# Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS on the Way? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 8, 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/2013/09/sigma-24-105-f4-os-on-the-way-cr1/"></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/2013/09/sigma-24-105-f4-os-on-the-way-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>More from Sigma?

</strong>We’ve been told to expect an announcement some time in 2013 for a 24-105mm f/4 OS lens from Sigma.</p>
<p>Such a lens could be a big winner if it performs better than the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-USA/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS</a> and the EF 24-105 f/4L IS.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.valuetech.de/blog/rumors/2013/09/08/sigma-24-105-mm-f-4-dg-os-hsm" target="_blank">VT</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## TLN (Sep 8, 2013)

I'm glad sigma going that way. Looks on a quality of ther latest lenses they gonna kick canon's ass. This makes me happy when I look on latest canon lens prices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2013)

The kit lens price of the current EF 24-105mm f/4L IS will be hard to beat. It's been as low as $500 recently.


----------



## Ricku (Sep 8, 2013)

After seeing the awesome optical performance of Sigma's latest lenses (especialy the 35mm and 18-35mm), it would not surprise me if this new 24-105 is on par with the 24-70L II.

I don't know what has happend to Sigma, but they are not the company they used to be.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 8, 2013)

Noooo!!! I love my 24-105 and don't want to be tempted to replace it.... :-[ :-[ :-[

Sigma rules by the way ;D


----------



## deleteme (Sep 8, 2013)

Have to agree with Neuro.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.

My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.


----------



## Ricku (Sep 8, 2013)

Normalnorm said:


> Have to agree with Neuro.
> The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.
> 
> My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.


It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.

Sharpness is probably one of the things that Sigma is going to bring to the table.. And lots of it.


----------



## zim (Sep 8, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > Have to agree with Neuro.
> ...



$500 for a Canon 24-105?? not for all of us!

If sigma bring more sharpness (and for a walk around I think the Canon 24-105 is fantastic as it is) to the table then it will be a real winner.

I'm wondering why Sigma would go head to head with that lens though? wouldn't the 50 1.4/2 be more obvious? unless they maybe they see it as a near future gap in the market.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 8, 2013)

Don't believe this. The market is awash with 24-105Ls, as others have pointed out they are pretty cheap, and the second hand values have plummeted due to units available. 

If they have suddenly decided to get into the 24-105 market they are rather late to the party.

Actually just thinking on this further; of course Sigma lenses can be made to fit any of the major cameras. Maybe they hope to make the 24-105 as ubiquitous with the other major brands as it is with Canon.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 8, 2013)

I've been thinking about picking up a Canon 24-105 (seen prices as low as ~650) but perhaps I'll have to wait now. I'm definitely a fast prime guy, so what attracts me is the IS. Right now I don't have an IS option at ANY focal length, and having one, go-to IS lens covering the majority of the focal lengths I use would be handy.


----------



## Joe M (Sep 8, 2013)

I would love to see the 24-105 improve it's sharpness especially on the long end. A little increase in the wide corners would be great too. Right now all my lenses are made by Canon and if you really want to tempt me Sigma, how about 24-120? Or how about 24-105 F2.8? Is it even possible to make that lens and keep it sharp with a reasonable amount of distortion? It would probably be a heavy unwieldy beast but a little longer and faster sure would be nice.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 8, 2013)

I'm a little puzzled at this one. It's not that I doubt that Sigma can improve on the optical quality of the 24-105L, but that lens is praised for being competent and, as has already been pointed out, it represents a strong value at this stage in its development. It could be sharper, it could have less distortion, it could have less vignetting, but it's not terrible in any of those areas either. It also has a very robust build quality and weather sealing (both of which I have had occasion to test in the two copies I've owned in the past). Sigma could probably improve in all of those areas (save build quality, perhaps), but I struggle to see where they could turn any of those things into a killer reason for the myriad 24-105L owners to change lenses.

Sigma has been filling a lot of unfilled niches recently, but this is anything but that. Curious.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Actually just thinking on this further; of course Sigma lenses can be made to fit any of the major cameras. Maybe they hope to make the 24-105 as ubiquitous with the other major brands as it is with Canon.



Good point - Nikon's 24-120/4 VR isn't that impressive, might be a market for that mount.


----------



## Pi (Sep 8, 2013)

Ricku said:


> It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.



I shoot landscapes with it very often when I travel. I have comparison shots between it and the 35L. Hard to tell a difference, even in the corners. It is f/11 - f/16 after all. The biggest problem in the corners is not softness but that the objects there tend to be too close.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.
> ...



The resolution potential of all these lenses merge from about f11 onwards. With careful judging of the hyperfocal distance I find f8 is more than adequate on a 35mm, even 5.6 on a 24mm. Makes a huge difference for critical sharpness. The 35L is out of the 24-105's league when used in this way.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 8, 2013)

If it was dramatically sharper than the Canon, I'd be interested, even if the Canon was cheaper. I have been afraid that Canon will never make another 24-105, opting instead lately for expensive lenses that stop or start at the 70mm cutoff (24-70 and 70-200 or 300). 

The 24-105 focal range is just so much more versatile than the 24-70 it's not even funny. 70 mm is too short for what most people would say is good portrait length, and 70mm is generally also too short for sports, etc. That extra part from 71-105 adds a ton of usefulness for many things. If Sigma or Canon would release an improved 24-105 I would definitely be interested.


----------



## Radiating (Sep 8, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/sigma-24-105-f4-os-on-the-way-cr1/\"></glusone></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/2013/09/sigma-24-105-f4-os-on-the-way-cr1/\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>More from Sigma?
> 
> 
> ...



This is a very useful focal range, if Sigma makes a better 24-105mm count me in.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 9, 2013)

Wow. Maybe time to invest in some stocks. XD
The canon 24-105 L is going to be hard to beat at the current market.. But I'm impressed regardless. More competition, better for consumers.  
I have not seen one for 500! That's crazy!


----------



## deleteme (Sep 9, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > Have to agree with Neuro.
> ...


In my experience the 24-105 is plenty sharp. I rented the 24-70 2.8 L II and found it only a touch sharper than my lens. 
For real world work I have found it to be a great step up from the old 28-75 Tamron that was touted as the top "value" lens at the time ~4-5yrs ago.
The real world for me is working with the vagaries of hand held shooting, motion and the use to which the final image is destined. Even the most demanding applications (large prints) are well served by this lens. 

Studio shooting with side by side comparison to my Canon 100 macro (on camera stand) show the macro to have the edge in absolute sharpness and better contrast but no client will ever see the difference.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 9, 2013)

when the pro built Canon 24-105 f4 IS and 24-70 f4 IS already exist? And two f2.8 non IS variants also exist. one that set the world on fire, and the other is probably readily found for a very reasonable price. why would i care if Sigma made one? 
sorry, don't care. 
when was that 135mm f2 (or was it 1.8?)IS supposed to drop?


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Sep 9, 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if this was really a 24-105mm f/2.8 for full frame users. With the release of the 18-35 f/1.8 one might expect more amazing releases with Sigma.


----------



## Zv (Sep 9, 2013)

In an interview between a Sigma lens constructor and Lenstip - 

"Q: The 28-70 mm f/2.8 class lenses have been superseded by 24-70 mm f/2.8 instruments. Taking into the account the success of the Sigma 18-35 mm are you already thinking about a full frame construction of that type or rather about e.g. a 28-70 mm f/2.0 or a 28-50 mm f/2.0 model?
A: We don’t have a very concrete idea at the moment, yet we will keep on considering designing large aperture zoom lenses."

Link to interview - http://www.lenstip.com/136.1-article-Interview_with_constructor_of_Sigma_lenses.html

This doesn't sound like they're thinking of releasing a full frame general purpose zoom lens anytime soon, and if they did it would be a fast zoom like f/2.8 or f/2. 

I think this rumor is baloney.

I hope Sigma bring out an updated 50, we could really use a modern day fast and sharp wide open 50!


----------



## Woody (Sep 9, 2013)

If I have to choose between the old Canon 24-105 and the new Sigma variation, I will always pick the former regardless of how good the optics are in the latter. One simple reason: AF reliability.

Addendum: From http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8/5
"We shot with a range of Canon SLRs, from the entry-level EOS 100D to the top-of-the-line EOS 7D, and all had problems focusing absolutely correctly all the time. This was usually only obvious when shooting at apertures larger than F2.8. In general, we got slightly better results by using the central AF point (with recomposition) compared to using off-centre AF points, but this didn't eliminate focus errors entirely...

We looked at whether the focus problems we saw from the 18-35mm could be mitigated by using autofocus microadjustments. With a Sigma USB Dock to hand, we set about determining and programming in a full set of autofocus microadjust parameters for all of Sigma's specified focal lengths and focus distances (18, 24, 28 and 35mm; infinity, 0.5m, 0.35m and 0.28m). This took several hours to set up, even with specialised focusing targets to hand...

This procedure certainly improved overall focus accuracy when shooting at the distances used for microadjustment. However these are fixed by the software, and there's no option to specifically correct any distance between infinity and 0.5m. Unfortunately though, the vast majority of subjects end up somewhere in between, and we found that the lens still had some problems with focus accuracy even when fully programmed as above."

I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC HSM Art lens. Its AF accuracy leaves much to be desired even though it is optically sound.

This only reinforces my old belief: avoid 3rd party lenses at all costs.


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 9, 2013)

Ricku said:


> I don't know what has happend to Sigma, but they are not the company they used to be.



That's a good thing! Hopefully Sigma will never return to their old Stinkma ways again!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The kit lens price of the current EF 24-105mm f/4L IS will be hard to beat. It's been as low as $500 recently.



Yeah but the IQ can VERY clearly be beaten....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 9, 2013)

zim said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Normalnorm said:
> ...



They already did their 50 1.4


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Actually just thinking on this further; of course Sigma lenses can be made to fit any of the major cameras. Maybe they hope to make the 24-105 as ubiquitous with the other major brands as it is with Canon.
> ...



Neither is Canon's. The 24-105 is easily the worst L lens I have ever tried (tried three, couldn't stand to own any of them for even as long as a week).

Sure the 24-70 II is amazing, I have one, but it costs $2000+. LOTs of room under that. The 24-70 f/4 IS also has to beaten and that has been sold for as low as $1025 so that is more of a challenge, but maybe they can manage to beat it for $750 or tie? Also have to beat the Tamron at $1200, although some might not like the bulk of the Tamron.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The kit lens price of the current EF 24-105mm f/4L IS will be hard to beat. It's been as low as $500 recently.
> ...



Sure, it can. In the case of the Sigma 35/1.4 vs. the Canon 35L, it's (generally) better IQ and cheaper. But if it's better IQ *or* cheaper, it's not such a simple choice.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 9, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



Even at f/11 the FF corners and deepest edges on the 24-105 can still be weak in real world complex scenes all too often. The 24-70 II is every bit as good as the 24 1.4 II there OTOH.
It is not even sharpness at the corners either, even in the center it doesn't have the same micro-contrast pop as the 24-70 II or 24 1.4 II or 24 TSE II or Zeiss 21 (or likely 24 2.8 IS), but forget sharpness what about stuff like longitudinal CA? 24-105 gets a fair amount of PF/GF. The 24-70 f/4 IS has a good deal less and the 24-70 II has radically less, the 24-70 II is basically almost a true APO (and it also has ultra-precsion AF breaking measurements which mean that it can focus more precisely than most other lenses on a 5D3/1DX).


----------



## Woody (Sep 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Neither is Canon's. The 24-105 is easily the worst L lens I have ever tried (tried three, couldn't stand to own any of them for even as long as a week).



That is probably because you have only tried those which were manufactured long time ago. My copy which was bundled with the 6D is tack sharp wide open from 24 to 105 mm.

I attribute this to what Lensrentals calls Silent Changes http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/07/silent-changes:

"Sometimes changes like this that occur during the life of a lens (or camera) are done to address a problem. I can think of a half-dozen examples off of the top of my head; a few announced by the manufacturer but most not announced.

These aren’t always ‘secret upgrades’ as the paranoid among us like to think, but sometimes they are. Most often, though, they’re simply a change in subassembly supplier or a more effective way to manufacture a part, like this one."


----------



## pwp (Sep 9, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I've been thinking about picking up a Canon 24-105 (seen prices as low as ~650) but perhaps I'll have to wait now. I'm definitely a fast prime guy, so what attracts me is the IS. Right now I don't have an IS option at ANY focal length, and having one, go-to IS lens covering the majority of the focal lengths I use would be handy.


Carl, why wait? If you figure you need a 24-105, most copies of the Canon are just great. It hasn't earned the fact that so many photographers rate this their most used lens for no good reason. The Sigma is still vapor, the Canon exists. It has very good IS. Buy a pre-owned one if there are $$ pressures. If the Sigma turns out to be a winner, sell the Canon. You'll be unlikely to take a $$ hit on it.

Sigma does appear to be on a roll, and that's a good thing for everybody. The sharpness on the 18-35 f/1.8 has been getting plenty of attention, but there has been less said about Sigma's remaining bug-bear....AF accuracy. This is where you'll find the Canon pull comfortably ahead, delivering you more important keepers.

-PW


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 9, 2013)

I hope Sigma does it. I like the range 24-105 than the 24-70 for events.


----------



## eli452 (Sep 9, 2013)

my 24-105 copy is very good and for a walkabout lens i like af accuracy over
small iq diffrrence. as for cost...i have the 24-105l.


----------



## zim (Sep 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



So no need for Canon to upgrade any of their 50's either then, I think a fair few peps are looking for a new 50 art from Sig no?


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 9, 2013)

Why no one makes 24-105 f/2.8?


----------



## ahab1372 (Sep 9, 2013)

cliffwang said:


> Why no one makes 24-105 f/2.8?


Big Heavy Expensive


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 10, 2013)

Woody said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Neither is Canon's. The 24-105 is easily the worst L lens I have ever tried (tried three, couldn't stand to own any of them for even as long as a week).
> ...



one of them was as recent as a 5D3 kit lens, it was a little better, but still nothing to write home about (when being picky, it sure did not make me even begin to think of selling my 24 1.4 II, my 24-70 II not only got me thinking, it got me to do it; a recent 24-70 f/4 IS I looked at did better than the 24-105 too).

Of course now that the price of the 24-105 is more or less $500 kitted and $650 new split from kit it's a pretty good lens for this new price and it did seem to do noticeably better than the 28-135 I tried.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 10, 2013)

zim said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



Oh there has been a need for Canon to update their 50 1.4 since it came out. It uses a flawed AF design, not just bad but a literal design flaw. It's crzy they have not fixed it for all these years and just come out with a real USM version. They unique clutched micro USM AF it uses is terrible, the clutch breaks if you so much as think about it hah and the AF motor is very low precision, way too low for f/1.4.

Hmm I missed reading about the sigma 1.4 art, I guess they are coming out with a new one. Is it just updated to Art or completely new?


----------



## flanker (Sep 10, 2013)

I’m not fully satisfied with Canon EF 24-105L. Sometimes it is IQ, sometimes (but not many) maybe accuracy and speed of autofocus. Also f/4 is not top of the hill, but I know that to make faster lens with this focal range will lead to extreme big diameters of lens elements.

In other side, It is very usefull lens and I called it „it is as good compromise as it can be“ in all parameters. Hardly to find replacement.

So, if Sigma can beat the IQ, reliability and also important the price, I’m quite much interested in it. Maybe, if Sigma will try to make it at least with f/3.5 it will be more interesting to Canon users. If not, there will probably remains only other brand customers like Nikons or Sonys (Pentax don‘t have fullframe). I’m not sure it is enough for Sigma economists ...


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 10, 2013)

Sigma has balls. They are doing the unexpected And in a great way!
A 1.8 zoom was unheard of before...
I want a 24-105 f2.8. From canon or sigma...
Sigma can do it. Even if the lens is bigger than normal, I wouldn't care.
Please sigma! Do something radical again!


----------



## Pi (Sep 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> The current 24-105L suffers from serious distortion at the wide end. Unless I'm constrained for time, I won't use the 24-105 below ~35mm, instead I'll use the 17-40L.



It takes extra efforts to see that distortion - I have to disable the lens correction on LR or DXO. I would do it for pure academic reasons only.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The kit lens price of the current EF 24-105mm f/4L IS will be hard to beat. It's been as low as $500 recently.
> ...



Agreed - choice is good. But I wonder...the Sigma 35/1.4 is generally considered to be optically better than the Canon 35/1.4L. But I wonder how the picture would change if the Canon 35L were available for $300 _cheaper_ than the Sigma, instead of the other way around? Sure, some people will pay a premium for optical quality (and I'm one of them). But many people will look at the specs of the lenses, and when they're the same, go with the cheaper option...especially if that cheaper option has a red ring around it. 

Also, the rumor doesn't indicate which lens series this one would fall into (A, C, S), but so far only S lenses have weather sealing, and I don't see an standard zoom f/4 lens as a 'sports' lens, so that may become another differentiating factor. 

I did say 'hard to beat' but certainly not impossible. In fact, I expect if Sigma really does come out with the rumored lens, it will be in the C series, not weather sealed, but priced very competitively (equal to or cheaper than the kit price for the 24-105L). Sigma may also be banking on the possibility that Canon will discontinue the 24-105L.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 11, 2013)

I'm selling off my 24-105L.  I don't see a market for it when it's super saturated with 24-105L's.


----------

