Sigma 24-105.

Dale.

Dale.

Bo Derek
Messages
12,020
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking about some lens upgrades. I currently have a Canon 17-40L and a Canon 24-105L mk1. I am considering changing these 2 lenses for something newer, it has been on my mind for a few months now.

My plan is to by used, as with mirrorless taking off, I would be reluctant to buy new EF glass. I also have an R7 on pre order and this could be my first step into RF, migrating from EF. There is though, plenty of life left in my 5Div, that's not going anywhere but I wouldn't mind some newer glass for it. I'm quite happy with my current landscape glass but I feel it is time to refresh it. Also, EF glass can be adapted to RF, of course.

The 17-40 replacement is quite easy, it has to be the 16-35 f4L. My mind is almost made up on that.

The 24-105 though, I'm having difficulty with. The obvious 'upgrade' is to the 24-105L f4 (mk2). The Sigma version is catching my eye though and is considerably cheaper, which of course is to be expected. I have to say, if the 150-600C is anything to go by, the Sigma 24-105 might well be excellent too, the 150-600 is incredible, for what it is.

So any thoughts on the Sigma 24-105 please?
 
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
It depends on the resolution. I don't think there is a single consumer 24-105 that delivers amazing results. It looks a bit pointless to me to be fair. Just get on with getting rid of 17-40 as that is a truly offensive lens at wide angle. I would certainly no entertain the idea of 24-105 on anything over 20MP.
Sigma ART line DSLR primes are really good, but zooms are just second grade. mirrorless DN zooms are apparently much improved.
 
Gav-canon said:
Sorry, just thought I'd join in :D
I'll go and sit in the corner ;):LOL:
Click to expand...


Don't be daft, all good Bud. Thanks for your reply. (y)



LongLensPhotography said:
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
It depends on the resolution. I don't think there is a single consumer 24-105 that delivers amazing results. It looks a bit pointless to me to be fair. Just get on with getting rid of 17-40 as that is a truly offensive lens at wide angle. I would certainly no entertain the idea of 24-105 on anything over 20MP.
Sigma ART line DSLR primes are really good, but zooms are just second grade. mirrorless DN zooms are apparently much improved.
Click to expand...


I'm a little suprised at this. Not so much the 17-40, although I have had decent results with mine. My 24-105 has served me well though, apart from chromatic abberation at times, especially where sky meets land. I have to pixel peep to see it but I know it's there.

I would love to be able to buy just primes but the cost is prohibitive, so I have to put up ( ;) ) with zooms and make the best of them. My 5Div will now be pressed into landscape service, it's that time of year and I will need anything from 15 or so mm. One shot in particular I want this year is ideally 16mm, unless I do a pano. This is why I'm considering the 16-35, to replace my 17-40.

My question is though, how does the Sigma compare to the Canon mk2 version of the 24-105, caveats allowed for with both?

I know primes are the best option but it's not really an option I have.
 
Dale. said:
The 24-105 though, I'm having difficulty with. The obvious 'upgrade' is to the 24-105L f4 (mk2). The Sigma version is catching my eye though and is considerably cheaper, which of course is to be expected. I have to say, if the 150-600C is anything to go by, the Sigma 24-105 might well be excellent too, the 150-600 is incredible, for what it is.
Click to expand...
I have a 24-105 mk1 and it's my least favourite lens. I had a mk2 to test out from Canon Lens hire and was very underwhelmed - apart from the very useful zoom lock I could see no reason to splurge over £1k for one over the mk1 - very sad really considering some of the great lenses Canon have made over the past few years (I have a 16-35-f4 and 100-400 mk2 and they are both +++ excellent) I also looked at the Sigma 24-105 but again could not see the worth in that.

Perhaps 24-105 are just a bit too much of a stretch to keep the quality at both ends of the focal range.

Thank goodness for one click chromatic aberration correction :)

D
 
Willid1 said:
I have a 24-105 mk1 and it's my least favourite lens. I had a mk2 to test out from Canon Lens hire and was very underwhelmed - apart from the very useful zoom lock I could see no reason to splurge over £1k for one over the mk1 - very sad really considering some of the great lenses Canon have made over the past few years (I have a 16-35-f4 and 100-400 mk2 and they are both +++ excellent) I also looked at the Sigma 24-105 but again could not see the worth in that.

Perhaps 24-105 are just a bit too much of a stretch to keep the quality at both ends of the focal range.

Thank goodness for one click chromatic aberration correction :)

D
Click to expand...


The 16-35 sems to be a much better lens than the 17-40. It is a lens I'm very interested in.

Maybe I should rethink, and consider the 24-70L. I also have a 70-200 f4L, so the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 would make a nice landscape combination of lenses.
 
Dale. said:
The 16-35 sems to be a much better lens than the 17-40. It is a lens I'm very interested in.

Maybe I should rethink, and consider the 24-70L. I also have a 70-200 f4L, so the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 would make a nice landscape combination of lenses.
Click to expand...
that sounds like a plan.

24-105 is a good lens for video (up to 4K) or journalism run and gun style shooting where choice of range comes before pixel level quality
 
I've spent the last few days, looking at 'The Trinity' but all being f2.8, they are scary money, money that I couldn't justify at the moment.

I have been looking at f4 alternatives, so that would be the 16-35 F4L and 24-70F4L. I already have a 70-200 F4L.

F2.8 would be all well and good and nice to have and I appreciate the merits of the faster lenses but for what I'll be doing with such lenses, landscapes, is the 2.8 really needed?

There's a massive difference in cost and even the F4s must be capable of very decent image quality.

I'm also guessing the 24-70F4L is a 'better' lens than the 24-105F4Lii, being a shorter zoom range?

There's some lovely glass out there and I know what I should buy but I'm not a pro, so it's difficult to justify the expense of the 2.8s.
 
Last edited:
I had a Canon 70D and 24-105mm f4 L lens, but after dropping it in the sea (accidently) when I got the ins payout I bought the Canon 80D and read many reports on the Sigma Art 24-105mm f4 versus the Canon 24-105mm f4 L and the Sigma consistantly came out on top, so I bought the Sigma lens and am Very Very happy with the results, I believe it's a sharper lens than the Canon and would happily recommend it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top