How does Canon 24-105 v1 compare to Sigma 24-105 f4 Art lens?

[monkey44]

Now that we see the minimal improvement in the Canon 24-105 v2 -- how do you Sigma guys feel about the Sigma 24-105 Art as compared to the Canon 24-105 v1??

I've never shot with Sigma lenses, so am curious how well they compare ... is it an upgrade, or a similar performing lens? Thanks

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Little diferences...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[monkey44]

Thanks ...

The "tech specs" tell us specific data, but I often find someone actually using the lens is more useful info for the comparisons as a shooter, especially outdoors where we can't control the light as well. I'm not very "tech smart" ...

Was hoping for some in-field use from guys that have shot with both and that opinion ... altho from this info, looks like the difference is minimal between the Sigma and Canon ??

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Thanks ...

The "tech specs" tell us specific data, but I often find someone actually using the lens is more useful info for the comparisons as a shooter, especially outdoors where we can't control the light as well. I'm not very "tech smart" ...

Was hoping for some in-field use from guys that have shot with both and that opinion ... altho from this info, looks like the difference is minimal between the Sigma and Canon ??

When the two-lens image looks very close to each other, the deciding factor is in the details:

Reliable AF
weather seal
Geometric distortion
Vignette
Price
Size
Weight

Here a comparison between Sigma and the old version of Canon ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dWST_JolzY

 

[monkey44]

Thanks ...

The "tech specs" tell us specific data, but I often find someone actually using the lens is more useful info for the comparisons as a shooter, especially outdoors where we can't control the light as well. I'm not very "tech smart" ...

Was hoping for some in-field use from guys that have shot with both and that opinion ... altho from this info, looks like the difference is minimal between the Sigma and Canon ??

When the two-lens image looks very close to each other, the deciding factor is in the details:

Reliable AF
weather seal
Geometric distortion
Vignette
Price
Size
Weight

Here a comparison between Sigma and the old version of Canon ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dWST_JolzY

Thanks -- nice evaluation -- seems the difference isn't enough to make one over the other better or worse in most practical applications. Surprised the Sigma is more $$$ than a comparable "Canon L" ...

I was looking forward to the new 24-105 v2 as a worthwhile upgrade, similar up-quality to the 100-400 v2 a couple years ago -- but not so it seems. On the upbeat side, it saves me some money Looks like I'll stick with the 24-105 v1 for a while longer.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Optically, a lens that has over 3:1 zoom ratio is a compromise. Designing one that is better raises the cost to where it won't sell, so designs try to hit a target sale price with the best possible lens for the price. I would not upgrade from the Ver I, and would not pay extra for the version II. I would not consider Sigma.

So, I'll keep using my 24-70 II and 70-200 II combination with far better IQ.

 

[old-pr-pix]

It does seem that the Sigma is about 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster than the Canon despite both being f4. Likely better coatings in the newer Sigma design. The older Canon Mk1 design has lower t-stop rating (Sigma is t 4.2 vs. Canon t 5.1). I haven't seen any t-stop measures for the Mk2 yet.

 

[goldenhusky]

I can only make an arbitrary comparison between the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens and Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 DG OS HSM Art based on my hands on experience with Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. I use to own Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM up until August of this year, then I bought the sigma Comparing them Sigma is little more sharper than the Canon. I did not test for anything else like distortion etc... I am behind sharpness and the improvement in sharpness with Sigma lens is enough to convince me to get rid of the canon. All the reviews so far (PhotographyBlog, TDP, lensrental, photozone) mentioned the Canon v2 is not a worthwhile upgrade over the v1 So I am going to stick to the Sigma. Aside from the weight and noisy stabilization motor on the sigma I do not see any other down sides. I rarely shoot video so the noisy stabilization motor is not an issue for me.

 

[monkey44]

I can only make an arbitrary comparison between the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens and Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 DG OS HSM Art based on my hands on experience with Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. I use to own Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM up until August of this year, then I bought the sigma Comparing them Sigma is little more sharper than the Canon. I did not test for anything else like distortion etc... I am behind sharpness and the improvement in sharpness with Sigma lens is enough to convince me to get rid of the canon. All the reviews so far (PhotographyBlog, TDP, lensrental, photozone) mentioned the Canon v2 is not a worthwhile upgrade over the v1 So I am going to stick to the Sigma. Aside from the weight and noisy stabilization motor on the sigma I do not see any other down sides. I rarely shoot video so the noisy stabilization motor is not an issue for me.

I don't shoot video ... well, accidentally triggered it once -- and it just waved around in the air until I realized it was running Sky, some trees and some dirt ... but am a stills shooter, always have been. Unlikely to change at this point. Wife videos the kids and grand kids - So, I'm out of that, luckily for me ... So, will hold onto the V1 until something changes. It's still a great walk-around lens on a 5D3 ... with the 16-35 on one side of it and 70-200 on the other, plus the 1004/00 v2

 

[YellowJersey]

This is the million dollar question right now, isn't it? As with every lens, the answer is: it depends.

I'd look at it this way:

Do you need weather sealing? If yes, get the Canon
Is always getting focus perfect critical? If yes, get the Canon.

If you answered "no" to both of these questions, then go with the Sigma.

The Sigma lacks weather sealing and could misfocus from time to time since it's a third party lens. If you're like me, the focusing isn't a huge deal since I usually shoot fairly static subjects and don't shoot professionally. If you're a working professional who needs 100% dependable gear all the time, then go with the Canon.

Looking at the link ajfotofilmagem posted, the Sigma seems to be the optically superior lens to the MkI and the MKII, both in sharpness and CA. I see a lot more fringing on the Canons than I do on the sigma.

I shot with the MkI Canon for YEARS, but sold it this summer after getting the 16-35mm f/4 L IS and the 70-22mm f/4 L lenses and really saw what I was missing out on in terms of sharpness. (That 70-200mm f/4 L is crazy sharp, particularly for such an inexpensive lens! I'm really shocked by how good it is, but I digress). As money was tight and I wasn't using it much, I sold my 24-105mm MkI with the intent of replacing it later on with the MkII or the Sigma, whichever came out on top. I'm going with the Sigma once I scrape enough money together. The only thing I'm missing out on is weather sealing; if I'm in rainy or dusty conditions, I can use my other lenses.

 

[goldenhusky]

This is the million dollar question right now, isn't it? As with every lens, the answer is: it depends.

I'd look at it this way:

Do you need weather sealing? If yes, get the Canon
Is always getting focus perfect critical? If yes, get the Canon.

If you answered "no" to both of these questions, then go with the Sigma.

The Sigma lacks weather sealing and could misfocus from time to time since it's a third party lens. If you're like me, the focusing isn't a huge deal since I usually shoot fairly static subjects and don't shoot professionally. If you're a working professional who needs 100% dependable gear all the time, then go with the Canon.

Looking at the link ajfotofilmagem posted, the Sigma seems to be the optically superior lens to the MkI and the MKII, both in sharpness and CA. I see a lot more fringing on the Canons than I do on the sigma.

I shot with the MkI Canon for YEARS, but sold it this summer after getting the 16-35mm f/4 L IS and the 70-22mm f/4 L lenses and really saw what I was missing out on in terms of sharpness. (That 70-200mm f/4 L is crazy sharp, particularly for such an inexpensive lens! I'm really shocked by how good it is, but I digress). As money was tight and I wasn't using it much, I sold my 24-105mm MkI with the intent of replacing it later on with the MkII or the Sigma, whichever came out on top. I'm going with the Sigma once I scrape enough money together. The only thing I'm missing out on is weather sealing; if I'm in rainy or dusty conditions, I can use my other lenses.

Thank you. Didn't knew the Sigma misfocused from time to time. I am not a professional. Two weeks ago I shot a friend's daughter's birthday party with the Sigma on my 80D. I did not see any thing abnormally out of focus.

 

[monkey44]

OP again ... thanks for all the replies. Yes, I need the top gear as I do shoot pro, wildlife and sports. I began back in the film days, and am less knowledgeable about the tech aspects of DSLR ... I don't use many of the settings available -- I just shoot more or less like it's film, and then use PS to fix what I can fix.

And I get it - the 70-200 (f4 IS) is one of the best ... it's my GO TO lens in the field, along with the 100-400 v2. I'd like a wide/mid zoom lens of that quality and was hoping the 24-105 v2 would be it ... but no so, unfortunately. So will keep v1 ...

My criteria is: What does the PRINT look like ... and spend less time viewing at 100 - 200 % looking for details we can't generally see anyway. I do envy - a little bit - some of you can can do both the tech and the art ...

BUT, I ask and read answers for some of the stuff that comes up, because it allows me a better understanding how this all fits together.

And I find this board amazing, and the photographers on it that share all this knowledge. Cheers guys -- happy holidays to you all, no matter where you live or what you celebrate.

 

[YellowJersey]

Hey OP, glad we could help.

This is the million dollar question right now, isn't it? As with every lens, the answer is: it depends.

I'd look at it this way:

Do you need weather sealing? If yes, get the Canon
Is always getting focus perfect critical? If yes, get the Canon.

If you answered "no" to both of these questions, then go with the Sigma.

The Sigma lacks weather sealing and could misfocus from time to time since it's a third party lens. If you're like me, the focusing isn't a huge deal since I usually shoot fairly static subjects and don't shoot professionally. If you're a working professional who needs 100% dependable gear all the time, then go with the Canon.

Looking at the link ajfotofilmagem posted, the Sigma seems to be the optically superior lens to the MkI and the MKII, both in sharpness and CA. I see a lot more fringing on the Canons than I do on the sigma.

I shot with the MkI Canon for YEARS, but sold it this summer after getting the 16-35mm f/4 L IS and the 70-22mm f/4 L lenses and really saw what I was missing out on in terms of sharpness. (That 70-200mm f/4 L is crazy sharp, particularly for such an inexpensive lens! I'm really shocked by how good it is, but I digress). As money was tight and I wasn't using it much, I sold my 24-105mm MkI with the intent of replacing it later on with the MkII or the Sigma, whichever came out on top. I'm going with the Sigma once I scrape enough money together. The only thing I'm missing out on is weather sealing; if I'm in rainy or dusty conditions, I can use my other lenses.

Thank you. Didn't knew the Sigma misfocused from time to time. I am not a professional. Two weeks ago I shot a friend's daughter's birthday party with the Sigma on my 80D. I did not see any thing abnormally out of focus.

It's the inherent risk of any third party lens. First party lenses are always going to be more reliable when it comes to nailing focus more consistently, which is why if you're a professional then it might be better to stick to first party, even if you take a hit to the IQ sometimes, especially if you're doing something like sports or weddings where you only get one shot at certain shots. But I think Sigma and Tamron are doing fantastic work these days. I have the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC and I'm very happy with it and so far no misfocused shots. So misfocusing is becoming less and less of an issue, but it is something to keep in mind when purchasing and using the lens. The more you use the lens with no misfocused shots, the more confident you can be in it.

 

[jeffa4444]

Ive never shot with the Sigma and never will the weather sealing as a landscape photographer in Britain is a must have.
I went on a CPS landscape day in Dorset, England last week with David Noton as the Ambassador photographer and Canon staff on hand to tempt us with the Canon 5D MKIV and a variety of lenses. The EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM has been my most used landscape lens over the last ten years but its weaknesses are shown up on the 5DS primarily colour fringing, soft at the edges particularly at f4 and vignetting. So I shot all day with the loaned EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II the weather was very cold, windy but dry at the coast. The shots I did were a mixture of geometrical shapes with stone walls or shooting into the low setting sun during the day. followed by shooting stars & the milky way when it was dark (with also the 5D MKIV after dark). Back home I was able to see the differences to the original lens, less vignetting but still there, better control of colour fringing and sharper out to the edges particularly at f4. The lens is not perfect but then as others state a 3:1 ratio zoom at this price point will have compromises but it is an improvement over its predecessor. Will I buy it?
Yes.

 

[goldenhusky]

Ive never shot with the Sigma and never will the weather sealing as a landscape photographer in Britain is a must have.
I went on a CPS landscape day in Dorset, England last week with David Noton as the Ambassador photographer and Canon staff on hand to tempt us with the Canon 5D MKIV and a variety of lenses. The EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM has been my most used landscape lens over the last ten years but its weaknesses are shown up on the 5DS primarily colour fringing, soft at the edges particularly at f4 and vignetting. So I shot all day with the loaned EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II the weather was very cold, windy but dry at the coast. The shots I did were a mixture of geometrical shapes with stone walls or shooting into the low setting sun during the day. followed by shooting stars & the milky way when it was dark (with also the 5D MKIV after dark). Back home I was able to see the differences to the original lens, less vignetting but still there, better control of colour fringing and sharper out to the edges particularly at f4. The lens is not perfect but then as others state a 3:1 ratio zoom at this price point will have compromises but it is an improvement over its predecessor. Will I buy it?
Yes.

I think it is selling 1129 British pounds, the lowest I could find was 1059. Are you saying it is worth at that price?

 

[LesC]

I think it is selling 1129 British pounds, the lowest I could find was 1059. Are you saying it is worth at that price?

I was fortunate to be able to afford the EF24-70 F2.8 MKII a few years ago but at today's prices the new 24-105 is almost half the cost so against the 24-70 appears good value. However, if you already have the MK1 it seems maybe not too much improvement to make it worthwhile upgrading.

Really depends on your needs, I still feel I'd like the extra reach but particularly the IS & as I don't have the MK1 feel it makes more sense for me to go for the MKII 24-105.

I've never rated the 24-70 F2.8 as highly as some do (& I have it checked by Canon) so although I don't expect the 24-105 to be as good, I'm thinking the difference won't be as big as the price difference

However, once the MK1's are sold out, I'm sure the new version will continue to be the most popular 'standard' zoom of choice for FF users.

 

[slclick]

The new Canon is now as good as the Siggy. Small differences separated the Canon Mk1 from the Sigma and now all things are equal yet still hardly remarkable.

 

[monkey44]

Comparing the "three" - I suspect with the technology approximately equal, those that own the V1 will keep it, and the new buyers coming up into the Canon box will buy the V2 ... once the V1 runs out of stock. So, my guess is Canon figured this out already and built V2 for the new buyer market, not the upgrade market. The weatherseal is one benefit over Siggie for sure ... especially those of us that primarily shoot outdoors.

Those that like/buy Siggies will probably still buy Siggies...

Those that know technology better than me (HA, most of you) say it's as good as glass can get when building a 24-105 zoom range. So, maybe we're at that point, and anyone needs better glass can go with 16-35 and a 70-200 - filling that void with a couple prime lenses if necessary. Disappointing, that the new 24-105 lacks enough improvement, but we shot without it all these years, so will just continue ... there's never a true all-purpose mulit-purpose lens anyway ... most are for specific settings - so that didn't change at all.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I have not used that Sigma (though I do own a Sigma 85 1.4). However I had the 24-105 f4L (ver 1) for many years and happy with it until I dropped it and dented the filter ring. I gave it away to a young photographer and replaced it with the newer 24-70 f4L. Before I gave it away I did this comparison shot to check how it handles distortion at wide angle. As the sample shows, the newer 24-70 keeps edges straighter than the ver 1 and I suspect the new 24-105 f4L ii is the same (and possibly the Sigma Art).

So if you do a lot of closeup wide angle it may be worth upgrading, but for general purpose or landscape shots probably not. One plus of the 24-70 f4L that I got is it has a dedicated macro switch that turns it into a true macro lens. So if you like having macro available and do not have a separate macro lens, you might want to look into this one.

 

[picturefan]

Comparing the "three" - I suspect with the technology approximately equal, those that own the V1 will keep it, and the new buyers coming up into the Canon box will buy the V2 ... once the V1 runs out of stock. So, my guess is Canon figured this out already and built V2 for the new buyer market, not the upgrade market. The weatherseal is one benefit over Siggie for sure ... especially those of us that primarily shoot outdoors.

Those that like/buy Siggies will probably still buy Siggies...

Those that know technology better than me (HA, most of you) say it's as good as glass can get when building a 24-105 zoom range. So, maybe we're at that point, and anyone needs better glass can go with 16-35 and a 70-200 - filling that void with a couple prime lenses if necessary. Disappointing, that the new 24-105 lacks enough improvement, but we shot without it all these years, so will just continue ... there's never a true all-purpose mulit-purpose lens anyway ... most are for specific settings - so that didn't change at all.

When the sigma became available, I was in the market for an 24-105. As you wrote, it should mainly become an outdoor landscape lens. So the siggie was too big/heavy and, main criteria, no weather sealing. Waited for the 24-105II. But it is not worth the upgrade from ver I, espec. at that price point. So still waiting. Tammy 24-70? 24-70 2.8II?
Also was thinking about 16-35 4.0 and some primes to fill the gap to 70-200. This should be quite good, high quality, fair prices. But the gap to 100-400 is too big.