# Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 13, 2013)

```
<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/2013/10/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-outed/"></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/2013/10/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-outed/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS

</strong>We have received an image possibly showing a Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS lens. As with any image from an unknown source, there’s always a possibility it’s a fake, although those are becoming more and more rare.</p>
<p>We had previously <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/sigma-24-105-f4-os-on-the-way-cr1/" target="_blank">written that such a lens was on the horizon</a>.</p>
<p>Below is what we’re told is a soon-to-be-announced Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS. We’re told an announcement should come some time in the next 6 weeks.</p>
<p>This lens is apparently going to be bigger and heavier than the <a href="http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574981434&toolid=10001&campid=5337238466&customid=&icep_item=300987513612&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg" target="_blank">Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS</a>. It will have an 82mm filter, weigh 885 grams (the Canon is 670g). The lens will have 19 elements in 14 groups.</p>
<p>I will leave you guys to debate how legit the photograph is below. To my eyes, it looks pretty good. We’ll try to confirm this with a couple of our Sigma sources.</p>
<div id="attachment_14501" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/sigma24105.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-14501" alt="click for larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/sigma24105-575x438.jpg" width="575" height="438" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">click for larger</p></div>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## candyman (Oct 13, 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if it is real.
Sigma is moving in popular segments of Canon


----------



## baervan (Oct 13, 2013)

sounds a bit unnecessary the canon is not even that expensive.. 

i think sigma should aim for an ultra wide zoom or prime, i think they will see big bucks if the come out with a good 14mm 2.8


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 13, 2013)

The Sigma has the same focal length range & max aperture, and it extends just like Canon's. So what would make one choose it over Canon kit?

If the lens is real, the filter size could be a clue to Sigma trying to beat Canon in kit lens IQ, e.g. less vignetting & barrel distortion at the wide end & wide open.


----------



## Ricku (Oct 13, 2013)

*This is highly interesting!* Simply because Sigma's version will be waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy sharper than the L.

I think the difference will be even greater than the difference between S35 and 35L.. _And that's a big difference._ :-X


----------



## wsgroves (Oct 13, 2013)

I am sure it will be superior to the canon offering, however....do you guys think it would sell enough seeing as how the canon offering is so "cheap"?
Could they have the quality to blow it away and still keep the same "low" price?
That would be interesting to me.


----------



## Ricku (Oct 13, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> I am sure it will be superior to the canon offering, however....do you guys think it would sell enough seeing as how the canon offering is so "cheap"?
> Could they have the quality to blow it away and still keep the same "low" price?
> That would be interesting to me.


They kinda did with the Sigma 35. That lens is a bargain and it blew away the 35L completely.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Sigma is not the company they used to be. They have earned my respect with their latest offerings, and now I'm hoping for more!


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Oct 13, 2013)

19 elements in 14 groups is a lot of potential to correct image imperfections and is likely to mean that the lens will be sharp corner to corner at F4. if so, then I'll sell my Canon 24-105 and buy this lens if it is as reasonably priced as the 2 previous Sigma Art offerings - 35 F1.4 and 18-35 F1.8 APS-C. I would probably also sell my 50 F1.4 and 35 F/2 IS. This lens will replace them all.


----------



## AJ (Oct 13, 2013)

What's that sound I hear? It's the sound of Canon 24-70/4 IS sales imploding


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 13, 2013)

dilbert said:


> *NOTE: there is a shiny silver "A" on the side of the lens in the picture, meaning this is their "Art" line of lenses* - the same breed as the 35/1.4 that has blown away many many people.



Yea, there's a silver A on the side, but this lens doesn't really fit into Sigma's own definition of what an 'Art' lens is going to be. At least not at the time they announced this:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-corporation-announces-reorganization-of-lens-lineup-new-products-and-quality-control


----------



## Joe M (Oct 13, 2013)

Rumours don't excite me as much as announcements. This one is a little tantalizing though as I'm sure anyone who has used or is still using the Canon is happy with it but wouldn't mind a little less wide end distortion, along with a little more sharpness in the corners as well as better performance in the long end. I've so far resisted using any non-Canon gear (I'm sure I'm the type of customer Canon just loves because of this) but if this lens can significantly improve upon the Canon version, it may prove tempting.


----------



## Albi86 (Oct 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > *NOTE: there is a shiny silver "A" on the side of the lens in the picture, meaning this is their "Art" line of lenses* - the same breed as the 35/1.4 that has blown away many many people.
> ...



+1

Standard zooms should fall in the Contemporary category. Hint that it's a fake? Or maybe Sigma is rearranging their classification according to people perception? As in: "it's Art like the 35mm, must be good!"


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Oct 13, 2013)

dilbert said:


> *NOTE: there is a shiny silver "A" on the side of the lens in the picture, meaning this is their "Art" line of lenses* - the same breed as the 35/1.4 that has blown away many many people.



It's also proof positive that the pic is a fake. IIRC the Art designation is for lenses with a large maximum aperture.


----------



## dadgummit (Oct 13, 2013)

Meh... Bigger and heavier than an already existing canon L lens... With the recent sales this lens cannot be any less expensive than the canon. So I guess the major draw is you get to play the Sigma lottery and have the fun of exchanging for one that does not have some strange focusing problem.


----------



## johnhenry (Oct 13, 2013)

I think there is some room for this lenses, given the Canon L having pincushion distorsion at the low end and CA at the high end. I also have a problem with its cheap plastic feel, and after having used Zeiss lenses for Contax and Hasselblad, I have no issue with the lens being heavy, as long as the IQ is there.

That being said, I think they should have brought this lens out years ago, as Canon has basically saturated the market with their L offering and posioned the well against others who would copy it.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 13, 2013)

Hesbehindyou said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > *NOTE: there is a shiny silver "A" on the side of the lens in the picture, meaning this is their "Art" line of lenses* - the same breed as the 35/1.4 that has blown away many many people.
> ...



+1

It should be 'contemporary' (C). 

Still, I think the lens might be real. Calling this 'A' vs 'C' appeals to the people likely to buy the lens so it makes sense from a marketing perspective.

Lacking however, as with the 35mm: Weather sealing...

And (if this Sigma is real) there's where the 24-105L still wins as a do-it-all travel lens. India would have killed my camera/lens without weather sealing!


----------



## Albi86 (Oct 13, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Hesbehindyou said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Nothing against your post in particular, but what is weathersealing exactly? It's a very nebulous feature that has no real benchmark or specifications. Does it resist to light rain? Heavy rain? A fall in the mud? A sandstorm?

As such, how can you say that it was weather sealing saving your lens? Having and extending design I doubt it can be sealed at all.

My Sigma 35mm has taken some rain and it still works perfectly.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 13, 2013)

Personally, I think that this lens will not be f4.. It was rumored to be f2 a while ago.. Not saying that it will be but the lens specs are alluding to a larger aperture, at least to me. So heavy! 
With regards to weather sealing.. Not having owned an L lens may I ask what exactly is weather sealing? I hear of people taking out non L lenses in light rain and it's fine. Even some of canons L lenses aren't sealed, mind you.


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 13, 2013)

The image is at least dimensionally consistent for a Nikon mount lens. The Nikon flange is 44mm across, so with a 82mm filter thread, 82/44 would give a ratio of 1.86. I measure the flange in this image at 139 pixels across. Multiply by 1.86 and you get 259 pixels for what the filter thread width should be. I've drawn that onto the image and it seems reasonable that this is where the filter threads would go.

If it's a fake, they at least made sure it was scaled correctly.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 13, 2013)

candyman said:


> Sigma is moving in popular segments of Canon


With this lens? not so sure ... Canon already has a very good 24-105 f/4 L IS lens that is selling for less than $700 these days and it is lighter too. However, (if this lens is real) it could be very popular with Nikon & Sony users because Nikon's 24-120 f/4 VR lens is quite expensive and Sony does not have anything like this lens in their line up ... so I think it is more of a "threat" to Nikon & Sony (provided it is priced around $800


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 13, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Personally, I think that this lens will not be f4.. It was rumored to be f2 a while ago.. Not saying that it will be but the lens specs are alluding to a larger aperture, at least to me. So heavy!
> With regards to weather sealing.. Not having owned an L lens may I ask what exactly is weather sealing? I hear of people taking out non L lenses in light rain and it's fine. Even some of canons L lenses aren't sealed, mind you.



That picture of an f/2 zoom proved to be fake. In any case, it purported to be a 24-70mm, not a 24-105mm.

I'm confident this is genuine. The focus ring doesn't resemble any other Art lens so it isn't a composite picture of parts from several existing Sigma lenses, as the f/2 zoom picture was. Speaking of the focus ring, its size is a little disappointing, and I'd have preferred the zoom ring to be closest to the body, a la Canon.


----------



## Mistral75 (Oct 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Yea, there's a silver A on the side, but this lens doesn't really fit into Sigma's own definition of what an 'Art' lens is going to be. At least not at the time they announced this:
> 
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-corporation-announces-reorganization-of-lens-lineup-new-products-and-quality-control



Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM is an "Art" lens.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 13, 2013)

Mistral75 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, there's a silver A on the side, but this lens doesn't really fit into Sigma's own definition of what an 'Art' lens is going to be. At least not at the time they announced this:
> ...



Yes, true it is 'Art' and a zoom, but look at that aperture ! I would expect such a revolutionary zoom to be 'Art'.


----------



## Rudeofus (Oct 13, 2013)

The oddest part about this rumor is that "HSM" is mysteriously missing. If they wanted to compete with Canon's and Nikon's offering, people wouldn't likely accept anything but an HSM lens ...


----------



## ajperk (Oct 13, 2013)

Rudeofus said:


> The oddest part about this rumor is that "HSM" is mysteriously missing. If they wanted to compete with Canon's and Nikon's offering, people wouldn't likely accept anything but an HSM lens ...



If you look at Sigma's 35mm f/1.4 lens, it doesn't actually list HSM on the body but it does include HSM.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?LensComp=0&LensComp2=0&Lens=829


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2013)

AJ said:


> What's that sound I hear? It's the sound of Canon 24-70/4 IS sales imploding



Depends on the IQ and price. The 24-70 f/4 IS is smaller and lighter than the 24-105L, while this one is larger and heavier.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 13, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma has the same focal length range & max aperture, and it extends just like Canon's. So what would make one choose it over Canon kit?
> ...



The only person who needs to "OK" walking around with a lens is whomever intends to walk with the lens, which boils down to walker's muscles and lens's weight.


----------



## msowsun (Oct 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > *NOTE: there is a shiny silver "A" on the side of the lens in the picture, meaning this is their "Art" line of lenses* - the same breed as the 35/1.4 that has blown away many many people.
> ...



_Art – These lenses are developed with an emphasis on artistic touch and are designed to meet the expectations of users who value a creative, dramatic outcome. Along with landscapes, portraits, still-life, close-up and casual snaps, these lenses are perfect for the kind of photography that unleashes the inner artist. Ideal for studio photography, they offer just as much of an expressive scope when capturing architecture, starry skies, underwater shots and many other scenes. *This category will be comprised of many focal lengths and designs, *such as large-aperture prime lenses, wide-angle lenses, ultra wide-angle lenses, and macro and fisheye lenses._

*"This category will be comprised of many focal lengths and designs",* might also include Super Sharp Constant Aperture 4.375 Zoom lenses with little or no distortion. 

I was hoping Canon might come up with an improved 24-105 II, but this Sigma just might fill the bill.


----------



## zim (Oct 13, 2013)

Excited about this lens, hope it's true, maybe Sigma heard (know) their ain’t going to be a 24-105 L II


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Oct 13, 2013)

I think the pics are very good fakes...


----------



## Pi (Oct 13, 2013)

msowsun said:


> _Art – These lenses are developed with an emphasis on artistic touch and are designed to meet the expectations of users who value a creative, dramatic outcome. Along with landscapes, portraits, still-life, close-up and casual snaps, these lenses are perfect for the kind of photography that unleashes the inner artist. Ideal for studio photography, they offer just as much of an expressive scope when capturing architecture, starry skies, underwater shots and many other scenes. _.



Wow, whoever wrote that is good!


----------



## dburren (Oct 13, 2013)

Unfortunately I see no evidence that this lens is real. Sure it would be nice to see, and I'm hopeful that Sigma is preparing to introduce more lenses like this, but this image proves nothing.
It is not a photograph. It is a software render of a 3D model. But that doesn't disprove the lens' existence: Sigma use renders like this as product images all the time.
But someone else could easily have created the model and rendered the image (using the same software?) to look like Sigma's images.

It would be an interesting lens option. Hopefully sharper than the EF 24-105/4 (and my experience with the Sigma GV lenses says that after calibration it probably would be). But at the same time bigger filters and increased weight (and possibly higher cost) would be negatives.
Like all these rumoured Sigma lenses, we'll have to wait and see. But fingers crossed!


----------



## RGF (Oct 13, 2013)

dburren said:


> Unfortunately I see no evidence that this lens is real. Sure it would be nice to see, and I'm hopeful that Sigma is preparing to introduce more lenses like this, but this image proves nothing.
> It is not a photograph. It is a software render of a 3D model. But that doesn't disprove the lens' existence: Sigma use renders like this as product images all the time.
> But someone else could easily have created the model and rendered the image (using the same software?) to look like Sigma's images.
> 
> ...



weight seems too heavy for this lens


----------



## dryanparker (Oct 13, 2013)

Not sure why someone would go through the process of faking images of a 24-105. It's just not a very polarizing offering. If this was an Art 14-24, seems that would be different!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 13, 2013)

If Sigma had some inside information that Canon 24-105L will be discontinued or replaced by a more expensive model, this gap can be filled successfully by hypothetical Sigma 24-105.


----------



## Menace (Oct 14, 2013)

If the Sigma offering has better IQ and is cheaper than Canon - it's likely to be very successful. However, I believe healthy competition is good for consumers as Canon will reply with something even better. Interesting development.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 14, 2013)

I think it's safe to say that the Sigma (hypothetically) will be sharper, have less distortion and much improved image stabilization. I would like to think that Sigma knows that folks like weather sealing in the Canon version and would hopefully include it in theirs. I don't think the added weight will hurt too much since most folks are probably using it as a single lens solution and so intend to leave their tele at home. AF speed and accuracy will be the determining factor as to whether this is a really good lens or a great one.

I have no interest in this lens anyway. I'm still waiting for an 85 and a 135.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 14, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma has the same focal length range & max aperture, and it extends just like Canon's. So what would make one choose it over Canon kit?
> ...



Agreed. 

In theory, the Canon 24-105L is a really good walk-around lens. But I've never been impressed with it's IQ. IMO, it's really a $800 retail-priced lens. Not $1150. It's only marginally better than the Canon 18-200 EF-S lens... If the 18-200 was an EF, I'd probably get it instead of the 24-105. It's that good.

If the Sigma is a good 20% better than Canon's and possibly $200 less expensive, I'd be down for that.


----------



## gunnar997 (Oct 14, 2013)

this looks really similar to the Canon 17-55 2.8. Focus ring size zoom ring looks a tad smaller. But still looks pretty real just cause its a similar design doesn't mean its fake. There are only so many designs out there.

I want them to update the rest of their prime line-up though! they have the 35 1.4, now where is a new 24 50 and 85 1.4? thats what I want long as they hold form with the 35!
Also prime tele's! 300 400 and 500! expensive still just for their size but, they'd have to be cheaper than Canon's line-up.


----------



## Zv (Oct 14, 2013)

I remember when images of the 18-35 f/1.8 first surfaced. We all thought those were fakes, and look what happened. 

I reckon the lens exists, maybe it looks like this or maybe it doesn't. Either way you know Sigma are gonna do something soon! 

I can't see it being cheaper than the current Canon version. If it does, I'd be tempted. Well who wouldn't?


----------



## AussieSimon (Oct 14, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>I will leave you guys to debate how legit the *photograph* is below. To my eyes, it looks pretty good.</p>



TLDR: That is not a photograph!

If it's not blindingly obvious to you that this is a 3D rendering, your eyes need checking. And it's not even a particularly good 3D rendering either, with absolutely no surface texture to speak of. I'm not saying it isn't an official press picture created by Sigma, but it's pretty embarrassing for a photography website to mistake an artificial drawing for a photograph.


----------



## luciolepri (Oct 14, 2013)

I'm not interested in this lens, so I don't care much about this rumor. My only hope is that putting a little focusing ring at the bottom of the lens and a big zoom ring at the top, like in the Tamron 24-70/2.8 and in these pictures of the Sigma 24-105, won't become the new trend...
I can't find any good reason for that, while I can find plenty of downsides. I really don't get it.


----------



## flanker (Oct 14, 2013)

Photo/3D rendering looks professional.
But 82mm and +200g? It must be priced like 17-70. In other way forget. 
For other brands than Canon can be more attractive.
"A" sign is strange. But Sigma should think different to users. That's is no problem.


----------



## endiendo (Oct 14, 2013)

hi,
It's true that the Canon 24-105 F4 L is not really impressive. One of the "cheapest" L.. but the range is very useful when we want to walk "light".
That's said, the Sigma is much bigger and heavier, and, I think, every Canon 24-105 owner has a better lens when he wants to really take a very good shot on a specific "goal" subject. I'm not sure if I would change if I was in that case.
And, my wife and I have had already 2 sigma, one small for the first reflex of my wife.. I remember it was something like 24-135.. I'm not sure.. the first example we receive was just out of focus. The second, even well focused, was not sharp at all. 
Then, more recently, we bought the 100-300 f2.8 is os hsm (first stabilized version), and after 4 months, we had it back to service.. the stabilizer was broken and making noise. they changed it and it is now ok.
But, 2 sigma lenses = 2 lenses back to sigma.
And, 4 canon lenses, 4 lenses without any problems.
I'm not sure I would buy a new sigma lens...


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 14, 2013)

AussieSimon said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>I will leave you guys to debate how legit the *photograph* is below. To my eyes, it looks pretty good.</p>
> ...



My Sigma 35mm also has "no surface texture to speak of." This image is in pretty much the same style as the official images released by Sigma for all other Global Vision lenses so, as you rightly say, this may well be an official Sigma image, which is the central point here.


----------



## HankMD (Oct 14, 2013)

Hesbehindyou said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > *NOTE: there is a shiny silver "A" on the side of the lens in the picture, meaning this is their "Art" line of lenses* - the same breed as the 35/1.4 that has blown away many many people.
> ...



It's not a fake unless someone has hacked Sigma's website as part of an elaborate joke.

I know because I stumbled onto Sigma's page on this camera lens, in both Japanese and English. I don't see Sigma linking to it on their list of Art lenses.

It says "Planned date available: September 2013 for Canon (to be determined for Sigma, Sony, Nikon, Pentax)".

English:
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_105_4/

Japanese:
http://www.sigma-global.com/jp/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_105_4/

Enjoy!

(First-time poster here.)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 14, 2013)

HankMD said:


> Hesbehindyou said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Looks real, thanks. Dual telescoping barrel is a bit of a disappointment - more wobble and potential leak paths.


----------



## flanker (Oct 14, 2013)

C: 83,5mm x 107mm, 670g, weather sealed, one telescoping barrel, 
S: 88,6mm x 107mm, 885g, NOT weather sealed, two telescoping barrels.

Sigma must have awesome-cosmic-stellar IQ and price if I will buy it.


----------



## sanj (Oct 14, 2013)

AussieSimon said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>I will leave you guys to debate how legit the *photograph* is below. To my eyes, it looks pretty good.</p>
> ...



Hahahaha. It is real dude. You just embarrassed yourself!


----------



## sanj (Oct 14, 2013)

I am very interested.


----------



## Tiedtke (Oct 14, 2013)

This is awesome. Now, Sigma, give me that 135mm f/1.8 OS please? 8)


----------



## Einstein333 (Oct 14, 2013)

baervan said:


> sounds a bit unnecessary the canon is not even that expensive..



Disagree. I guess it's not the price that will make the big difference, but the Sigma will most probably be way sharper than the Canon


----------



## preppyak (Oct 14, 2013)

AJ said:


> What's that sound I hear? It's the sound of Canon 24-70/4 IS sales imploding


Yep, if they can price this at like, $800 retail...then it probably destroys the 24-105L (because it retails at $1150 and is only "cheap" if you buy used or from un-authorized dealers), and the 24-70L IS would have to drop a lot in price to stay relevant.

That may be what Sigma is going for. Either force canon to update their 24-105, or kill their profit from their newest lens


----------



## Albi86 (Oct 14, 2013)

Guys, it's 19 elements in 14 groups. 

Sigma is not in for a cheap lens, most likely they're in for the best walkaround in the block.


----------



## Pi (Oct 14, 2013)

preppyak said:


> Yep, if they can price this at like, $800 retail...then it probably destroys the 24-105L (because it retails at $1150 and is only "cheap" if you buy used or from un-authorized dealers), and the 24-70L IS would have to drop a lot in price to stay relevant.
> 
> That may be what Sigma is going for. Either force canon to update their 24-105, or kill their profit from their newest lens



With the typical Sigma AF problems, the Sigma poses no real danger for Canon. Canon will still sell thousands of 24-104's in kits.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 14, 2013)

While I am interested in any new lenses that promise quality and novelty I am surprised at how many people are disparaging the Canon 24-105L. 
Enormous numbers of copies are out there and still command high-ish prices used and new ones sell steadily it hardly seems that it is a pig.
My own copy is very sharp with admitted weakness in soft edges and distortion but I am able to overcome the distortion in LR and the sharpness in the corners is acceptable when stopped down to f11 in those images that need it.

My biggest concern with the Sigma is that even with the great and admirable improvements they have made in IQ and build quality, their AF performance leaves a lot to be desired. Various review sites have noted the sometimes iffy AF performance and my own experience mirrors that. 
If I knew that the AF would be on par with any of my Canon lenses I would be on it in a flash.


----------



## preppyak (Oct 14, 2013)

Normalnorm said:


> Enormous numbers of copies are out there and still command high-ish prices used and new ones sell steadily it hardly seems that it is a pig.


I dont know if I'd call it high-ish prices anymore...they don't move for anything more than $750 anymore, and you can get them brand-new unkitted for <$800 quite commonly. It's really the drop in price (easily $100-150 drop in the market over the last year) that has them selling steadily. But, as Sigma has shown, they can produce sharper lenses with less distortion for that same price. It at least forces Canon to make their prices reasonable. 

I agree with some of the initial posters though, this is probably a bigger steal for Nikon users who can get it much cheaper than their 24-120.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Oct 14, 2013)

While interesting, a 24-70 2.8 OS would have made an even more exciting combatant.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 14, 2013)

Looking forward to reading some test results when (if) this lens comes out. I have no issue with buying Sigma lenses these days. However, I think this lens would be more interest to Nikon shooters.

Now if the rumours on the rumour that it will be faster than f4 are true, that's a different story. 

In any case, it will be a while before anything happens.


----------



## hovland (Oct 14, 2013)

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_105_4/


----------



## candyman (Oct 14, 2013)

hovland said:


> http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_105_4/


Thanks but this link was already provided on the previous page. Did you read the thread?


----------



## zim (Oct 14, 2013)

As per the link previously supplied

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_105_4/data.html

Appologies for my general ignorance of MFT charts but are these good?


----------



## Ricku (Oct 14, 2013)

Hesbehindyou said:


> It's also proof positive that the pic is a fake. IIRC the Art designation is for lenses with a large maximum aperture.





Janbo Makimbo said:


> I think the pics are very good fakes...






dburren said:


> Unfortunately I see no evidence that this lens is real. This image proves nothing.





AussieSimon said:


> That is not a photograph! If it's not blindingly obvious to you that this is a 3D rendering, your eyes need checking. And it's not even a particularly good 3D rendering either, with absolutely no surface texture to speak of.


----------



## AussieSimon (Oct 15, 2013)

sanj said:


> AussieSimon said:
> 
> 
> > TLDR: That is not a photograph!
> ...



TLDR: I'm still correct, it's not a photograph.

My only point was that a photography blog should be embarrassed for mistaking an artificial picture for an actual photograph. And I made it clear that I wasn't making any claims about whether it represented a real product or not -- I acknowledged that it may have been an official press picture. Yes, the product is real, but it's still not a photograph. You just embarrassed yourself!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 15, 2013)

AndreeOnline said:


> While interesting, a 24-70 2.8 OS would have made an even more exciting combatant.


If you think that adding an image stabiliser will make a mediocre lens greater?
The only people this lens will please are Sigma fans and kid people who buy it that they have got a cheaper equivelent of the Canon and is there fore better and that they are smart purchasers....


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 15, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AndreeOnline said:
> 
> 
> > While interesting, a 24-70 2.8 OS would have made an even more exciting combatant.
> ...


Kinda harsh and immature to call those who use Sigma lenses as "kid people" ... maybe you haven't seen awesome images (that too millions of them) made by "kid people".


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 15, 2013)

AussieSimon said:


> TLDR: I'm still correct, it's not a photograph.


Perfect example of an immature comment  ... but the font size was too small ;D


----------



## Woody (Oct 15, 2013)

Much heavier. 82 mm filter size. The same old same old Sigma inconsistent AF.

No, thanks. I'll pass.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 15, 2013)

Woody said:


> Much heavier. 82 mm filter size. The same old same old Sigma inconsistent AF.


Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" :


----------



## candyman (Oct 15, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Much heavier. 82 mm filter size. The same old same old Sigma inconsistent AF.
> ...


The past problems with inconsistent AF caused a lot of damage on the Sigma products that even today - where AF improved - people don't choose Sigma simply because of their experience in the past. That is something Sigma is, or should work on to improve. I dd not have AF problems with my Sigma 50 f/1.4 when I owned the lens.


----------



## Woody (Oct 15, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" :



On Sigma website before it was taken down: 
Lens Construction: 19 elements in 14 groups
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 3.5in x 4.3in
Maximum magnification ratio: 1:4.6
Weight: 885g / 31.2oz
Minimum focusing distance: 45cm /17.7in
Angle of view (35mm equivalent): 84.1°-23.3°
Filter size: 82mm
HSM delivers high AF speed and quiet performance
Offers F/4 brightness throughout the zoom range
OS (Optical Stabilizer) functionality
Super Multi-Layer Coating reduces flare and ghosting
Rounded 9-blade diaphragm
Mount conversion service available
Sigma USB Dock compatible

As for inconsistent AF, well, I had the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC (ART) lens. Used it for a week and got rid of it. DPReview had similar problems with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens. The Sigma 24-105 f/4 won't be any better... of course its f/4 aperture may help to mask some of its AF problems.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 15, 2013)

Woody said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" :
> ...


Knowing a few more specs still does not qualify anyone from knowing that it will be the "same old same old Sigma inconsistent AF" ... bashing a product without it even being released (let alone seeing/reading a review) does not come across as an unbiased opinion/comment. The least decent thing we can do is at least wait for it to be released and read/see few reviews from people who have actually used it.


----------



## Albi86 (Oct 15, 2013)

Woody said:


> As for inconsistent AF, well, I had the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC (ART) lens. Used it for a week and got rid of it. DPReview had similar problems with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens. The Sigma 24-105 f/4 won't be any better... of course its f/4 aperture may help to mask some of its AF problems.



You mean that test DPReview did trying to focus on the white eye of a white marble horse?? Then they tried to use the USB dock and stated that it took several hours to configure it?

Curiously, because the new Canon 24-70/2.8 wasn't that great on the 650D, they felt the urge to specify that _"As always, though, it must be noted that focus speed and accuracy is dependent upon a number of variables, including the camera body used, subject contrast, and light levels."_


----------



## Woody (Oct 15, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> You mean that test DPReview did trying to focus on the white eye of a white marble horse?? Then they tried to use the USB dock and stated that it took several hours to configure it?
> 
> Curiously, because the new Canon 24-70/2.8 wasn't that great on the 650D, they felt the urge to specify that _"As always, though, it must be noted that focus speed and accuracy is dependent upon a number of variables, including the camera body used, subject contrast, and light levels."_



My experience with the Sigma 30 f/1.4 (ART) lens exhibits the same symptons of inconsistent AF even with highly contrasting subjects. All the microadjustment won't help inconsistent AF.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 16, 2013)

Woody said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" :
> ...



You could always buy a Sigma dock and spend an hour or so fixing Sigma's poor QC for them at your expense 

Seriously, I can't see any benefit this lens can offer a Canon user. I'm sure it's been brought out to bring a popular Canon lens formula to Nikon and Sigma mounts. For Canon users...the 24-105 f4 LIS is most likely going to be a better choice. The Canon one has been around for so long, it's very cheap for what it does!


----------



## jm (Oct 17, 2013)

I agree with most of the comments here - whats the point? this is Canon's kit lens for many of their deals and it's pretty good. Even if the Sigma is slightly better, I don't think people will fork out $ for something that many people have or know someone that has.

I think they need to offer something either different or better and this looks like none of those things.

http://www.johnmckayphotography.com/


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 17, 2013)

jm said:


> I agree with most of the comments here - whats the point? this is Canon's kit lens for many of their deals and it's pretty good. Even if the Sigma is slightly better, I don't think people will fork out $ for something that many people have or know someone that has.
> 
> I think they need to offer something either different or better and this looks like none of those things.
> 
> http://www.johnmckayphotography.com/


+1 ... I think this new Sigma lens will most likely eat into Nikon and Sony sales than Canon (coz Nikon equivalent is too expensive and Sony does not have a similar lens).
BTW, I checked out your website ... great portraits, very beautifully put together.


----------

