Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Discontinued
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I'm not the least surprised, because:
1. Reviews present this lens to be on the same class as the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I don't dismiss the positive feedback by photographers on this thread, but reviews have more weight than anectodal feedback on forums.
2. The EF 24-105mm is cheaper in kit / white box than the Sigma.
3. This is the lens I take with me unless I need faster / wider / longer / whatever. With Sigma's reputation (focus problems, quality variance), I'd rather stick with Canon brand for this lens. I believe I'm not in a minority position on this one.
1. Reviews present this lens to be on the same class as the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I don't dismiss the positive feedback by photographers on this thread, but reviews have more weight than anectodal feedback on forums.
2. The EF 24-105mm is cheaper in kit / white box than the Sigma.
3. This is the lens I take with me unless I need faster / wider / longer / whatever. With Sigma's reputation (focus problems, quality variance), I'd rather stick with Canon brand for this lens. I believe I'm not in a minority position on this one.
Upvote
0
Weird. If you go to the Sigma site and pull up a list of their discontinued lenses, this lens does not appear on that list. If you pull up a list of their current lenses, this lens is still being sold (at least it appears that you can order it.
I can understand why Canon shooters would not choose this lens over the Canon version; but I would imagine that other system shooters might like it. If I were in the market for a zoom lens for my Nikon, I might have considered this lens.
I can understand why Canon shooters would not choose this lens over the Canon version; but I would imagine that other system shooters might like it. If I were in the market for a zoom lens for my Nikon, I might have considered this lens.
Upvote
0
dash2k8 said:
+1
When Sigma introduced this lens I figured it would need to be optically excellent to differentiate itself from the very good and inexpensive Canon L options (24-70/4 and older 24-105/4). According to the reviews, it was only slightly better then the 24-105L and similar optically to the 24-70/4L. Given the low price of the Canon lenses, there was just no reason to buy a brand with a poor reputation historically (prior to the Art series) over a better known and respected brand like Canon.
This appears to be poor market research by Sigma. Their 35 and 50 Art lenses filled a niche in the market that Canon has neglected for awhile. The Canon 35mm and 50mm offerings (other than the excellent 35/2 IS) are showing their age, so the 35 and 50 Art provided photographers with lenses that were significantly better than the Canon L's at a better price point. With the 24-105 they didn't differentiate either in quality or price.
Upvote
0
The Sigma lenses I have really enjoyed using over the years have always filled a niche or done something slightly different (70mm Macro: great for both APS-C and 135, superalative resolving power) the Bigma 50-500, their UWAs (12-24 was only choice for Canon when I had one, only nonfisheye choice at time for 10-20 when I got my 400D) , substantially cheaper (18-50 f2.8) , or of late, substantially better (50mm f1.4)
Trying to sell a premium zoom that already comes as great bundled value seemed a real waste of their R&D and a pointless exercise. No matter how great the Sigma version was, for the same or less money, folk will want the Canon. It may well be that when the next round of Canon DSLRs comes round that the Canon 24-105 is exposed in ways that the sigma wouldn't have been... but it's still a hard sell.
I like what Sigma are doing. They talk to the public, they seem interested, they come up with some interesting ideas, and of late, you cannot sniff at the quality.
Trying to sell a premium zoom that already comes as great bundled value seemed a real waste of their R&D and a pointless exercise. No matter how great the Sigma version was, for the same or less money, folk will want the Canon. It may well be that when the next round of Canon DSLRs comes round that the Canon 24-105 is exposed in ways that the sigma wouldn't have been... but it's still a hard sell.
I like what Sigma are doing. They talk to the public, they seem interested, they come up with some interesting ideas, and of late, you cannot sniff at the quality.
Upvote
0
I would tend to agree that optically the lens was not really superior in real world photography to the Canon 24-105mm f4L and as the Canon lens is widely available as white box & good S/H ones on Ebay then the critical mass was likely not there for Sigma. Throw in the newly launched Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM lens and the volume drops again.
Upvote
0
jeffa4444 said:
+1. I agree that Canon's introduction of the non-L 24-105 probably is the final nail in the coffin for Sigma. With an intial price of ~600, it's primed to be sell for a few hundred in a kit.
This is a misstep with Sigma and their new product philosophy (Art/Contemporary/Sport). They had clear wins with the 35 and 50mm primes, but missed with the 30 for APS-C and now the 24-105. Sigma is a company like any other -- a new marketing scheme does not make them immune to missteps or not understanding the market properly.
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
I don't think Sigma had any real expectation of replacing Canon 24-105 with their 24-105. It would have been nice for Sigma if it did. But other camera systems lacked a good quality 24-105. I think that was the intended market, not Canon users.
We need to make sure that we are not just looking at this from a Canon-centric viewpoint.
Upvote
0
Although a bit better than the Canon L lens (slightly sharper and better contrast), it is also much heavier, and more expensive. So it is a tough sell, unlike some other 3rd party offerings like the Tamron 24-70 with VC. It also had some issues like lockups with the 6D if GPS was enabled, that took them almost a year to resolve. WOrse: to fix it you either need to spend a further $100 for the USB dock, or send it in for support.
On the Nikon bodies they had an edge in price over the 24-120 and in image quality, but ran into two other issues: the lens is a massive battery drain since it switches on the camera's metering for each shot and locks it on for 60 seconds. This was already true of the D800 bodies, and persists with the D600s and D750. This issue was never resolved. Users in events and other reported as much as 1% battery drain per minute.
On the Nikon bodies they had an edge in price over the 24-120 and in image quality, but ran into two other issues: the lens is a massive battery drain since it switches on the camera's metering for each shot and locks it on for 60 seconds. This was already true of the D800 bodies, and persists with the D600s and D750. This issue was never resolved. Users in events and other reported as much as 1% battery drain per minute.
Upvote
0
AcutancePhotography said:
I think Sigma was hoping to take a large chunk out from Canon and Nikon. It's available in 2 other mounts: Sony and Sigma. How much will they sell of those? When Sigma's lens came out, the white box Canon was available for about 800. Now the white box Canons go for closer to 600. Sigma can't compete with that when it has to charge 800-900. Canon has a larger user base than Nikon, and failing to penetrate the market in the largest segment will hurt overall profitability.
Upvote
0
AlmostDecent said:
It's definitely interesting to hear about the Sigma's performance for other brands! Thanks for that info. Those are some pretty serious issues and it makes even more sense for Sigma to discontinue the lens. I'm surprised that people would still use this lens, esp the Nikonites.
Upvote
0
AcutancePhotography said:
Canon Rumors said:
I don't read the CR note as "there is a press release or an official information that..." but as "a hidden source told us, that...".
So this is a rumor likely to be true. But nothing official.
Maybe this will come within time, or will kept quitetly hidden or maybe it's not true. We'll see...
Upvote
0
Canon Rumors said:
There are contradictory stories going on this lens:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55104350
Upvote
0
bholliman said:
Actually worse than the 24-70 f/4 IS if you are thinking stopped down 24mm-35mm landscapes or stopped down 70mm landscapes. The 24-70 f/4 IS definitely delivers better there.
Also, the sigma was HUGE for f/4! I mean it's not only far larger and heavier than the 24-105L it is even larger and heavier than the 24-70 f/2.8 II! And almost insanelly larger and heavier than the ultra light and compact 24-70 f/4 IS.
Upvote
0
I've always thought this lens was more appropriate for Nikon shooters who only have the less than stellar 24-120 which is overpriced. It should be mopping up the floor in Nikon land.
As far as for Canon, The Sigma was no bargain, with Canon 24-105mm L lenses readily available new from USA Authorized sources in the mid $600 range.
As far as for Canon, The Sigma was no bargain, with Canon 24-105mm L lenses readily available new from USA Authorized sources in the mid $600 range.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
