# Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS ART Production on Hold?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 26, 2014)

```
<p>We’re told by a Canon Rumors reader that Sigma has stated that production of the 24-105 f/4 DG OS ART series lens is on indefinite hold for all mounts.</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Good afternoon,</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Unfortunately, production of the 24-105mm has been halted in all mounts.  It was originally supposed to be released for Sony this month, but now production is on an indefinite hold.  I will save your e-mail address and get back to you when we know more.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Please let me know if you have any questions.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Have a great day!</span></p>
<p class="p3"><span class="s1">Best regards,

</span>*Name Removed*

*Position Removed*

Sigma Corp of America</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p3">We hope to hear why production has been put on hold in the coming hours.</p>
<p class="p3"><em>Thanks Keith</em></p>
<p class="p3"><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 26, 2014)

Probably Sigma 24-105 does not sell as well as expected. They should concentrate on the manufacture of 35 and 50 Art, which seem to disappear from the shelves quickly.


----------



## infared (Nov 26, 2014)

I think if it was a high-spec f/2.8 with OS and priced right it would sell really well...REALLY well!


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2014)

If it is true that production of this lens has been put on indefinite hold then it fits well with the comments that many of us here on CR made when the rumour of its imminent existence was first reported. 

If they thought the time was right for them to meet the major dslr manufacturers 'run of the mill zoom lenses' head on with a more expensive but similarly performing product they were wrong.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 26, 2014)

While Sigma 24-105 is a good lens, it does nothing beyond what other manufacturers already did. Unlike other lenses Art series, which brought high quality, like 35mm and 50mm, and unprecedented maximum aperture in 18-35mm F1.8.


----------



## Ripley (Nov 26, 2014)

They need to stop doing whatever it is that's keeping the 85mm f1.4A from hitting the shelves... and the release of a firmware update for the 50mm f1.4A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 26, 2014)

If its true, it could mean a production issue, or a shift of internal resources. With Japan spiraling into a depression, the cost of raw materials and employees demands for higher wages may force low profit products out of production.

Its also very possible that production facilities are needed for the new 150-600mm zooms that are expected to sell well. Sigma is not likely going to be investing large sums of money into new facilities in a falling market.


----------



## Berowne (Nov 26, 2014)

The Beginning of the End?


----------



## TeT (Nov 26, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If its true, it could mean a production issue, or a shift of internal resources. With Japan spiraling into a depression, the cost of raw materials and employees demands for higher wages may force low profit products out of production.
> 
> Its also very possible that production facilities are needed for the new 150-600mm zooms that are expected to sell well. Sigma is not likely going to be investing large sums of money into new facilities in a falling market.



If they are putting the kabosh on the Alpha mount release as well, indicating that production was halted before any Sony A mount inventories were built up, then could this have been in the works for awhile? Very curious as to the why on this one...


----------



## catfish252 (Nov 26, 2014)

They haven't gotten the 150-600mm Contemporary model out yet either, considering the Sport version been out a couple of months now I wonder if they discovered someone forgot to carry the one in solving the lens grinding characteristics. As a matter of fact I signed up for a notification email for when the 150-600 C was in stock -- today I received an email from B&H stating the lens was discontinued. I see nothing about it on Sigma's website so maybe it is a problem over at B&H


----------



## jhanken (Nov 26, 2014)

Ripley said:


> They need to stop doing whatever it is that's keeping the 85mm f1.4A from hitting the shelves...



Can I get an "Amen" from anyone on this comment?


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 26, 2014)

Even though i do not own a single sigma product, I respect what they have done recently. I personally want the 24-70 mm f2. But I never thought the 24-105mm would be a winner. .. not for Canon. .. Sony & NIKON maybe. 

Huh. ..


----------



## slclick (Nov 26, 2014)

I love mine, far nicer than the Canon variant. Most reviewers say marginally, I think FAR.


----------



## candc (Nov 27, 2014)

they need to shut down production in order for a retooling process to replace the "A" badge with a "C". I am not sure how this slipped by but they are now aware of the misnomer.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 27, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Probably Sigma 24-105 does not sell as well as expected. They should concentrate on the manufacture of 35 and 50 Art, which seem to disappear from the shelves quickly.



Possibly. At least for the Canon mount it never really made any sense.
It came out right when:

Canon 24-105L were being let go for a fire sale, plus the Canon was lighter, by a lot.

The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS came out and had better IQ and was vastly smaller and lighter and had much better macro too.

Now the Canon 24-105 variable non-L is coming out and it should also be less expensive, better and lighter (if variable aperture).

Heck, if weight and size matter, the Tamron 24-70 VC 2.8 and Canon 24-70 II 2.8 are the same size and weight as the Sigma but offer f/2.8 and much better IQ (although cost more and way more).

Maybe it made some sense for Nikon, but perhaps that was not enough?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 27, 2014)

dilbert said:


> [
> Sony was the other target. But it would be interesting to know if the 24-105 IS STM is the other nail in the coffin of this lens which would mean that buyers of 3rd party lenses for Canon mount significantly outweigh projections for Nikon/SOny.


 
Actually, I thought Nikon was the main reason for this lens to exist. The Nikon 24-120 is expensive and a middle of the road performer. They should be mopping up the floor with sales to Nikon users.


----------



## Gardnerdw5 (Nov 27, 2014)

The answer may be on imaging resource today 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/11/26/sigma-qa-kazuto-yamaki-micro-four-thirds-lenses-full-frame-foveon-feasible

This is an older interview posted today taking about limitation in resources at sigma
David Gardner


----------



## Gardnerdw5 (Nov 27, 2014)

The answer may be on imaging resource today 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/11/26/sigma-qa-kazuto-yamaki-micro-four-thirds-lenses-full-frame-foveon-feasible

This is an older interview posted today talking about limitation in resources at sigma
David Gardner


----------



## sanj (Nov 27, 2014)

Probably making the 2.8 IS version instead.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 27, 2014)

Gardnerdw5 said:


> The answer may be on imaging resource today
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/11/26/sigma-qa-kazuto-yamaki-micro-four-thirds-lenses-full-frame-foveon-feasible
> 
> This is an older interview posted today taking about limitation in resources at sigma



That does not exclude the other explanation: given Sigma's limited resources, management has to prioritize some lenses over others.

From what I've read, the Sigma 24-105 does not have an IQ or price advantage over the Canon 24-105, and Sigma's reputation for having AF problems, I can see why people would rather buy their kit lens from Canon, hurting sales & profit of the Sigma.

I'm not sure how the Sigma compares to the Nikon 24-120mm, then it's 15mm shorter & suffers from Sigma's reputation for having AF problems, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Sigma w/ F mount didn't sell well either.


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 27, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm not sure how the Sigma compares to the Nikon 24-120mm, then it's 15mm shorter & suffers from Sigma's reputation for having AF problems, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Sigma w/ F mount didn't sell well either.



The Nikkor was designed with the idea of correcting CA in software in mind. If one accepts this it's about on par with the Sigma or the Canon 24-105. The same situation as with the Canon - no great benefits, but also no first party service and you lose one lens that counts against the requirements for CPS/NPS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> The Nikkor was designed with the idea of correcting CA in software in mind. If one accepts this...



I wouldn't accept it, correcting CA in software isn't without an IQ penalty. Are many Nikon lenses designed to not correct well for CA?


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are many Nikon lenses designed to not correct well for CA?


It's most common in the superzoom-group, where a more complete correction would cause harder to fix problems due to other aberrations.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 27, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> From what I've read, the Sigma 24-105 does not have an IQ or price advantage over the Canon 24-105, and Sigma's reputation for having AF problems, I can see why people would rather buy their kit lens from Canon, hurting sales & profit of the Sigma.



Actually, it has a pretty significant IQ advantage over the 24–105L, particularly with respect to corner sharpness, although it has somewhat more chromatic aberration. Of course, it is also considerably more expensive and lacks any weather sealing. IMO, that's a pretty serious flaw in Sigma's offering. If they retooled it with weather sealing at that price, it would be a no-brainer, but as it is, it's a tradeoff.


----------



## slclick (Nov 27, 2014)

I agree with dgatwood's comments to a point. The 24-105, no matter who makes it isn't a lens I think of when shooting in inhospitable weather. I also agree that's it doesn't fit the Art classification and is more of a 'C' lens but I think most who talk down about it have not used it for an extensive period or even owned it and are pontificating solely based upon reviews online.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 27, 2014)

slclick said:


> I think most who talk down about it have not used it for an extensive period or even owned it and are pontificating solely based upon reviews online.



I respect Bryan's comment at TDP:
_
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. The Sigma has slightly more light falloff at long end but shows less flare. The Canon has less pincushion distortion in the mid focal lengths.
The Sigma focuses more quietly than the Canon, but the Canon focuses a bit faster than the Sigma. The Canon has a larger and better-positioned focus ring with more rotation (122° vs. 90°). The Canon uses smaller filters (77mm vs. 82mm), but the advantage should go to the size that is already in your kit. The Canon lens is lighter and slightly smaller – and is weather sealed._ 

No reason to replace my Canon, which is my most commonly used lens. And buying new, I'd still buy the Canon.


----------



## slclick (Nov 27, 2014)

I know what works for me. I've owned two copies of the Canon and now have a Sigma. My comments are from my experience. I respect BC, respect him very much. However I will always take my own real life experiences over anything else. My best lenses are BOTH Canon L and Sigma Art lenses. I choose the best gear for my needs regardless of the brand. I also write in incomplete sentences while holding off on eating anything before the big meal today.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 27, 2014)

slclick said:


> I agree with dgatwood's comments to a point. The 24-105, no matter who makes it isn't a lens I think of when shooting in inhospitable weather.



It isn't really a question of whether you'd pick that lens for that purpose. A lens in roughly that range is likely to be the 90% lens for most folks—the lens that's attached to the camera 90% of the time. As a result, it is the most likely to get *caught in* inhospitable weather.


----------



## AlmostDecent (Nov 28, 2014)

I think there is little doubt the Sigma holds an edge at a few points, notably the 24mm range, and the 75-85mm f/4, an odd gap in both the Canon and Nikkor lenses. Still, the biggest problems are:

1) Weight! Frankly at 2 pounds or 880g this is a heavy lens and is roughly 200g heavier than the rivals. For the super primes they put out, where it is quality above all, this might be acceptable, but for a do-it-all lens that is designed to be taken everywhere always, it is a problem. In fact, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II is 10% lighter even.

2) No weather sealing. For the same reason as above, for a lens that is designed to be your everyday lens taken everywhere, this is a rather serious oversight.

3) Price. The rivals may not meet it for sharpness at all points, but overall it is not so clear cut so the higher price compared to the kit lenses is impossible to justify. Sure at MSRP it looks good, but both Nikkor and Canon can be purchased for $700 or so, which is $200 cheaper. The Nikkor may lose in sharpness a bit, but it has weather sealing, greater reach, and is lighter and cheaper. The Canon has weather sealing, is in between the Nikkor and Sigma in sharpness, is built like a tank, and is the lightest and cheapest.


----------



## slclick (Nov 28, 2014)

Ok, these are all fair points, I agree to disagree with some of them but my main issue with this thread is...Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2014)

slclick said:


> Ok, these are all fair points, I agree to disagree with some of them but my main issue with this thread is...Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.



That might be the problem. If the lens was popular enough that more people owned it, it would be unlikely Sigma would stop production.


----------



## slclick (Nov 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, these are all fair points, I agree to disagree with some of them but my main issue with this thread is...Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.
> ...



Problem or not, it's the type of perspective that I value. Believe me, I have read all the heavy hitters opinions (I don't mean all the anti-Siggites on CRF) prior to laying down the cash for mine. Furthermore I know this is a production minded thread and I'm going off on a IQ and build tangent here with my personal experience...but that's the direction and mood of the naysayers as well. Fwiw, I've shot with this in rain and snow on multiple occasions without issue, true I did have an B+W XS Pro filter on the front.

Copies almost always vary, the body combo matters greatly as well. If you have used/owned this for a decent amount of images I'd love to have you chime in. I could totally be alone in my opinion and that is fine by me.


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 28, 2014)

slclick said:


> Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.


There is always the 3rd option, rent or borrow the lens. Added benefit - less incline to justify the decision, one way or the other.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 28, 2014)

We must remember that recently launched another competitor, the Canon 24-105 STM, when the market was already flooded with 24-105L.

In this current scenario, it is difficult to sell many units of the Sigma 24-105, because the quality does not exceed the Canon L, and the price does not match the Canon STM. :

Maybe Sigma had some information (wrong?) that Canon would stop manufacturing 24-105L, and such a thing was not confirmed. ??? :-\


----------



## allanP (Nov 28, 2014)

catfish252 said:


> They haven't gotten the 150-600mm Contemporary model out yet either, considering the Sport version been out a couple of months now I wonder if they discovered someone forgot to carry the one in solving the lens grinding characteristics. As a matter of fact I signed up for a notification email for when the 150-600 C was in stock -- today I received an email from B&H stating the lens was discontinued. I see nothing about it on Sigma's website so maybe it is a problem over at B&H



Although the 150-600mm Contemporary is still present on the Sigma homepage...


----------



## slclick (Nov 28, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> We must remember that recently launched another competitor, the Canon 24-105 STM, when the market was already flooded with 24-105L.
> 
> In this current scenario, it is difficult to sell many units of the Sigma 24-105, because the quality does not exceed the Canon L, and the price does not match the Canon STM. :
> 
> Maybe Sigma had some information (wrong?) that Canon would stop manufacturing 24-105L, and such a thing was not confirmed. ??? :-\



The quality DOES exceed the Canon, no one ever said it does not, they just disagree in varying amounts


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 28, 2014)

slclick said:


> Ok, these are all fair points, I agree to disagree with some of them but my main issue with this thread is...Who owns this lens? Speak from experience, not on paper regurgitation.



I seriously considered it, but in the end decided that even though I'd *love* the lower distortion at 24mm, it wasn't worth giving up the weather sealing. I'll wait for either an updated version with weather sealing or an updated Canon 24–105L II, whichever comes first.


----------



## Dave Clauss (Nov 28, 2014)

I just joined the forum for this! 

With my 5Dmk3 I bought it with the 24-105L when it was on sale late last year for the price of a 5dmk3 body. Although it's a pretty good lens, it's not as sharp as i'd like but it's very versatile, But I HATE shooting at F4, Sharpness just isn't there. I'd rather shoot at a much higher ISO at 5.6 than 100 at F4. I don't really worry too much about the weather conditions and hiking with it singed around my side when hiking steep trails. because If I ruined it, it would give me a good reason to get the 24-70L 2.8

I have the sigma 50 art, LOVE IT! I think I've had good luck with it because of the 5dmk3's good Af sensor. I had canons 50 1.8, loved it but it was old, found it in my parents cabinet, it came with their SLR from who knows how long ago and the bokah is beautiful, but the plastic construction gave it a very short life in my arsenal.
I bought canon's 1.4 50, unfortunately I had to sell it for financial reasons, but I bought it on eBay for about $300 and sold it for $300. Knew it would be a quick sale. But when I was ready to get a new 50..

Used canon's 85L 1.2 for a long weekend of various shooting conditions, I was appalled with its performance. Low light.. speed with kids running around, AF missing like crazy.. Maybe it was just a heavily used lens, (rental) I knew the 50 1.2L had similar construction and I just couldn't stomach owning something that bad. 

Back to Sigma! Still love my Art 50! 

I love that they did a 1.8 zoom lens! APS-C only.. BOOOO 

I'll admit, I'm not up on Sigmas current financial situation So I guess I should give them some slack in my next several expressions.

Though I haven't tried the Sigma 24-105 lens, As far as I know, it's not water sealed? First hit

Everyone would LOVE a 24-104L or 24-70L 2.8 IS. but I'd assume the engineering, size, and price would put it at a price above $2400 and they might as well paint it white. if the 24-70 is an 82mm thread, imagine it with IS?

Same as the L but the 24-105L, even though a decent lens, is pretty much a kit lens and there's a TON of them out there, I tried selling mine to subsidies a 24-70 2.8 and the price ebay said it was going for was way too low to legitimize it. 

My business associate recommended I save it for video jobs, so I did

I think If I get more sports jobs, I'll buy Sigmas 120-300 2.8 is lens.. Wayyyyy cheaper and more versatile than canons Tele Primes. I would have rented it already but it's not on Borrowlenses 

I'm not holding my breath for their 85. I have a 100L 2.8 IS Macro, very sharp for portraits and I think it would be somewhat redundant to own something so close, I plan on buying the 7Dmk2 soon so the sigma 50 on the crop 7d would pretty much make it an 85.

I think if Sigma has limited resources, they should focus on lenses that haven't been created yet. Full frame too Please!


----------



## Rudeofus (Nov 28, 2014)

Dave Clauss said:


> Everyone would LOVE a 24-104L or 24-70L 2.8 IS. but I'd assume the engineering, size, and price would put it at a price above $2400 and they might as well paint it white. if the 24-70 is an 82mm thread, imagine it with IS?



You do realize that Tamron does make a 24-70 2.8 USD VC (which is their name for USM IS) with 82mm filter thread ...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 29, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> Dave Clauss said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone would LOVE a 24-104L or 24-70L 2.8 IS. but I'd assume the engineering, size, and price would put it at a price above $2400 and they might as well paint it white. if the 24-70 is an 82mm thread, imagine it with IS?
> ...


Yes, Tamron's lens doesn't cost $2400 and it's a pretty good performer optically with the handy inclusion of VC. 

The minor issues I have with mine are:
1) I find the zoom action isn't as smooth as I'd like
2) The focus ring is narrow and the focus throw is also a bit short so not great for manual focusing
3) Autofocus is inconsistent on the 5D-III, so I use it for deep dof shots (f/5.6-f/11) or on my 60D or 6D.

Are these issues worth more than a 1000$ dollars? Not to me.


----------



## Rudeofus (Dec 2, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Yes, Tamron's lens doesn't cost $2400 and it's a pretty good performer optically with the handy inclusion of VC.
> 
> The minor issues I have with mine are:
> 1) I find the zoom action isn't as smooth as I'd like
> ...



As you probably noted, none of these issues require a filter thread larger than 82mm to solve. Apart from that, whether you get the Tamron or not seems to depend on whether you truly benefit from its features. If you really need F/2.8 and IS in that focal length range, the issues you listed sound pretty minor (except for poor focusing with 5DIII, that's a show stopper).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 2, 2014)

AlmostDecent said:


> I think there is little doubt the Sigma holds an edge at a few points, notably the 24mm range, and the 75-85mm f/4, an odd gap in both the Canon and Nikkor lenses. Still, the biggest problems are:
> 
> 1) Weight! Frankly at 2 pounds or 880g this is a heavy lens and is roughly 200g heavier than the rivals. For the super primes they put out, where it is quality above all, this might be acceptable, but for a do-it-all lens that is designed to be taken everywhere always, it is a problem. In fact, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II is 10% lighter even.
> 
> ...



The 24-105L can be found for $600 and the 24-70 f/4 IS for not that much mroe than the sigma. Unless you MUST have 71-105mm I can't see getting Sigma over the 24-70 f/4 IS since the 24-70 f/4 IS is much better stopped down for landscapes at the wide end, better at long end too for that and as good everywhere else other than maybe right at 50mm wide open and it's so much smaller and lighter.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 2, 2014)

slclick said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > We must remember that recently launched another competitor, the Canon 24-105 STM, when the market was already flooded with 24-105L.
> ...



But not than the 24-70 f/4 IS which doesn't cost that much more.


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 5, 2015)

Just for the record, I agree with everything slclick has said. I have the Sigma 24-105 mm Art, and I really love it. Maybe I got a particularly good copy, but I really like it. I also have the Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art, EF 70-200mm 2.8 ii, and the Canon 300 mm 2.8 ii, So I know what a sharp photograph is supposed to look like. And, the 24-105 has saved me money, because shortly after I bought the 24-105, I bought a Canon 24mm 1.4 to have a wide prime, but I sent it back because, except for the bokeh at 1.4 (obviously) and vignette, the Sigma was sharper at 24 then the Canon (particularly in the corners) and just produced a better overall image, even though I was comparing an expensive L prime with an all-purpose zoom at just one focal length. Here is a picture I took with the 24-105 of a building that is 22 stories high and was about two blocks away. I have cropped it down to nearly 1:1. And, if they will upload, here is another building at 24mm, and the same building zoomed in on some detail at 105mm. I can't imagine a better all purpose walking around lens for the money. (Shot on a 6D, hand held).


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 5, 2015)

Building at 24mm


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 5, 2015)

Detail on building at 105mm.


----------



## JPCanonUser (Jan 26, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If its true, it could mean a production issue, or a shift of internal resources. With Japan spiraling into a depression, the cost of raw materials and employees demands for higher wages may force low profit products out of production.



Most economic signs point that we are improving and ending decades of stagnation. While raw materials are getting more expensive because of the yen, I don't think spiralling into a depression is quite the right term. Most people are quite optimistic. Unfortunately, wages remain low. 

I think your other suggestions are more realistic (shifting internal resources).


----------



## donn (Jan 27, 2015)

I wanted to have an all around zoom that reaches a bit over 70mm when I travel. I went to a local dealer and tried both Canon and Sigma's 24-105, I find the Sigma sharper at 24mm and at 105mm. Then again, no AFMA done with the Canon upon testing, perhaps the copy needed AFMA on my camera body. 

I am very impressed with the Sigma.


----------

