Which would you choose between the Sigma 24-105/4 and the Nikon 24-120/4

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I'm looking for a little more range that the Nikon AFS 24-85VR that I'm currently using doesn't give me. It would also be nice to have a constant f4 aperture. If you had to choose between the Sigma 24-105 and the Nikon 24-120 which would you choose. Over at the Canon Photo.net forum many members have purchased the Sigma because they say it's much, much sharper than Canon's 24-105 which has been in production for many years without an update. If I went for the Sigma I'd save $397.95 which could go for a 82mm filter or two. I currently have in my possession my brothers Canon 5D mkI and the Canon 24-105/4 L and the L lens is much sharper than the 24-85VR lens which is another reason for the upgrade. The lens will be used with my D700 or D800.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the cost savings are significant, but the nikon 24-120 has much more range. however, Photozone and Lenstip seem to agree that the sigma is better in most if not all criteria. but absolute optical performance may matter less than that extra 15mm of range to you, as well as other factors like do you have a good telephoto which goes past 105mm? if so, going to 120mm may be less important. it's more difficult to rationalize a more expensive, underperforming lens which is longer than a reasonably priced lens which is sharper in the center and has better edge performance. such advantage might not be as field relevant on a d700 as on a d800, which presumably is going to be used for making large prints on which every iota of detail matters. OTOH, 120mm represents a significantly longer reach than the 24-85, while the 24-105 is just a tad longer. if you really need that extra 15mm, the choice is clear. if it were me, i'd probably go for the Sigma as the Nikon's performance doesnt really justify its price point, and the Sigma seems like it's as good as this kind of zoom can be. Sigma's recent offerings have been as good or in many cases better than their OEM competition, while Nikon and Canon's offerings sometimes don't match their lofty price points. that probably comes as a shock for someone who only uses Nikon lenses and is snobbish about third-party offerings, but the fact is sigma has lost its stigma as a second-tier lens manufacturer. even KR had to admit the 50/1.4 art is better than Nikon and Canon's 50mm offerings, and he's notorious for his distaste for most 3rd party lenses.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Lower cost and more reach for the Sigma, but also higher weight and that 82mm filter (which is the biggest issue for me since all my filters are 77mm). My recommendation would be to rent both and then pick the one that you like better.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Narrower focal range zooms of similar price class tend to be better quality than wide focal range zooms. I think that the Nikon 24-85 VR is better value than the 24-120/4 even though neither lens is perfect in terms of corner sharpness. I have not used the Sigma 24-105/4.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Notice that the 24-120/4 is a bigger lens, I`d consider the 24-85VR still a compact, comfortable lens to be carried on shoulder. The 24-120/4 is not as big as a 24-70/2.8, but it`s a bit on the heavy side. Some times I take a 50/1.4 to lower the weight, maybe with a 24-85VR I woudn`t do so (my old 24-85 non-VR is practically the size&weight of a 50/1.4). The Sigma looks to be even heavier&larger than the 24-120/4, this is something to consider.</p>

<p>The range up to 120 is a very good thing for portraits. I think 105 is a bit short (I used to have this on the 28-105), and although at the release I`d have preferred a "better performer" even at the cost of a shorter range, now I find the 24-120 range to be extremely useful for my needs, familiar and casual shooting. It is certainly somewhat soft at the longer end (which 24-120 is not?), but perfectly usable on my D700.</p>

<p>I sincerely don`t trust the "final ratings" on lenses I read on the web. Technically, the resolution charts and all this are right, but there are many things this reviews use to miss. E.g., they never say about the color cast, or even more important to me, the lens construction and design, etc. At the end, a few more lines per millimeter use to be irrelevant in real life shooting, while e.g. the way the hood is attached and its quality is way more important and definitive to me.</p>

<p>Don`t know the Sigma, I`m now *positive* about their latest "Art" products, but up to date I have never liked <em>any</em> third party lens over the Nikkor original ones... if the new Sigmas are really <em>much sharper</em>, I`d try them on the shop to see how they really look and handles.</p>

[nana]

<p>Went thru the same and decided on the Sigma 24-105. The build quality itself is more than enough to convince me. Very sharp images @ F4 and the VR works! If possible, go to a local shop and try it yourself.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I sincerely don`t trust the "final ratings" on lenses I read on the web. Technically, the resolution charts and all this are right, but there are many things this reviews use to miss. E.g., they never say about the color cast, or even more important to me, the lens construction and design, etc. At the end, a few more lines per millimeter use to be irrelevant in real life shooting, while e.g. the way the hood is attached and its quality is way more important and definitive to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's true that Sigma used to be known for a slightly yellowish color cast, but recent offerings suggest this is no longer an issue, at least with their high-end Art line. i use the older Sigma 50/1.4 and the color has always been spot-on, and the same can be said for the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4. i agree that technical reviews, i.e., Photozone/Lenstip, can sometimes overlook the field experience... OTOH, Lenstip directly compared the 24-105 to its Canon and Nikon counterparts, and got similar results as Photozone, although the latter's review was less gushing. regarding build quality, Photozone questioned the long-term durability of the duo-cam design, which is a valid point. i dont think it's a question of "just a few lines per millimeter" -- the MTF tests suggest the Sigma is the better performer at f/4, which is where the lens will be used a lot, and holds sharpness in the corners better, even wide open. That would be significant to me if i was in the market for a standard zoom. Now while i don't uphold technical reviews as gospel, i do like to read a few of them and see if their findings are consistent. i also read Amazon reviews for user experience. my conclusion is that the 24-105 is a better match for the d800 sensor; a d700 might be more forgiving of the 24-120<br>

<br>

But even if the Sigma is the better lens, $800 is still a lot of $$ to spend (though $1200 is obviously more costly!!!). and if you just need more reach, the 28-105 AF-D has even better build, is much more compact, and can be found for around $300. if i were the OP, i'd really question whether the 24-85 just isn't cutting it, or if GAS (or Canon envy) is playing a role. i guess it comes down to how much one needs a convenience zoom for a high-performance, high-resolution sensor, as well as what the rest of your lens lineup is. </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I've gotten to where only genuine Nikkors are acceptable. All the Tokina/Tamron/Sigma lenses purchased over the years have been disappointing, and sold at a loss.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>For maximum compatibility years down the road, it pays to stick with Nikon. </p>

[vlad_stan]

<p>Happy user of Nikon 24-120 for 4 years, on D700/800.</p>

 

<h1> </h1>

[bill_brooks]

<p>My Sigma 24-105 Art has been a joy to use at all FL on my D800 and now D810. The OS is instantaneous and absolutely silent. Cityscape and landscape shots on tripod at f/5.6-f/8 or so are incredibly crisp and sharply detailed.<br /> I like this lens almost as much as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, which is my King of Keepers lens. No regrets from this primarily Nikon gear owner-- the new Sigma Art line has been a total winner.<br>

<img src="/bboard/DSC_7341%20by%20birdbrooks77" alt="" /></p>

[raczoliver]

The 24-120 performs very nicely on my D700. When I bought mine, the sigma was not yet around, but I do tend to use

the long end quite a lot. My main problems with the 24-120 are the heavy distortion at pretty much all focal lengths (least

noticeable around 35mm, but still there), vignetting, and rather unpleasant bokeh at large apertures. I mostly use this lens

at apertures around f/5.6-8, and try to avoid a shallow depth of field. I almost always correct the barrel distortion on the

short end in post, while I tend to leave the pincushion distortion as it is. I have no problems at all with its sharpness on the

D700. Great for general travel and landscapes, at least that is what I use mine for. I can't comment on the sigma, but I

think on the D700 the choice comes down to whether the price difference is worth the extra reach for you.

 

I later bought a 135mm f/2 DC lens, so the long end of the 24-120 gets used less now, and sometimes I wish I had the

24-85 instead for its smaller size and lighter weight.

[dan_south]

<p>That's a tough call. I also love Canon's 24-105 f/4L IS, and I would like to find a Nikon equivalent.</p>

<p>I tried Nikon's 24-120 f/4 G with high hopes, but it was noticeably less sharp than my 24-70 f/2.8 G. I haven't tried the Sigma. The optics might be fine, but I'm concerned about their lack of weather sealing.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm sticking with the 24-70 until something better comes along. I can't recommend another lens in that range for Nikon bodies.</p>

[robert_stig]

Im an only nikon pro glass user but between these two, without a doubt the sigma. Reviews show it is a very capable

lens. Build is great fast af, iq is great, price is great. Sigma for sure.

[bill_brooks]

The tactile feel of quality in

your hand: not important to some,

but to others very much so. The

Sigma has it in spades. Unlike

other excellent Nikon lenses, the

24-120 feels too light and

"plastic"... downright

unsatisfactory. That alone can be

a game changer.