Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM vs. Sigma 24-105mm f4 DG OS HSM

Which 24-105mm f/4 lens would you use on a Canon full frame camera?

  • Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • Total voters
    4
K

Kuch**Kuch

Messages
14
Edit My Images
No
I've just managed to get hold of a Canon 6D MK1 and am now looking for a general use lens to use with it. Looking around the web I came across the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM and the Sigma 24-105mm f4 DG OS HSM, which on paper I believe meet my needs. However, I can't decide between them and wondered if anyone here would know which of the two would be the better option. I know there is about £350 price difference between the two, but don't want this to be a factor in choosing one over the other. I just want to know which of the two would produce better pictures and would value everyone's opinion on this.

Thanks.
 
What are your needs?

For example

Centre sharpness
Corner sharpness
Focusing speed
Weight/build quality
Resale value.
Bokeh quality
Focusing accuracy
 
Brazo said:
What are your needs?

For example

Centre sharpness
Corner sharpness
Focusing speed
Weight/build quality
Resale value.
Bokeh quality
Focusing accuracy
Click to expand...

I suppose the following would be most important for me in no particular order:

Centre Sharpness
Bokeh quality
Focusing accuracy
 
Have you also considered the mark I of the canon 24-105mm? Can be found for a lot cheaper than the mark II version
 
mike_6480 said:
Have you also considered the mark I of the canon 24-105mm? Can be found for a lot cheaper than the mark II version
Click to expand...

I did consider the Mk1, however the general consenci seems to be that the Sigma is far sharper than it. A lot of Mk1s also seem to suffer from IS failure as well, so I thought it's best to avoid.
 
I'm sure you would be able to find comparison tests on the web. The Mk2 is apparently +/- identical in terms of optical performance to the Mk1. I doubt if the Sigma would be "far sharper" than either; many many people have used the Mk1 for many years without significant complaints - including myself. It is a very good workhorse lens.
 
I had the MK1 & i was very happy with it,a good walk around lens.
 
I haven't managed to find a comparison between the Canon MK2 and the Sigma.

The Sigma is heavier than the Canon MK2 by 90g and about 290g than the MK1.

I managed to go to my local Jessops and tried the Canon MK2 on a 6D. The weight didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. I was hoping to see the Canon MK1 and the Sigma as well, but they didn't have either of these in stock.Even though the weight didn't bother me, after seeing the big weight difference between the lenses (on paper), I'm reluctant to buy either lens till I can feel the MK1 - The slight difference in optical performance may be worth compromising for the weight difference.
 
jerry12953 said:
This mentions the Sigma (not a proper comparison as such though) -

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59849891

I hadn't realised how much heavier the Mk2 was compared to the Mk1. I could have lived with that if it was a sharper lens, though........
Click to expand...

Generally people in that thread seem to slightly favor the Sigma (I think).

I have found a review that mentions the Sigma:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

It seems to suggest that there is no clear winner between the Canon Mk2 and the Sigma - they both have there positive and negatives.

I wish it was a lot easier to decide between the two/three.
 
Kuch**Kuch said:
I did consider the Mk1, however the general consenci seems to be that the Sigma is far sharper than it. A lot of Mk1s also seem to suffer from IS failure as well, so I thought it's best to avoid.
Click to expand...

Where have you read that? It's not sharper as a general rule but they are both great, the Canon mk1 is brilliant. I've not heard of IS failure either. There was an issue with the ribbon cable though touch wood, mine has been fine for years.

The Canon mk2 is definitely not worth the extra over the mk1. Of all three options, the mk1 Canon is the one to go for.
 
Last edited:
Kuch**Kuch said:
I did consider the Mk1, however the general consenci seems to be that the Sigma is far sharper than it. A lot of Mk1s also seem to suffer from IS failure as well, so I thought it's best to avoid.
Click to expand...

The 24-105 Mk1 is not an unreliable lens. Problems get reported because there is a huge number of them around, and many are getting on a bit now. Like mine, but I have no plans to replace it.
 
At the moment After hearing everyone's thoughts and doing more research online I've come to the conclusion that if the weight of the Signa doesn't bother me than I will get the Sigma. If I think it will be an issue than I will get the Canon 24-105mm Mk1.

Just hope I can get my hands on a Mk1 or Sigma soon to do a quick comparison
 
Thanks for everyone suggestions here. After a few trips and trying out all the 3 lenses mentioned in this thread, I have gone for the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (Mk 1). The weight made a difference to me and I didn't think there was too much difference in IQ between all three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top