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.
Upvote
0
sdsr said: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?
sdsr said: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?
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.Eldar said:A Rolex is more expensive than a Breitling. Is the Rolex any better?Zlyden said:Random Orbits said: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).
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
1. Have you ever needed such a capability?dilbert said:Eldar said: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?
LetTheRightLensIn said: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 .dilbert said:Random Orbits said: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?
Sporgon said:Zlyden said: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.
K-amps said: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.
slclick said: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)