Have to agree with Neuro.It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.
My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.
Sharpness is probably one of the things that Sigma is going to bring to the table.. And lots of it.
$500 for a Canon 24-105?? not for all of us!
If sigma bring more sharpness (and for a walk around I think the Canon 24-105 is fantastic as it is) to the table then it will be a real winner.
I'm wondering why Sigma would go head to head with that lens though? wouldn't the 50 1.4/2 be more obvious? unless they maybe they see it as a near future gap in the market.
They already did their 50 1.4
So no need for Canon to upgrade any of their 50's either then, I think a fair few peps are looking for a new 50 art from Sig no?
Oh there has been a need for Canon to update their 50 1.4 since it came out. It uses a flawed AF design, not just bad but a literal design flaw. It's crzy they have not fixed it for all these years and just come out with a real USM version. They unique clutched micro USM AF it uses is terrible, the clutch breaks if you so much as think about it hah and the AF motor is very low precision, way too low for f/1.4.
Hmm I missed reading about the sigma 1.4 art, I guess they are coming out with a new one. Is it just updated to Art or completely new?