Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS ART

Got an email from Sigma today....F1.4. I'll take a dozen at $899.

Tommydigi wrote in post #16371102
I'm with you Charlie, People complain about the weight of the original 24-70 2.8 but at least its 2.8. Who would want an F4 standard zoom that is heavier than the 24-70 2.8 II. It seems Sigma is making some great lenses but no compromise on weight.

There are always compromises. If the extra weight is for better optics, I'd take that than subpar image quality.

I'd rather hear "this lens is heavy, but the IQ spanks Canon's 24-105," rather posts made by canon fanboys crying "See see?! Sigma lenses aren't all that. The IQ is the same as my Canon. Pssh"

People were complaining about the price and lack of IS of the 24-70II, but the complaints quickly went away when everybody was amazed at the quality it gave.

This isn't directed at you; just using yours as an example.

XxDJCyberLoverxX wrote in post #16411999
There are always compromises. If the extra weight is for better optics, I'd take that than subpar image quality.

I'd rather hear "this lens is heavy, but the IQ spanks Canon's 24-105," rather posts made by canon fanboys crying "See see?! Sigma lenses aren't all that. The IQ is the same as my Canon. Pssh"

People were complaining about the price and lack of IS of the 24-70II, but the complaints quickly went away when everybody was amazed at the quality it gave.

This isn't directed at you; just using yours as an example.

Have you ever used the 70-300L? Great optics and its low weight considering the zoom range. Its fast focusing and has amazing IS. Nothing against Sigma in particular but I would not buy a heavy F4 midrange zoom from anyone but I don't like big heavy lenses. I sold off my 70-200 2.8 IS II for that very reason as I tend to favor primes with f4 zooms.

The lens will probably be very good but its not for me, I think Nikon or Sony shooters will be more into it.

XxDJCyberLoverxX wrote in post #16411999
There are always compromises. If the extra weight is for better optics, I'd take that than subpar image quality.

I'd rather hear "this lens is heavy, but the IQ spanks Canon's 24-105," rather posts made by canon fanboys crying "See see?! Sigma lenses aren't all that. The IQ is the same as my Canon. Pssh"

People were complaining about the price and lack of IS of the 24-70II, but the complaints quickly went away when everybody was amazed at the quality it gave.

This isn't directed at you; just using yours as an example.

I agree with the bolded statement and I feel that if the sigma is as sharp as the sharpest zooms available with minimal distortion and lower vignetting then people will listen and buy. They seem to be advertising excellent optics on this one.

I think Sigma has some sort of formula up their sleeve for new optics and it's working with some of the stuff they've put out.

rick_reno wrote in post #16411887
Got an email from Sigma today....F1.4. I'll take a dozen at $899.

Sign me up for 2.

so tempting.. but i'm hoping for the 24-70 f2!

some samples: http://www.lenstip.com …_HSM_-_sample_images.html

It seems pretty similar to the Canon 24-105 sharpness wise.
I won't replace my Canon, but the Sigma should be a good option for Nikon, Sony and Pentax shooters.

actually that would be very disappointing if indeed it is "only as good as" the canon.
though it is hard to judge from the same pics. though it isn't the sharpness of the 35/18-35/70-200 as far as I can tell. Anyone else?

The samples I looked at show pretty heavy fringing at f8 24mm, nothing better than the Canon as far as i can see.