# Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Discontinued



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 21, 2015)

```
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-art-production-on-hold/" target="_blank">We posted back in the fall that Sigma had halted production indefinitely of the relatively new 24-105 f/4 DG OS lens</a>. We’re now told that the lens is in fact discontinued and production has been halted forever.</p>
<p>There was no word as to why it was discontinued, I can only assume the market for a 24-105 on the Canon side is extremely saturated and that the Sigma wasn’t a big enough leap forward in terms of optical quality to purchase over the “kit” lens from Canon. There’s also a possibility the cost of production was too high to keep the price competitive.</p>
<p>We’re still waiting on an official release about this from Sigma.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## bereninga (Jan 21, 2015)

Wow! I guess the price just wasn't right for this one, esp since it wasn't weather-sealed and wasn't that much better optically vs the Canon version. I wonder how many are actually out there.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 21, 2015)

Maybe they are planning on a newer version?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 21, 2015)

Maybe Sigma will do what should have done from the beginning... ???

Rename as Sigma Contemporary : (not Art)  and lower the price to $ 700.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 22, 2015)

.
So indicative of the horrible state of "journalism" in the photo equipment world.

This is a great story -- and what media organization is pursuing it? None.

I think we need to get Roger from Lens Rentals on the case!


----------



## NaturaLight (Jan 22, 2015)

I bought this lens, and after extensively comparing it to my Canon 24-70 f2.8, I sold the Canon. This is an outstanding lens.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 22, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> So indicative of the horrible state of "journalism" in the photo equipment world.
> 
> This is a great story -- and what media organization is pursuing it? None.
> ...



I agree, this is strange, that's why I'm posting about it.


----------



## moreorless (Jan 22, 2015)

bereninga said:


> Wow! I guess the price just wasn't right for this one, esp since it wasn't weather-sealed and wasn't that much better optically vs the Canon version. I wonder how many are actually out there.



Never really understood why Sigma haven't sealed there latest lenses, with a general zoom like this its going to stand out as a clear negative in a lot of users eyes.

It does seem to be generally that these kinds of slightly extended mid range zooms are very tough for third parties to do well, I'm guessing because there areas the camera companies have invested a ton of money in as they get a lot of kit sales from them. Stuff like the Art primes is arguably the reverse as your talking more specialist lenses where the 3rd party markers can target different lens mounts.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 22, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-art-production-on-hold/" target="_blank">We posted back in the fall that Sigma had halted production indefinitely of the relatively new 24-105 f/4 DG OS lens</a>. We’re now told that the lens is in fact discontinued and production has been halted forever.</p>
> <p>There was no word as to why it was discontinued, I can only assume the market for a 24-105 on the Canon side is extremely saturated and that the Sigma wasn’t a big enough leap forward in terms of optical quality to purchase over the “kit” lens from Canon. There’s also a possibility the cost of production was too high to keep the price competitive.</p>
> <p>We’re still waiting on an official release about this from Sigma.</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
> <p> </p>


Probably Sigma will focus on the 'no-so-good' 24-70mm f2.8 EX where the market for fast apperture (f2.8) is less saturated, Hopefully they will add OS to the 24-70mm f2.8 to be a contender to the very good Tammy.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 22, 2015)

NaturaLight said:


> I bought this lens, and after extensively comparing it to my Canon 24-70 f2.8, I sold the Canon. This is an outstanding lens.



Same here, I love it too.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 22, 2015)

Not surprised.

The 24-70 f/4 IS is better stopped down for landscapes and FAR smaller and lighter and barely cost more.

The 24-105L real world price fell to much less than this sigma.

The Tamron 24-70 VC was the same size and weight but offer f/2.8 and probably a bit better IQ, although for a few hundreds more.

The 24-70 II has much better IQ and is a trace smaller and lighter! despite having f/2.8 (although no IS and costing a lot more)

The first two made it not make too much sense for Canon users IMO and the last two just made it even more clear IMO.


----------



## Botts (Jan 22, 2015)

I just hope this doesn't tamper Sigma's R&D investments going forward.

The other new lenses they have are fantastic. Hopefully this doesn't distract from new A or S lenses.


----------



## eosmaniac (Jan 22, 2015)

I am really disappointed. A few months ago, I had all my money saved up for this lens. When I placed an order with Adorama, I was notified that it was back-ordered. After I discovered this lens would not be produced for an indefinite period (now permanent), I gave up and ordered a Canon 24-70mm f4.0L IS USM lens. I skipped on the Canon 24-105mm f4.0L IS USM lens because it's an old design. While I am pleased with the lens I bought, it will always be my "second" choice. I'm not going to bother looking for the rare Sigma that might pop up; I have other things to get now. While I like Sigma, this has soured me a little toward them.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 22, 2015)

K-amps said:


> NaturaLight said:
> 
> 
> > I bought this lens, and after extensively comparing it to my Canon 24-70 f2.8, I sold the Canon. This is an outstanding lens.
> ...



If you are comparing the Sigma to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 _Mk I_ it should be noted that I sold my 24-70 f2.8 too, but after getting the 24-105L, because the 24-105L had much better resolution and I was more pleased with the color saturation it provided. The Canon 24-70 f2.8 _Mk I_ just wasn't that great.

I think a more direct comparison between the 24-105's probably leaves little to be desired over the Canon especially if you like to process in DPP (like me) and thus have the OEM Canon lens profiles and camera settings available in post. Other than this I *really* dislike lenses with a duo-cam zoom mechanism such as this Sigma has for mechanical reasons and the appearance which associates it with cheap, wobbly builds of the past.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 22, 2015)

Really interesting to read this. And also puzzeling.

When this lens came out and showed, that there was no real difference in IQ to the Canon 24-105L (which was well known to the Sigma dev dep, I'm sure) I was sure from the beginning, that this lens was aiming on the Nikon and Sony users. So if Sigma was planning with a relevant sales share to Canon users, this would have been a dead horse from the beginning and would puzzle me even more. 
And if they where planning just only with Nikon/Sony sales (what I'd done) it seems that there wasn't that big market. Maybe a Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, though a bit more expensive, took the sales numbers away.

That would be really interesting to get the background info...


----------



## Bennymiata (Jan 22, 2015)

Sigma is, relatively speaking, a small company, and it's obvious that they could use the production space for faster selling lenses like their 150-600 which is in short supply.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 22, 2015)

I had this lens before and thought it was a little better than the Canon version. Its price, I think, was not helping sales because a lot of white box versions of the Canon 24-105 were available at a lower price, and to the casual consumer, they will pick a "big brand" with lots of ads over a name that perhaps only the more advanced users know. Or maybe they just remember Sigma from the old days, before the Art series, and figured it to be a poor brand.


----------



## vscd (Jan 22, 2015)

Maybe they come back with a 24-105 F2 DG OS


----------



## Viggo (Jan 22, 2015)

I am to puzzled by this and also why the new lenses aren't sealed. I just had my 50 art serviced for a squeaky sound and unstable AF. And it's better now, so obviously the AF motor had dust and dirt. Now I have cut apart and old neoprene laptop sleeve and wrapped the 50 to keep the dust away.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 22, 2015)

Despite the old design, the ef 24-105mm f/4 is still a bread and butter lens for many, many working portrait photographers, especially when on location with small strobes. It is also still very popular as a landscape lens for many enthusiasts, and still being praised in workshops by nature photographers.

The Canon price is fair and the lens holds up to heavy use. And it has that cute little soft black ring around the mount.

I'm definitely not an f/4 lover, but this really works for daylight events, as well as for portrait sessions where I know I'm going to need the FL range. And it's also a lot of fun for long exposure photography with an ND filter, as it is sharp and has that great FL range.

I'm surprised often when reading RANGEFINDER or PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER to see an incredible image had been taken with a lens that is often dismissed in this forum. :

So, no, it was not a good product choice by Sigma, but at least they didn't keep going down an unprofitable road. Apparently they have management that knows when to admit a mistake, and the company is nimble enough to shift somewhat quickly.

I do wonder if there might have been a patent dispute involved, but that is 100% speculation.


----------



## sanj (Jan 22, 2015)

Wait for it….. 2.8 IS will surface.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 22, 2015)

I'm not the least surprised, because:

1. Reviews present this lens to be on the same class as the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I don't dismiss the positive feedback by photographers on this thread, but reviews have more weight than anectodal feedback on forums.

2. The EF 24-105mm is cheaper in kit / white box than the Sigma.

3. This is the lens I take with me unless I need faster / wider / longer / whatever. With Sigma's reputation (focus problems, quality variance), I'd rather stick with Canon brand for this lens. I believe I'm not in a minority position on this one.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 22, 2015)

Weird. If you go to the Sigma site and pull up a list of their discontinued lenses, this lens does not appear on that list. If you pull up a list of their current lenses, this lens is still being sold (at least it appears that you can order it. 

I can understand why Canon shooters would not choose this lens over the Canon version; but I would imagine that other system shooters might like it. If I were in the market for a zoom lens for my Nikon, I might have considered this lens.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 22, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> I had this lens before and thought it was a little better than the Canon version. Its price, I think, was not helping sales because a lot of white box versions of the Canon 24-105 were available at a lower price, and to the casual consumer, they will pick a "big brand" with lots of ads over a name that perhaps only the more advanced users know. Or maybe they just remember Sigma from the old days, before the Art series, and figured it to be a poor brand.



+1 

When Sigma introduced this lens I figured it would need to be optically excellent to differentiate itself from the very good and inexpensive Canon L options (24-70/4 and older 24-105/4). According to the reviews, it was only slightly better then the 24-105L and similar optically to the 24-70/4L. Given the low price of the Canon lenses, there was just no reason to buy a brand with a poor reputation historically (prior to the Art series) over a better known and respected brand like Canon. 

This appears to be poor market research by Sigma. Their 35 and 50 Art lenses filled a niche in the market that Canon has neglected for awhile. The Canon 35mm and 50mm offerings (other than the excellent 35/2 IS) are showing their age, so the 35 and 50 Art provided photographers with lenses that were significantly better than the Canon L's at a better price point. With the 24-105 they didn't differentiate either in quality or price.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 22, 2015)

The Sigma lenses I have really enjoyed using over the years have always filled a niche or done something slightly different (70mm Macro: great for both APS-C and 135, superalative resolving power) the Bigma 50-500, their UWAs (12-24 was only choice for Canon when I had one, only nonfisheye choice at time for 10-20 when I got my 400D) , substantially cheaper (18-50 f2.8) , or of late, substantially better (50mm f1.4)

Trying to sell a premium zoom that already comes as great bundled value seemed a real waste of their R&D and a pointless exercise. No matter how great the Sigma version was, for the same or less money, folk will want the Canon. It may well be that when the next round of Canon DSLRs comes round that the Canon 24-105 is exposed in ways that the sigma wouldn't have been... but it's still a hard sell.

I like what Sigma are doing. They talk to the public, they seem interested, they come up with some interesting ideas, and of late, you cannot sniff at the quality.


----------



## sanj (Jan 22, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Weird. If you go to the Sigma site and pull up a list of their discontinued lenses, this lens does not appear on that list. If you pull up a list of their current lenses, this lens is still being sold (at least it appears that you can order it.
> 
> I can understand why Canon shooters would not choose this lens over the Canon version; but I would imagine that other system shooters might like it. If I were in the market for a zoom lens for my Nikon, I might have considered this lens.



Excellent. I checked this too and found it to be correct. Hmmm. And is still available for sale at BH.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 22, 2015)

I would tend to agree that optically the lens was not really superior in real world photography to the Canon 24-105mm f4L and as the Canon lens is widely available as white box & good S/H ones on Ebay then the critical mass was likely not there for Sigma. Throw in the newly launched Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM lens and the volume drops again.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 22, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> I would tend to agree that optically the lens was not really superior in real world photography to the Canon 24-105mm f4L and as the Canon lens is widely available as white box & good S/H ones on Ebay then the critical mass was likely not there for Sigma. Throw in the newly launched Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM lens and the volume drops again.



+1. I agree that Canon's introduction of the non-L 24-105 probably is the final nail in the coffin for Sigma. With an intial price of ~600, it's primed to be sell for a few hundred in a kit.

This is a misstep with Sigma and their new product philosophy (Art/Contemporary/Sport). They had clear wins with the 35 and 50mm primes, but missed with the 30 for APS-C and now the 24-105. Sigma is a company like any other -- a new marketing scheme does not make them immune to missteps or not understanding the market properly.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 22, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> This is a misstep with Sigma and their new product philosophy (Art/Contemporary/Sport). They had clear wins with the 35 and 50mm primes, but missed with the 30 for APS-C and now the 24-105. Sigma is a company like any other -- a new marketing scheme does not make them immune to missteps or not understanding the market properly.



I don't think Sigma had any real expectation of replacing Canon 24-105 with their 24-105. It would have been nice for Sigma if it did. But other camera systems lacked a good quality 24-105. I think that was the intended market, not Canon users. 

We need to make sure that we are not just looking at this from a Canon-centric viewpoint.


----------



## slclick (Jan 22, 2015)

Until I finally got around to getting the Mk2 24-70 2.8, I loved my Siggy 24-105.


----------



## AlmostDecent (Jan 22, 2015)

Although a bit better than the Canon L lens (slightly sharper and better contrast), it is also much heavier, and more expensive. So it is a tough sell, unlike some other 3rd party offerings like the Tamron 24-70 with VC. It also had some issues like lockups with the 6D if GPS was enabled, that took them almost a year to resolve. WOrse: to fix it you either need to spend a further $100 for the USB dock, or send it in for support.

On the Nikon bodies they had an edge in price over the 24-120 and in image quality, but ran into two other issues: the lens is a massive battery drain since it switches on the camera's metering for each shot and locks it on for 60 seconds. This was already true of the D800 bodies, and persists with the D600s and D750. This issue was never resolved. Users in events and other reported as much as 1% battery drain per _minute_.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 22, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > This is a misstep with Sigma and their new product philosophy (Art/Contemporary/Sport). They had clear wins with the 35 and 50mm primes, but missed with the 30 for APS-C and now the 24-105. Sigma is a company like any other -- a new marketing scheme does not make them immune to missteps or not understanding the market properly.
> ...



I think Sigma was hoping to take a large chunk out from Canon and Nikon. It's available in 2 other mounts: Sony and Sigma. How much will they sell of those? When Sigma's lens came out, the white box Canon was available for about 800. Now the white box Canons go for closer to 600. Sigma can't compete with that when it has to charge 800-900. Canon has a larger user base than Nikon, and failing to penetrate the market in the largest segment will hurt overall profitability.


----------



## bereninga (Jan 22, 2015)

AlmostDecent said:


> Although a bit better than the Canon L lens (slightly sharper and better contrast), it is also much heavier, and more expensive. So it is a tough sell, unlike some other 3rd party offerings like the Tamron 24-70 with VC. It also had some issues like lockups with the 6D if GPS was enabled, that took them almost a year to resolve. WOrse: to fix it you either need to spend a further $100 for the USB dock, or send it in for support.
> 
> On the Nikon bodies they had an edge in price over the 24-120 and in image quality, but ran into two other issues: the lens is a massive battery drain since it switches on the camera's metering for each shot and locks it on for 60 seconds. This was already true of the D800 bodies, and persists with the D600s and D750. This issue was never resolved. Users in events and other reported as much as 1% battery drain per _minute_.



It's definitely interesting to hear about the Sigma's performance for other brands! Thanks for that info. Those are some pretty serious issues and it makes even more sense for Sigma to discontinue the lens. I'm surprised that people would still use this lens, esp the Nikonites.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 22, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Weird. If you go to the Sigma site and pull up a list of their discontinued lenses, this lens does not appear on that list. If you pull up a list of their current lenses, this lens is still being sold (at least it appears that you can order it.





Canon Rumors said:


> *We’re now told *that the lens is in fact discontinued and production has been halted forever....



I don't read the CR note as "there is a press release or an official information that..." but as "a hidden source told us, that...".
So this is a rumor likely to be true. But nothing official. 
Maybe this will come within time, or will kept quitetly hidden or maybe it's not true. We'll see...


----------



## AlmostDecent (Jan 22, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-art-production-on-hold/" target="_blank">We posted back in the fall that Sigma had halted production indefinitely of the relatively new 24-105 f/4 DG OS lens</a>. We’re now told that the lens is in fact discontinued and production has been halted forever.</p>
> <p>There was no word as to why it was discontinued, I can only assume the market for a 24-105 on the Canon side is extremely saturated and that the Sigma wasn’t a big enough leap forward in terms of optical quality to purchase over the “kit” lens from Canon. There’s also a possibility the cost of production was too high to keep the price competitive.</p>
> <p>We’re still waiting on an official release about this from Sigma.</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
> <p> </p>



There are contradictory stories going on this lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55104350


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 22, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Weird. If you go to the Sigma site and pull up a list of their discontinued lenses, this lens does not appear on that list. If you pull up a list of their current lenses, this lens is still being sold (at least it appears that you can order it.
> ...



It IS a rumour after all. ;D


----------



## dispr (Jan 22, 2015)

If anyone is interested, Sigma Outlet has some in stock. They are refurbished and only come with a 90 day warranty, but the price is pretty good. 

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-art-refurbished


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 22, 2015)

bholliman said:


> When Sigma introduced this lens I figured it would need to be optically excellent to differentiate itself from the very good and inexpensive Canon L options (24-70/4 and older 24-105/4). According to the reviews, it was only slightly better then the 24-105L and similar optically to the 24-70/4L.



Actually worse than the 24-70 f/4 IS if you are thinking stopped down 24mm-35mm landscapes or stopped down 70mm landscapes. The 24-70 f/4 IS definitely delivers better there.

Also, the sigma was HUGE for f/4! I mean it's not only far larger and heavier than the 24-105L it is even larger and heavier than the 24-70 f/2.8 II! And almost insanelly larger and heavier than the ultra light and compact 24-70 f/4 IS.


----------



## Frage (Jan 22, 2015)

Pitty... I find Sigma very customer-friendly


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 22, 2015)

I've always thought this lens was more appropriate for Nikon shooters who only have the less than stellar 24-120 which is overpriced. It should be mopping up the floor in Nikon land.

As far as for Canon, The Sigma was no bargain, with Canon 24-105mm L lenses readily available new from USA Authorized sources in the mid $600 range.


----------



## dtheune (Jan 22, 2015)

Why so much hate on this lens? I own the lens and find it to be exceptional use with this the 5Diii for a video/photo shoot, works just as good as Canon's if not better. And I have both the Canon 24-105 and the Sigma Art 24-105. I prefer SA's sharpness, smooth manual focus and quieter auto-focus over the Canon. It's a great lens, in fact I may buy another one before they are off the market completely.


----------



## Slyham (Jan 23, 2015)

I think this shows the difficulty a third party lens manufacturer has. They have to make lenses that are either:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Ultra sharp
[*]Ultra cheap
[*]Ultra unique
[/list]

And do it a good price point. This lens doesn't seem to fit any of the qualifications.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Jan 23, 2015)

The Sigma 24-105 must have not been in production for even a year. This makes me wonder what lenses have had the shortest production run. Someone should make a list.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 23, 2015)

dtheune said:


> Why so much hate on this lens?


Hi dtheune!

I don't see so many people *hate* that lens. I personally don't have any experience with it, so I cannot say if I'd love or hate it. I have a 24-105L so i didn't think about buying the Sigma after seeing some comparisons. 
I only see people thinking in a similar way as I do:
- There is a really good and well priced (white box or kit lens) Canon L version of this focal length
- the L is optically on level (may be subjective), has a smaller filter (77mm is yet a "standard", 82 mm will become in future) and has sealing
- so there is *almost nothing* Sigma can give to a Canon owner that he can't acheive with the Canon lens

Conclusion:
==> So this lens was either designed (not good enough) or priced (too high) wrong.
==> Or it was aimed on the non-Canon market and didn't get the sales there.

Pitty, as it seems to be a really good lens. But nothing people (both Canon and other brands) have been waiting for. So it seems.


----------



## eosmaniac (Jan 23, 2015)

I e-mailed Sigma yesterday about this. The person who responded said that they had to temporarily shift resources from production of this lens to other lenses (probably the 150-600mm). He indicated the 24-105 has _not_ been discontinued. I thanked him and recommended that Sigma get in front of this story instead of allowing endless speculation. We'll see . . .


----------



## Viggo (Jan 23, 2015)

...."allowing endless speculation" is SUPERB advertising, just saying


----------



## sanj (Jan 24, 2015)

Bryan's site:

Contrary to some current rumors, the Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 DG OS HSM Art Lens has not been discontinued. According to Sigma Corporation of America, "The 24-105mm is most definitely not discontinued." This rumor most likely arose from the fact that this lens is very hard to find in stock right now. Sigma assured me that this lens is very much a part of their current line. "We are behind on production but are working on catching up." Sigma is experiencing "... really high demand and fulfilling all the orders across the world has been tough." That is good news to me as I really like the 24-105 OS Art Lens.


----------



## dshodgins (Jan 27, 2015)

It's hard to accept that it's "cheaper" as well, when it comes right down to it.

Yes, the lens itself might be a few hundred cheaper than the Canon version, for example, not not if you have to buy a new set of filters for it, in the 82mm range, instead of the typical 77mm. And then carry another set of filters around, just to use this lens.

In fact, about the only "pro" lens from Nikon or Canon that's 82mm is the Canon 24-70/2.8 II. Almost everything else is 77mm, which means an expense to use it, for a demographic generally looking to save.


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2015)

dshodgins said:


> It's hard to accept that it's "cheaper" as well, when it comes right down to it.
> 
> Yes, the lens itself might be a few hundred cheaper than the Canon version, for example, not not if you have to buy a new set of filters for it, in the 82mm range, instead of the typical 77mm. And then carry another set of filters around, just to use this lens.
> 
> In fact, about the only "pro" lens from Nikon or Canon that's 82mm is the Canon 24-70/2.8 II. Almost everything else is 77mm, which means an expense to use it, for a demographic generally looking to save.



Even for Canon, 82 is the new 77. Really, are you going to not buy the glass you want because of a filter purchase? Use it without until you can afford if it's a savings issue. Unless it's a field Macro lens or you shoot in crazy bad conditions, get the glass that's right for you and deal with the filter later (or buy a step up/down/ring)


----------



## gcookie (Feb 6, 2015)

My Canon L 24-105 crapped out after a couple of years with poor focusing. I bought the Sigma lens and wish it had been around when I bought the Canon. The Canon has been know to be a "weak" L lens for years and has issues.. I would not buy another Canon L lens when Sigma has this new line of art and sports lens with the USB dock... Drive the Porsche , I've own them and their costs. I'm wiser now....


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 6, 2015)

gcookie said:


> My Canon L 24-105 crapped out after a couple of years with poor focusing. I bought the Sigma lens and wish it had been around when I bought the Canon. The Canon has been know to be a "weak" L lens for years and has issues.. I would not buy another Canon L lens when Sigma has this new line of art and sports lens with the USB dock... Drive the Porsche , I've own them and their costs. I'm wiser now....




Troll?

The 24-105L is a very good lens, and I have plenty of other lenses to compare it to... you may just have had a dud, or another issue.

FWIW are you seriously comparing Sigma to Porsche? Since when is Porsche the more affordable alternative???


----------



## Tinky (Feb 10, 2015)

don't know about being a troll, but certainly a contender for my new 'most awful car analogy of the week'.

To be fair, Sigma isn't always the cheaper alternative. Look at the 50mm 1.4 dg and Art....

one of the following pictures depicts a porsche (or is it a vw, not sure) the other depicts a sigma lens... see if you can work out which is which, and why car analogies aren't always that helpful....


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 10, 2015)

Tinky said:


> ... one of the following pictures depicts a porsche (or is it a vw, not sure) ...


Hi Tinky! 

The red thing is a Porsche 924. Looks like an ad photo from Porsche as you can read the "S" on the license plate for the city of Stuttgart where they are located. 
A VW would have the "WOB" for Wolfsburg in ads.
But as Porsche is now owned by VW you can say it's all alike.


----------



## Tinky (Feb 10, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > ... one of the following pictures depicts a porsche (or is it a vw, not sure) ...
> ...



Cheers Max, it was a wee in-joke for Porsche aficionados there...

It is a porsche (I knew that) but it has a VAG L4 engine, and was developed as a VW.
Often derided as the poor mans porsche, the vee dub porsche or the worst porsche ever amongst purists.

As with everything branded, be it canon, sigma, porsche whatever, anomalies crop up everywhere, which is another reason camera / car analogies are so facile and tedious.

Cheers


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 10, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Cheers Max, it was a wee in-joke for Porsche aficionados there...
> 
> It is a porsche (I knew that) but it has a VAG L4 engine, and was developed as a VW.
> Often derided as the poor mans porsche, the vee dub porsche or the worst porsche ever amongst purists.
> ...


Hey Tinky! Man, there you got me! *lol*
I should have known it. I am not a "Porsche aficionados" but as a car and German Sports car fan I of course know about the motor from VW but wouldn't have known the the engine type for sure. 

Okay, now I am awake.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 10, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



Actually the 914 is the original VW Porsche... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_914

And in fact 'the poor man's Porsche' is also often used to describe what I drive... the Golf GTI (Which is in fact a VW). I have the MkI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk1#Volkswagen_Golf_GTI and the Mk VI which is my daily driver.

FWIW Porsche and VW are practically inseparable : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group


And yes I full heartedly agree that 'camera / car analogies are so facile and tedious' 8) 8) ;D


----------



## NaturaLight (Jul 25, 2015)

Saw an ad in pop photo for this lens. Contacted canon professional services and they said it's one of their best sellers.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 26, 2015)

NaturaLight said:


> Saw an ad in pop photo for this lens. Contacted canon professional services and they said it's one of their best sellers.



I guess you're confusing it with the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L S USM.


----------



## lo lite (Jul 28, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> NaturaLight said:
> 
> 
> > Saw an ad in pop photo for this lens. Contacted canon professional services and they said it's one of their best sellers.
> ...



But then again B&H has it in stock finally (for Nikon F mount): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009622-REG/sigma_635_306_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 28, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I can understand why Canon shooters would not choose this lens over the Canon version; but I would imagine that other system shooters might like it. If I were in the market for a zoom lens for my Nikon, I might have considered this lens.



I agree, that for Nikon and Sony, it should sell well, since its a lens that out performs their lenses at a lower price. Apparently, sales overall did not stackup to expectations.


----------



## NWPhil (Jul 28, 2015)

Seems that Sigma slow down the production in favor of other better selling models.
Besides, at this moment one can find a canon (used) for way less than the Sigma, which is hard to find used btw - yes, I have been looking for one, as I have already the 24-105L but need a second lens in that range. 
I know that the canon 24-70mkII is far superior, but the 105mm really makes a difference for me as a walk-around lens.
I read several reviews regarding the sigma, and overall opinion is that the IQ has better than the Canon counterpart. However, has too a bit of an unreliable AF and questionable QC. Together with its higher price, is IMO what kills the attraction factor for canon users. 
That's why I have struggling with buying it new, and now with a rumor about a new L zoom coming - could be indeed a 24-105mkII, I almost sure that will put a stop in my intentions regarding buying this lens.

Wish the price was less aggressive for a Canon mount....but now I am really rooting for a 24-105mkII ;D


----------

