DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed

[unfocused]

Or in other words, anyone that paid anything close to the MSRP when it was originally released has been screwed over and that this lens was never worth the investment when it was first released.

Says a lot for Canon "L" quality, doesn't it?

Doesn't say anything about Canon "L" quality. It just says early adopters pay a price premium for the privilege of being the first to own anything. If you want to turn this into some sort of bizarre argument over Canon quality, be my guest. But think about this:

The "white box" lenses are coming from 5DIII and 6D kits (probably more from the 5D). In order to turn a profit, they have to set a price for the split kit body-only and the lens-only that will allow them to recover their initial investment and make some money. Every dollar in value they take from one is a dollar in value they have to add to the other. So, if the lens is deeply discounted that leaves less room to discount the camera.

A fair way to look at this is to say that Canon Cameras are highly valued on the street and can command a higher price, so that allows the sellers to offer the lens at a lower price. So, I guess this is just more proof that all the b.s. about the inferiority of Canon's bodies is just that: b.s.

[unfocused]

I am not sure that Sigma is really marketing this lens toward Canon users.  I think Nikon users will be more interested.  There just does not seem to be a significant difference between the Canon and Sigma 24-105.  Nikon, on the other hand, does not have anything with these focal lengths.

I don't follow Nikon prices as closely as Canon (no reason to), but I did notice on NikonPriceWatch that the closest Nikon equivalent is more expensive, so this could be an attractive lens for Nikon shooters from a price point as well.

[Random Orbits]

Well, if the box the worth $500 to you, then get it for 1149.  It isn't to me.  And good luck selling a Canon 24-105 that you would buy for 1149 for anything close to that amount.

Or in other words, anyone that paid anything close to the MSRP when it was originally released has been screwed over and that this lens was never worth the investment when it was first released.

Says a lot for Canon "L" quality, doesn't it?

LOL, good luck selling the Sigma 24-105 for 900 in a couple years.  The S35 came out at 900 and is now discounted to less than 800.  That says something about Sigma quality too, doesn't it?

The 5DIII came out at 3500, and the 24-70 II came out at 2300.  Early purchases pay a premium.  Kit lenses face even more pricing pressure, so what is your point?  The IQ of the S35 is better than the 35L and sells for less, so it is a good value.  The Sigma 24-105, whose IQ is slightly better but sells for more, is not the value winner that the S35 is. 

[Zv]

The t-stop of 5.1 for the Canon 24-105 is a bit of a shocker to me.  tsk tsk Canon!

So basically the Sigma is about the same price and about the same sharpness, but half a stop brighter.

Not surprising since it has a bigger front end! Why is that a shocker?

An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway. It has IS that easily makes up for it. Good for Sigma though for improving on the design. However that seems to have come at a price - added bulk.

Separate note. Even though I buy in yen I always write prices in USD here on this forum because that's what most people understand. It doesn't bother me. Keeps things standardized. But the point is when we convert we all get funky numbers. I think when quoting a street price we should just use amazon.com or something.

[Zlyden]

Hmmm.... two more points:

1) Why everyone here thinks that Sigma's MSRP is lower than Canon's?

It's NOT: Sigma's 24-105 official MSRP is $1260.

See: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-art


2) Why would Sigma make a lens that targets only Nikon users, while it perfectly knows that more than half of DSLR market are Canon users?

[Sporgon]

2) Why would Sigma make a lens that targets only Nikon users, while it perfectly knows that more than half of DSLR market are Canon users?

Now that's a valid question. But it looks like that is what they have done. Unless in the field the word filters out that it has some significant advantage over the Canon such as sharpness, bokeh, colour etc. But I can't see it.

[AJ]

An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.

Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission?  And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings?  The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.

[mrsfotografie]

Just out of curiosity:  a lot of you own the 24-105L - are you planning on selling it to get the Sigma? 

I definitely don't!

Any 24-105/4 is supposed to be a 'walk-about-kit-lens'. It should be small and light. Not optically perfect (this a job of 2.8 lenses).

But if Sigma would make some extra sharp 24-105/2.8 lens (or even better for me: 24-300/4 lens) with same size, weight and price. I could consider purchasing it... 

It's my primary travel lens! The Canon is compact enough and it has weather sealing. Sorry, but the Sigma's right out.

[atvinyard]

isn't 2014 supposed to be a big year for Sigma?  isn't there a rumor that sigma might be releasing a new camera this year?  is it possible that this might be the kit lens for that camera?

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Reading the trend in this thread regarding light transmission reminded me of something that I read in Bryan Carnethan's review of the 35mm f/2 IS.

"The above images were identically exposed with exception of the Sigma 35 that needed a 1/3 stop longer exposure to produce a histogram equal to the other lenses in this comparison. The Canon 35 f/2 is about 1/6 stop brighter in comparison, but its exposure was not adjusted in this comparison. "

Just to provide some balance.  Most manufacturers fudge a little on light transition and focal length to market lenses at certain acceptable standards.  While it's not a huge deal, it is worthy to note lenses that deliver better light transmission because you may be getting slightly more bang for your buck. 

[Random Orbits]

An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.

Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission?  And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings?  The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.

Yup, it implies that current coatings are better than something that came out in 2005.  Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS has a t-stop = 4.  The 24-70 II has a t-stop of 3 while the version I has a t-stop of 3.4.

[goldencode]

It's heavier than the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and its an F4 lens.
82mm filter
Optically very similar to the Canon 24-105 F4 L.

So, what is the advantage of this lens ? I don't think it really adds any " Wow " factor.

[Random Orbits]

Yup, it implies that current coatings are better than something that came out in 2005.  Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS has a t-stop = 4.  The 24-70 II has a t-stop of 3 while the version I has a t-stop of 3.4.

It's not just coatings. The newer lenses have bigger front elements and that counts for a lot (more surface area on the front of the lens = more light gathering ability.)
[/quote]

Maybe... although it would affect some and not all a zoom's focal range.  But it can also be done without changing the lens diameter.  For example, the 24 f/2.8 and the f/2.8 IS both use 58mm filters.  The old one has a t-stop of 3.2 while the new one is 2.8.

[unfocused]

Okay, all this debate over the "true" f-stop of a lens has me scratching my head.

Since metering is through the lens and presumably the exposure selected by the camera is going to reflect the actual light hitting the meter, what's the real world impact here?

Yes, I get that a mis-marked lens means that your f4 lens won't have as great of a light gathering power if it is really an f4.5 lens, but unless you are shooting wide open, what's the practical effect. Your images will still be properly exposed.

Now, obviously if you bought a lens thinking it was an f2.8 and it was really an f4.5 that would be some serious fraud going on.

While were on the topic, aren't there also some standards that must be met. After all, ISO stands for the International Order for Standardization.

[iowapipe]

Yup, it implies that current coatings are better than something that came out in 2005.  Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS has a t-stop = 4.  The 24-70 II has a t-stop of 3 while the version I has a t-stop of 3.4.

It's not just coatings. The newer lenses have bigger front elements and that counts for a lot (more surface area on the front of the lens = more light gathering ability.)

Maybe... although it would affect some and not all a zoom's focal range.  But it can also be done without changing the lens diameter.  For example, the 24 f/2.8 and the f/2.8 IS both use 58mm filters.  The old one has a t-stop of 3.2 while the new one is 2.8.
[/quote]

Just as a quick question:  while the filter size is the same, is the size of the front element also the same?   
I tried a quick lookup to find specs of the element size and couldn't find anything.  So I can't answer my own question.