Canon or Sigma 24-105

B

BMG

Messages
399
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I'm looking to replace my 18-135 canon lens and I'm thinking either the Canon 24-105 or the new Sigma 24-105. Has anyone had experience of either of these? If so your thoughts on IQ and AF responsiveness would be greatly appreciated. At present I don't really use the wide end much, however it has been useful in the past. I am currently using a 70d where the AF is rapid and would like a lens to complement it. I've seen a couple of reviews saying the Canon lens isn't that sharp, which surprised me, given the fact it's an L series lens? Any advice or suggestions greatly received.
 
The 24-105 is dead sharp at f/4 at both ends of the spectrum, well, mine is.

Best lens and one I've owned the longest in terms of price, build quality and IQ. AF is good providing you dont go from something at a distance to something up close too quickly, I've never struggled.

Do I wish it was f/2.8? Yes, but for the price I'm not complaining at all.

Tom
 
reviews I've seen shows that that Sigma 24-105 out performs the Canon equivalent by a large margin.
 
Don't own them both just the Canon. For a L lens that can be had for £600 ish new and £400 used you get super sharp fast focusing and very we'll built bit of kit.

Can't go wrong really.
 
I think the OP was talking Zoom here Scott not primes.
 
sigma's new lenses have all been really good, the 24-105 is abit of a sleeper tho
 
The Canon not sharp?? Never heard that. I have one and its beautifully sharp, its very nice indeed.

Not tried the Sigma but I've heard its good. Guess it comes down to price.
 
Can't comment about that Sigma but the statement that the 24-105 is not sharp is rubbish. I have owned two and my son one they have all been very sharp right from F4 throughout the range.

Canon L build quality and available second hand for about £400. Great value.
 
Canon 24-105 is my main lens, stunning lens. I use it for most of my photography.
 
Thank you to everyone for posting your replies, seems many of you favour this lens! I think it would be a great upgrade from my 18-135. I am curious about the sigma lens as I have a 70-300 and love it, although sadly I don't use it that often. It seems sigma has gone from strength to strength, I shall wait for a few more reviews before putting my hand in my pocket. Is it tragic to get excited about something like this?!?
 
After getting a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX HSM and a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II I hardly ever used my Canon 24-105 but I took it on a trip to London with my 5D3 last year and I got some excellent photos with it. I took it to a gig with five bands and after I'd put some of the photos on Flickr and Dropbox three of the five bands contacted me to ask if they could use the pics for promo work. It's a great lens, the IS works really well and the AF is fast and it's very sharp, even wide open. I was thinking about changing the Canon for the Sigma but after testing one out at a recent photo show there didn't seem to be enough of an improvement to make it worthwhile. Maybe if I didn't already have one I might go for the Sigma but the Canon wont let you down at all, it's a great lens for the price. I got my 24-105 as a kit lens with a 5D2 which I've since sold but I kept the lens as it's so good. I recently changed the Sigma 24-70 for a Canon 24-70 f2.8L II but I've still got no intentions of selling the 24-105.
 
odd jim said:
This is a good comparison; the Sigma appears to have the edge but not by much;

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/03/a-24-105-comparison
Click to expand...

That is a good comparison and concludes theres not a lot in it, most importantly it tests both lenses at infinity unlike it seems DXO.

For all the people saying the Canon 24-105 is very sharp. Its not, its not even close. It may be acceptably sharp to you but compare it to a tack sharp prime and you will see what 'very sharp' actually is.
 
Brazo said:
That is a good comparison and concludes theres not a lot in it, most importantly it tests both lenses at infinity unlike it seems DXO.

For all the people saying the Canon 24-105 is very sharp. Its not, its not even close. It may be acceptably sharp to you but compare it to a tack sharp prime and you will see what 'very sharp' actually is.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I have many primes and while yes, they are in general sharper than most zooms, I'm constantly blown away by the level of detail and sharpness of the 24-105. IMO it's an absolutely stunning lens.
 
Hi Stuart, you own a 70d as well? Have you tried the lens on that?
 
Brazo said:
That is a good comparison and concludes theres not a lot in it, most importantly it tests both lenses at infinity unlike it seems DXO.

For all the people saying the Canon 24-105 is very sharp. Its not, its not even close. It may be acceptably sharp to you but compare it to a tack sharp prime and you will see what 'very sharp' actually is.
Click to expand...

The OP is not asking for a comparison between 24-105's and primes. He is asking for a comparison between two different zoom lenses so imo your comparison is not relevant to the question posed . As i said earlier i have the Canon 24-105 and some primes. My copy of the 24-105 runs the primes close.
 
Brazo said:
For all the people saying the Canon 24-105 is very sharp. Its not, its not even close. It may be acceptably sharp to you but compare it to a tack sharp prime and you will see what 'very sharp' actually is.
Click to expand...

Really? Plenty of evidence, both tests and anecdotal, to suggest you are mistaken. I have some primes, have rented some primes, the only thing they offer is a wider aperture. Comparing for instance the 50mm f1.4 at f4 to the 24-105 at 50mm f4 and there's no difference at all.
 
Whilst I would take dxomark with a big pinch of salt even a bucketload the 24-105 is currently ranked very low down the overall sharpness ratings. The lens itself is number 1780 in lens/sensor combinations so yes there's a lot better. A quality prime can extract more detail.
 
Brazo said:
Whilst I would take dxomark with a big pinch of salt even a bucketload the 24-105 is currently ranked very low down the overall sharpness ratings. The lens itself is number 1780 in lens/sensor combinations so yes there's a lot better. A quality prime can extract more detail.
Click to expand...
I'd take DXOMARK with an excavator and dumper truck load of salt. They post up complete BS everytime they get behind their keyboards! Why do people keep quoting DXO when actual users can give first hand evidence?? The 24-105 is one of the best and sharpest lenses I've used, and I've used a lot. I can only assume the DXO boffins either left a UV filter on or had a dodgy copy, either way I'd still ignore them.
 
Brazo said:
For all the people saying the Canon 24-105 is very sharp. Its not, its not even close. It may be acceptably sharp to you but compare it to a tack sharp prime and you will see what 'very sharp' actually is.
Click to expand...

Agree with this, I have a 1989 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 in my kit bag, and it's sharper than my 24-105 f4 L.
The 24-105 is not in the same league as some of Canon's other zoom lenses, let alone the primes, but for a cheap everyday lens you can't go wrong. I use mine a lot of the time, for my landscapes especially.
It's acceptable and it does the job, and it seems perfect until compared to some of the more expensive lenses on the market, which I guess can be said about most mid range lenses.
This is of course all my opinion.
 
.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I'd take DXOMARK with an excavator and dumper truck load of salt. They post up complete BS everytime they get behind their keyboards! Why do people keep quoting DXO when actual users can give first hand evidence?? The 24-105 is one of the best and sharpest lenses I've used, and I've used a lot. I can only assume the DXO boffins either left a UV filter on or had a dodgy copy, either way I'd still ignore them.
Click to expand...

The Canon 24-105 is indeed an excellent lens, but I'd be telling porkies if I said it was of the sharpest lenses that I've used. For the focal range it is excellent and I would highly recommend it. It's about as sharp wide-open as it is stepped down to F/5.6 (arguably it's sharpest focal length). On both full frame and crop, the focal range is extremely versatile. There are sharper lenses out there, but for the build quality, useful focal range, contrast and colour rendition, you'd be hard pressed to find a better 'all-rounder' for the money.
 
One item that affects apparent sharpness is the sensor system. I had a 24-105 on a Mk1 5D. Always thought it was not a sharp as I would like. However when I hot my 1Dslll i saw the sharpness increase. The limiting factor here was the 12Mb sensor. I was expecting to much from it. The lens out performed it. Also the anti aliasing filter also has an effect. Canon published a paper about this when the 1Dslll was first introduced. In it they stated that in both Photoshop and Lightroom an increase in sharpness was needed to get the best out of the camera. This I found to be true. it tends to be subject dependant. So if you have a camera with a strong anti aliasing an increase in the sharpness setting is all that may be required.

Additionally the interaction between aperture and sensor also has an effect on sharpness. I read a long article several years ago about the effect. ( Forgotten most of it now) However it gave a calculation, based on pixel size aperture etc.. It turns out that for a full frame Canon sensor optimum aperture is f9.5. There you are best aperture 2 stops down from wide open, but we've known that for years :)

My 24-105 is as sharp as I need it.
 
BMG said:
Hi Stuart, you own a 70d as well? Have you tried the lens on that?
Click to expand...

Yes I've tried the 24-105 on the 70D a few times. I prefer it on my 5D3 as it just works so well with it but there's nothing wrong at all with it on a crop body. It's a very versatile length as a walkaround and whilst I cannot honestly say its sharper than any of my primes it is more than acceptable for most subjects. I have a Canon 24-70 f2.8L II and 70-200 f2.8L IS II and they are probably my sharpest zoom lenses but they've cost two to three times as much as the 24-105. As a general lens the Canon 24-105 is excellent quality for the price, I'm not sure whether the Sigma 24-105, with a cost of around £700, is that much of an improvement for the price TBH. The one I tried at a show wasn't enough of an improvement, if any, to make me want to change my Canon.
 
Last edited:
I'm very satisfied with the optical quality of my Canon 24-105. It's a great, versatile carry round lens. A couple of points (forgive me if you've already thought of this) that may help :-

1) You'll be using the lens on a crop camera so you'll be losing a bit at the wide angle and the zoom.
2) You mention that you wanted to take advantage of the focusing on the 70D. I own a Sigma 18-55 f2.8 lens and that can hunt on occasion on my Canon 40D. The autofocus is not as fast as my Canon lenses on that camera.
3) I used to own a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 but had front focus issues.

Having said all that, these were older lenses and Sigma's newer lenses have been getting good reviews particularly their new 'Art' range of which the new 24-105 is one I think. I'd buy their new 35mm F1.4 lens! So I'm sure their auto focusing is getting better with their new lenses too.

It's always a difficult choice which often boils down to price.
 
Hello everyone, thank you for taking your time to run through your experiences of both brands! Guess it's hard to tell the difference as the sigma is so new but looking at the likes of wex there is a good few hundred pounds difference between them! That said my local John Lewis did price match HEDW cameras, when I bought my 70d. With any luck they'll do the same with the canon, which makes it cheaper than the sigma.

tcfletcher said:
I'm very satisfied with the optical quality of my Canon 24-105. It's a great, versatile carry round lens. A couple of points (forgive me if you've already thought of this) that may help :-

1) You'll be using the lens on a crop camera so you'll be losing a bit at the wide angle and the zoom.
2) You mention that you wanted to take advantage of the focusing on the 70D. I own a Sigma 18-55 f2.8 lens and that can hunt on occasion on my Canon 40D. The autofocus is not as fast as my Canon lenses on that camera.
3) I used to own a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 but had front focus issues.

Having said all that, these were older lenses and Sigma's newer lenses have been getting good reviews particularly their new 'Art' range of which the new 24-105 is one I think. I'd buy their new 35mm F1.4 lens! So I'm sure their auto focusing is getting better with their new lenses too.

It's always a difficult choice which often boils down to price.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I had thought about the wide angle, however I can honestly say that I hardly ever use the 18mm on my current lens, even when taking landscape. Besides most of what I take is photos of my two girls, hence the fast af. I definitely think the canon might be the one for me. However I might give the sigma a little more time to see if it drops a little further and see if any more reviews crop Up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top