Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?

[candyman]

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_105_4/

Thanks but this link was already provided on the previous page. Did you read the thread?

 

[zim]

As per the link previously supplied

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_105_4/data.html

Appologies for my general ignorance of MFT charts but are these good?

 

[Ricku]

It's also proof positive that the pic is a fake. IIRC the Art designation is for lenses with a large maximum aperture.

I think the pics are very good fakes...

Unfortunately I see no evidence that this lens is real. This image proves nothing.

That is not a photograph! If it's not blindingly obvious to you that this is a 3D rendering, your eyes need checking. And it's not even a particularly good 3D rendering either, with absolutely no surface texture to speak of.

 

[AussieSimon]

TLDR: That is not a photograph!

If it's not blindingly obvious to you that this is a 3D rendering, your eyes need checking. And it's not even a particularly good 3D rendering either, with absolutely no surface texture to speak of. I'm not saying it isn't an official press picture created by Sigma, but it's pretty embarrassing for a photography website to mistake an artificial drawing for a photograph.

Hahahaha. It is real dude. You just embarrassed yourself!

TLDR: I'm still correct, it's not a photograph.

My only point was that a photography blog should be embarrassed for mistaking an artificial picture for an actual photograph. And I made it clear that I wasn't making any claims about whether it represented a real product or not -- I acknowledged that it may have been an official press picture. Yes, the product is real, but it's still not a photograph. You just embarrassed yourself!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

While interesting, a 24-70 2.8 OS would have made an even more exciting combatant.

If you think that adding an image stabiliser will make a mediocre lens greater?
The only people this lens will please are Sigma fans and kid people who buy it that they have got a cheaper equivelent of the Canon and is there fore better and that they are smart purchasers....

 

[Rienzphotoz]

While interesting, a 24-70 2.8 OS would have made an even more exciting combatant.

If you think that adding an image stabiliser will make a mediocre lens greater?
The only people this lens will please are Sigma fans and kid people who buy it that they have got a cheaper equivelent of the Canon and is there fore better and that they are smart purchasers....

Kinda harsh and immature to call those who use Sigma lenses as "kid people" ... maybe you haven't seen awesome images (that too millions of them) made by "kid people".

 

[Rienzphotoz]

TLDR: I'm still correct, it's not a photograph.

Perfect example of an immature comment ... but the font size was too small ;D

 

[Woody]

Much heavier. 82 mm filter size. The same old same old Sigma inconsistent AF.

No, thanks. I'll pass.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Much heavier. 82 mm filter size. The same old same old Sigma inconsistent AF.

Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" :

 

[candyman]

Much heavier. 82 mm filter size. The same old same old Sigma inconsistent AF.

Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" :

The past problems with inconsistent AF caused a lot of damage on the Sigma products that even today - where AF improved - people don't choose Sigma simply because of their experience in the past. That is something Sigma is, or should work on to improve. I dd not have AF problems with my Sigma 50 f/1.4 when I owned the lens.

 

[Woody]

Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" :

On Sigma website before it was taken down:
Lens Construction: 19 elements in 14 groups
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 3.5in x 4.3in
Maximum magnification ratio: 1:4.6
Weight: 885g / 31.2oz
Minimum focusing distance: 45cm /17.7in
Angle of view (35mm equivalent): 84.1°-23.3°
Filter size: 82mm
HSM delivers high AF speed and quiet performance
Offers F/4 brightness throughout the zoom range
OS (Optical Stabilizer) functionality
Super Multi-Layer Coating reduces flare and ghosting
Rounded 9-blade diaphragm
Mount conversion service available
Sigma USB Dock compatible

As for inconsistent AF, well, I had the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC (ART) lens. Used it for a week and got rid of it. DPReview had similar problems with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens. The Sigma 24-105 f/4 won't be any better... of course its f/4 aperture may help to mask some of its AF problems.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" :

On Sigma website before it was taken down:
Lens Construction: 19 elements in 14 groups
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 3.5in x 4.3in
Maximum magnification ratio: 1:4.6
Weight: 885g / 31.2oz
Minimum focusing distance: 45cm /17.7in
Angle of view (35mm equivalent): 84.1°-23.3°
Filter size: 82mm
HSM delivers high AF speed and quiet performance
Offers F/4 brightness throughout the zoom range
OS (Optical Stabilizer) functionality
Super Multi-Layer Coating reduces flare and ghosting
Rounded 9-blade diaphragm
Mount conversion service available
Sigma USB Dock compatible

As for inconsistent AF, well, I had the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC (ART) lens. Used it for a week and got rid of it. DPReview had similar problems with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens. The Sigma 24-105 f/4 won't be any better... of course its f/4 aperture may help to mask some of its AF problems.

Knowing a few more specs still does not qualify anyone from knowing that it will be the "same old same old Sigma inconsistent AF" ... bashing a product without it even being released (let alone seeing/reading a review) does not come across as an unbiased opinion/comment. The least decent thing we can do is at least wait for it to be released and read/see few reviews from people who have actually used it.

 

[Albi86]

As for inconsistent AF, well, I had the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC (ART) lens. Used it for a week and got rid of it. DPReview had similar problems with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens. The Sigma 24-105 f/4 won't be any better... of course its f/4 aperture may help to mask some of its AF problems.

You mean that test DPReview did trying to focus on the white eye of a white marble horse?? Then they tried to use the USB dock and stated that it took several hours to configure it?

Curiously, because the new Canon 24-70/2.8 wasn't that great on the 650D, they felt the urge to specify that "As always, though, it must be noted that focus speed and accuracy is dependent upon a number of variables, including the camera body used, subject contrast, and light levels."

 

[Woody]

You mean that test DPReview did trying to focus on the white eye of a white marble horse?? Then they tried to use the USB dock and stated that it took several hours to configure it?

Curiously, because the new Canon 24-70/2.8 wasn't that great on the 650D, they felt the urge to specify that "As always, though, it must be noted that focus speed and accuracy is dependent upon a number of variables, including the camera body used, subject contrast, and light levels."

My experience with the Sigma 30 f/1.4 (ART) lens exhibits the same symptons of inconsistent AF even with highly contrasting subjects. All the microadjustment won't help inconsistent AF.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" :

On Sigma website before it was taken down:
Lens Construction: 19 elements in 14 groups
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 3.5in x 4.3in
Maximum magnification ratio: 1:4.6
Weight: 885g / 31.2oz
Minimum focusing distance: 45cm /17.7in
Angle of view (35mm equivalent): 84.1°-23.3°
Filter size: 82mm
HSM delivers high AF speed and quiet performance
Offers F/4 brightness throughout the zoom range
OS (Optical Stabilizer) functionality
Super Multi-Layer Coating reduces flare and ghosting
Rounded 9-blade diaphragm
Mount conversion service available
Sigma USB Dock compatible

As for inconsistent AF, well, I had the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC (ART) lens. Used it for a week and got rid of it. DPReview had similar problems with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens. The Sigma 24-105 f/4 won't be any better... of course its f/4 aperture may help to mask some of its AF problems.

You could always buy a Sigma dock and spend an hour or so fixing Sigma's poor QC for them at your expense

Seriously, I can't see any benefit this lens can offer a Canon user. I'm sure it's been brought out to bring a popular Canon lens formula to Nikon and Sigma mounts. For Canon users...the 24-105 f4 LIS is most likely going to be a better choice. The Canon one has been around for so long, it's very cheap for what it does!

 

[jm]

I agree with most of the comments here - whats the point? this is Canon's kit lens for many of their deals and it's pretty good. Even if the Sigma is slightly better, I don't think people will fork out $ for something that many people have or know someone that has.

I think they need to offer something either different or better and this looks like none of those things.

http://www.johnmckayphotography.com/

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I agree with most of the comments here - whats the point? this is Canon's kit lens for many of their deals and it's pretty good. Even if the Sigma is slightly better, I don't think people will fork out $ for something that many people have or know someone that has.

I think they need to offer something either different or better and this looks like none of those things.

http://www.johnmckayphotography.com/

+1 ... I think this new Sigma lens will most likely eat into Nikon and Sony sales than Canon (coz Nikon equivalent is too expensive and Sony does not have a similar lens).
BTW, I checked out your website ... great portraits, very beautifully put together.