I'm more dissapointed with the photographer than with the lens at this point. I think they did a very poor job at showing what the lens can and cannot do. I agree with the sceptics here though, that it does not look very promising. But I'll wait for someone like TDP to produce a more thorough review.
April 19, 2014, 04:08:39 AM
Topic: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Sample Images (Read 6736 times)
Eldar
- 1D X
-
- Posts: 1001
-
Logged
5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L II, 70-300/4-5.6L, 200-400/4L 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Sigma 35/1.4, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, 600/4L II
infared
- 5D Mark III
-
- Posts: 741
- Kodak Brownie!
-
Oh boy....this does not look too exciting. the CA looks really bad (red box photo)...and the sharpness/micro contrast definitely has no WOW-Factor from what I can see in these images....that is for sure! (This preliminary set of images has more of an impression of the "Old Sigma").............makes my 24-70mm f/2.8 II as though it is worth the coin I dearly paid for it.
Logged
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....
Albi86
- 1D Mark IV
- Posts: 819
-
Oh boy....this does not look too exciting. the CA looks really bad (red box photo)...and the sharpness/micro contrast definitely has no WOW-Factor from what I can see in these images....that is for sure! (This preliminary set of images has more of an impression of the "Old Sigma").............makes my 24-70mm f/2.8 II as though it is worth the coin I dearly paid for it.
My screen at work is not the best, but I didn't spot such terrible CA. Are you talking about the red post box?
Logged
Zv
- 1D X
-
- Posts: 1036
-
Is it just me or do the images look blurry? I'm viewing them on my iPad and they look kinda garbage. The shots themselves are not very interesting, maybe that doesn't help. I was expecting more. I'll have a proper look on my monitor at home.
Logged
5D II | 7D | EOS M + 22 f2 | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50 f/1.4
traveller
- 5D Mark III
- Posts: 630
-
I have to agree with the opinion of the majority, this Sigma's IQ seems pretty similar to the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS; where is Sigma's value proposition? Perhaps they're targeting Pentax or Sony users, because I can't see why anyone with a Canon or Nikon would choose this lens. Either this is a poor copy, or I foresee heavy discounting...
Logged
infared
- 5D Mark III
-
- Posts: 741
- Kodak Brownie!
-
Oh boy....this does not look too exciting. the CA looks really bad (red box photo)...and the sharpness/micro contrast definitely has no WOW-Factor from what I can see in these images....that is for sure! (This preliminary set of images has more of an impression of the "Old Sigma").............makes my 24-70mm f/2.8 II as though it is worth the coin I dearly paid for it.
My screen at work is not the best, but I didn't spot such terrible CA. Are you talking about the red post box?
Yes...zoom in on the white lettering POCZTA on the left side of the box...I am looking on an iPad...I will have to check this out on my iMac later...but in general...there is no WOW factor with this lens....it has to have that or it won't sell....just buy the Canon otherwise...it's as good or better and less expensive. Simple.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 06:19:24 AM by infared »
Logged
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....
canon rumors FORUM
LetTheRightLensIn
- 1D X
- Posts: 2987
-
Not impressed! I only looked at the 24mm since that has been the rough spot for almost all of these types of zooms. When I see it I think 24-105 and that's not good.
My 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS both annihilate what I see here at 24mm. The 24-70 f/4 IS may cost a little more but it sure as heck seems worth it to me going by these samples (of course it is true that many early samples, for whatever reason, turn to be taken by those who can't get anything sharp out of lens). If you get one of those $1000-1025 deals for the 24-70 f/4 IS I'd sure spend the extra $100-125 over what I see here. Or save some hundreds and grab a nice $600 new split kit 24-105L.
My 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS both annihilate what I see here at 24mm. The 24-70 f/4 IS may cost a little more but it sure as heck seems worth it to me going by these samples (of course it is true that many early samples, for whatever reason, turn to be taken by those who can't get anything sharp out of lens). If you get one of those $1000-1025 deals for the 24-70 f/4 IS I'd sure spend the extra $100-125 over what I see here. Or save some hundreds and grab a nice $600 new split kit 24-105L.
Logged
LetTheRightLensIn
- 1D X
- Posts: 2987
-
The shots look nice but just as I thought, I'm not bowled over. In this one for example...
http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig24-105OS/sig24-105_fot25.JPG
This is f/5.6? I am almost thinking my Canon 24-105 is sharper. Certainly the Canon looks to have a bit more barrel distortion, but I knew that was going to be the case. It's possible the Sigma has less CA than the Canon, but as for ultimate resolution...I'm glad I bought the Canon. Again though, I like Sigma's products in general. I don't think this particular lens is as good a value as many of Sigma's other lenses, however...at least based on these samples.
Yeah and even at f/8 it's mostly mush at the edges never mind corners at 24mm for sure. It doesn't look remotely close to what the new standard zooms from Canon can do or even the Tamron 24-70 VC for that matter. And yet it is actually larger and heavier than all of them, other than maybe the Tamron and some of these others are f/2.8!
Logged