Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Sample Images

[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/2013/10/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-sample-images/"></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/2013/10/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-sample-images/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Sample images

</strong>Sample images from the upcoming <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/4L DG OS Art</a> lens have appeared over at lenstip.com.</p>
<p>The sample images look good to me and the $899 price tag for the lens more than justified.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/2065-news-Sigma_A_24-105_mm_f_4_DG_OS_HSM_-_sample_images.html" target="_blank">View sample images here</a> | Preorder: <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 OS at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

In 24mm barrel distortion seems imperceptible. But vignette remains even at F8.

 

[CarlTN]

The shots look nice but just as I thought, I'm not bowled over. In this one for example...

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig24-105OS/sig24-105_fot25.JPG

This is f/5.6? I am almost thinking my Canon 24-105 is sharper. Certainly the Canon looks to have a bit more barrel distortion, but I knew that was going to be the case. It's possible the Sigma has less CA than the Canon, but as for ultimate resolution...I'm glad I bought the Canon. Again though, I like Sigma's products in general. I don't think this particular lens is as good a value as many of Sigma's other lenses, however...at least based on these samples.

 

[bchernicoff]

I am a big fan of Sigma and WANT to love this lens, but these images don't look any better than Canon 24-105 images...in fact they look worse. Maybe a bad copy?

 

[duydaniel]

I am a big fan of Sigma and WANT to love this lens, but these images don't look any better than Canon 24-105 images...in fact they look worse. Maybe a bad copy?

Agree, images iq look bad.
I doubt Sigma give bad copy to first testers

 

[jrbdmb]

I am also a fan of the "new" Sigma, but I just don't get this lens. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt as far as IQ, but when I see that the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is about the same size, lighter (!), and about $200 more than this Sigma 4.0 lens, I pick the Tamron in a heartbeat.

 

[Pi]

I think lenstip keeps the sharpening at zero with their tests.

 

[RomainF]

Could be really more interesting for a Nikon ; Pentax ; Sony guy, don't forget that.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The sharpness in the center looks good but the corners are not at the level of "NEW QUALITY STANDARD" Sigma.

 

[distant.star]

.
Something must be wrong. They look awful to me. Very surprising.

 

[Harv]

To put it as succinctly as I can... I'm underwhelmed.

 

[Pi]

Never been a Sigma fan - but most of those shots should have been taken at f/8 - f/11, with standard sharpness settings. There might be filed curvature problems as well.

 

[deleteme]

Maybe its harder to make a 24-105 than it looks.

 

[androiduk]

Those pics are actually softer than the ones from my Tamron 18-270.

 

[dafrank]

The cyan-red lateral chromatic aberration is very obvious in all of the 5 or 6 shots I looked at full-size. It does not look up to the recent standards established by the faster Sigma "art' lenses in general with the LCA and soft corners at wider angles, etc. I would definitely pass unless the lens sold for under $500.00, and was used as a fun walk -around only. Not up to professional standards, especially for an f/4.0 lens. Canon's 24-70 f/4.0 is also flawed, but I think that, if memory serves me, the Canon 24-105 is better than this. This figures, as Canon appears ready to soon replace their 24-105, as a kit lens, with the substandard 24-70 f/4.0. Perfect. :

Regards,
David

 

[gary]

Stick with the Canon

 

[dsc888]

Stick with the Canon

I agree! I spotted the vignetting and the CA immediately. Plus I don't believe this lens is even weather sealed on top of the increased weight and larger 82mm filter size. Let's just hope it focuses correctly and quickly but something tells me it won't be as good in the AF department.

 

[CarlTN]

I think lenstip keeps the sharpening at zero with their tests.

Even still...

 

[CarlTN]

I am also a fan of the "new" Sigma, but I just don't get this lens. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt as far as IQ, but when I see that the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is about the same size, lighter (!), and about $200 more than this Sigma 4.0 lens, I pick the Tamron in a heartbeat.

Agree, but you buy a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 24-105 f/4 for different reasons.

 

[CarlTN]

The sharpness in the center looks good but the corners are not at the level of "NEW QUALITY STANDARD" Sigma.

Nah the sharpness even in the center is just not there. The "acutance" is low.