Official: Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS

[LetTheRightLensIn]

... and where are all of those who said "fake!" now?

Hiding ;D

Guess Sigma are going to bring the ubiquitous 24-105 to Nikon and Sony.

I presume they must be aiming at 24-70 f2.8 II image quality at a price below the 24-70 f4 IS. I don't see how they can match discounted EF 24-105's price let alone the used ones which are out there in their thousands.

The 24-70 f4 IS is a very different lens it would seem. Small and handy, goes well on an ungripped body whereas the Sigma looks like it's a beast.

That will depend on Canon's game plan. Is the 24-70IS a replacement for the 24-105, or just an additional lens choice? I would expect the Sigma to trounce the 24-105, and handily beat the 24-70 f/4. I doubt it will approach the 24-70II. They will pick that fight with their own 2.8 (or lower) offering. This Sigma will likely be the best single lens solution for folks that don't have the cash or incentive to buy the Tamron or the Canon 24-70 2.8. Naturally, until we see the price, this is all speculation. I would expect it to come in at around $900-1000, but who knows?

if it handily beat the 24-70 f/4 IS it would absolutely approach the 24-70 II!

They will be lucky to manage to tie the 24-70 f/4 IS.

They absolutely need to beat the 24-105 IS, we will see, the MTF look unpromising, but I'm not too familiar with how sigma MTF play out in the real world.

 

[trav.cunningham]

Interesting, the link now gives a "Not Found" error message. I think Sigma would make waves with this if it was $600, but I may be dreaming.

 

[Pi]

... and where are all of those who said "fake!" now?

The Sigma 24-105 was announced today.

Lalalalalalal I can't hear you lalallalalaalalala can't hear you lalalalalala. There will NEVER be a sigma 24-105.

But I just said that it was ann.....

Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala.

This does not mean that the image is not 3D rendering, done by Sigma.

 

[Lee Jay]

I'm more interested in the previously rumored 24-70/2 OS. If it's at least smaller and cheaper than the 70-200/2.8L ISII then I'd consider getting rid of the 24-105.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

... and where are all of those who said "fake!" now?

The Sigma 24-105 was announced today.

Lalalalalalal I can't hear you lalallalalaalalala can't hear you lalalalalala. There will NEVER be a sigma 24-105.

But I just said that it was ann.....

Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala.

This does not mean that the image is not 3D rendering, done by Sigma.

True (as CGI is used often these days for product work), but there is a big difference between saying that and saying that it's a fake mock up based upon no reality.

 

[mrsfotografie]

If this lens is awesome, I'll sell my EF 24-105 f4 to help pay for it.

However...in this range, I'm dying to see what the rumored Siggy 24-70 f2 will look like. I'll probably hold off on anything until it's revealed (IF it's revealed).

If this lens has a 82mm filter size for an f4 lens I cannot wait to see what an f2 zoom would have....

The Canon 24-105 shares the 77 mm filter size with most of my other lenses, and talking about polarizing filters, that's what I have... 77 mm.

 

[Harry Muff]

I shall be following this with interest...

 

[M.ST]

Canon is sleeping an other brands put new stuff on the market. It´s a shame.

 

[kirillica]

Canon is sleeping an other brands put new stuff on the market. It´s a shame.

You are not testing something interesting ATM? )

 

[Dimson]

honestly, the mtf doesn't impress me at all. on the other hand, based on what i've seen from sigma with their latest releases, it should be much better than any equivalents canon or nikon has to offer. my guess the price will be around 750-850$ and i really hope it will perform better than what the MTF shows, otherwise, whats the point? if it does i sure see myself getting myself a copy

one thing i dont understand though, is the A rating... a C would make much more sense

 

[Sporgon]

one thing i dont understand though, is the A rating... a C would make much more sense

Marketing

 

[kirillica]

honestly, the mtf doesn't impress me at all. on the other hand, based on what i've seen from sigma with their latest releases, it should be much better than any equivalents canon or nikon has to offer. my guess the price will be around 750-850$ and i really hope it will perform better than what the MTF shows, otherwise, whats the point? if it does i sure see myself getting myself a copy

one thing i dont understand though, is the A rating... a C would make much more sense

The Sigma MTF *is* better than the Canon MTF for the same zoom and the Sigma lens has less distortion. Vignetting - have to wait and see. Will be interesting to read the DxO review of it, that's for sure!

I would skip DxO review as meaningless. Even for lenses they are sucked (for example, make a comparison between Canon's 200-400 with built-in extender and Nikkor 200-400 without: everything is better for Canon, but transmission is a only a bit behind - Nikkor still has a better overall score ;D)

 

[Rick]

82mm

If this lens is awesome, I'll sell my EF 24-105 f4 to help pay for it.

However...in this range, I'm dying to see what the rumored Siggy 24-70 f2 will look like. I'll probably hold off on anything until it's revealed (IF it's revealed).

If this lens has a 82mm filter size for an f4 lens I cannot wait to see what an f2 zoom would have....

The Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4 has an 82mm filter size too. I don't think you can draw conclusions as you are doing. I don't think the filter size necessarily relates linearly to aperture or even field of view. Here's what Zeiss had to say about using 82mm on a 55mm lens: The new 82mm front element was designed to produce sharpness across the entire frame (in all fairness, it is unclear whether Zeiss is saying an 82mm front element is required for this design and intended result or that the size of the front element was simply incidental to the statement).

Unfortunately, judging by the MTFs, that approach ain't working for this Sigma lens.

 

[CTJohn]

Amazing how Sigma, after tons of so-so lenses and poor quality control, now gets the automatic nod from most of the posters. I'm happy with my Canon 24-105L and only phenomenal results in the real world would get my interest.

 

[mackguyver]

Amazing how Sigma, after tons of so-so lenses and poor quality control, now gets the automatic nod from most of the posters. I'm happy with my Canon 24-105L and only phenomenal results in the real world would get my interest.

Are you kidding? Your 24-105 is suddenly crap and will never take another good photo again. And those pros still shooting with their 28-70s are idiots.

;D

 

[Eldar]

Re: 82mm

The Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4 has an 82mm filter size too.

... I believe the Otus 55/1.4 is a 77mm.

 

[mackguyver]

Re: 82mm

The Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4 has an 82mm filter size too.

... I believe the Otus 55/1.4 is a 77mm.

Yep:

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Canon is sleeping an other brands put new stuff on the market. It´s a shame.

How is having had the 24-105L out years earlier and the 24-70 II (which despite being f/2.8 actually weighs almost 100g LESS than this new f/4) and the 24-70 f/4 IS out earlier.... sleeping?

If you were talking sensors and low ISO DR and such, sure.... but in this case???

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

honestly, the mtf doesn't impress me at all. on the other hand, based on what i've seen from sigma with their latest releases, it should be much better than any equivalents canon or nikon has to offer. my guess the price will be around 750-850$ and i really hope it will perform better than what the MTF shows, otherwise, whats the point? if it does i sure see myself getting myself a copy

one thing i dont understand though, is the A rating... a C would make much more sense

The Sigma MTF *is* better than the Canon MTF for the same zoom and the Sigma lens has less distortion. Vignetting - have to wait and see. Will be interesting to read the DxO review of it, that's for sure!

Not better than the 24-70 f/4 IS MTF (again not that you can really compare these MTF anyway between brands).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: 82mm

The Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4 has an 82mm filter size too.

... I believe the Otus 55/1.4 is a 77mm.

True, but the point he made still stands. A typical 50-55mm f/1.4 has a 58mm filter size. 77mm is huge for a 55mm f/1.4.

It seems lots of these lenses that do better at the edges than before are having extra larger fronts (70-300L, 24-70 II, 55mm Otus, etc.).