Sell Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG for Canon 24-105 f4L?

I have tried to search this comparison, but have not come up with much, so I apologize in advance if I have missed something. I have one of the older Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG lenses, and it has performed pretty well for me. However, with the prices on the Canon 24-105, I have been thinking about selling the Sigma for my first L lens. The Sigma works well, but sometimes I get the feeling the images are sort of flat without post processing. Maybe it is just me wanting something different, I don't know. We just had our first child, so the primary use would be general walk-around photos and baby/kid pictures with my T5i. I would like to have the ability to do some action and portraits, but I think I have that covered in other lenses. I also shoot in low light, but I think the flash would fill that void.

For reference, I also have the following:

-Sigma 70-200 EX DG HSM
-Sigma 10-20 4-5.6
-Canon 18-135 STM (Used mostly for video)
-Canon 50 1.8 II
-Canon 18-55 (Will likely be sold with my old 40D body)
-Canon 430ex II flash

Thanks id advance for the advice!

I just bought a 24-105 STM. As long as you have a wider lens to back it up, the focal length works very well on crop cameras. You can get the STM version used, or out of a kit) for about $350. That is a considerable savings over the 24-105L. For less money you get: a really good, fast focusing lens, sharp wide-open, updated IS lens, that doesn't have the distortion, or the f/4 aperture, the 24-105L has at the long end. I am happy I bought the STM over the L.

You already have the 18-135 STM. What do you gain by going with the 24-105 focal length?

The question you have to ask is how often do you shoot at f2.8?
The 24/105 is very good ( IMHO) but its f4 and the IS will not stop motion.
If you are tying to catch kids running round as they do then its probably not fast enough and you don't want to be carting a flash around outdoors.
If you are sticking with a crop camera why not have a look at a 30mm fast prime ( Sigma 30mm f1.4)?

troutfisher wrote in post #17601834
The question you have to ask is how often do you shoot at f2.8?
The 24/105 is very good ( IMHO) but its f4 and the IS will not stop motion.
If you are tying to catch kids running round as they do then its probably not fast enough and you don't want to be carting a flash around outdoors.
If you are sticking with a crop camera why not have a look at a 30mm fast prime ( Sigma 30mm f1.4)?

I agree that f/2.8 is the big question here. And the IS only stops camera motion, not subject motion.

If f/4 is not fast enough, f/2.8 will be of little help. If you need speed, buy a fast prime.

What is wrong with using a flash outdoors? IMHO, it is beneficial. Dial in about -2/3 EC, use direct flash, and all the faces in shadows against brightly lit backgrounds are suddenly visible. It helps me get the shots I want.

Never had the Sigma, but do have the Canon. (I do have the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 but I believe most said is sharper than the 24-70). If you go to the-digital-picture.com, the Canon is noticeably sharper than the Sigma at all equivalent FLs even stopped down to f/4. (The Sigma HSM version was a tiny bit better than the Canon at f/4, but almost they are almost the same.)

Seldom need flash outside to stop motion. As said, flash can be used to help with adding "punch" to the shot. Inside chances are even the f/2.8 is going to need flash.

It really comes down to if you really need the f/2.8 (better light performance and shallower DOF when needed) or not (plus slower AF). Over sharper and longer focal range but slower aperture.

If I could have only one - either the Sigma 24-60 or the Canon 24-105 - I'd go with the Canon.

Thank you all for the input. I do like the option of 2.8, and in an ideal world, I would simply buy the Canon 24-70 L. The price is just not something I can justify right now as an amateur. I was looking at the 24-105 as something closer to that goal in terms of quality, but without the benefit of 2.8. I do like my 18-135 STM, but having f/4 over the entire range would also be nice, and the IS and the USM focus would be nice upgrades. I do like the suggestion of adding a better fast prime, in any case, for portraits and low light situations.

After shooting some last night with the Sigma, and considering the price of the 24-105, I think I might try to pick up the Canon lens and keep both for a while to see what I use more. If I end up using both, I could always try to save up for the Canon 24-70 L and then sell the Sigma down the road.

I have to say, I'd use the 18-135 STM. It's smaller than the 24-105L, wider and longer, and a little slower... but both really need daylight or flash anyway. I have both, and there's no reason I can see to use the L on my crop. If you want constant aperture, just set the 18-135 at 5.6; does one more stop from there help you that much?

Buy the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VR instead, had this one in past and it's as sharp as the ultra expensive 24-70L II
But i'm a prime-lover so I went for the Sigma 35 1.4 Art.