# Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art looked at by Uncle Rog + OLAF



## ahsanford (Feb 5, 2018)

More OLAF lab work from Uncle Rog at LR:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/02/mtf-testing-for-the-sigma-24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-art-series-lens/

Of note:

_"All lenses are sharper stopped down a stop or more. But the Sigma 24-105 sharpens up spectacularly at f/5.6. The truth is, after seeing this difference, I’d probably just plan on using this as an f/5.6 lens whenever I could. This is a much better improvement than the Canon 24-105 IS II makes stopped down to f/5.6."
_
See plot below. Stopping down always helps, but wow _does it ever_ for this lens. He later went on to call it "This is the Best Damned 24-105mm f5.6 Lens Ever Made". ;D

- A


----------



## slclick (Feb 6, 2018)

I sure liked it better than my two Canon versions I once owned. However, I bet dollars to doughnuts it was in the bottom 3 of all time Sigma sales


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 6, 2018)

Indeed, it didn't sell well when it was widely-available, and of course once production slowed down (it never fully stopped, as is often incorrectly reported) it sold even less, but it's done 'okay'. Kind of like Canon's own 35mm f/2 IS, sales of Sigma's 24-105 have stayed consistent, when usually you only see sales drop the further from release you get; this means that, relatively speaking, sales of Sigma's 24-105 have picked up, compared to where they would be if it had stayed on a more common sales trajectory. (Again, same as the Canon 35.)
It's hard to attribute the cause to anything, though if I had to guess, I'd say the presence and persistence of 'white box' Canon 24-105s probably harmed the Sigma's sales most of all.

As for the quality, I'm surprised it registered so poorly at f/4, and the jump at f/5.6. I've used it a couple of times (different copies each time) and I found it very consistent across the frame—not as much as Tamrons are consistent, but more consistent edge-to-edge than Canon's—at f/4, and though smaller apertures were a clear improvement, it wasn't _that_ much of a jump as this testing indicates.

Could just be the subject matter in question or maybe the couple of copies I got were unusually good ones, but at least from my personal experience, this testing undersells the quality at f/4 and overstates the improvement at f/5.6.

Either way, it's certainly a much nicer lens than the Canon version(s), and if only it had _any_ weather sealing, I probably would have bought one to keep myself; as it is I'll happily rent or borrow one but oof, it is a touch hard to justify owning when you live in ''sunny'' England and the rain is only every seconds away...


----------

