Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS on the Way? [CR1]

[Chosenbydestiny]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was really a 24-105mm f/2.8 for full frame users. With the release of the 18-35 f/1.8 one might expect more amazing releases with Sigma.

 

[Zv]

In an interview between a Sigma lens constructor and Lenstip -

"Q: The 28-70 mm f/2.8 class lenses have been superseded by 24-70 mm f/2.8 instruments. Taking into the account the success of the Sigma 18-35 mm are you already thinking about a full frame construction of that type or rather about e.g. a 28-70 mm f/2.0 or a 28-50 mm f/2.0 model?
A: We don’t have a very concrete idea at the moment, yet we will keep on considering designing large aperture zoom lenses."

Link to interview - http://www.lenstip.com/136.1-article-Interview_with_constructor_of_Sigma_lenses.html

This doesn't sound like they're thinking of releasing a full frame general purpose zoom lens anytime soon, and if they did it would be a fast zoom like f/2.8 or f/2.

I think this rumor is baloney.

I hope Sigma bring out an updated 50, we could really use a modern day fast and sharp wide open 50!

 

[Woody]

If I have to choose between the old Canon 24-105 and the new Sigma variation, I will always pick the former regardless of how good the optics are in the latter. One simple reason: AF reliability.

Addendum: From http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8/5
"We shot with a range of Canon SLRs, from the entry-level EOS 100D to the top-of-the-line EOS 7D, and all had problems focusing absolutely correctly all the time. This was usually only obvious when shooting at apertures larger than F2.8. In general, we got slightly better results by using the central AF point (with recomposition) compared to using off-centre AF points, but this didn't eliminate focus errors entirely...

We looked at whether the focus problems we saw from the 18-35mm could be mitigated by using autofocus microadjustments. With a Sigma USB Dock to hand, we set about determining and programming in a full set of autofocus microadjust parameters for all of Sigma's specified focal lengths and focus distances (18, 24, 28 and 35mm; infinity, 0.5m, 0.35m and 0.28m). This took several hours to set up, even with specialised focusing targets to hand...

This procedure certainly improved overall focus accuracy when shooting at the distances used for microadjustment. However these are fixed by the software, and there's no option to specifically correct any distance between infinity and 0.5m. Unfortunately though, the vast majority of subjects end up somewhere in between, and we found that the lens still had some problems with focus accuracy even when fully programmed as above."

I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC HSM Art lens. Its AF accuracy leaves much to be desired even though it is optically sound.

This only reinforces my old belief: avoid 3rd party lenses at all costs.

 

[pulseimages]

I don't know what has happend to Sigma, but they are not the company they used to be.

That's a good thing! Hopefully Sigma will never return to their old Stinkma ways again!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The kit lens price of the current EF 24-105mm f/4L IS will be hard to beat. It's been as low as $500 recently.

Yeah but the IQ can VERY clearly be beaten....

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Have to agree with Neuro.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.

My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.

It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.

Sharpness is probably one of the things that Sigma is going to bring to the table.. And lots of it.

$500 for a Canon 24-105?? not for all of us!

If sigma bring more sharpness (and for a walk around I think the Canon 24-105 is fantastic as it is) to the table then it will be a real winner.

I'm wondering why Sigma would go head to head with that lens though? wouldn't the 50 1.4/2 be more obvious? unless they maybe they see it as a near future gap in the market.

They already did their 50 1.4

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Actually just thinking on this further; of course Sigma lenses can be made to fit any of the major cameras. Maybe they hope to make the 24-105 as ubiquitous with the other major brands as it is with Canon.

Good point - Nikon's 24-120/4 VR isn't that impressive, might be a market for that mount.

Neither is Canon's. The 24-105 is easily the worst L lens I have ever tried (tried three, couldn't stand to own any of them for even as long as a week).

Sure the 24-70 II is amazing, I have one, but it costs $2000+. LOTs of room under that. The 24-70 f/4 IS also has to beaten and that has been sold for as low as $1025 so that is more of a challenge, but maybe they can manage to beat it for $750 or tie? Also have to beat the Tamron at $1200, although some might not like the bulk of the Tamron.

 

[Loswr]

The kit lens price of the current EF 24-105mm f/4L IS will be hard to beat. It's been as low as $500 recently.

Yeah but the IQ can VERY clearly be beaten....

Sure, it can. In the case of the Sigma 35/1.4 vs. the Canon 35L, it's (generally) better IQ and cheaper. But if it's better IQ or cheaper, it's not such a simple choice.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.

I shoot landscapes with it very often when I travel. I have comparison shots between it and the 35L. Hard to tell a difference, even in the corners. It is f/11 - f/16 after all. The biggest problem in the corners is not softness but that the objects there tend to be too close.

The resolution potential of all these lenses merge from about f11 onwards. With careful judging of the hyperfocal distance I find f8 is more than adequate on a 35mm, even 5.6 on a 24mm. Makes a huge difference for critical sharpness. The 35L is out of the 24-105's league when used in this way.

Even at f/11 the FF corners and deepest edges on the 24-105 can still be weak in real world complex scenes all too often. The 24-70 II is every bit as good as the 24 1.4 II there OTOH.
It is not even sharpness at the corners either, even in the center it doesn't have the same micro-contrast pop as the 24-70 II or 24 1.4 II or 24 TSE II or Zeiss 21 (or likely 24 2.8 IS), but forget sharpness what about stuff like longitudinal CA? 24-105 gets a fair amount of PF/GF. The 24-70 f/4 IS has a good deal less and the 24-70 II has radically less, the 24-70 II is basically almost a true APO (and it also has ultra-precsion AF breaking measurements which mean that it can focus more precisely than most other lenses on a 5D3/1DX).

 

[Woody]

Neither is Canon's. The 24-105 is easily the worst L lens I have ever tried (tried three, couldn't stand to own any of them for even as long as a week).

That is probably because you have only tried those which were manufactured long time ago. My copy which was bundled with the 6D is tack sharp wide open from 24 to 105 mm.

I attribute this to what Lensrentals calls Silent Changes http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/07/silent-changes:

"Sometimes changes like this that occur during the life of a lens (or camera) are done to address a problem. I can think of a half-dozen examples off of the top of my head; a few announced by the manufacturer but most not announced.

These aren’t always ‘secret upgrades’ as the paranoid among us like to think, but sometimes they are. Most often, though, they’re simply a change in subassembly supplier or a more effective way to manufacture a part, like this one."

 

[pwp]

I've been thinking about picking up a Canon 24-105 (seen prices as low as ~650) but perhaps I'll have to wait now. I'm definitely a fast prime guy, so what attracts me is the IS. Right now I don't have an IS option at ANY focal length, and having one, go-to IS lens covering the majority of the focal lengths I use would be handy.

Carl, why wait? If you figure you need a 24-105, most copies of the Canon are just great. It hasn't earned the fact that so many photographers rate this their most used lens for no good reason. The Sigma is still vapor, the Canon exists. It has very good IS. Buy a pre-owned one if there are $$ pressures. If the Sigma turns out to be a winner, sell the Canon. You'll be unlikely to take a $$ hit on it.

Sigma does appear to be on a roll, and that's a good thing for everybody. The sharpness on the 18-35 f/1.8 has been getting plenty of attention, but there has been less said about Sigma's remaining bug-bear....AF accuracy. This is where you'll find the Canon pull comfortably ahead, delivering you more important keepers.

-PW

 

[verysimplejason]

I hope Sigma does it. I like the range 24-105 than the 24-70 for events.

 

[eli452]

my 24-105 copy is very good and for a walkabout lens i like af accuracy over
small iq diffrrence. as for cost...i have the 24-105l.

 

[zim]

Have to agree with Neuro.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.

My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.

It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.

Sharpness is probably one of the things that Sigma is going to bring to the table.. And lots of it.

$500 for a Canon 24-105?? not for all of us!

If sigma bring more sharpness (and for a walk around I think the Canon 24-105 is fantastic as it is) to the table then it will be a real winner.

I'm wondering why Sigma would go head to head with that lens though? wouldn't the 50 1.4/2 be more obvious? unless they maybe they see it as a near future gap in the market.

They already did their 50 1.4

So no need for Canon to upgrade any of their 50's either then, I think a fair few peps are looking for a new 50 art from Sig no?

 

[cliffwang]

Why no one makes 24-105 f/2.8?

 

[ahab1372]

Why no one makes 24-105 f/2.8?

Big Heavy Expensive

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Neither is Canon's. The 24-105 is easily the worst L lens I have ever tried (tried three, couldn't stand to own any of them for even as long as a week).

That is probably because you have only tried those which were manufactured long time ago. My copy which was bundled with the 6D is tack sharp wide open from 24 to 105 mm.

I attribute this to what Lensrentals calls Silent Changes http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/07/silent-changes:

"Sometimes changes like this that occur during the life of a lens (or camera) are done to address a problem. I can think of a half-dozen examples off of the top of my head; a few announced by the manufacturer but most not announced.

These aren’t always ‘secret upgrades’ as the paranoid among us like to think, but sometimes they are. Most often, though, they’re simply a change in subassembly supplier or a more effective way to manufacture a part, like this one."

one of them was as recent as a 5D3 kit lens, it was a little better, but still nothing to write home about (when being picky, it sure did not make me even begin to think of selling my 24 1.4 II, my 24-70 II not only got me thinking, it got me to do it; a recent 24-70 f/4 IS I looked at did better than the 24-105 too).

Of course now that the price of the 24-105 is more or less $500 kitted and $650 new split from kit it's a pretty good lens for this new price and it did seem to do noticeably better than the 28-135 I tried.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Have to agree with Neuro.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.

My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.

It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.

Sharpness is probably one of the things that Sigma is going to bring to the table.. And lots of it.

$500 for a Canon 24-105?? not for all of us!

If sigma bring more sharpness (and for a walk around I think the Canon 24-105 is fantastic as it is) to the table then it will be a real winner.

I'm wondering why Sigma would go head to head with that lens though? wouldn't the 50 1.4/2 be more obvious? unless they maybe they see it as a near future gap in the market.

They already did their 50 1.4

So no need for Canon to upgrade any of their 50's either then, I think a fair few peps are looking for a new 50 art from Sig no?

Oh there has been a need for Canon to update their 50 1.4 since it came out. It uses a flawed AF design, not just bad but a literal design flaw. It's crzy they have not fixed it for all these years and just come out with a real USM version. They unique clutched micro USM AF it uses is terrible, the clutch breaks if you so much as think about it hah and the AF motor is very low precision, way too low for f/1.4.

Hmm I missed reading about the sigma 1.4 art, I guess they are coming out with a new one. Is it just updated to Art or completely new?

 

[flanker]

I’m not fully satisfied with Canon EF 24-105L. Sometimes it is IQ, sometimes (but not many) maybe accuracy and speed of autofocus. Also f/4 is not top of the hill, but I know that to make faster lens with this focal range will lead to extreme big diameters of lens elements.

In other side, It is very usefull lens and I called it „it is as good compromise as it can be“ in all parameters. Hardly to find replacement.

So, if Sigma can beat the IQ, reliability and also important the price, I’m quite much interested in it. Maybe, if Sigma will try to make it at least with f/3.5 it will be more interesting to Canon users. If not, there will probably remains only other brand customers like Nikons or Sonys (Pentax don‘t have fullframe). I’m not sure it is enough for Sigma economists ...

 

[clicstudio]

Sigma has balls. They are doing the unexpected And in a great way!
A 1.8 zoom was unheard of before...
I want a 24-105 f2.8. From canon or sigma...
Sigma can do it. Even if the lens is bigger than normal, I wouldn't care.
Please sigma! Do something radical again!