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

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15232"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15232">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From DXOMark

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

</strong><em>“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.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-105mm-F4-DG-OS-HSM-A-Canon-mount-lens-review-A-new-standard" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong> | <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009621-REG/sigma_635_101_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Albi86]

Interesting.

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

 

[Random Orbits]

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]

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]

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.

 

[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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jamesy]

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]

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.

 

[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.

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]

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.

 

[J.R.]

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.

As a corollary, Sigma lenses aren't available in the entire world

Even in other countries, the Canon 24-150 as part of the kit will be available for roughly equal to or less than the Sigma.

BTW, from personal experience, Sigma's after sales support in other countries sucks big time!

 

[Frage]

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.

As a corollary, Sigma lenses aren't available in the entire world

Even in other countries, the Canon 24-150 as part of the kit will be available for roughly equal to or less than the Sigma.

BTW, from personal experience, Sigma's after sales support in other countries sucks big time!

What is your point?

 

[J.R.]

What is your point?

Only that even in other parts of the world, the Canon lens is available for substantially lower than the MRSP when it is purchased as part of a kit. So even in other parts of the world, the Canon lens is available for much less cash, as part of a kit, or used as the case may be.

I live in India and the Canon 24-105 can be purchased for local currency that is about equivalent to $ 900 - A used lens can be had for as less as $ 650. So what I was implying was that the Canon lens is available in other countries as a cheaper price too. Sigma will be priced above the Canon lens (when it is released here) - I doubt too many will buy it over the Canon lens.

I guess it is pretty much the same all over. but then, maybe in your country it may be different.

PS: Photography gear in India attracts customs duty of 30%, so @ $ 900 the lens is a bargain.

PPS: English is not my native language and I sometimes have difficulty getting my point across.

Cheers ... J.R.

 

[Zlyden]

Whatever it is -- retail resellers all over the world (or at least in some countries) should be happy with Sigma's decision to release its 24-105 version with that MSRP

This should rise demand and popularity of unkitted 24-105 L. (And probably its price too.)

I can easily imagine a salesman in photo store babbling something like:

"Yes, this is a new Sigma 24-105! It's a great and mighty lens, just released! But... Look at this display for a second -- this is original Canon 24-105! See this red ring here? It's L-lens! Feel how small and light it is! IQ is just is as good. Do you like it? It's usual price is 3 hundreds more than Sigma. But today only for you, I can sell it for the same price as this 3rd party Sigma! And I even will add a filter and this Lowepro case for free!!! Because I see you are real 'pro' who need a lens like that!"

;D

 

[Frage]

Whatever it is -- retail resellers all over the world (or at least in some countries) should be happy with Sigma's decision to release its 24-105 version with that MSRP

This should rise demand and popularity of unkitted 24-105 L. (And probably its price too.)

I can easily imagine a salesman in photo store babbling something like:

"Yes, this is a new Sigma 24-105! It's a great and mighty lens, just released! But... Look at this display for a second -- this is original Canon 24-105! See this red ring here? It's L-lens! Feel how small and light it is! IQ is just is as good. Do you like it? It's usual price is 3 hundreds more than Sigma. But today only for you, I can sell it for the same price as this 3rd party Sigma! And I even will add a filter and this Lowepro case for free!!! Because I see you are real 'pro' who need a lens like that!"

;D

Yeah!

Nice speech

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.

Big +1. As soon as this lens was announced, I felt that the only way that it would be a success is if it destroyed the 24-105L optically. It didn't seem to offer any other compelling reason to purchase: focal length the same. IS/OS. Same maximum aperture.

Downsides included: Heavier and larger front element. Not weather sealed. Sigma's reputation for sometimes inconsistent AF accuracy. Third party lens with potential downsides that come with that.

I think the consensus out there is that in SOME ways the Sigma is better optically, but it certainly doesn't blow the 24-105L out of the water. That is going to make it a hard sell. Just out of curiosity: a lot of you own the 24-105L - are you planning on selling it to get the Sigma?

I don't own the 24-105L right now. I've owned two copies in the past and liked them considerably. I own let my last copy go when I got the Tamron 24-70 VC and found that I wasn't using the Canon anymore. But if I owned the 24-105L right I certainly wouldn't be selling it to get this lens.

 

[Zlyden]

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...

 

[Zv]

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.

Big +1. As soon as this lens was announced, I felt that the only way that it would be a success is if it destroyed the 24-105L optically. It didn't seem to offer any other compelling reason to purchase: focal length the same. IS/OS. Same maximum aperture.

Downsides included: Heavier and larger front element. Not weather sealed. Sigma's reputation for sometimes inconsistent AF accuracy. Third party lens with potential downsides that come with that.

I think the consensus out there is that in SOME ways the Sigma is better optically, but it certainly doesn't blow the 24-105L out of the water. That is going to make it a hard sell. Just out of curiosity: a lot of you own the 24-105L - are you planning on selling it to get the Sigma?

I don't own the 24-105L right now. I've owned two copies in the past and liked them considerably. I own let my last copy go when I got the Tamron 24-70 VC and found that I wasn't using the Canon anymore. But if I owned the 24-105L right I certainly wouldn't be selling it to get this lens.

I bought my EF 24-105L second hand. Got it fairly cheap too. I knew fine well going in that it was not going to a lens that had amazing IQ and that was fine because I just needed something to work with in the general focal range. For that it performs well, especially from 35mm onwards I'm seeing really quite sharp images. 24mm performance could be better but I can live without since I have the 17-40L and now the Samyang 14mm (on my 7D it gives an almost 24mm look). The weather sealing has came in handy when on vacation / at te beach etc. the lens isn't light by any means but a decent amount that I can handle.

Will I change for the Sigma? Nope. The Sigma's bigger and heavier and not sealed. Don't give a damn about a tiny bit extra sharpness at the wide end.

I think for those who don't need the extra range the 24-70 f/4 IS beats both the Sigma and 24-105L and provides a nice third option. If I was to change I'd prob go for that one, just wish it was a little cheaper though.