# Sigma 24-104 f/4 lenstip's review



## aznable (Nov 15, 2013)

nothing spectacular but optically better than nikkor and canon

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=389


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 16, 2013)

I would not give much value to a review of a lens given to a tester by the manufacturer. They would be pretty stupid if they did not give a carefully checked out lens that was a good if not exceptional copy.

I prefer to view testing of lenses bought from a store, and preferably when multiple copies were tested.

When you see something like thie statement below, be skeptical - very skeptical
"We would like to thank profusely both the Sigma Corporation headquarters and its Polish branch, Sigma ProCentrum, for sending us the final specimen of the tested lens really quickly. "

Since the Canon Lens can be found for under $600 from kit removals, its hard to beat at that price, and will have a better resale value.

If you are a Nikon user, you are in luck. A much better lens for much less.


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 18, 2013)

I agree that reviewing a lens sample received from its manufacturer leaves more than a few doubts.

In fact for a FF zoom of this range I find the performance quite impressive. It's sharp edge to edge at the wide end on moderate stopping down, and wide open on the long end. It's pretty much what a standard zoom should be like. No lens is flawless, but here Sigma seems to have achieved a very reasonable set of flaws.

The price tag of 999€ is too high, but I expect it to go down in the 799€ range soon enough - especially the Canon version.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 19, 2013)

Putting aside the manufacturer supplied argument, it looks like it's competitive with the Canon/Nikon offerings, and beats them both on retail cost. Anything that keeps the big boys on their toes and pushes them to innovate is a great thing in my book.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 19, 2013)

Look at autofocus.

*Sigma*

The autofocus mechanism of the tested lens is based on an ultrasonic HSM motor so its work is noiseless. Its speed is sensible but nothing more. Running through the whole distance range takes it about 0.8-1.0 of a second.

When it comes to the accuracy the first small reservations appeared during the sample shots session. It was a beautiful, sunny day and when we were taking photos of well-lit (so low contrast) fronts of some tenement buildings from time to time we experienced focusing problems. The lens could go past the required position and it returned to it only after a while – such a behaviour is rare when it comes to its brand-name competitors.

The accuracy of the mechanism wasn't perfect but we didn’t have any serious reservations here. The number of misses didn’t exceed 4% which we consider a good result; still it is a bit worse than that of the Canon and the Nikkor. 

*Canon*

Very quick, very silent and very accurate – this is the shortest description of the tested Canon’s autofocus mechanism. Really you can’t have even the slightest reservations here – the lens focuses in no time, it is not noisy at all and it almost never misses. The number of misses in studio conditions reached just 1%.

There wasn’t even a trace of front or back focus either.


----------



## MLfan3 (Nov 22, 2013)

the real issue of this Sigma lens is the size, it is way too big for a f4 casual zoom.
I much prefer the small Canon 24-70mm f4LIS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Putting aside the manufacturer supplied argument, it looks like it's competitive with the Canon/Nikon offerings, and beats them both on retail cost.


The Nikon, maybe…and I suspect that's where this lens is aimed, to cover the relatively poorer performance of their 24-120/4 VR. But I doubt Canon sells many of the 24-105 lenses at retail cost, and the kit price is lower than the Sigma, significantly lower currently.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I would not give much value to a review of a lens given to a tester by the manufacturer. They would be pretty stupid if they did not give a carefully checked out lens that was a good if not exceptional copy.
> 
> When you see something like thie statement below, be skeptical - very skeptical
> "We would like to thank profusely both the Sigma Corporation headquarters and its Polish branch, Sigma ProCentrum, for sending us the final specimen of the tested lens really quickly. "


*+1*

That was my first thought upon reading the intro, before I read your comments here. I have similar concerns over pre-production lenses tested by DPR and others. I appreciate that Bryan/TDP buys copies of the lenses he tests through standard retail channels...I suspect he gets put to the front of the pre-order queue, but at least he's not getting a lens that Canon hand-picked for review/testing.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 25, 2013)

I think this lens will be more of an interest with Nikon shooters.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 26, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I think this lens will be more of an interest with Nikon shooters.


+1 ... I am thinking of getting one for my Nikon DSLR ... coz I might sell the D7100 for a D610.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2013)

TDP has put up the ISO 12233 crops of the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=918

A bit better than the Canon 24-105L at the wide end, not too different in the middle, and a bit worse at the long end. Ata higher cost than the kit/white box price of the Canon 24-105L, I concur with the sentiment that this lens is aimed at Nikon users.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2013)

From a resolution point of view it doesn't compare that well against the Nikon 24-120 at various points of the frame and aperture, but the Nikkor has enough chromatic aberration to star in a disco mid frame.

Wide open at 24mm sharper than the 24-105 L in the very centre of the frame, less sharp mid frame. 

I'm mildly surprised that Sigma have tried to capitalise on the 'Art' designation so soon, having only introduced one 'art' lens before. From this and other actual images shot by the lens it doesn't appear to be any more 'art' than the Canon. 

However I'm a little wary of TDP now. If I had gone by their results I would have bought the 70-200 L f4 IS over the 70-300L and not bought the 24-70L IS at all; two lenses that in practice I have found superb.


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> TDP has put up the ISO 12233 crops of the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=918
> 
> A bit better than the Canon 24-105L at the wide end, not too different in the middle, and a bit worse at the long end. Ata higher cost than the kit/white box price of the Canon 24-105L, I concur with the sentiment that this lens is aimed at Nikon users.



Something might be wrong since at 105mm the Sigma looks sharper midframe than in the center.

I'd like to wait and read DxO and Photozone reviews.


----------



## aznable (Nov 26, 2013)

the canon is a little better at [email protected], in the rest fo focal length/apertures is worst; midframe and corners sigma is overall better

anyway 2 lenses i dont like so much


----------

