# Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Sample Images



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 31, 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-sample-images/"></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-sample-images/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Sample images

</strong>Sample images from the upcoming <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/4L DG OS Art</a> lens have appeared over at lenstip.com.</p>
<p>The sample images look good to me and the $899 price tag for the lens more than justified.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/2065-news-Sigma_A_24-105_mm_f_4_DG_OS_HSM_-_sample_images.html" target="_blank">View sample images here</a> | Preorder: <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 OS at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 31, 2013)

In 24mm barrel distortion seems imperceptible.  But vignette remains even at F8.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 31, 2013)

The shots look nice but just as I thought, I'm not bowled over. In this one for example...

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig24-105OS/sig24-105_fot25.JPG

This is f/5.6? I am almost thinking my Canon 24-105 is sharper. Certainly the Canon looks to have a bit more barrel distortion, but I knew that was going to be the case. It's possible the Sigma has less CA than the Canon, but as for ultimate resolution...I'm glad I bought the Canon. Again though, I like Sigma's products in general. I don't think this particular lens is as good a value as many of Sigma's other lenses, however...at least based on these samples.


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 31, 2013)

I am a big fan of Sigma and WANT to love this lens, but these images don't look any better than Canon 24-105 images...in fact they look worse. Maybe a bad copy?


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 31, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> I am a big fan of Sigma and WANT to love this lens, but these images don't look any better than Canon 24-105 images...in fact they look worse. Maybe a bad copy?



Agree, images iq look bad. 
I doubt Sigma give bad copy to first testers


----------



## jrbdmb (Oct 31, 2013)

I am also a fan of the "new" Sigma, but I just don't get this lens. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt as far as IQ, but when I see that the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is about the same size, lighter (!), and about $200 more than this Sigma 4.0 lens, I pick the Tamron in a heartbeat.


----------



## Pi (Oct 31, 2013)

I think lenstip keeps the sharpening at zero with their tests.


----------



## RomainF (Oct 31, 2013)

Could be really more interesting for a Nikon ; Pentax ; Sony guy, don't forget that.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 31, 2013)

The sharpness in the center looks good but the corners are not at the level of "NEW QUALITY STANDARD" Sigma.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 31, 2013)

.
Something must be wrong. They look awful to me. Very surprising.


----------



## Harv (Nov 1, 2013)

To put it as succinctly as I can... I'm underwhelmed.


----------



## Pi (Nov 1, 2013)

Never been a Sigma fan - but most of those shots should have been taken at f/8 - f/11, with standard sharpness settings. There might be filed curvature problems as well.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 1, 2013)

Maybe its harder to make a 24-105 than it looks.


----------



## androiduk (Nov 1, 2013)

Those pics are actually softer than the ones from my Tamron 18-270.


----------



## dafrank (Nov 1, 2013)

The cyan-red lateral chromatic aberration is very obvious in all of the 5 or 6 shots I looked at full-size. It does not look up to the recent standards established by the faster Sigma "art' lenses in general with the LCA and soft corners at wider angles, etc. I would definitely pass unless the lens sold for under $500.00, and was used as a fun walk -around only. Not up to professional standards, especially for an f/4.0 lens. Canon's 24-70 f/4.0 is also flawed, but I think that, if memory serves me, the Canon 24-105 is better than this. This figures, as Canon appears ready to soon replace their 24-105, as a kit lens, with the substandard 24-70 f/4.0. Perfect. :

Regards,
David


----------



## gary (Nov 1, 2013)

Stick with the Canon


----------



## dsc888 (Nov 1, 2013)

gary said:


> Stick with the Canon



I agree! I spotted the vignetting and the CA immediately. Plus I don't believe this lens is even weather sealed on top of the increased weight and larger 82mm filter size. Let's just hope it focuses correctly and quickly but something tells me it won't be as good in the AF department.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> I think lenstip keeps the sharpening at zero with their tests.



Even still...


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 1, 2013)

jrbdmb said:


> I am also a fan of the "new" Sigma, but I just don't get this lens. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt as far as IQ, but when I see that the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is about the same size, lighter (!), and about $200 more than this Sigma 4.0 lens, I pick the Tamron in a heartbeat.



Agree, but you buy a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 24-105 f/4 for different reasons.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 1, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The sharpness in the center looks good but the corners are not at the level of "NEW QUALITY STANDARD" Sigma.



Nah the sharpness even in the center is just not there. The "acutance" is low.


----------



## pulseimages (Nov 1, 2013)

I guess the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence.


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > I think lenstip keeps the sharpening at zero with their tests.
> ...



They're JPEGs right out of the camera with zero sharpening. What you see is as much a camera fault as the lens'.

Most interesting for me, for this set, is the color rendition and bokeh. For sharpness we have to wait and see some RAW files properly handled.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 1, 2013)

I'm more dissapointed with the photographer than with the lens at this point. I think they did a very poor job at showing what the lens can and cannot do. I agree with the sceptics here though, that it does not look very promising. But I'll wait for someone like TDP to produce a more thorough review.


----------



## infared (Nov 1, 2013)

Oh boy....this does not look too exciting. the CA looks really bad (red box photo)...and the sharpness/micro contrast definitely has no WOW-Factor from what I can see in these images....that is for sure! (This preliminary set of images has more of an impression of the "Old Sigma").............makes my 24-70mm f/2.8 II as though it is worth the coin I dearly paid for it.


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 1, 2013)

infared said:


> Oh boy....this does not look too exciting. the CA looks really bad (red box photo)...and the sharpness/micro contrast definitely has no WOW-Factor from what I can see in these images....that is for sure! (This preliminary set of images has more of an impression of the "Old Sigma").............makes my 24-70mm f/2.8 II as though it is worth the coin I dearly paid for it.



My screen at work is not the best, but I didn't spot such terrible CA. Are you talking about the red post box?


----------



## Zv (Nov 1, 2013)

Is it just me or do the images look blurry? I'm viewing them on my iPad and they look kinda garbage. The shots themselves are not very interesting, maybe that doesn't help. I was expecting more. I'll have a proper look on my monitor at home.


----------



## traveller (Nov 1, 2013)

I have to agree with the opinion of the majority, this Sigma's IQ seems pretty similar to the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS; where is Sigma's value proposition? Perhaps they're targeting Pentax or Sony users, because I can't see why anyone with a Canon or Nikon would choose this lens. Either this is a poor copy, or I foresee heavy discounting...


----------



## infared (Nov 1, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Oh boy....this does not look too exciting. the CA looks really bad (red box photo)...and the sharpness/micro contrast definitely has no WOW-Factor from what I can see in these images....that is for sure! (This preliminary set of images has more of an impression of the "Old Sigma").............makes my 24-70mm f/2.8 II as though it is worth the coin I dearly paid for it.
> ...



Yes...zoom in on the white lettering POCZTA on the left side of the box...I am looking on an iPad...I will have to check this out on my iMac later...but in general...there is no WOW factor with this lens....it has to have that or it won't sell....just buy the Canon otherwise...it's as good or better and less expensive. Simple.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

Not impressed! I only looked at the 24mm since that has been the rough spot for almost all of these types of zooms. When I see it I think 24-105 and that's not good.

My 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS both annihilate what I see here at 24mm. The 24-70 f/4 IS may cost a little more but it sure as heck seems worth it to me going by these samples (of course it is true that many early samples, for whatever reason, turn to be taken by those who can't get anything sharp out of lens). If you get one of those $1000-1025 deals for the 24-70 f/4 IS I'd sure spend the extra $100-125 over what I see here. Or save some hundreds and grab a nice $600 new split kit 24-105L.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> The shots look nice but just as I thought, I'm not bowled over. In this one for example...
> 
> http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig24-105OS/sig24-105_fot25.JPG
> 
> This is f/5.6? I am almost thinking my Canon 24-105 is sharper. Certainly the Canon looks to have a bit more barrel distortion, but I knew that was going to be the case. It's possible the Sigma has less CA than the Canon, but as for ultimate resolution...I'm glad I bought the Canon. Again though, I like Sigma's products in general. I don't think this particular lens is as good a value as many of Sigma's other lenses, however...at least based on these samples.



Yeah and even at f/8 it's mostly mush at the edges never mind corners at 24mm for sure. It doesn't look remotely close to what the new standard zooms from Canon can do or even the Tamron 24-70 VC for that matter. And yet it is actually larger and heavier than all of them, other than maybe the Tamron and some of these others are f/2.8!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

Heck my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 blows away what I see here center frame across the board and edges when stopped down if maybe not when wide open in that case. And that lens weighs like a third of an ounce and cost me like $325.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

gary said:


> Stick with the Canon



good call


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

Although to be fair, maybe lentip is just clueless when it comes to taking shots. I do have to say that many first samples even from great Canon lenses and bodies have looked like trash. I'm always amazed who they so often end up putting their stuff in the hands of to produce show off first samples, since it seems to be people who can't get a sharp shot out of a 135 f/2 at f/5.6 even center frame and who somehow end up making ISO100 shots appear as if they needed and had applied NR suitable for ISO25,600. And then as soon as the equipments gets in the hands of any old random joe blow in the forums and suddenly the quality looks 10x better. I don't get it.


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 1, 2013)

hmmm really soft image quality :-\ ... and some CA's... :-X ... I thought it would better :-[


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Although to be fair, maybe lentip is just clueless when it comes to taking shots. I do have to say that many first samples even from great Canon lenses and bodies have looked like trash. I'm always amazed who they so often end up putting their stuff in the hands of to produce show off first samples, since it seems to be people who can't get a sharp shot out of a 135 f/2 at f/5.6 even center frame and who somehow end up making ISO100 shots appear as if they needed and had applied NR suitable for ISO25,600. And then as soon as the equipments gets in the hands of any old random joe blow in the forums and suddenly the quality looks 10x better. I don't get it.



+1

I like their tests, but often it seems to me that they are too "clinical". In their effort at being scientific, they often neglect how the lenses are going to be used and the samples end up being a poor indication of real-world performance. As in this case: no one shoots JPEG only with sharpening turned off.


----------



## McBrad (Nov 1, 2013)

I'm interested in this lens for video. How do you think Sigma's OS (Optical Stabilizer) performs against Canon's IS (Image Stabilizer)?


----------



## RomainF (Nov 1, 2013)

McBrad said:


> I'm interested in this lens for video. How do you think Sigma's OS (Optical Stabilizer) performs against Canon's IS (Image Stabilizer)?



The Canon one is definitely better than the Sigma you can find on their EX lenses. Really smoother and quieter.
Moreover, stabilisation is a fragile part of the lens. I'm not talking about the reliability of the "new Sigma" but on my EX (which was quite their top of the line), the stab broke down one year and a month after the purchase (intensive daily use)... And on their EX 120-300, it was the noisiest i've ever heard.

I've been a proud and very satisfied Sigma user for a year and a month (_I find that their last 70-200 is optically a bit better than my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS I_). Thinking that issues only happen on other people's gear. I'll never buy one of their product anymore. 
When your 1000€ and more Canon gear needs to be fixed, you can get a replacement one until you get back yours (usually a few days or a week later). Sigma needs 2 or 3 weeks and about 250/300$ to fix it and you're on your own during this time.


----------



## infared (Nov 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Although to be fair, maybe lentip is just clueless when it comes to taking shots. I do have to say that many first samples even from great Canon lenses and bodies have looked like trash. I'm always amazed who they so often end up putting their stuff in the hands of to produce show off first samples, since it seems to be people who can't get a sharp shot out of a 135 f/2 at f/5.6 even center frame and who somehow end up making ISO100 shots appear as if they needed and had applied NR suitable for ISO25,600. And then as soon as the equipments gets in the hands of any old random joe blow in the forums and suddenly the quality looks 10x better. I don't get it.




OK...I appologize....my previous quotes were from looking at the images on my iPad with Retina display...(sorry...I won't do that again....it is a non-scientific experience when it comes to viewing a photo file!!!!!)...I am on my desktop computer right now....I agree with you...EVERYTHING looks SOFT...like REALLY soft....I think something is amiss here.... I think we all REALLY need to wait for another review....Roger...(at Lens Rental...can you help us out here!!!!! LOL!). I am going to throw these samples out as an error...and keep an open mind about the lens. Something is just not right here.


----------



## infared (Nov 1, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> Something must be wrong. They look awful to me. Very surprising.



+100!


----------



## Zv (Nov 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just me or do the images look blurry? I'm viewing them on my iPad and they look kinda garbage. The shots themselves are not very interesting, maybe that doesn't help. I was expecting more. I'll have a proper look on my monitor at home.
> ...



At these apertures and focal lengths and distances SOMETHING ought to be sharp, right?? AFMA or not.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 1, 2013)

Had a look over some of these images and it just confirms my thoughts that this lens is aimed at bringing the success of the 24-105 zoom range to Nikon and Sony, 'cos it doesn't look like it will replace the Canon version.


----------



## e_honda (Nov 1, 2013)

I like what Sigma has done and I absolutely love my 35mm 1.4 Art lens, but I just don't understand the rationale of making this particular lens.

Sure, the "list" price of this lens is lower, but with the amount of white boxed Canon 24-105's floating out on the market, this is a case where the street price of the OEM's product is going to be lower than that of the 3rd party manufacturer.

Put another way, most everyone is going to ALREADY have the OEM version of this lens. Sigma's version would have to be noticeably better for people to want to buy it when they already have the Canon. And the early returns suggest it isn't better at all.

I'd rather them put their energy into making a premium, Art version of the 50mm.


----------



## RomainF (Nov 2, 2013)

Is it just me or i feel that my 35L is sharper at 1.4...?


----------



## McBrad (Nov 4, 2013)

A couple images on Sigma's site.

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


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 4, 2013)

McBrad said:


> A couple images on Sigma's site.
> 
> http://sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_105_4/gallery.html



Thanks.

These samples do look much better, at least as far as center sharpness is concerned.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 4, 2013)

They look good enough to make a more thorough review by some of the more reputable sites more interesting. We don´t know anything about what body they used and how the images were processed though.


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 4, 2013)

Eldar said:


> They look good enough to make a more thorough review by some of the more reputable sites more interesting. We don´t know anything about what body they used and how the images were processed though.



It's the Sigma SD1 - this is why I said center sharpness 

How they were processed is not super relevant to me. I process my pictures too, so I'm more interested in the potential of a lens more than how JPGs OOC look.


----------

