Jump to content

Getting a new lens: Canon 24-105mm vs. Sigma 24-105mm


Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

Recommended Posts

Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

I was on my way last night, to get the Canon 24-105mm, I encountered a traffic jam, thus flicked through EOSHD and read the GH4 Cinema profile article, in which Andrew praises a Sigma 24-105mm and describes the Canon as being not L standard and bad optically. So I am back now ;)

I've always found that lens to be excellent optically, so if the Sigma is better than that as Andrew says, it would certainly be outstanding!

In terms of build quality, I've used the Canon for years on.all my Canon bodies. I took it below zero degree, and above 60 degrees weather. I dropped it on rocks, asphalt, it took hits to nearly ever wall in my house, and still survived and worked brilliantly. I really abuse my gear.

That was until a couple of weeks back. After all the abuse, what killed it was a fall, from a tripod 30 cms high, on a furry, soft carpet. A fall that wouldn't kill an 18-55mm kit lens. But anyway the barrel was bent and it was forever dead. I was told it would be more expensive to repair than to buy a new one. (A common disadvantage of lenses that have extending barrels, if they take a hit to the barrel whilst extended, they bent and break forever)

It served me well and I have no complaints. It will still work well as a desk decoration. Sad.

Now it seems I can't live without it. So I need a new one.

So my question is, does the Sigma have even better optical performance? How about build quality: will it survive the beating as the Canon L? How about the IS, is it as good as the Canon? (the main reason I use the lens). I have no need for AF by the way.

Keep in mind that the Sigma will cost me about 1900$ whilst the Canon will be 1750$ [yes we get screwed over pricing even more than the UK]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that's very expensive indeed, there is no way to import it? Or is it still going to be expensive?

 

If I was you I would go for the sigma one because of it's optically better than canon, Sigma is doing an amazing job now, the build quality is very good, as good as canon L lenses some coud say, but probably not as strong as a 24-70mm L lens from canon which is a beast!

 

I would tell you that sigma is the way to go now ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Reviews and tests show the Sigma is sharper at 24mm, Canon is sharper at 105mm, similar in mid range.
  • Canon is weather sealed, Sigma is not.
  • Canon focuses slightly faster, Sigma might be more accurate.
  • Sigma has a ~1/2 T-stop advantage.
  • Sigma is slightly heavier, has smoother operation.
  • Canon is 77mm, Sigma is 82mm.
  • Canon is lower cost for you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

you can get the Canon here in the UK on ebay new for  £422 - bargin get that!!    buy 2 for the price of the Sigma! then you have a spare!

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Brand-New-Canon-EF-24-105mm-F4-f-4-0-L-IS-USM-Lens-White-Box-/390851800799?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item5b00952edf

Link to post
Share on other sites

My condolences on the death of your lens....... please lets have a moment of silence!  

 

Get a 50 1.4 or nifty fiffty, and a 70-200 f4 IS USM.  Just a few weeks ago I bought an f4 non-is and compared it with the 24-105 I have, the colors and contrast were significantly better on the 70-200, and it was noticeably sharper!  That said, I love the 24-105 because of the versatility, and convenience. The 70-200 f4 is lighter than the 24-105. 

 

Within 2 weeks I sold the 70-200 f4 non-is and got the IS lens.  This lens is just amazing for it's sharpness and rich color and contrast.  The only down side to this magnificent lens you end up using it where you shouldn't, just so you can use it. 

 

I choose the f4 over the 2.8 because the f4 is sharper and has less color fringing, the 2.8 isn't as sharp wide open as the f4, so the advantage of the extra stop is pointless even more so if you have a 5D3 with it's low light advantage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the canon 24-105 and for what I do (as a WORKING corporate filmmaker) it's great.  When I get sent somewhere to shoot something, I just have to get hundreds of shots that are good, quickly, with little fiddling about.  The IS is great and the range is very good.  Any poo pooing on the lens is silly.  I also have a 70-200 2.8 II and a Tokina 16-28 2.8.  With these 3 lenses (and a 2X doubler for 70-200) I can cover pretty much anything I need, I occasionally break out a 50mm 1.4 m42 adapted to EF, or an 85mm 1.8.  The dealbreaker for me with the Sigma is that it has a 82mm filter.  I think most reviews, as Jcs said, give some to one, some to the other, but they are basically very similar in performance. 

 

If you really want the lens, don't for god's sake pay that much for it - most people in the US can get it all day long for $700, one of us can buy it for you and send it to you, and you can send along a few hundred for the trouble and still save a bundle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

that review is based on taking stills not cinematography -

The Canon is a great work horse and Ive had over 25 pop videos on MTV shot with the Canon 24- 105

 

it works and does the job

 

I'm a fan as well!  I love the 24-105 for the very reason you stated, but once I got the 70-200 f4. IS..... it was hard to use my 24-105 again.  Frankly, the only reason I don't sell it, is because walking around town or out in public it is less noticeable.  If you have a foot long white lens on your camera people freak out when you point it at them. 

 

Besides the obvious versatility of the 24-105 for video, doesn't the improved image quality of the 70-200 translate to video as well.... better sharpness, contrast, DOF?

 

If I need a wider angle I use my Canon 1.4 this combined with the 70-200 is a great combo. 

 

Used they both go for relatively the same price.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

we use the 70-200mm for all the close up head shots in pop videos , for that long lens Tony Scott look with alot of fall off in the background  , its a great lens to use with the 24-105mm  , we use 2 x 5D cameras so one is on each when we shoot on Canons - but Im mainly shooting on  2 xG6's now for pop videos -

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
 
When I first purchased the lens I was very happy. I had to adjust to some features and soon found out that my Tiffen variable ND filter did not work well with the wide angle, needless to say I was very upset because I do alot of photography on the water. Only after 4 months of using my new lens it started creeping down when in use, I also shot from on high straight down or product photography. Of course can't return to B&H and Canon said I could send it back for tightening but don't be surprised to find out that it cannot be fixed because it is a normal feature for this lens.This was my first L-Series lens and I am beyond disappointed!!!!!Yes the clarity is good but if I can't use it to shoot everything without it being a pain, I would have never bought it...or at least if I had read the reviews first I would have know about this issue I could have purchased with this first hand knowledge instead of being surprised. I would recommend the lens for regular photography because it does have very good quality glass.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...