A lot of people are going on about it not being 24... but the fact that they kept this so close in weight to the 24-105 f4 makes it amazing for me. If I need 24 then I'll often want to have a 14-28 on anyway. If they'd made it 24-105 f2.8 it probably would have weighed 500g more and cost $600 more, and then people would complain about that. Unless you're going to go and make your own 14-300 f1.2, then just accept that this is an incredible lens.
Close weight? The Sony 24-105 F4 is more than 300g lighter. That is the weight of a prime lens (F1.8) you can bring with you if you need a shallower DoF or more lightgathering. I'd take the two lens combo for its versatility over the Sigma. Each to their own. I am not the target for this phenomenal lens, but I don't know who is. It's way to big for a walk around lens and for events its either way to cropped in with its 28mm or too short with its 105mm reach. Only thing I can think of is, that this Sigma is great in studio work.
@@renelackner3081i think it might make for a good photojournalism lens. 35-150mm f2-2.8 Tamron was really popular for that. This is slightly lighter, and goes slightly wider
My new Sigma 2.8 24-70 arrived a few hours ago and I already opened the box! I'm crying! Waaaah! This is very usable focal range, negating even the Sony 70-200 I bought a few months ago. With this I could go from 12-24 (+APSC mode), to 28-105, and then jump right on the 100-400. Eliminating TWO expensive Sony lenses in the process. Damn you Sigma!! ;)
I've returned sigma lenses before after opening the box. If that doesnt work you can always sell it back to MPB but you'll probably get less money back than what you paid (unless you bought it used and got a really good deal on it)
There is something to be said about Sigma, I honestly have stuck with them and their art series for years now. I still shoot a 7D Mk II and my "daily driver" 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 MACRO. It always seemed to be minimal with Chromatic Aboration. At 300mm it is by no means the sharpest, but the pricepoint always blew me away for 500 bucks US, I have a wide arrange of work I've done with that lens that I have sold large prints of, and am always stunned how they looked to similar shots with my Canon Primes and Zoom/Telephoto lenses. Now, I will pine as no one makes new EF EF-M mounted lenses (because why would anyone?), but awesome and in-depth as always! I love seeing new offerings like this!
💯 it would be cool for Gerald to do a comparison with the new wave of nonstandard zoom ranges that span wide to tele. I have a 35-150 Tamron. Love it but I always miss having a 24 for tighter spaces.
Imo this is better than 35-150 because you can still kinda work with 28 as walk arouns but 35 is like the last fl you can actually walk with and film everything over that is shaky or moves too fast
There's no substitution for 35/2+150/2.8 in one lens with just 28/2.8 WHEN you use the 35-150 in 2+ lens setup (as 'intended', when ultra/wide is needed with both 28 and 35 for a good usual coverage anyway), saving more by not having to carry 70-200 when applicable. The 28-105 is for a different group I think.
There's no way that I would get this over the 35-150. It's hard to beat the versatility of the Tamron lens. Getting the Sony 16-35 or the Tamron 17-28 would take care of the wide end if 35mm isn't enough.
@@daysandwords I do, absolutely and I wish it was 24-105mm f/2.8, but I'm not familiar with lens architecture enough to know how feasible that would have been
@@PeterHKwok I think Canon’s RF 24-105mm f2.8 achieves that focal range with the compromise of weight, 2.9 lbs vs the 28-105mm at 2.2lbs. I’m always torn about the light weight 24-70’s and having this flexibility in focal length. I’d be interested to know people’s thoughts on a 28/105mm f2.8 versus Tamron’s 35/150mm f2-2.8….same length and only .4lbs heavier…but a bit more reach if you are already gonna go the “heavy lens” route. Trying to find reviews to compare both
This is one of the most impressive zoom lenses I have ever seen. That LOCA, Focus Breathing, sharpness, and weight performance is nothing short of miraculous. L Mount has the better version of this lens, Lumix gang hit my up in the replies. I have no issues with 28mm personally, it’s perfectly wide enough. If 28 isn’t wide enough for you either your event space is too small, or you’re just not being creative enough ;)
does someone know, why or when he switched back to the "old" setup? Because he tried the "night show" style one a view months back. But I never heard him talk about why. But thanks for the Video! Nice as always
The Linear and none linear focus ring, I understand is when you make a mark for position A and then position B, it will always will focus what you had in those positions doesnt matter if you move the ring fast or slow, at that position you will focus what you intended to focus. The none linear, the position of the ring will always be different and will depend on how fast you move the ring and not the actual position of the focus ring. Linear is important for videographers to plan a shot.
I use the sigma 28mm/1.4 hsm in L mount. It's superb even on larger megapixel sensors, and low cost now. 28mm was favoured in the past as a reportage wide angle and I like its lack of overt distortion. Don't use zooms though.
Yes. I have the. 28 mm HSM and 40 mm HSM and love them. I also had a 28 mm as my widest lens back in the film days. I just need something wide enough to take a photo of somebody feet to head.
28 should be the new 24 and 24 should be the new maximum wide angle. I always felt 24 felt barrel distorted even with compesation, but 28, 40, 44, 62, 65 and 90 all look extra fancy to me. This is a great lens and Sigma would be wise to make a non-extending cinema version of it to compete with Canon's 24-105 F/2.8 IS L. But for full frame I've always wanted a somewhere around a 35-85 zoom stabilized F/1.8 G-Master lens. if that's possible I think that could OWN the event space. 24-70 and 70-200 feel old school and 12-24, 28-105 and a favorite tele prime sounds like the kit of the future.
@@chikstarwsnot physically possible. One must simply learn how to edit the wonky Sony stills to enjoy their impressive video abilities. Just don’t expect a proper cine system from them.
The manual focus seems like more than just a nit pick and is incredibly important. That said it looks interesting and I'm looking forward to renting it.
6:33 I would usually usually zoom in to max first to get focus then adjust from there on a parfocal lens to give it the best chance of maintaining. Once you set it at 105 then zoomed back out. It was sharp. Out of interest, once you zoomed back in again, was it still sharp again or was it just losing focus somehow on zooming in?
I think my 35-150 f2-2.8 will work better. It might be slightly heavier but the range on it just works better for me since most wide zoom lenses cover up to 28mm or more! I wish it was smaller then I would've considered it more!
It's interesting you compared it to the 24-105 F4 (which I used to have and loved), but didn't mention the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8. IMO the Sigma is much closer in ambition to the Tamron, not least because it's basically a superzoom with a big aperture. Depending on the type of stuff you shoot and if you're okay with cropping on a higher resolution sensor, maybe the difference between 105 and 150 isn't huge. I will say the handling on the Tamron isn't brilliant, especially on Sony bodies. In any case, we're as spoiled for options as we've ever been. We've come a long way since having the Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 as our only 35mm option!
Nice review. The sunstars are a definitive plus for a zoom lens, I guess the blades aren't very curved? Straight-ish. How much do you need to stop down in order to get them? And were sunstars the reason Sigma decided to give this lens this aperture setup and if so why are they never doing sunstars again? 10 or 12 straight blades is just perfect and if this Sigma's blades are straightish then I'm not aware of any other similar zoom. These kinds of sunstars can really add to a shot and I normally need to resort to a Loxia or a CV lens to get them.
For photo quality, which lens do you recommend? Sigma 28-105mm F2.8 or Sigma 24-70mm F2.8? It will be used for nature photography, for street photography of buildings and also people.
I was just in the market for a new lens, about to upgrade from my kit lens. Which would be a better fit between the 28-105 and the 24-70 MK II from Sigma? Mostly travel/street photography, with some video, here and there. Not sure if the size or length when extended would be an issue.
I was looking at different lens to buy for my work studio setup and I am not too knowledgeable in the realm of cameras/lens, but this one stuck out to me due to its versatility and fairly reasonable price. I know this is an art lens (and as I understand, that means it is meant more so for photography) but I would be utilizing this lens mainly for video. Will this lens work well for videography? We would mainly be filming in our studio with controlled lighting, but sometimes, we are outside filming people moving around/in dark areas filming as well. Right now, we have a Sony A7 iv as our main cam with a Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS, so pretty much anything would be an improvement
Its a lens that need a camera to match (especially for video work). 28mm with the IS crop or any crop becomes really tight. And if you have a camera with 12 800 base ISO, don't really need the stop of light. But If you have a no crop bad iso camera, its the perfect match.
⚠Please do more AF testing!⚠ I have used both Tamron and Sigma lenses on the newest and best Sony cameras and there are quite a lot of AF caveats to consider. For example using the Tamron 35-150, it cannot hold focus while zooming in or out (a1 or A9iii). And sometimes has quite a hard time requiring focus after an extreme zoom-in / or out. But if you compare it to a G lens, not even a GM, the Sony 24-105 F4, it can hold focus very well, quite comparable to the new 70-200 f2.8 GMii. Also there are differences with tracking in low light situations. These differences are quite important especially while filming, but also while doing photography. So it is worth testing the AF in more scenarios, not just quick "close and far" test.
Interesting. I love their 35-150 and was hoping / waiting for a 28-135.. They opted for 28-105, probably for weight consideration. 28-135, I would buy right away, 28-105 seems too much of an incremental value. The parfocalness is a nice feature but may require more work it seems.
I see this lens for event photo or videography. The manual focus is a bit of a bummer tbh. Lets see some real life field footage. maybe I change my gold 24-70 f2.8 to this lens because if I need to get wider I have a 16-28 and a 24mm t1.9
9:40 as a real estate photographer, we do this often! 😂 If the sun presents itself in an opportune location, this will be one of the facade or backyard shots! 😂
I own the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 but that lens is 1150 grams... little heavy, I am gonna wait if Tamron actually comes out with the 28-180 f2.8 and see how heavy that is going to be, but this sigma 28-105 f2.8 is literally the perfect video lens with its 990 grams. Also without any stabilization in lenses I barely use my Tamron over 100mm, at least not for video work. For photo I think the Tamron is a better choice, because you can travel with 2 lenses a 16-35 and the 35-150 but for video work this Sigma 28-105 would be a one and done. Nice job Sigma!
My first reaction when I saw this lens was, "I want one now". But I've reconsidered. I have the Sony 24-70 2.8 but wish it was stabilized. So this new 28-105 comes along but it too is not stabilized. When I'm shooting ballet (usually not well lit and fast action) I need the stabilization. I also have the Sony 24-105 which is stabilized but is an f/4 lens. So to me if I pick up the Sigma 28-105 2.8 all I really gain is 35mm of reach. Not worth it. I suspect Sony will now come out with a 28-105 stabilized but it will be prohibitive in cost.
I hate to suggest adding more work, but I’m curious if the LoCA results change with the focus distance. I don’t know your grid scale but I’m guessing right now the focus distance is consistent with a head shot, but if you had space for a larger grid that was deep enough to set a focus distance consistent with an upper body (or wider) shot that still gets meaningful out of focus areas, it would be interesting to see if that changes the LoCA results
Thanks Gerald--I'm super hyped for this lens! As a wedding photographer/videographer using the S5, this lens looks very appealing. I personally feel no loss on this lens not being 24mm and having no stabilization. Stabilization would be great, but I'll need to see if my S5 IBIS will be good enough. For most of the day, I'm carrying the 24-70 on one camera and the 70-200 on a second body. When shooting, I normally try not to go wider than 35mm, and when doing portraits, I often use my 70-200 at 105-135mm range. Apart from the ceremony, I might be able to have just this one lens on me which would be amazing.
@@jonjoygaba SAMYANG just released the L-Mount variant of their 35-150 f2-2.8 lens! Would highly recommend, not the sharpest of all lenses but really can't get any zoom for video for a better price imo
I will stick with my Sony 24-105 f4. For me the 28mm is not wide enough. I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and the extra 4mm at the wide end of the Sony makes a big difference. The Sony also has image stabilisation and is about 2/3rd of the size (665 grams compared to 950g). Yes, it’s not 2.8 but I haven’t missed that at all.
I think we sometimes get wrapped around the axle on focal length. I started out in film and my kit for years consisted of primes at 28mm, 50mm, and 200mm. To use the lenses at varying distances, you had to use your feet! So, am I worried that our obsession with focal lengths produces comments like, "it's only 28mm at the wide end so it's a trash lens" are a bit hyperbolic. Plus, the probable tradeoff in size and weight probably makes this f2.8 lens usable.
I'm often taking nothing but one-two primes with me for a day of shooting. I don't see a goal of taking as many pictures as possible of everything that comes my way, I don't need a wide-range zoom. If I take just a few lovely pictures that would suffice.
There will not be any new EF lenses released by Canon or any other manufacturer as those lenses are going out of production with the RF system replacing EF as Canon's main priority.
Guys, can I use Sigma 28-105 DG DN ART to my Canon R6 mark II using adapter ? Because I have Sigma 50 f1.4 DG HSM Art thats work well with my adapter, but I dont know if DG DN type can work with the adapter ? Thank you !
i usually watch your videos all the way to the end this one i got only to 59 seconds when you say its not stabilised lol you shouldve kept that bummer to the end lol
So is this basically my current Sigma Art 24-70 2.8, but just 28-105? If so I probably want it soon. Love my 24-70 but I usually need more zoom than I need wider shots
Keyword = "usually". Even if only 10% of your shots are at 24mm for ex, or even 27mm. Those are shots that you will never be able to get with the 28-105. However when you need 105 and are limited to 70, you could always crop in and have a decent approximation of 105. Sure you lose a bit of quality but you're getting the shot.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube great point about cropping to get the same field of view, but I will note that ƒ2.8 bokeh will be stronger at 105mm than 70mm. Cropping won't get you that additional blur.
Someone plz advise, im doing 99% of portraits, I rly dont need lower than 35mm, im wondering: this 28-105 with no ois or the tamron 35-150 (which is my PERFECT range) but has focus breathing bringing it to 110mm or so, with an image quality im not sure about as well or a 70-200 with no @ compromises appart losing that 35-70mm range. I think it would make for an interesting video, many photographer friends asking themselves the same question around me with very split opinions.
A lot of people are going on about it not being 24... but the fact that they kept this so close in weight to the 24-105 f4 makes it amazing for me. If I need 24 then I'll often want to have a 14-28 on anyway.
If they'd made it 24-105 f2.8 it probably would have weighed 500g more and cost $600 more, and then people would complain about that. Unless you're going to go and make your own 14-300 f1.2, then just accept that this is an incredible lens.
Close weight? The Sony 24-105 F4 is more than 300g lighter. That is the weight of a prime lens (F1.8) you can bring with you if you need a shallower DoF or more lightgathering.
I'd take the two lens combo for its versatility over the Sigma.
Each to their own. I am not the target for this phenomenal lens, but I don't know who is.
It's way to big for a walk around lens and for events its either way to cropped in with its 28mm or too short with its 105mm reach.
Only thing I can think of is, that this Sigma is great in studio work.
@@renelackner3081i think it might make for a good photojournalism lens. 35-150mm f2-2.8 Tamron was really popular for that. This is slightly lighter, and goes slightly wider
The 24-105 has lens os this doesn't and is 24mm not 28
35-150 is much better choice
@@陈一峰-y1r yeah indeed
“I’m Gerald Undone and I have a healthy barrel extension.”
Sigma dock software can tune focus sensitivity. Maybe not as detailed as video people would want, but you can make the focus throw longer.
this feels like christmas. 2 review videos from gerald one after another!
insane specs, lenses are just so good these days, I love it
Perfect doc lenses, I could leave this on my Burano/FX3 all day
I didn't even think about documentary work. The focal length is excellent for that.
I would love to see a comparison with the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-2.8mm
Was thinking the same. Looks like the Sigma is about 1/2 lighter.
1200g compared to 990g , about an iphones weight in difference
My new Sigma 2.8 24-70 arrived a few hours ago and I already opened the box! I'm crying! Waaaah! This is very usable focal range, negating even the Sony 70-200 I bought a few months ago. With this I could go from 12-24 (+APSC mode), to 28-105, and then jump right on the 100-400. Eliminating TWO expensive Sony lenses in the process. Damn you Sigma!! ;)
😢😢😢😢
Well, I'm sure you can return it even if you've opened the box.
Worth giving it a try anyway ;)
@@MrSindriSvan haha! I was literally wondering how to rewrap a box in plastic! I'll try it 😃
I've returned sigma lenses before after opening the box. If that doesnt work you can always sell it back to MPB but you'll probably get less money back than what you paid (unless you bought it used and got a really good deal on it)
@@justjesse247 I mean, where did you buy it from? Don't most stores have a return window on products? EG. BH has a 30-day return policy.
Gillette : 12 blades you say 🕵🏼♀️
Dying 😂😂😂
@@Nathan_Lundstrom Tjena!
New product idea unlocked!
@@TigaWould thank you! :)
Was looking forward to this, this is such an exciting lens considering the focal lengths and aperture 😊
After watching all the reviews in TH-cam when it come to buy a camera or light or lens its GERALD UNDONE review matters😍
Sigma isn't playing around. Love them. Great to have so many good options.
Yeah is 28mm and no lens OS terrible
When it comes to zooms, Tamron is usually ahead of the game and Sigma is just a mediocre follower.
@frankfeng2701 haha it certainly isn't sigma always has better build quality and better optics. Tamron just ok
@@frankfeng2701 "Sigma is just a mediocre follower" bruh did you wake up in 2008? What Sigma zoom from the past 5 years has NOT been stellar?
Aside from the insightful review, the outro of the bee changing color was artsy cool. Nice!
Damn he’s on fire lately ladies and gentlemen!
i was literally looking for a lens like this yesterday and sigma heard my calling
There is something to be said about Sigma, I honestly have stuck with them and their art series for years now. I still shoot a 7D Mk II and my "daily driver" 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 MACRO. It always seemed to be minimal with Chromatic Aboration. At 300mm it is by no means the sharpest, but the pricepoint always blew me away for 500 bucks US, I have a wide arrange of work I've done with that lens that I have sold large prints of, and am always stunned how they looked to similar shots with my Canon Primes and Zoom/Telephoto lenses.
Now, I will pine as no one makes new EF EF-M mounted lenses (because why would anyone?), but awesome and in-depth as always! I love seeing new offerings like this!
This would been an amazing video lens if it was stabilized.
Now I just need to decide between this and my 35-150...
💯 it would be cool for Gerald to do a comparison with the new wave of nonstandard zoom ranges that span wide to tele. I have a 35-150 Tamron. Love it but I always miss having a 24 for tighter spaces.
@@benmooreman It's a big glass,but maybe you ca dual wield 16-35 and 35-150.
Imo this is better than 35-150 because you can still kinda work with 28 as walk arouns but 35 is like the last fl you can actually walk with and film everything over that is shaky or moves too fast
There's no substitution for 35/2+150/2.8 in one lens with just 28/2.8 WHEN you use the 35-150 in 2+ lens setup (as 'intended', when ultra/wide is needed with both 28 and 35 for a good usual coverage anyway), saving more by not having to carry 70-200 when applicable.
The 28-105 is for a different group I think.
There's no way that I would get this over the 35-150. It's hard to beat the versatility of the Tamron lens. Getting the Sony 16-35 or the Tamron 17-28 would take care of the wide end if 35mm isn't enough.
Dang!! Here’s a solid option from sigma. Bravo
It's an interesting lens, but I'm definitely not running out the door to replace the 24-105 G.
As usual. Great and detailed review 🙌🏼 down, thank you
Just when I was in the market for a lens with a bit more range than my 24-70
Yes, if only it were internal zoom.
@@Giovanni-Giorgio 🙄 You have no idea if the original commenter cares about this.
@@daysandwords I do, absolutely and I wish it was 24-105mm f/2.8, but I'm not familiar with lens architecture enough to know how feasible that would have been
@@PeterHKwok I think Canon’s RF 24-105mm f2.8 achieves that focal range with the compromise of weight, 2.9 lbs vs the 28-105mm at 2.2lbs. I’m always torn about the light weight 24-70’s and having this flexibility in focal length. I’d be interested to know people’s thoughts on a 28/105mm f2.8 versus Tamron’s 35/150mm f2-2.8….same length and only .4lbs heavier…but a bit more reach if you are already gonna go the “heavy lens” route. Trying to find reviews to compare both
They made this for you, Peter. Buy two.
This is one of the most impressive zoom lenses I have ever seen. That LOCA, Focus Breathing, sharpness, and weight performance is nothing short of miraculous. L Mount has the better version of this lens, Lumix gang hit my up in the replies. I have no issues with 28mm personally, it’s perfectly wide enough. If 28 isn’t wide enough for you either your event space is too small, or you’re just not being creative enough ;)
For me, this would be a great lens for my aspc camera for portraits.
does someone know, why or when he switched back to the "old" setup? Because he tried the "night show" style one a view months back. But I never heard him talk about why.
But thanks for the Video! Nice as always
cannot wait for this lens to be at my local hire company so I can test it out at my last weeding this year😍
The Linear and none linear focus ring, I understand is when you make a mark for position A and then position B, it will always will focus what you had in those positions doesnt matter if you move the ring fast or slow, at that position you will focus what you intended to focus. The none linear, the position of the ring will always be different and will depend on how fast you move the ring and not the actual position of the focus ring. Linear is important for videographers to plan a shot.
I would love a 20-70 f2.8. That would be my dream lens.
I use the sigma 28mm/1.4 hsm in L mount. It's superb even on larger megapixel sensors, and low cost now. 28mm was favoured in the past as a reportage wide angle and I like its lack of overt distortion. Don't use zooms though.
Yes. I have the. 28 mm HSM and 40 mm HSM and love them. I also had a 28 mm as my widest lens back in the film days. I just need something wide enough to take a photo of somebody feet to head.
I am using Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 and it's quite great alternative to that lens. It doesn't have 150 but it has 28. Very good.
Thanks for sharing it. ✌️
8:57 I typically don’t even like sunstars (don’t know what the fuss is about, I just think they’re weird), but this... looks kinda cool!
So I guess the real question is does the f/2.8 with updated autofocus justify going over oss with an 24-105 f/4 with Sony?
That’s a perfect run and gun lens for documentary work - if yo like shooting on photo lenses
I hope Sigma considers making an APS-C equivalent, like a 17-70mm f/1.8 lens.
Wow we really live in a time with intense competition between the manufacturers which gets us closer and closer to the “perfect” lens
Can not wait for this to make it to Z-mount. I've absolutely loved switching to Nikon from Sony, but the wait for 3rd party lenses has been killer.
Waiting game is a very bad one. See, you're suffering right now instead of enjoying it.
28 should be the new 24 and 24 should be the new maximum wide angle. I always felt 24 felt barrel distorted even with compesation, but 28, 40, 44, 62, 65 and 90 all look extra fancy to me. This is a great lens and Sigma would be wise to make a non-extending cinema version of it to compete with Canon's 24-105 F/2.8 IS L. But for full frame I've always wanted a somewhere around a 35-85 zoom stabilized F/1.8 G-Master lens. if that's possible I think that could OWN the event space. 24-70 and 70-200 feel old school and 12-24, 28-105 and a favorite tele prime sounds like the kit of the future.
More selection! Nice. When is the RF version coming out?
I doubt that will ever happen
@@michaelcroff7097 is there an E to RF adapter around?
@@TigaWouldyou can use E mount lenses on Nikon Z mount cameras
@@chikstarwsnot physically possible. One must simply learn how to edit the wonky Sony stills to enjoy their impressive video abilities. Just don’t expect a proper cine system from them.
Never.
Sigma's gonna sell a ton of these.
I still cant pick this over the tamron 35-150 . you just get much more. As a pro photographer, we would still go with the tamron
This or the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8? Which do you choose?
Awesome that’s it’s available for RF!
The manual focus seems like more than just a nit pick and is incredibly important. That said it looks interesting and I'm looking forward to renting it.
6:33 I would usually usually zoom in to max first to get focus then adjust from there on a parfocal lens to give it the best chance of maintaining. Once you set it at 105 then zoomed back out. It was sharp. Out of interest, once you zoomed back in again, was it still sharp again or was it just losing focus somehow on zooming in?
I think my 35-150 f2-2.8 will work better. It might be slightly heavier but the range on it just works better for me since most wide zoom lenses cover up to 28mm or more! I wish it was smaller then I would've considered it more!
It's interesting you compared it to the 24-105 F4 (which I used to have and loved), but didn't mention the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8. IMO the Sigma is much closer in ambition to the Tamron, not least because it's basically a superzoom with a big aperture. Depending on the type of stuff you shoot and if you're okay with cropping on a higher resolution sensor, maybe the difference between 105 and 150 isn't huge. I will say the handling on the Tamron isn't brilliant, especially on Sony bodies.
In any case, we're as spoiled for options as we've ever been. We've come a long way since having the Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 as our only 35mm option!
Nice review. The sunstars are a definitive plus for a zoom lens, I guess the blades aren't very curved? Straight-ish. How much do you need to stop down in order to get them? And were sunstars the reason Sigma decided to give this lens this aperture setup and if so why are they never doing sunstars again? 10 or 12 straight blades is just perfect and if this Sigma's blades are straightish then I'm not aware of any other similar zoom. These kinds of sunstars can really add to a shot and I normally need to resort to a Loxia or a CV lens to get them.
For photo quality, which lens do you recommend? Sigma 28-105mm F2.8 or Sigma 24-70mm F2.8? It will be used for nature photography, for street photography of buildings and also people.
Wow that is kinda cool though i would love gm version but i may grab for my next trip i need some zoom sometimes
I was just in the market for a new lens, about to upgrade from my kit lens.
Which would be a better fit between the 28-105 and the 24-70 MK II from Sigma?
Mostly travel/street photography, with some video, here and there. Not sure if the size or length when extended would be an issue.
I was looking at different lens to buy for my work studio setup and I am not too knowledgeable in the realm of cameras/lens, but this one stuck out to me due to its versatility and fairly reasonable price. I know this is an art lens (and as I understand, that means it is meant more so for photography) but I would be utilizing this lens mainly for video. Will this lens work well for videography? We would mainly be filming in our studio with controlled lighting, but sometimes, we are outside filming people moving around/in dark areas filming as well. Right now, we have a Sony A7 iv as our main cam with a Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS, so pretty much anything would be an improvement
We really need a proper comparison between this and the Tamron 35-150 and in the future vs the behemoth rumored Tamron 28-180mm f2.8.
Its a lens that need a camera to match (especially for video work). 28mm with the IS crop or any crop becomes really tight. And if you have a camera with 12 800 base ISO, don't really need the stop of light. But If you have a no crop bad iso camera, its the perfect match.
⚠Please do more AF testing!⚠
I have used both Tamron and Sigma lenses on the newest and best Sony cameras and there are quite a lot of AF caveats to consider. For example using the Tamron 35-150, it cannot hold focus while zooming in or out (a1 or A9iii). And sometimes has quite a hard time requiring focus after an extreme zoom-in / or out. But if you compare it to a G lens, not even a GM, the Sony 24-105 F4, it can hold focus very well, quite comparable to the new 70-200 f2.8 GMii. Also there are differences with tracking in low light situations. These differences are quite important especially while filming, but also while doing photography.
So it is worth testing the AF in more scenarios, not just quick "close and far" test.
Interesting. I love their 35-150 and was hoping / waiting for a 28-135.. They opted for 28-105, probably for weight consideration. 28-135, I would buy right away, 28-105 seems too much of an incremental value. The parfocalness is a nice feature but may require more work it seems.
I see this lens for event photo or videography. The manual focus is a bit of a bummer tbh. Lets see some real life field footage. maybe I change my gold 24-70 f2.8 to this lens because if I need to get wider I have a 16-28 and a 24mm t1.9
9:40 as a real estate photographer, we do this often! 😂
If the sun presents itself in an opportune location, this will be one of the facade or backyard shots! 😂
Gerald, how do feel about this vs the 35-150?
Would love to see a 28-105 vs Lecia 24-90....
I own the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 but that lens is 1150 grams... little heavy, I am gonna wait if Tamron actually comes out with the 28-180 f2.8 and see how heavy that is going to be, but this sigma 28-105 f2.8 is literally the perfect video lens with its 990 grams. Also without any stabilization in lenses I barely use my Tamron over 100mm, at least not for video work. For photo I think the Tamron is a better choice, because you can travel with 2 lenses a 16-35 and the 35-150 but for video work this Sigma 28-105 would be a one and done. Nice job Sigma!
These long 2.8 zooms coming out recently are really pushing things in a cool direction
has anyone noticed that Geralds emotion in his recent videos has been a little bit sad, hope he is alright
My first reaction when I saw this lens was, "I want one now". But I've reconsidered.
I have the Sony 24-70 2.8 but wish it was stabilized. So this new 28-105 comes along but it too is not stabilized. When I'm shooting ballet (usually not well lit and fast action) I need the stabilization. I also have the Sony 24-105 which is stabilized but is an f/4 lens. So to me if I pick up the Sigma 28-105 2.8 all I really gain is 35mm of reach. Not worth it.
I suspect Sony will now come out with a 28-105 stabilized but it will be prohibitive in cost.
I hate to suggest adding more work, but I’m curious if the LoCA results change with the focus distance. I don’t know your grid scale but I’m guessing right now the focus distance is consistent with a head shot, but if you had space for a larger grid that was deep enough to set a focus distance consistent with an upper body (or wider) shot that still gets meaningful out of focus areas, it would be interesting to see if that changes the LoCA results
I'm sold, but my biggest question is how would it wrok on a gimbal
Are Good for Sport photography..??
No stabiliser. Thanks for clarifying early. That’s what I wanted to know.
Thanks Gerald--I'm super hyped for this lens!
As a wedding photographer/videographer using the S5, this lens looks very appealing. I personally feel no loss on this lens not being 24mm and having no stabilization. Stabilization would be great, but I'll need to see if my S5 IBIS will be good enough. For most of the day, I'm carrying the 24-70 on one camera and the 70-200 on a second body. When shooting, I normally try not to go wider than 35mm, and when doing portraits, I often use my 70-200 at 105-135mm range. Apart from the ceremony, I might be able to have just this one lens on me which would be amazing.
A 35-150 seems so perfect for you based on what you said.
@@Chhuoey do they make one for the l-mount? I didn’t realize that if they did.
@@jonjoygaba SAMYANG just released the L-Mount variant of their 35-150 f2-2.8 lens! Would highly recommend, not the sharpest of all lenses but really can't get any zoom for video for a better price imo
Ramble on sir!
How about a 24-85 f1.4?
sigmas are the coolest sturdiest and sexiest looking and best quality (on par to first party) lenses from a Third Party Brand
great lens! but i think they need to compete sony's 24/40/50mm g compact lens.
The af speed so quick it looked like you speed ramped the af bit
I will stick with my Sony 24-105 f4. For me the 28mm is not wide enough. I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and the extra 4mm at the wide end of the Sony makes a big difference. The Sony also has image stabilisation and is about 2/3rd of the size (665 grams compared to 950g). Yes, it’s not 2.8 but I haven’t missed that at all.
I wonder what kind of crazy lenses we will have in 10 years
I think we sometimes get wrapped around the axle on focal length. I started out in film and my kit for years consisted of primes at 28mm, 50mm, and 200mm. To use the lenses at varying distances, you had to use your feet! So, am I worried that our obsession with focal lengths produces comments like, "it's only 28mm at the wide end so it's a trash lens" are a bit hyperbolic. Plus, the probable tradeoff in size and weight probably makes this f2.8 lens usable.
I'm often taking nothing but one-two primes with me for a day of shooting. I don't see a goal of taking as many pictures as possible of everything that comes my way, I don't need a wide-range zoom. If I take just a few lovely pictures that would suffice.
Lack of parfocality while zooming is a showstopper for me.
This is a great lens but the 28mm is a deciding factor
would you consider the possibility of sigma sending you a handpicked example that they preselected and not a "random one" anyone would get at a shop?
how is the sharpness compared to a prime lens?This is stopping me to buy something like this, and use just primes...😢
So how does it compare to Tamryang 35-150?
This is the comparison we need.
Sigma 28-105 F2.8 or Tamron 35-150 F2.0-F2.8. We are in a good era where plenty of choices are available!
Oh I would love an RF version so much! Please Canon! My goodness
What can we do?? (EF I presume)
There will not be any new EF lenses released by Canon or any other manufacturer as those lenses are going out of production with the RF system replacing EF as Canon's main priority.
Guys, can I use Sigma 28-105 DG DN ART to my Canon R6 mark II using adapter ?
Because I have Sigma 50 f1.4 DG HSM Art thats work well with my adapter, but I dont know if DG DN type can work with the adapter ?
Thank you !
It makes sense that it’s not a 24mm. It would hurt their own 24-70 2.8. It’s why Nikon for example makes a stellar 24-120 but it’s an F4
i usually watch your videos all the way to the end
this one i got only to 59 seconds when you say its not stabilised lol
you shouldve kept that bummer to the end lol
Too bad it too lacks power zoom - something that would be more than welcome in video shooting, particularly on a gimbal...
omg the outro... is like on LSD...
24-105 would be definitely good otherwise I rather stick to 16-35, 35-150
Big, heavy and no stabilization. Otherwise sounds really good.
Old Studio? 🧐 or am I going completely mad?
So is this basically my current Sigma Art 24-70 2.8, but just 28-105? If so I probably want it soon. Love my 24-70 but I usually need more zoom than I need wider shots
Keyword = "usually". Even if only 10% of your shots are at 24mm for ex, or even 27mm. Those are shots that you will never be able to get with the 28-105. However when you need 105 and are limited to 70, you could always crop in and have a decent approximation of 105. Sure you lose a bit of quality but you're getting the shot.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube great point about cropping to get the same field of view, but I will note that ƒ2.8 bokeh will be stronger at 105mm than 70mm. Cropping won't get you that additional blur.
can't wait until Samyang release a plastic version for 1/4 the price 😍
Someone plz advise, im doing 99% of portraits, I rly dont need lower than 35mm, im wondering: this 28-105 with no ois or the tamron 35-150 (which is my PERFECT range) but has focus breathing bringing it to 110mm or so, with an image quality im not sure about as well or a 70-200 with no @ compromises appart losing that 35-70mm range.
I think it would make for an interesting video, many photographer friends asking themselves the same question around me with very split opinions.
Might as well just get the Tamron 35-150mm F2 to 2.8 and leave it at 2.8 so you don't have to deal with the variable aperture.
Can you talk more about camera-related physics again? I miss those type of videos. Not asking for a pivot in your videos, maybe just a a one off.
9:36 is that the sensor itself reflecting off the lens and back into the sensor? 🤯
11:01 is that focus field curvature?
35-85 f/2 would be so good. I wonder if it’s possible….
This is now my dream lens too!