Sigma 24-105mm f/4 ART lens - any experience? As good as it looks?

[ancient_mariner]

The reviews look REALLY good. It would be really useful to have a walk-about lens that was as good as a set of primes in terms of sharpness and rendering, but in order to buy this I'd need to sell pretty much all the lenses I've accumulated so far.

For those who have one, is it capable of replacing all your primes, apart from the f4 aperture?

 

[Swanseajack]

The reviews look REALLY good. It would be really useful to have a walk-about lens that was as good as a set of primes in terms of sharpness and rendering, but in order to buy this I'd need to sell pretty much all the lenses I've accumulated so far.

For those who have one, is it capable of replacing all your primes, apart from the f4 aperture?

I have owned two copies and they have been a bit meh for me on a D750 and my current D810 and I returned both. I would stay with the Nikon 24-1200mm f4 lens if I was you. @rob-nikon was selling one last week which I had agreed to purchase, but needed to pull out of the sale due to unforeseen circumstances.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Thanks Simon, I really appreciate the reply.

The very first review I read of the Sigma suggested it was a wonderful thing - really really impressive judging by the resolution charts (I think it may have been ephotozine, but can't remember offhand now) and that prompted the post. I've snce read a lot more reviews, and it seems the very earliest reviews were incredibly glowing, but the later & more recent ones have been a bit, as you said, meh. That said, the impression I have is that it's still quite a bit better than the Nikon 24-120 f4, and miles ahead of the old 24-120 3.5-5.6.

What I'd like is an optical equivalent of my Zeiss 16-80 for FX, that's pretty much as good as a prime (but hopefully without the utterly crap mechanics of that lens). I've a feeling I may be sticking with my 28-85, which is nowhere near prime quality, but is convenient and paid for already.

edit - the review that had me going is here: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-24-105mm-f-4-dg-os-hsm-a-lens-review-23575 but sadly it doesn't seem to reflect typical lens quality.

 

[Swanseajack]

Thanks Simon, I really appreciate the reply.


The very first review I read of the Sigma suggested it was a wonderful thing - really really impressive judging by the resolution charts (I think it may have been ephotozine, but can't remember offhand now) and that prompted the post. I've snce read a lot more reviews, and it seems the very earliest reviews were incredibly glowing, but the later & more recent ones have been a bit, as you said, meh. That said, the impression I have is that it's still quite a bit better than the Nikon 24-120 f4, and miles ahead of the old 24-120 3.5-5.6.

What I'd like is an optical equivalent of my Zeiss 16-80 for FX, that's pretty much as good as a prime (but hopefully without the utterly crap mechanics of that lens). I've a feeling I may be sticking with my 28-85, which is nowhere near prime quality, but is convenient and paid for already.

edit - the review that had me going is here: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-24-105mm-f-4-dg-os-hsm-a-lens-review-23575 but sadly it doesn't seem to reflect typical lens quality.

Hi Toni,

I have owned three copies of the 24-120mm Nikon f4 and the first two I thought they were a little meh also on the D750 I had at the time. I think I'm the only one who says that though, particularly if you read the D750 thread. The last one I had was on the D810 and it was excellent but due to some health issues, I panicked a little and decided to sell up and go back to Fuji for the lightness. I have regretted selling ever since deciding to stay with Nikon.

I would say the Nikon is faster focusing and a tad sharper through the range from memory. I found with the Sigma it would be excellent at wide or long end and meh at the other, I would try to MFA using the camera and the Sigma dock and I couldn't get them right, I would get the wide good and then the long would go out. I also found this, with a first Sigma 24-35mm f2 lens I had, the second one was excellent.

I have had a couple of the Nikon 28-85mm lenses and have one now and they aren't too bad when stopped down, especially my copy I have now on the D810. I miss the VR though due to my disabilities and one of the reasons I didn't keep the 24-35mm as it had no VR.

I have never used the old 24-120mm but the 28-105mm wasn't too bad.

The newer Nikon 24-85mm VR seems to get good reviews also, especially over the older model, a bit like the 24-120mm.

Due to my medical problems, I have bought and tried loads of lenses mainly through Wex or Amazon and if I found the lenses haven't been suitable, both companies have excellent returns policies and I have never had an issue with either as long as the lens is returned within the 30 days for a refund, so it maybe an option for you to try the Sigma or the Nikon?.....I do like the current Sigma Lenses and the feel of them over others in the market.

Also, I have had three Sigma 150-600mm lenses and they have all been smack on.

I look at Flickr now and see how the lens performs on different cameras, as sometimes I prefer to see them used in real life situations, rather than studios and the like.

Maybe of use....

Nikon.............https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=nikon 24-120mm f4

Sigma...........https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=sigma 24-105mm f4

 

[ancient_mariner]

Thanks Simon, I'm likely to be looking at a used copy - guess that means a higher chance of getting a lemon.

Re: opinions of lenses, in another thread someone posted an image from the old Nikon 24-120, declaring it to be great, when I could see the blurring & decentering clearly in an image 1024px or less long. Having asked for opinions here, I realise that I've opened myself for more misleading, but hoped to be able to pull the gems from the mud. But if @rob-nikon did have one that was super-sharp all round then I could well be interested (though I'd wonder why he was selling!).

The 28-85 I have is OK at f11 if you don't pixel-peep, and I'm slightly inclined to try the 24-85VR, partly because it *might* be better than the 24-120 and also because it's smaller and more cost effective.

Maybe I'm just asking a bit too much from a 5X zoom, and the Zeiss quality isn't something that I'll find in *affordable* FX.

 

[Swanseajack]

Thanks Simon, I'm likely to be looking at a used copy - guess that means a higher chance of getting a lemon.

Re: opinions of lenses, in another thread someone posted an image from the old Nikon 24-120, declaring it to be great, when I could see the blurring & decentering clearly in an image 1024px or less long. Having asked for opinions here, I realise that I've opened myself for more misleading, but hoped to be able to pull the gems from the mud. But if @rob-nikon did have one that was super-sharp all round then I could well be interested (though I'd wonder why he was selling!).

The 28-85 I have is OK at f11 if you don't pixel-peep, and I'm slightly inclined to try the 24-85VR, partly because it *might* be better than the 24-120 and also because it's smaller and more cost effective.

Maybe I'm just asking a bit too much from a 5X zoom, and the Zeiss quality isn't something that I'll find in *affordable* FX.

I forgot to add Toni, I was basing my results of the Sigma vs Nikon on using the lens wide open, when stopping down I preferred the output from the Sigma. I felt it was sharper and it seemed as if it had more pop to the photos. But I wanted the same wide open and the reason I returned them.

Rob was selling the lens as he also has the 24-70mm f2.8 and he shots a lot of lowish light, so the f2.8 was his preference and as he wasn't using the 24-120mm......... but, he did say he might keep it as it's great for his IR photography and better than the f2.8 lens.

 

[ancient_mariner]

That's a good point about open vs stopped down. Most of the time I intentionally operate between f8 and f13.5 for landscape work, even if that requires a boost to ISO. For the band work it's quite different, but that's the nature of shooting in a pub where the light is so dim AF doesn't really work.

 

[rob-nikon]

Simon is correct I was thinking of selling the 24-120 f4 as I had upgraded to a 24-70 f2.8 for the faster aperture and increased build/weatherproof. I sometimes find myself out in rain for landscapes or sometimes dusty environments for wildlife, and didnt ever dare using the 24-120 in those conditions hence I went with the 24-70. The faster aperture in lowlight helps too.

I'm currently keeping it until I get back from Scotland next month. The 24-120 is great for IR with the Hoya R72 filter, sadly the 24-70 isn't supposed to be anywhere as good (I gather it's affected by hotspots). The 24-120 is a great lens, if the focal range wasn't covered by the 24-70 and 70-200 I have definitely be keeping it, still not sure if I can really justify keeping it only for IR photography but it's soon becoming IR season again so I'm going to try to keep it for as long as I can.

 

[JJ!]

The Nikon 24-85 VR (newest version) is pretty nice. I'm considering getting another myself. Also looking at the Tamron 28-75 which also owned a long time back on a D600. Back then it was my most used lens... although it took me a few copies to find a good one.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Simon is correct I was thinking of selling the 24-120 f4 as I had upgraded to a 24-70 f2.8 for the faster aperture and increased build/weatherproof. I sometimes find myself out in rain for landscapes or sometimes dusty environments for wildlife, and didnt ever dare using the 24-120 in those conditions hence I went with the 24-70. The faster aperture in lowlight helps too.

I'm currently keeping it until I get back from Scotland next month. The 24-120 is great for IR with the Hoya R72 filter, sadly the 24-70 isn't supposed to be anywhere as good (I gather it's affected by hotspots). The 24-120 is a great lens, if the focal range wasn't covered by the 24-70 and 70-200 I have definitely be keeping it, still not sure if I can really justify keeping it only for IR photography but it's soon becoming IR season again so I'm going to try to keep it for as long as I can.

Thanks Rob - give me a heads-up if you do chuck it in the classifieds.

The Nikon 24-85 VR (newest version) is pretty nice. I'm considering getting another myself. Also looking at the Tamron 28-75 which also owned a long time back on a D600. Back then it was my most used lens... although it took me a few copies to find a good one.

I might look at one of those at some stage. The Tamron could be interesting, but having to find a good copy out of all the not-good ones doesn't please me - I have enough 'not quite good enough' zoom lenses already.