Previous news story    Next news story

Sigma announces pricing and availability of 24-105mm F4 lens

By dpreview staff on Oct 25, 2013 at 05:00 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $899.00

Buried among all of the cameras announced last week was a new 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM lens from Sigma. The company has announced pricing and availability for this full-frame 'Art lens', which will be available for Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Sony mounts (in that order). The lens features optical stabilization (except for Sony) and supports Sigma's USB dock. You'll be able to pick one up for yourself starting next month at a retail price of $899. In the UK, the recommended retail price will be £849.99.

Sigma Corporation announces pricing, timing for new 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM lens

NEW YORK, NY — Oct. 25, 2013 — Sigma Corporation of America (www.sigmaphoto.com), a leading researcher, developer, manufacturer and service provider of some of the world's most impressive lines of lenses, cameras and flashes, today from PhotoPlus Expo 2013 announced the pricing and availability of its new 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens.

This new Art lens was developed as part of the company’s Global Vision and will be on shelves next month, starting with Canon mounts, for the street price of $899. The full frame lens, which will also work with APS-C sensor cameras with an effective increase in focal length, will be available in Nikon and Sigma mounts in December, and Sony mounts will soon follow. All but the Sony mounts will incorporate Sigma’s proprietary Optical Stabilizer (OS) technology to compensate for camera shake. This functionality is omitted from Sony mounts to accommodate for that manufacturer’s in-camera image stabilization system.

The 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM covers the basic shooting range from wide to medium tele with an inner focusing system that eliminates front lens rotation, enhancing the lens stability and allowing the use of circular polarizing filters. Moreover, it was designed to surpass the required quality inspection of every Global Vision lens with Sigma’s own modulation transfer function (MTF) “A1” measuring system to create a new optical standard to align with the high-spec cameras on today’s market.

“This is a top-notch lens in its design and image quality. Our engineering team in Japan continues to wow the industry with the caliber of the new lenses we’re producing and we expect Sigma users to be just as pleased with this new 24-105 F4,” said Mark Amir-Hamzeh, president of Sigma Corporation of America.

The lens offers the largest possible fixed aperture to zoom ratio that will maintain optimal integrity for many kinds of photography, including landscapes, architecture, portraiture and still-life. With a minimum focusing distance of 45cm and a maximum magnification ratio of 1:4.6, this lens is also excellent for close-up photography.

High-performance glass elements, including SLD and FLD, which is equal to fluorite, and glass-molded single- and double-sided aspheric lenses have been included into the optical system to prevent aberration, field curvature, distortions and color aberration. The 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM lens is also able to suppress chromatic aberration very effectively at the telephoto-end, and can achieve superior image quality throughout the zoom range. Unlike lenses with similar specifications, this lens overcomes low peripheral brightness. Although it is designed for full frame cameras, it also works with APS-C sensors, giving an increase to focal length.

The lens’ Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) ensures a silent, high-speed auto focus function and enables full-time manual focusing capability. The 24-105mm is also compatible with Sigma’s USB dock allowing photographers to update its firmware and change focus parameters using Sigma's Optimization Pro software. It is also compatible with Sigma’s recently announced Mount Conversion Service.

20
I own it
77
I want it
4
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 167
12
scaryloud
By scaryloud (5 months ago)

The Nikon 24-120 F/4 is not really that good of a lens, especially for the price. Canon has a f/4 variant also, it too is only okay, but very pricy. The size and weight are limiting factors for some, but may be the key to the lens construction. If vignetting on Full Frame is well controlled, chromatic abberations kept low and distortion also kept to a minimum, then size is no object to me. I will wait until a few of the lens testers out there give this lens a spin with some lab and field numbers. I will say though, my interest has been peaked.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
scaryloud
By scaryloud (5 months ago)

I've looked on Sigma's site at the lens and sample photos, the back ground bokeh seems quite nervous with some inconsistencies. Sharpness seems to be spot on, but I don't know how edited the photos were.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (5 months ago)

I used the Nikon 24-120 f/4 last weekend to shoot a music festival. It was astonishingly good. I'm never impressed by those types of lenses I was prepared to try it out for a day and go back to my pro f/2.8 lenses.

I shot the whole 3 day festival using only a D700 and that 24-120 and it was liberating. No carrying around 2 cameras with 2 heavy lenses. The images were excellent all around. I think it's worth the money they're asking.

0 upvotes
joel22484
By joel22484 (6 months ago)

As a Sony user, I think this news is excellent. It looks like a very promising lens and fills a void for Sony users.
The only issue I have (since I have an a77) is that it is going to be bigger/heavier than I need since it is for full frame cameras. I know it's not feasible but I wish it were possible for them to make an identical lens except for crop sensors. So it could be smaller and lighter but still have the same qualities.

0 upvotes
jerry367
By jerry367 (6 months ago)

Price is great, but too heavy for me.

0 upvotes
pc168
By pc168 (6 months ago)

Size does matter! A bit disappointed.

0 upvotes
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (6 months ago)

I've investigated some of the extremely low prices people have been linking for the Canon 24-105 f/4 L and have discovered that these lenses have been pulled from combo packages of Canon 6D and 5DmkIII cameras and as such almost certainly will not be covered under warranty by Canon. Buy these at your own risk.

From legitimate retailers this Sigma 24-105 f/4 lens represents a significant price savings over the Canon/Nikon equivalents and will be a compelling lens if it performs.

2 upvotes
Matafuko
By Matafuko (6 months ago)

That's not true at all; lenses being split from kits doesn't affect the warranty in any way. Think about it - if you sent your lens to Canon you'd just send them the lens by itself (even if you did buy it in a combo) and they'd just match up the serial number with the retailer.

Buying a lens split from a grey import kit would be the only time you'd run into problems with warranty claims.

1 upvote
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (6 months ago)

No - warranty repairs are only ever covered for the original purchaser of the product as intended to be sold. E.G. your lens would be covered if you purchased it alone in a retail box or you purchased the combo Camera/Lens retail box. Buying the lens out of the combo box is not a legitimate purchase in the eyes of the manufacturer and is akin to buying used.

Putting it another way these eBay sellers are effectively lying claiming the lens is new when technically they're not - the second they opened the combo package to separate the camera and lens from each other they can no longer be considered new and both should at least be considered a repackaged product. Either way the warranty is most definitely nullified.

0 upvotes
pc168
By pc168 (6 months ago)

Of course it was akin to buying used. The original purchaser sold you the kit lens only. And he/she gave you a copy of the legitimate retailer receipt. As such, I think the warranty should be fine.

0 upvotes
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (6 months ago)

Hi pc168 - warranties are almost always non-transferable. Some text from Canon USA's policies:

"Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Canada Inc. (collectively "Canon") warrant to the original end-user purchaser, when delivered in new condition in its original container, that the Product will be free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal use and service for a period of one (1) year from the date of original purchase."

and

"THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL NOT EXTEND TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE PRODUCT, OR THE PERSON FOR WHOM IT WAS PURCHASED AS A GIFT, AND STATES YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY."

All in all buying in this manor is dealing in a grey area and it will be up to the manufacturer's good graces to honor the warranty or not.

0 upvotes
scaryloud
By scaryloud (5 months ago)

Everyone knows that. That's why the word "gift" is the key word in that statement.

1 upvote
rsn48
By rsn48 (6 months ago)

Going by pricing for me in Vancouver BC, the new Sigma lens is cheaper by about $500, tax included as compared to the similar Canon zoom. Also the Sigma lens has 9 rounded blades versus Canon's 8 non-rounded, so bokeh hopefully will be better. I'm guess OS of the Sigma will be better than Canon's IS since new lenses in general are getting better in the image stabilization area.

Weight is always a concern as this type of lens for me would be a travel lens, but I really don't want to be out all day with heavier gear.

Sigma's new docking station concept follows Metz's ability to change up and modernize software in their flashes, hoping other third party lens and flash manufactures get on this band wagon.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (6 months ago)

This could be the ideal zoom lens for videography. Constant aperture throughout the zoom range is a big plus for film/video zooming shots. Now, for those of us not needing to cover FF 135 -- anyone knows what is the APS-C sensor equivalent of this lens, that is, something with an app. 4 to 4.5x zoom range and constant aperture setting throughout this range?

1 upvote
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (6 months ago)

The Canon 1.6 crop is 38.4 - 168mm and for Sony/Nikon 1.5 crop 36 - 157.5mm give or take a little.

For video work I'm more concerned about the narrow focus ring and if the lens is parfocal (maintains focus distance while zooming). It's easy to work around both issues but I'm curious if they will be present or not.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (6 months ago)

I guess if Sigma does not come out with an E mount version with IS I will just get the Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS for my VG900.

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (6 months ago)

82mm filter, 800+ grams. Too big for e-mount.

1 upvote
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (6 months ago)

No it's not since many use the 135mm F1.8 on the full frame E mount NEX-VG900.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8467/8097963813_82224c873f_o.jpg

1 upvote
pc168
By pc168 (6 months ago)

82mm filter, 800+ grams. Too big for almost everyone!

0 upvotes
wus
By wus (6 months ago)

I hope is is not quite correct when DPreview writes above

"
All but the Sony mountS will incorporate Sigma’s proprietary Optical Stabilizer (OS) technology to compensate for camera shake. This functionality is omitted from Sony mounts to accommodate for that manufacturer’s in-camera image stabilization system.
"

because only Sony's A-mount cameras have in-camera stabilizers. The NEX and the new A7 series with the E-mount don't, so if Sigma will really omit the in-lens stabilizer from the E-mount version, too, it will be quite a show stopper.

Anyone on here KNOW any details?

1 upvote
Abhijith Kannankavil
By Abhijith Kannankavil (6 months ago)

looks like the version for mirrorless will come with different optics and will be a completely different lens.

that may feature in lens stabilisation.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (6 months ago)

The text you've quoted comes from Sigma's own press release; we'd fully expect it to be correct. It's entirely consistent with Sigma's current practice; in the past they made a few lenses for Pentax and Sony that included image stabilisation, but recently have been using the same optical design without OIS. It's conceivable that the appearance of the A7 and A7R could prompt a re-think of that strategy, but just right now, it seems clear that's not the plan for the 24-105/4.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (6 months ago)

Press release from Sigma is purposefully misleading. There is no "Sony mount." Rather, Sony has more types of lens mounts than some folks have pairs of underwear.

At the very least, we would have expected Sigma to come up with something like "Sony Alpha mount" or "Sony E-mount" or something like that. But "Sony mount?" What the heck is that, Sigma?

Not that DPR had clarified this issue one tiny bit.

4 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (6 months ago)

The press release from Sigma is not 'purposely misleading', at worst it's guilty of an error of omission. This is a DG lens designed for full frame SLRs, so the Sony mount in question is Alpha. Sigma's E-mount lenses have the 'DN' designation.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (6 months ago)

A lens covering full-frame 135 sensor on a Sony camera can either be an Alpha-mount lens or an E-mount lense, since last I checked, Sony has or soon will have full-frame sensor digital cameras using both types of lens mounts.

The press release from Sigma -- copied over here by DPR -- keeps talking about a "Sony mount." Which one? I understand Sigma has some internal 2-letter lens designations that they use -- I guess all photographers all over better learn what these are?

Oh, and even Canon and Nikon cameras have got various mounts... besides just "Canon mount" and "Nikon mount."

1 upvote
Michaels7
By Michaels7 (6 months ago)

I keep reading all of the negative post on the lens that hasn't even come out yet. Let's wait for it to hit the streets before critique it.

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

Remember reaction to their 18-35/1.8? Very different. For a good reason. One was real innovation, the other is a copycat in a well-covered market, and at a higher size/weight/price. No wonder nobody is excited.

0 upvotes
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (6 months ago)

@peevee1 I think that's the point though. First Canon and Nikon have an equivalent but Sony does not. Further Sigma has done this before with the extremely well received 35 f/1.4 A lens which Canon/Nikon/Sony all have equivalents of. What set that lens apart from the others is its combination of stellar performance that matched/exceeded the other manufacturers and at a price point several hundred dollars less than those other manufacturers. If this lens does the same thing it will be very appealing and will sell very well.

5 upvotes
wus
By wus (6 months ago)

- sorry ...

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

positive or negative are relative.
it depends on which direction you are looking from.

0 upvotes
tinternaut
By tinternaut (6 months ago)

So what's the difference between this and the Canon equivalent? Are we looking at a very comparable lens, for potentially quite a bit less (once the prices stabilise)? The Canon 24-105 seems make the 6D kit quite a bit more expensive than Nikon and Sony equivalents (but then again, if I did buy Canon full frame, then for what I shoot, I wouldn't want to be without it).

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (6 months ago)

It's the competitor to the Canon.

Although if you have a mount other than Canon (lookin' at you Sony), it's a VERY much welcomed addition.

3 upvotes
wus
By wus (6 months ago)

We still have to see how well the new Sigma performs optically, but if we assume it is similarly good as Sigma's other "Art" lenses, then there is no real equivalent lens by Sony!

2 upvotes
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (6 months ago)

Just an FYI to all the price stomping going around - the announced price is MSRP. The MSRP of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 A lens is $1400 but the lens sells in practice for $899. I expect that the real store price will be $100-$200 lower.

For us Nikon users this could be a very attractive lens. The Nikon 24-120 f/4 has never been an awesome lens optically. It's a little less versatile than the 24-120 but if the MTF charts are to be believed (Sigma's usually honest here where Nikon/Canon have inflated opinions of themselves) this will be a solid performer.

For Sony users I expect this lens will be a huge hit. There's no existing equivalent in that camp with the only other option is the Sony 28-75 f/2.8 SAM lens which isn't really the same thing.

I think this will be a harder sell for Canon users. I don't expect it to beat the Canon 24-105 f/4 L optically. Also the Canon has had years of price discounts to give it a head start and is one of those "everyone's got one" lenses.

4 upvotes
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (6 months ago)

P.S. Some people are throwing around ebay links which do have better prices than the big name retail shops have. However - you should beware that the odds are good that these are grey market goods and will almost certainly not have a US warranty covering them.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (6 months ago)

I think Sigma has international warranty? Maybe not.

MTF looks good, but in this case I think it looks bit too good to be true (insanely good actually). Of course, if it is real then its probably best zoom in this range.

On other side, considering 18-35/1.8 it actually is possible that this lens is really that good.. And then they sell it really cheap. :D

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

the 700 US price is correct for a new lens with Canon USA warranty, as a kit lens with 5D or 6D.

in the contrary, not many people will buy it separately, don't have to. this is part of the reason that Nikkor 24-120/4GVR is sold at a lower price (that reflects better the value of such a lens).

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

"Just an FYI to all the price stomping going around - the announced price is MSRP. The MSRP of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 A lens is $1400 but the lens sells in practice for $899. I expect that the real store price will be $100-$200 lower."

You are wrong. The announced price is the real price. The so-called MSRP of the lens is $1,260 - of course, it never was supposed to sell at this price just like 35/1.4 never sold for $1,400, because Sigma's MSRPs are complete fraud.
Look for yourself:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-art

The lens is not for sale yet and already "discounted" 30% on Sigma's own website. Riiight.

0 upvotes
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (6 months ago)

@peevee1 - Where did you get that MSRP number because it's not in the official press release. I'm curious where that came from.

Also we don't know what the real sale price will be yet - the lens is obviously not for sale. You can pre-order through B&H and the other big retailers but that doesn't mean the price/release date won't change. Either way the lens represents a savings over the Canon/Nikon offerings from reputable dealers. I'm eager for a real world review to come out so we can evaluate it past MTF charts and press releases.

0 upvotes
Richard Franiec
By Richard Franiec (6 months ago)

@ CarVac (two posts down). Not only aberrations and distortions. Please, notice the magnification factor. This lens could be much better for close-up photography than EF24-105 IS is. And from the published specs it should be.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
CarVac
By CarVac (6 months ago)

According to the DPR press release, the max magnification for the Sigma is 0.22x. (same thing as 1:4.6)

According to The-Digital-Picture's review, the max magnification for the Canon is 0.23x.

Both have the same minimum focusing distance.

2 upvotes
Richard Franiec
By Richard Franiec (6 months ago)

Yes, that is correct. I withdraw the magnification advantage comment.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (6 months ago)

Let's see if Sigma can bring the magic of their 35mm lens to a wide-tele zoom. It won't be hard to top the Canon 24-105 or the Nikon 24-120 and lots of people swear by those. They certainly are handy.

2 upvotes
CarVac
By CarVac (6 months ago)

The MTF looks very similar to the Canon 24-105.

I guess it only has price as an advantage, unless they managed to reduce geometric distortion.

0 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (6 months ago)

There is no price advantage at this moment. In USA, you can frequently to buy a new copy of 24-105L at $700 (cheapest is $650 I have seen one time) in eBay with free shipping.

1 upvote
racketman
By racketman (6 months ago)

$899 is £556, £667 with 20% VAT not £850, welcome to Rip Off Britain.

5 upvotes
Simao
By Simao (6 months ago)

If you buy something from the US and ship it to the UK, I find that customs and duties in addition to VAT and shipping costs usually makes something that is worth 100 USD = 100 GBP!

0 upvotes
mantra
By mantra (6 months ago)

looks a cool lens
i like a lot the new sigma lens
the 35 is amazing hope this lens is great too

0 upvotes
HomoSapiensWannaBe
By HomoSapiensWannaBe (6 months ago)

I use the Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5G VR. I like the zoom range and would welcome the extra 20mm on the long end. However, this is my least favorite lens due to lower optical quality compared to the Sigma 35/1.4 and Nikon's 18-35G, 85/1.8G and 70-200/4G VR.

I'd rather have a top quality 24-70/2.8 with VR, but if the Sigma 24-105/4 proves a great lens, I will consider buying it.

There are some negatives for me:

1.) According to the photo for the Nikon mount Sigma 24-105/4 on the B&H site, the zoom and focus rings turn in the opposite direction from Nikon lenses. This poses an ergonomic problem from what I am used to. This also means the in-focus indicator in the viewfinder will be backwards, and therefore not intuitive.

2.) 77mm filters can't be used.

3.) Size and weight are more than I would like for this zoom range and f-stop, but again, I'll consider if the optical quality is superb.

3 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (6 months ago)

F4? In our country from about now until next March it is often a60th at f2 @400 ISO outside, sometimes all day. To get the equivalent on an f4 lens requires 1600 and at 1600 the D800 has lost half its resolution and three-quarters of its acuity. The problem is that if you go to ,say, MPB Photographic you can see for yourselves just how many Canon 24-104 f4 are traded in and then, sadder, just how many 24-70mm Nikon f2.8 lenses are traded in because they are only sharp in the middle on full-frame due to massive field curvature-like the old Canon.The new 24-120mm Nikkor is f4 and not sharp
and the new 24-85mm IS Nikkor- is frankly junk
I bought two brand-new 24-70mm F2.8 nikkors and have also owned, but had to return after testing another FIVE 24-85mm Nikkors.
Sigma know this and want to replace these poor optics but it is dreadfully difficult to design a 24mm zoom for full-frame- the mirror box !
Once designed any lens costs peanuts to manufacture to current poor standards.Next?

0 upvotes
gatorowl
By gatorowl (6 months ago)

I hear what you are saying and generally agree. It's for these reasons that I went ahead and purchased the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II even though I had promised myself to invest in my D800E only. I'm still testing the Canon, but so far it looks promising.

I have the 24-85mm. I wouldn't call it junk, but I would acknowledge that it has issues. It is very sharp in the center resolving more detail than my Canon (not surprising since it does have a 14MP advantage!). However, it is just poor once one deviates significantly from the center.

The biggest advantage the Canon has--in addition to very consistent sharpness--is it has world-leading micro-contrast and color. Images really do "pop." My Sigma 35mm has these same characteristics. If the new 24-105 has these same characteristics, albeit with slower speed, then it will be a phenomenal buy, and Canon and Nikon will truly start quivering in fear.

1 upvote
Abu Mahendra
By Abu Mahendra (6 months ago)

For these and other reasons, I have no interest in any F/4 lens.

1 upvote
LucidStrike
By LucidStrike (6 months ago)

This is one of the reasons I like m43. Glass can be faster without DoF getting TOO shallow. If Sigma, Olympus, or Panasonic could pull off 12-35mm f/2, I'd be set. ^_^

0 upvotes
Chez Wimpy
By Chez Wimpy (6 months ago)

Metabones + 17-50/2.8 APS-C on m43 gets you the 12-35/2 you have been dreaming of. MF only of course!

0 upvotes
Horshack
By Horshack (6 months ago)

Sorry but in 6x7 format terms the lens is only a 48-240mm f/8 so naturally it's garbage.

18 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (6 months ago)

Since I don´t have FF (have Pentax ;-), I would love to see an equivalent for APSC, i.e. 16-70 f2,8 (Art of course). I intend to buy Sigma 18-35-1,8 (when the Pentax mount is finally available), but it´s focal length is a bit limiting. I would trade 1 EV for better FL. Having 16-70 with f2,8 I would never put it off my camera.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

24-105 is a convenient zoom for APS-C, too.
the Canon one is better than most APS-C zooms,
and this Sigma looks slightly better than Canon on MTF.

0 upvotes
Pritzl
By Pritzl (6 months ago)

That would be nice. I would give up more of the reach for just 1 extra mm on the wide end though, e.g. 15-50mm 2.8. So long as it's sharp wide open, I would buy it in a heart beat.

0 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (6 months ago)

This will probably be a great lens. Although Nikon and Canon users already have options in this range and aperture. But I don't think f/4 lenses get the proper attention they deserve. Many photographers poopoo on them because they are not "fast enough". But these f/4 lenses can be made smaller and tougher than the larger f/2.8 companions. And with the ever increasing iso performance of bodies, f/4 is good enough many times. I personally wish Sigma or Tamron (or Tokina) would make a 50-150 f/4 lens for aps-c that is tough and weather sealed. I don't know of any options for a lens like this from anyone (well I don't know much about Pentax, maybe they do). But it could be made much smaller than the big 70-200 f/2.8 lenses most people mount on there aps-c dslrs, just because they don't have an option. And yes I know that there are 70-200 f/4 lenses, but 50mm is a much better place to start for aps-c than 70mm.

2 upvotes
WT21
By WT21 (6 months ago)

Tokina makes (or made) a 50-135/2.8. It is a tank in terms of build. http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/277-tokina-af-50-135mm-f28-at-x-pro-dx-test-report--review

0 upvotes
gillamoto
By gillamoto (6 months ago)

Pentax has DA* 50-135mm f2.8 with excellent optic.

0 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (6 months ago)

Yeah, I know Tokina used to make a 50-135 f/2.8, but not any more. And many times, I don't want or need f/2.8, so extra size is not worth it. And I figured Pentax made something in this range, but it doesn't do me much good. I also know that Sigma makes a 50-150 f/2.8, with is excellent from what I hear, but again it is as large as the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. An f/4 lens would be more compact.

4 upvotes
MarkByland
By MarkByland (6 months ago)

No Pentax mount? Lame.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (6 months ago)

Full Frame lens. This is 36-157,5 equivalent on aps-c.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (6 months ago)

Does Pentax have a full frame DSLR to take advantage of a full frame 24-105mm lens ? Use the DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED on Pentax APS-C DSLRs.

1 upvote
zos xavius
By zos xavius (6 months ago)

Except the 18-135 is not superb optically. This would be very useful on APS-C.

0 upvotes
Joe Mayer
By Joe Mayer (6 months ago)

I doubt anyone who has the Canon doesn't wish for a bit less distortion wide or a little sharper corners and sharper overall at the long end. However, it's a very capable lens and with the market saturated (some may say overly so at this point), I'm not sure what Sigma is thinking by introducing this (in terms of the Canon user such as myself). I would have liked to see Sigma make the equivalent build quality of the Canon and improve the lens from there. They've completely bungled this opportunity by creating a lens for a specific price point. They should have created a better lens at a cost commensurate with performance. At the moment, this lens does not appear significantly better than the millions of Canon lenses in use. I certainly won't be dumping my two copies for these. Suggestion to Sigma...for your next try, make it 2.8 and I'll pre-order.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

a 24-105/2.8 should weigh well over a kilogram.
and the price in USD = weight in grams.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (6 months ago)

Agree unless this Sigma copy is noticeably sharper and less distortion at 24mm.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (6 months ago)

Unlike Zeiss as a third party manufacturer, Sigma always tend to make lenses to a price to be competitive. This may be good for those who are looking for bargain but if you are looking for absolute quality it may have issues. Many Sigma lenses have AF focusing problems which is either front or back. For me, this is unacceptable. For others, they are willing to compromise by using their USB dock to tune it themselves.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

Zeiss and Sigma sell totally different things.
Zeiss sell fairy tales while Sigma sell craftmanship.

0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (6 months ago)

Oh yes, I forgot. IF your lens is not weatherproof and dustproof too, it is no good when it rains, snows, hails or dust and sandstorms. It is no good in many many countries on our planet ALL of the time, and a liability as are non-weratherproofed mamera bodies.
Since Canon, Nikon, Sony , Samsung and all the others have always known this, and live in a place where their weather is even more dangerous than ours here in the UK, they are deliberately ensuring you go on spending to fund their greed, rather than actually get it right in the first place. An advantage of having limited funds is that you can sit back and wait! Until the day they make a lens as good as your washing machine or microwave.....

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

Please enlighten me who needs it?
Canon 24-105L IS f/4 can be had for $600 new taken off 6D kit (on ebay).
Nikon has 24-120 f/4 which is smaller and lighter that this sigma for not so much more, not to mention 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 coming in every kit and MUCH smaller and cheaper.
For the few Sony FF DSLR/DSLT users (A99)? The old Minolta/Sony 24-105 f/4 is not for sale new, but can be had used for $180 on ebay and incredibly light and small. It is probably terrible optically though, especially on full frame.
So for Sony - I guess it is better than to pay extortionary prices of Zeiss-branded lenses. Although the Sonys don't need OS - waste of money there.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

Just to be sure:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-EF-USM-AF-Lens-/360768530920?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item53ff7ae9e8
$640, but sometimes they fall to $600.
Cheaper, smaller, weather-sealed, in-camera support for corrections... but you need to stop down to f/5.6 to get reasonably sharp results on FF at the long end, and 70mm is so-so no matter what.

0 upvotes
Light Pilgrim
By Light Pilgrim (6 months ago)

Unlike with sigma 35 mm, weather sealing is critical....unless this lens is not intended to be used for landscapes.

1 upvote
munro harrap
By munro harrap (6 months ago)

Itried the Canon, 3 of them, not good. I tried a couple of Sigma 24-70mm (EXDG) and the flare at the long end was bad, unusable.The Tamron 2470 is not worth it because the distortion at 24mm is awful. And I am suspicious of the trend for poor lens design and great software compensation, simply because there is no compensation unless Lightroom or PhotoShop or Capture One or Aperture (NONE!) or DXO supply it, and they drop old models regularly from the list of lenses/ Suppose this is OK with computer correction and you use film? you are lost. And in 3, 5, 10 years you will be as lost because, like my 28-105 Nikor and my 24-85 Canon (EFUSM-excellent too on FullFrame) there is no package that corrects for CA and distortion anymore (older lightroom and DPP did once upon a time, but no longer do. Perhaps you also have lists of lenses that are not supported by either software or even their own camera manufacturer Like some RAW files I could mention on Windows 7 now?

0 upvotes
Light Pilgrim
By Light Pilgrim (6 months ago)

I have to say sigma rocks...their new products are very exciting. Now I hope they will do 14-24 that will be as good as nikon:-)

1 upvote
Suave
By Suave (6 months ago)

Hard to get excited about the Canon version when new 24-105L can be had for $640. Hopefully it makes more sense for other mounts, but, a Canon user, this is not the lens I was waiting for.

1 upvote
Light Pilgrim
By Light Pilgrim (6 months ago)

Go to any online store and find canon for less than 1000, please share the link.

0 upvotes
Houseqatz
By Houseqatz (6 months ago)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Canon-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM-Lens-1-Year-Canon-US-Warranty-with-Pouch-and-Hood-/161108063407?

the power of google 0_o

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-EF-USM-AF-Lens-/360768530920?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item53ff7ae9e8

0 upvotes
Suave
By Suave (6 months ago)

If I were in the market for 24-105, I without a doubt, would get it here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360768530920
Of course, if you crave ratail packaging you do need to plop extra 50%

0 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (6 months ago)

How If it is better than 24-105L?
However 24-105L is an old lens
You can't compare it with 2013 lens

0 upvotes
Richard Franiec
By Richard Franiec (6 months ago)

Looks like beautifully designed lens on the outside.
I wonder why zoom and focus rings are bunched together? Especially when what seems to be the focus ring is very narrow. Hope this won't create conflict between the two functions in actual use.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Suave
By Suave (6 months ago)

That is a great point - originally I bought my 24-105 for video and one of the big selling points was size and spacing of the zoom and focusing rings. That, and the fact that 24-105L is almost parfocal.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (6 months ago)

Sigma needs to come out with an E mount version with OIS for the A7, A7r and VG900 or people will just buy the new 24-70mm OSS E mount lens coming out in a few months.
http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/detail/sel2470z.html

1 upvote
Suave
By Suave (6 months ago)

Isn't it like $2k?

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

Lenses going wider that 40mm should be completely redesigned for short focal distance mounts, otherwise they end up unnecessary big and heavy. Who needs 900g "walkabout" monster on 450g camera?

0 upvotes
dbateman
By dbateman (6 months ago)

I partially agree. Sigma striping out OIS is silly. Just add a switch on/off. Then the user can decide. Also the price will be the same with OIS removed.
However, I don't think this is a lens for the A7's. You should look for something smaller. But if do buy the Canon version and use the Metabones Electronic adapter. Then you get slow AF, but control over OIS and apeture. (not the speed booster, then normal one).

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (6 months ago)

The new 24-70mm OSS E mount lens is $1,198 on Amazon .
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL2470Z-Camera-Lenses/dp/B00FSB79FU/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1382708674&sr=1-1&keywords=Sony+SEL2470Z+Camera+Lenses

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

"This is a top-notch lens in its design and image quality." - I sure hope so! :) Sigma - please, be it a great lens!

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (6 months ago)

I need to add, that I think this lens will be $799.00 pretty quickly, I don't see it keeping that MSRP very long. At that price it becomes more attractive. An odd FL for Sigma mount users considering they don't have a FF sensor in any of their bodies yet.

2 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (6 months ago)

I never found the Canon 24 - 105 overwhelming. Maybe it is a calibration issue but with my 5D Mark I I cannot calibrate.

2 upvotes
007peter
By 007peter (6 months ago)

Me neither, tried 2 copies, each is less sharp than an EF-S 17-55/2.8. The new Sigma is interesting. If performance is near its 35/1.4 and 50/1.4, it'll be an easy choice over the canon 24-105

0 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (6 months ago)

24-105L is not sharper than EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS on a Canon APS-C body that I agreed. But 24-105L on a Canon FF body is noticeably sharper than EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS or EF-S 15-85 on APS-C body as confirmed by DXO test. My copy is quite sharp. But now I use 24-70L II and 24-105L sitting on shelf now.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (6 months ago)

If it performs, that's a good price. A very nice lens too in design. The control rings, style of the lens, all exude quality and practicality at the same time. Very impressive on this one Sigma.

Bummer you're not making it for the Pentax K Mount, tsk tsk!

Carl

0 upvotes
neo_nights
By neo_nights (6 months ago)

Big bummer.

Too bad it doesn't offer OIS (so NEX users could benefit from it) and there's no K-mount as well.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (6 months ago)

the EF 24-105mm cost around 700 euro here.
i guess the sigma will sell for around 650 euro after a few month.
the 35mm sigma droped significantly too.

this lens only has to have good sharpness and less distortions then the canon and it will find it´s buyers. MTF charts tell only a part of the story, something many noobs here seem to forget.

sigma produces for nikon and sony too, so why should they not make a canon model. even when there is the EF 24-105mm. it´s not much more work.

weathersealing is something not everyone outside the gearhead fraction is very interested in.

the only thing im worrried about is AF performance and accuracy.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Light Pilgrim
By Light Pilgrim (6 months ago)

You killed me with the comment that weather sealing is not needed. How and where would you it, in a studio? I use my 24-105 in rough conditions...mountains, ocean, waterfalls...rain, spray...etc. what do youmean by gearhead?

2 upvotes
kevin_r
By kevin_r (6 months ago)

This is a lens Sony users have been shouting for for a long time but now Sigma has gone greedy and removed the OS. Which means that a whole market segment that wants to use this lens on the FE or Nex E mounts with LA adapters will have no stabilisation.

Perhaps they should simply bolt on an FE mount with stabilisation and watch it take off.
It'll give the 24-70mm f/4 Zeiss a fair thrashing since that lens is priced at $1000.00.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Rad Encarnacion
By Rad Encarnacion (6 months ago)

"Sigma has gone greedy and removed the OS"

Sony decided to make a full-frame E-mount camera without IBIS, and you're blaming Sigma?

7 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Well, all previous Sigma lenses on A-mount got OS. I see no reason for this one not to have it.

2 upvotes
Abaregi
By Abaregi (6 months ago)

Just keep your speeds at 80+ and you should be fine.

0 upvotes
barry reid
By barry reid (6 months ago)

I'd be happy if the sharpness was on a par with the Canon 24-105L, but with lower distortion. Distortion is something lens makers need to sort out. And before anyone mentions software correction NO.

What the hell is the point in a 24mm FL that has such egregious barrel distortion you have to effectively crop back to 28mm????

13 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (6 months ago)

I'm totally with you on that Barry. Distortion correction (either automatic or manually corrected) eats up field of view and it's hardly ever mentioned. I mention it on my reviews when I do lens reviews, but I don't know why it's not mentioned more. It very well ought to be.

Carl

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (6 months ago)

Its a loosing battle. Just the fact that distortion "correction" is possible is apparently a free pass for designers to ignore disotortion entirely. If you think the Canon 24-105 looks funny at 24mm, try the Nikon 24-120. Wow. But it's just another example of the unnacceptible becoming acceptible. Soon, there will be a generation of "pros" who don't even know you're not suppposed to have to post-process the distortion out.

1 upvote
wazu
By wazu (6 months ago)

bingo!
this is the main reason for going with the 24-70mkII after more than four years with my EF25-105. Couldn't complain about sharpness, AF speed or softness, but the distortion at the wide end was horrendous.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (6 months ago)

Should come with a few stickers: red ring decal, gold lining labels, etc. to mimic the real deal. Add ons like "L" or Golden ED are also options.

Hmmm...

Might as well save a few pezookas and get da real deal.

.

3 upvotes
UneVache
By UneVache (6 months ago)

Hard to be interested in that lens from what we can see here. Same price as Canon 24-105 L, significantly heavier, not weather sealed... looks a bit pointless at first sight.
Don't feel it as a real challenger to that great all-rounder, it looks too redundant with already existing material with no really extra feature overall. Perhaps more interesting for Nikon, don't know.
Though, I guess the "Art" addressing means great optical qualities...
I would rather have liked that Sigma created a new 16-35 2.8 DG or something like that. Why this one, and also why these new APSC's lenses instead, while Canon is quitting softly this market? Strange decision IMHO.
Though, their 35 1.4 looks quite tempting ;).

0 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (6 months ago)

I think this lens will become a serious competitor for the 24-105mm of Canon. not directly a competitor for the Nikkor 24-120mm.

Price will be lower soon.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

Canon users can get EF24-105 for about 700 US as a kit lens.
little chance for Sigma here.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
idiothunter
By idiothunter (6 months ago)

You forgot to mention it's only equivalent to f/4!

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

"and also why these new APSC's lenses instead, while Canon is quitting softly this market?"

Canon released 3 new APS-C DSLRs this year alone, how many FF? Right - none. Quitting? And don't forget that APS-C DSLRs make up something like 95% of the market, and probably going to be more with developing countries developing middle class rich enough for APS-C but not for FF yet.

0 upvotes
UneVache
By UneVache (6 months ago)

@peevee1
I'm sorry but this is false.
First , lenses you talked about are only renewal with STM of existing lenses.
Second, you forgot about new 200-400 F4 which is EF and was launched this year (quite expansive, though, I admit ;) ).
If you look from 2012, there were only 3 "new" EF-S lenses for 6 new EF. And EF-S ones were all only new versions of existing models.
Since 2012 there were 5 completely new ranges/aperture models for EF. How many for EF-S? None ! You must go back to 2009 to see creation of new ranges in EF-S mount.
Third, people who wants not too pricy cameras will soon have more choice with mirrorless and compact cameras than with APS-C (if they not just use their smartphones).
And fourth, those "new" EF-S lenses of 2013 were probably only launched to help with EOS-70D sales which are not as good as expected, contrary to 5D MarkIII and 6D.
So yes, I think that full frame will probably be the main DSLR market sales in the coming years.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
quiquae
By quiquae (6 months ago)

@peevee1
The last thing the EF-S zoom lineup needs is "creation of new ranges." We already have 10-22, 18-55, 17-55, 17-85, 15-85, 18-135, 18-200, and 55-250, which should be more than enough for anybody.

In this light, it makes a lot more sense to brush up the existing ranges, which is exactly what Canon is doing. 18-135, 18-55, 55-250 STMs are all optically new designs, and by all accounts are better than their respective predecessors.

0 upvotes
JonHob
By JonHob (6 months ago)

I'm personally not too worried about the Sigma 24-105mm f4 as I already use the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 but if it's made as well as the new Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 Sport lens it'll give the big boys a run for their money.

0 upvotes
Hugo600si
By Hugo600si (6 months ago)

No stabilization for Sony, wake up Sigma and smell the e-mount! Its a mount with high opportunities and limited lenses in their segment... hope they turn around on the no OSS for Sony.

0 upvotes
JonHob
By JonHob (6 months ago)

Sony usually have Shake reduction in the bodies so it doesn't need to be in the lens.

0 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (6 months ago)

Sony has it's shake reduction in Alpha cameras NOT in E mount as Hugo was sugesting.

0 upvotes
orizaba
By orizaba (6 months ago)

What about OS noise compared with Canon? Because Canon stabilization noise is audible to any mic even if placed more than 25 cm away and damages all video recordings. Can't understand why Sony inbody OS doesn't make any noise and Canon inlens is so noisy.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Der Steppenwolf - it's NOT an E-mount lens. If you haven't noticed.
And you can easily fit a NEX inside of this lens barrel. So I see no reason why anyone would use it with these tiny cameras.

2 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (6 months ago)

As someone else pointed out: It's not Sigma's fault that Sony decided to release an E-mount camera without in-camera stabilization.

0 upvotes
rubank
By rubank (6 months ago)

The MTF charts doesn´t look very promising. No better than the Nikkor 24-120/4 - and that is not the best lens.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

the MTF looks a bit better than Canon 24-105, but from test shots Canon and Nikon resolutions are quite similar.

a bit cheaper starting price for 1,000 US or so, Canon or Nikon ones should be better for better service and resale value.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (6 months ago)

+1 That's the first thing I noticed. For all it's size and weight the wide open performance does not look all that good . . .

0 upvotes
Gabriel Chan
By Gabriel Chan (6 months ago)

At this price tag and weight, it's only worthy to get this lens if it's image quality surpass the iq of canon 24-70/4IS and 24-70/2.8II

0 upvotes
Jonny Max
By Jonny Max (6 months ago)

This lens has to be better than a $2000 pro lens to be worth considering, you're kidding right?

9 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (6 months ago)

no, he is just not very intelligent.....

7 upvotes
gtlogic
By gtlogic (6 months ago)

I don't quite understand why they released this. There is already a flood of cheap Canon 24-105mm f/4 L lenses, are the intending to target the Nikon users or something? Unfortunately I'm not as familiar with the Nikon lens marketplace.

What am I missing?

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

Nikkor 24-120/4 performs very similar to Canon.

many of us got 24-105/4LIS as a kit lens with 5D and it's much cheaper as a kit lens (USD 780 on amazon.com, USD 600 from adorama or bhphotovideo), so I don't see chance for this Sigma.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (6 months ago)

Simple, there's three more mounts this is available for other than Canon. Duh.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

Three more mounts:
1. Nikon - has 24-120 f/4 and 24-85, both smaller and lighter.
2. Sigma - they don't have an FF camera for this to be useful. Maybe they are ready to release one soon?
3. Sony - users of A99 should be glad. Both of them.

0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (6 months ago)

Finally a 24-105 F4 for a Nikon too. That's great :) I expect a very good optical quality for my Nikon D4 and D800E. I don't care about the weight.

1 upvote
Zvonko
By Zvonko (6 months ago)

I'm waiting for the same thing though D800. I don't care aboutthe weight either.

0 upvotes
alireza
By alireza (6 months ago)

there is already a 24-120 f4 in Nikon league. we should see if there is any IQ difference.

2 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (6 months ago)

Nikon has had a 14-120 F4 for quite many years now Gabriel. Where were you ???

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (6 months ago)

What's wrong with the Nikon or Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lenses? Both are excellent lenses. Too short?

0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (6 months ago)

Girls can you read? I was talking about the 24-105 range and not a 14-120, ok? When I use Canon 5D years ago, the 24-105 was my most used lens, perfect for model photography. I still miss it, until now ;-)
Thank you Sigma!

(No I don't need the 14mm range cause I use a 14-24mm and no 120mm I use a 70-200 too. Yes, I own a 24-70 too, which is not the same. Thanks for listening.)

2 upvotes
NickBPhotography
By NickBPhotography (6 months ago)

I brought the Nikon 24-120mm F/4 earlier this year and eventually sold my 24-70mm F/2.8. Was a very difficult decision knowing which one to part with. Both have adv and disadv.

The 24-70mm was near perfect but I rarely used it apart from for professional work (which I now no longer do). The extra zoom of the 24-120mm means it is on my camera most of the time now (where as the 24-70mm about 1/4 of the time) and I am frequently surprised at just how good it is. Fantastic walk around lens and as sharp as you want 85% of the time - its all I take on holidays with me. But at the same time I just don't trust it like I did my old 24-70mm - that just performed 100%, 100% of the time (at least that's how it felt).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Karl Summers
By Karl Summers (6 months ago)

Please DPR, make this a testing priority. A test against the Canon f/4 24-105 and the f/2.8 24-70-II, as well as the Nikon equivalents. I don't expect the build quality to compare, but if the optical quality is like their 35mm ART lens then I would love to get this piece of glass.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
16 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (6 months ago)

Actually I expect the build quality to easily compare. Sigma lenses seem very well built and their new Art series even more so.

11 upvotes
NickBPhotography
By NickBPhotography (6 months ago)

I agree. I had the 85mm F/1.4 for a couple of years. Its build actually made my Nikon 24-70mm and 70-200mm feel a little cheap. Everything felt so substantial - the switches engage with a chunky and reassuring throw. Excellent lens - just wish I had not dropped it.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (6 months ago)

I've owned the Sigma 50 f/1.4, definitely a good lens. A bit huge for a 50mm, but good optically with a nice metal barrel.

I wouldn't it made the two pro-grade Nikkor zooms feel cheap. That's a bit of a stretch.

2 upvotes
Jylppy
By Jylppy (6 months ago)

Well, I have Sigma 35mm/1.4f Art series and its build quality is superb. Solid construction, beautiful industrial design. I love it. It easily compares well to Canon L series lenses in build quality, but its industrial design is more stylish. Go Sigma, go!

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Actually: I wouldn't be surprised if this lens would win over Canon in build quality. Most certainly it wins in terms of design.

1 upvote
Mateo Miller
By Mateo Miller (6 months ago)

Sounds interesting but it weighs half a pound more than the Canon 24-105L 670 grams vs 885 grams (23oz vs 31oz)

2 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (6 months ago)

And no weather sealing like the L either

3 upvotes
Jylppy
By Jylppy (6 months ago)

Auts! Whether sealing would be a high priority for this kind of general purpose travel lens. Oh Sigma, what have you done?

I have accidentally tested my Canon 24-105/4L's whether sealing and it works. It got poured about 20 liters of water directly on camera (5DII) + lens on a river boat without any problems at all.

No, I am not gonna test my luck second time.

2 upvotes
Zvonko
By Zvonko (6 months ago)

let's see how it compares to the 24-120 f4

4 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (6 months ago)

Should thrash it. The Nikon is not very good at all.

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (6 months ago)

Thrash it, like a boxing match? lol.

The Nikon 24-120 VR provides similar IQ to the Canon 24-104 with a bit more zoom range.

4 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (6 months ago)

Yeah pull the other one it yodels. Even the Nikon guys know the 24-120 is not that good.

2 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (6 months ago)

Neither is that good.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Easier for Sigma :) ;)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (6 months ago)

> Even the Nikon guys know the 24-120 is not that good.

Look at the Lenstip reviews for the Canon and Nikon 24-105 f4 lenses. Their respective MTF graphs are almost identical and mostly very good to excellent. And other issues, like the high distortion at 24mm on the Canon, or the CAs with the Nikon, can be corrected in LR.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

The Nikon is terrible at about 85mm, but ok (not good, but OK for 5x zoom) in other FLs.

0 upvotes
luxor2
By luxor2 (6 months ago)

Hope it surpasses the Nikon 24 to 120. The price is very good.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

It surpassed the Nikon is size and weight - despite shorter FL.

1 upvote
Total comments: 167
12