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

[privatebydesign]

It used to be measured as the density of the negative plus base, fb+f . In today's speak that would equate to the same charge on the sensor. It is not a spot measurement.

[sdsr]

DXO gives this lens the same sharpness score (18) as the Canon 24-70 2.8 II and the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.  Perhaps I don't understand what their sharpness scores mean, but I'm pretty sure I've not seen any other review claim or show that the Tamron, however much they may like it, is as sharp as the Canon, or that the new Sigma, while a bit sharper than the 24-105, is also as sharp as the Canon 24-70 2.8 II.  What am I missing?

[Sporgon]

DXO gives this lens the same sharpness score (18) as the Canon 24-70 2.8 II and the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.  Perhaps I don't understand what their sharpness scores mean, but I'm pretty sure I've not seen any other review claim or show that the Tamron, however much they may like it, is as sharp as the Canon, or that the new Sigma, while a bit sharper than the 24-105, is also as sharp as the Canon 24-70 2.8 II.  What am I missing?

Their score summaries are, in my opinion, a joke. I mean have you seen the chromatic aberration summary score they show for the 85mm 1.8 ? It's 3 mu,  that's  about the lowest there is. The Zeiss Otus for example is 6.

Yet use the 85 1.8 wide open in high contrast and we all know what happens.

( Well all with the exception of dxo that is ).

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

DXO gives this lens the same sharpness score (18) as the Canon 24-70 2.8 II and the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.  Perhaps I don't understand what their sharpness scores mean, but I'm pretty sure I've not seen any other review claim or show that the Tamron, however much they may like it, is as sharp as the Canon, or that the new Sigma, while a bit sharper than the 24-105, is also as sharp as the Canon 24-70 2.8 II.  What am I missing?

Roger here at Lens Rentals has the Tamron splitting the difference between the MK1 and MK2 versions the Canon both at 24mm and 70mm.  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests 

Since he tested multiple copies, I would take his conclusions very strongly.  Some reviews have the Tamron as good at certain focal lengths, and most conclude that stopped down they are pretty much equal, but I have never heard anyone claim that the Tamron has more resolving power.  The only way that the Tamron resolves higher (according to Roger in another article) is if it is mounted on a D800E and the 24-70II is mounted on a 5DIII (in other words, just because of the difference in sensors).

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

[candc]

I believe the dxo lens sharpness score is always in whole numbers. I reckon If 2 lenses are pretty close then the score gets rounded to the same number.

[David Hull]

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.

It's not 'the box itself' but rather 'the color of the box'.

I got mine 'white boxed' 24-105 L back in 2008 for around $900 (looks like Canon ships much-much more 6Ds and 5D III kits these days than original 5Ds in early 2008). Probably the lens build quality was also more stable in those days (since I did not hear that many complains about 'unsharp' 24-105 L and 'tested 10 copies = all were bad' then). I used the lens to complement EF-S 10-22 on 400D in my traveling lens setup and always was very happy with the results.

Since now Sigma offers it's lens for around the same $900, I wonder if I would choose this lens over Canon's back in 2008. But... No. I would not: Canon's version is smaller, lighter, it uses normal 77-mm filters and lens caps (same as 10-22).

A Rolex is more expensive than a Breitling. Is the Rolex any better?
An Armani suit is more expensive than a Bertoni suite. Is the Armani suite any better?
A Montblanc fountain pen is more expensive than a Parker fountain pen. It the Montblanc any better?
A Maserati is more expensive than a Porsche. Is the Maserati any better?
...
the world is full of items we are willing to pay more for, because it gives us some kind of value/quality/prestige/...

A Sigma lens has a reverse engineered EF mount, a long history of AF problems, quality variations pr. copy, numerous examples of poor service etc. etc. To hope for any chunk of the Canon L-lens customer base, they have to be both better and cheaper and they have to be that over time. If they are consistently as good as Canon over time, meaning years, they can move closer to the prices Canon can charge. The only non-Canon brand that can charge as high or even higher prices than Canon is Zeiss. Because they have proved over time that they are consistently delivering absolute top class products in every department. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest have a loooong way to go before they are in the vicinity of such a position.

I have the Sigma 35/1.4. I am very happy with it, but I am a long way from joining the Sigma fan club

One other thing worth mentioning is that the Canon "L" stuff seems to hold its value pretty well on the used market -- I cannot speak for Sigma since I have never tried to sell one.  For the 24-105 though, if you buy one of those "white box specials" for $700 you will be able to sell it in a couple years for darn near $700.  I remember paying $1850 for a 70-200 L IS and selling it after 4 years for $1550 (once the Mk II version came out).  I got to use it for 4 years for $300.

[David Hull]

A Sigma lens has a reverse engineered EF mount, a long history of AF problems, quality variations pr. copy, numerous examples of poor service etc. etc. To hope for any chunk of the Canon L-lens customer base, they have to be both better and cheaper and they have to be that over time. If they are consistently as good as Canon over time, meaning years, they can move closer to the prices Canon can charge. The only non-Canon brand that can charge as high or even higher prices than Canon is Zeiss. Because they have proved over time that they are consistently delivering absolute top class products in every department. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest have a loooong way to go before they are in the vicinity of such a position.

I have the Sigma 35/1.4. I am very happy with it, but I am a long way from joining the Sigma fan club

Do you have the USB dock that allows you to fine tune the focusing of the lens and upgrade the lens's firmware?
Do any Canon lenses have such a capability?

1.  Have you ever needed such a capability?
2.  The latest Canon lenses DO have this capability but they do it through the camera body, so you don't need to buy a separate USB gizmo to do it -- Just an expensive Camera body.  The last time I updated my 5DIII there was a lens FW update option in the menu.

[David Hull]

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.

Similarly, does anyone pay $3500 for a 5DIII?  I didn't but that is still the MSRP and you can probably find a store that will sell one to you for that if you want -- heck they might even be willing to send a limo to pick you up and drive you down to the store :-).

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?

[Zlyden]

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.

I do think that Sigma DID initially plan to turn this lens into a head-to-head competition against Canon's 24-105 (not as a strange product that may or may not target only Nikon users).

They just were too slow.

I do not know what time it takes to design, test and put a lens into mass production. But probably it takes few months (or rather -- more than a year).

The most drastic drop in price for 'white boxed' 24-105 L happened this year (too many unkitted 6Ds and 5D3s sold to those who already own 24-105 or do not want one) and 24-105 L price suddenly dropped to just $600-700.

So, one or two years ago Sigma might do have reasonable plans to make a fortune selling its own version of 24-105 for $850-900.

Now they can't. But it's too late. They could either kill the project (that's already finished) or proceed with it as it was planned...

[K-amps]

I have owned a 24-105L before as well as 2 copies of the 24-70 f2.8L II. Sold all for financial reasons ... got the Sigma last week. It's not amazing but pretty darn good. Great for the price.

24mm Distortion and corner sharpness are better than the Canon 24-105L. The wide end is where I mostly use my 24 zooms.

OS is not bad either. Shot this in the evening, on a moving and bobbling Speedboat yesterday.

This has been gently PP'ed but I have not MA'd the lens yet... it needs a little maybe but I have not done scientific tests.

F9
1/40th
ISO200



Look and feel is solid, barrel is nice and snug, feels more robust than the canon 25-105. Great finishing.

[bholliman]

I have owned a 24-105L before as well as 2 copies of the 24-70 f2.8L II. Sold all for financial reasons ... got the Sigma last week. It's not amazing but pretty darn good. Great for the price.

24mm Distortion and corner sharpness are better than the Canon 24-105L. The wide end is where I mostly use my 24 zooms.

OS is not bad either. Shot this in the evening, on a moving and bobbling Speedboat yesterday.

This has been gently PP'ed but I have not MA'd the lens yet... it needs a little maybe but I have not done scientific tests.

F9
1/40th
ISO200

Look and feel is solid, barrel is nice and snug, feels more robust than the canon 25-105. Great finishing.

The Canon 24-105 is selling for $600-650 new, do you feel the Sigma is worth the 40-50% price premium?

[slclick]

After shooting over 500 images with my new S 24-105 I am much more pleased with the wide end than I ever was with either of my 2 Canon copies. The OS and AF are great without any discernible difference to the Canon counterpart. It weighs a TON but I'm used to lugging a Tamron 24-70 around so it's ok for me on a 5D3. I was able to shoot down 4 stops at the long end without issues and it controls flare somewhat better than the Canon. Bokeh is oniony but it's no Sigma 35.

Worth $854 anyday imho. (B&H EDU price)

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

After shooting over 500 images with my new S 24-105 I am much more pleased with the wide end than I ever was with either of my 2 Canon copies. The OS and AF are great without any discernible difference to the Canon counterpart. It weighs a TON but I'm used to lugging a Tamron 24-70 around so it's ok for me on a 5D3. I was able to shoot down 4 stops at the long end without issues and it controls flare somewhat better than the Canon. Bokeh is oniony but it's no Sigma 35.

Worth $854 anyday imho. (B&H EDU price)

That is a very handsome image.

[K-amps]

The Canon 24-105 is selling for $600-650 new, do you feel the Sigma is worth the 40-50% price premium?
[/quote]

Depends on your wallet... the 24-105L could go to $450 and that would not take away from what the S24-105 can still do. It's worth the money... and probably a good $200 more worth it for me. If I made money off this, I'd get a 24-70L or wait for the IS, but apart from that, I like it very much. I was on a speed boat going quite fast, snapping shots as we went along, I got almost no blurry shots... AF nailed, OS nailed. Great product.