Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS ART Production on Hold?

[Lawliet]

I'm not sure how the Sigma compares to the Nikon 24-120mm, then it's 15mm shorter & suffers from Sigma's reputation for having AF problems, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Sigma w/ F mount didn't sell well either.

The Nikkor was designed with the idea of correcting CA in software in mind. If one accepts this it's about on par with the Sigma or the Canon 24-105. The same situation as with the Canon - no great benefits, but also no first party service and you lose one lens that counts against the requirements for CPS/NPS.

 

[Loswr]

The Nikkor was designed with the idea of correcting CA in software in mind. If one accepts this...

I wouldn't accept it, correcting CA in software isn't without an IQ penalty. Are many Nikon lenses designed to not correct well for CA?

 

[Lawliet]

Are many Nikon lenses designed to not correct well for CA?

It's most common in the superzoom-group, where a more complete correction would cause harder to fix problems due to other aberrations.

 

[dgatwood]

From what I've read, the Sigma 24-105 does not have an IQ or price advantage over the Canon 24-105, and Sigma's reputation for having AF problems, I can see why people would rather buy their kit lens from Canon, hurting sales & profit of the Sigma.

Actually, it has a pretty significant IQ advantage over the 24–105L, particularly with respect to corner sharpness, although it has somewhat more chromatic aberration. Of course, it is also considerably more expensive and lacks any weather sealing. IMO, that's a pretty serious flaw in Sigma's offering. If they retooled it with weather sealing at that price, it would be a no-brainer, but as it is, it's a tradeoff.

 

[slclick]

I agree with dgatwood's comments to a point. The 24-105, no matter who makes it isn't a lens I think of when shooting in inhospitable weather. I also agree that's it doesn't fit the Art classification and is more of a 'C' lens but I think most who talk down about it have not used it for an extensive period or even owned it and are pontificating solely based upon reviews online.

 

[Frodo]

I think most who talk down about it have not used it for an extensive period or even owned it and are pontificating solely based upon reviews online.

I respect Bryan's comment at TDP:

Sigma wins the 24mm contest and Canon wins at 105mm. But that's at f/4. Stop down to f/5.6, and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in sharpness between these lenses. The Sigma has slightly more light falloff at long end but shows less flare. The Canon has less pincushion distortion in the mid focal lengths.
The Sigma focuses more quietly than the Canon, but the Canon focuses a bit faster than the Sigma. The Canon has a larger and better-positioned focus ring with more rotation (122° vs. 90°). The Canon uses smaller filters (77mm vs. 82mm), but the advantage should go to the size that is already in your kit. The Canon lens is lighter and slightly smaller – and is weather sealed.

No reason to replace my Canon, which is my most commonly used lens. And buying new, I'd still buy the Canon.

 

[slclick]

I know what works for me. I've owned two copies of the Canon and now have a Sigma. My comments are from my experience. I respect BC, respect him very much. However I will always take my own real life experiences over anything else. My best lenses are BOTH Canon L and Sigma Art lenses. I choose the best gear for my needs regardless of the brand. I also write in incomplete sentences while holding off on eating anything before the big meal today.

 

[dgatwood]

I agree with dgatwood's comments to a point. The 24-105, no matter who makes it isn't a lens I think of when shooting in inhospitable weather.

It isn't really a question of whether you'd pick that lens for that purpose. A lens in roughly that range is likely to be the 90% lens for most folks—the lens that's attached to the camera 90% of the time. As a result, it is the most likely to get caught in inhospitable weather.

 

[AlmostDecent]

I think there is little doubt the Sigma holds an edge at a few points, notably the 24mm range, and the 75-85mm f/4, an odd gap in both the Canon and Nikkor lenses. Still, the biggest problems are:

1) Weight! Frankly at 2 pounds or 880g this is a heavy lens and is roughly 200g heavier than the rivals. For the super primes they put out, where it is quality above all, this might be acceptable, but for a do-it-all lens that is designed to be taken everywhere always, it is a problem. In fact, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II is 10% lighter even.

2) No weather sealing. For the same reason as above, for a lens that is designed to be your everyday lens taken everywhere, this is a rather serious oversight.

3) Price. The rivals may not meet it for sharpness at all points, but overall it is not so clear cut so the higher price compared to the kit lenses is impossible to justify. Sure at MSRP it looks good, but both Nikkor and Canon can be purchased for $700 or so, which is $200 cheaper. The Nikkor may lose in sharpness a bit, but it has weather sealing, greater reach, and is lighter and cheaper. The Canon has weather sealing, is in between the Nikkor and Sigma in sharpness, is built like a tank, and is the lightest and cheapest.

 

[slclick]

Ok, these are all fair points, I agree to disagree with some of them but my main issue with this thread is...Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.

 

[Loswr]

Ok, these are all fair points, I agree to disagree with some of them but my main issue with this thread is...Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.

That might be the problem. If the lens was popular enough that more people owned it, it would be unlikely Sigma would stop production.

 

[slclick]

Ok, these are all fair points, I agree to disagree with some of them but my main issue with this thread is...Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.

That might be the problem. If the lens was popular enough that more people owned it, it would be unlikely Sigma would stop production.

Problem or not, it's the type of perspective that I value. Believe me, I have read all the heavy hitters opinions (I don't mean all the anti-Siggites on CRF) prior to laying down the cash for mine. Furthermore I know this is a production minded thread and I'm going off on a IQ and build tangent here with my personal experience...but that's the direction and mood of the naysayers as well. Fwiw, I've shot with this in rain and snow on multiple occasions without issue, true I did have an B+W XS Pro filter on the front.

Copies almost always vary, the body combo matters greatly as well. If you have used/owned this for a decent amount of images I'd love to have you chime in. I could totally be alone in my opinion and that is fine by me.

 

[Lawliet]

Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.

There is always the 3rd option, rent or borrow the lens. Added benefit - less incline to justify the decision, one way or the other.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

We must remember that recently launched another competitor, the Canon 24-105 STM, when the market was already flooded with 24-105L.

In this current scenario, it is difficult to sell many units of the Sigma 24-105, because the quality does not exceed the Canon L, and the price does not match the Canon STM. :

Maybe Sigma had some information (wrong?) that Canon would stop manufacturing 24-105L, and such a thing was not confirmed. ??? :-\

 

[allanP]

They haven't gotten the 150-600mm Contemporary model out yet either, considering the Sport version been out a couple of months now I wonder if they discovered someone forgot to carry the one in solving the lens grinding characteristics. As a matter of fact I signed up for a notification email for when the 150-600 C was in stock -- today I received an email from B&H stating the lens was discontinued. I see nothing about it on Sigma's website so maybe it is a problem over at B&H

Although the 150-600mm Contemporary is still present on the Sigma homepage...

 

[slclick]

We must remember that recently launched another competitor, the Canon 24-105 STM, when the market was already flooded with 24-105L.

In this current scenario, it is difficult to sell many units of the Sigma 24-105, because the quality does not exceed the Canon L, and the price does not match the Canon STM. :

Maybe Sigma had some information (wrong?) that Canon would stop manufacturing 24-105L, and such a thing was not confirmed. ??? :-\

The quality DOES exceed the Canon, no one ever said it does not, they just disagree in varying amounts

 

[dgatwood]

Ok, these are all fair points, I agree to disagree with some of them but my main issue with this thread is...Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.

I seriously considered it, but in the end decided that even though I'd love the lower distortion at 24mm, it wasn't worth giving up the weather sealing. I'll wait for either an updated version with weather sealing or an updated Canon 24–105L II, whichever comes first.

 

[Dave Clauss]

I just joined the forum for this!

With my 5Dmk3 I bought it with the 24-105L when it was on sale late last year for the price of a 5dmk3 body. Although it's a pretty good lens, it's not as sharp as i'd like but it's very versatile, But I HATE shooting at F4, Sharpness just isn't there. I'd rather shoot at a much higher ISO at 5.6 than 100 at F4. I don't really worry too much about the weather conditions and hiking with it singed around my side when hiking steep trails. because If I ruined it, it would give me a good reason to get the 24-70L 2.8

I have the sigma 50 art, LOVE IT! I think I've had good luck with it because of the 5dmk3's good Af sensor. I had canons 50 1.8, loved it but it was old, found it in my parents cabinet, it came with their SLR from who knows how long ago and the bokah is beautiful, but the plastic construction gave it a very short life in my arsenal.
I bought canon's 1.4 50, unfortunately I had to sell it for financial reasons, but I bought it on eBay for about $300 and sold it for $300. Knew it would be a quick sale. But when I was ready to get a new 50..

Used canon's 85L 1.2 for a long weekend of various shooting conditions, I was appalled with its performance. Low light.. speed with kids running around, AF missing like crazy.. Maybe it was just a heavily used lens, (rental) I knew the 50 1.2L had similar construction and I just couldn't stomach owning something that bad.

Back to Sigma! Still love my Art 50!

I love that they did a 1.8 zoom lens! APS-C only.. BOOOO

I'll admit, I'm not up on Sigmas current financial situation So I guess I should give them some slack in my next several expressions.

Though I haven't tried the Sigma 24-105 lens, As far as I know, it's not water sealed? First hit

Everyone would LOVE a 24-104L or 24-70L 2.8 IS. but I'd assume the engineering, size, and price would put it at a price above $2400 and they might as well paint it white. if the 24-70 is an 82mm thread, imagine it with IS?

Same as the L but the 24-105L, even though a decent lens, is pretty much a kit lens and there's a TON of them out there, I tried selling mine to subsidies a 24-70 2.8 and the price ebay said it was going for was way too low to legitimize it.

My business associate recommended I save it for video jobs, so I did

I think If I get more sports jobs, I'll buy Sigmas 120-300 2.8 is lens.. Wayyyyy cheaper and more versatile than canons Tele Primes. I would have rented it already but it's not on Borrowlenses

I'm not holding my breath for their 85. I have a 100L 2.8 IS Macro, very sharp for portraits and I think it would be somewhat redundant to own something so close, I plan on buying the 7Dmk2 soon so the sigma 50 on the crop 7d would pretty much make it an 85.

I think if Sigma has limited resources, they should focus on lenses that haven't been created yet. Full frame too Please!

 

[Rudeofus]

Everyone would LOVE a 24-104L or 24-70L 2.8 IS. but I'd assume the engineering, size, and price would put it at a price above $2400 and they might as well paint it white. if the 24-70 is an 82mm thread, imagine it with IS?

You do realize that Tamron does make a 24-70 2.8 USD VC (which is their name for USM IS) with 82mm filter thread ...

 

[StudentOfLight]

Everyone would LOVE a 24-104L or 24-70L 2.8 IS. but I'd assume the engineering, size, and price would put it at a price above $2400 and they might as well paint it white. if the 24-70 is an 82mm thread, imagine it with IS?

You do realize that Tamron does make a 24-70 2.8 USD VC (which is their name for USM IS) with 82mm filter thread ...

Yes, Tamron's lens doesn't cost $2400 and it's a pretty good performer optically with the handy inclusion of VC.

The minor issues I have with mine are:
1) I find the zoom action isn't as smooth as I'd like
2) The focus ring is narrow and the focus throw is also a bit short so not great for manual focusing
3) Autofocus is inconsistent on the 5D-III, so I use it for deep dof shots (f/5.6-f/11) or on my 60D or 6D.

Are these issues worth more than a 1000$ dollars? Not to me.