Update! It look like Sigma is giving Canikon a run for the money.

[iGas]

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_105_4/

Sigma is going after the kit lens market and has just introduced a 24-105mm F4 that is the bread and butter of Canon, and perhaps give the Nikon shooters a lens that is missing in the Nikon lineup.

Currently street price for the 24-105L is around $1150, or $850 for white box version. And, $1300 for Nikon 24-120 F4.

IMHO, Sigma would own the CaNikon wide to medium tele zoom if the lens come in under $700, and produce similar or better IQ (if they some how perfect the auto focus with Canikon bodies it would be a killer lens).

[add]

Canon 24-105 F4 MTF

Nikkor 24-120 F4

Sigma 24-105 F4

The MTF charts shown that:
Canon > Nikon > Sigma slightly sharper at the center and edge at the wide end.

Canon > Nikon >= Sigma slightly sharper at the center, and definitely sharper at edge at the telephoto end .

Update: It will be available in November, and price is at post below.

 

[Paladin3]

The Sigma lenses I've used have never let me down, and they do seem to be thinking beyond the old norms with their lenses.

I'd be quite happy with two APS-C bodies, one with their 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM and the other with the 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM. Except for maybe real estate interiors, I could shoot just about everything with those two lenses alone.

 

[AViking]

Sigma makes good lenses. I've never bought one though since those I was interested in tended to be kinda heavy compared to the competition. Look at their 50mm for example. I think it uses a 77mm thread and it's pretty huge for a nifty fifty. Good lens though!

 

[iGas]

The Sigma lenses I've used have never let me down, and they do seem to be thinking beyond the old norms with their lenses.

I'd be quite happy with two APS-C bodies, one with their 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM and the other with the 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM. Except for maybe real estate interiors, I could shoot just about everything with those two lenses alone.

I'm thinking of adding the 120-300 to my lens collection, but holding off for a year hoping it drop down to around $2~2.5K. I would definitely get the 135mm F1.8 OS (with 8-9 blades diaphragm) if that rumor prove to be true and the IQ is comparable to Canon 135L. 24-70 F2 OS is another that I'm somewhat interested in as well.

 

[Abu Mahendra]

No interest in a f/4 zoom, sorry.

 

[yhelothar]

I had a 28-70 F/2.8 EX lens a few years back. It had horrible contrast. Here's a comparison with an old pentax prime. The coatings looked noticeably worse on the Sigma. I hope they improved it now.

 

[Railgun]

give the Nikon shooters a lens that is missing in the Nikon lineup.

I would say the Nikon 24-120 f4 pretty much fills that gap...

 

[Eug]

The link is broken.

BTW, I had an old Sigma wide angle EOS-mount prime that didn't work with newer Canon cameras, and Sigma decided it wasn't worth updating the EEPROM on it to make it compatible, effectively making it a paperweight for me.

It wasn't an expensive lens, but it was enough to piss me off. I haven't bought a Sigma lens since.

 

[CuriousMike]

My 17-70 Sigma is a mixed bag.
In the "right" conditions, it can produce some nice photos.
In all other conditions, it just seems blah - not particularly sharp, and not contrasty enough.

 

[iGas]

The link is broken.

BTW, I had an old Sigma wide angle EOS-mount prime that didn't work with newer Canon cameras, and Sigma decided it wasn't worth updating the EEPROM on it to make it compatible, effectively making it a paperweight for me.

It wasn't an expensive lens, but it was enough to piss me off. I haven't bought a Sigma lens since.

It looked like Sigma removed the link, but the information on the 24-105 Sigma can be found through Google.

Here is one from Canon Rumors: http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/official-sigma-24-105mm-f4-dg-os/

And, from Nikon Rumors: http://nikonrumors.com/2013/10/14/s...leaked-already-listed-on-sigmas-website.aspx/

 

[Syborg1211]

Sigma's been working hard in the past year or two to really change their image (pun intended). The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM and 50-150 are both really really sharp lenses, but are slightly below Canikon in build quality. Their newer lenses like the 35 f/1.4 and 18-35 f/1.8 are excellent optics with great build quality to match. Not to mention they are the first manufacturer to sell a dock that can update firmware/autofocus tuning directly to the lens.

I really like the direction that company is going, and more competition will only help push Canikon.

 

[finbarqs]

I had a 28-70 F/2.8 EX lens a few years back. It had horrible contrast. Here's a comparison with an old pentax prime. The coatings looked noticeably worse on the Sigma. I hope they improved it now.

but look at it from this point of view: Sigma produces more dynamic range than the other one

More dynamic range > color any day (since color will just be PP'd anyways)

 

[uOpt]

I really hate it when the curves for the sagittal lines look like a car driven off a cliff. Those lenses are all garbage, IMHO.

Sigma did a great job with the 35mm f/1.4 Art. That's what I'm gonna get. With the USB dock to adjust it.

 

[iGas]

Sigma prices 24-105mm f/4 lens, slated to ship next month at $899 or $900 pending web site.

IMHO, at $900 it will not get any adoption from the Canon camp, and I'm not sure if Nikon users will give it a warm welcome if at all.

As for now Canon 24-105L white box can be had for as little as $639.99.

 

[yhelothar]

but look at it from this point of view: Sigma produces more dynamic range than the other one

More dynamic range > color any day (since color will just be PP'd anyways)

How did you conclude that the Sigma has more dynamic range? The color is worse on the Sigma since the contrast is bad. That means if you looked at the histogram, the data isn't filling the entire range of the histogram. It's compressed into a smaller range. That means less dynamic range.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

How did you conclude that the Sigma has more dynamic range? The color is worse on the Sigma since the contrast is bad. That means if you looked at the histogram, the data isn't filling the entire range of the histogram. It's compressed into a smaller range. That means less dynamic range.

Agreed.

Low contrast comes from reflections within the lens, and doesn't improve dynamic range. You sacrifice more sensitivity at the bottom than you gain at the top from this kind of compression...

 

[iGas]

http://www.lenstip.com/2065-news-Sigma_A_24-105_mm_f_4_DG_OS_HSM_-_sample_images.html

Sigma 24-105 sample images look decent.