Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Sample Images
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
CarlTN said:
They're JPEGs right out of the camera with zero sharpening. What you see is as much a camera fault as the lens'.
Most interesting for me, for this set, is the color rendition and bokeh. For sharpness we have to wait and see some RAW files properly handled.
Upvote
0
I'm more dissapointed with the photographer than with the lens at this point. I think they did a very poor job at showing what the lens can and cannot do. I agree with the sceptics here though, that it does not look very promising. But I'll wait for someone like TDP to produce a more thorough review.
Upvote
0
Oh boy....this does not look too exciting. the CA looks really bad (red box photo)...and the sharpness/micro contrast definitely has no WOW-Factor from what I can see in these images....that is for sure! (This preliminary set of images has more of an impression of the "Old Sigma").............makes my 24-70mm f/2.8 II as though it is worth the coin I dearly paid for it.
Upvote
0
Is it just me or do the images look blurry? I'm viewing them on my iPad and they look kinda garbage. The shots themselves are not very interesting, maybe that doesn't help. I was expecting more. I'll have a proper look on my monitor at home.
Upvote
0
I have to agree with the opinion of the majority, this Sigma's IQ seems pretty similar to the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS; where is Sigma's value proposition? Perhaps they're targeting Pentax or Sony users, because I can't see why anyone with a Canon or Nikon would choose this lens. Either this is a poor copy, or I foresee heavy discounting...
Upvote
0
Albi86 said:
Yes...zoom in on the white lettering POCZTA on the left side of the box...I am looking on an iPad...I will have to check this out on my iMac later...but in general...there is no WOW factor with this lens....it has to have that or it won't sell....just buy the Canon otherwise...it's as good or better and less expensive. Simple.
Upvote
0
Not impressed! I only looked at the 24mm since that has been the rough spot for almost all of these types of zooms. When I see it I think 24-105 and that's not good.
My 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS both annihilate what I see here at 24mm. The 24-70 f/4 IS may cost a little more but it sure as heck seems worth it to me going by these samples (of course it is true that many early samples, for whatever reason, turn to be taken by those who can't get anything sharp out of lens). If you get one of those $1000-1025 deals for the 24-70 f/4 IS I'd sure spend the extra $100-125 over what I see here. Or save some hundreds and grab a nice $600 new split kit 24-105L.
My 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS both annihilate what I see here at 24mm. The 24-70 f/4 IS may cost a little more but it sure as heck seems worth it to me going by these samples (of course it is true that many early samples, for whatever reason, turn to be taken by those who can't get anything sharp out of lens). If you get one of those $1000-1025 deals for the 24-70 f/4 IS I'd sure spend the extra $100-125 over what I see here. Or save some hundreds and grab a nice $600 new split kit 24-105L.
Upvote
0
CarlTN said:
Yeah and even at f/8 it's mostly mush at the edges never mind corners at 24mm for sure. It doesn't look remotely close to what the new standard zooms from Canon can do or even the Tamron 24-70 VC for that matter. And yet it is actually larger and heavier than all of them, other than maybe the Tamron and some of these others are f/2.8!
Upvote
0
Heck my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 blows away what I see here center frame across the board and edges when stopped down if maybe not when wide open in that case. And that lens weighs like a third of an ounce and cost me like $325.
Upvote
0
Although to be fair, maybe lentip is just clueless when it comes to taking shots. I do have to say that many first samples even from great Canon lenses and bodies have looked like trash. I'm always amazed who they so often end up putting their stuff in the hands of to produce show off first samples, since it seems to be people who can't get a sharp shot out of a 135 f/2 at f/5.6 even center frame and who somehow end up making ISO100 shots appear as if they needed and had applied NR suitable for ISO25,600. And then as soon as the equipments gets in the hands of any old random joe blow in the forums and suddenly the quality looks 10x better. I don't get it.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
+1
I like their tests, but often it seems to me that they are too "clinical". In their effort at being scientific, they often neglect how the lenses are going to be used and the samples end up being a poor indication of real-world performance. As in this case: no one shoots JPEG only with sharpening turned off.
Upvote
0
I'm interested in this lens for video. How do you think Sigma's OS (Optical Stabilizer) performs against Canon's IS (Image Stabilizer)?
Upvote
0
McBrad said:
The Canon one is definitely better than the Sigma you can find on their EX lenses. Really smoother and quieter.
Moreover, stabilisation is a fragile part of the lens. I'm not talking about the reliability of the "new Sigma" but on my EX (which was quite their top of the line), the stab broke down one year and a month after the purchase (intensive daily use)... And on their EX 120-300, it was the noisiest i've ever heard.
I've been a proud and very satisfied Sigma user for a year and a month (I find that their last 70-200 is optically a bit better than my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS I). Thinking that issues only happen on other people's gear. I'll never buy one of their product anymore.
When your 1000€ and more Canon gear needs to be fixed, you can get a replacement one until you get back yours (usually a few days or a week later). Sigma needs 2 or 3 weeks and about 250/300$ to fix it and you're on your own during this time.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
OK...I appologize....my previous quotes were from looking at the images on my iPad with Retina display...(sorry...I won't do that again....it is a non-scientific experience when it comes to viewing a photo file!!!!!)...I am on my desktop computer right now....I agree with you...EVERYTHING looks SOFT...like REALLY soft....I think something is amiss here.... I think we all REALLY need to wait for another review....Roger...(at Lens Rental...can you help us out here!!!!! LOL!). I am going to throw these samples out as an error...and keep an open mind about the lens. Something is just not right here.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:Zv said:Is it just me or do the images look blurry? I'm viewing them on my iPad and they look kinda garbage. The shots themselves are not very interesting, maybe that doesn't help. I was expecting more. I'll have a proper look on my monitor at home.
+1.
I wonder if AFMA is required for this lens/body pairing and has not been used.
At these apertures and focal lengths and distances SOMETHING ought to be sharp, right?? AFMA or not.
Upvote
0
