Sigma 24-105 Art Lens.

[ASR45]

Lovely lens sharp at F4, at all focal lengths, much sharper than the canon equivalent the Canon 24-105 L MK2 and I have had two of those, fast AF very happy fully recommend it.

 

[Canon_Guy]

I was considering this lens many years back to my 5D mk III. Was deciding between this Sigma and EF 24-105/4 mk I. As far as I remember, my findings were about the same what TDP concluded:

From a wide open aperture sharpness perspective, the Sigma performs better in the mid and peripheral areas of the image circle at 24mm through 28mm. The two lenses are nearly equivalent from 35mm through 70mm. The Canon is sharper at 105mm. When using a zoom lens, many of us tend to use the two focal length extremes the most. Sigma wins the 24mm contest and Canon wins at 105mm.

But that's at f/4. Stop down to f/5.6, and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in sharpness between these lenses.

The Sigma has slightly more light falloff at long end but shows less flare. The Canon has less pincushion distortion in the mid focal lengths.

The Sigma focuses more quietly than the Canon, but the Canon focuses a bit faster than the Sigma. The Canon has a larger and better-positioned focus ring with more rotation (122° vs. 90°). The Canon uses smaller filters (77mm vs. 82mm), but the advantage should go to the size that is already in your kit. The Canon lens is lighter and slightly smaller – and is weather sealed.



From the IQ point of view it was more or less the same as noted above. I went for Canon because of the weather sealing and I had filters for my other two lenses (17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8) with the same 77mm filter thread.

 

[ASR45]

I was considering this lens many years back to my 5D mk III. Was deciding between this Sigma and EF 24-105/4 mk I. As far as I remember, my findings were about the same what TDP concluded:

From a wide open aperture sharpness perspective, the Sigma performs better in the mid and peripheral areas of the image circle at 24mm through 28mm. The two lenses are nearly equivalent from 35mm through 70mm. The Canon is sharper at 105mm. When using a zoom lens, many of us tend to use the two focal length extremes the most. Sigma wins the 24mm contest and Canon wins at 105mm.

But that's at f/4. Stop down to f/5.6, and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in sharpness between these lenses.

The Sigma has slightly more light falloff at long end but shows less flare. The Canon has less pincushion distortion in the mid focal lengths.

The Sigma focuses more quietly than the Canon, but the Canon focuses a bit faster than the Sigma. The Canon has a larger and better-positioned focus ring with more rotation (122° vs. 90°). The Canon uses smaller filters (77mm vs. 82mm), but the advantage should go to the size that is already in your kit. The Canon lens is lighter and slightly smaller – and is weather sealed.

From the IQ point of view it was more or less the same as noted above. I went for Canon because of the weather sealing and I had filters for my other two lenses (17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8) with the same 77mm filter thread.

In real world experiences, I have had several MK1 & MK2 Canon 24-105s and the sigma out performs both, most reviews show the sigma sharper as well and everything about it out performs the canon. The only downside is it don't have the weather sealing, but it does not matter to me, as I don't use it in any adverse weather conditions.

 

[Canon_Guy]

I was considering this lens many years back to my 5D mk III. Was deciding between this Sigma and EF 24-105/4 mk I. As far as I remember, my findings were about the same what TDP concluded:

From a wide open aperture sharpness perspective, the Sigma performs better in the mid and peripheral areas of the image circle at 24mm through 28mm. The two lenses are nearly equivalent from 35mm through 70mm. The Canon is sharper at 105mm. When using a zoom lens, many of us tend to use the two focal length extremes the most. Sigma wins the 24mm contest and Canon wins at 105mm.

But that's at f/4. Stop down to f/5.6, and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in sharpness between these lenses.

The Sigma has slightly more light falloff at long end but shows less flare. The Canon has less pincushion distortion in the mid focal lengths.

The Sigma focuses more quietly than the Canon, but the Canon focuses a bit faster than the Sigma. The Canon has a larger and better-positioned focus ring with more rotation (122° vs. 90°). The Canon uses smaller filters (77mm vs. 82mm), but the advantage should go to the size that is already in your kit. The Canon lens is lighter and slightly smaller – and is weather sealed.

From the IQ point of view it was more or less the same as noted above. I went for Canon because of the weather sealing and I had filters for my other two lenses (17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8) with the same 77mm filter thread.

In real world experiences, I have had several MK1 & MK2 Canon 24-105s and the sigma out performs both, most reviews show the sigma sharper as well and everything about it out performs the canon. The only downside is it don't have the weather sealing, but it does not matter to me, as I don't use it in any adverse weather conditions.

Former Sigma lenses were known for being quite copy variant. So it is not possible to exclude the possibility that both Bryan and me had a worse copy of it or that your copy is exceptionally good.

Still the copy to copy variation concerns mainly or exclusively the sharpness. It can hardly affect light fall off, frame distortions or a focus speed (this by any means). In all these areas Sigma is more or less worse than Canon.

I am glad you are satisfied with it (probably the same as I am satisfied with my two Sigmas) and that it fits to your needs well. But even though it is good to stay relevant and unbiased.

 

[ASR45]

I was considering this lens many years back to my 5D mk III. Was deciding between this Sigma and EF 24-105/4 mk I. As far as I remember, my findings were about the same what TDP concluded:

From a wide open aperture sharpness perspective, the Sigma performs better in the mid and peripheral areas of the image circle at 24mm through 28mm. The two lenses are nearly equivalent from 35mm through 70mm. The Canon is sharper at 105mm. When using a zoom lens, many of us tend to use the two focal length extremes the most. Sigma wins the 24mm contest and Canon wins at 105mm.

But that's at f/4. Stop down to f/5.6, and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in sharpness between these lenses.

The Sigma has slightly more light falloff at long end but shows less flare. The Canon has less pincushion distortion in the mid focal lengths.

The Sigma focuses more quietly than the Canon, but the Canon focuses a bit faster than the Sigma. The Canon has a larger and better-positioned focus ring with more rotation (122° vs. 90°). The Canon uses smaller filters (77mm vs. 82mm), but the advantage should go to the size that is already in your kit. The Canon lens is lighter and slightly smaller – and is weather sealed.

From the IQ point of view it was more or less the same as noted above. I went for Canon because of the weather sealing and I had filters for my other two lenses (17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8) with the same 77mm filter thread.

In real world experiences, I have had several MK1 & MK2 Canon 24-105s and the sigma out performs both, most reviews show the sigma sharper as well and everything about it out performs the canon. The only downside is it don't have the weather sealing, but it does not matter to me, as I don't use it in any adverse weather conditions.

Former Sigma lenses were known for being quite copy variant. So it is not possible to exclude the possibility that both Bryan and me had a worse copy of it or that your copy is exceptionally good.

Still the copy to copy variation concerns mainly or exclusively the sharpness. It can hardly affect light fall off, frame distortions or a focus speed (this by any means). In all these areas Sigma is more or less worse than Canon.

I am glad you are satisfied with it (probably the same as I am satisfied with my two Sigmas) and that it fits to your needs well. But even though it is good to stay relevant and unbiased.

Not unbiased at all, I did say I have the original MK1 & Mk2 times twice, both no match for my sigma 24-105 art lens, its far sharper and as quick AF as the canons. Most reviews I have seen favour the sigma as being sharper.

 

[Canon_Guy]

.

 

[Canon_Guy]

I was considering this lens many years back to my 5D mk III. Was deciding between this Sigma and EF 24-105/4 mk I. As far as I remember, my findings were about the same what TDP concluded:

From a wide open aperture sharpness perspective, the Sigma performs better in the mid and peripheral areas of the image circle at 24mm through 28mm. The two lenses are nearly equivalent from 35mm through 70mm. The Canon is sharper at 105mm. When using a zoom lens, many of us tend to use the two focal length extremes the most. Sigma wins the 24mm contest and Canon wins at 105mm.

But that's at f/4. Stop down to f/5.6, and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in sharpness between these lenses.

The Sigma has slightly more light falloff at long end but shows less flare. The Canon has less pincushion distortion in the mid focal lengths.

The Sigma focuses more quietly than the Canon, but the Canon focuses a bit faster than the Sigma. The Canon has a larger and better-positioned focus ring with more rotation (122° vs. 90°). The Canon uses smaller filters (77mm vs. 82mm), but the advantage should go to the size that is already in your kit. The Canon lens is lighter and slightly smaller – and is weather sealed.

From the IQ point of view it was more or less the same as noted above. I went for Canon because of the weather sealing and I had filters for my other two lenses (17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8) with the same 77mm filter thread.

In real world experiences, I have had several MK1 & MK2 Canon 24-105s and the sigma out performs both, most reviews show the sigma sharper as well and everything about it out performs the canon. The only downside is it don't have the weather sealing, but it does not matter to me, as I don't use it in any adverse weather conditions.

Former Sigma lenses were known for being quite copy variant. So it is not possible to exclude the possibility that both Bryan and me had a worse copy of it or that your copy is exceptionally good.

Still the copy to copy variation concerns mainly or exclusively the sharpness. It can hardly affect light fall off, frame distortions or a focus speed (this by any means). In all these areas Sigma is more or less worse than Canon.

I am glad you are satisfied with it (probably the same as I am satisfied with my two Sigmas) and that it fits to your needs well. But even though it is good to stay relevant and unbiased.

Not unbiased at all

Fully agree ;-) .

, I did say I have the original MK1 & Mk2 times twice, both no match for my sigma 24-105 art lens, its far sharper and as quick AF as the canons. Most reviews I have seen favour the sigma as being sharper.

Yes, sharpness is possible for some copies. I wrote it above, maybe you missed that. The rest I wrote about is not copy dependent.

--
Alan.
Great photography is about depth of feeling, not depth of field.
- Peter Adams
Believe in Karma.