Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art better than 24-105 f4L ?

Is it better and what is exactly better, worth switching for those who have the L allready ?

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17064708
Is it better and what is exactly better, worth switching for those who have the L allready ?

I havne't tried the sigma, but it is heavy. Even heavier and larger than the 24-70 f/2.8 II! Word seems to be a bit better IQ at f/4, but no better, at best, at f/8.

Personally I'd wait for one of the $950-1000 sales for 24-70 f/4 IS, much smaller and lighter than the sigma, with a bit of macro and better IQ everywhere except perhaps 50mm from what I hear about the sigma. Either that or just keep the 24-105L (or go crazy for 24-70 II :lol. Or tamron 24-70 VC if you want f/2.8 and the 24-70 II is pricey (or you want f/2.8 and simply must have IS as well).

Roger at LensRentals compared the EF 24-105 f/4L to the new Sigma. His opinion is that they are very near each other. If you have one, you have nothing to gain by switching to the other. I agree with wombatHorror, the 24-70 f/4L is better than both of the 24-105s. One note about the 24-70 f/4L: It is weakest at 50mm; it is still better than either 24-105 at 50mm, though. Roger's data, not mine.

They are almost the same if not the same ...

" 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. "
from >> http://www.the-digital-picture.com …0-DG-OS-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

here the comparison IQ between these 2 lenses
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

IMO if you have already one, you don't need to switch, these 2 lenses are too close to make any differences

I'd say they're nit-picking equal in IQ.

As to price, there have been some great deals on the Canon.

The only other factor is Sigma's 4 year Warranty vs Canon's 1 year.

Leigh
www.leighwax.com

I have used the sigma, it is very heavy, but it seemed to perform very well.

There is one thing ppl haven't mention, is that the Canon version have weather seal, while the sigma doesn't. That's one reason not to "upgrade". My copy of Canon 24-105 is pretty sharp to me, except at extreme wide end(center is fine), so that's good enough for me not to swap to Sigma. And that weather seal come in handy for this lens because it's a walk around lens, meaning it's travel friend. If you go on a vacation and it rains, you don't necessary have to stop and pack right away.

I'm speculating here, maybe someone has evidence; there isn't a Sigma lens I've owned that doesn't struggle to AF consistently and accurately (i.e. beyond the help of MFA) - I presume this is down to the AF algorithm, but still, only my 15mm FE is reliable in this aspect, but that's probably because such a great depth is always in focus. I've owned a 70-300, the 50/1.4 and a 300/2.8, add that to the copious numbers of 35mm and 50/A owners that bemoan the AF.

Oh, my 24-105 when I owned one was great.

I dont think it makes much sense with your kit. 24-70mk2 compliments the 70-200mk2 very well, since you're concerned with IQ.

if you tend to carry one lens a lot of the time, then the 24-105 works (I'de stick with canon for the weather sealing and known commodity).

UKmitch86 wrote in post #17065962
I'm speculating here, maybe someone has evidence; there isn't a Sigma lens I've owned that doesn't struggle to AF consistently and accurately (i.e. beyond the help of MFA) - I presume this is down to the AF algorithm, but still, only my 15mm FE is reliable in this aspect, but that's probably because such a great depth is always in focus. I've owned a 70-300, the 50/1.4 and a 300/2.8, add that to the copious numbers of 35mm and 50/A owners that bemoan the AF.

Oh, my 24-105 when I owned one was great.

I've only had one Sigma lens, the 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. I tend to shoot it wide open, because it nails focus almost every time. When it fails, I am not sure that it isn't my fault. It has turned in the exact same excellent performance on: T2, Elan 7ne, 450D, 500D, 60D, 5Dc, and 6D. I guess I got lucky.

UKmitch86 wrote in post #17065962
I'm speculating here, maybe someone has evidence; there isn't a Sigma lens I've owned that doesn't struggle to AF consistently and accurately (i.e. beyond the help of MFA) - I presume this is down to the AF algorithm, but still, only my 15mm FE is reliable in this aspect, but that's probably because such a great depth is always in focus. I've owned a 70-300, the 50/1.4 and a 300/2.8, add that to the copious numbers of 35mm and 50/A owners that bemoan the AF.

Oh, my 24-105 when I owned one was great.

It's 2-3 years now that i have the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX, i use it with 5D2-3, the auto focus is just perfect, it nail each time at any distance, never struggle.
It's my favorite lens for street, portrait... always fasten on one body and i know that i can count on it

Ok it's the only Sigma that i have, but it change my vision of the Sigma vs Canon, and with the Sigma Art line... if i need to replace a lens now, i will seriously take a look at the Sigma Art/EX first before any Canon L

Heya,

The ART is probably a wee bit better.

But it's still just a zoom with F4. Nothing to really get too excited about in my book, unless it was a dedicated landscape lens and stopped down to F11 often or something. But it's quite expensive for a lens for that, when it's corners are still not super duper.

Very best,

My take on either/both of the currently available 24-105 lenses is - meh? What's the point? Since I bought my 6D, I am getting by with a 35 IS and 100 2. Most times, I can sneaker-zoom to cover anything I could do with the 24-105, and I get two more stops with both of them. I do wish the 100 were stabilized. Full disclosure: I have a 17-40 and 70-200 for the extremes. If one of the 24-105s were $459, I'd probably own one. No interest at current prices.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

and done

c2thew wrote in post #17071089
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

and done

And done? How so?

It is better here at the wide.

Now for the tele end (here) where the Canon is a little better.

Again Canon is weather sealed, I don't believe the Sigma is.

If you have the Canon IMO there is no reason for the move.

If you don't own one I believe the Sigma is probably a little better. It depends on how much more you think the Sigma is worth, since you can get a perfect Canon 24-105mm for around $650 plus or minus.