Sigma 24-105mm F/4 OS Review - Sigma has done it again

[@jakeyoung6742]

"Overwhelmingly", this was a wonderful video. Thanks for the great review and the tips!

[@edc5338]

Fantastic review. I bought one of these used in perfect condition and it was sharp as a tack!

[@carls.2649]

Man, what a great solid and FAIR review. Was looking at Canon's and discovered this thing (have to finally grow up and get away from my cheapo kit lens). Know this review is a couple years old, but cheers. Liked and subbed.

[@learningcameras]

Thanks! Glad to have you on board

[@elr2141979]

It should be noted that the Sony a-mount system does not have a 24-105 native lens but sigma makes this lens for Sony a-mount

[@NikolayMirchev]

I'm a Canon user, quite few years ago I bought the Canon 24-105 mm IS. Since then this was the lens I used the most of the time, probably 80 - 90% of images are captured with this lens. Very sharp results every time. Now I'm looking for some cheaper alternative for something faster than F/4 for events, as sometimes people do events in almost peach dark environments.

[@learningcameras]

+Nikolay London Professional photographer I use the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC: bhpho.to/1M68QoS

[@doderiolarkisso4038]

The image quality on the sigma art lenses was second to none..i still have the 50mm f/1.4 and had the 24-70 f/2.8 (sold it because the IS didn't really work) but the sharpness is brutal

[@shoutouttv76]

But its for rich kids like you. Poor like us use youngnu

[@doderiolarkisso4038]

@@shoutouttv76 they're not expensive for what they deliver..also you can get them pretty cheap used

[@shoutouttv76]

@@doderiolarkisso4038 😭

[@truthkeeperfilms]

Sigma 24-105 is super sharp and basically craps on the Nikkor 24-120mm and the Canon EF 24-105mm. I have both lenses, its a bit sharper in the center but WAY sharper on the corners and edges. No distortion or anything.

[@bigdave1477]

Hi Dan, Thanks for the review. Just a couple of points I have found with the D7100 and the Sigma 24-105. There may be others but I haven't found them yet. I have found that this lens prevents automatic review after taking a shot on the D7100. You have to press the > button to review the shot. It also interferes with playback of images when zoomed in and trying to scroll around the image. The image will only scroll one little jump each time you press the direction pad. You can't hold the scroll. It just doesn't happen. Nikons various firmware versions make no difference and there is no firmware update from Sigma (yet?). I had the exact same problem with the D7100 and the Sigma 50mm f1.4. Sigma finally released a firmware update for the lens that fixed it. You need the Sigma dock to update their firmware. Another issue with the D7100 is the metering mode button stops responding after one or two changes of the metering mode. All ok again if you turn off and back on. I have checked on another D7100 and the results are the same. Both D7100s are fine with all other lenses I have tried. Sigma 24-105 works fine on D7000, D7200 and D750. I have no detail of issues with Canon, but Sigma has already released a firmware update for the Canon version of this lens. I found that when I was looking for a Nikon update. It is a great lens except for the small issues with the D7100. Cheers, David

[@learningcameras]

+Big Dave Good to know. Sigma often has some initial issues with Nikon though they are usually fixed through firmware....the dock makes that extremely easy. Find a local friend with a Sigma lens and split the cost of the dock with them so you can get it cheap! Canon cameras usually work a little better with Sigma and also Sigma usually supports Canon initially after release while the Nikon version typically takes a few extra months before production.

[@stenchlord]

Great review, I've been really impressed with Sigma's latest offerings. I had $1000AUD and was considering this lens (for use with my 50D) but in the end went for a Canon 24-105L which I was able to pick up secondhand (2 months out of warranty) with a Hoya Pro1 UV Filter for $600AUD shipped and then used the left over $400AUD to pick up a new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM A which I've been super happy with. +1 to checking out the secondhand market for Canon users.

[@TheForge10]

Might by a good walk around travel lens. My sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is a heavy beast.

[@migui8850]

Hi there, I already ruled out the canon 24-105mm. However, since you've had the opportunity to try the other two lenses I'm interested in, I would like your opinion. Which do you think would be a better walk around travel lens, the tamron 24-70mm 2.8 or the sigma 24-105mm f4? By the way I'm shooting a canon 7d, thanks for your input!

[@learningcameras]

Personally, I use the Tamron 24-70. Having 2.8 was a must for me and stabilization was huge since I shoot a ton of video. For me, it was worth it. If you don't need the 2.8, the Sigma is actually a nicer lens in many ways...but the 1 stop difference was enough for me to go with the Tamron and I shoot the Tamron at 2.8-4 all the time so it was worth it

[@TalesOfWar]

I had a quick play with one of these today and I have to say I love the thing. It's a hefty mofo and solidly built. It has less chromatic aberration than the Canon L, less barrel distortion and focuses sliiiightly quicker (hard to tell, but it felt like it did lol). The only plusses I think the Canon has over this are the weather sealing and that it takes 77mm filters rather than 82mm (thus cheaper to get them). Sigma has really stepped its game up in the last couple of years. I have all their Art lenses on my list of many things quite high up too. I wouldn't touch them not too long ago.

[@johnbyrne642]

Why would you have the OS switched on with the camera mounted on the tripod?

[@hallvardsmestad5762]

I had this for Nikon and sold it. I miss it so I ordered a new one. GREAT lense!

[@daver9643]

What is the minimum aperture or the aperture range? Thanks

[@Davennep]

Hi Dan, I just bought this great lens on my Nikon D7200 body and I use all the center sharpnes because of the crop factor od my DSLR. It's a very solid lens and the OS works very good. Before buying this one I was also looking at the Nikon 24-120 f4. But after a midday testing between this two lenses my opinion was that the Sigma is the winner!

[@learningcameras]

Awesome

[@eticket70]

Awesome video! I have the Sigma 17-55 F2.8 and love it. The quality of your video is also great...are you able to share camera, lens and video editing settings? Thanks!

[@learningcameras]

Elio Camey Thanks! This video was shot with the Canon 70d and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC which I used for a while. I've since switched over to the Samsung NX1 for most of my videos though. I edit using Adobe Premiere CC but most everything is pretty much straight from the camera...nothing huge as far as color correction.

[@jean-davidgodin7560]

the only issue I have with this lense, is that I can't use a circular polarized filter without having to crop my pictures. 82mm filter is too small in the 24 to 35mm range.

[@458Avinash]

Nice review . Just one doubt though, This sigma wide open , Tamron 24-70 f2.8 stop down to f4, which will be having better optical quality ? That's probably gonna be a deciding factor I think !

[@learningcameras]

I personally use the Tamron 24-70 2.8 just because I needed stabilization and was not willing to give up a 2.8 aperture to get it. It's a tad soft at 2.8 (mostly in the corners) but the Tamron is nice and sharp at f4 just like the Sigma.

[@jonathanlogan6953]

This reply may come too late to be useful, but I owned the Tamron 24-70 VC and found it was very soft at wide apertures (sharpest at 24mm). Stopped down to f/4 it was okay, but I switched for this 24-105 since the extra aperture wasn't sharp enough. I like the extra 50% zoom range much better.

[@thinhvcoin]

That is what I love about Sigma lens, excellent sharpness, color and less vignetting. Build like a German tank and large front element make it looks so good on the camera (except for entry level cameras because of the small size) Great review btw. Keep up the good work. I hope u can do a review for Tokina 11-16 :D

[@DronieUp]

Great vid Dan!

[@geogymyazo]

Dan, how does this lens stand in front of the new canon 24-105 f/4 IS USM LII? Is the latter worth paying 200$ more? Thank you!

[@learningcameras]

For $200 I might consider the Canon. It will have better resale and it's always nice to have a native brand. But it certainly isn't a better lens.

[@theweekendphoto]

hello _+Dan Watson the price here with Tamron 24-70 and Sigma 24-105mm is very comparable, Tamron is little bt higher. Should I go with Tamron instead? please advise and thank you in advance!

[@learningcameras]

+john gabriel I did because the 2.8 aperture was more important to me as a wedding photographer in low light situations and shooting portraits. However, if you shoot more landscapes and street photography, I would say the Sigma's extra reach would be more appealing. I definitely prefer the look and feel of the Sigma...but again, I needed the f2.8 aperture.

[@theweekendphoto]

hello, +Dan Watson thank you for clarifying that and looking forward to see more vidz, you rock!

[@reuvenansh5231]

I find the canon misses autofocus about 1 out of 4-7 times. What's your experience and how does the Sigma hold up?

[@raivomollits]

Thanks for review! How much does this lens breathe? Is it as same good as Sigma art 18-35 ?

[@hyundongcho4328]

hello. would you suggest this or the tamron 24-70?

[@hitmanhart22]

Good review. You covered all I was looking for. Can you also review the sigma 50-100 f1.8 ART lens.

[@skyrocker71]

Dan I need help...i use cropped sensor camera (70D)...when buying lenses...should i consider the aperture too? Meaning..is its 1.8 should i x1.6 of the sensor ?

[@learningcameras]

+Leo Loyola So technically, yes...but practically, no. The camera already compensates for the differences in light resulting from the crop factor on aperture so the only thing that matters is depth of field. The only time you need to consider the aperture is if you are trying to determine the exact depth of field for a shot...then you might want to know that a F2 lens on a 70D is going to perform more like F3.2 on a full frame 5D Mark III. But really, I wouldn't worry about it. Focal length is all that matters practically

[@skyrocker71]

+Dan Watson thank you Dan

[@formattester6]

is this lens parafocal? also, does it maintain exposure when going from wide to tele. this is a complaint i have about the canon 24-105. i use it a lot on a C100 in manual mode and exposure changes by about 1.3-1.5 stops when zooming in. nice review!

[@learningcameras]

Good question. I didn't test that but I know it isn't that much. There may have been .3-.5 stops but nothing more than that. I don't have the lens anymore but I will start testing that in the future because that is a great question. Thanks!

[@iciego]

Thanks for the review. I have a white box canon and am happy with it. This lens was my second choice since it comes close to the canon in terms of photo quality. I am curious though about your video. It is so clear and crisp do you mind sharing your camera settings and your video editing workflow?

[@learningcameras]

Hey, thanks for watching. Seems like you concluded the same thing I did. If you can get a white box/used Canon, go for it. If you want a brand new not white box lens, save the money and get the Sigma. The video was shot on the Canon 70D with the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens shot at around f3.2 probably 1/30th of a second shutter and I believe ISO 200 or just over. I shoot using the neutral settings for video and then just add a touch of contrast and a touch of sharpening back in post using Adobe Premiere CC. No other color correcting was done on the video. The 70D is also using the built in AF as well which locks on a subject very well.

[@frederikvanreusel]

Which one should I get? Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 or the 24-105mm f4? Which one has better optic quality?

[@OrangeTweenStudio]

Let me answer that for you, since I have all these lenses and this video is 3 years old. 1. What camera are you using? Sigma 18-35mm is currently my favorite, sadly it only captures on APSC types (you can clearly see dark circles around the corner starting from 30mm especially F16 above. 24-105mm is mainly for full frame, and it does amazing job at APSC as well. 2. Sigma 18-35mm has slightly sharper and better optics at f1.8 and increased its sharpness at f2.8-f4.. 3. However, I have problem with extending the lens above 35mm when using Sigma 18-35mm (as my main job is event videographer), so I always carry 3 cameras (Sigma 18-35mm and 50-100mm as my mobile video gear, and 24-105mm mounted to tripod as still camera) Hope it answers your questions.

[@frederikvanreusel]

@@OrangeTweenStudio thnx for the fast answer!

[@esmoglo]

Nice review I have the Canon would love too see a side by side test

[@juhanyman1802]

Im really torn between this Sigma 24-105 or Tamron 24-70 f2.8... Which one would be better on canon 6d? The lense would be my walk around lense+ occasional birthday party+wedding+event lense. I also have canon 50 1.4 and 40 2.8.

[@learningcameras]

+Juha Nyman I ended up with the Tamron just because I needed f2.8 but in many ways I prefer the range, build, and quality of the Sigma. But as a wedding photographer, I'm often shooting 3200ISO+ so having that extra stop of light makes a huge difference.

[@AK8T3]

Hi Dan, would you recommend this lens, now in 2023? Recently acquired a Canon 5D Mark III, and am looking at something like this.

[@learningcameras]

Still a great lens. And I certainly wouldn't waste money on a new overpriced EF lens since they tend to be more expensive and resale values will be horrible since most people are buying Canon's RF lenses

[@AK8T3]

@@learningcameras Thanks for your reply, Dan. I ended up purchasing a Tamron 35-150mm f2.8-4. Really happy so far. Was between this one and the Sigma 24-105.

[@photographerjonathan]

just thought I would let you know that I bought the Tamron 24/70 VC today, I just had to get an f2.8 lens, even though I would rather have the Sigma 24/105 focal range, now I hope i'm happy with it, part of the reason I went with it, is because the image quality of your videos is good, and I know you use the Tamron for your videos, and just like you, I couldn't go with the new Canon 24/70 L ll without IS at twice the money

[@learningcameras]

Yep, the Tamron has been very good for me. I can't say the lens blows me away in any 1 area but it is the only stabilized 24-70 2.8 lens, the quality is very good, and the price is reasonable compared to the Canon so I'm still very happy with it.

[@karinasimonsen8160]

Hi Dan! Great review - thank you for providing all these great videos to the rest of us! I am looking to update my Canon 60D til 6D and want to new lenses as well. I shoot mainly 'everyday life' - but more than most people, I think. First of all I photograph kids/people (inside/outside). Then a bit of portraits (but not professionally), travel (not a lot), food photography and other close-up item shooting and a bit of street (no wildlife, landscape, sport/action). I am looking at getting either this Sigma 24-105 f/4 or the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 (and I have read your answer several to several comments, that you prefer the Tamron because of you need in low light weddings). Also, I am thinking bout the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and either Canon 70-200 f/4 or Canon 135 f/2. Considering the Canon 85mm f/1.8 or the Canon 100mm f/2 also. Do you have any great advice considering my need (I am looking into getting 3, maybe 4 lenses). Kind regards!

[@learningcameras]

+Karina Simonsen Hey, sorry I must have missed your comment. I'm a big fan of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 so I think that would be a great choice. The Canon 70-200 f4 is also a very well built lens for the price but I might skip the 135mm f2 just because it's a lens I don't think you would use that often. I own and love the Canon 85mm f1.8 so I would go with that or the 100mm f2 but probably the 85. Check out the new Sigma 24-35mm f2 as well...especially if you do not get the Tamron 24-70 2.8 and go for the f4 zooms: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1162798-REG/sigma_24_35mm_f_2_dg_hsm.html/BI/19484/KBID/11716/kw/SI24352DGC/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xSI24352DGC

[@ssmith278]

Sigma needs to refresh this lens and put some weather sealing on it.

[@jeremyryannoel]

I just purchased the Art version. Is there a difference, or the same between the two? Totally hoping this will complement my A7iii well!

[@learningcameras]

Did you buy a Canon version with an adapter? I don't think it is available with a native Sony E mount

[@davidmarquez2821]

Excellent review and video. I just ordered this lens for my D750. I have read that the OS is always on in this lens and that it can drain the battery. Has anyone experienced this issue?

[@brucechakli5566]

hi Dan Watson,first) i would like to say tanks for your review very professional.second) i like that way you present the items very clear.3rd) i have a question, i have a nikon d7100 with 18-2000vr,and im planning to buy tamron 24-70vc, tamron 70-200vc. Is this for good for natures land scape,wedding photography,and sports? 4rth) pls i need your advice, thanks again

[@learningcameras]

+Bruce Chakli Thanks! The Tamron 24-70 VC is definitely a good choice. It gives you f2.8 and stabilization which right now only the brand new Nikon 24-70 VR pulls off which is more than double the price. The Tamron 70-200VC is a good choice but you will definitely notice the improvement on the Nikon 70-200 VR2. It definitely costs more, but it will last you longer, hold its value, and would probably be worth it if you can afford it given the price difference is not that extreme.

[@kenstrong7897]

This lens for Canon seems to be back-ordered forever...any ideas why?

[@kylemcguire3311]

Let me ask, how do you like this sigma vs the Nikon 24-120 f4 vr? I can find the Nikon for around 500 bucks used and the sigma for around 620ish used for my Nikon d800. Thanks and great videos by the way!

[@learningcameras]

+Kyle McGuire I haven't personally used that Nikon lens but it has a great range, constant aperture and seems good so I'd check out reviews on that lens and as long as it doesn't suck, no need to spend extra for the Sigma. I'm sure the Sigma would be slightly sharper given the age, price, and focal range of the Nikon

[@pods6775]

Can I mount in Aps-c camera ....like Nikon d7500

[@abdmh81]

Hi Dan, Thanks a lot for the great review. I am confused to go for this lens or Tamron 24 70 f2.8 vc to use with my nikon d7100. Which one would you recommend for me? I tend to go for Tamron since there is an extra full stop in the aperture that can be used in low light situations. Many thanks,

[@learningcameras]

Hey, I own the Tamron 24-70. I actually slightly prefer the Sigma but the extra stop of aperture makes a huge difference. If you have some wide prime lenses (maybe a 35mm or 50mm) you may go with the Sigma and use the primes if you need the wider aperture. Otherwise, the Tamron was the best choice for me and I shoot at f2.8-f4 almost all the time so it is serving its purpose.

[@abdmh81]

Thanks a lot for your valuable feedback. I own a nikkor 50mm 1.8g, which I use most of the time beside the zoom lens nikkor 70-300mm vr. Do you prefer the sigma for its build and IQ? Many thanks for you again as I bought my d7100 after watching your great review of the camera.

[@learningcameras]

Abdullah Hussain The Sigma has great IQ and build so those are major reasons. Most of Sigma's newer lenses have been matching and exceeding the quality of Nikon & Canon and still coming in for less money. I used to be more weary of 3rd party lenses because sometimes they need firmware updates to work with new cameras but with the Sigma lens dock, you can do the firmware update from your desk in a couple minutes rather than sending out your lens for a couple weeks. For example, the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS (which by the way, would be a great lens for you to look at for the D7100), did not work with the new Nikon D5300 when it first came out. Sigma issued a firmware update within 2 weeks and the lens performs amazing again. You should check out the Sigma 17-70 though: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909805-REG/Sigma_884306_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html/BI/19484/KBID/11716/kw/SI1770284DCN/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xSI1770284DCN

[@ArkMirel]

Great video! 👍 Can you help me with one recomandation ? I read some of the coments and you are recomending sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 instead of this to Aps-c shooters. I'm thinking of getting one of these. I might find more useful 70-105 focal length than 17-24 that I lose. Are there any drawbacks using this lens with an Aps-c body ? Is this model sharper considering it is newer ? Thanks

[@learningcameras]

The only drawbacks would be the 24-105 is larger, heavier, and more expensive but it is a great lens. I usually recommend the 17-70 to APS-C users for the wider range and lower price but if you can live without it, the 24-105 is a killer lens with awesome pro level build quality. Plus it will work on full frame if you ever buy/rent/borrow a full frame camera. I would say the 24-105 is sharper but you do lose 1 stop of aperture on the wider end.

[@ArkMirel]

LearningCameras.com 17-70 was my first thought but it scores at Dxomark made me doubt. It's sharpnes score with D3300 is 9P-Mpix , some kit lens have higher score. Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for example scored 14P-Mpix. Would it be a wiser choice considering their close price and similiar focal length ?Is the difference in sharpness in practise that big , what do you think ? Thanks for your help !

[@learningcameras]

ArkMirel The 17-70 isn't the sharpest but it's sharper than the Canon kit at equivalent apertures, has a wider aperture, better build quality, and more zoom range. If you want better, there just isn't anything there unless you are spending $800+. I had the Sigma 17-50 and it was an OK lens but was very loud and I can't say I am a fan of the focus abilities. Sigma definitely has improved on focusing and build quality in the last 3 years. Personally, if the size and cost of the 24-105mm are OK with you, I would consider it for sure. The only thing is I might also consider a wide angle lens to fill in that gap...maybe like a 12-24 or something close to that range. Otherwise I would personally be looking at the 17-70 because while not perfect, it does the job better than most.

[@ronniemassart3834]

Will this work on a Canon 5d markiii

[@Timtalks_]

this video was show with what? what camera and lens? love the look of this video!

[@learningcameras]

Shot with the Canon 70D and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC. Almost no editing in post other than a little sharpness and contrast since I shoot it with a neutral setting

[@juanmolinamegustan7386]

Hello. First of all, very good reveiw. I would like to know if you or somebody, have experienced any battery drain with this lens? I have been watching that the battery life is very short when I have this lens attached to my 6D, even when is in stand by mode. Thanks

[@learningcameras]

I did not on my camera. However, I do have battery drain when I put my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC on my Canon 70D...though no issues when I put that lens on my 5D3 so it can happen. Make sure your firmware is up to date. Sometimes the image stabilization will be active and draining the battery so try turning it off when you are not shooting. If the stabilization is the issue, let Sigma know or make sure the firmware is up to date.

[@juandamol]

LearningCameras.com Thanks!!!

[@jonatanrennemark4749]

Thank's for a great review!

[@danr4893]

I thought this lens hood was not reversible mount that I’m showing on the web when I researched

[@mikolelapin]

Hello, Cool review :) But I am still debating between this one and the Tamron 24-70 2.8. I really want to get the Sigma, but the f4, is kinda make me thinking. I am doing most Portrait and Fashion most of the time. Just wondering If I wouldnt miss the 2.8. What do you think?

[@learningcameras]

So I personally went with the Tamron and I like it. It's not quite as good as the Sigma but again, I needed F2.8.

[@mikolelapin]

Yes it is the only thing that made me want the Tamron. I just bought the Sigma, will try it for a few days to see if it accommodates my needs or not. Thanks for the answer :)

[@ChillWithMe_musics]

So how is the lens so far? Does the 105 mm give enough separation a f4, with quality bokeh? Is it useful at lower focal lengths for "traditional" portraits?

[@mikolelapin]

well It is a wonderful lens. I sometimes miss the 2.8 But I guess you could always use your 50 mm for that. It is a great zoom lens, I am in love, it is sharp and fast and quiet and very well build. ( I shoot mostly fashion portraits)

[@ChillWithMe_musics]

That is great news, this lens could be a fantastic and sharp combo, along with the 50 mm prime in the backpack. I am really stuck between the Sigma and the Nikon 24-120 tho, and the main reason is the Nano coating. The 24-120 might not be as sharp, but every time I see Nano coated lens samples online, they seem to have way way better saturation and color richness, compared to the third party lenses. Do you happen to have any N lens for comparison?

[@iRawrh]

The only thing i don't like about this lens is the double extension barrels. Wish they made it like the Canons.

[@CamilleFontanez]

Does anyone have experience with both this one and the Nikon 24-85 kit lens? I've had the 24-85, and would like to see how this compares to that one.

[@learningcameras]

Hey. I had the Nikon 24-85 and used it with the Nikon D7100 and D600. Here were my impressions...It is an amazing lens for the money and is a great starting point for a good quality zoom. It does not have the build quality of the Sigma 24-105 (though it is still built well enough) and the Sigma is noticeably sharper. The extra zoom range certainly helps the Sigma and I for one put a huge value on having a constant aperture. If you shoot manual (which I do), it is a pain having your exposure change when zooming in and thus I ended up using the Nikon 24-85 at f4.5 widest all the time so that this didn't happen. I'd say it is worth the upgrade if you can afford it however, it won't do anything that the Nikon 24-85 couldn't do so depending on your camera and lens collection, there may be other things I would prioritize before this lens upgrade. Hope that helps and let me know if you have any other questions

[@CamilleFontanez]

LearningCameras.com Thank you so much for your input. I was watching the video when I asked, and I saw you actually talked about this later on. The video really helped me take my decision (I bought the sigma!!!), since I'm a prime photographer, but really need a zoom as versatile as this one in my bag. One of the things I didn't like about the 24-85 is the build, even though it was big, it didn't feel as sturdy as one would expect, obviously being included in my D600 kits, they were good enough! One thing that bummed me was the variable aperture... Being used to manual... UGH. Thank you for confirming my feelings about this glass! Thank you so so much for the review, it was great!

[@learningcameras]

Camille Fontanez You will notice the difference in build right away. The Sigma will feel a good bit heavier and metallic. Glad to help and enjoy the new lens!

[@emadpro]

Hello .. is this Sigma Lens can used for wedding photography .. Or Not Cuz it have F/4 Not F/2.8 .. the question is can i shot with this lens in Church (low light place) !!?

[@learningcameras]

You can use an F4 lens but you will need to increase your ISO most likely since most churches are DARK! I typically have to shoot at f2.8 and have even used prime lenses to shoot at f2 and wider. My exposure in most churches is around 160/th of a second at 2.8 and ISO 3200 during weddings. Shooting at f4 would mean an ISO of 6400. If you have a 5D3 or 6D, you would be OK, anything else would be rough. I might recommend renting an f2.8 lens. I personally use the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II most during weddings. The Canon 85mm f1.8 is a great way to shoot low light weddings on the cheap. No zoom but it is sharp and wide.

[@myhealthtoo]

So I am a little confused did you say that the tamoran 24-70 f2.8 would be better for low light and sports? because I need a lens good for low light, sports and video specifically for Nikon D750.

[@learningcameras]

I use the Tamron because of the f2.8 aperture which I find much needed in low light. The Sigma is a great lens and probably better than the Tamron but because it lacks an f2.8 aperture, I go with the Tamron since I shoot a ton in low light.

[@myhealthtoo]

LearningCameras.com so wghere does the 24-105 f4 i thought that was good for low light

[@learningcameras]

thetruth a wider aperture lets in more light among other things. Shooting at f2.8 will allow twice as much light into the camera as shooting at f4...thus we say that an f2.8 lens is better in low light than an f4 lens. However, this is just the MAX aperture, you can still shoot the Tamron f2.8 lens at f4 and then there would be now difference as far as light is concerned between the Tamron shot at f4 and the Sigma shot at f4. Just know that the wider you can shoot, the more light will reach the camera. For full frame cameras, the widest aperture zooms are currently f2.8 which is why the Tamron is great for those who need more light to reach the camera.

[@myhealthtoo]

LearningCameras.com so lower the number the wider the aperture but does camera itself help the low light lens as well?? So the lens I have on my camera is 18-135 f3.5 canon lens where would this fall into?

[@aleqx03]

thetruth Not trying to be an ass here, but you sound more like a beginner in photography, so you might want to reconsider a D750 as first camera. It is a pro body which requiers a lot of knowledge and practise. Also you will need very good, thus expensive lenses. Be prepared to spend at least twice the body price on glass. This is not a point-and-shoot holiday camera. Again, I want to help, so please don't get offended, but I see a lot of people using pro cameras with cheap lenses and little experience, and they are not happy with the results. I would recommend a nikon D3xxx or D5xxx. Lenses are a lot cheaper for DX cameras, so you can try out more. They also support you while learning to shoot. After that you can still upgrade, but already have glass and knowledge to use with your new camera. Just as a reminder: bodies like the D750 require lenses like the Nikkor 24-70mm F 2.8, 70-200mm F2.8 or the new 58mm F1.4. Check the prices and see if they are in your budget. If not, reconsider you purchase. Please feel free to ask any questions you have! Good day :)

[@nfisher3425]

great video…what lens did you use to shoot this video. By the way I recently purchased a 70D and I'd like to shot a web series. I'm wondering if a zoom lens would be a route to take or is this lens more suitable for photos. Also what are your thoughts on the Sigma f1.8? I have my eye on it and would really appreciate your professional opinion. Thanks In Advance

[@learningcameras]

Thanks! I use the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC which was used to shoot the video. A zoom lens is good for video but make sure it is a constant aperture or the min aperture is wide enough for you to feel comfortable using. The sigma 18-35mm 1.8 is a great lens (reviewed it) but the limited range and lack of stabilization make it better for photographers than for video. I would go with a zoom lens for video and then a single prime lens like a 50mm f1.4. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS is a good stating zoom lens for the 70D and while it isn't a constant aperture, it will be constant if you shoot at f4 which is what the SIgma 24-105mm in this video was...so really no downside. It also has stabilization and is sharp with good build quality. It's cheaper because it will not work on full frame cameras but if you just got the 70D, you are set. Here is the link: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909806-REG/Sigma_884101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html/BI/19484/KBID/11716/kw/SI1770284DCC/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xSI1770284DCC

[@nfisher3425]

Your help and advice is deeply appreciated. I just got back from B&H and was in awe of what the sigma 85mm is capable of doing. Is the 85 a better lens than the 50mm?

[@learningcameras]

N FISHER Yeah, the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART is even better than their 85mm. For me, if you want an 85mm lens, the Canon 85mm f1.8 offers great image quality for an amazing price and I rarely would want to shoot an 85mm at f1.4. But the Sigma 50mm f1.4 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made...especially under $1500

[@devonbiker]

Great video. It's now 2017. I'm getting my first full frame in a few days - 5Diii. I bought a white box canon 24-105L and then heard about this Sigma lens. So I'm unsure what to do now? Send it back and then pay an extra £138 to get the Sigma or stick with canon 24-105? I prefer sharpest photos possible! What would you recommend please? Thanks in advance.

[@learningcameras]

Thanks! I would stick with the Canon. The Canon is still very good and the resale will be better. Sure, the Sigma might be slightly sharper but in most real world tests, you would hardly notice unless you are zooming to 100% anyway. If you got a white box for less than the Sigma, you got a great deal so I would just enjoy the Canon

[@devonbiker]

Dan Watson thanks for such a speedy reply. Just to be clear the canon 24-105L is the first generation not the mark 2. I bought a book from Tony Northrop who covered on his video starter lenses for the Canon mk3. That's where he said to get the Sigma instead of the kit lens. Here in the U.K. I bought a new white box canon lens for £488 delivered. A new Sigma would cost £599 delivered. I'm coming from a Canon 50d with a Canon EFS 15-85 lens. I already own a nifty fifty and an Canon EF 75-300 mk3. Infact before I bought the EFS 15-85 from a local shop it was a toss up between that one vs the 24-105L. I bought the 15-85 because of its better focal length for crop sensors but at the time I liked the L lens. That's why I didn't hesitate to buy blind and get it now. I have some shots I took with it. But at the time I barely knew how to take good shots.

[@learningcameras]

I would also get the Sigma over the Canon 24-105L (1st gen) since the Canon is MORE money like Tony said. But now that the Version 2 is on the market, prices have gone down and you can often get the Canon 1st gen for less than the Sigma which changes the game. Plus you already bought it.

[@devonbiker]

Dan Watson Well my new 5d and L lens turned up yesterday but because is grey and overcast the few garden photos were not very good. Being curious I've bought the sigma as well and will return the one I done want. I should get it tomorrow and will let you know. for me sharpness is key.

[@learningcameras]

Awesome. I think you will prefer the Sigma but definitely let me know your thoughts!

[@tedtedsen269]

thanks for Your answer and Nice presentation of the sigma i own the nikor 24-120mm f4 how dos this sigma compare to my 24-120mm f4 in terms of sharpnes flare and al that stuff ? is it wort to sell mine 24-120 and go for the siggy if the sigma is slightly sharper i will

[@learningcameras]

Thanks for watching. The Nikkor 24-120mm f4 is a very good lens and while the Sigma might be a bit nicer and slightly sharper with less CA, I doubt it would be worth selling the 24-120mm to get the Sigma. You will not notice the difference unless you have a bad copy of the Nikkor lens or pixel peep like crazy. The Sigma is slightly sharper but I found the Nikkor 24-105 had some chromatic aberration that the Sigma did not have (but Adobe Lightroom can pull that out with 1 click). Unless you got a great price for the Nikon 24-120, I'm not sure that it is worth selling since only pixel peeping would reveal the differences between the two even though I do believe the Sigma is better

[@katejones8707]

Does your lens look like it's slightly zooming when you focus in and out? I just got my lens today and I'm trying to figure out if it's just an issue I can fix in the USB dock, or an actual issue with the lens. I have no warranty, so I need to return it within 30 days if it's faulty. Thanks!

[@learningcameras]

+Kate Jones That's an issue with most photo lenses. It's called breathing and it is something that is very common. That's why zoom cinema lenses are so expensive as they try to correct that issue. Every lens is different so it's tough to say if you are experiencing more than you should but it is pretty common to see that with photography zoom lenses.

[@katejones8707]

Thanks Dan! I've often heard of breathing but haven't really noticed it in my primes. Perhaps I'm much more aware of it because this is my first new lens in years. Is this prevalent in zooms than in primes? Thanks!

[@learningcameras]

+Kate Jones Yes, this mostly happens in zoom lenses

[@katejones8707]

Ah, that makes sense now. I've always read about it but must have never really encountered it firsthand before, I think. Thanks!

[@wondershutter4209]

Hi man, Cool review :), Can you tell me please what camera you used to film this review and in what profile it was?? I really like the color and how it looks aesthetically.

[@learningcameras]

Thanks! Most likely the Canon 70D

[@Daithi182]

Considering getting this lens for whenever I buy the Sony a7s. What's your thoughts on that combo? I understand the Sony a7s is fantastic in low light so perhaps F4 shouldn't be an issue as much compared to other cameras. I am a bit skeptical on adapters though for this lens and the a7s. Love to hear thoughts on this, thanks!

[@learningcameras]

Yeah, I would actually not for the Sony A7s and here is why (Sony has an issue they created with lenses). Sony DSLR bodies generally have stabilization built in to the body (they move the sensor) and thus they do not have stabilization built in to the lens for these DSLRs. The Sigma 24-105mm (Sony version only) does NOT have image stabilization as a result because it is designed to work on A mount cameras with stabilization in the body (neither do most other A mount lenses). The Sony A7 & A7s however do not have in camera stabilization and thus they need stabilization from the lens if you want stabilization. The only way to get this is to use the full frame Sony E mount lenses (FE) made for the A7s. So unless you are willing to go without stabilization, you are stuck with the Sony 24-70 f/4 OSS lens..though at least you won't need the adapter: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008126-REG/sony_sel2470z_vario_tessar_t_fe_24_70mm.html/BI/19484/KBID/11716/kw/SO24704/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xSO24704

[@Daithi182]

LearningCameras.com Thanks for the reply. That is a pity... The Sony 24-70 F/4 OSS lens is more expensive (£136, going by DigalRev's website; I'm from Northern Ireland, UK) but I suppose I may be paying that for an adapter? So that may work out roughly the same. As for as the quality of the optics and the rest of the lens, would the Sony 24-70 F/4 be much better than the Sigma 24-105 F/4? Of course I will be losing out on that extra focal length but I hear the a7s has a crop sensor mode so it could act as a 38-112mm lens? On a side note, I am a filmmaker and photographer so I was considering buying the Samyang 35mm F/1.4 down the line. Would love to hear your thoughts on that as well. Much appreciated!

[@learningcameras]

David Faulkner I have not used the Sony 24-70 f4 but I have heard great things. However the Sigma 24-105 is also a great lens so I don't think you would see major differences except that the Sigma is way larger and heavier. The Sigma would still work on the Sony A7s with an adapter, you just will not get image stabilization. You can absolutely use the crop mode on the Sony A7s though the resolution goes down quite a bit so I'm not sure if you would want to since pictures in crop mode are only 5 megapixels. 1080p Video will work just fine in crop mode although you can't record 4k (even with an external recorder). The Samyang lens is a great choice...awesome quality for the price if you don't mind manual lenses.

[@Daithi182]

LearningCameras.com I have heard it's weather sealed as well which is a plus! I would prefer the Sigma; especially with that extra focal length, however I would love the image stabilisation... I was not aware of the resolution dropping to 5 megapixels, though it makes sense as it is cropping; good to know. I don't mind full manual lenses. For videography, I mainly manually focus, however when it comes to photography, AF will be missed. Having said that, the peaking mode will benefit manual lenses but it may be a pain when it comes to photography. I wouldn't know what adapter to get though.

[@learningcameras]

David Faulkner Sony has an adapter for the A7s that allows all Sony full frame lenses to work. It will also allow autofocus so that is nice but it is around $350. You can also use just about any manual adapter which are much cheaper but you will not get AF, stabilization, or aperture control through the camera body. You can also get adapters to use lenses by Canon or Nikon if you don't mind them being fully manual.

[@katasiapa]

6:54 What lens do you used to make that picture?

[@learningcameras]

Canon 85mm f1.8

[@tharunvt]

Thanks for your review. Could you kindly help with a recommendation- Recently I picked up a Nikon D750 and currently looking for a good wide angle walk around lens. Since the price of Nikon 24-120 f4 is available @ $800 new (split from the kit/ unfortunately i picked the body w/o the kit)- would you be recommending the 24-70 f2.8 Tamron VC edition which costs $1200 or the Nikon 24-120 f4 @ $800 or this sigma 24-105 f4 Budget is a bit of a constraint, given I plan to pick a sigma or tamron 70-200 f2.8 and just spent the extra cash on spedlights, bags, tripod and accessories. Other info- 1. Enthusiast and not making any money out of photography 2. Looking for a good walk around lens for landscape view 3. Must have stabilization 4. Great for shallow depth of field 5. Must be quick and good at low light situation -Thx

[@learningcameras]

Thanks. I personally use the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC mostly because I needed the f2.8 and didn't want to give up stabilization...Tamron is the only stabilized f2.8 24-70mm zoom for full frame. However, I'm shooting weddings mostly which are extremely dark so I needed the extra stop of light. If you can live with the f4 (which you probably can...especially since the D750 is a great low light performer) I would typically say go with the Sigma 24-105mm f4 because it is the best for the money but if you say you can get the Nikon 24-120 f4 for $800...maybe go that route. I see it listed around $1300 so I'm not sure about the $800 but if you can buy it from a trusted source, It's a great lens...just not quite worth $1300 when you can get the Sigma which is even a bit sharper for $900 or less. Of course going with the Tamron gives you 1 more stop of light and shallower depth of field when shot at f2.8 so if that is important for you, It's a good lens and the one I personally use. I'd also recommend something like the Nikon 85mm f1.8 for portraits or the Nikon 50mm F1.4 if you shoot more indoors to go along with the zoom...either of those will give you awesome performance in low light with super shallow depth of field.

[@tharunvt]

LearningCameras.com Thanks for your super fast reply. I do love the idea of having a 2.8 lens with me. That extra stop helps drive a better shallow depth of field. Yes, the Nikon 24-120 locally am getting it for about $720 = 45000 INR (sold by decoupling from the kit package, my D750 body alone hence worked out to be for $1,720 approx conversion). While the sigma is still being sold for around $850 price equivalent and the Tamron 24-70 Vc for around $1100 Pardon me for sounding picky & stingy, but am on a budget having lost my entire gear on a trip about 7-8 months back & currently rebuilding the entire array- so being a bit picky here. Am not a professional photographer and don't make money out of photography. For me it has been a passion and a bloody expensive hobby. Usually I shoot landscapes, bit of wild life and mostly portraits of pets. I have an urgent requirement for something in the 28- 40 mm range for wide angle shots. Ideally want to get the Tamron 24-70 but given the budget constraints of lining up the next buy's thinking how much it would affect the depth of view !! Current inventory- (all picked up in the last week) Nikon 50 1.4G Nikon 70-300 VR 4-5.6 SB 700 Carry speed pro Lowepro prorunner 350 aw My shopping cart for the next 2 months sound like this- 70-200 Sigma 2.8 OS ($1200) Speedlight 700 + gorilla pod A few polorizers and ND filters Good travel tripod Other wish list (somewhere in the future)- Sigma 150-500 OS or the Tamron 150-600 vc Tamron 90mm 1.8 or Nikon 85mm 1.8

[@learningcameras]

Tharun Venkat I think in your case I would go for the Nikon 24-120 then. It's a great lens and you can't beat the price. It will also have a higher resale value if you change your mind later and want to swap to something else. There is rumor of Sigma working on a 24-70 f2.8 stabilized which could be interesting. You can use the 50mm 1.4 which is a great lens whenever you need a wider aperture so you should be good to go. On your wish list, go with the Nikon 85mm f1.8 when that time comes...great portrait style lens. The Sigma 150-500 and Tamron 150-600 both look like nice lenses but I have not personally used them yet. On a full frame camera, you should get pretty shallow depth of field at f4. Just remember, if you want shallow DOF, zoom in tight and get closer to your subject. If you shoot wide angle and far from the subject, you will not get that shallow DOF. Getting close to the subject and zooming in will make way more of a difference than shooting at f2.8 or f4.

[@DM-rg8rw]

With my canon, I lose a stop or so of light when zooming from 24 to 104 which makes me re adjust aperture for video. Does lens do the same?

[@learningcameras]

So, what happens is that when you zoom, your angle of view changes so depending on where the light is, less of it will get in the lens. Some lenses show this less than others but most lenses have this...especially when they don't zoom internally. With the Sigma, I noticed very little of this but I did not measure it.

[@iggy0978]

LearningCameras.com I just checked it myself - no real loss of light.

[@sakibi.6458]

Extremely helpful and insightful. Thanks for sharing! Q: I have a Nikon D5500 APS-C body. I mainly use a 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma Art (DC, ie. for APS-C bodies) for landscape shots. I want to purchase the 24-105mm f4 Sigma Art (DG, ie. for full-frame bodies) and use it on my APS-C body. It'll be subject to the crop factor for focal length and depth of field, so it'd be 36-157.5mm f/6, but does it mean the lense will be that much less inefficient at gathering light? Or is that another metric like t stops. Thanks sincerely in advance.

[@learningcameras]

Great question. It will gather light the exact same as a APSC lens. When you calculate the F6 with the crop factor, don't think of that in terms of light gathering, think of it JUST in terms of depth of field. The cameras already adjust for the difference in light so you can still think of it as a 36-157mm F4 in terms of light. But your depth of field would be more like F6 on a full frame camera. It's a solid option though for the D5500 although also check out the Nikon 24-120mm F4 VR. Because Nikon packages that lens as a kit lens in their cameras, you can find it refurbished/used for cheap. There is one in stock at B&H right now for $599 instead of the usual price of over $1000! bhpho.to/2QiB05U

[@sakibi.6458]

@@learningcameras thanks sincerely for your response! Just to clarify did you mean it will behave as f6 depth of field on my crop sensor body D5500? Thanks for the suggestion on Nikon 24-120mm (also for FX), will compare weight, price, sharpness, and other factors. The extra focal length to 120mm should be super useful. I'm also waiting until Black Friday later this month to get the new lens 🙌

[@learningcameras]

@@sakibi.6458 Yes, using the 24-120mm on a full frame camera at F5.6 would give you the SAME depth of field as using the 24-105mm on an APSC camera like the D5500 at F4.

[@sakibi.6458]

@@learningcameras Ah gotcha! So the depth of field on the full frame lens becomes EVEN shallower when used on APS-C body (since multiplying crop factor on f stop which is reciprocal ie. f/). Rather interesting......means if I used it on D850 (full frame) I'd be getting 24-105mm f4, and then put it on my D5500 and I get 38 - 158mm f2.67. only depth of field ofc and not light collecting ability. I'm rather stunned. Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting here Thanks again!

[@learningcameras]

@@sakibi.6458 Opposite way around. The depth of field is shallower on a full frame by that crop factor

[@rustialex]

Nice review, keep up the good work! Any thoughts on this: Sigma 24-105 f4 vs Nikkor 24-120 f4?

[@learningcameras]

Thanks! I have not spent much time with the 24-120 but I know the sharpness and build of the Sigma is tough to match. If you need the extra range, that is one thing. But personally, I'd be likely to go with the Sigma unless you stole the 24-120 for under $1000. For $1200+, I would be more tempted by the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC because I want the wide aperture more than the range.

[@rustialex]

LearningCameras.com Thanks a lot!

[@akilamike]

Great video and a first review of this lens. Here s my question. Say you compare this one with a f2.8 without IS (because the prices are similar). Thought you gain 1 stop of light, since you dont have IS, the sigma gains 2 stops better than the 2.8 non is lens right? So for the same money, the f4 sigma lens gets 2 more stops of light (hand held) than the 2.8 non IS lens?

[@learningcameras]

Thanks! In theory, you are correct, but only if you need IS and in many cases, you don't. Example, if I am photographing my kids around the house, they are very quick and I'm usually shooting at 1/160th of a second and at those speeds, I don't need IS. Usually the only time I am shooting at slow enough shutter speeds to need IS on a general zoom is if I am shooting things that don't move...then the IS will come in handy. If you shoot video, the IS is huge though. Also, I find that I WANT to shoot at 2.8 often to get more shallow depth of field since I mostly shoot portraits and weddings. I personally use the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC because I use 2.8 often and I still want the stabilization for video and slow shooting. It is not my favorite lens in the world but is the only 2.8 stabilized full frame zoom so I love it for that

[@akilamike]

LearningCameras.com Makes perfect sense... Thanks for the explanation. Think I would get this one as opposed to a non IS 2.8 though. Personally think that if light is a big issue for the f4 lens, most likely will be an issue for the f2.8 lens too.. right? Wouldn't the combination of this lens 24-105 f4 OS + a 85mm f1.4 lens be the best combo?

[@learningcameras]

Akila Subasinghe Yep, I use the 85mm 1.8 as my long prime because I rarely want to shoot video with wider apertures then that.

[@MalindaRathnayake]

Akila Subasinghe I ve been using the Canon 24-105 F4 IS as my walk around lens since i got it as a kit..First i hated it then it kinda grows on you..i love this lens for the versatility and the IS you can try to make up for DOF with distance and picking your backgrounds carefully Sigma 24-105 seems to have better bokeh than the Canon imo, Bottom line you should be good with this and the 85mm and try the Sigma 35mm F/1.4..Lovely piece of glass

[@GingerPhotographer]

Just purchased this lens - The Canon 5D Mark II detects the lens as a 24-105 but say's Correction Data Unavailable, any ideas why?

[@learningcameras]

+Ginger Photographer It says that in Lightroom or on the camera. If you are talking about the camera, the 5D has built in correction (I personally don't use it) to correct for chromatic aberration, vignetting, and things such as that but it only works for native Canon lenses I believe so it can't correct for this lens. I always do those corrections in post personally. I'm pretty sure it only corrects JPEG images anyway and I'm usually almost exclusively shooting RAW

[@GingerPhotographer]

+Dan Watson ah ok - makes sense! Thank you!

[@mohammedjasaam]

Thank you for this wonderful demo video Question if allowed Can be replaced by one of the following lenses Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM | A Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM ((And whichever you prefer)) instead of the lens Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM | A Note that I have a camera Canon EOS 650D.

[@learningcameras]

I personally use the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC. For me, I really need an f2.8 lens but I didn't want to give up stabilization. The Tamron gives me both and I believe is the only stabilized f2.8 lens ever. It's also pretty sharp and focuses well. Take a look: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845339-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html/BI/19484/KBID/11716/kw/TA247028C/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xTA247028C You could also save some money and go with the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS which also has a wider aperture with stabilization and a good range: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909806-REG/Sigma_884101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html/BI/19484/KBID/11716/kw/SI1770284DCC/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xSI1770284DCC Those would be my top choices for a nice zoom lens. I'm all about the wide aperture as I shoot low light and portraits often. If you shoot street photography or other outdoor shooting, you might go with the Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS HSM

[@mohammedjasaam]

LearningCameras.com Thank you to answer and opinion I think I will turn the lens Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC And I have replaced the existing lens Sigma 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM ( C ) Instead of the lens Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM | A

[@photographerjonathan]

I have seen some really amazing images from this lens online, it really has great contrast along with it's sharpness, it is really tempting to give up getting a f2.8 lens to get this because I do also love 24/105 range, but if Sigma came out with a 24/105 f2.8 IS I would be jumping to get that one, or even a 24/70 f2.8 IS, I am wondering why Sigma isn't making these lenses weather sealed, it must be hard to keep the cost down if they do that, but I think people would be willing to pay a little more for that feature, but this lens from images I have seen, seems to be equal to the Canon 24/70 f2.8 ll, and that lens is allot more money and no IS, but I still really wish this Sigma was an f2.8 ,,,, common Sigma don't keep me waiting

[@learningcameras]

I hear rumors of a Sigma 24-70 2.8 with stabilization with the possibility of a Sigma 24-70 f2 with stabilization. Either of those with the quality and sharpness of this lens would be a dream come true for me as well. I'm currently using the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC just for the f2.8 aperture & stabilization but the Sigma lenses are better built and sharper. The Sigma lenses do have some basic weather sealing with o-rings though are not weather sealed to the degree some Canon L lenses are.

[@jamesjackson4264]

Everybody would be jumping on the 24-105 2.8 until they say it’s the size of a 300mm 2.8. Lol.

[@tedtedsen269]

dos it have wethersealing on the lensmount or the buttons on the side

[@learningcameras]

Not sure about the buttons but there is an oring on the back to get some weather sealing. It is built very very well but I wouldn't take it out in a rainstorm.

[@trinhk]

Awesome review. Great how you use images in your presentation. Great job, keep up the good work. Thank you.

[@imenebh8802]

Is it a wide angle lense ?

[@PhillipPilkingtonPhotographer]

Hey, Great video. I think most of what you said is correct. But the Nikon 24-85mm vr is one of the sharpest mid range zooms for Nikon. In your video you mention that is isn't so sharp.

[@learningcameras]

Thanks. I used that lens a little while back with the Nikon D600 and personally I was not super impressed. Maybe it was a bad copy but that was my experience.

[@simbarb2]

i have canon t4i can i use 24-105 sigma lens ( yes or no)

[@learningcameras]

Yes. It will function more like a 38-168mm lens because of the camera crop factor so you won't get much on the wide side but it still has a great range with awesome quality and works perfectly with the T4i

[@wschick83]

A new Sigma or a used Canon; had this question in my head before Christmas that you talked about Dan. I went to a local shop to try the Sigma out with my 'gripped' 6D, and quite honestly, it was extremely front heavy (the lens is a monster of Standard Zoom); and this is coming from former 40D and 17-55mm user. This is mostly likely a combination of the body and the lens, so I guess a 5D MKIII would be nicely balanced. However an almost new Canon 24-105 popped up in London town for £300+ less than the new Sigma with the ability to part exchange my out going cropped glass. To some up: the financial and physical burden was and is a lot less with the venerable Canon on a 6D body.

[@learningcameras]

The Sigma is heavy like I mentioned and for the price, you Can't beat the Canon 24-105 assuming you get a deal. NEVER pay anything close to retail for the Canon but if you can find it for less than the Sigma, I think it is a solid choice.

[@wschick83]

That's what I figured really; the Sigma's maybe the newest and greatest, but it's probably only slightly better than the Canon for £300. For that slightness you pay more for a new lens (which will depreciate come selling), much heavier (heavier than the Tamron 24-70mm in fact) and I'd have to buy into 82mm filters (having already owning 77's). But credit were credits due: it's a nice, nice lens!

[@daver9643]

What is the minimum aperture or the aperture range?

[@brandonj8018]

f/4-22

[@jravell]

What does it mean to "get a white box"?

[@learningcameras]

No one knows exactly where it came from or it was overseas. Usually the manufacture warranty will be void but it is still a new lens

[@shinumattathil]

sony 58 is possible for this lence?? can u pls answer me..about it?

[@learningcameras]

Yes, this is the model you need: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009624-REG/sigma_635_205_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html/BI/19484/KBID/11716/kw/SI241054SO/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xSI241054SO

[@pokk5995]

this or the tamron 35-150 2.8-4?

[@niklashoej8085]

Will this lense work with a canon 90D?

[@learningcameras]

Absolutely it will and it will also work on full frame cameras if you ever upgrade

[@niklashoej8085]

@@learningcameras cool thanks for the answer 🎉

[@rossalmeida1156]

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

[@HertNiks]

Will this work with fx body?

[@learningcameras]

Yes

[@MrShara26]

Pls review the new Fuji X-T1..thanks

[@Jeffrey26261]

You just took my canon vs nikon lens battle to a whole other level.

[@Jeffrey26261]

And then the D850 was a thing There was no better time that I wished i was a Nikon stills photographer.

[@joewerkheiser6864]

Do you think the f/4 hurts substantially vs a f/2.8?

[@learningcameras]

+Joe Werkheiser It depends...if you are in low light, it absolutely can make a difference. I shoot weddings and being able to shoot at 3200ISO instead of 6400ISO makes a big difference in image quality so an f2.8 lens is essential for me. As a street photography, landscape, or in decent light, the f4 is just fine and having stabilization and a great range is a big bonus. If you shoot portraits, pair the 24-105 f4 with an 85mm f1.8 and you are in business.

[@dgkasin]

Is this for full frame only?

[@learningcameras]

Works with full frame and APS-C cropped sensor cameras like the Canon 70D or Nikon D7100

[@adib6667]

can this lens used on nikon d750

[@learningcameras]

Yep, works perfectly

[@photographerjonathan]

hmmm Tamrom 24/70 f2.8 VC or Sigma 24/105 f4 IS,,,,,, I love Sigma but thats a hard one, if you shot the Tamron at f4, how do the two lenses compare ( sharpness and contrast ) I never really considered the F4 lens, I want Sigma to come out with a new 24/105 f2.8 IS, have you heard about the new Sigma 50 f1.4 art lens that was announced, that is something I can't wait to get my hands on, I hope it holds up to the 35 f1.4 , my gut is telling me it will be better than the Canon 50 L buy a long shot and maybe even up there with the new ZEISS OTUS since they designed it a little like the Otus, wishful thinking but you never know, it could be, I would love to see that comparison, I think you would get a billion views if you made the video

[@learningcameras]

I own the Tamron 24-70 and it is a very good lens though not an awesome one. I own it because I really do need an f2.8 lens (but there are sharper lenses) and I shoot video a ton of video and thus the image stabilization is important for me. I'm still on the lookout for something better than the Tamron 24-70 but I'm not willing to give up stabilization to get the canon nor am I willing to give up the 2.8 aperture so for me, the Tamron is still king. Sigma is rumored to have a 24-70 stabilized f2.8 or even f2 lens in the works but it is just a rumor. I'll definitely be getting the new Sigma 50mm 1.4 because my Canon 50mm 1.4 needs a replacement and I love my Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART.

[@Watch_My_Game]

Cool lens!

[@matzeaess2848]

Not beeing in focus while talking about focus makes me think about your the quality of this review

[@learningcameras]

Yeah... This video was 10 years ago before cameras had amazing AF in video and obviously if I'm in front of the camera, no one was behind it! Go check out my new videos though... A lot has changed

[@GoGrJr]

has anyone tried the EF Speedbooster on it? thx

[@learningcameras]

+Christopher R I have not on this particular lens but you should have no issues using a speedbooster with it

[@GoGrJr]

thx!

[@engeilaw]

how bout for Video?

[@learningcameras]

engeilaw Sorry I missed your comment. This lens is great for video because of the constant aperture and stabilization.

[@mastiff104]

How does it feel compared to the Canon 24-105? Sigma VS Canon??

[@learningcameras]

The Sigma feels and looks much better. Sigma's 24-105 feels heavier and more premium than Canon's 24-105 and the sharpness on the Sigma is also slightly better. The Canon 24-105 does focus a little faster but the Sigma is plenty fast. The Sigma definitely beats Canon on this when you compare the retail prices. However, I have seen the Canon 24-105 as low as $750 making it cheaper than the Sigma since it is often sold off in 6D and 5D3 kits. If you can find the Canon for less than $800, I would probably go with it. You get an L lens instantly recognizable with the Canon brand behind it but the Sigma is a better lens so I would gladly pick the Sigma over the Canon if you can't find a steal on the Canon.

[@mastiff104]

LearningCameras.com I'm from Denmark. Here i can get the Sigma for $1050 and the Canon for 977(whit box). I Have the Canon 7D and love it. love your channel

[@learningcameras]

mastiff104 Awesome, thanks! It would be a toss up. The Sigma will come brand new with a longer warranty so I'd probably lean towards it. They used to not hold their value as well but the new Sigma lenses have impressed everyone. I'm going to say I would pick up the Sigma. I used it with my 7D, 70D, and 5D mark III and it worked perfectly with all of them. The Canon 24-105 is an OLD lens and while it is still great, it is starting to struggle compared to these new lenses from Sigma

[@mastiff104]

LearningCameras.com Thank you for your fast reply, opinion and advice. Have a nice weekend

[@Peace5886]

Nice video,,,thank you :)

[@dannydao1660]

My humble opinion, I really think that photographers should use original lens correspond to its brand. Nikon lens to Nikon body and Canon lens to Canon body etc. If you want to use other brand, why you need to buy N or C body. So to say, if you want to use Sigma lens, why don't you use sigma camera?

[@brandonj8018]

What difference does it make if image quality is what ultimately matters?

[@dannydao1660]

@@brandonj8018 It's only my attitude about loyalty to the brand I like.

[@brandonj8018]

Ok

[@SouthernPacificPatch]

No

[@RogerZoul]

Can you get your hands on the new 150-600mm Sigma? I need to see a review of this guy....

[@learningcameras]

That is Tamron who just introduced a 150-600mm lens so I think that is the one you are talking about. I'm hoping to get it this month too. I just got the newish Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS lens and that thing is a beast. Put on a 1.4x tele converter and now it is a 190-420 F4 lens which is really nice.

[@RogerZoul]

Yes, sorry for my mistake. I will be interested in your review of both! Thanks.

[@tedtedsen269]

hai i ust did it i purcased my sigma 24-105mm f4 A and the store give my 5 thousand kr for my nikor that cost New 8 thousand kr i have now tested it compared to my 24-120 f4 it has nicer collors more contrasty and it is sharper wide open the Nikon had its sweetspot at f8 this siggy 24-105 is almoast sharpest at f4 onley at Close to 105mm it is recomended by me to stop it Down to 2steps and of course i lost the 120mm range and also wethersealing but was that swap wort it YES in my eyes it was sharper and Programming in my sigma dockingstation is awsome

[@photofitrehelper]

Would you suggest this for a wedding?

[@learningcameras]

It's good however I use f2.8 lenses for weddings because most are just too dark for an f4 lens. My personal choice is the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

[@JDennisThomas]

LearningCameras.com It would depend on the camera you're using. I find that my D4/Df are perfectly fine shooting with an f/4 lens. I have replaced all of f/2.8 zooms with with f/4 zooms. Much lighter and no noticeable degradation of IQ also more depth of field is better in many cases. If I need faster or shallow DoF I slap on a fast prime.

[@learningcameras]

J. Dennis Thomas I will agree with you on that one. If you have a D4, not only do you get the full frame sensor, but you also have one of the best low light cameras around. That said, I'm not sure there would be any reason to opt for an f4 lens over an f2.8 except cost...especially with the 70-200mm range where the f2.8 lenses have all the features of the f4 lenses. That said, in the wider 24-70mm range, only Tamron has stabilization in an f2.8 lens and the f4 lenses give you a greater range (24-105mm) plus have stabilization so I see the reason to trade f2.8 for stabilization, better range, and a lower price.

[@JDennisThomas]

LearningCameras.com There's are 2 big reasons. Size and weight. The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and Sigma 24-105 weigh about the same with the added benefit of Sigma's longer reach and OS. In regards to the 70-200, the f/4 is even more compelling. The Nikon 70-200 f/4 is almost HALF the size and weight of the f/2.8 versions it has VRIII as opposed to VRII. It focuses closer, has a smaller filter size and is substantially cheaper. The f/4 also outperforms the f/2.8 by a good margin. This is a no-brainer if you have to carry a 70-200 around for more than a few hours a day. The 16-35 f/4 has VR plus it's much smaller and lighter than the 14-24 and has the option of filters (I still have my 14-24 for special projects) and the IQ is pretty close. The days of needing an f/2.8 zoom are gone now that ISO can be easily used up to 3200 in just about every current camera and even higher in some cameras. Let's face it, f/2.8 zooms were designed for speed in an era when ISO wasn't that great when the numbers got high. An f/2.8 lens isn't designed for shallow depth although it does do OK, but there are smaller and faster prime lenses that are designed specifically for subject isolation. I didn't choose f/4 lenses because to save money because I'm cheap. I already owned the f/2.8 lenses. I realized I didn't need them anymore. Owning an f/2.8 zoom lens is really just for bragging rights unless you are using an older model DSLR that sucks above ISO 800 or you're shooting film. I'm a full-time professional photographer. I've written dozens of books and tested untold amounts of lenses. I didn't come to this conclusion on a whim. It's based on actual usage. I've shot more than a million frames since digital came around. My main D700 has almost 3/4 of a million shots on it alone (and only 1 shutter replacement). When I was shooting the early Nikon D1's and D2's an f/2.8 was a necessity. The D700 and D3 started me looking at slower lenses and the D4 clinched it. (I also have at least 3 colleagues that are switching out to f/4 lenses for their Canon 1DXs, so It's not just a Nikon thing)

[@rondhole]

Unless it is sold well below $500, I will just take real depandable hard to kill Canon 24-105mm IS for about $650 new. More consistent autofocus and durability, MFT results is very close but at infinity focal length they are just identical.

[@c0pyimitati0n]

I'm sorry but your sample images don't help at all. In one shot your settings were 1/60 sec shooting at 105 mm. ???? Your shutter should have been ABOVE your focal lenght. That is probably why that image is not tac sharp.

[@learningcameras]

c0pyimitati0n Everything was shot on a tripod so it should be steady. I typically use a tripod for my sample shots because it allows me to take the same shot multiple times and at different ISO values to see the quality. But I was actually pretty impressed with the sharpness.