Sigma 24-70 to 24-105L?

[EpHeSuS]

So I recently got tempted into switching my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro to the 24-105L.

The 24-70 is really the only lens that I'm dissatisfied with. It didn't live up to the expectations that I'd read about. The 24-105 is tempting because it covers the 70-105mm gap that I'm missing and has IS. I don't use f/2.8 often and f/4 will do me fine.

The 24-70 is about 1 1/2 yrs old, purchased for $480US (sharp copy, has FF issues though, hasn't been rechipped. If you're in the US and buy it, you could use the 4yr warranty to fix it) How much do you think I could get for it? I would be buying a 2nd hand 24-105L of course (Can't afford new =P)

Am I crazy? Will I be satisfied? And more importantly - Anyone want to sell me a 24-105L for about $1000AU? :D

Also - If some people could post 100% crops of the 24-105L at wide open apertures I'd appreciate it.

[EpHeSuS]

Surely someone can give me their opinion? Give me pro's and cons!

[Glenn NK]

Sorry, no, I'm not selling you my 24/105L, but you can have my left arm instead (I'm left-handed).

Putting these two lenses in the same sentence might be considered a sacrilege by some.;)

One of the strong points (not just my opinion, but that of reviewers) is that this lens performs as well open as it does stopped down. It has some mild pincushion and barrel distortion at the ends of the range, as many zooms do. This is a big zoom range; 105/24 = 4.375.

Very few people don't like this lens, and sometimes the ones that don't like it, don't actually have it. Honestly, I read a "bad-mouth" comment somewhere, and then further down in the guy's post, he actually stated that he didn't have one. It was NOT on this forum.

My dealer said that some initial copies had flare problems - these were recalled by Canon and the problem rectified. Subsequently, the flare has been well contolled - this has in fact been verified by one of the review sites (can't recall which).

[EpHeSuS]

Sorry, no, I'm not selling you my 24/105L, but you can have my left arm instead (I'm left-handed).

Putting these two lenses in the same sentence might be considered a sacrilege by some.;)

One of the strong points (not just my opinion, but that of reviewers) is that this lens performs as well open as it does stopped down. It has some mild pincushion and barrel distortion at the ends of the range, as many zooms do. This is a big zoom range; 105/24 = 4.375.

Very few people don't like this lens, and sometimes the ones that don't like it, don't actually have it. Honestly, I read a "bad-mouth" comment somewhere, and then further down in the guy's post, he actually stated that he didn't have one. It was NOT on this forum.

My dealer said that some initial copies had flare problems - these were recalled by Canon and the problem rectified. Subsequently, the flare has been well contolled - this has in fact been verified by one of the review sites (can't recall which).

Mmm, thanks for that ;)

Yeah, I'm not too fussed about distortions. I don't any photography that requires no distortion, so all is well. Now - I just need to save some money, find a used 24-105L in my price range, but it and sell the 24-70. :D

[Jim G]

Hmm.... I'll be interested to see how much you end up wanting for the 24-70 because I'm in the market ;)

[jr_senator]

Be advised,your 20D's best AF mode only comes into play with f/2.8 and faster lenses. If you can I would advise tring the 24-70L. Superior to third party for sure.

[farrukh]

I also want to sell my Sigma 24-70 to get 24-105L (new)

[EOS_JD]

I have the 24-105 f4L IS and love it. Super sharp all the way throughout the range.

I've owned the Sigma 24-70 and sold it for the Tamron 28-75 because the sigma was too soft at f2.8. the Tamron is a fantastic lens but I find myself using the 24-105 much more - in fact can't remember the last time the 28-75 was on my camera!!

If speed is important, the f2.8 can be very useful but in many situations I find IS more useful to me. It's down to what subjects you want to shoot.

Lok also at the 24-70L and decide f2.8 and wider v IS and longer

Both outstanding lenses.

[Georgey]

I read a lot of bad things here about the Sigma 24-70 mine is a cracker i'm very happy with it even wide open, it is v very contrasty and has great colour my only gripe is the focus speed sigma need to put HSM on this lens, I have used the 24-105 and I love it but not cause it is sharper then MY 24-70 but cause of the silent and lightning quick focus, if canon make the 24-105 a constant 2.8 in the future I would without question buy it until then I'll be keeping my Sigma.
Philip

[LightRules]

I read a lot of bad things here about the Sigma 24-70 mine is a cracker i'm very happy with it even wide open, it is v very contrasty and has great colour

Yes, it really comes down to copy variation and/or QC. But this goes for most lenses. The best copy I had of the EX DG was as good optically as any standard zoom I've used. The other 2 copies were "so-so to good".

[EpHeSuS]

Be advised,your 20D's best AF mode only comes into play with f/2.8 and faster lenses. If you can I would advise tring the 24-70L. Superior to third party for sure.

Thanks for all the comments. I'm aware the centre point on the 20D becomes a full cross-type sensor, I'm not too worried about that to be honest.

Jim G - How much would you be prepared to pay for it? ;)

[Tsmith]

I have the 24-105 f4L IS and love it. Super sharp all the way throughout the range.

I've owned the Sigma 24-70 and sold it for the Tamron 28-75 because the sigma was too soft at f2.8. the Tamron is a fantastic lens but I find myself using the 24-105 much more - in fact can't remember the last time the 28-75 was on my camera!!

If speed is important, the f2.8 can be very useful but in many situations I find IS more useful to me. It's down to what subjects you want to shoot.

Lok also at the 24-70L and decide f2.8 and wider v IS and longer

Both outstanding lenses.

Pretty much sums up my copy and experience when I had the Tamron.

The 24-105 f/4L is an outstanding lens.

[Choderboy]

Good luck getting a used one. I can't imagine why anyone would sell a 24-105.:)

[asabet]

Good luck getting a used one. I can't imagine why anyone would sell a 24-105.:)

It can happen. I bought a brilliant, 2-month-old, absolutely mint copy of the 24-105 locally for $800, and the seller delivered it to my office that same day (and encouraged me to test it out before paying). His reason for selling - wanted the 24-70L. The way I see it, people frequently switch from the 24-70L to 24-105L and vice versa, so there should be a pretty steady supply of both on the used market.

Btw - I love the 24-105L. Best money I have spent on a lens to date, and I consider several of my past and current lenses to be absolute bargains (Tamron 17-50/2.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4L, etc).

[goatee]

Ok, here's a resized image - http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/353853042_aaad9c657c_o.jpg below is a 100% crop shot at 105mm at f/4 - notice that the eye isn't in focus, as the depth of field is coming towards the camera, so the eyelashes, and eyebrows are in focus - this is the higher eye http://www.*****.com/POTN/IMG_3168-01.jpg.

Even at f/4 this lens is tack sharp. Now I know, sharpness, or perceived sharpness isn't everything, but it does prevent you doing some things, if the lens is too soft.

[peanuthead]

I sold my very good copy of 24-105mm 4L recently...for a 24-70mm 2.8L. :)
I have nothing bad to say about the 24-105mm though - except the distortion at 24mm. I thoroughly enjoyed using it while I had it. A great all arounder.

Good luck getting a used one. I can't imagine why anyone would sell a 24-105.:)

[shaunknee]

It seems some people have a hard time with the price of the 24-105. Way too much for an f/4. I’ve always been very happy with mine.

[trevor51590]

Here is a small 100% crop. I just got mine last week and I absoultely love it. This is of my kitty. :)

http://www.trevorsherba.com/random/100%20crop.jpg

[Treat me like a tourist]

i tried a copy of a 24-70 in a shop and that had FF issues, that aside is there any other problems with the lens. I think i could live with a 24-70 2.8 on manual focus for £220.

[asabet]

For family photos, I am impressed by how well the 24-105L does wide open in low light with the 5D at ISO 3200. Here's an example:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/387917588_9589e148ba.jpg

Full size: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=387917588&size=o&context=set-72157594532990227

Here's one showing the uncorrected vignetting wide open at 24mm:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/387914906_06a09bf1a2.jpg

Full size: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=387914906&size=o&context=set-72157594532865033

Of course the sharpness appears less at ISO 3200. This lens is sharp at all apertures and focal lengths.

[eosslr]

24-105 is a fantastic walk-around lens IMO. Bit slower then 24-70, but has IS, which is a major plus for me personally. Sharp across all focal lengths, does indeed have minor barrel distortion at 24mm (nat major though), and practically no vignetting (at least if you shoot with 1.6x crop camera). Color representation is fantastic. Review here if interested: http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/36/59/

[4x4rock]

I had a chance to purchase a 6months old 24-105 today for $800 but didn't reply fast enough :(

Oh well, I guess the Sigma will stay :D

[peanuthead]

Was this picture shot in RAW or JPEG? If it was shot in RAW, did you do any noise removal? Thanks.


For family photos, I am impressed by how well the 24-105L does wide open in low light with the 5D at ISO 3200. Here's an example:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/387917588_9589e148ba.jpg

Full size: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=387917588&size=o&context=set-72157594532990227

Here's one showing the uncorrected vignetting wide open at 24mm:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/387914906_06a09bf1a2.jpg

Full size: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=387914906&size=o&context=set-72157594532865033

Of course the sharpness appears less at ISO 3200. This lens is sharp at all apertures and focal lengths.

[asabet]

Was this picture shot in RAW or JPEG? If it was shot in RAW, did you do any noise removal? Thanks.

Shot in RAW and processed in C1 using noise suppression at minimum or one notch up from minimum, I don't remember which. Definitely no designated noise removal software was used.

[TimothyHughes]

One of the strong points (not just my opinion, but that of reviewers) is that this lens performs as well open as it does stopped down.

When wide open is f/4.0 that's not a very daunting task. Show me a lens that does well at f/2.0 and I'll take note ;)

[EpHeSuS]

When wide open is f/4.0 that's not a very daunting task. Show me a lens that does well at f/2.0 and I'll take note ;)

135mm f/2.0L? ;)


Thanks for all the replies. If I could get a 24-105L for $800US + postage to Australia, I'd be happy :|

[goatee]

When wide open is f/4.0 that's not a very daunting task. Show me a lens that does well at f/2.0 and I'll take note ;)

How about the 85mm f/1.8 (which you have) - and actually, that's not a fair comment - e.g. the 28-135 wide open at the wide end is f/3.5 and much softer at f/4 than the 24-105 is - L lenses are generally pretty sharp wide open, but it's not to do with how wide the max aperture is, it's the pixie dust that Canon puts in Ls!