Remember my 2013 favourites? They included two Sephora Pro brushes (#28 and #56), and I've received quite a few questions about them and how they compare to earlier favourites/staples in the *cough* month since that post. Belatedly, some snaps:
![Sephora Pro #28 Cream Shadow brush vs. MAC 217 (old version) vs. Hakuhodo J5523]()
![Sephora Pro #28 Cream Shadow brush vs. MAC 217 (old version) vs. Hakuhodo J5523 closeup]()
The cross-section really illustrates that the Sephora #28 and old MAC 217 are similar in size and share a tapered lozenge shape; in contrast the J5523 has a far more diffuse and rounded 'bullet' head. The #28 is slightly denser and offers a tad more control (and resistance) than the 217 owing to its shorter hairs, and it's synthetic which means easy cleaning and fast drying.
![Sephora Pro #28 Cream Shadow brush vs. MAC 217 (old version) vs. Hakuhodo J5523 head cross-section]()
If the 217 you love and get use out of is the larger, looser kind, or if you prefer to use it as a blender for powder shadows, I don't think you'll find the Sephora #28 a 'dupe'; for me it's a perfect functional replacement that offers a slight improvement over its predecessor.
Sephora Pro Flawless Airbrush #56 vs. Illamasqua Highlighter vs. Real Techniques Expert Face
As most of my blushes are creams, and I like to switch between (usually obnoxiously bright) colours daily, the Illamasqua Highlighter brushes are some of the most heavily used and frequently washed ones in my stash. I rotate between three but even so, all three are looking a bit ratty / patchy and holding onto product in small but decided clumps now; I estimate about 1.5 years of daily use per brush before compromised performance. This might be good in the grand scheme of fluffy things, but as the MAC, Shu and Stila brushes I bought as a teen are still going strong, any brush with a lifespan of under a decade is a disappointment. :P
I bought the Sephora #56 on the advice of MUAer and blog-commentator Julia (<3 hi, J!) and so far am thrilled with its dense fluffiness and the ease with which it evenly blends and builds formulas as different as Face Stockholm jellies and crellies, Chicca'balm stain' Flush Blushes and liquid Addiction Cheek Polishes, without leaving streaks, dragging on my skin, or disturbing any base products underneath. In overall size, the #56 is fairly similar to the Illa Highlighter, but in shape, softness, and feel it has more in common with the larger Real Techniques Expert Face Brush.![Sephora Pro Flawless Airbrush #56 vs. Illamasqua Highlighter vs. Real Techniques Expert Face]()
![Sephora Pro Flawless Airbrush #56 vs. Illamasqua Highlighter vs. Real Techniques Expert Face closeup]()
![Sephora Pro Flawless Airbrush #56 vs. Illamasqua Highlighter vs. Real Techniques Expert Face cross-section heads]()
![]()
After washing the J5522 loosens and fluffs up a great deal, to double the size of the Tom Ford #13. Its head also comes to a sharper point than TF's rounded profile.
![]()
The J5522 is less densely packed -- while its ferule has a circumference only slightly wider than the TF #13's, its cross section is twice the size. This brush flares out a great deal before tapering back into a sharper point, so in practice when placed on the skin you're working with fewer hairs, of more drastically different lengths, at every point; the Tom Ford 13 in contrast offers far more control, with more hairs of a similar length packed into each area.
![]()
Sephora Pro #28 Cream Shadow brush vs. MAC 217 (old version) vs. Hakuhodo J5523
I mentioned that the Sephora #28 was the functional replacement of my heading-for-its-teens MAC 217 and I hope these pictures will make me look less crazy show you why. My MAC 217 is the older, smaller, denser (see how 'tight' its shape remains even after a decade of regular use?) version (click through for its differences from the newer version) and I mainly use it for cream shadows -- both laydown and blending. The Hakuhodo J5523, which I'd often heard touted as a 'dupe' for the 217, isn't, for my needs; it's more similar in size/shape to the new MAC 217 (though softer and less prone to splaying) and too loosely packed to play well with creams.
The cross-section really illustrates that the Sephora #28 and old MAC 217 are similar in size and share a tapered lozenge shape; in contrast the J5523 has a far more diffuse and rounded 'bullet' head. The #28 is slightly denser and offers a tad more control (and resistance) than the 217 owing to its shorter hairs, and it's synthetic which means easy cleaning and fast drying.
If the 217 you love and get use out of is the larger, looser kind, or if you prefer to use it as a blender for powder shadows, I don't think you'll find the Sephora #28 a 'dupe'; for me it's a perfect functional replacement that offers a slight improvement over its predecessor.
Sephora Pro Flawless Airbrush #56 vs. Illamasqua Highlighter vs. Real Techniques Expert Face
As most of my blushes are creams, and I like to switch between (usually obnoxiously bright) colours daily, the Illamasqua Highlighter brushes are some of the most heavily used and frequently washed ones in my stash. I rotate between three but even so, all three are looking a bit ratty / patchy and holding onto product in small but decided clumps now; I estimate about 1.5 years of daily use per brush before compromised performance. This might be good in the grand scheme of fluffy things, but as the MAC, Shu and Stila brushes I bought as a teen are still going strong, any brush with a lifespan of under a decade is a disappointment. :P
I bought the Sephora #56 on the advice of MUAer and blog-commentator Julia (<3 hi, J!) and so far am thrilled with its dense fluffiness and the ease with which it evenly blends and builds formulas as different as Face Stockholm jellies and crellies, Chicca'balm stain' Flush Blushes and liquid Addiction Cheek Polishes, without leaving streaks, dragging on my skin, or disturbing any base products underneath. In overall size, the #56 is fairly similar to the Illa Highlighter, but in shape, softness, and feel it has more in common with the larger Real Techniques Expert Face Brush.
The Sephora #56 has about the same volume as the Illa Highlighter in cross-section -- it's what you'd get if you 'squished' the round Illamasqua down into an oblong -- but it contains more (and finer) synthetic hairs, so is both denser, softer and more 'contained'. The Real Techniques EFB hairs, although very similar in feel to the Sephora ones, are a little thicker and more loosely packed.
Tom Ford #13 Eyeshadow Blend Brush vs. Hakuhodo J5522
As a postscript, here's the Tom Ford #13 Eyeshadow Blend Brush, my favourite of 2012, with its rumoured Hakuhodo 'dupe', the J5522. Although both are tapered soft goat hair brushes (and Hakuhodo manufactures TF brushes) with round ferrules, I find them quite different in practice.
After washing the J5522 loosens and fluffs up a great deal, to double the size of the Tom Ford #13. Its head also comes to a sharper point than TF's rounded profile.
The J5522 is less densely packed -- while its ferule has a circumference only slightly wider than the TF #13's, its cross section is twice the size. This brush flares out a great deal before tapering back into a sharper point, so in practice when placed on the skin you're working with fewer hairs, of more drastically different lengths, at every point; the Tom Ford 13 in contrast offers far more control, with more hairs of a similar length packed into each area.
