Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
HTML:
<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=15885"></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=15885">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Justin has completed our review of the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS. As expected, the lens is a real winner when compered to the Canon equivalent and is priced exceptionally well. Sigma’s quality, warranty and pricing are going to ensure that they’re worth your consideration at certain focal lengths.</p>
<p><strong>Says Justin
</strong><em>“My opening line said it all: Sigma is absolutely killing it with these new lenses. They perform, look and are priced better than the Canon equivalents. …….. Their attention to industrial design and optics makes me think more of the even higher-end Zeiss lenses than it does a Canon, which is smart, because the cost difference between a Zeiss lens and Sigma is even greater, creating an even more compelling price gap in Sigma’s favour.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-sigma-24-105mm-f4-os/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <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 $899</a>
</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
Upvote
0
Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
Why do people insist on posting images of bookshelves to demonstrate how "sharp" a lens is? There was not one detail in those images that was resolved differently by either lens, mainly due to the dearth of any high frequency detail that might show up resolution differences. If it wasn't for the distortion differences, I might have actually thought that they were samples from the same lens.
I think I'll wait for the results from Roger Cicala to decide whether the Sigma is a worthwhile upgrade. I would recommend that in future, you either do reviews properly or stop publishing this rubbish as CR's "official" review.
Why do people insist on posting images of bookshelves to demonstrate how "sharp" a lens is? There was not one detail in those images that was resolved differently by either lens, mainly due to the dearth of any high frequency detail that might show up resolution differences. If it wasn't for the distortion differences, I might have actually thought that they were samples from the same lens.
I think I'll wait for the results from Roger Cicala to decide whether the Sigma is a worthwhile upgrade. I would recommend that in future, you either do reviews properly or stop publishing this rubbish as CR's "official" review.
Upvote
0
Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
If my L version ever breaks, this will be its replacement, but I'm not certain I would head out right now to by one.
However, should someone comes out with a more interesting choice, such as a 24-105 f2.8, or a 28-135 f2.8, either of those would part me from my money much sooner.
(and no, the 24-70 is not acceptable; the long end is simply too short to be useful for me)
Thank you for the excellent review.
If my L version ever breaks, this will be its replacement, but I'm not certain I would head out right now to by one.
However, should someone comes out with a more interesting choice, such as a 24-105 f2.8, or a 28-135 f2.8, either of those would part me from my money much sooner.
(and no, the 24-70 is not acceptable; the long end is simply too short to be useful for me)
Thank you for the excellent review.
Upvote
0
Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
I'm surprised that there wasn't more difference on the samples posted in the review at f4. Maybe there is more obvious visual benefit at other focal lengths.
If people howl about the price difference between the 24-105 and 24-70 IS not being worth it I can't see that this would stack up for those people either when you can buy the Canon version so cheap.
I stick to what I thought when I first heard the rumour; this lens is targeted at Nikon / Sony users. However anything that keeps Canon on their toes is good for Canon users.
I'm surprised that there wasn't more difference on the samples posted in the review at f4. Maybe there is more obvious visual benefit at other focal lengths.
If people howl about the price difference between the 24-105 and 24-70 IS not being worth it I can't see that this would stack up for those people either when you can buy the Canon version so cheap.
I stick to what I thought when I first heard the rumour; this lens is targeted at Nikon / Sony users. However anything that keeps Canon on their toes is good for Canon users.
Upvote
0
Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
Out of 23 "reviews" this is the first and *only* time we posted photos of my dusty bookshelves. I certainly don't insist on it, or like it, but it does show difference of detail in the corners, vignetting and other real-world variables.
Roger is an incredible technical reviewer with all the right tools to measure and analyze lenses and I too look forward to his reviews and articles. I just pay less attention to the charts and more to how it works for me professionally. The final image is what matters to me and my clients. I'm also open to hearing your take on what entails a "proper" review for my future rubbish.
traveller said:
Out of 23 "reviews" this is the first and *only* time we posted photos of my dusty bookshelves. I certainly don't insist on it, or like it, but it does show difference of detail in the corners, vignetting and other real-world variables.
Roger is an incredible technical reviewer with all the right tools to measure and analyze lenses and I too look forward to his reviews and articles. I just pay less attention to the charts and more to how it works for me professionally. The final image is what matters to me and my clients. I'm also open to hearing your take on what entails a "proper" review for my future rubbish.
Upvote
0
Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
I agree, there wasn't a huge difference until I started pixel peeping. Corners were a big difference and that's even a highlight in Sigma's own marketing material. Without being too detail focused, the Sigma seemed to perform better at 50mm than the Canon, but I don't measure this stuff *too* much. At SRP, the Sigma is cheaper than the Canon, but we all know how to get the Canon for less these days... still, holding the Sigma mattered, it's a lovely lens even for a little bit more (but not a lot).
Sporgon said:
I agree, there wasn't a huge difference until I started pixel peeping. Corners were a big difference and that's even a highlight in Sigma's own marketing material. Without being too detail focused, the Sigma seemed to perform better at 50mm than the Canon, but I don't measure this stuff *too* much. At SRP, the Sigma is cheaper than the Canon, but we all know how to get the Canon for less these days... still, holding the Sigma mattered, it's a lovely lens even for a little bit more (but not a lot).
Upvote
0
Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
Nobody tell my wife I posted high res photos of my dusty and messy bookshelf okay? :-X
Nobody tell my wife I posted high res photos of my dusty and messy bookshelf okay? :-X
Upvote
0
For me the lens is just too heavy. I'm sure it would make an ideal lens for a lot of people though its just not really a travel lens, is it?
I also don't like the way it zooms, it looks weird.
I've only had my 24-105L for less than a year but it's already my most used lens. Yeah it has it's faults but damn that thing is just so useful. Kudos to Sigma for making a cracking lens though.
I also don't like the way it zooms, it looks weird.
I've only had my 24-105L for less than a year but it's already my most used lens. Yeah it has it's faults but damn that thing is just so useful. Kudos to Sigma for making a cracking lens though.
Upvote
0
Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
Maybe someone started one up unrelated to our review? Their own take?
charts *eyes glaze over*
But thanks for those, if I'm reading them right they confirm what I saw with my eyes, but with math.
dilbert said:
Maybe someone started one up unrelated to our review? Their own take?
charts *eyes glaze over*
But thanks for those, if I'm reading them right they confirm what I saw with my eyes, but with math.
Upvote
0
iMagic said:
Yeah, there's a term for that right? "Non-parfocal" but neither is the Canon... for what that's worth.
Upvote
0
Zv said:
Exactly. A friend of mine *really* wanted to like it, but they wanted it as a sort of travel/backup kit lens. Too heavy for his work. I think there's a good reason that Canon is such a well travelled and sold lens: it meets a very good quality/weight/versatility balance.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
JVLphoto said:
No, they are two different things.
Parfocal means a lens maintains focus while being zoomed, it's a very useful feature for shooting video (whereas with stills, it's generally easy to refocus after zooming). The Canon 24-105L is not parfocal (the 17-40, 16-35, and 70-200/2.8 non-IS are parfocal). Not sure on the Sigma, but I'd guess it's not parfocal.
Focus shift means the focus changes when the lens is stopped down. No problem shooting wide open, but if you stop the lens down to f/5.6 or f/8 with a close subject, that subject will likely not be in crisp focus with the Sigma 24-105. With more distant subjects, the effect is masked by the deeper DoF. The 50/1.2L is notorious for focus shift (people call it a 'backfocus problem' usually because of a lack of understanding the real issue).
Upvote
0
Some of us want a lens we can know will perform in the rain and snow. Is this as weather resistant as Canon's L-series lenses? Can this lens go to the windy beach and not get clogged with sand? I've had Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS in all sorts of conditions, and I have not thought twice about it. Dumb luck or specs, I do not know.
Is there a reliable rating system for such a question?
Is there a reliable rating system for such a question?
Upvote
0
Nice review ... I would have developed severe G.A.S problems if it was f/2.8 ... since it's an f/4, I have successfully avoided G.A.S
Upvote
0
Similar threads
