smaller lens. This will help when shooting with very slow shutter speeds; anything below 1/50.

Ultra-wide lenses are way less sensitive to camera shake, simply because of their wide field of view. Compare this to a 200mm lens, where even the slightest movement could ruin the entire shot.

Therefore, many landscape photographers don’t even stress if their lens has IS or not, since it’s rare that it will make that big of a difference. This, and the fact that many use a tripod.

For recording videos, image stabilization can also help reduce some shake and jitter, although the positive effects are more obvious when taking pictures.

8. Aperture Blades

• Sigma 10-18mm: 7 diaphragm blades
• Canon 10-18mm: 7 diaphragm blades
• Winner: Tie

A lens with more diaphragm blades will usually produce smoother bokeh, aka background blur.

Since both have 7, their bokeh quality is average and nothing special to talk about.

9. Filter Size

• Sigma 10-18mm: 67mm filter size
• Canon 10-18mm: 49mm filter size
• Winner: Tie

The Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM uses way smaller filters than the Sigma, so you’ll be spending a lot less money on them.

49mm is super small, something we rarely see in lenses. Your wallet will thank you.

67mm filters sit right in the middle; they’re not the cheapest, but are common enough to still be reasonably priced.

It helps if all of your lenses share the same filter size so you don’t have to invest in new UV/ND filters all the time. Trust me, this adds up quickly, especially if you’re a videographer.

10. Price

• Sigma 10-18mm: ~$579
• Canon 10-18mm: ~$299
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN costs $280 more than the Canon 10-18mm.

What does that extra $280 give you?

A much bigger aperture. That’s about it.

If you care about low-light photography and don’t have any additional prime lenses with big apertures, it’s not a bad idea to get an f/2.8 zoom.

On the other hand, if you’ve already got a couple of lenses or simply know you will use the Canon for mostly outdoor photography in good light, you can save a lot of money.

Sigma 10-18mm vs Canon 10-18mm: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

It’s best to choose a lens that suits your favorite photography types, or offers you something that your current gear is not good enough for.

Photography Type	Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN	Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
Portrait	2.5	1
Travel	5	5
Wildlife	1.5	1
Sport	1.5	1
Wedding	4	1
Street	4	3
Landscape	5	5
Macro	3.5	4
Low-Light	4.5	1
Video	4	4

Because of its bigger aperture, the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN is better suited for most types of photography.

This is especially true for weddings, street and low-light photography, where every extra amount of light helps you shoot with a faster shutter speed to freeze the movement.

Sigma 10-18mm vs Canon 10-18mm: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Lens Specification	Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8	Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3
Focal Length	10-18mm	10-18mm
35mm Equivalent	15-27mm	16-29mm
Mount	Sony, Canon, Fujifilm	Canon RF-S
Maximum Aperture	f/2.8	f/4.5-6.3
Minimum Aperture	f/22	f/32
Filter Size	67 mm	49 mm
Maximum Magnification	0.25x	0.23x (0.50x in MF)
Minimum Focus Distance	12cm	9 cm
Aperture Ring	No	No
Focus Type	Autofocus	Autofocus
Motor Type	Stepper Motor	Stepper Motor
Lens Construction	13 elements in 10 groups	12 elements in 10 groups
Aperture Blades	7	7
Image Stabilization
Weather Sealing
Dimensions (mm)	72 x 62mm	69 x 45mm / 2.72″ x 1.77″
Weight (g)	280g	150g
Hood Included	Yes	No
Released	2023	2023
Price	Amazon	Amazon

So, which lens is the better one?

Choose the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 if:

• You often shoot in low-light (astrophotography, indoors, night time)

Choose the Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 if:

• You mainly shoot outdoors and rarely in low-light
• You want an extremely small and lightweight lens
• You want to spend less for the lens & filters (~$300 saved)
• You often do close-up photography (0.5x magnification but only in manual focus)

The post Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN vs Canon RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM appeared first on Futuredly.

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN is an extremely compact, f/2.8 zoom with a lower price tag. I’ve been using it since day one and love how small it is.

The Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 Di III-A RXD offers a bit more zoom and is weather-sealed, but comes at a higher price. Is the difference worth it for your needs?

In this comparison, I will also go over how they both compare at different photography types, along with a detailed table of their most important features. If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN

Focal Length (Wide)

10mm vs 11mm

10% wider

Min. Aperture

f/22 vs f/16

Greater depth of field

Min. Focus Distance

12cm vs 15cm

3cm closer min focus

Dimensions

72x62mm vs 73x86mm

Slightly shorter lens

Weight

260g vs 335g

75g lighter lens

Release

2023 vs 2021

2 years newer

Price

~$579 vs $699

$120 cheaper

---

Advantages of Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 Di III-A RXD

Focal Length (Tele)

20mm vs 18mm

Longer zoom

Weather-Sealed

vs

Protects in difficult weather

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Sigma 10-18mm vs Tamron 11-20mm: Detailed Comparison

1. Focal Length

• Sigma 10-18mm: From 10mm to 18mm
• Tamron 11-20mm: From 11mm to 20mm
• Winner: Tie

No winner here, because both lenses are pretty similar.

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN gives you a 1mm wider view, which is beneficial for interior real estate photography and ultra-wide landscape. 10mm vs 11mm is not huge, but can make a difference.

The Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 Di III-A RXD provides a little bit more zoom, but you’re probably not buying either of these lenses because of how far they zoom.

If you’re looking for the widest, then the Sigma wins. The 10% difference won’t be a deal breaker to many, and you can use them both for landscape, astrophotography, indoor shots and traveling.

2. Maximum Aperture

• Sigma 10-18mm: Constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 at all focal lengths
• Tamron 11-20mm: Constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 at all focal lengths
• Winner: Tie

One of the major strengths of both lenses is their maximum f/2.8 aperture.

It’s what sets them apart from many other options, due to their low-light and night time possibilities. With modern cameras having great high ISO images, you’re ready for some epic low-light photography with Sigma/Tamron.

3. Dimensions & Weight

• Sigma 10-18mm: 260g
• Tamron 11-20mm: 335g
• Winner: Sigma 

Both lenses are lightweight, but the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN will often make you forget you’re carrying it around.

• Sigma 10-18mm: 62 x 76mm
• Tamron 11-20mm: 73 x 86mm
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN is slightly shorter and takes up less volume. Whenever I travel with it (either in my bag or my pocket), I never have to worry about it taking any space.

So, as far as portability goes, the Sigma is a clear winner, but the Tamron is already good enough for almost all APS-C standards.

4. Minimum Aperture

• Sigma 10-18mm: f/22
• Tamron 11-20mm: f/16
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN can stop down to f/22, which is 1 stop smaller than what the Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 Di III-A RXD can offer.

Is this a big deal?

No, but for serious landscape or time-lapse shooters, aperture f/22 is used every now and then. You do risk losing some image quality due to diffraction, and 99% photographers rarely stop below f/16. Still, it wouldn’t hurt to have a smaller aperture on the Tamron as well.

5. Minimum Focusing Distance

• Sigma 10-18mm: Minimum focusing distance of 12cm
• Tamron 11-20mm: Minimum focusing distance of 15cm
• Winner: Sigma 

Both Sigma and Tamron offer incredibly close minimum focusing distances; 12cm and 15cm respectively.

You wouldn’t normally think of ultra-wide lenses and close focusing distances, but it’s their perspective that can make your shots look absolutely amazing and unlike any other lens!

6. Weather-Sealing

• Sigma 10-18mm:
• Tamron 11-20mm:
• Winner: Tamron 

Like in most Sigma vs Tamron comparisons, the Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 Di III-A RXD features proper weather-sealing.

For casual use, all lenses can handle a normal amount of rain, snow and dust. It won’t simply stop working if a little bit of rain falls onto them. Hundreds of thousands of photographers travel with gear that isn’t completely weather-sealed.

If you do a lot of travelling in difficult weather, and have a weather-sealed camera, then having a complete combo isn’t a bad idea.

7. Image Stabilization

• Sigma 10-18mm:
• Tamron 11-20mm:
• Winner: Tie

Image stabilization helps make your images appear less blurry when shooting with slow shutter speeds.

Neither of these two lenses feature IS/VC, mainly because ultra-wide lenses simply don’t need it as much as longer ones.

For recording videos, image stabilization can also help reduce some shake and jitter, although the positive effects are more obvious when taking pictures.

8. Aperture Blades

• Sigma 10-18mm: 7 diaphragm blades
• Tamron 11-20mm: 7 diaphragm blades
• Winner: Tie

A lens with more diaphragm blades will usually produce smoother bokeh, aka background blur.

Since both have 7, their bokeh quality is average and nothing special to talk about.

9. Filter Size

• Sigma 10-18mm: 67mm filter size
• Tamron 11-20mm: 67mm filter size
• Winner: Tie

Another category where both lenses are the same.

67mm filters sit right in the middle; they’re not the cheapest, but are common enough to still be reasonably priced. It helps if all of your lenses share the same filter size so you don’t have to invest in new UV/ND filters all the time. Trust me, this adds up quickly, especially if you’re a videographer.

10. Price

• Sigma 10-18mm: ~$579
• Tamron 11-20mm: ~$699
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN is more affordable and a better value for the money. If you don’t care about better weather-sealing, then the Tamron doesn’t really give you any extra advantages to justify that price.

Sigma 10-18mm vs Tamron 11-20mm: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

It’s best to choose a lens that suits your favorite photography types, or offers you something that your current gear is not good enough for.

Photography Type	Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8	Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8
Portrait	2.5	2.5
Travel	5	5
Wildlife	1.5	2
Sport	1.5	1.5
Wedding	4	4
Street	4	4
Landscape	5	5
Macro	3.5	3.5
All-Around	4.5	5
Video	4	4

The Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 Di III-A RXD scores a little bit higher for wildlife and all-around due to its weather-sealing.

Both lenses are pretty much the same, so you won’t miss out on anything with either!

Sigma 10-18mm vs Tamron 11-20mm: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Lens Specification	Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8	Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8
Focal Length	10-18mm	11-20mm
35mm Equivalent	15-27mm	16.5-30mm
Mount	Sony, Canon, Fujifilm	Sony, Canon, Fujifilm
Maximum Aperture	f/2.8	f/2.8
Minimum Aperture	f/22	f/16
Filter Size	67 mm	67 mm
Maximum Magnification	0.25x	0.25x
Minimum Focus Distance	12 cm	15 cm
Aperture Ring	No	No
Focus Type	Autofocus	Autofocus
Motor Type	Stepper Motor	Stepper Motor
Lens Construction	13 elements in 10 groups	12 elements in 10 groups
Aperture Blades	7	7
Image Stabilization
Weather Sealing
Dimensions (mm)	72 x 62mm / 2.83″ x 2.84″	73 x 86mm / 2.87″ x 3.39″
Weight (g)	260g / 0.57lb	335g / 0.74lb
Hood Included	Yes	Yes
Released	2023	2021
Price	Amazon	Amazon

So, which lens is the better one?

Choose the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 if:

• You need the widest possible focal length (10 vs 11mm)
• You want the smallest and lighters ultra-wide zoom
• You don’t need weather-sealing and would rather save some $

Choose the Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 if:

• You care more about 20mm versus 18mm
• You need proper weather-sealing for traveling in all sorts of places

The post Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN vs Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 Di III-A RXD appeared first on Futuredly.

In this comparison, I will go through their advantages, sample images, and help you figure out which one is the overall winner for your exact needs.

If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Kodak Pixpro FZ55

Focal Length

28-140mm vs 27-108mm

32mm longer lens

Optical Zoom

5x vs 4x

Better for subjects far away

Battery

Rechargeable vs 2xAA

No need for batteries

Battery Life

200 photos vs 120 photos

40% longer battery life

Weight

106g vs 117g

9.5% lighter

Dimensions

91.5×56.5×22.9mm vs 93.0×60.2×28.7mm

Slightly smaller

---

Advantages of Kodak Pixpro FZ45

Flash Range

3.9m vs 5.2m

Brightens a bigger area

Max. Aperture

f/3.0 vs f/3.9

Better in low-light

Price

$99 vs ~$119

$20 cheaper

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Kodak FZ55 vs Kodak FZ45: Detailed Comparison

1. Optical Zoom

• Kodak FZ55: 5x optical zoom (28-140mm)
• Kodak FZ45: 4x optical zoom (27-108mm)
• Winner: FZ55 

The Kodak FZ55 offers a lot more zoom, which makes it better for subjects that are far away.

5x optical zoom is great for traveling, concerts, animals and sports.

But remember! Optical zoom is better than digital zoom!

Both cameras offer 6x digital zoom, but that’s the same as if you zoomed in the image on your phone. It degrades the image quality, and while it’s still a helpful tool, you should always pay attention to the optical zoom.

Optical zoom refers to built-in lenses that were carefully designed for a specific zoom amount (also known as the focal length).

It’s like with smartphones that nowadays feature an ultra-wide (0.5x), a normal (1x) and a telephoto (3x) zoom. Image quality will always be better if you are using those values, rather than digitally zooming in between them.

The Kodak Pixpro FZ45 still offers plenty of zoom to make it a great choice for traveling, daily casual photography, events and most scenarios.

2. Image Quality

• Kodak FZ55:
• Kodak FZ45:
• Winner: Tie

Both Kodak Pixpro cameras use the same imaging sensor with an identical amount of megapixels; 16.3MP.

Therefore, the image quality and any effect will look absolutely the same. They also have the same Digital Stabilization technology to help you get clearer images with less blur.

3. Aperture (Image Brightness)

• Kodak FZ55: Between f/3.9 and f/6.3
• Kodak FZ45: Between f/3.0 and f/6.3
• Winner: FZ45 

If you don’t know what aperture is, don’t worry. I will first explain it in simple terms, and then a little bit more “complicated”.

The aperture number basically tells you how bright your images can be when photographing in a dark environment. Like, an indoor party or a birthday event.

Both Kodak FZ55 and FZ45 will perform nearly identical in low-light, but the FZ45 can actually make your dark images appear a little bit brighter! Not enough that it would instantly justify buying it over the FZ55, but there’s still a slight difference.

See those f/3.9 and f/3.0 numbers above? The lower the number, the brighter the image. Since f/3.0 is lower than f/3.9, it means that it can make the image brighter because it brings in more light.

However, this is only true if you do not zoom in!

As soon as you use the zoom (5x or 4x), both cameras will change to an aperture size of f/6.3, so there will be no difference anymore.

So again, this slight advantage of the Kodak FZ45 is only true if you use it at its widest, default zoom. Learning how to use the aperture can help you get more professional images with a blurry background. Here’s my full aperture tutorial for beginners.

4. Dimensions & Weight

• Kodak FZ55: 106g
• Kodak FZ45: 117g
• Winner: FZ55 

There’s a very small weight difference between the FZ55 and FZ45, but the FZ55 manages to weigh 11g less. Not bad for a camera with more zoom!

• Kodak FZ55: 91.5 x 56.5 x 22.9mm
• Kodak FZ45: 93.0 x 60.2 x 28.7mm
• Winner: FZ55 

Again, the Kodak FZ55 is a tad narrower and smaller. Both cameras are extremely lightweight and great travel companions.

5. Video Recording

• Kodak FZ55: Full HD at 30fps, SD at 120fps
• Kodak FZ45: Full HD at 30fps, SD at 120fps
• Winner: Tie

The Kodak FZ55 and Kodak FZ45 can record Full HD videos at 30fps, HD videos at either 60 or 30fps, and SD at 120fps for some cool slow motion shots.

6. Battery

• Kodak FZ55: 200 photos (1h30min of video)
• Kodak FZ45: 120 photos (1 hour of video)
• Winner: FZ55

The Kodak FZ55 has a 40% longer battery life, which is a big deal if you plan on traveling a lot.

With a 200 photos battery life, this could last between an hour or a whole day, depending on how often you use it.

The Kodak Pixpro FZ45 features 2xAA batteries, so it at least helps that you can simply swap them out for new ones and get back to shooting. However, if you’re not always carrying rechargeable AA batteries with you, the cost can add up pretty quickly.

Personally, I’d recommend you to go with the Kodak FZ55 if you plan on doing a lot of photography and are trying to take this more seriously.

7. Price

• Kodak FZ55: $119
• Kodak FZ45: $99
• Winner: FZ45 

The Kodak FZ45 costs around $20 less, but both cameras are often on sale and have more similar prices. The price also depends on what color model you choose.

There are no other differences between these 2 cameras, everything else is identical.

Again, the more expensive Kodak FZ55 gets you even longer zoom, rechargeable batteries and 40% longer battery life. If you’re going to use your camera more than once a month, I’d recommend getting the Kodak FZ55.

Kodak FZ55 vs Kodak FZ45: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

Photography Type	Kodak FZ55	Kodak FZ45
Portrait	4	4
Travel	5	4.5
Wildlife	3.5	3
Sport	4	3.5
Wedding	3	3
Street	4	4
Landscape	3	3
Macro	4	4
All-Around	5	4.5
Video	4	4

Kodak FZ55 vs Kodak FZ45: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Camera Specification	Kodak Pixpro FZ55	Kodak Pixpro FZ45
Announced	2023	2024
Color
Price	Amazon	Amazon
Sensor
Megapixels	16.3 MP	16.3 MP
Sensor Size	1/2.3″	1/2.3″
Max Resolution	4608 x 3456	4608 x 3456
ISO Range	100 – 3200	100 – 3200
Boosted ISO
JPEG
RAW
Lens
Focal Length	28–140mm	27–108mm
Optical Zoom	5x	4x
Digital Zoom	6x (30x Combined)	6x (24x Combined)
Max Aperture	f/3.9–f/6.3	f/3.0–f/6.3
Manual Focus
Macro Distance	5 cm	5 cm
Screen/Viewfinder
Display Type	Fixed LCD	Fixed LCD
Screen Size	2.7 inches	2.7 inches
Resolution	230k dots	230k dots
Touch Screen
Viewfinder
Features
Max Shutter Speed	1/2000 sec	1/2000 sec
Min Shutter Speed	4 sec (Manual 30s)	4 sec (Manual 30s)
Image Stabilization	Digital	Digital
Burst Mode
Self-Timer
Built-in Flash
Flash Range	0.3-3.9m	0.3-5.2m
Timelapse Mode
GPS
Video
Video Resolution	1080p@30fps HD@60/30fps SD@120fps	1080p@30fps HD@60/30fps SD@120fps
Format	MOV	MOV
Microphone Port
Headphone Port
Physical
Weight	106 g / 3.7 oz.	117 g / 4.1 oz.
Dimensions	91.5×56.5×22.9 mm	93.0×60.2×28.7 mm
Weather-Sealed
Battery Type	Rechargeable Li-ion	2x AA Alkaline
Battery Life	200 photos 1h30min video	120 photoso 1h video
Memory Card	SD/SDHC/SDXC	SD/SDHC/SDXC
Internal Storage	63MB	63MB
USB	USB 2.0	USB 2.0
HDMI
Wireless

The post Kodak Pixpro FZ55 vs Kodak Pixpro FZ45 appeared first on Futuredly.

The Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 is almost double the price of the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8! They are both aimed at all-around photographers who want a fast f/2.8 aperture, but there’s an 8 year release gap between them, so let’s see if the newer Tamron is that much better.

In this comparison, I will go over all of their advantages and how they compare in different photography styles.

If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD

Focal Length (Tele)

70mm vs 55mm

15mm longer zoom

Filter Size

67mm vs 77mm

Smaller filters are cheaper

Max. Magnification

0.21x vs 0.16x

Better for macro photos

Min. Focus Distance

19cm vs 30cm

11cm closer min. focus

Image Stabilization

vs

Helps stabilize images

Weight

525g vs 655g

130g lighter lens

Release

2023 vs 2015

8 years newer

Price

~$699 vs ~$1100

$400 cheaper

---

Advantages of Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR

Focal Length (Wide)

16mm vs 17mm

1mm wider zoom

Aperture Ring

vs

Adjust aperture manually

Dimensions

74.6×119.3mm vs 83.3×106.0mm

11% shorter lens

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 vs Fujifilm 16-55mm: Detailed Comparison

1. Focal Length

• Tamron 17-70mm: From 17mm to 70mm
• Fujifilm 16-55mm: From 16mm to 55mm
• Winner: Tamron 

The Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR has 1mm wider zoom, and while this gives it a slight advantage in landscape and interior photography, the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 features a bigger overall zoom range.

Going from 17 to 70mm in a single twist makes it much more ideal for more types of photography. From traveling, weddings, portraits and even close sports, it’s much more capable than the 16-55m focal length of the Fuji.

Don’t get me wrong, both can be used as all-around lenses, and I’ve often traveled with ~18-50mm (or 24-70mm on full-frame) without any issues at all.

If you are looking for that 1 lens to give you as much reach as possible and rarely want to carry around anything else, the Tamron is the better option.

2. Maximum Aperture

• Tamron 17-70mm: Constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 at all focal lengths
• Fujifilm 16-55mm: Constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 at all focal lengths
• Winner: Tie

Both Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD and the Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR have a constant f/2.8 aperture, which is great news for shooting in low light or less than ideal lighting conditions.

You can always select a smaller aperture, but f/2.8 is also great for blurring the background. This is useful for weddings, portraits, animals and macro photography.

3. Dimensions & Weight

• Tamron 17-70mm: 525g
• Fujifilm 16-55mm: 655g
• Winner: Tamron 

The Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD is 20% lighter (130g) than the Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR.

It may not sound like a lot, but you’ll definitely notice it when traveling with an extra lens. Even though both Fuji and Tamron were designed for APS-C systems, the 8 years newer Tamron manages to shed a lot more weight, despite its longer zoom.

• Tamron 17-70mm: 74.6×119.3mm
• Fujifilm 16-55mm: 83.3 x 106.0mm
• Winner: Fujifilm 

The Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 is 10% shorter in length, but they’re both pretty much the same in size. The Fuji is shorter but wider, and so the overall volume is nearly identical.

If you want an f/2.8 zoom that weighs almost half as much, check out my comparison versus the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN.

4. Minimum Aperture

• Tamron 17-70mm: f/16
• Fujifilm 16-55mm: f/16
• Winner: Tie

Both lenses can stop down to aperture f/16, which is acceptable but nothing special.

Personally, I almost never go smaller than f/16, especially because of diffraction which can reduce image quality. You can see more about this in my aperture tutorial.

5. Minimum Focusing Distance

• Tamron 17-70mm: 19cm at 18mm
• Fujifilm 16-55mm: 30cm at 16mm
• Winner: Tamron 

The Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 can focus on a subject that’s merely 19cm away from the camera!

Compare that to the Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 that won’t focus on anything further than 30cm. It’s not bad, but for close-up photography, macro, flowers and food, it might be a bit too short sometimes.

Remember, these distances are measured from your camera’s sensor and not from the front of the lens.

6. Weather-Sealing

• Tamron 17-70mm:
• Fujifilm 16-55mm:
• Winner: Tie

For casual use, all lenses can handle a normal amount of rain, snow and dust. They won’t dissolve when a little bit of water hits them.

Luckily, both Tamron and Fuji lenses are completely weather-sealed and ready to shoot in challenging weather situations. If you often travel and feel stressed about your gear, you’ll want a lens that is well protected.

7. Image Stabilization

• Tamron 17-70mm:
• Fujifilm 16-55mm:
• Winner: Tamron

Image stabilization helps make your images appear less blurry when shooting with slow shutter speeds.

The Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 has stabilization built-in (VC in its name stands for Vibration Reduction). This is excellent news if you’re shooting with a Fuji camera that doesn’t have any in-body stabilization.

VC/IS won’t help freeze moving subjects, it will only help correct your unwanted movement when taking a picture.

8. Aperture Blades

• Tamron 17-70mm: 9 rounded diaphragm blades
• Fujifilm 16-55mm: 9 rounded diaphragm blades
• Winner: Fujifilm 

Both lenses feature a 9 diaphragm aperture design, with rounded blades.

Bokeh looks smooth and overall not distracting, making them good for portrait and product photography.

9. Filter Size

• Tamron 17-70mm: 67m filter size
• Fujifilm 16-55mm: 77mm filter size
• Winner: Tamron 

The Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD accepts 67mm filters. They’re right in the middle as far as pricing and availability goes.

For the Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR, you’ll need to buy 77mm filters. These are a lot more expensive, but still common in most photography stores.

10. Price

• Tamron 17-70mm: ~$699
• Fujifilm 16-55mm: ~$1100
• Winner: Tamron 

The Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 costs around $400 more than the Tamron 17-70mm.

What does the higher price tag give you? 1mm wider reach and a classic Fujifilm look with an aperture ring, which the Tamron doesn’t have.

If Fujifilm is planning on announcing new lenses, I can guarantee you that an updated 16-55mm f/2.8 will be one of them. There’s too much competition out there, with better features and lower prices.

Tamron 17-70mm vs Fujifilm 16-55mm: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

It’s best to choose a lens that suits your favorite photography types, or offers you something that your current gear is not good enough for.

Photography Type	Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8	Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8
Portrait	4.5	4
Travel	5	5
Wildlife	3.5	3
Sport	4	3.5
Wedding	4	4
Street	4	4
Landscape	4	4.5
Macro	3	2
All-Around	5	5
Video	4	4

Tamron 17-70mm vs Fujifilm 16-55mm: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Lens Specification	Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8	Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8
Focal Length	17-70mm	16-55mm
35mm Equivalent	25.5-105mm	24-83mm
Mount	Fujifilm X (APS-C)	Fujifilm X (APS-C)
Maximum Aperture	f/2.8	f/2.8
Minimum Aperture	f/16	f/16
Filter Size	67 mm	77 mm
Maximum Magnification	0.21x	0.16x
Minimum Focus Distance	19 cm	30 cm
Aperture Ring	No	Yes
Focus Type	Autofocus	Autofocus
Motor Type	Stepper Motor	Linear Motor
Lens Construction	16 elements in 12 groups	17 elements in 12 groups
Aperture Blades	9 (rounded)	9 (rounded)
Image Stabilization
Weather Sealing
Dimensions (mm)	74.6 x 119.3mm	83.3 x 106.0mm
Weight (g)	525g	655g
Hood Included	No	Yes
Released	2023	2015
Price	Amazon	Amazon

So, which lens is the better one?

Choose the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 if:

• You want more telephoto zoom for travel/portraits/sports
• You often do macro and close-up photography
• Your camera doesn’t have built-in stabilization
• You want a 130g lighter lens
• You want to pay around $400 lens, and save on filter prices

Choose the Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 if:

• You want a 1mm wider focal length
• You want an aperture ring with the usual Fuji rotation

The clear winner is Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD.

It packs in way more features for way less money. Win-win!

The post Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD vs Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR appeared first on Futuredly.

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN’s biggest strength is the big bright f/2.8 aperture, making it ideal for any light scenario.

The Sony 18-135mm on the other hand has a lot more zoom and features image stabilization, which helps if your mirrorless camera doesn’t have any built-in.

In this comparison, I will also go over how they both compare at different photography types, along with a detailed table of their most important features. If you’re in a hurry, the advantages below are all you need to make the final decision.

Advantages of Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN

Max Aperture

f/2.8 vs f/3.5-5.6

Brings in more light

Max. Magnification

0.36x vs 0.29x

Better for macro photos

Min. Focus Distance

12.1cm vs 45cm

33cm closer min focus

Dimensions

65.4×74.5mm vs 67.2x88mm

Slightly shorter lens

Weight

290g vs 325g

35g lighter lens

Release

2021 vs 2018

3 years newer

Price

~$549 vs $649

$100 cheaper

---

Advantages of Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS

Focal Length (Tele)

135mm vs 50mm

85mm longer zoom

Min. Aperture

f/22-36 vs f/22

Greater depth of field

Image Stabilization

vs

Helps stabilize images

Hood

vs

Includes a lens hood

Now, let’s see which features and advantages are actually important for your specific needs and which ones only sound good on paper.

Sigma 18-50mm vs Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6: Detailed Comparison

1. Focal Length

• Sigma 18-50mm: From 17mm to 70mm
• Sony 18-135mm: From 18mm to 135mm
• Winner: Sony

The Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS offers an incredible reach, from wide angle 18mm up to 135mm which is quite well in the telephoto range.

It’s truly an all-in-one lens for traveling and daily photography. Going from 18 to 135mm in a single twist saves you a lot of time, especially if your subject is moving all over the place.

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN is also a great all-around option, but won’t be that good for sports or activities further away. I use it as my go to travel lens when I want to stay compact, but often miss the luxury of having more reach. That’s why I carry 2 lenses, and this depends on your traveling style.

2. Maximum Aperture

• Sigma 18-50mm: Constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 at all focal lengths
• Sony 18-135mm: Variable aperture; f/3.5 at 18mm and f/5.6 at 135mm
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN is a clear winner here, as it lets in a lot more light.

It’s perfect for low light and night time photography, whereas the Sony 18-135mm lets in between 1/2 – 2 stops less light. That’s the difference between being able to shoot at 1/125 (with the Sigma) or 1/30 (with the Sony) in identical conditions!

Here’s the deal.

If you buy the Sony 18-135mm, you’ll most likely have to get yourself a prime lens with a very big aperture.

Why?

Because you’ll need something for those low light situations. It could be a birthday party, or shooting in the evening. The difference between f/2.8 and f/5.6 is huge.

A big aperture also makes the background appear blurry, which is often considered more “professional”. It’s great for portraits, animals and food photography.

3. Dimensions & Weight

• Sigma 18-50mm: 290g
• Sony 18-135mm: 325g
• Winner: Sigma 

The weight difference between these two lenses is minimal, as you’ll be hard to tell which one is 30g lighter.

Both are extremely lightweight and great travel companions.

• Sigma 18-50mm: 65.4 x 74.5mm
• Sony 18-135mm: 67.2 x 88mm
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN is 15% shorter and takes up a little bit less volume.

Still, I wouldn’t choose between these two lenses based on their dimensions and weight. It hardly gets better than this!

4. Minimum Aperture

• Sigma 18-50mm: f/22
• Sony 18-135mm: f/22-36
• Winner: Sony

The Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS can stop down up to f/22 and f/36 at 135mm.

Therefore, the Sony lens can achieve a greater depth of field than the Sigma 18-50mm, but only between 50-135mm.

To be honest, f/16 is good enough for 90% photographers. For certain landscape or time lapse uses, having the ability to stop all the way down to f/36 (1.5 stops smaller than f/22) could be beneficial.

Personally, I wouldn’t worry too much about this difference.

5. Minimum Focusing Distance

• Sigma 18-50mm: Minimum focusing distance of 12.1cm
• Sony 18-135mm: Minimum focusing distance of 45cm
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN has one of the closest focusing distances of all lenses on the market! With 12.1cm, it’s way better than 45cm of the Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS.

This makes it ideal for close-up photography, products, flowers, bugs, details, etc.

A shorter minimum focusing distance allows you to get much closer to your subject. Remember, these distances are measured from your camera’s sensor and not from the front of the lens.

Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS can “only” focus at 45cm or further, which is still okay but far from anything special. Basically, if a flower is closer than 45cm, you won’t be able to take a picture of it.

6. Weather-Sealing

• Sigma 18-50mm:
• Sony 18-135mm:
• Winner: Tie

Neither of these two lenses feature any weather-sealing.

That’s why they are both so compact and relatively affordable.

For casual use, all lenses can handle a normal amount of rain, snow and dust. It won’t simply stop working if a little bit of rain falls onto them. Hundreds of thousands of photographers travel with gear that isn’t completely weather-sealed.

7. Image Stabilization

• Sigma 18-50mm:
• Sony 18-135mm:
• Winner: Sony

Image stabilization helps make your images appear less blurry when shooting with slow shutter speeds.

The Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS has Optical SteadyShot (aka stabilization) which is super handy if you’re shooting with a Sony mirrorless camera that doesn’t have built-in stabilization. If you’re using the Sony A6500 or anything newer, then you have nothing to worry about.

For recording videos, image stabilization can also help reduce some shake and jitter, although the positive effects are more obvious when taking pictures.

8. Aperture Blades

• Sigma 18-50mm: 7 rounded diaphragm blades
• Sony 18-135mm: 7 rounded diaphragm blades
• Winner: Tie

A lens with more diaphragm blades will usually produce smoother bokeh, aka background blur.

Since both have 7, their bokeh quality is average and nothing special to talk about.

9. Filter Size

• Sigma 18-50mm: 55mm filter size
• Sony 18-135mm: 55mm filter size
• Winner: Sony

Another category where both lenses have an identical feature.

55mm lens filters are very cheap and easy to find, so you won’t be breaking the bank here. For traveling, it’s always wise to have a filter attached, just to make sure you won’t break the front element of the lens.

10. Price

• Sigma 18-50mm: ~$549
• Sony 18-135mm: ~$649
• Winner: Sigma 

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN costs around $100 less, but there are many online deals for both.

Sigma 18-50mm vs Sony 18-135mm: Photography Type

From 1 being the worst, 5 being the best.

It’s best to choose a lens that suits your favorite photography types, or offers you something that your current gear is not good enough for.

Photography Type	Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN	Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS
Portrait	4	3
Travel	5	5
Wildlife	3	3
Sport	4	3.5
Wedding	4	2.5
Street	4	3
Landscape	4	4
Macro	4	2.5
All-Around	4.5	5
Video	4	4.5

Sigma 18-50mm vs Sony 18-135mm: Comparison Table

Better specifications are highlighted in green.

Lens Specification	Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8	Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Focal Length	18-50mm	18-135mm
35mm Equivalent	27-75mm	27-202.5mm
Mount	Sony E (APS-C)	Sony E (APS-C)
Maximum Aperture	f/2.8	f/3.5-5.6
Minimum Aperture	f/22	f/22-36
Filter Size	55 mm	55 mm
Maximum Magnification	0.36x	0.29x
Minimum Focus Distance	12.1 cm	45 cm
Aperture Ring	No	No
Focus Type	Autofocus	Autofocus
Motor Type	Stepper Motor	Linear Motor
Lens Construction	13 elements in 10 groups	16 elements in 12 groups
Aperture Blades	7 (rounded)	7 (rounded)
Image Stabilization
Weather Sealing
Dimensions (mm)	65.4 x 74.5mm / 2.57″ x 2.93″	67.2 x 88mm
Weight (g)	290g / 0.64lb	325g
Hood Included	No	Yes
Released	2021	2018
Price	Amazon	Amazon

So, which lens is the better one?

Choose the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 if:

• You often shoot in low light (indoors, night time, weddings)
• You often shoot portraits and want more background blur
• You want to try some macro and close-up photography

Choose the Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 if:

• You want 1 lens with so much zoom it can handle any situation
• You want an all-around travel lens that is very lightweight and compact
• You rarely shoot in low light, or are okay with buying an extra prime lens

The post Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN vs Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS appeared first on Futuredly.