Sigma 24-105mm 1: 4 DG HSM Lens Overview | A (Art, for Canon EOS cameras) and examples of photos from it, especially for Radozhiva, prepared Yuri Molchanov.
Shot at Sigma 24-105mm 1: 4 DG HSM | A (Art)
Good afternoon.
As you probably know, Arkady uses Nikon cameras, so he does not always succeed in testing lenses with Canon EF mount. For this reason, I could not send my lens to him for a test.
And as time goes on, Canon has released an updated version Canon EF 24-105mm f / 4L IS II USM, so I’d risk sharing my experience using the Sigma 24-105mm f / 4 DG OS HSM lens.
I enjoy reading reviews of Arkady, I like the great style of presentation and examples of photos. You will not find all this in my review, but maybe it is still better than nothing.
To business. I bought a Sigma 24-105mm f / 4 DG OS HSM Art a year after its announcement and was guided by information from various websites (dxomark.com, lenstip.com, etc.). This did not help the choice, as a direct competitor Canon EF 24-105mm f / 4L IS USM - On the same sites, too, praised. As a result, I bought Sigma, since it turned out to be cheaper than Canon and also because I have been using it for a long time Sigma Art 50 / 1.4, and very pleased with him. The lens was bought in Germany through the well-known chain of stores Photo dose for 720 €. Cheap options Canon 24-105 for $ 600 I did not find in Ukraine at that time. Yes, and there were doubts about the quality of such a purchase.
I liked the lens in general. Firmly made, proportionate to Canon 5D Mark III, I also like the design of the Art line more than the old "velvet" lenses. But I want to pay more attention to what I did not like. What I like about Sigma is much better written by journalists from specialized publications - below the link.
1. The lens does not focus very quickly. I cannot compare directly with Canon EF 24-105mm f / 4L IS USM (as well as with the new Canon EF 24-105mm f / 4L IS II USM), but many cheap lenses from my backpack make it faster. In most situations Tamron SP 70-300 mm f / 4-5.6 Di VC USD focused faster and more accurately Sigma. But it is almost three times cheaper! I can also say about the Canon EF-S 55-250 mm f / 4-5.6 IS (of course, you can’t put them next to the sharpness, but again the price!). In the photo you will see a lot of shots of ice, but it is so contrasting and uneven that before I had no problems with focusing. I think this is not the case when you can talk about difficult focusing conditions. Air temperature is 0 or slightly higher.
2. Smears aiming at sharpness in not the most difficult situations. I give examples of photos in which I had to focus several times. In other respects, the pictures are good, the lens holds back light well.
3. At temperatures slightly above zero or so, factory lubricant appears to solidify in the lens. It often happened to me that at the most crucial moment he did not respond to pressing the focus button and had to be forced to move from the spot manually. If you bring a little sharpness with your hand, it begins to move and catch the object in focus. For me, this is not a nit-picking - I missed quite a few interesting moments when photographing animals. And again about the "cheap" lenses: Canon EF-S 55-250 as Tamron 70-300 such glitches in the same sessions did not suffer. The killer whales in the photo, on the background of gray water can be seen immediately, they are bright. And the lens moves many times back and forth focusing on sharpness. Moreover Tamron grabs the object immediately in a similar situation. I shot whales when the Zodiac walked at high speed and there were no complaints Tamron did not have.
4. The lens has rather dull bokeh. The blur is as it were. It seems that nagging appears only when you compare it with high-aperture lenses. But it comes with the word ART! In my case, this is what outweighed the desire to buy an all-weather Canon. So it seems to me that it is possible and necessary to scold engineers for this. Artistry or some special recognizable drawing is out of the question. Unless a professional shoots (who can also shoot beautifully on a mobile phone).
5. The image stabilizer is mediocre. FROM Tamron SP 70-300 mm f / 4-5.6 Di VC USD does not go to any comparison. In the photo with a bearded uncle, smear is noticeable, although it was a sunny day, and I try not to pull the camera.
6. Yes chromatic aberration, but how much the picture spoils is up to you to decide. Example photo at the end of the review.
7. There is vignetting, but it's fixable.
I'm not going to change this lens for another. Firstly - I stick to things, and secondly - I like him. But for those who make a choice now, I advise you not to rush and wait for the new reviews Canon EF 24-105mm f / 4L IS II USM.
And if you still find a new one Canon EF 24-105mm f / 4L IS USM for $ 600, then it definitely makes sense to buy a waterproof / dustproof Canon (I heard about some kit-kits, of which the body and lenses were sold separately and such lenses were cheaper than the boxed version). Otherwise, it is better to buy Sigma. It's cheaper and, according to DXOmark, sharper.
The sharpness of the lens can be estimated from a photograph of a sailboat.
Full Size Link here.
The Sigma A (Sigma Art) lens range includes the following lenses:
DG
For full-frame cameras (series DG) with mount Nikon F, Canon EF, Sigma SA:
- Sigma 14 mm 1: 1.8 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 16/11, December 2017 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 20 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 15/11, October 2015 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 15/11, February 2015 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 28 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 17/12, September 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 35 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +A, +Pentax, +Cine, 13/11, November 2012 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 40 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 16/12, September 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 50 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +A, +Cine, 13/8, January 2014 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 70 mm 1: 2.8 DG MACRO | | | A (Art), +L, +E, 13/10, February 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 85 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 14/12, September 2016 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 105 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 17/12, February 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 135 mm 1: 1.8 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 13/10, March 2017 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 12-24 mm 1: 4 DG | A (Art), 16/11, November 2016
- Sigma 14-24 mm 1: 2.8 DG | A (Art), 17/11, February 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24-35 mm 1: 2 DG | A (Art), +Cine, 18/13, January 2015 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24-70 mm 1: 2.8 DG OS | | | A (Art), 19/14, February 2017 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24-105 mm 1: 4 DG OS | | | A (Art), +A, 19/14, October 2013 [AliExpress]
DG DN
For full-frame mirrorless cameras (series DG DN) with bayonet Leica l и Sony E:
- Sigma 14 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 19/15, June 2023
- Sigma 15 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art) Fisheye, 21/15, February 2024
- Sigma 20 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 17/15, August 2022 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 17/14, August 2022 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 35 mm 1: 1.2 DG DN | A (Art), 17/12, July 2019 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 35 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 15/11, April 2021 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 50 mm 1: 1.2 DG DN | A (Art), 17/12, March 2023
- Sigma 50 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 14/11, February 2023 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 85 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 15/11, August 2020 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 105 mm 1: 2.8 DG DN MACRO | A (ART), 12/7, October 2020 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 14-24 mm 1: 2.8 DG DN | A (Art), 18/13, July 2019 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24-70 mm 1: 2.8 DG DN | A (Art), 19/15, November 2019 [AliExpress]
DC
For cropped SLR cameras (series DC) with mount Nikon F, Canon EF, Sigma SA:
- Sigma 30 mm 1: 1.4 DC | A (Art) +Pentax, +A, 9/8 [1 ASP], January 2013
- Sigma 18-35 mm 1: 1.8 DC | A (Art) +Pentax, +A, +Cine, 17/12 [5 SLD, 4 ASP], April 2013 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 50-100 mm 1: 1.8 DC | A (Art) +Cine, 21/15 [4 SLD, 3 FLD, 1 HRI], February 2016 [AliExpress]
DN
For cropped mirrorless cameras (series DN) for Micro 4/3 and Sony E:
- Sigma 19 mm 1:2.8DN | A (Art), black/silver, 8/6 [3 ASP], January 2013
- Sigma 30 mm 1:2.8DN | A (Art), black/silver, 7/5 [2 ASP], January 2013
- Sigma 60 mm 1:2.8DN | A (Art), black/silve, 8/6 [1 ASP, 1 SLD], January 2013
Abbreviations:
- +L means that there is a version of the lens adapted to work on mirrorless cameras with a bayonet mount Leica l
- +E means that there is a version of the lens adapted to work on mirrorless cameras with a bayonet mount Sony E/Sony FE
- + Pentax means that there is a version of the lens with a Pentax K mount (rare)
- +A means that there is a version of the lens with Sony A mount (rarity)
- + Cine means that there is a version of the lens adapted for video shooting, usually CINE versions are released simultaneously for ARRI PL, Canon EF and Sony E
- black / silver - case available in black (black) and silver (silver)
- 19 / 15, 7 / 5 and similar designations indicate the number of optical elements and groups in the optical scheme of the lens
Additionally, you can look at all lenses SIGMA CONTEMPORARY (C) и all lenses SIGMA SPORT (S). Here here there is a short video about the rulers and markings of Sigma lenses.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Thanks for the honest review! I’m thinking about buying a regular zoom, reasonably priced but with a decent picture and problem-free AF, apparently the alternative to the Canon 24-105 / 4is came out of it so-so.
I had one time Sigma AF28 / 1.8, I sold it because of the troubles with focusing. Where 70-200 / 4 confidently caught the trick, 28 / 1.8 was already difficult to find, even 50 / 1.8II behaved more confidently in terms of AF.
I have 6 Sigma lenses (one really broke), and I trust the brand. The problem of "jamming" at the moment of focusing happened only with this model. I read on the forums that one of the owners of the Sigma 24-105 simply changed the factory lubricant when he found that it had to be started “from the pusher”. Probably I will do the same. But! The Art prefix, but with such a jamb, and with this price, is not good.
I advise you to look at the Canon 24-70 f4.0 (surprisingly good lens)
somehow strange to read the review without pictures of the lens itself)
I can upload a photo of the lens, but they are on lenstip.com, like all the necessary test tests.
I wanted to share the experience of using in real conditions. This is exactly what is missing from these reviews.
what a sigma advertisement
No, I’m earning another living.
Most likely I had in mind the list of all the lenses of the ART line, which I added at the end of the review, or the fact that two reviews in a row about Sigma lenses (the previous one about Sigma 135-400).
Before that, there were almost 3 Tokins in a row. Also advertising, probably ...
In general, this site is owned by Nikon !!!
As our colleague from a friendly site wrote, the image quality is comparable to EF 24-105, but the AF is alarming. So far, his opinion is confirmed
Thanks for the review :). When working with Sigma, I don't like the impossibility of correcting vignetting with a camera, all photos require processing on a computer. If in a portrait photo vignette can play into your hands, then in landscape photography it is useless, but this lens has a strong vignette at all focal ones, at F 4. For Nikon it is clearly better to take it for 550-600 USD. native lens. In two photos with killer whales, EXIF is strange - 300 mm focal length is indicated.
That's right. This is the first time I am uploading a review to the network, so I did not sign the photos.
I compared the work of the Sigma 24-105 with the Tamron 70-300, which in the same situations managed to focus on sharpness. Sigma did not allow tracking auto focus to work at all. But I didn’t shoot motor racing.
The picture you are talking about is really shot on Tamron.
static photos are sharp, but dynamic ones - weak focus is aimed (especially with a killer whale)
Killer whale filmed by Tamron 70-300. Sigma refused to keep focus at all when she walked right at us.
Now I’ll post two photos taken at Sigma when they slowly left us. And these are the most successful shots. A ton is not sharp, I deleted the obvious thing.
Another good made Sigma.
The question is not the topic: where did the killer whales take pictures of penguins?
In Antarctica.
Thank you for your work!
PICTURES ARE GIVEN SIMPLY AWESOME!
Thank you for your kind words. At the same time, scenes were filmed on board for L'odyssée - that's who knows how to shoot.
Yes, I at least learn so
:)
The standard trouble of third-party glasses. You can never be sure that autofocus will work properly. Personally, I preferred the 24-105 4lis, although I've heard a lot of good reviews about sigma. If the difference in price was twofold or more, I would think about it. So, between canon 17-55 2.8is and sigma 17-50 2.8os, I am without a doubt for sigma. When I took a super televik comparing prices for native and sigma, I took sigma without a doubt. But when the glass of a third-party manufacturer stands as native and does not differ in anything special in specifications, it is better to take a native one. Is that sigma 50 1.4 stands out from this series - if we forget about the price, then it is noticeably better than 50 1.4 and Nikon and Canon.
Is Sigma 20 mm 1,4? Also, it seems, there are no analogues for its price.
There is a very good Nikon 20 1.8, but it is precisely in terms of aperture that there really are no analogues. On the other hand, most often in a wide position they shoot on covered diaphragms, but this is already particular.
I don't pay attention to the brand. A native, not a native lens - I don't care. I remember being disappointed when I used the Canon EF 70-300 mm f / 4-5.6 IS USM. But it cost almost $ 600 at one time. And its cheap little brother Canon EF-S 55-250 mm f / 4-5.6 IS both focused faster and the stub worked better.
As for the Sigma 17-50, I was very disappointed. I bought it to replace the Tamron SP AF 17-50 mm f / 2.8 XR Di II VC. There was an embarrassment. It also washed a lot around the edges of the frame, and the stabilizer worked worse. The only difference is that Sigma gives a sharper picture by 50 mm. And at that moment it cost more than Tamron.
The second point is the quality of the plastic. The first one I dropped was Tamron (I often drop my lenses, the problem is simple). The hull remained intact after falling from about 1.5 meters onto the paving slabs. The stub began to work badly (it worked every other time), but they did it in the service, and they took it inexpensively. The Sigma 17-50 fell out of my backpack onto the laminate. The body shattered into two halves. I glued it twice with epoxy (it was far from civilization), and it didn't even work for long. But then I had to disassemble again (the fastening of the halves was entrusted to the cat's plastic drips) and I damaged the antennae of the contacts inside the case. With Tamron, this operation can be done without any special tools. The design is simpler and more reliable.
Canon and Nikon also have bad lenses. As for me, 70-300is from Canon is just one of them, and 55-250is is very successful. So, for example, the more expensive 10-22 pleased much less than the cheaper 10-18is. The same can be said for many more glasses of both brands. But the more expensive segment usually doesn't disappoint. Canon has a cheap line of elek - 17-40 4l, 24-105 4lis and 70-200 4l are very good and there is nothing to complain about, given the relatively low price. Plus, the build quality.
Specifically, 24-105 4lis is a very successful lens, for 10 years it has been used by photographers all over the world, including professionals. Of course, there are amateurs who are dissatisfied with its quality, but often they do not get what they want even with more expensive lenses, because they are not looking there.
You are clearly out of luck with sigma. If you go through the reviews on the net, then on average sigma is noticeably better both in image and in assembly than tamron. In terms of sharpness, my specimens were arranged like this - tamron 17-50vs is the most mediocre, tamron 17-50 2.8 is quite good, sigma 17-50 2.8os is excellent. As for the convenience of repair, I can’t say anything, I don’t repair it myself, and thank God there was no need yet. But I fully admit that the tamron is more and more maintainable.
As for the falls, then a lot also depends not only on the brand of the lens, but also on the assembly of a particular instance. For example, in one 24-70 2.8L it fell a hundred times, swam and was used in the most severe conditions - there were no problems. Another in the same lens had an autofocus motor broken after six months of use after one fall from the couch. In general, whoever is lucky :)
I think you're right. There is variation in the quality of the assembly. And here it doesn’t seem to matter where the lens was bought, in Germany or in the States. Sigma's reviews are very controversial.
It is rightly noted - unsuccessful glasses can be in the line of any manufacturer. Personally, I really did not like Canon's 50 / 1.4, if you can still close your eyes to the flaws of the 50 / 1.8II taking into account its price, then taking into account the price of the more expensive version, its frankly poor design and weak picture in the open are not at all impressive. But again, these are rather old glasses, more recent models are usually more successful. I consider 40 / 2.8stm to be an example of a successful glass.
Yes, I also think that 50 1.4 in canon is not the most successful glass. Both in the picture and in the assembly. Now for me it is better 50 1.8 stm, albeit darker, but with good autofocus and acceptable sharpness in the open. A pancake, yes, excellent went out, I can’t stop rejoicing at him.
I see you have such a vivid discussion, I'm very worried about now - what to take is urgently needed because I can't decide: There are two lenses and I need to pick up one of them, but which will disappoint me less :) tell me who knows ... okina AT-X PRO AF 28 -70mm f / 2.8 for Canon or Canon EF 20-35mm f / 2.8 L
Canon EF 20-35mm f / 2.8 L or Tokina AT-X PRO AF 28-70mm f / 2.8 for Canon
These are very different lenses. So different that they rather complement each other.
I didn’t ask about that… You tell me obvious things… If you don’t know the pictures of these lenses, why write?
How can you know what I know and what not? And if you understand that these are completely different lenses, why are you asking for what to choose?
It’s the same as asking what is needed rink or crane.
I really can’t say anything about the Canon 20-35.
Tokina 28-70 is a good budget staffer for FF. On open it is quite suitable for portraits. The non-SV version will be cut. in excellent condition can be found for 15 thousand. More than 20 would not pay
And if you choose between an old token with f2,8 and a Canon EF 24-105mm f / 3.5-5.6 IS STM kit, what do you think will be better?
Simon
30.10.2016 in 09: 49
I do not know.
Canon plus new technologies, stub and STM if it is supported by you. And you can take it new, and Tokin only BU and it is not known in what condition.
And although I never chased the aperture, but at the long end the difference is very big.
Yesterday I tested four lenses on a Canon 5D
We look and wonder ...
Fig. 1 Canon EF 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM
Fig. 2 Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM
Fig. 3 Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM
Fig. 4 YONGNUO YN35mm F2N
Find 10 differences :)))))
Well, first of all, the diaphragm is clearly drawn in - there won't be much difference. Secondly, it is quite difficult to find differences in pictures for a couple of MPixes, but if you increase it to 200-300% and look at the edges, and not at the center, then there will be a difference. And for pictures a la VK and superzoom, a soap dish is enough.
I would not post here to show people if I found differences in the original pictures. It was my disappointment on the one hand and proof that the glass in the quantities that produce more marketing and there is little difference between them. In terms of sharpness, they are all almost the same. The shots were taken with the maximum apertures that were available. Increase and do not need to 300%, they are already visible. I increased and there you will not see anything better than what it is. You can chat about anything. I showed who is who. After this test, I “cooled down” and drew conclusions for myself. I shared pictures with the people, I wasted time.
Of course, the glasses are different, give a different picture, have a different scope, and so on.
Only it does not appear in such conditions as on this plot.
If you shoot a scene with bokeh, you will see the difference in the notorious “figure” of the lens; you will shoot clear geometric shapes - you will see the difference in "distortion", you will shoot against the sun - the quality is in enlightenment, colored objects at dusk or in very cloudy weather - the difference in color rendering, movement in semi-darkness - you will feel the difference in the noise of the picture due to different maximum diaphragms.
And this is not to mention the fact that lenses have different viewing angles.
Sorry, but the value of your test is nearing zero due to a poorly chosen plot. Yes, damn it, even this plot could not be taken from one angle and with the same shooting parameters, but they did it haphazardly.
What for? What is the value?
Alas, this is clearly not an open aperture in all pictures. And compare the sharpness only in the center. Not an honest comparison. So you can hold down to f / 16, and then both the whale and the L are all one.
Yeah, but you showed only those examples that do not illustrate your idea.
It’s interesting, well, just in theory, what results would you have achieved by comparing (with your technique, of course) good expensive optics with these bottle glasses.
Simon
31.10.2016 in 23: 25
I think that the lenses of the same manufacturer are approximately one year old and the difference should be minimal. For good, all new lenses in the picture should be the same, because it is advisable to unify everything.
I don’t understand why do you need so many lenses with similar focal lengths? I would not have time to use mime)))
I take 99% of the shots with two lenses: Tokina 12-28 and Tokina 50-135. 1% remains for trying on allegedly needed Sigma 30 / 1.4, Kenon 85 / 1.8, Sigma 105 / 2.8macro
I don't need them in such quantities, it's about the fact that you don't understand ...
The opportunity was given to put them all on camera, a person was selling them.
About the plot. Aha ... It’s naive to think that I only shot this bush with them. EVERYTHING IS THE SAME ... Good optics are expensive and these are bottle glasses for suckers.
Much depends on what a person shoots more often. For example, if I just went for a photo walk around the city, then I use a “dark” zoom lens, because a wide open aperture is not needed for shooting houses, courtyards and parks, and compared to a fast XNUMX%, the zoom gives more maneuverability, and besides under such shooting conditions, I don’t know how seasoned pros, but I don’t see any particular difference between “light” and “dark”. However, if you need to photograph someone, then I put a fifty dollar, because it gives a much more beautiful picture due to the ability to set aperture values inaccessible to the “dark”. In the dark, a high-aperture also gives advantages, you can shoot on a "big hole" without smearing the movement of people and cars, and even if it will be less sharp at such aperture, but the photo is without blur.
That is, there are situations when the difference between the lenses is leveled, and there are situations when it is very noticeable.
It would be very interesting to know the comparison of nikon 24-120 and this sigma 24-105
Below is a link to a comparison with Nikon 24-120
http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Sigma_24-105mm_f4_DG_OS_HSM_Art/verdict.shtml
Yuri, thanks for the review, everything is efficient! Yes, the first photo with a killer whale is out of focus (or did the stub fail?) And where the focus is, the sharpness is good, the detail is excellent, my native 24-105L doesn't shoot like that, it's softer. Well, and bokeh ... Although for the landscape and architecture it is not critical (IMHO). The portraits came out well. Maybe the firmware will be released later for focus.
And with hard work in the cold - this is a long-standing disease of Sigma, known ... They hint so that in the cold do not take off, they say. I liked the photos!
Yes, I don’t scold Sigma too much. The lens copes with its purpose (wagon). Just in the reviews met only laudatory reviews. I agree with them in many ways, but with reservations. The prefix Art is quite appropriate for Sigma Art 50 f1.4. My favorite lens.
But I would write about Sigma 24-105 with less pathos. All specialized sites in the description paid special attention to a new plastic composite, which does not change its linear dimensions with a wide range of air temperatures. That is, shoot in Dakar or Oymyakon - the picture will be sharp. In fact, in the cold they will not be able to shoot. The price-quality ratio, so to speak, is not very correct. Canon can not be hidden under an umbrella in rain and snow.
In fact, in the cold they can’t shoot. Value for money, so to speak, is not very true. Canon can not be hidden in the rain and snow under an umbrella.
Can you give examples from personal experience?
I didn’t even hold a Canon 24-105. But I can say about the other lenses of the L-series that they are well protected.
I work on a passenger ship, and tourists often ask to “see” the damaged photographic equipment, as there is no service in those places. I never refuse, because I wonder what's inside. So lenses and especially cameras without splash protection absorb a lot of water. The gaps are so small that there is a capillary effect. If it was a rainstorm, or splashing from a waterfall from a glacier, the chambers, after complete disassembly and drying, began to work without comment. If it is sea water (more often spray), then the electronics die immediately. Moreover, in modern lenses, there is a lot of electronics. Even in battery grips, there are usually 2-3 printed circuit boards with microprocessors.
Optics L-series and similar from Nikon never brought. With the exception of the Canon EF 16-35 mm f / 2.8L II USM, which was dropped into the glacier, and brought silo-crumpled. The case cracked and scored water and dirt inside. There I had to tinker with it, but the lens still didn’t really work, it was not possible to achieve normal sharpness.
I now have two protected lenses from Canon - Canon EF 16-35 mm f / 4L IS USM and EF 100 mm f / 2.8 L Macro IS USM. Wide-angle shot in a shower (although not recommended) and nothing. I think that Canon 24-105 with protection is also fine.
And another example. The weather was bad, wind up to 80 knots, spray. Go out on deck - ditch the lens.
And then I remember the protected, albeit slightly soft Canon.
I had to remove it from the bridge through the glass (and it is there with thin wires inside). The pictures were very faded, the contrast had to be increased artificially. The photos turned out to be close to how it was, but somehow unnatural.
https://disk.yandex.ru/client/disk/Antarctic%7Cslider/disk/Antarctic/MOL_4071a.jpg
and up to
https://disk.yandex.ru/client/disk/Antarctic%7Cslider/disk/Antarctic/MOL_4140a.jpg
"Bad" work in frost is a fly in the ointment in the characteristics of the company ... low-temperature lubricants are NOT in short supply these days. Perhaps Sigma produces specifically lenses for southern latitudes? However, my old (with a screwdriver) 24-70 works fine in the cold.
at -35 Nikonovsky 55-300 works too)
at 35 I’m not taking the camera with me. but I’m not going out myself))
I'm at minus 20 already think only about how to get home)))
The second year I use this Sigma and I really like the picture. But I did not notice problems with accuracy and speed of focusing.
Frozen grease is of course a very unexpected jamb, you have to adapt.
I bought this glass twice and for the first time there was no such problem, I shot it at - 24 degrees, everything turned and turned.
Stability is good, even with 1 / 15c hands, sharp pictures are obtained.
I use with D700
Can focusing accuracy in the case of a mere consequence of the solidification of the lubricant? Change grease, accomplish your goal.
Thank Arkady for the review ... I was not impressed by the picture of this lens ... not artistic, cold, boring ... Sharp at wide angle, soapy at narrow angle ... That was my wrong opinion.
I have been using Sigma 10-70mm 200: 1 APO EX HSM (for Canon) for over 2.8 years https://radojuva.com/2014/03/sigma-70-200-2-8-apo-ex-hsm-melancholy/ I really love this lens, and I do not want to change it to another. But when trying other different Sigma lenses, there was no longer any desire to buy a Sigma lens. It's just that I was very lucky with Sigma 70-200, and he was chosen as a specialist from more than 20 copies. This is not the first time I've heard that Sigma quality from lens to lens is not stable :(
Good overview and interesting photos. Thank you very much. In 20 photos with a sea of colors, the focal 135, the aperture 2.8 and, as a result, the bokeh swirling with cute lemons reminded me a little of my Nikkor 80-200 2.8, the background is not so bright and “pronounced”, but nevertheless it is very different from the first the same row.
My joint. I posted the photo taken by Tair, but forgot Sigma (it's not an easy thing to write reviews).
Here are some photos taken on Sigma 24-105. Aperture 4.0
Others
and more
I myself do not live in the south now, to put it mildly, nevertheless it is nice to look at icebergs in your performance. It is not clear, frankly, how such a joint could have been made with lubrication - like Japan is not at the equator.
Thanks for the great real-world review! Sorry to find fault, but killer whales in the sense of whales are written with an "o".
Right, thanks! I apologize. Next time I will write in word, there the program will correct the errors.
The killer whale will not be corrected, because killer whale is also there. We all used to write the name of this whale through A, it’s fearless :). From the photo of Tahir it turned out interestingly, I looked when, I also remembered Tahir and 80-200 2,8, as Dim wrote above. Thanks again for the review.
Since childhood, I read books about the Arctic and Antarctica. The books were from the 50-60s and in them Killer Whale was always written through O.
A little bit of educational program :)
The killer whale is a swallow.
The killer whale is a dolphin.
http://www.voproshayka.ru/ulybnis/kosatka-ili-kasatka-kak-pisat-pravilno.html
Thank you, I know this for many years, but there was a time when I did not know :)
there was a time when one could call it so and so. and this was not a mistake (I became interested in the issue and read it on Wikipedia)
Wikipedia is certainly an authoritative source.
mirror cameras
mirrorless cameras
At the club Nikon forum, a popular participant there, Julia, described in detail the work with this lens. In her opinion, it is very important to configure it using the dock. The setup is not easy, it takes quite a long time. Almost all participants in that forum spoke positively about this lens. It seems to me that it is useful to look at the forum for those who plan (think) to buy it.
I'll see, thanks.
Personally, I don’t care what you shoot, but the landscapes you have are simply amazing !!!!
Typos: "mirrorless cameras" and "mirrorless cameras" (at the end of the article).
It would be 24-70 / 2.8 art, it would be another matter, the native 24-120 is longer, more native and interesting. And let Julia mumble with the docking station as before she mumbled with eight hundred
Longer - I agree.
More dear - I agree.
More interesting - ??? - what?
The same Julia has a native glass and does not tire of comparing them argumentatively ☺☺☺
As far as I know, this model has been discontinued and will be replaced by 24-105 F2.8 - 4 (art)
Unlikely. Information from the official site
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/standard-lenses/24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-a
And talk about Sigma 85 Art has been going on since 2011, and only this year it was shown at the exhibition.
It's not a quick thing to put the lens into production.
I had this sigma on a full frame (Canon 5d). I was pleased with the excellent sharpness, wonderful assembly, I had no complaints about the AF speed, but the picture was somehow boring, the boke was somehow “harsh” (I don’t know how else to explain it, not soft), I changed it to Canon 24-70 f / 4, I liked it better. On the canon, the bokeshka is slightly twisted (like Helios 40-2), only not so strongly expressed (although I may have got such a copy), but it looks unusual.
And really, if you compare this Sigma 24-105 / 4 with Nikkor 24-120 / 4G?
If you were told to take only one glass with a carcass, which one would you choose and why?
Of particular interest is the experience of those who have already shot on these glasses in the snow, in the rain, or at least in the evening-night With the HAND, without a tripod.
What is the% of marriage on this Sigma?
Thanks to everyone for the answers!
I shot it in the winter, at first the plastic ring on the front lens spontaneously started spinning ... Okay I pulled it up ... Then I shot the skiers flying from the springboard in the snow, for several hours and here the lens just died ... first the zoom jammed, then the af stopped working ... In general, I took it back to the store under warranty ... Think for yourself ...