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

[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.

That is somewhat relevant since not the entire world is living in the countries where the street price is the mentioned above.

Yea... Most of us are comparing US prices, I think. I certainly don't know about elsewhere and don't look.

 

[Random Orbits]

Many of the cheap Canon 24-105L's are because vendors are taking it out of a kit and selling it and the camera separately. This is not a Canon approved activity but they seem to look the other way.

If you go to a proper web site for a store like B&H, then you can compare the price of the Canon and Sigma:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Zoom+Focal+Lengths_24-105mm&ci=274&N=4288584247+4261208183

$1149 vs $899.

Adorama:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=itemlist&cat1=Lenses&cat2=SLR%20Lenses&Feature5=24-105mm&sf=Price&st=de

$1149 vs $899.

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.

 

[iowapipe]

I own the Canon lens and will not be selling it and getting the Sigma.

Reports from those who have actually used/reviewed it do not point to any compelling reason to switch.

The Canon shares filters I already have, and the Sigma isn't a marked improvement in IQ. Slight improvement seems to be the phrase. As many have noted so far, to get a 'better' image, you will get a 'better' ($$$) lens.

 

[Zlyden]

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).

 

[Eldar]

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

 

[J.R.]

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

Sure if the salesman spotted a noob contemplating this lens.

People with commonsense will be better off buying the Canon 24-105 used on CL

 

[RLPhoto]

Not that anyone sane would buy the sigma when the 24-105L is already good/cheap. To me this reflects a change in sigma quality that they can give an equal IQ to canon. (at the moment anyway.)

 

[AJ]

The t-stop of 5.1 for the Canon 24-105 is a bit of a shocker to me. tsk tsk Canon!

So basically the Sigma is about the same price and about the same sharpness, but half a stop brighter.

 

[Zlyden]

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

Sure if the salesman spotted a noob contemplating this lens.

People with commonsense will be better off buying the Canon 24-105 used on CL

Well, sometimes when I walk into a photo store in some big 'shopping mole' (to look at new cameras I saw only on web pictures while my wife is in next shop in search for new shoes) I do see people purchasing rather strange lenses for equally strange prices...

...looks like this is a good business still.

My worst 'photo store' experience was back in 1996 when I decided that I want to try and buy some simple P&S camera right now (it was Canon's SureShot 80 -- and actually worked perfectly and is still alive!) After I gave to a guys behind the counter ~ $100 he wanted for this camera, he smiled and said: "And now, you know, this camera does not have a battery. But I can sell you one for just $20." -- They just did not have filters and other stuff for P&S cameras to screw on lenses and customer budget back then...

Sorry, all these is really irrelevant in this topic. If some electronic super-stores do sell lenses for their MSRPs, Sigma do has chances to sell these new 24-105 of theirs.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

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.

I am not sure that Sigma is really marketing this lens toward Canon users. I think Nikon users will be more interested. There just does not seem to be a significant difference between the Canon and Sigma 24-105. Nikon, on the other hand, does not have anything with these focal lengths.

 

[unfocused]

Or in other words, anyone that paid anything close to the MSRP when it was originally released has been screwed over and that this lens was never worth the investment when it was first released.

Says a lot for Canon "L" quality, doesn't it?

Doesn't say anything about Canon "L" quality. It just says early adopters pay a price premium for the privilege of being the first to own anything. If you want to turn this into some sort of bizarre argument over Canon quality, be my guest. But think about this:

The "white box" lenses are coming from 5DIII and 6D kits (probably more from the 5D). In order to turn a profit, they have to set a price for the split kit body-only and the lens-only that will allow them to recover their initial investment and make some money. Every dollar in value they take from one is a dollar in value they have to add to the other. So, if the lens is deeply discounted that leaves less room to discount the camera.

A fair way to look at this is to say that Canon Cameras are highly valued on the street and can command a higher price, so that allows the sellers to offer the lens at a lower price. So, I guess this is just more proof that all the b.s. about the inferiority of Canon's bodies is just that: b.s.

 

[unfocused]

I am not sure that Sigma is really marketing this lens toward Canon users. I think Nikon users will be more interested. There just does not seem to be a significant difference between the Canon and Sigma 24-105. Nikon, on the other hand, does not have anything with these focal lengths.

I don't follow Nikon prices as closely as Canon (no reason to), but I did notice on NikonPriceWatch that the closest Nikon equivalent is more expensive, so this could be an attractive lens for Nikon shooters from a price point as well.

 

[Random Orbits]

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.

Or in other words, anyone that paid anything close to the MSRP when it was originally released has been screwed over and that this lens was never worth the investment when it was first released.

Says a lot for Canon "L" quality, doesn't it?

LOL, good luck selling the Sigma 24-105 for 900 in a couple years. The S35 came out at 900 and is now discounted to less than 800. That says something about Sigma quality too, doesn't it?

The 5DIII came out at 3500, and the 24-70 II came out at 2300. Early purchases pay a premium. Kit lenses face even more pricing pressure, so what is your point? The IQ of the S35 is better than the 35L and sells for less, so it is a good value. The Sigma 24-105, whose IQ is slightly better but sells for more, is not the value winner that the S35 is.

 

[Zv]

The t-stop of 5.1 for the Canon 24-105 is a bit of a shocker to me. tsk tsk Canon!

So basically the Sigma is about the same price and about the same sharpness, but half a stop brighter.

Not surprising since it has a bigger front end! Why is that a shocker?

An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway. It has IS that easily makes up for it. Good for Sigma though for improving on the design. However that seems to have come at a price - added bulk.

Separate note. Even though I buy in yen I always write prices in USD here on this forum because that's what most people understand. It doesn't bother me. Keeps things standardized. But the point is when we convert we all get funky numbers. I think when quoting a street price we should just use amazon.com or something.

 

[Zlyden]

Hmmm.... two more points:

1) Why everyone here thinks that Sigma's MSRP is lower than Canon's?

It's NOT: Sigma's 24-105 official MSRP is $1260.

See: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-art

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?

 

[Sporgon]

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.

 

[AJ]

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.

 

[mrsfotografie]

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.

 

[atvinyard]

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?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.