nothing spectacular but optically better than nikkor and canon
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=389
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=389
The Nikon, maybe…and I suspect that's where this lens is aimed, to cover the relatively poorer performance of their 24-120/4 VR. But I doubt Canon sells many of the 24-105 lenses at retail cost, and the kit price is lower than the Sigma, significantly lower currently.mackguyver said:Putting aside the manufacturer supplied argument, it looks like it's competitive with the Canon/Nikon offerings, and beats them both on retail cost.
+1Mt Spokane Photography said:I would not give much value to a review of a lens given to a tester by the manufacturer. They would be pretty stupid if they did not give a carefully checked out lens that was a good if not exceptional copy.
When you see something like thie statement below, be skeptical - very skeptical
"We would like to thank profusely both the Sigma Corporation headquarters and its Polish branch, Sigma ProCentrum, for sending us the final specimen of the tested lens really quickly. "
+1 ... I am thinking of getting one for my Nikon DSLR ... coz I might sell the D7100 for a D610.AcutancePhotography said:I think this lens will be more of an interest with Nikon shooters.
neuroanatomist said:TDP has put up the ISO 12233 crops of the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=918
A bit better than the Canon 24-105L at the wide end, not too different in the middle, and a bit worse at the long end. Ata higher cost than the kit/white box price of the Canon 24-105L, I concur with the sentiment that this lens is aimed at Nikon users.