One thing most people dont know, is that the canon is almost perfect parfocal, where as the sigma is not at all. So for video the canon is just magic, you focus once on 24mm and when you zoom in to 105 its still pretty much in focus. Same goes for the 70-200 f4 is.
I love your narration and review style! There's nothing pretentious or narcissist about your approach of these lenses and your observations are very refreshing.
Exactly, the information is given and you don't get the impression that you are being schooled- like someone is being pretentious, because they know more- but you've been given the information and in a accessible way. I love it.
Hi Chris, I always enjoy your reviews, your one of the best on lens reviews and comparisons. You forgot to mention that the Canon 24-105L lens has Dustproof and Waterproof Sealing. Great video Keep up the great work = )
thankyou. I had the Sigma on a d750 for 6 years, and it made great pictures, but i got rid of it last week, fed up of it being so heavy, Also, after being dropped off the bike, the camera survived untouched, but the lens snapped off at the mount. Thankfully, Sigma was able to repair it no problem, but a year later it jammed and had to go back, and when returned it was like new. God will bless you and yours too!
I intended to mention this when I first read your comment about having proposed a month earlier, and my sincerest apologies for the late response to that announcement! Congratulations!!! May the both of you have a long and fruitful life :)
Great comparison review Chris, hope the wedding stuff is going well. You know one thing that boggles my mind is why Canon doesnt update many of their L lenses. I am not talking about a complete overhaul, but a few minor updates here and there. For example the 24-105. Would it really be that hard to add new updated optical coatings to the lens, or perhaps a updated IS system. Not huge update, but minor ones enough to keep their lens more competitive.
I wonder about that too, sometimes! Canon don't tend to update a lens unless they can pull something really special out of the bag, though. I hear an update of the 35mm f/1.4 is coming, though :-)
Joe's Photo & Video Blog I think that with all the cell phone cameras improving out there, people who buy Point & Shoot cameras, and DSLRs will be less. Less people will dabble in DSLRs because they will get by with their cell phones. Less people buying equipment means less people enhancing their skills to buy high end equipment, which will take the biggest hit, since that is a niche market to begin with.
sjs So far DSLR's (key word: "so far", lol) are still selling strong, even still above the mirror-less market. But I expect that to change over the next 3 to 5 years. However the compact/ portable camera market is hurting bad. Canon just had to re-adjust its quarterly projections because of poor sells from their entry level cameras. But IMHO thats Canons fault, they got 43 difference models of powershot cameras (which includes the G series) Manufacturing cost is eating up their profit. If they scaled back to only 4 PowerShot cameras. They would greatly improve earnings. The basic $99 camera is DEAD gone, replaced by smartphones and iPods. So yea, I agree with part of what your saying. However, smartphones still take crap photos. I can see this changing to a degree in the future, but keep in mind when SmartPhone cameras get better, DSLR and ML cameras will have gotten even better also.. Cheers, Joe
Yasser Sultan I think that was what it was meant to be. Plus lighter and smaller. However optically they are very close and no real reason to get the 24-70 over the 24-105. At least from a still photo stand point.
I have the Canon 24-105 and find that it go almost 1 stop darker and somewhat out of focus when fully zoomed in. Others have claimed the same. I'm wondering if the Sigma performs better in this regard.
Alex Wong Tony Northrup has reviewed all the 70-200 f2.8 lenses. Well, not *all* of them, but the best from each SLR-brand maker. Just in case you're interested.
I love your reviews Christopher! I'm narrowing it down between the Sigma 24-105 f4 Art and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Art to be used primarily for video making on my Canon M50.
Thank you for the lovely video This is a remarkably well done review: honest, precise and straight to the point. I've just bought the Sigma for video making :-)
Congratulation Christopher for all your videos and your recent wedding! I'm a great fan, just one remark : in your sharpness testings, you always shoot the same building. No problem with that, but did you notice their is often a part of the roof in the top corners of your frame ? It obviously change the focusing plan, and increases softness, don't you think?
Thanks for sharing! Great video! I was still up for debate on which lens to buy. Both have good quality and both have bad! I think the Canon in the end won my vote. Thanks again for this review! You should have been a salesman! :)
Hi Chris! First of all, I'd like to state how much I like your videos, through them you've helped me a tremendous amount. Your work assured me in deciding to transition to Full-Frame from APS-C, and recently I've bought a used 6D mark II. In the last few days I've watched two of your videos back and forth: - Old vs. New: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM 'L' ii (2017) - Sigma vs. Canon! Sigma 24-105mm f/4 'Art' (2015) As I understand these lenses are very similar both optically and feature-wise. I've arrived at the conclusion that the Sigma would suite me best. The old Canon is not really available neither used nor as new in Hungary, and the newer one is priced 1.4 times higher than the Sigma. My question towards you is that do you recall any characteristics of the newer Canon that would justify its higher price? Also I do not really know whether it would worth the effort, but would you consider comparing the newer Canon and the Sigma ina video? I wish the very best for you, despite the hardships of this year! Thankfully, Andras
@@gkiss2030 Not long after my comment I've bought a copy, it was a very reliable companion. But for the 6DmkII I used at the time f/4 was quite limiting. Good for travel and landscape but too slow for indoors. Since I've switched to e-mount I only use it reversed as a macro lens of sorts. Great lens for beginners, but but quite heavy so it's a burden to travel or hike with I had the chance to try a Canon 24-105 L mk1 too, compared to the Sigma that was lightweight BUT felt cheap dated and plasticky. After all I won't recommend buying either, save up and get a faster lens a 24-70 f/2.8 preferably.
You comment on the Sigma's 'red cast', but I don't think that's a red cast. I think it is the Sigma's greater contrast levels. The yellows and greens in the fuller shot look fine.
thankyou very much , your lens comparison videos are awesome and very useful, i love your videos., can you tell me that which lens is long-lasting in sigma and canon?
Nice review! I bought the Canon 24-105 mm when it came out. For much more money then the lens cost nowadays. It is a very nice all round zoom, not to heavy and the IS is good for me (I only shoot stills). But the build quality has a one big disadvantage, it does not have a lock switch. After a few years my copy began to creep. And that is very annoying, especially for an walk around zoom. First I tried to fix it with an elastic and now I put a thin piece of tape on the part that comes out. It works, but is that L quality? Needless to say I love that little Canon zoom off course :) I have great Sigma Art lens, the 50 mm F1.4. I pass on this one.
I wish I could buy the sigma but they are using 82mm filters and I can't change a full kit of 77mm (very expensive) infrared, polarization and ND filters.
Brilliant review, thank you, Christopher. I love and prefer Sigma lenses over Canon. I own and love the 50mm Art Series EF and 14mm-24mm Art EF (this one is a work horse and gets used everyday on real estate and architecture shoots). Love them. Next up is the Sigma 24-105.
Managed to pick up a Sigma 24-105 Art EF for only £250. It shows good signs of use but its the performance that matters and for the money I can't complain
Thanks for a great review. Have heard from other sources that sigma lens is much better. It clear that it is not as large optically benefits between these two. Keep up the good work :)
Hai Christopher The sigma and canon 24-105mm lenses are great lenses but as a nikon use i have no choice among these lenses i purchased the Sigma lens for my d810 and d4 it realy shines on the d810 i was warned by other photographers to not to have it on D810 because this lens is no justification for the d810 sensors resolution i said nonsense it is very good on the D810 i can crop 100% and still have fine detail
I'm a bit torn because I was excited to be picking up my very first L lens and long wanted 24-105 canon lens in the morning.. of course you've got me second guessing this decision.. darn you sir.. that freakin' voice doesn't help! I still believe everything you say lol
You mentioned that sigma had some production issues with the 24-105 art lens. Can you please tell me what happened and if it was solved? Thanks in advance.
Hi, The sigma 24-105 f4 is a super sharp lens at Centre ... but the border are soft even at f8/f11... I would not recommend this lens for group shots ... where as the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 is the beast at f2.8 the sharpness is at Centre n not at borders but @ f4 onwards the sharpness is great all over the frame ... n this Tamron 24-70 g2 is recommend for all purpose either indoor n out door as well ... just try this lens ....its worth
I have a question. Presently I am shooting a Canon 80D with the Canon EFS 18-135 mm f3.5/5.6 IS USM lens, and I'm thinking about upgrading to the Sigma 24-105 f4 Art. I'm having issues with fine focusing on the Canon lens and am wondering if it's worth it to upgrade to the Sigma. How much better is it really? The Canon is a kit lens and I'm just wondering how much better this Sigma is. I have the Sigma 50 f1.4 and the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro and they are very good and I get excellent results with them. Thank you for your time.
Very nice video thank you so much for the information. In Greece the pricing is actually the opposite. The sigma lens comes at about 300-400 € cheaper than the canon lens and I was looking for an alternative purchase that fits my budget. I’m happy to know that their performance is so similar and I’m probably going for the sigma.
I wish I had rewatched this comparison breakdown BEFORE yesterday. 😂 Actually, I bought the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L II version for $648. I know you compared the L I version in your video, but I could have spent $500 vs. $648 and used that extra $148 difference to still have GREAT image quality and use the savings towards buying me an additional lens. Will be looking at getting a 20mm prime that would be better for low light and taking large group shots.
So overall, I am in the same position as you, just cannot decide between a used Canon and this used Sigma 24-105mm...I have Canon 16mm-35mm and 24mm-70mm lenses.....both take great still shots overall......
Could someone help me figure this out... 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 Im closely observing the flare test, but I cant see how the Sigma is better.... Canon has nicer richer tones, while keeping, sharpness and more contrast. While the Sigma has a strange green cast and looks just terrible... The same happens with Sigma 17-50 2.8 vs Canon Least expensive Prime lenses. To me this is important, becase I do shoot many back lit situations. And end up having to color correct and use the Dehaze tool. its a pain and takes 5 times longer to edit anything. While with the photos I get with a 50mm 1.8 or an 85mm 1.8, it comes out almost perfect. I dont even have to edit much.
I would be very happy if you would explain how to calibrate the lens. I bought because of your clips a 24-105 sigma lens but need to adjust it to the camera to get sharpness. In Israel it costs about $ 100
I can't make all these random comparison videos people keep asking for. It would take forever! I have a life to lead! Take a look at my reviews and you'll get a good idea about each lens.
Thanks for the great video Chris. I do everyday photography, wedding and other event photography. I have EOS R5 and confused to get a lens. which one do you suggest ? Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art lens with RF adaptor or Canon RF 24-105 F4L
First off, thank you. You are always class act. I just wanted to chime in about my experience with the ART series. I have been a recent cheerleader for this series. But I have recently returned the 35 and 50 ART lenses. In good light and under 10' these lenses were blissful to use at 1.4. But I realized that low light focus and infinity focus were completely unacceptable for me in terms of hit ratio. I spent hours using the USB doc to get them "right" to no avail. Considering how sharp these lenses were, I was quite unhappy to let them go. I have tried the 24-105 and was just as impressed with the IQ. Unfortunately I did not have the time to really evaluate the AF properly. To be honest, I spent more time than I wanted to with the primes and the USB doc. Replicating that process with many more points to calibrate on a zoom is not my idea of fun if the end result is the same as the primes. I want so badly to love the ART series. Still torn on trying this lens as I find the performance of the Canon to be underwhelming in my testing. Thank you again for the service you provide.
+Topper McFly It's such a shame you've had a bad experience - that can be frustrating. One option (which is quite slow) is to use live view autofocus in critical situations - that is always very accurate
I can chime on in this matter. I have the Sigma ART 35mm, the Sigma dock and three bodies - 5D classic, 10D, and 5D mark III. (Plus M50 mark II, but that focuses with DPAF, so never focus issue there.) I have noticed a similar thing with the 5D classic: every lose subject is razor sharp, in perfect focus, and beyond 5ft to infinity for the love of everything alive, it always misses focus, regardless of light level. So, I got the dock as I was sure it was a micro-adjustment thing. Lucky thing I tried the focus on 3 bodies. On the venerable (aka super-duper ancient Canons first CMOS DSLR from 2003) 10D it focused like a razorbeak hawkeye on anything and everything at any distance and any light level on any of the focal points, with haste (always under a split second). (Yes, even with the outer focus points in not much light!) It also focused super duper accurate with the 5D mark III, under any circumstances / light level / focus point. HOWEVER, on the 5D classic once I got beyond 4ft for the love of life it would not focus correctly. Either front focus, or back focus, most of the time the very edge of the focal plane touching the focusing point. (I shot both focusing test charts and real objects and people as well for this thorough test.) So, what I can say is that 2 bodies out of 3 worked absolute magic with the ART lens, while the 3rd was a DUD. The fault is not in the lens, it's in the body - some bodies just cannot communicate well with the lens. The ones that do, make ALL focus points work superbly, regardless of DSLR generation.
For any practical video work, you are not (or rarely) going to be using a shot that involves zooming so for me the backwards setup of Sigma's arrangement of zoom and focus rings was awful. Most camera's have the manual focus be the larger ring that is further from the body and easier to grab ... not only was sigmas opposite, but for some reason they made the focal ring stupidly narrow and difficult to adjust.
Below 24mm the unavoidable perspective distortion is very annoying. The 105mm is nice telephoto focal length for portraits and distant objects. Much better than the 70mm. The Canon 24-105mm is the kit lens of Canon full frame cameras and Sigma a cheaper replacement. My opinion is that the Sigma 24-105 is a great travel lens. Without the quality issues of all super telephoto lens and with a versatile useful focal length range.
No - it normally means that they are lenses that came in a kit with a camera, but were removed by the retailer to be sold seperately (although it could well be that refurbished lenses come in white boxes, too). As for prices, check out DigitalRev, they might have a good deal for you
Aron Sch sigma's are garbage...Sigma discontinue their lenses constantly and they stop making spare parts so repairs are not an option,when they fail and fail they will. I once made the mistake of purchasing a sigma 28-135 i.s.it failed to stop down,and when i contacted the idiots at sigma they said send it in insured wich costed me $80 . Then sigma fools told me that the lens was discontinued so no parts were available,but they said they could sell me the newest version a 24-105mm . So I told them to go to hell . Then the dumb asses asked if I wanted it returned to me.I told them hell yes stupid. Then I purchased the canon 28-135 i.s. f4.5 and the canon still works today. The sigma just sits in my glass front cabinet as a reminder to never purchase anyones after market crap.
If I understood correctly, the Canon lens is an older design, so they don't need to recoup any of the R&D on it. Looking at B+H, the Canon is a bit more expensive than the Sigma now, but only by $100, unless you step up to the eye watering $1300 for the Mk II version.
Great comparison as always! Question for you, I know someone asked you what would be a good lens to compliment the sigma 18-35 and fill that zoom range. You mentioned the 55-250 would be good, but I don't know how I feel about the variation in sharpness when using the two lenses. Do you think any of these are enough to satisfy that lack of zoom? Or since they will be overlapping between 24-35mm that it's not worth the price of having one of these? Maybe a better quality lens suggestion to fill that lack of zoom of the 18-35?
Chris, I don't know what would be the life without your reviews.
Thanks for what you do!
One thing most people dont know, is that the canon is almost perfect parfocal, where as the sigma is not at all. So for video the canon is just magic, you focus once on 24mm and when you zoom in to 105 its still pretty much in focus. Same goes for the 70-200 f4 is.
That is very intresting information. I never heard of it until now. Thankyou for sharing.
Great info!
Respect for these videos man, God bless!
I love your narration and review style! There's nothing pretentious or narcissist about your approach of these lenses and your observations are very refreshing.
Top quality video for sure. Especially compared to the backlight of the average TH-cam video. I wasn't bored to sit through all 9 minutes.
Exactly, the information is given and you don't get the impression that you are being schooled- like someone is being pretentious, because they know more- but you've been given the information and in a accessible way. I love it.
Hi Chris,
I always enjoy your reviews, your one of the best on lens reviews and comparisons.
You forgot to mention that the Canon 24-105L lens has Dustproof and Waterproof Sealing.
Great video
Keep up the great work = )
thankyou. I had the Sigma on a d750 for 6 years, and it made great pictures, but i got rid of it last week, fed up of it being so heavy, Also, after being dropped off the bike, the camera survived untouched, but the lens snapped off at the mount. Thankfully, Sigma was able to repair it no problem, but a year later it jammed and had to go back, and when returned it was like new. God will bless you and yours too!
I intended to mention this when I first read your comment about having proposed a month earlier, and my sincerest apologies for the late response to that announcement!
Congratulations!!! May the both of you have a long and fruitful life :)
I own this sigma with a 60D and a 6D. Is just AMAZING! Lovely!
I've been eyeballing this lens for so long and finally bought it thanks to your thorough review! You're the man thanks!
Still happy with this lens? Just curious...I want to buy also. Using a Canon 5d Mark 111.
Sigma are so underrated & now with the Fp/Fp-L cameras, also from Sigma, it's a win win purchase for hi-res photography.
Great comparison review Chris, hope the wedding stuff is going well.
You know one thing that boggles my mind is why Canon doesnt update many of their L lenses. I am not talking about a complete overhaul, but a few minor updates here and there. For example the 24-105. Would it really be that hard to add new updated optical coatings to the lens, or perhaps a updated IS system. Not huge update, but minor ones enough to keep their lens more competitive.
I wonder about that too, sometimes! Canon don't tend to update a lens unless they can pull something really special out of the bag, though. I hear an update of the 35mm f/1.4 is coming, though :-)
Joe's Photo & Video Blog I think that with all the cell phone cameras improving out there, people who buy Point & Shoot cameras, and DSLRs will be less. Less people will dabble in DSLRs because they will get by with their cell phones. Less people buying equipment means less people enhancing their skills to buy high end equipment, which will take the biggest hit, since that is a niche market to begin with.
sjs So far DSLR's (key word: "so far", lol) are still selling strong, even still above the mirror-less market. But I expect that to change over the next 3 to 5 years. However the compact/ portable camera market is hurting bad. Canon just had to re-adjust its quarterly projections because of poor sells from their entry level cameras. But IMHO thats Canons fault, they got 43 difference models of powershot cameras (which includes the G series) Manufacturing cost is eating up their profit. If they scaled back to only 4 PowerShot cameras. They would greatly improve earnings. The basic $99 camera is DEAD gone, replaced by smartphones and iPods. So yea, I agree with part of what your saying. However, smartphones still take crap photos. I can see this changing to a degree in the future, but keep in mind when SmartPhone cameras get better, DSLR and ML cameras will have gotten even better also.. Cheers, Joe
I think the 24-70 F4 is the update to this lens. It's substituting it as a kit lens with many of their ff cameras now
Yasser Sultan I think that was what it was meant to be. Plus lighter and smaller. However optically they are very close and no real reason to get the 24-70 over the 24-105. At least from a still photo stand point.
Thanks Christopher, another solid review. You just keep hitting them out of the park!
I have the Canon 24-105 and find that it go almost 1 stop darker and somewhat out of focus when fully zoomed in. Others have claimed the same. I'm wondering if the Sigma performs better in this regard.
Superb videos. No nonsense approach and unbiased views. Excellent work man.
I love the new Sigma Art lenses. But can you pleaaaasseeeeeeeeee take a look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG HSM
?
Yes, please! +1
Alex Wong Tony Northrup has reviewed all the 70-200 f2.8 lenses. Well, not *all* of them, but the best from each SLR-brand maker. Just in case you're interested.
Always an excellent review from Christopher. Cheers.
I don't know why, but that white line on the zoom extension is really bugging me.
I love your reviews Christopher! I'm narrowing it down between the Sigma 24-105 f4 Art and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Art to be used primarily for video making on my Canon M50.
Canon M50 is APS-C sensor, LOL
And you are getting two FF lenses for it, what
@@SMGJohn Learn how to read. I said I was narrowing it down between the two lenses.
@SMGJohn So? They work on APS-C, don't they?
Thankyou Christopher , a great review and after what you've shown and said about the Sigma lens I think I'll be buying it
Another great review of the next lens I need in my kit 👍👍👍
great test. can do a similar one testing the new canon 24-105 mk2 against the mk1 version?
8:17 why is the sigma on the focused blue book so unsharp??
Thank you for the lovely video This is a remarkably well done review: honest, precise and straight to the point. I've just bought the Sigma for video making :-)
Excellent video Christopher! Thumbs up!
Congratulation Christopher for all your videos and your recent wedding!
I'm a great fan, just one remark : in your sharpness testings, you always shoot the same building. No problem with that, but did you notice their is often a part of the roof in the top corners of your frame ? It obviously change the focusing plan, and increases softness, don't you think?
Best review for there two lens. Great job and thanks.
Thanks for sharing! Great video! I was still up for debate on which lens to buy. Both have good quality and both have bad! I think the Canon in the end won my vote. Thanks again for this review! You should have been a salesman! :)
Hi Chris!
First of all, I'd like to state how much I like your videos, through them you've helped me a tremendous amount.
Your work assured me in deciding to transition to Full-Frame from APS-C, and recently I've bought a used 6D mark II.
In the last few days I've watched two of your videos back and forth:
- Old vs. New: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM 'L' ii (2017)
- Sigma vs. Canon! Sigma 24-105mm f/4 'Art' (2015)
As I understand these lenses are very similar both optically and feature-wise.
I've arrived at the conclusion that the Sigma would suite me best.
The old Canon is not really available neither used nor as new in Hungary, and the newer one is priced 1.4 times higher than the Sigma.
My question towards you is that do you recall any characteristics of the newer Canon that would justify its higher price?
Also I do not really know whether it would worth the effort, but would you consider comparing the newer Canon and the Sigma ina video?
I wish the very best for you, despite the hardships of this year!
Thankfully,
Andras
Hi Andras, did you get the Sigma 24-105 eventually?
I am now torn between that and the Canon 24-105 L (I, not II), hard to decide.
@@gkiss2030 Not long after my comment I've bought a copy, it was a very reliable companion. But for the 6DmkII I used at the time f/4 was quite limiting.
Good for travel and landscape but too slow for indoors.
Since I've switched to e-mount I only use it reversed as a macro lens of sorts.
Great lens for beginners, but but quite heavy so it's a burden to travel or hike with
I had the chance to try a Canon 24-105 L mk1 too, compared to the Sigma that was lightweight BUT felt cheap dated and plasticky.
After all I won't recommend buying either, save up and get a faster lens a 24-70 f/2.8 preferably.
Very nice review! Good job!
You comment on the Sigma's 'red cast', but I don't think that's a red cast. I think it is the Sigma's greater contrast levels. The yellows and greens in the fuller shot look fine.
thankyou very much , your lens comparison videos are awesome and very useful, i love your videos., can you tell me that which lens is long-lasting in sigma and canon?
Don't know that I'm afraid. I've used the Canon 24-105 for a very long time now and it works as perfectly as ever
Nice review!
I bought the Canon 24-105 mm when it came out. For much more money then the lens cost nowadays. It is a very nice all round zoom, not to heavy and the IS is good for me (I only shoot stills). But the build quality has a one big disadvantage, it does not have a lock switch. After a few years my copy began to creep. And that is very annoying, especially for an walk around zoom. First I tried to fix it with an elastic and now I put a thin piece of tape on the part that comes out. It works, but is that L quality? Needless to say I love that little Canon zoom off course :)
I have great Sigma Art lens, the 50 mm F1.4. I pass on this one.
Agree. Every time when I walk around with it it gradually slides to 70-75mm
I wish I could buy the sigma but they are using 82mm filters and I can't change a full kit of 77mm (very expensive) infrared, polarization and ND filters.
I'm not sure if my nucleus nano will like how close that focus ring is to the body..
Good info! Thinking of getting one for my FS700
Brilliant review, thank you, Christopher.
I love and prefer Sigma lenses over Canon.
I own and love the 50mm Art Series EF and 14mm-24mm Art EF (this one is a work horse and gets used everyday on real estate and architecture shoots). Love them. Next up is the Sigma 24-105.
Thanks for the review and sharing usefull information.
Christopher - beautiful reviews as always. If you were to choose one of them for video - which would be your top choice? Thank you!
Probably the Sigma :-)
Managed to pick up a Sigma 24-105 Art EF for only £250. It shows good signs of use but its the performance that matters and for the money I can't complain
Thanks for a great review. Have heard from other sources that sigma lens is much better. It clear that it is not as large optically benefits between these two. Keep up the good work :)
Purchased the Sigma yesterday,very happy! cheers
great review !!! thanks Chris !
At last chris 😊😊 thanks for the review, i have been waiting for this since along time ago, happy and blessed marriage my friend 👍👍
Hai Christopher The sigma and canon 24-105mm lenses are great lenses but as a nikon use i have no choice among these lenses i purchased the Sigma lens for my d810 and d4 it realy shines on the d810 i was warned by other photographers to not to have it on D810 because this lens is no justification for the d810 sensors resolution i said nonsense it is very good on the D810 i can crop 100% and still have fine detail
where do i look for this fabled 500$ 24-105?
Eagerly awaiting a comparison to the new Sony 24-105
You'll be eagerly awaiting for quite a long time!
I cannot wait for you to do a review on the Tamron 15-30 F/2.8 😊
TeK RaVeN I already have, take a look at the Tamron Reviews section on my channel
+Christopher Frost Photography cheers.
I'm a bit torn because I was excited to be picking up my very first L lens and long wanted 24-105 canon lens in the morning.. of course you've got me second guessing this decision.. darn you sir.. that freakin' voice doesn't help! I still believe everything you say lol
+ntstudio28 They're both fantastic, to be honest, and the 'L' really is more lightweight and portable :-)
you're a genius at what you do.
thank you brother
You mentioned that sigma had some production issues with the 24-105 art lens. Can you please tell me what happened and if it was solved? Thanks in advance.
looks like someone forgot about weather sealing
Hi,
The sigma 24-105 f4 is a super sharp lens at Centre ... but the border are soft even at f8/f11... I would not recommend this lens for group shots ... where as the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 is the beast at f2.8 the sharpness is at Centre n not at borders but @ f4 onwards the sharpness is great all over the frame ... n this Tamron 24-70 g2 is recommend for all purpose either indoor n out door as well ... just try this lens ....its worth
hi Chris....can i please use the sigma lens on the new m50 mark 2 camera
Thank you for the nice comparison review! :-)
Very good balanced review. Thank you.
I have a question. Presently I am shooting a Canon 80D with the Canon EFS 18-135 mm f3.5/5.6 IS USM lens, and I'm thinking about upgrading to the Sigma 24-105 f4 Art. I'm having issues with fine focusing on the Canon lens and am wondering if it's worth it to upgrade to the Sigma. How much better is it really? The Canon is a kit lens and I'm just wondering how much better this Sigma is. I have the Sigma 50 f1.4 and the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro and they are very good and I get excellent results with them. Thank you for your time.
Take a look at my test results here and you'll get a good idea of the image quality differences :-)
ive heard that the 24-105 canon actually darkens at 105 f4. thus indicating its not a true f4 all the way. did you notice this ?
+ColonelRuiz I've never noticed that really, although it could be true to a small degree
Very nice video thank you so much for the information. In Greece the pricing is actually the opposite. The sigma lens comes at about 300-400 € cheaper than the canon lens and I was looking for an alternative purchase that fits my budget. I’m happy to know that their performance is so similar and I’m probably going for the sigma.
I wish I had rewatched this comparison breakdown BEFORE yesterday. 😂 Actually, I bought the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L II version for $648. I know you compared the L I version in your video, but I could have spent $500 vs. $648 and used that extra $148 difference to still have GREAT image quality and use the savings towards buying me an additional lens. Will be looking at getting a 20mm prime that would be better for low light and taking large group shots.
So overall, I am in the same position as you, just cannot decide between a used Canon and this used Sigma 24-105mm...I have Canon 16mm-35mm and 24mm-70mm lenses.....both take great still shots overall......
Could someone help me figure this out... 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Im closely observing the flare test, but I cant see how the Sigma is better.... Canon has nicer richer tones, while keeping, sharpness and more contrast. While the Sigma has a strange green cast and looks just terrible...
The same happens with Sigma 17-50 2.8 vs Canon Least expensive Prime lenses. To me this is important, becase I do shoot many back lit situations. And end up having to color correct and use the Dehaze tool. its a pain and takes 5 times longer to edit anything.
While with the photos I get with a 50mm 1.8 or an 85mm 1.8, it comes out almost perfect. I dont even have to edit much.
I would be very happy if you would explain how to calibrate the lens. I bought because of your clips a 24-105 sigma lens but need to adjust it to the camera to get sharpness. In Israel it costs about $ 100
I LOVE ISRAEL 😉
תגיד לי אני מתלבט על העדשה הזאת למצלמת קנון אני צריך משו בטווח זום הזה אתה ממליץ עליה או שיש לך המלצה על משהו אחר?
אשמח לתשובתך
בשביל צילום
Great video...to make a purchase desicion...greetings from Perú...
I like your excellent pronunciation of "Doppelgänger" :-D
But I also like this review in general.
Nice review!!
The different i guess only the sigma neex its docking device for calibrate
Ad oggi tra il Canon 24-105 f/4 L (prima versione) ed il Sigma cosa mi consigli??
Very good review indeed and detail.
Good review and comparison, thank you
Can you please do a video reviewing sigma 30mm f/4 vs 24-105mm f/4 for TH-cam?
I can't make all these random comparison videos people keep asking for. It would take forever! I have a life to lead! Take a look at my reviews and you'll get a good idea about each lens.
+Christopher Frost Photography ok thanks for replying 💕 I'll do that
Where to look for cheap lenses price?
Internet :-)
Should I buy the Canon 24-105 or save up for a 24-70 f/2.8?
Depends what you need - wide aperture, or longer zoom range. Merry Christmas and a happy new year!
Thanks for the great video Chris. I do everyday photography, wedding and other event photography.
I have EOS R5 and confused to get a lens. which one do you suggest ?
Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art lens with RF adaptor or Canon RF 24-105 F4L
First off, thank you. You are always class act. I just wanted to chime in about my experience with the ART series. I have been a recent cheerleader for this series. But I have recently returned the 35 and 50 ART lenses. In good light and under 10' these lenses were blissful to use at 1.4. But I realized that low light focus and infinity focus were completely unacceptable for me in terms of hit ratio. I spent hours using the USB doc to get them "right" to no avail. Considering how sharp these lenses were, I was quite unhappy to let them go. I have tried the 24-105 and was just as impressed with the IQ. Unfortunately I did not have the time to really evaluate the AF properly. To be honest, I spent more time than I wanted to with the primes and the USB doc. Replicating that process with many more points to calibrate on a zoom is not my idea of fun if the end result is the same as the primes. I want so badly to love the ART series. Still torn on trying this lens as I find the performance of the Canon to be underwhelming in my testing. Thank you again for the service you provide.
+Topper McFly It's such a shame you've had a bad experience - that can be frustrating. One option (which is quite slow) is to use live view autofocus in critical situations - that is always very accurate
@@christopherfrost
On a "fairly" new Canon DSLR, like the 6D MKII, Live View has PDAF, which is very fast.
I can chime on in this matter. I have the Sigma ART 35mm, the Sigma dock and three bodies - 5D classic, 10D, and 5D mark III. (Plus M50 mark II, but that focuses with DPAF, so never focus issue there.)
I have noticed a similar thing with the 5D classic: every lose subject is razor sharp, in perfect focus, and beyond 5ft to infinity for the love of everything alive, it always misses focus, regardless of light level. So, I got the dock as I was sure it was a micro-adjustment thing. Lucky thing I tried the focus on 3 bodies. On the venerable (aka super-duper ancient Canons first CMOS DSLR from 2003) 10D it focused like a razorbeak hawkeye on anything and everything at any distance and any light level on any of the focal points, with haste (always under a split second). (Yes, even with the outer focus points in not much light!) It also focused super duper accurate with the 5D mark III, under any circumstances / light level / focus point. HOWEVER, on the 5D classic once I got beyond 4ft for the love of life it would not focus correctly. Either front focus, or back focus, most of the time the very edge of the focal plane touching the focusing point. (I shot both focusing test charts and real objects and people as well for this thorough test.) So, what I can say is that 2 bodies out of 3 worked absolute magic with the ART lens, while the 3rd was a DUD. The fault is not in the lens, it's in the body - some bodies just cannot communicate well with the lens. The ones that do, make ALL focus points work superbly, regardless of DSLR generation.
These lenses are not for low light situations, right?
They can be if your camera has good ISO capabilities.
where are you looking because this lens retails now for a thousand usd?!
What an absolute EXCELLENT video, thank you!
Perfect comparison video
Is it better than the nikon 24-120
+Mafdy Ashraf I haven't tested any Nikon lenses
Please review the tokina 10-17
For any practical video work, you are not (or rarely) going to be using a shot that involves zooming so for me the backwards setup of Sigma's arrangement of zoom and focus rings was awful. Most camera's have the manual focus be the larger ring that is further from the body and easier to grab ... not only was sigmas opposite, but for some reason they made the focal ring stupidly narrow and difficult to adjust.
I have the canon and I really like it. Got it for $520. The differences aren’t enough for me to want the Sigma. Although the IS is much quieter
Thanks a lot! It was really helpful!!!
Below 24mm the unavoidable perspective distortion is very annoying. The 105mm is nice telephoto focal length for portraits and distant objects. Much better than the 70mm. The Canon 24-105mm is the kit lens of Canon full frame cameras and Sigma a cheaper replacement.
My opinion is that the Sigma 24-105 is a great travel lens. Without the quality issues of all super telephoto lens and with a versatile useful focal length range.
Hello
What will you suggest to buy Canon mark ii or Sigma, they have similar prices? thanks
but what if im a still photographer and at the same time a video maker? :(
love the stabilization on the canon though even if it makes noises
Then you have a tricky decision to make!
Great review! Spot on
you visit the lens 24-70 2.8 made in tamron g2 \art sigma
Hy Chris! Nice comparing. I see you put it for Canon cameras. Can i get also good results if i mount this Sigma 24-105mm for Nikon d610 ? THNX! :)
Don't know really - should be pretty good I guess.
Thank you very much. For Travel and regular use, could you reccomend this sigma or rather the older one sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM.
The older one apparently doesn't have great image quality so I'd go for the 24-105
Thank you very much Chris! :)
Does "in a White Box" mean refurbished? I can't find the Canon priced at $650.00.
No - it normally means that they are lenses that came in a kit with a camera, but were removed by the retailer to be sold seperately (although it could well be that refurbished lenses come in white boxes, too). As for prices, check out DigitalRev, they might have a good deal for you
Thank you !
I was just going to ask why you didn't compare it to the Canon Mark II, then I saw the post date xD
i thought you are using 24-105 ii
Plz review canon 24-70L ii and sigma 24-70 art !!! :) I can’t find good review for that :(
I've reviewed the Canon lens already. The Sigma lens should get my treatment later this year
Brill review! Thanks!
I am pleased with this lens; it is sharp. Recommended My Nikon D850
L lens are weather-sealed, aren't they? So the Canon should have the advantage here.
Aron Sch not completely
Aron Sch sigma's are garbage...Sigma discontinue their lenses constantly and they stop making spare parts so repairs are not an option,when they fail and fail they will. I once made the mistake of purchasing a sigma 28-135 i.s.it failed to stop down,and when i contacted the idiots at sigma they said send it in insured wich costed me $80 . Then sigma fools told me that the lens was discontinued so no parts were available,but they said they could sell me the newest version a 24-105mm . So I told them to go to hell . Then the dumb asses asked if I wanted it returned to me.I told them hell yes stupid. Then I purchased the canon 28-135 i.s. f4.5 and the canon still works today. The sigma just sits in my glass front cabinet as a reminder to never purchase anyones after market crap.
Congratulations! Enjoy your wedding and honeymoon (:
would this be a good vlog lens? im looking for something around 18-100 for vlogging and price would be under 1K
Could you please let us know where to buy that Canon lens at those prices? Thanks. btw no chugging Tabasco on your honeymoon
I tend to nose around on ebay, or digitalrev :-)
FoodFolksandGuns Here is a good company too! I buy from them and never had any issues with them.
www.42photo.com/
+Christopher Frost Photography Oh thanks for the tip with the digitalrev shop! The Canon 24-105 L is quite cheep there..! :D
It's crazy to me that Sigma would cost more than Canon's high end lens
If I understood correctly, the Canon lens is an older design, so they don't need to recoup any of the R&D on it. Looking at B+H, the Canon is a bit more expensive than the Sigma now, but only by $100, unless you step up to the eye watering $1300 for the Mk II version.
Great comparison as always! Question for you, I know someone asked you what would be a good lens to compliment the sigma 18-35 and fill that zoom range. You mentioned the 55-250 would be good, but I don't know how I feel about the variation in sharpness when using the two lenses. Do you think any of these are enough to satisfy that lack of zoom? Or since they will be overlapping between 24-35mm that it's not worth the price of having one of these? Maybe a better quality lens suggestion to fill that lack of zoom of the 18-35?
+sigimmer There are lots of options really. I'd go for the 55-250mm STM, or save up for the new Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8