December 19, 2014, 06:12:20 AM

Author Topic: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed  (Read 13459 times)

Canon Rumors

  • Administrator
  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
    • View Profile
    • Canon Rumors
DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 17, 2013, 03:43:54 PM »

From DXOMark

The folks at DXOMark have completed their review and testing of the new Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Art series zoom lens.


Says DXOMark

“Given its popularity, Canon has been slow to replace the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM, and it has provided rival Sigma with the opportunity to gain some leverage in this highly competitive sector. Sigma are sure to be rewarded as it’s not only a superb performer optically, at $899 it comfortably undercuts the Canon and is well worth taking a closer look.”


Read the full review | Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS at B&H Photo


cr


canonrumors.com

canon rumors FORUM

DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 17, 2013, 03:43:54 PM »

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2013, 03:50:47 PM »
Interesting.

Seems a bit discording with the major voice claiming a "as good as but not really better".

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1405
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2013, 04:37:57 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4056
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2013, 04:45:30 PM »
Granted I haven't used it, but count me dubious based upon sample shots and other comments and MTF charts.

DxO has also said stuff like the 70-200 2.8 IS II is the worst 200mm f/2.8 performer of all the 70-200s. That the 16-35mm is sharpest at FF edges right near wide open. That the 70-300 IS non-L is better than the 70-300L and maybe even than the 300 f/4 prime.

They also love overall ratings and for a lens the rating is based upon the focal length and aperture of peak performance, but what the heck way is that to rate a lens overall?

But I supposed it might not hurt for people to give this lens a chance. Although it costs barely less than a 24-70 f/4 IS (on sale) and weighs a lot more and is a lot larger. Heck, it's larger and heavier than the 24-70 f/2.8 II! And it costs more than what you can get the 24-105L for.

cliffwang

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2013, 07:36:25 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.
+1
That's what I thought.  When you can get Canon 24-105 for 600 bulks easily, I don't really see why Canon users need to get Sigma 24-105.
Canon 5D3 | Samyang 14mm F/2.8 | Sigma 50mm F/1.4 | Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC | Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro L | Canon Closed-up 500D | 430EX | Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 | Manfrotto Tripod

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3289
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2013, 08:33:21 PM »
The "T-Stop" difference is significant. Canon 24-105L f/4 is really f/5.1 whereas the Sigma is f/4.2.

What does that mean?

If the correct exposure for a scene is 1/60 at f/4 then with the Canon lens you'd need to have the shutter run at 1/35 whereas the Sigma would only require 1/53.

Sharpness: Sigma is better (sharper)
Distortion: Sigma is better (less)
Transmission: Sigma is better (more light gets through)
Vignetting: Canon is better (no vignetting at the long end)
Chromatic aberration: Canon is better
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 08:38:56 PM by dilbert »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3289
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2013, 08:39:53 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

Canon's MSRP for the lens is $1149.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2013, 08:39:53 PM »

David Hull

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2013, 09:02:15 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

Canon's MSRP for the lens is $1149.

That is somewhat irrelevant since that is not what people are paying for it.  The question would be what is the actual street cost of the two lenses.

Jamesy

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2013, 10:17:01 PM »
Sigma are doing a great job with their new line of glass - I wonder if there has been a significant shift in their strategic direction or if they have a new heavy hitter in the Engineering department.

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2013, 10:51:39 PM »
I wonder if this lens is really aimed at Nikon users.

As others have said, for Canon users this may be a nice lens, but it's not an "must have." The street price of the 24-105 "L" is less. Just about every full frame Canon user who would want this lens already has the Canon version. There are currently more than 500 in stock on the Canon refurbished store (selling for more than the street price of a new "white box" version).

Basically, the market is flooded already, so I wonder if Sigma may have made a mistake with this lens unless they are just targeting Nikon users.

I admire what Sigma has been doing lately and I appreciate the competition from third party manufacturers, but I'm scratching my head over this one. It runs contrary to most other recent releases from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina – where they have either been focusing on giving consumers choices that Canon and Nikon don't offer or they've been undercutting Canon and Nikon on price with staples like the 70-200 f2.8.

pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3289
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2013, 10:54:34 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

Canon's MSRP for the lens is $1149.

That is somewhat irrelevant since that is not what people are paying for it.  The question would be what is the actual street cost of the two lenses.

People are comparing Sigma's MSRP with Canon's street price. That seems hardly fair. A proper comparison should be between equivalent prices, so either both MSRPs or both street. If the Sigma lens is able to sustain good sales at or close to its MSRP then that's not a bad thing.

Jamesy

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2013, 11:10:15 PM »
I wonder if this lens is really aimed at Nikon users.

This makes a lot of sense - however they already have a 24-120 F4, although I am not sure how well regarded it is.

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1405
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2013, 11:25:51 PM »
People are comparing Sigma's MSRP with Canon's street price. That seems hardly fair. A proper comparison should be between equivalent prices, so either both MSRPs or both street. If the Sigma lens is able to sustain good sales at or close to its MSRP then that's not a bad thing.

It is fair because that the order price is the MSRP for the Sigma RIGHT NOW, at the same instant in time.  If I want to buy a Canon 24-105, I could have gotten one new for about 600.  If I want a to order a new Sigma, it'd cost me about 900.  Perhaps the Sigma's price will fall 100 in a 200 in a year and the Canon will remain at 600.  If so, then that is a comparison for next year.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2013, 11:25:51 PM »

David Hull

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2013, 11:45:47 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

Canon's MSRP for the lens is $1149.

That is somewhat irrelevant since that is not what people are paying for it.  The question would be what is the actual street cost of the two lenses.

People are comparing Sigma's MSRP with Canon's street price. That seems hardly fair. A proper comparison should be between equivalent prices, so either both MSRPs or both street. If the Sigma lens is able to sustain good sales at or close to its MSRP then that's not a bad thing.
The only thing that matters is what you can get it for.  If the Canon is selling at $700 and the Sigma is selling at $850 that is the comparison, period.

Frage

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2013, 05:32:13 AM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

Canon's MSRP for the lens is $1149.

That is somewhat irrelevant since that is not what people are paying for it.  The question would be what is the actual street cost of the two lenses.
That is somewhat relevant since not the entire world is living in the countries where the street price is the mentioned above.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2013, 05:32:13 AM »