November 27, 2014, 08:48:20 PM

Author Topic: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed  (Read 12809 times)

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1445
  • www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2013, 02:27:37 PM »
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.
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, G16 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2013, 02:27:37 PM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3238
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #46 on: December 18, 2013, 02:28:48 PM »
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?

I don't know if it is lens coatings or lens design... but yah... not good.

The t-stop of the Canon 24-105 (t/5.1) is two-thirds of a stop worse than f/4.0.

Quote
The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.

Agreed.

atvinyard

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
    • Camera and Garden
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #47 on: December 18, 2013, 02:36:11 PM »
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?
Canon 6D, Canon 5Dc, Rebel T2i, Canon EF-S 10-22, Sigma 35/1.4, Olympus OM Zuiko 21/3.5, 24/2.8,  28/2, 40/2, 50/1.4, 50/3.5 macro, 100/2.8, Canon EF 20/2.8, 35/2 IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 200/2.8L, Contax/Zeiss 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 85/1.4, 135/2.8, Soligor 135/2

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1653
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #48 on: December 18, 2013, 03:16:00 PM »
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. 
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1393
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #49 on: December 18, 2013, 03:16:28 PM »
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.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3238
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #50 on: December 18, 2013, 04:01:56 PM »
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.

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.)

goldencode

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2013, 04:55:07 PM »
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.



canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2013, 04:55:07 PM »

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1393
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #52 on: December 18, 2013, 04:57:10 PM »

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

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2205
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #53 on: December 18, 2013, 05:07:57 PM »
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.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3238
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #54 on: December 18, 2013, 05:19:25 PM »
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.

Well Canon are selling a t/5.1 lens (24-105) as an f/4.0 lens.

The difference?

With the Sigma lens the camera might meter a given scene for 1/60 whereas with the Canon lens the camera is going to suggest 1/45. Or with an action shot, you could get 1/2000 with the Sigma but only 1/1250 with the Canon.

iowapipe

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #55 on: December 18, 2013, 05:30:19 PM »

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. :)

traveller

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #56 on: December 18, 2013, 05:32:23 PM »
There's a lot of Sigma hate going on in this post. I can understand that quite a few people have been burned by third party lenses in the past, I've also had mixed results, but I think that's a reason to be careful with what you buy, not to dismiss an option outright. I don't currently own any Sigma lenses, but I had the 10-20mm f/4-5.6 before moving to full frame, I enjoyed using it very much and got good results. Unlike the argument that is often put forward, I don't think that non-Canon lenses necessarily have poorer resale values, so long as you buy decent quality lenses that appeal to the (often more savvy) second hand market; the hit that I took selling my Sigma was no worse in percentage terms than the hit I would have taken selling the Canon EF-S 10-22mm.

I currently own the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS and while I am not in a hurry to rush out and buy this new Sigma to replace it, I am glad that people looking for a lens in this class now have another option (other than going for a 24-70 f/2.8 ). If the DXO Mark data is correct (and I am looking at the measurement data, not the silly "single number" metric), this Sigma looks quite a bit better wide open at the long end of the zoom range. This is great news, I'm often torn between the 24-105 and the 70-200 when I get to 70mm (maybe I need a second body, but I can't afford another 5D MkIII -the first one was painful enough on my bank balance!).

For those that absolutely will not countenance owning anything but Canon branded lenses, perhaps the appearance of this new 24-105 will motivate them to produce a 24-105 f/4L IS II...  ;) 

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4019
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #57 on: December 18, 2013, 06:21:41 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.

Who cares? Even years ago before the price collapsed I didn't pay close to $1149 for it. You can get them new, for $750 EASILY now, EASILY and for $600 with just a bit of effort. Real world is what counts.

$1149 is nuts! Who pays that? Heck I got a new, from a major camera store, full US warranty, 24-70 f/4 IS for $125 LESS than that, so who on Earth would actually pay $1149 for the 24-105 these days?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #57 on: December 18, 2013, 06:21:41 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4019
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #58 on: December 18, 2013, 06:28:14 PM »
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.

Yeah it can vary. I found the sigma 120-300 2.8 non-OS to be about f/3 and 280mm if we take the 300 2.8 IS to be f/2.8 and 300mm.

And I found the 100L f/2.8 to be getting towards 1/3 stop brighter and 1/3 stop less DOF than the 100 non-L macro from Canon both at 100mm f/2.8 (and no I didn't have one in macro zone and the other out).

I forget the details but in a few cases the 70-300L, I believe, seemed to be a bit brighter than the 70-200 f/4 IS at the same aperture and focal length.

Yeah the 24-105 is kinda dim, another reason why the 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-70 II are even better in comparison than a direct aperture comparison makes it appear to be.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4019
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #59 on: December 18, 2013, 06:30:40 PM »
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.

exactly. I'd rather pay $125 more and get the much smaller and lighter 24-70 f/4 IS (with macro mode) or pay less and get by with the 24-105L (or pay more and get a better Tamron 24-70 VC or really pay more and get the best 24-70 II myself since it's not like those add any size or bulk compared to the sigma, although the 24-70 iI does lack the IS, it does offer f/2.8 though).

I think this lens may look pretty good in the Nikon world though.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« Reply #59 on: December 18, 2013, 06:30:40 PM »