Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Discontinued

[dtheune]

Why so much hate on this lens? I own the lens and find it to be exceptional use with this the 5Diii for a video/photo shoot, works just as good as Canon's if not better. And I have both the Canon 24-105 and the Sigma Art 24-105. I prefer SA's sharpness, smooth manual focus and quieter auto-focus over the Canon. It's a great lens, in fact I may buy another one before they are off the market completely.

 

[Slyham]

I think this shows the difficulty a third party lens manufacturer has. They have to make lenses that are either:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Ultra sharp
[*]Ultra cheap
[*]Ultra unique
[/list]

And do it a good price point. This lens doesn't seem to fit any of the qualifications.

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

The Sigma 24-105 must have not been in production for even a year. This makes me wonder what lenses have had the shortest production run. Someone should make a list.

 

[Maximilian]

Why so much hate on this lens?

Hi dtheune!

I don't see so many people hate that lens. I personally don't have any experience with it, so I cannot say if I'd love or hate it. I have a 24-105L so i didn't think about buying the Sigma after seeing some comparisons.
I only see people thinking in a similar way as I do:
- There is a really good and well priced (white box or kit lens) Canon L version of this focal length
- the L is optically on level (may be subjective), has a smaller filter (77mm is yet a "standard", 82 mm will become in future) and has sealing
- so there is almost nothing Sigma can give to a Canon owner that he can't acheive with the Canon lens

Conclusion:
==> So this lens was either designed (not good enough) or priced (too high) wrong.
==> Or it was aimed on the non-Canon market and didn't get the sales there.

Pitty, as it seems to be a really good lens. But nothing people (both Canon and other brands) have been waiting for. So it seems.

 

[eosmaniac]

I e-mailed Sigma yesterday about this. The person who responded said that they had to temporarily shift resources from production of this lens to other lenses (probably the 150-600mm). He indicated the 24-105 has not been discontinued. I thanked him and recommended that Sigma get in front of this story instead of allowing endless speculation. We'll see . . .

 

[Viggo]

...."allowing endless speculation" is SUPERB advertising, just saying

 

[sanj]

Bryan's site:

Contrary to some current rumors, the Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 DG OS HSM Art Lens has not been discontinued. According to Sigma Corporation of America, "The 24-105mm is most definitely not discontinued." This rumor most likely arose from the fact that this lens is very hard to find in stock right now. Sigma assured me that this lens is very much a part of their current line. "We are behind on production but are working on catching up." Sigma is experiencing "... really high demand and fulfilling all the orders across the world has been tough." That is good news to me as I really like the 24-105 OS Art Lens.

 

[dshodgins]

It's hard to accept that it's "cheaper" as well, when it comes right down to it.

Yes, the lens itself might be a few hundred cheaper than the Canon version, for example, not not if you have to buy a new set of filters for it, in the 82mm range, instead of the typical 77mm. And then carry another set of filters around, just to use this lens.

In fact, about the only "pro" lens from Nikon or Canon that's 82mm is the Canon 24-70/2.8 II. Almost everything else is 77mm, which means an expense to use it, for a demographic generally looking to save.

 

[slclick]

It's hard to accept that it's "cheaper" as well, when it comes right down to it.

Yes, the lens itself might be a few hundred cheaper than the Canon version, for example, not not if you have to buy a new set of filters for it, in the 82mm range, instead of the typical 77mm. And then carry another set of filters around, just to use this lens.

In fact, about the only "pro" lens from Nikon or Canon that's 82mm is the Canon 24-70/2.8 II. Almost everything else is 77mm, which means an expense to use it, for a demographic generally looking to save.

Even for Canon, 82 is the new 77. Really, are you going to not buy the glass you want because of a filter purchase? Use it without until you can afford if it's a savings issue. Unless it's a field Macro lens or you shoot in crazy bad conditions, get the glass that's right for you and deal with the filter later (or buy a step up/down/ring)

 

[gcookie]

My Canon L 24-105 crapped out after a couple of years with poor focusing. I bought the Sigma lens and wish it had been around when I bought the Canon. The Canon has been know to be a "weak" L lens for years and has issues.. I would not buy another Canon L lens when Sigma has this new line of art and sports lens with the USB dock... Drive the Porsche , I've own them and their costs. I'm wiser now....

 

[mrsfotografie]

My Canon L 24-105 crapped out after a couple of years with poor focusing. I bought the Sigma lens and wish it had been around when I bought the Canon. The Canon has been know to be a "weak" L lens for years and has issues.. I would not buy another Canon L lens when Sigma has this new line of art and sports lens with the USB dock... Drive the Porsche , I've own them and their costs. I'm wiser now....

Troll?

The 24-105L is a very good lens, and I have plenty of other lenses to compare it to... you may just have had a dud, or another issue.

FWIW are you seriously comparing Sigma to Porsche? Since when is Porsche the more affordable alternative???

 

[Tinky]

don't know about being a troll, but certainly a contender for my new 'most awful car analogy of the week'.

To be fair, Sigma isn't always the cheaper alternative. Look at the 50mm 1.4 dg and Art....

one of the following pictures depicts a porsche (or is it a vw, not sure) the other depicts a sigma lens... see if you can work out which is which, and why car analogies aren't always that helpful....

 

[Maximilian]

... one of the following pictures depicts a porsche (or is it a vw, not sure) ...

Hi Tinky!

The red thing is a Porsche 924. Looks like an ad photo from Porsche as you can read the "S" on the license plate for the city of Stuttgart where they are located.
A VW would have the "WOB" for Wolfsburg in ads.
But as Porsche is now owned by VW you can say it's all alike.

 

[Tinky]

... one of the following pictures depicts a porsche (or is it a vw, not sure) ...

Hi Tinky!

The red thing is a Porsche 924. Looks like an ad photo from Porsche as you can read the "S" on the license plate for the city of Stuttgart where they are located.
A VW would have the "WOB" for Wolfsburg in ads.
But as Porsche is now owned by VW you can say it's all alike.

Cheers Max, it was a wee in-joke for Porsche aficionados there...

It is a porsche (I knew that) but it has a VAG L4 engine, and was developed as a VW.
Often derided as the poor mans porsche, the vee dub porsche or the worst porsche ever amongst purists.

As with everything branded, be it canon, sigma, porsche whatever, anomalies crop up everywhere, which is another reason camera / car analogies are so facile and tedious.

Cheers

 

[Maximilian]

Cheers Max, it was a wee in-joke for Porsche aficionados there...

It is a porsche (I knew that) but it has a VAG L4 engine, and was developed as a VW.
Often derided as the poor mans porsche, the vee dub porsche or the worst porsche ever amongst purists.

As with everything branded, be it canon, sigma, porsche whatever, anomalies crop up everywhere, which is another reason camera / car analogies are so facile and tedious.

Cheers

Hey Tinky! Man, there you got me! *lol*
I should have known it. I am not a "Porsche aficionados" but as a car and German Sports car fan I of course know about the motor from VW but wouldn't have known the the engine type for sure.

Okay, now I am awake.

 

[mrsfotografie]

... one of the following pictures depicts a porsche (or is it a vw, not sure) ...

Hi Tinky!

The red thing is a Porsche 924. Looks like an ad photo from Porsche as you can read the "S" on the license plate for the city of Stuttgart where they are located.
A VW would have the "WOB" for Wolfsburg in ads.
But as Porsche is now owned by VW you can say it's all alike.

Cheers Max, it was a wee in-joke for Porsche aficionados there...

It is a porsche (I knew that) but it has a VAG L4 engine, and was developed as a VW.
Often derided as the poor mans porsche, the vee dub porsche or the worst porsche ever amongst purists.

As with everything branded, be it canon, sigma, porsche whatever, anomalies crop up everywhere, which is another reason camera / car analogies are so facile and tedious.

Cheers

Actually the 914 is the original VW Porsche... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_914

And in fact 'the poor man's Porsche' is also often used to describe what I drive... the Golf GTI (Which is in fact a VW). I have the MkI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk1#Volkswagen_Golf_GTI and the Mk VI which is my daily driver.

FWIW Porsche and VW are practically inseparable : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group


And yes I full heartedly agree that 'camera / car analogies are so facile and tedious' 8) 8) ;D

 

[NaturaLight]

Saw an ad in pop photo for this lens. Contacted canon professional services and they said it's one of their best sellers.

 

[Antono Refa]

Saw an ad in pop photo for this lens. Contacted canon professional services and they said it's one of their best sellers.

I guess you're confusing it with the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L S USM.

 

[lo lite]

Saw an ad in pop photo for this lens. Contacted canon professional services and they said it's one of their best sellers.

I guess you're confusing it with the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L S USM.

But then again B&H has it in stock finally (for Nikon F mount): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009622-REG/sigma_635_306_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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 agree, that for Nikon and Sony, it should sell well, since its a lens that out performs their lenses at a lower price. Apparently, sales overall did not stackup to expectations.