I only have the Sigma 18-50 (and A6600). I think it's excellent; compact, light and very good quality. Swapping to mirrorless, I did wonder about losing a couple of mm - but I don't seem to have missed it too much. But I also bought a pretty cheap Rokinon 12mm for the times when I do want something wider. That is also so light and compact, that I just put it in my jacket pocket, or in the bottom of my camera bag. I looked at the Sony 16-55, and also the Tamron 17-70 in store. But they just felt so much bigger and heavier - and the main benefit of the small mirrorless cameras is their portability.Guys, looking for some advise / inspiration. Loving my new first foray into Sony with my little A6700 and my trio of lenses (15mm F1.4, 10-20 F4 PZ and 18-135 F3.5-5.6). Whilst I told myself I only got the Sony as a walkabout and vacation camera, I'm loving using it so much, that I'm considering investing in a faster standard zoom. I don't want to spend an absolute fortune as my Nikon Z9 / Z8 system is still my go to system for anything other that when small and light is the order of the day.
Apparently two lenses keep cropping up. They being the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and the Sony E 16-55 F2.8 G. I do like the compactness and lightness of the Sigma, and it seems optically to be reported as very good indeed. Trouble is it only starts from 18mm (27mm effective), and I do like a 24mm effective (16mm APS-C) lens, and the Sony lens also goes a little longer to 55mm (82.5mm) vs 50mm (75mm) on the Sigma. Whilst it seems this is a very highly regraded lens from what I've seen on the web, it's obviously much larger and heavier than the Sigma.
I only ideally want to buy once, so need to get this right. What are people's thoughts please - does compactness and weight of the Sigma trump focal length advantages on the bigger / heavier Sony ?
Given that you have the 10-20, how often will you 'need' f2.8 at 16mm anyway? I find I use it more at the 50mm end.
You'll probably miss the 50-135 more than the 16-18.











