sigma or Canon 24-105?

[ksporry]

<p>Actually I am not trying to choose between the two, because I already have the Canon 24-105. However, Sigma released one as well. quite simply the same lens, except not Canon L, but a Sigma lens instead. Other than that, both tanks, same zoom, same aperture, same build quality. Sigma has one advantage over the canon one: the ability to calibrate the lens yourself with Sigma's hockey puck<br>

So I noticed something very interesting. In the US, the sigma goes for 899 and the Canon for about 1149, right?<br>

In China however the Canon is going for about 4000-5000RMB (660-825 USD), whereas the Sigma is going for 5100-6000RMB (840-990 US)! So if the sigma is about 150 US more expensive than the Canon, and you'd have to shell out another 150 US for the puck to calibrate it, why would I not go for the Canon?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Precisely. Also it is not as though you cannot adjust the L lens using the MF adjustment built into the bodies of Canon higher end cameras. The USB hub is either an admission of failure, or an ingenious way to answer those who complain of Sigma AF issues, or a mind-boggling addition to the complexity of using the lens. The 24-105mm L is available for only about $500 if you buy it as a kit with 6D/5D etc. So the Sigma would have to be significantly better to warrant the additional outlay in the US.</p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma has one advantage over the canon one: the ability to calibrate the lens yourself with Sigma's hockey puck</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see this as an advantage, since almost any body you would pair this with can do MF adjustment. </p>

<p>The sigma weighs 215 g more (almost half a pound), which might be a factor for some people. I haven't seen a comparison in terms of optical quality yet. In any case, I am happy with the Canon 24-105.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>It is my understanding the the Sigma USB dock allows to calibrate the lens for different distances and focal lengths - something the in-camera calibration cannot do.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Besides, because of its status as a sort of elite-level "kit lens", the Canon EF 24-105mm is widely available in "white box" or lightly used for much better prices than its list price (about US $620-700 <strong>sold</strong> items just now on eBay).<br /> I think it's going to be hard for Sigma to compete with this one, unless their 'street prices' go much lower than list. It would have been other if it had been f/2.8 or so.</p>

<p> Perhaps it's really aimed more at the Nikon and other mount market?</p>

<p>The Canon 24-105 practically is glued to my 5Dii, and with post-processing these days, not to mention in-camera corrections, its weaknesses in distortion, etc., become nearly irrelevant.</p>

[ksporry]

<p>I agree with Dieter, also, regarding to MF adjustments, they stick with the camera, and as we know cameras have a tendency to get replaced every 3 years or so, whereas lenses never get replaced unless they break. So every 3 years you'd have to repeat the MF adjustment, unless you use the sigma system, which keeps the calibration in the lens.<br>

In fact, the 5D2's MF adjustments allows for individual lens adjustment or apply the same adjustments to all lenses. If you consider that some dveiations are body related whilst others are lens related, you could argue you need either lens calibration, or both lens and body calibration.<br>

With the Canon MF adjust system, you would calibrate all your x number of lenses every time you change bodies. If you use more than one body, that rapidly gets out of hand as an activity.<br>

With the sigma system you can calibrate the lenses once in your life. Then you know that if there is a deviation, it is the body, not the lens. Very useful, because when you change bodies, you only have to do one MF adjustment and apply it to all lenses, because the lenses were already calibrated, so the only variable is the body.<br>

Less calibration time = more productivity time<br>

As an amateur I already have plenty lenses to not want to do this every 3-5 years when I change bodies. I can imagine this is more of an issue for pro's<br>

of course, if the optical quality of the sigma's is below par compared to the Canon L lenses (speaking from a Canon perspective), then sure, why even bother with the investment in the first place, but considering that some of the sigmas in recent years received raving reviews to the point that they can be considered as true competitors to L glass, I think that's not the argument anymore...</p>

<p>However, considering that the L lenses are not inferior to the Sigmas, Sigma'd do well to re-evaluate their proicing (Tamron had the same issue whne they released their 24-70 f2.8 with IS, no idea what happened with that, but I do know it was too expensive compared to the Canon 24-70 mkI)</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I don't really buy this argument. Most Canon lenses do not need focus adjustment out of the box, whereas past evidence suggests Sigmas often do. But of course if you are the type of person who likes to adjust everything then the Sigma gives you hours of adjustment pleasure. Also surely, unless you only have Sigma lenses, the "apply to all lenses approach" won't work as you will then apply unwanted corrections to your probably OK Canon, Tamron etc lenses too?</p>

[ruben leal]

We should consider that Sigma may not be focusing (pun intended) on competing against Canon with this lens, just as

Nikon may not be looking for new sales to Canon users with their 24-120mm f/4 VR G. Remember that now Sigma is

designing original lenses for their cameras. Additionally Sigma makes those lenses available to users of other cameras,

but their marketing seems to be focused to the users of the Sigma cameras, and the ability to mount these lenss in all

other cameras is just a convenience for the rest of us. (Again, that's how I see their marketing, I would have to take a look

into their sales to see if that's the true story.)

[ksporry]

<p>The "apply to all" goes for when lenses are all perfectly accurately calibrated, lets say for arguments sake to "L" standards. If there is a deviation even though the lenses are spot n, it must be the body. If it is the body, it makes sense to do an "apply all" correction, because its the body and not the lenses.<br>

What's more, is that the micro adjustment only works for one focal length, not for a whole focal bandwidth, which is what I believe the sigma system is doing.<br>

DOn't get me wrong, I'm not saying sigma is better. just that it has a useful feature</p>