Canon 24-105 to Sigma 24-105

Sam

After careful analysis I found that my Canon 24-105 is softer on the edges than i like and am concidering getting the Sigma 24-105 to replace it.

Has anyone done this? If so what has your experience been?

Sam

pathfinder

Hi Sam,

I've been waiting to see what responses you received, but to date, not much....so

I will assume you are talking about using the lenses with a full frame camera body since you are interested in corner performance.

I own the Canon 24-105 f4 IS L, and my spouse owns/uses the Sigma 24-105. The Sigma is bigger, heavier, and uses larger filters - 82mm. I have not noticed it being significantly better optically than my Canon lens, but then I have been pretty pleased with my Canon 24-105. I think the Canon may be softer in the corners at 24mm than at 105 mm, but that is kind of a general impression from a quick purview of files in my LR catalog. It is not a big deal to me as I usually don't have critical data in the corners of my images and I will probably vignette them some in post processing. I do not and would not use it for architecture.

I must confess, I have not been unhappy with my Canon lens, and only got the Sigma as it was a bit more inexpensive and I was curious about it too. The Sigma seems to loose its lens cap easily, or maybe that is a user issue, but I have to be careful about suggesting that. I have replaced the lens hood and the lens cap for the Sigma as they disappeared somewhere along the way. I wish I could tell you more about the lens, but I have not actually shot with it. My spouse is a bit territorial with her gear. Her images seem sharp when captured correctly.

I would suggest renting the Sigma 24-105 and giving it a direct comparison with your Canon lens, and see which you really prefer. Just a thought.

Many of the images on this page https://nightingale.smugmug.com/Travel/Greenland-Iceland/ were shot with the Sigma 24-105 but were shot handheld from a moving boat with a 5D MkIII

Sam

Thanks Jim,

I have always been happy with my 24-105 but after testing it at f4 against a wood fence I found the left side was particularly soft. Once seen can not be unseen.

It works great as a walk around lens, but I wanted to see what I could get out of it wide open, for indoor events, and I am not satisfied with it there.

I probably need to rob a 7/11 and get me one of those 24-70 f2.8 II.

Answers over on Fred Miranda suggest the Sigma is sharper, and my other research support that.

I have the Sigma 85 1.4 and love it.

Always more stuff to buy. :cry

Sam

pathfinder

You say the left side is worse than the right side of the frame?? That makes me wonder, just a bit, if it needs to be adjusted by Canon Factory Service. I would expect most lens failings ( of design anyway ) like loss of sharpness to be symmetrical, side to side. Wouldn't you Sam?

I have had CFS adjust/repair several lenses for me 500 f4, 300 f2.8, 24-105 and the were noticeably better when they were returned after service. Just a thought, Sam.

Sam

pathfinder wrote: »

You say the left side is worse than the right side of the frame?? That makes me wonder, just a bit, if it needs to be adjusted by Canon Factory Service. I would expect most lens failings ( of design anyway ) like loss of sharpness to be symmetrical, side to side. Wouldn't you Sam?

I have had CFS adjust/repair several lenses for me 500 f4, 300 f2.8, 24-105 and the were noticeably better when they were returned after service. Just a though, Sam.

I should give that a try first. Need to find a time slot to get it done in. I would naked without this lens in my bag.

Sam

nak

Sam:

Consider renting the same Canon lens from the good folks at LensRentals.com to see if it is your copy or endemic.

Their blog is always worth a read while you are there (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog) - particularly about the ways they measure and test the lenses in their rental fleet. I rent from them as opposed to other firms because I want to support that blog and the test gear that supports it. I found their prices to be close anyway.

If softness on the edge is common to all Canon 24-105, then I would suggest renting the various competing lenses before buying one. A hundred bucks of rental beats a thousand bucks of mistake.

compasiune11

Canon is softer in the edges and in the center of the frame. Sigma is better, but beware with Sigma - AF is inconsistent

Sam

Bit of an update: Went to a friends house and shot a wood fence with my 24-105 and his back to back using my camera.

Both were soft left and right at 24mm f4. Mine is softer on the right than his.

At 50 mm and 105 both were very good exhibiting very little softness at f4 and stopped down a little f5.6 pretty consistent across the image.

I do need to find exactly where this transition takes place. 30mm, 35mm? Then I will know the usable focal length of the lens and I can think of it as a say 35mm to 105mm.

If I need to shoot wider use a different lens.

Sam

pathfinder

Canon's 16-35 f2.3 v II should be very good at 24 mm, midway between 16 and 35. I know my 16-35 is much better in the corners at 24, than my 24-105 at 24 is. Much better.

I like your thinking Sam, don't fault your tools, but learn them and use the at their best.

Sam

pathfinder wrote: »

Canon's 16-35 f2.3 v II should be very good at 24 mm, midway between 16 and 35. I know my 16-35 is much better in the corners at 24, than my 24-105 at 24 is. Much better.

I like your thinking Sam, don't fault your tools, but learn them and use the at their best.

My research indicates the 16-35 f2.8 II is not that good on the edges at 24mm.

My friend, with 16-35 f2.8 II and all the other info I could find supports that.

Apparently the 16-35 f4 is much better.

Sam

My humble 17-40 f4 is much better. I'll just use that.