Upload & Sell: Off
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Not when you have to pay 2 or 3 times as much to get the dubious sealing
Yeah, you really have to evaluate this on a lens-by-lens basis. In the case of the 24-105L, Canon's version is very good for what it is- even if the Sigma were sharper, which I fully expect it to be, the perceived downsides,even before anyone has yet held one attached to a Canon body, are outweighing the upsides.
I mean, seriously, I couldn't imagine many people actually being interested in this lens if it's a penny more than $US700. It's not light, it's not weather sealed, it has dubious Sigma AF, it's not fast enough to replace a single prime, and it will probably have Sigma's onion-bokeh on top of it all; I rather like the 24-105L's bokeh, compared to say the mess that the 24-70/2.8 VC puts out.