Upload & Sell: Off
| p.2 #1 · Nikon 24-120 vs. Sigma 24-105 'A' |
Lance B wrote:
, I think someone just blew a fuse.
Fuse blown, fuse-box blasted open, and fuse deposited in the opposite sheetrock, it would seem .
But he does make a fair set of good points, and they're the same points made when comparing Canon's 24-105L to the Sigma 24-105 Art.
However, optics isn't the big thing; the Sigma, in good copies (damnit Sigma, lock this down!), is likely the sharpest of the three, but just barely, where the Canon and Nikon competitors are functionally equal outside of the Nikon's slightly longer reach. That difference actually matters to some people, and that's cool; they use these lenses not as 'walk-around' or 'utility' lenses but as honest to God landscape and architecture lenses, and for the creation of photographs in those disciplines, a good copy of the Sigma is the best bet over either OEM's offers, aside from stepping up to the pro f/2.8 glass.
The real difference, as highlighted in the rant in a not-so-subtle way, is in the build quality, where Sigma has made it a point to outright excel over all existing stalwarts with lenses produced from their Global Vision initiative, and has largely succeeded, quite especially in this case. To lend weight to the above rant, one really only needs to pick one of these lenses up next to it's intended competitor to understand just what a leap Sigma has made.
So, while I don't agree with the 'pissed off fanboy' tone of the rant, I can say that the ranter does indeed present a set of valid points .