# Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2014)

Discuss our  review of the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS here.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15885"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15885">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Justin has completed our review of the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS. As expected, the lens is a real winner when compered to the Canon equivalent and is priced exceptionally well. Sigma’s quality, warranty and pricing are going to ensure that they’re worth your consideration at certain focal lengths.</p>
<p><strong>Says Justin

</strong><em>“My opening line said it all: Sigma is absolutely killing it with these new lenses. They perform, look and are priced better than the Canon equivalents. …….. Their attention to industrial design and optics makes me think more of the even higher-end Zeiss lenses than it does a Canon, which is smart, because the cost difference between a Zeiss lens and Sigma is even greater, creating an even more compelling price gap in Sigma’s favour.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-sigma-24-105mm-f4-os/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009621-REG/sigma_635_101_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS $899</a>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Feb 17, 2014)

Makes me want one...


----------



## traveller (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*

Why do people insist on posting images of bookshelves to demonstrate how "sharp" a lens is? There was not one detail in those images that was resolved differently by either lens, mainly due to the dearth of any high frequency detail that might show up resolution differences. If it wasn't for the distortion differences, I might have actually thought that they were samples from the same lens. 

I think I'll wait for the results from Roger Cicala to decide whether the Sigma is a worthwhile upgrade. I would recommend that in future, you either do reviews properly or stop publishing this rubbish as CR's "official" review.


----------



## TAF (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*

If my L version ever breaks, this will be its replacement, but I'm not certain I would head out right now to by one.

However, should someone comes out with a more interesting choice, such as a 24-105 f2.8, or a 28-135 f2.8, either of those would part me from my money much sooner.

(and no, the 24-70 is not acceptable; the long end is simply too short to be useful for me)

Thank you for the excellent review.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*

I'm surprised that there wasn't more difference on the samples posted in the review at f4. Maybe there is more obvious visual benefit at other focal lengths. 

If people howl about the price difference between the 24-105 and 24-70 IS not being worth it I can't see that this would stack up for those people either when you can buy the Canon version so cheap. 

I stick to what I thought when I first heard the rumour; this lens is targeted at Nikon / Sony users. However anything that keeps Canon on their toes is good for Canon users.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



traveller said:


> Why do people insist on posting images of bookshelves to demonstrate how "sharp" a lens is? There was not one detail in those images that was resolved differently by either lens, mainly due to the dearth of any high frequency detail that might show up resolution differences. If it wasn't for the distortion differences, I might have actually thought that they were samples from the same lens.
> 
> I think I'll wait for the results from Roger Cicala to decide whether the Sigma is a worthwhile upgrade. I would recommend that in future, you either do reviews properly or stop publishing this rubbish as CR's "official" review.



Out of 23 "reviews" this is the first and *only* time we posted photos of my dusty bookshelves. I certainly don't insist on it, or like it, but it does show difference of detail in the corners, vignetting and other real-world variables.

Roger is an incredible technical reviewer with all the right tools to measure and analyze lenses and I too look forward to his reviews and articles. I just pay less attention to the charts and more to how it works for me professionally. The final image is what matters to me and my clients. I'm also open to hearing your take on what entails a "proper" review for my future rubbish.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



Sporgon said:


> I'm surprised that there wasn't more difference on the samples posted in the review at f4. Maybe there is more obvious visual benefit at other focal lengths.
> 
> If people howl about the price difference between the 24-105 and 24-70 IS not being worth it I can't see that this would stack up for those people either when you can buy the Canon version so cheap.
> 
> I stick to what I thought when I first heard the rumour; this lens is targeted at Nikon / Sony users. However anything that keeps Canon on their toes is good for Canon users.



I agree, there wasn't a huge difference until I started pixel peeping. Corners were a big difference and that's even a highlight in Sigma's own marketing material. Without being too detail focused, the Sigma seemed to perform better at 50mm than the Canon, but I don't measure this stuff *too* much. At SRP, the Sigma is cheaper than the Canon, but we all know how to get the Canon for less these days... still, holding the Sigma mattered, it's a lovely lens even for a little bit more (but not a lot).


----------



## tron (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



TAF said:


> If my L version ever breaks, this will be its replacement, but I'm not certain I would head out right now to by one.
> 
> However, should someone comes out with a more interesting choice, such as a 24-105 f2.8, or a 28-135 f2.8, either of those would part me from my money much sooner.
> 
> ...


There is an old Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 no IS though...


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*

Nobody tell my wife I posted high res photos of my dusty and messy bookshelf okay? :-X


----------



## tron (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



JVLphoto said:


> Nobody tell my wife I posted high res photos of my dusty and messy bookshelf okay? :-X


It can be worse: We can tell her that you posted high res photos of your dusty and messy bookshelf with a fresh new expensive lens ;D


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



tron said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody tell my wife I posted high res photos of my dusty and messy bookshelf okay? :-X
> ...



*blocked*


----------



## Zv (Feb 17, 2014)

For me the lens is just too heavy. I'm sure it would make an ideal lens for a lot of people though its just not really a travel lens, is it? 

I also don't like the way it zooms, it looks weird.

I've only had my 24-105L for less than a year but it's already my most used lens. Yeah it has it's faults but damn that thing is just so useful. Kudos to Sigma for making a cracking lens though.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



dilbert said:


> Why are there two threads for this story??
> 
> Compare this review with photozone's:
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/864-sigma24105f4eos
> ...



Maybe someone started one up unrelated to our review? Their own take?

charts *eyes glaze over*

But thanks for those, if I'm reading them right they confirm what I saw with my eyes, but with math.


----------



## iMagic (Feb 17, 2014)

Ugg. Focus shift.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

iMagic said:


> Ugg. Focus shift.



Yeah, there's a term for that right? "Non-parfocal" but neither is the Canon... for what that's worth.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

Zv said:


> For me the lens is just too heavy. I'm sure it would make an ideal lens for a lot of people though its just not really a travel lens, is it?
> 
> I also don't like the way it zooms, it looks weird.
> 
> I've only had my 24-105L for less than a year but it's already my most used lens. Yeah it has it's faults but damn that thing is just so useful. Kudos to Sigma for making a cracking lens though.



Exactly. A friend of mine *really* wanted to like it, but they wanted it as a sort of travel/backup kit lens. Too heavy for his work. I think there's a good reason that Canon is such a well travelled and sold lens: it meets a very good quality/weight/versatility balance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> iMagic said:
> 
> 
> > Ugg. Focus shift.
> ...



No, they are two different things. 

Parfocal means a lens maintains focus while being zoomed, it's a very useful feature for shooting video (whereas with stills, it's generally easy to refocus after zooming). The Canon 24-105L is not parfocal (the 17-40, 16-35, and 70-200/2.8 non-IS are parfocal). Not sure on the Sigma, but I'd guess it's not parfocal.

Focus shift means the focus changes when the lens is stopped down. No problem shooting wide open, but if you stop the lens down to f/5.6 or f/8 with a close subject, that subject will likely not be in crisp focus with the Sigma 24-105. With more distant subjects, the effect is masked by the deeper DoF. The 50/1.2L is notorious for focus shift (people call it a 'backfocus problem' usually because of a lack of understanding the real issue).


----------



## photo212 (Feb 17, 2014)

Some of us want a lens we can know will perform in the rain and snow. Is this as weather resistant as Canon's L-series lenses? Can this lens go to the windy beach and not get clogged with sand? I've had Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS in all sorts of conditions, and I have not thought twice about it. Dumb luck or specs, I do not know. 

Is there a reliable rating system for such a question?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 17, 2014)

Nice review ... I would have developed severe G.A.S problems if it was f/2.8 ... since it's an f/4, I have successfully avoided G.A.S


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > iMagic said:
> ...



Ah! Okay, yes, that actually makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## tomscott (Feb 17, 2014)

Is it just me that thinks the crops look very similar?


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

photo212 said:


> Some of us want a lens we can know will perform in the rain and snow. Is this as weather resistant as Canon's L-series lenses? Can this lens go to the windy beach and not get clogged with sand? I've had Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS in all sorts of conditions, and I have not thought twice about it. Dumb luck or specs, I do not know.
> 
> Is there a reliable rating system for such a question?



Hey, no weather sealing, not to mention the double-barrel zoom makes an extra area "exposed" for potential element influx. I don't think Sigma has an "All weather" rating, and neither does Canon (not even all the white L lenses are weather sealed).


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Nice review ... I would have developed severe G.A.S problems if it was f/2.8 ... since it's an f/4, I have successfully avoided G.A.S



Phew. Close call.


----------



## Zv (Feb 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > iMagic said:
> ...



I experienced some Sigma focus shift today in fact. I was a bit perplexed when I was using LV to manually focus the 50mm at f/4, and when I took the shot it was slightly off. The 24-105L didn't have this issue. Is this due to the fact that when focusing the aperture is wide open at f/1.4 on the Siggy and f/4 on the Canon? That is kinda useless then if using LV. Makes AF accuracy even more important.


----------



## traveller (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



JVLphoto said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people insist on posting images of bookshelves to demonstrate how "sharp" a lens is? There was not one detail in those images that was resolved differently by either lens, mainly due to the dearth of any high frequency detail that might show up resolution differences. If it wasn't for the distortion differences, I might have actually thought that they were samples from the same lens.
> ...



Please accept my apologies for my last comment, it was harsh and rude; I appreciate anyone who takes the time to post a review and take the flak for it! 

I wouldn't expect anyone who isn't properly set up for it to attempt quantitative testing, nor given the number of technical review sites available, would I feel the need for it. I would prefer to see you use large crops from photos taken in your professional style, like the photos that you used to illustrate the review, to demonstrate your points. 

I won't mention the name of the website that uses the "bookshelf-of-doom" to "show" lens "sharpness", suffice to say that I don't put any credence in their reviews!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2014)

Zv said:


> I experienced some Sigma focus shift today in fact. I was a bit perplexed when I was using LV to manually focus the 50mm at f/4, and when I took the shot it was slightly off. The 24-105L didn't have this issue. Is this due to the fact that when focusing the aperture is wide open at f/1.4 on the Siggy and f/4 on the Canon? That is kinda useless then if using LV. Makes AF accuracy even more important.



It has to do with the lens design, not the max aperture (although when focus shift affects a lens, it's usually more evident with a faster lens). AF is always done wide open - the thing about focus shift is that the lens is the shift occurs when the lens is stopped down, which happens _after_ AF is complete. It doesn't matter if focus is live view or phase detect, the problem is there. In live view, you can hold the DoF preview button and focus manually to avoid the issue.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Is it just me that thinks the crops look very similar?



Nope, they are very close, distortion is a bit different at 24mm and the real difference are seen at the 100% crops. Even then it's not quite the res you need. See below (hope they help).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12373943/Canon%2024-105%20-%2024mm%20f4.jpg Canon 24-105 f/4 IS (at f/4) 9.8MB
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12373943/Sigma%2024-105%20-%2024mm%20f4.jpg Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS (at f/4)


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



traveller said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...



Accepted. Funny, I get flak when I don't do tests and when I do too (though the later I make no excuses for: I am not set up to do that *at all*).

And I'll definitely post more images in higher res as the day goes on. In most cases my images come processed to some point, I mean, most do right? My bookshelves are unedited though


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



JVLphoto said:


> My bookshelves are unedited though



The images or the content?


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS*



neuroanatomist said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > My bookshelves are unedited though
> ...



Both? Some of those Manga titles are... titillating


----------



## tomscott (Feb 17, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just me that thinks the crops look very similar?
> ...



Thanks for the links. Its interesting the top of the image of the Canon is much sharper than the Sigma (RunDMC) and the bottom of the sigma is slightly sharper. Centres are almost identicle.


----------



## Rey (Feb 17, 2014)

Gah! Charts!

Not to be rude, but the review doesn't answer some of the real world questions that I, as a Canon 24-105/4 user, have. 

For example, how does the Sigma perform when using the OS to stabilize the video when following a moving subject while walking and pulling focus? This is a place where the Canon does a great job, and one of the reasons so many video guys use it.

Or, when in studio doing product photography, or other industrial/catalog work, how does the Sigma perform when shooting against lit white seamless at f/8? Do the blacks wash out, or does it stay sharp? Does kick-back from a backdrop lit a stop brighter than the subject cause the Sigma to become less contrasty? Lots of product guys use the 24-105 in this situation because it performs well under these conditions. I recall both Zarias and Ukandu lady saying the Canon 24-105 is the go-to lens in these conditions in their creative Live workshops.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

Rey said:


> Gah! Charts!
> 
> Not to be rude, but the review doesn't answer some of the real world questions that I, as a Canon 24-105/4 user, have.
> 
> ...



Ugh, and you even specifically asked me for these. I'm the rude one for not addressing them.

To answer the video, I'm not a video shooter and any "test" I could do with it would lack any real insight into what a video shooter needs. I haven't talked about video in my other reviews because of this and held true here. I will assume that the "always on" OS being as silent as it was would suit this function incredibly well. It worked well enough for the stills.

I wanted to try the blown out backdrop, but ran out of time with the lens and had to send it away. Without testing this *specitifically* I do have a few good shots with direct light and there's still good contrast and detail. Sorry for missing this


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 17, 2014)

I believe the EF 24-105 is parfocal in one direction; from long to short, ie you can focus on a subject at 105 mm and then zoom out to 24 holding focus, but not the other way round. It is specifically designed this way with a compensating cam inside to keep it right. ( Another fact gleaned from CR  )

Interesting on the superior corners of the Sigma, but is it perceivable at normal magnifications ? The corners are (one) of the EF 24-105's weak areas and with the 24-70 IS the difference _is_ perceivable at realistic magnifications.


----------



## Rey (Feb 17, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> Rey said:
> 
> 
> > Gah! Charts!
> ...


No problem, its not like I'm going to ditch my 24-105L if the Sigma is better in these conditions (I'd rather milk every ounce of ROI from my current gear), but if I were building a kit today, I would like to know the answers to those questions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I believe the EF 24-105 is parfocal in one direction; from long to short, ie you can focus on a subject at 105 mm and then zoom out to 24 holding focus, but not the other way round. It is specifically designed this way with a compensating cam inside to keep it right. ( Another fact gleaned from CR  )



Chuck Westfall stated, "_There's a cam inside the 24-105mm lens that is designed to maintain an accurate focus when the lens is zoomed from tele towards wide._" So, I suppose you could say it's parfocal…but I wouldn't. A truly parfocal lens remains in focus regardless of the zoom direction. Also, zooming from 105mm to 24mm, assuming you're not moving the camera, results in a dramatic increase in DoF as you zoom out. A subject at 5 m at 105mm f/4 has a DoF of approximately 0.25 m on either side of the subject…at 5 m, 24mm f/4 the DoF runs from 3 m in front of the subject to infinity behind - so, yeah, focus is maintained…no cam required. :


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the EF 24-105 is parfocal in one direction; from long to short, ie you can focus on a subject at 105 mm and then zoom out to 24 holding focus, but not the other way round. It is specifically designed this way with a compensating cam inside to keep it right. ( Another fact gleaned from CR  )
> ...



Yes I'd thought about the greater DoF as you zoom out from medium tele to quite an extreme wide angle. Maybe the cam still holds focus from 105 to 70 - or maybe there's no cam at all ;D Seems strange that they would go to the trouble of engineering it to hold focus one way ( the easy way ) but not the other, but perhaps in video work zooming from close up to wide is a much more frequently used technique than visa versa.


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2014)

Love mine, weight is it's only penalty, I can live with that.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 17, 2014)

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to review this lens.
If people don't like your review maybe they can do one themselves....


I've had sigma lenses before and maybe these new "Art" designated lenses are higher quality than the last generation.
However, if my Canon 24-105 lens needs to be replaced, I think I'll stick to a Canon. My previous lens was a 17-70mm and I had to replace it twice to get one that was on the money.

Sigma's new lenses do look great but the ultimate question in my head is can they back it up with robust product that continually performs in its lifetime.


----------



## AquaGeneral (Feb 17, 2014)

I must disagree about the Sigma having better looks than Canon. The Sigma 24-105 has a wildly small focusing ring and looks wise it just essentially coloured black-and-white. I haven't seen it in person, I guess the glossy finish may look very nice. Canon's 24-105, being made in 2005 holds up very well (looks wise I'm thinking about).

Anyway, I am happy to see competition in the lens market. Canon really needs a good push when it comes to replacing their older lenses - such as their 35mm f/1.4 which is priced far higher and performs far worse than the competition.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 17, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time and effort to review this lens.
> If people don't like your review maybe they can do one themselves....
> ...



Excellent point, where I know buying a Canon L lens will last me a "lifetime" (this varies these days) I haven't met a Sigma that holds the same standard. But they say the standards have changed. I'm going into year 2 with the 35mm prime which, admitedly, will see less wear and tear than a zoom.

I'd like to see their 70-200 updated, I had a friend whose lens fell apart as they were shooting because the plastic screws used inside just gave up. And that's the kind of reputation Sigma has to work hard to dispel.


----------



## tron (Feb 17, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D I guess I was correct to get rid of my Sigma lenses (a 14 f/3.5 and a 400 APO). From now on it's only Canon (plus a Zeiss 21mm lens)

P.S Have you taken a picture of your friend's face the ... decisive moment? ;D (In the highly unlikely case that the answer is "yes" I just hope it was with a Canon lens ;D )


----------



## captainkanji (Feb 18, 2014)

The Canon 24-105 is a fine lens. If it ever breaks on me, I could see getting the Sigma, although, I might think about getting a 24-70 f/4 or 2.8 instead (2.8 zooms are a bit pricey for me right now). I've started shooting more with primes, so I really only use the 24-105 for when I'm being lazy. Kudos to Sigma. Looking forward to the coming war of the 50 1.4s


----------



## Zv (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I experienced some Sigma focus shift today in fact. I was a bit perplexed when I was using LV to manually focus the 50mm at f/4, and when I took the shot it was slightly off. The 24-105L didn't have this issue. Is this due to the fact that when focusing the aperture is wide open at f/1.4 on the Siggy and f/4 on the Canon? That is kinda useless then if using LV. Makes AF accuracy even more important.
> ...



Ah, thanks I'll try the Dof preview button next time.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 18, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> I had a friend whose lens fell apart as they were shooting because the plastic screws used inside just gave up. And that's the kind of reputation Sigma has to work hard to dispel.


Your friend's experience is unfortunate ... but Sigma's reputation was mostly about AF and soft focus issues, not really about build quality. In the past when people bought Sigma lens at half the price of a Canon/Nikon lens, they knew they weren't buying the same build quality as Canon ... I've used several Sigma lenses over the past 15 or so years, they never fell apart like what happened to your friend's lens (btw, I am not disputing what happened to your friend's lens, but merely stating that build quality issues like lenses falling apart due to plastic screws giving up, are not generally associated with Sigma lenses).


----------



## photo212 (Feb 18, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> photo212 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of us want a lens we can know will perform in the rain and snow. Is this as weather resistant as Canon's L-series lenses? Can this lens go to the windy beach and not get clogged with sand? I've had Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS in all sorts of conditions, and I have not thought twice about it. Dumb luck or specs, I do not know.
> ...



"Moreover, with dust- and moisture-resistant construction"
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_105mm_f_4l_is_usm

Perhaps not the sealing for a downpour or sandblast, but still tight and "resistant"


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 18, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I had a friend whose lens fell apart as they were shooting because the plastic screws used inside just gave up. And that's the kind of reputation Sigma has to work hard to dispel.
> ...



I guess I should say that's their repution *for us* (me and my friends) who know this to have happened. But yes, focus issues are definitely something I've experience first hand, again, with the 70-200. I probably won't even look at Sigma's older lens lineup at this point - see what their new line brings.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 18, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > JVLphoto said:
> ...


Although I do not own any of the new Sigma lenses, I do hear lots of good things about their build quality and IQ ... majority of the people I know claim that the build quality of 35 f/1.4 & the 18-35 f/1.8 lenses are better than many of the L lenses and just as good in IQ ... I am glad third party manufacturers are producing some great lenses, it will only mean better times for customers - or bad times with severe GAS problems ;D


----------



## NancyP (Feb 18, 2014)

I have yet to see the lens in person. I have no doubt that it will feel solid. I have the 35mm f/1.4 and it is a brick. I admit that I wish that Canon had knocked it out of the park optically with the 24-70 f/4 IS, a lighter and smaller lens, and made it a bit less expensive. I could skip the macro if the hypothetical lens could use extension tubes.


----------



## slclick (Mar 11, 2014)

I love this lens, especially the corners in comparison to my 2 former copies of Canon's version. This has become my new favorite black and white lens. Super contrasty but not crushing my blacks. Kind of reminds me of TMax 100 but with more latitude in post


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 11, 2014)

slclick said:


> I love this lens, especially the corners in comparison to my 2 former copies of Canon's version. This has become my new favorite black and white lens. Super contrasty but not crushing my blacks. Kind of reminds me of TMax 100 but with more latitude in post


Very nice image ... by the way, thought you might be interested to know that "BJP" is the main opposition political party in India ... from 7 April to 12 May 2014 India will have elections to elect 543 members of parliament ... many predict that BJP (along with its allies) will be forming the next government.


----------

