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

[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/2013/09/sigma-24-105-f4-os-on-the-way-cr1/"></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/2013/09/sigma-24-105-f4-os-on-the-way-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>More from Sigma?

</strong>We’ve been told to expect an announcement some time in 2013 for a 24-105mm f/4 OS lens from Sigma.</p>
<p>Such a lens could be a big winner if it performs better than the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-USA/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS</a> and the EF 24-105 f/4L IS.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.valuetech.de/blog/rumors/2013/09/08/sigma-24-105-mm-f-4-dg-os-hsm" target="_blank">VT</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[TLN]

I'm glad sigma going that way. Looks on a quality of ther latest lenses they gonna kick canon's ass. This makes me happy when I look on latest canon lens prices.

 

[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.

 

[Ricku]

After seeing the awesome optical performance of Sigma's latest lenses (especialy the 35mm and 18-35mm), it would not surprise me if this new 24-105 is on par with the 24-70L II.

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

 

[mrsfotografie]

Noooo!!! I love my 24-105 and don't want to be tempted to replace it.... :-[ :-[ :-[

Sigma rules by the way ;D

 

[deleteme]

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.

 

[Ricku]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Sporgon]

Don't believe this. The market is awash with 24-105Ls, as others have pointed out they are pretty cheap, and the second hand values have plummeted due to units available.

If they have suddenly decided to get into the 24-105 market they are rather late to the party.

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.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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.

 

[Joe M]

I would love to see the 24-105 improve it's sharpness especially on the long end. A little increase in the wide corners would be great too. Right now all my lenses are made by Canon and if you really want to tempt me Sigma, how about 24-120? Or how about 24-105 F2.8? Is it even possible to make that lens and keep it sharp with a reasonable amount of distortion? It would probably be a heavy unwieldy beast but a little longer and faster sure would be nice.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm a little puzzled at this one. It's not that I doubt that Sigma can improve on the optical quality of the 24-105L, but that lens is praised for being competent and, as has already been pointed out, it represents a strong value at this stage in its development. It could be sharper, it could have less distortion, it could have less vignetting, but it's not terrible in any of those areas either. It also has a very robust build quality and weather sealing (both of which I have had occasion to test in the two copies I've owned in the past). Sigma could probably improve in all of those areas (save build quality, perhaps), but I struggle to see where they could turn any of those things into a killer reason for the myriad 24-105L owners to change lenses.

Sigma has been filling a lot of unfilled niches recently, but this is anything but that. Curious.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[Pi]

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.

 

[Sporgon]

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.

 

[ScottyP]

If it was dramatically sharper than the Canon, I'd be interested, even if the Canon was cheaper. I have been afraid that Canon will never make another 24-105, opting instead lately for expensive lenses that stop or start at the 70mm cutoff (24-70 and 70-200 or 300).

The 24-105 focal range is just so much more versatile than the 24-70 it's not even funny. 70 mm is too short for what most people would say is good portrait length, and 70mm is generally also too short for sports, etc. That extra part from 71-105 adds a ton of usefulness for many things. If Sigma or Canon would release an improved 24-105 I would definitely be interested.

 

[Radiating]

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/sigma-24-105-f4-os-on-the-way-cr1/\"></glusone></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/2013/09/sigma-24-105-f4-os-on-the-way-cr1/\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>More from Sigma?


</strong>We’ve been told to expect an announcement some time in 2013 for a 24-105mm f/4 OS lens from Sigma.</p>
<p>Such a lens could be a big winner if it performs better than the <a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-USA/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296\" target=\"_blank\">Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS</a> and the EF 24-105 f/4L IS.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href=\"http://www.valuetech.de/blog/rumors/2013/09/08/sigma-24-105-mm-f-4-dg-os-hsm\" target=\"_blank\">VT</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

This is a very useful focal range, if Sigma makes a better 24-105mm count me in.

 

[cellomaster27]

Wow. Maybe time to invest in some stocks. XD
The canon 24-105 L is going to be hard to beat at the current market.. But I'm impressed regardless. More competition, better for consumers.
I have not seen one for 500! That's crazy!

 

[deleteme]

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.

In my experience the 24-105 is plenty sharp. I rented the 24-70 2.8 L II and found it only a touch sharper than my lens.
For real world work I have found it to be a great step up from the old 28-75 Tamron that was touted as the top "value" lens at the time ~4-5yrs ago.
The real world for me is working with the vagaries of hand held shooting, motion and the use to which the final image is destined. Even the most demanding applications (large prints) are well served by this lens.

Studio shooting with side by side comparison to my Canon 100 macro (on camera stand) show the macro to have the edge in absolute sharpness and better contrast but no client will ever see the difference.

 

[risc32]

when the pro built Canon 24-105 f4 IS and 24-70 f4 IS already exist? And two f2.8 non IS variants also exist. one that set the world on fire, and the other is probably readily found for a very reasonable price. why would i care if Sigma made one?
sorry, don't care.
when was that 135mm f2 (or was it 1.8?)IS supposed to drop?