Sigma 24-105mm f4 ART - Any users on here?

daygo30

daygo30

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,034
Name
Daryl
Edit My Images
No
As per the title, I would like to know if anyone on here has used the Sigma 24-105mm ART.

I am considering a mid-range zoom for travel etc so I can leave the primes at home. I love my 35mm ART which got me looking at other Sigma lenses...

Thanks in advance :-)
 
I considered buying one last year, but general consensus was that it doesn't live up to the ART badge. Not handled one personally, and instead use a Nikon 28-105 that I suspect is as sharp, but lighter & cheaper.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I considered buying one last year, but general consensus was that it doesn't live up to the ART badge. Not handled one personally, and instead use a Nikon 28-105 that I suspect is as sharp, but lighter & cheaper.
Click to expand...

That was my understanding.
 
daygo30 said:
Thanks guys, back to the drawing board then...
Click to expand...

TANSTAAFL - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It's a shame that Zeiss don't do the equivalent of their 16-80 Sony lens in 24-120 at a similar quality, but I suspect the cost would not be small. :(
 
chrism_scotland said:
There are folk who really rate the 24-105 but it doesn't seem to have widespread support
Click to expand...

Lenses are funny things - I often use the lens reviews on Dyxum to get an idea if something is junk or not, but sometimes lenses you know are junk from personal experience will still get 5* reviews from the odd individual. I bought a lemon once that took me a little while to get past the honeymoon & realise what a complete piece of junk it was. Also when reading lens reviews online from 'professional' reviewers I have wondered sometimes if I really have a copy of the same lens.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Lenses are funny things - I often use the lens reviews on Dyxum to get an idea if something is junk or not, but sometimes lenses you know are junk from personal experience will still get 5* reviews from the odd individual. I bought a lemon once that took me a little while to get past the honeymoon & realise what a complete piece of junk it was. Also when reading lens reviews online from 'professional' reviewers I have wondered sometimes if I really have a copy of the same lens.
Click to expand...

Some of the "professional" reviewers I really doubt, only one I quite like is Gordon Laing at Cameralabs, always seems very fair and unbiased.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Lenses are funny things - sometimes lenses you know are junk from personal experience will still get 5* reviews from the odd individual. ... when reading lens reviews online from 'professional' reviewers I have wondered sometimes if I really have a copy of the same lens.
Click to expand...
I've found this to be the case too. A notable and oft-quoted example is Bjørn Rørslett's review of the manual Nikkor 85mm f/2 AI / AI-S which he describes as lacklustre and 'grey', where my example is so contrasty, bright and sharp that you might think it was by Zeiss.

More generally, perhaps some of those who write 'reviews' are just going through the motions, either to earn a crust or because they like the sound of their own voices?

That's no help to Daryl, though ...
 
I agree, reviews can be very misleading, that's why I prefer actual users experiences.

Any feedback on the latest 24-85 & 28-300? Different in focal length I know, just very similar in price (used).
 
daygo30 said:
I agree, reviews can be very misleading, that's why I prefer actual users experiences.

Any feedback on the latest 24-85 & 28-300? Different in focal length I know, just very similar in price (used).
Click to expand...

What body are you using Daryl? I briefly had a 24-85 on a D600 and thought it was pretty good, wasn't that impressed with the 28-300 though.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Some of the "professional" reviewers I really doubt, only one I quite like is Gordon Laing at Cameralabs, always seems very fair and unbiased.
Click to expand...

The 2 I trust are Bjorn as already mentioned and photozone.de, who seem much more willing to say less positive things about mediocre lenses than, say, Gary Wolstenholme.
 
chrism_scotland said:
What body are you using Daryl? I briefly had a 24-85 on a D600 and thought it was pretty good, wasn't that impressed with the 28-300 though.
Click to expand...
Chris I'm using a D750.

I want something that I can use in confidence so I don't regret bringing the primes along.

The 24-70 is an option (had one before), it's just so damn big lol, plus I'd have to sell my 35mm art to fund the purchase.

Currently have around £450 for a zoom.
 
Tony and Chelsea Northrop use the Sigma Art 24-105. It does take the larger filter size! For a long zoom it's pretty sharp he says but not in the same league as primes or the 24-70/70-200. Also it's a heavy lens which put me off.
 
Mintchocs said:
Tony and Chelsea Northrop use the Sigma Art 24-105. It does take the larger filter size! For a long zoom it's pretty sharp he says but not in the same league as primes or the 24-70/70-200. Also it's a heavy lens which put me off.
Click to expand...

Yes, 82mm filter and weighs about 200 g more than the Canon equivalent, but apparently optically very good. 24-105 seems like a big gap in the nikon lens line-up.
 
jerry12953 said:
Would you say it was up to canon L standards?
Click to expand...
I've never shot it next to an L series 24-105 but from friends who have got them it seems to compare well, although I know the canon MK1 isn't always spoken about in the best of terms. The Nikon one is gold ring & N, so it's definitely not a bad lens. Just your standard does it all f/4 walkabout lens.
 
daygo30 said:
Chris I'm using a D750.

I want something that I can use in confidence so I don't regret bringing the primes along.

The 24-70 is an option (had one before), it's just so damn big lol, plus I'd have to sell my 35mm art to fund the purchase.

Currently have around £450 for a zoom.
Click to expand...

Its hard comparing any zoom to the 35 Art, its just such an awesome lens (just bought another yesterday to pair with my D850!), that said I always found my Tamron 24-70 to be pretty good v the Sigma, depends on use I guess, I mainly was doing landscapes/cityscape/travel where I don't always want to be changing primes.
 
I got the Tamron 24-70vr based on reviews etc. Sent it back and got the Nikon 24-120vr. That went back. Then I got the Sigma 24-105 and loved its sharpness etc but still it went back.

I now have a Nikon 24-70 2.8. It's staying.

The above was to find something that suits my way of shooting weddings. I needed fast, reliable and accurate focussing. The zoom will not be replacing my primes - Siggy 35 1.4 and Nikon 85 1.4g but the requirement was that for me to keep the zoom it had to at least focus fast and accurately and be acceptably sharp.

The best of the rest was the Sigma 24-105 and if I was shooting portraits I'd have stuck with it - lovely sharp and great colours and rendition / contrast etc. It's only problem is locking focus quickly on a moving subject. I took a range of photos at a dance and any motion photos I took were out of focus.

Hope that helps.
 
Thanks for all the comments and advice.

I ended up buying a 24-85mm VR off a fellow member so look forward to testing that out on a short trip to Paris in October.

With the balance of the cash, may go for a Macro, never had one before so would like to give one a try.
 
chrism_scotland said:
The Nikon 24-120 f4 VR is a good lens, although personally I preferred the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 over it, basically same same size/weight and faster, that said I'd potentialy take a 24-120 next time I go on holiday.
Click to expand...
I did just that recently. Took the 24-120 F4 VR on holiday. It served its purpose admirably and for a 5x zoom well you have to accept compromises and those are a drop off in performance past 70-80mm and weak corners.

I'm struggling to decide whether to keep it or not but suspect I will as it is a very good all purpose lens and easily matches for sharpness or even betters the Nikon 24-70 at similar focal lengths. Whilst that may sound impressive it's not as the Nikon 24-70 isn't a great all out sharpness lens, I was very disappointed after owning the Sony/Zeiss 24-70. I suspect the Tamron 24-70 is sharper than the Nikon equivalent.

@ancient_mariner I shot extensively with the Sony Zeiss 16-80 and loved it. To make sure I dont have the rose tinted specs on I'm going to check back on my files and compare them to the Nikon 24-120.
 
Brazo said:
I did just that recently. Took the 24-120 F4 VR on holiday. It served its purpose admirably and for a 5x zoom well you have to accept compromises and those are a drop off in performance past 70-80mm and weak corners.

I'm struggling to decide whether to keep it or not but suspect I will as it is a very good all purpose lens and easily matches for sharpness or even betters the Nikon 24-70 at similar focal lengths. Whilst that may sound impressive it's not as the Nikon 24-70 isn't a great all out sharpness lens, I was very disappointed after owning the Sony/Zeiss 24-70. I suspect the Tamron 24-70 is sharper than the Nikon equivalent.

@ancient_mariner I shot extensively with the Sony Zeiss 16-80 and loved it. To make sure I dont have the rose tinted specs on I'm going to check back on my files and compare them to the Nikon 24-120.
Click to expand...

As long as you remember that FX will give a lens a significant boost in sharpness anyway then it would be an interesting comparison.
 
ancient_mariner said:
As long as you remember that FX will give a lens a significant boost in sharpness anyway then it would be an interesting comparison.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, even if the 24-120 is weaker coupled with the fx it may as a package outshine my old 16-80 and A77.

Downsides of that lens was the variable aperture, loud screw driver focusing. Not overly accurate focusing and a tendency to collect fungus!

I did love it though, hell its my avatar image!
 
Well a quick and dirty check reveals more detail in the 24-120 at wider angles and a bit less at full tilt. Not a huge amount in it either way.
 
Brazo said:
Well a quick and dirty check reveals more detail in the 24-120 at wider angles and a bit less at full tilt. Not a huge amount in it either way.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks. That suggests that on crop the 24-120 would probably suck, but can get away with lower performance because of the bigger image format.
 
chrism_scotland said:
The Nikon 24-120 f4 VR is a good lens, although personally I preferred the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 over it, basically same same size/weight and faster, that said I'd potentialy take a 24-120 next time I go on holiday.
Click to expand...

I have both; it's a toss-up usually as to which I take. I'll only take the 2.8 if I really need the extra stop. The 24-120/f4 really is a great lens.
 
I have to say I've been looking through the "Sigma Art Lenses" Flickr group and I've been staggered to see how many of the images I've picked out that I like and look incredibly sharp are taken with this lens, I've returned my Tamron 24-70 as it seems to be a duffer and I'm half thinking about the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 but this for £600 seems like a possible bargain based on what I'm seeing on Flickr.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I have to say I've been looking through the "Sigma Art Lenses" Flickr group and I've been staggered to see how many of the images I've picked out that I like and look incredibly sharp are taken with this lens, I've returned my Tamron 24-70 as it seems to be a duffer and I'm half thinking about the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 but this for £600 seems like a possible bargain based on what I'm seeing on Flickr.
Click to expand...


Just as a general comment, I'm always surprised that people make judgements on lens quality and sharpness by looking at low-res images on the internet. Personally I'd much rather rely on the written word from people who have examined images under controlled conditions and reported back.
 
jerry12953 said:
Just as a general comment, I'm always surprised that people make judgements on lens quality and sharpness by looking at low-res images on the internet. Personally I'd much rather rely on the written word from people who have examined images under controlled conditions and reported back.
Click to expand...

Thats why I look only at images on Flickr that are available at "Original" size, and not the small ones!
 
chrism_scotland said:
Thats why I look only at images on Flickr that are available at "Original" size, and not the small ones!
Click to expand...

The point is is still valid though - looking at a random selection of 'real world' images will tell you very little, even pixel-peeping. Is it a good lens, capable of good sharp pictures? Well of course it is, even a humble kit lens will do that.

The real question is though, is this lens better than that other one? And in what ways, and by how much? The only method to know that is to shoot them side by side in controlled conditions, in a way that will accurately show their strengths and weaknesses, and process them exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
I found the 24-85 VR to be a great perfomer and nice and compact too.

Do like the look of the new Tammy 24-70 G2 though!
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
The point is is still valid though - looking at a random selection of 'real world' images will tell you very little, even pixel-peeping. Is it a good lens, capable of good sharp pictures? Well of course it is, even a humble kit lens will do that.

The real question is though, is this lens better than that other one? And in what ways, and by how much? The only method to know that is to shoot them side by side in controlled conditions, in a way that will accurately show their strengths and weaknesses, and process them exactly the same.
Click to expand...


Thanks for backing me up on that one! Not knowing Flickr I thought perhaps I was mistaken.
 
HoppyUK said:
The point is is still valid though - looking at a random selection of 'real world' images will tell you very little, even pixel-peeping. Is it a good lens, capable of good sharp pictures? Well of course it is, even a humble kit lens will do that.

The real question is though, is this lens better than that other one? And in what ways, and by how much? The only method to know that is to shoot them side by side in controlled conditions, in a way that will accurately show their strengths and weaknesses, and process them exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Maybe a kit lens and the latest best ever could be pretty much indistinguishable at f8 but there are things that a screen viewed image could tell you in other scenarios.

I like opinions and I'd like to both see a nice picture and have someone tell me things like "It's sharp in the centre at f1.4 and across the frame at f2.8... CA is minimal..." stuff like that and express more artistic opinion too.
 
woof woof said:
Maybe a kit lens and the latest best ever could be pretty much indistinguishable at f8 but there are things that a screen viewed image could tell you in other scenarios.

I like opinions and I'd like to both see a nice picture and have someone tell me things like "It's sharp in the centre at f1.4 and across the frame at f2.8... CA is minimal..." stuff like that and express more artistic opinion too.
Click to expand...

I'd agree - both perspectives are useful. The lab test, because it helps eliminate the expectation that can over-rule what we actually see, and the artistic evaluation that says the lens worked well in some conditions, but not in others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top