I don't know about that all. If they don't care about sharpness why not just get the 24-105L for $600 then??? In that case 24-105L FTW. Same range, smaller, lighter, hundreds less for the lens itself plus it uses less expensive filters too.They do get the 24-105L. I never said that lens wasn't competition for the Sigma 24-105. But if we're talking about other lenses now, why don't we add in the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. All three of these are cheaper than the Canon 24-70 f4, yet offer greater utility. I think you helped make my point.
I haven't seen the Tamron regularly hit $1025 or less other than some unknown import dealers on ebay though.
It is much larger and heavier, although some might not care at all.
And if they do care about it why the heck not the 24-70 f/4 IS for the same price as the sigma, $899 both (plus the Canon uses less expensive, smaller filters). Also, it's regularly dipped to just $125 more than the Sigma quite a few times so why not just wait a little and spend $125 more? So "pay more money now, so you can pay less money on filters later" is your argument?
Pay only a slightly more now $125 extra - savings from filters = less than $125 more than the sigma (which is not as good at 24mm for landscapes, from what evidence I've seen, it peaks more in the center range, where it's always been easier to find top quality for FF). And again it's way more compact andhas some macro ability.
And wouldn't the enthusiast prefer that the 24-70 f/4 IS is so much smaller and lighter than the sigma?Only the most feeble armed would trade 71-105mm just to save a couple hundred grams in weight.
I don't know about that at all. And don't forget that it seems like the 24-70 IS delivers better 24mm landscape quality and that was always the trickiest thing to get out of a zoom on FF (even the older 24mm primes aren't great in that regard).
I'm not saying the 24-70 f4L is a bad lens, I'm just saying in the wider context of its price and competition it's a complete waste of money. And, it's usually only enthusiasts who waste their money (and a handful of confused pros...now there's an oxymoron).
IMO the 24-105 sigma is the complete waste of money, if any of them are. You can get the 24-70 f/4 righ tnow for the exact same price (less considering filters) and it delivers a better 24mm (and if you don't care about that or stuff like that then just save some hundreds and get the 24-105), the holy grail of zooms on FF, likely has better IS, and it is MUCH smaller and lighter (again the 24-105 sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II f/2.
. I still need to see more sigma samples, but stopped down landscape shooting I haven't seen samples that look any better than from the cheaper canon 24-105. I'd rather have a 24mm that really delivers for all those stopped down travel scenics than and extra 30mm at the long end, whch likely won't do it anyway and from which I'd get much better IQ and more range from a 70-300L or the same (if not better IQ) from a tamron 70-300 vc.
Anyway I don't think we are going to agree.