Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance
  
 
Dpedraza
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


isaacimage wrote:
No waiting for the real thing - 24-70 F2

If this comes to pass and they keep making their lenses as well as they have then Nikon/Canon will be in a bit of trouble.

They need to revamp their revamp of the 12-24mm make it much better



Dec 18, 2013 at 07:42 PM
MintMar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


Greg M wrote:
The sigma doesn't undercut canon's real world price on the 24-105 because it can be picked up so cheap either in a kit, new white box, or from someone selling the lens from the kit they bought, never mind the used price.

Who's going to buy it?


But it seems that 24-105L is on the way out, with 24-70/4L replacing it. After some time, it'll be Sigma 24-105 OS against 24-70/4L, which seems better for Sigma. Also don't forget, that Nikonites don't have anything comparable to 24-105L, so for some time, them and other brands might be helping out financially with slower adoption of the lens in the Canon land.



Dec 18, 2013 at 08:15 PM
binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


MintMar wrote:
Also don't forget, that Nikonites don't have anything comparable to 24-105L


Well, Nikon makes the 24-120mm f/4, which rates a "22" overall on DxO. It's a little lower on sharpness than the others shown here but otherwise has very similar numbers.

I just really like this direction that Sigma is going. Great build quality, focusing on fewer & higher quality lenses, and provide the dock to allow power users to tweak and update their lenses as they see fit. I hope they keep their QC high - it seems to be better with these "Art" designated lenses.



Dec 19, 2013 at 01:41 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


Count me super dubious of DxO when it comes to lenses.

First, why do they rank lenses based solely upon best aperture and focal length, what sense is there in that?
Second, since they seem to rate so many zooms best at wide open, like, just for starters here, they claim the 24-70 f/4 IS does best at 24mm and f/4? What are they measuring like the 4 center most pixels in the frame? Because I know that none of the lenses they'ved claimed best at wide open have done so for me in my tests or real world or on basically any other test site.

And they have so many weird results like: That the 16-35 II has the crispest edges on FF at f/2.8. That the 70-200 2.8 IS II is the worst performer at 200mm f/2.8 of all the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. That the 70-300 non-IS has better 300mm than the 300 f/4L and 70-300L. And so on.


I'll also note that you can get the canon 24-70 f/4 IS from Adorama at the moment (after mail in rebate) for the exact same price as this Sigma and the Canon uses less expensive filters and is oodles smaller and lighter.



Dec 21, 2013 at 07:58 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


In fact they claim that every single one of those zooms perform the very best at wide open.

That seems impossible, so maybe for their overall score they simple try to find where each zoom does best at wide open and don't count anything closed down?

But how does that make any sense at all?

Their overall sensor scores were slightly dubious, but their overall lens scores are utterly absurd. Ranking lenses by the spot they are sharpest at wide open and ignore every single other aspect? it doesn't even begin to make any sense. What if one lens happens to do well wide open at one extreme but does barely better stopped down and stinks over the entire rest of the range? Who cares, rank it #1.



Dec 21, 2013 at 08:03 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


Greg M wrote:
The sigma doesn't undercut canon's real world price on the 24-105 because it can be picked up so cheap either in a kit, new white box, or from someone selling the lens from the kit they bought, never mind the used price.

Who's going to buy it?


And now the 24-70 f/4 IS can be had for the exact same price off the Adorama deal. So you have the 24-105, real world, for much less. The 24-70 f/4 IS currently for the same (and often for only $100 more). And the Tamron 24-70 VC (NO larger or heavier, despite adding in f/2.8) for a few hundred more. And the Canon 24-70 II if you don't need IS and want the best of the best of the bests optics.

Maybe I'm not being fair to it and it works well and it is worth it. I'm curious to see what photozone.de will report. But I'm still very dubious considering the MTF charts and all the early sample 100% crops and full images I've seen. It sure doesn;t look as good as the 24-70 f/4 IS and even if it were to match it, it's so much larger and heavier.



Dec 21, 2013 at 08:08 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


Also note, that in their best wide open test, the new tamron and new canon lenses do best at 24mm, which was always the real catch when it came to these lenses on FF, THAT was the trickiest part of the focal range while the sigma does not, according to their tests at least, do best at 24mm, but at 35mm (as with the 24-105L) where it has always been easier to find somewhat better performance at FF. The real trick was always to find something that could handle 24mm crisp edge to edge on FF for landscaps. All the old standard zooms and even some of the old regular primes struggled a bit with that at 24mm on FF. The magic of the new tamron and new canons is that they finally deliver improved 24mm performance on FF in a zoom (or even in a lens just regardless).

(not that a wide open test necessarily tells you how they;d compare at f/7.1-f/10)



Dec 21, 2013 at 08:10 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


One of the things I've noticed going into DxOMark's scoring is stuff like transmission. When you really break down a lens' results, the scores start to make sense, but only if you need a 'one size fits all' score of a lens/body combination.

However, if you're looking at a particular aspect of a lens or set of lenses, you have to dig into the testing results quite a bit more. I saw that you mentioned the 1.4/50 ZE in another thread where DxO ranks it 'best' at F/2.8 while the 50/1.8 II ranks 'best' at F/1.8, and this does look dubious at first. What I see, though, is that while you can get acceptable sharpness from the shifty fifty wide-open, and thus not give up any light, the Zeiss is not acceptably sharp wide-open, and thus must be stopped down. Since transmissivity goes into the overall score along with sharpness, CA, distortion and so on, it makes sense for the 'best' aperture and focal length of a given lens to be the fastest aperture where they find 'acceptable' sharpness, whatever that means.



Dec 21, 2013 at 10:08 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


Larate wrote:
I agree. Now between the Tammy and the Siggy, the choice is aperture vs reach ! (head scratching)

Edit: I did not mention the Canon 24-105 because it is too weak at 70 mm and up (for my taste).



I guess that eliminates the SigMa too, since it is less sharp than the Canon 24-105 at the long end...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-105mm-f-4.0-DG-OS-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx



Dec 21, 2013 at 10:13 PM
dehowie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


DXO=waste of time.
There are far better lens test results out there and DXO's is about the worst..
The listing of problems with the test results is huge..
Faith in any DXO test is faith very very poorly placed.



Dec 22, 2013 at 02:39 AM
Larate
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


molson wrote:
I guess that eliminates the SigMa too, since it is less sharp than the Canon 24-105 at the long end...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-105mm-f-4.0-DG-OS-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx


Yes, thanks. But I'm waiting for the test of the Siggy by Photozone (don't like to have a single source).
Lenstip already tested it on 1DS3, alas when they tested the Canon 24-105/4 L, it was on a 20D.
Anyway, they said the Siggy performed very well and its most disadvantage are not IQ related (if you're interested in, you can read their summary at http://www.lenstip.com/389.11-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24-105_mm_f_4_DG_OS_HSM_Summary.html )



Dec 22, 2013 at 03:06 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


I have the Sigma 24-105/4 lens now and am very unimpressed. The lens is not sharp in the edges and corners by any means and the CA is awful. The red channel edges and corners are so soft even by f/8. The moustache distortion is quite bad at 24 mm. You know I never send lenses back for a refund, but this one should go. It is just pointless on FF if there is anything of interest away from the very sharp center. I do like the OS and the AF seems accurate at least on stationary subjects, though I did not track anything difficult.

EBH



Dec 23, 2013 at 02:13 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


Dpedraza wrote:
If this comes to pass and they keep making their lenses as well as they have then Nikon/Canon will be in a bit of trouble.

They need to revamp their revamp of the 12-24mm make it much better


No they won't. There are far more people that wouldn't even think about third party glass and will just go with the kit or are openly against third party glass that Sigma and Tamron will never cause too much problems for Canikon. It's mainly these gearhead forums where they get the attention they deserve.

Interesting about the performance seeing how poor the imaging-resource samples were a month or so ago.

I now wish Sigma and Tamron would start thinking about some good UWA glass. A total remake of the optically very good 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 from Sigma to say 15-30 f/4 HSM that can accept filters would be great.



Dec 23, 2013 at 03:02 AM
howard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


Am I reading it right that the Sigma vignettes worse than the Canon 24-105?

That's death sentence for it in my book. The Canon's Archilles's heel is the severe vignetting at 24mm, I just cannot, and will not, deal with a lens that's even worse in that department.



Dec 23, 2013 at 04:10 AM
Larate
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DxOmarked: High End Performance


EB-1 wrote:
I have the Sigma 24-105/4 lens now and am very unimpressed. The lens is not sharp in the edges and corners by any means and the CA is awful. The red channel edges and corners are so soft even by f/8. The moustache distortion is quite bad at 24 mm. You know I never send lenses back for a refund, but this one should go. It is just pointless on FF if there is anything of interest away from the very sharp center. I do like the OS and the AF seems accurate at least on stationary subjects, though
...Show more

Oh, bad news and sorry for you. Do you think you've got a lemon* ? Regarding the distortion, I guess it can be fixed in P/P for lack of in-camera.
BTW, I agree with you regarding sharpness homogeneity across the frame.

* although lemons are very good in drinks and foods !



Dec 23, 2013 at 04:10 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password