Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS HSM Art Lens Test Chart Samples

[Canon Rumors]

<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/2013/11/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-hsm-art-lens-test-chart-samples/"></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/2013/11/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-hsm-art-lens-test-chart-samples/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>UPDATE

</strong>The Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS HSM is now in stock at B&H Photo for $899</p>
<p><strong><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 HSM $899 at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>From The-Digital-Picture

</strong>Bryan over at TDP has posted his ISO 12233 test shots using the new <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 HSM Art lens</a>.</p>
<p>Bryan has spent a little while with the lens and has added some images and thoughts to his review page.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=918" target="_blank">ISO 12233 Sample Images</a> | <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-105mm-f-4.0-DG-OS-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS HSM Preview</a> </strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[traveller]

From what I can see on TDP, there's not a lot between the Sigma and Canon's 24-105 f/4s. The Sigma is perhaps a touch better at the wide end and the Canon a bit better at the long end; nothing that I think most people would notice in real life. No doubt Bryan's full review will find that the Sigma can't focus consistently...

 

[Maximilian]

Same to me.
+1 at 24 mm for Sigma
+1 at 50 mm for Canon
+1 at 105 mm for Canon, as well

So if there is no advantage in AF or IS the Sigma is just for Nikon users.
I can see no optical reason for Canon users. An then there are still things like built and dust protection...

 

[janhalasa]

There is a review of the Sigma at LensTip as well:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=389

 

[mwh1964]

The canon 24-105 currently is the best L lens deal to be had in my point of view. Really, you may get a weather sealed L lens for $ bucks more than a non L whatever lens. No reasons what so ever to get a Sigma. If 2.8 Sigma would have had a point.

 

[Radiating]

From what I can see on TDP, there's not a lot between the Sigma and Canon's 24-105 f/4s. The Sigma is perhaps a touch better at the wide end and the Canon a bit better at the long end; nothing that I think most people would notice in real life. No doubt Bryan's full review will find that the Sigma can't focus consistently...

This is a complete total and utter myth. Sigma changed the way they design their focusing chips, systems, and protocols over a year ago. I have purchased over 13 copies of recent Sigma lenses (I usually purchase 3+ copies of a lens to get the best one) including the Sigma 35mm 18-35mm and 85mm and these have been some of the best focusing lenses I have ever seen from any manufacturer and not a single one had any issue. In fact they required less Micro Adjustment than Canon's own lenses.

There is a clear dividing line between the old sigma and the new sigma, and that started in the middle of the production of the 85mm f/1.4, in fact Sigma offers an upgraded focusing chip for the 85mm 1.4 that makes a night and day difference. Literally it turned my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 from being poor to being flawless at focusing.

Sigma no-longer has focusing issues.

The myth that Sigma focuses poorly is simply not true with their newer offerings.

Regarding this lens though, it seems to be noticeably better from 24mm - 70mm and slightly worse at 105mm. I think that overall it's actually a better lens for a slightly higher price, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the sample images, but after looking at the back to back I've changed my mind.

If the bokeh is good and purple fringing is low I think it would be a good buy, it's more expensive but it's better.

 

[AlanF]

From what I can see on TDP, there's not a lot between the Sigma and Canon's 24-105 f/4s. The Sigma is perhaps a touch better at the wide end and the Canon a bit better at the long end; nothing that I think most people would notice in real life. No doubt Bryan's full review will find that the Sigma can't focus consistently...

This is a complete total and utter myth. Sigma changed the way they design their focusing chips, systems, and protocols over a year ago. I have purchased over 13 copies of recent Sigma lenses (I usually purchase 3+ copies of a lens to get the best one) including the Sigma 35mm 18-35mm and 85mm and these have been some of the best focusing lenses I have ever seen from any manufacturer and not a single one had any issue. In fact they required less Micro Adjustment than Canon's own lenses.

There is a clear dividing line between the old sigma and the new sigma, and that started in the middle of the production of the 85mm f/1.4, in fact Sigma offers an upgraded focusing chip for the 85mm 1.4 that makes a night and day difference. Literally it turned my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 from being poor to being flawless at focusing.

Sigma no-longer has focusing issues.

The myth that Sigma focuses poorly is simply not true with their newer offerings.

Regarding this lens though, it seems to be noticeably better from 24mm - 70mm and slightly worse at 105mm. I think that overall it's actually a better lens for a slightly higher price, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the sample images, but after looking at the back to back I've changed my mind.

If the bokeh is good and purple fringing is low I think it would be a good buy, it's more expensive but it's better.

See: http://www.lenstip.com/389.10-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24-105_mm_f_4_DG_OS_HSM_Autofocus.html

" When it comes to the accuracy the first small reservations appeared during the sample shots session. It was a beautiful, sunny day and when we were taking photos of well-lit (so low contrast) fronts of some tenement buildings from time to time we experienced focusing problems. The lens could go past the required position and it returned to it only after a while – such a behaviour is rare when it comes to its brand-name competitors.

The accuracy of the mechanism wasn't perfect but we didn’t have any serious reservations here. The number of misses didn’t exceed 4% which we consider a good result; still it is a bit worse than that of the Canon and the Nikkor. "

 

[candc]

i really like the new sigma lenses, they are not just an incredible value but built superb and for the most part at the top of their class optically. sigma has been on a roll lately, this one might not be a dud but doesn't look to make much of a bang either

if i recommend a sigma lens to someone i make it clear that they have to be willing to spend a considerable amount of time tuning it with the dock. maybe you have been lucky, the 2 new ones that i have had horrible af issues and would not be considered acceptable out of the box by most users. i have a few older ones that had some minor af issues but nothing like the newer ones?

ps. this seems to be more of a problem with the canon mount lenses, the nikon versions seem to be fine by most accounts. i would assume they all use the same focusing chip but the mount and firmware are different?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The canon 24-105 currently is the best L lens deal to be had in my point of view. Really, you may get a weather sealed L lens for $ bucks more than a non L whatever lens. No reasons what so ever to get a Sigma. If 2.8 Sigma would have had a point.

agree why not get the lighter/smaller lens that uses less expensive filters for a few hundred less (24-105L)
or pay $125 more and nab the much smaller/lighter less that uses less expensive filters and has better image quality (24-70 f/4 IS)? [before you scream about the prices, I'm talking realistic real world, nobody pays $1100 new for a 24-105L anymore, they pay closer to half that and the 24-70 f/4 IS goes on sale for $1025 or so often enough).

this beast weighs as much, is as large as, and uses as expensive filters as the tamron 24-70 f/2.8

 

[Radiating]

The canon 24-105 currently is the best L lens deal to be had in my point of view. Really, you may get a weather sealed L lens for $ bucks more than a non L whatever lens. No reasons what so ever to get a Sigma. If 2.8 Sigma would have had a point.

agree why not get the lighter/smaller lens that uses less expensive filters for a few hundred less (24-105L)
or pay $125 more and nab the much smaller/lighter less that uses less expensive filters and has better image quality (24-70 f/4 IS)? [before you scream about the prices, I'm talking realistic real world, nobody pays $1100 new for a 24-105L anymore, they pay closer to half that and the 24-70 f/4 IS goes on sale for $1025 or so often enough).

this beast weighs as much, is as large as, and uses as expensive filters as the tamron 24-70 f/2.8

The 24-70mm F/4.0 IS does not have better image quality than the 24-105mm, it has very poor image quality in the middle of the focal range. The image quality is so bad around 50mm on the 24-70mm f/4.0 IS from Canon that it's hard to even find a lens that is worse. The Canon 18-200mm EF-S superzoom and the 28-300mm Nikon superzoom are actually better at most focal lengths than the 24-70mm F/4.0 IS is at 50mm. We're literally talking bottom of the barrel quality here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

The Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 has the best image quality out of all the F/4.0 stabilized lenses out there. I could not possibly care less about "saving a few hundred bucks" or "more expensive filters" and there are many photographers who do not care about that either.

To me image quality and flexibility are the most important factors, period.

 

[lycan]

The canon 24-105 currently is the best L lens deal to be had in my point of view. Really, you may get a weather sealed L lens for $ bucks more than a non L whatever lens. No reasons what so ever to get a Sigma. If 2.8 Sigma would have had a point.

agree why not get the lighter/smaller lens that uses less expensive filters for a few hundred less (24-105L)
or pay $125 more and nab the much smaller/lighter less that uses less expensive filters and has better image quality (24-70 f/4 IS)? [before you scream about the prices, I'm talking realistic real world, nobody pays $1100 new for a 24-105L anymore, they pay closer to half that and the 24-70 f/4 IS goes on sale for $1025 or so often enough).

this beast weighs as much, is as large as, and uses as expensive filters as the tamron 24-70 f/2.8

The 24-70mm F/4.0 IS does not have better image quality than the 24-105mm, it has very poor image quality in the middle of the focal range. The image quality is so bad around 50mm on the 24-70mm f/4.0 IS from Canon that it's hard to even find a lens that is worse. The Canon 18-200mm EF-S superzoom and the 28-300mm Nikon superzoom are actually better at most focal lengths than the 24-70mm F/4.0 IS is at 50mm. We're literally talking bottom of the barrel quality here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

The Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 has the best image quality out of all the F/4.0 stabilized lenses out there. I could not possibly care less about "saving a few hundred bucks" or "more expensive filters" and there are many photographers who do not care about that either.

To me image quality and flexibility are the most important factors, period.

Yes, in fact the 24-70mm f/4 is worse at 50mm f/4, but just stop down to f/5.8 and it's all good. On the other focal ranges, the 24-70mm f/4 is the best of the three.

I agree with the previous comments. I'd rather pay less t o get the 24-105mm than this disappointing sigma.

 

[jrbdmb]

As long as Canon continues to pump out the 24-105L in kits (so you can pick up a white box version for under $700), this Sigma really has no reason to exist. It's larger, heavier, and at least for now more expensive, with little to no gain in IQ and a higher risk of AF issues.

 

[crasher8]

I have had 2 copies of the 24-105. This new Sigma beats it imho. Sharper corners, much less distortion at 24 and 105. The AF is as snappy and with smoother bokeh

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The myth that Sigma focuses poorly is simply not true with their newer offerings.

+1

 

[NancyP]

I welcome any choices of normal zoom, as I recently bought the 6D and would like to have a normal zoom. Currently I use my 60D as the walkaround camera because I have the excellent 15-85mm. The 6D has some primes, and its "normal" lens is the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. The 24-70 f/4 IS L is intriguing due to the light weight and near-macro capacity, making it in theory a strong contender for a hiking trip lens, but I hesitate due to the high price, apparent weak performance around 50mm, and relatively short working distance at macro. I really wish that Canon would have made a new 24-105 with near-macro, the working distance would have been more reasonable.