< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM lens leaked, already listed on Sigma’s website

Sigma 24-105mm f:4 DG OS lens
Updatethe price of the lens is $899.

The Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM is one of the rumored new DSLR lenses to be announced in 2014 and yesterday CanonRumors published the first picture of the new lens. The basic specs are: 82mm filter, weigh of 885 grams, lens design: 19 elements in 14 groups (for comparison the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 weights 710g and has 17 elements in 13 groups).

I just received information that the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM lens is already listed on Sigma's website:

Sigma-24-105mm-f4-DG-OS-HSM-lens

Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM specifications:

Lens Construction 19 elements in 14 groups
Minimum aperture F22
Filter size 82㎜
Angle of view (35mm equivalent) 84.1°-23.3°
Minimum focusing distance 45cm / 17.7in
Dimensions (Diameter x Length) φ88.6mm x 109.4mm / 3.5in x 4.3in
Number of diaphragm blades 9 (rounded diaphragm)
Maximum magnification ratio 1:4.6
Weight 885g / 31.2oz

Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM lens design:

Sigma 24-105mm f:4 DG OS HSM lens design

Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM lens MTF chart:

Sigma 24-105mm f:4 DG OS HSM lens MTF chart

Additional images:

Sigma-24-105mm-f4-DG-OS-HSM-lens-1
Sigma-24-105mm-f4-DG-OS-HSM-lens-2
Sigma-24-105mm-f4-DG-OS-HSM-lens-3
Sigma-24-105mm-f4-DG-OS-HSM-lens-4

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Ken Mackwell

    First! Lets see how the review comes out

  • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

    Seems to me it would fit better to C Contemporary.

    • Martin Francis

      Agreed. Not to say you couldn’t create art with a standard zoom, but as it’s almost a FX version of the other C lens, the 17-70mm, it would be an internally consistent designation.

    • http://rmpaul.com/ Robert Paul

      Sigma has said that their Contemporary line will be more typical of consumer-level zooms with variable apertures. This 24-105 is almost certainly Sigma’s take on the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS.

  • twoomy

    Bigger, heavier, more complex, and less range. So presumably they are going for better image quality here. It will be interesting to see some reviews when it comes out!

    • robert

      Less range. ? What do you mean. 24-105 f/4 big range.

      • KnightPhoto

        Less range: the competing Nikon lens is 24-120

        • robert

          If it has great optics then id be willing to let the 15mm slide. Nikons 24-120 f/4 is nothing special. The art series is supossed to be elite in performance. Lets wait and see. I just dont think its possible to make a range more than 3x thats truly great. Especially for todays sensors that can really resolve a lot of detail like the d800

          • outkasted

            Don’t forget price point of what this camera will be offered at. Again if its sub $1000.00 and the quality is that of the 35mm/f1.4 (which I possess and LOVE). then Sigma will produce another winner.

            • Bill McKenzie

              Adorama quoted $999 today. No ETA

    • Jon Ingram

      My thoughts exactly, Hopefully more glass, more groups, and heavier weight will translate into some really nice image quality. Here is hoping.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      At first I was put off. But then I thought that with the smaller range and the same level of engineering and workmanship the lens should be slightly better. With the complex design and the extra weight it COULD actually be much better. It might be the first f4 lens in the normal range to give the quality of the f2.8 zooms. Which is nice because I don’t usually use medium zooms at f2.8 anyway and I would really like a single walk around that had image quality like a trinity lens. Nobody has done this yet, but there are some old lenses that came fairly close in part of the range, which makes me think it is possible. It should also be priced reasonably.

  • 6Sigma

    Awww snap! one more element and one more group. Suck it Nikon.

  • KnightPhoto

    Hmm those corners on the MTF don’t look great at 24mm. But neither does the Nikon MTF I just checked.

  • arf

    Is this lens a DX or FX design? I could not tell.

    • D600owner

      DG = full-frame in Sigma’s nomenclature.

  • robert

    Never buying sigma again. But im happy theyre giving nikon and canon a run for their money. Keep them on their toes. with nikons shitty qc they need to worry when these companies offering great stuff for less. Nikon has been slacking, hence their 14% stock drop last quarter. Imo it will drop in the next as well.

    I noticed 3rd mfr want a chunk from nikons sales. Whether its grips or flashes or lenses. All of these mfr are upping their game and giving a good fight. I also think nikons pricing are way too high.

    • robert

      Me personally, i would never buy such a zoom. Iq is a compromise. If nikon or canon cant make such a zoom with stellar results than I doubt anyone can. Id get a used 28-70 2.8 afs for $800. This 24-105 is compromise between comfort and iq but in terms of iq its neither here nor there.

      • preston

        “If nikon or canon cant make such a zoom with stellar results than I doubt anyone can.”

        If they can make a f/1.8 zoom with stellar optics and a 35 1.4 with better optics than the nikon or canon versions, then why can’t they make a better 24-105?

  • MrWalker

    If it had been a 24-70 2.8 I’d be all over this one. Love my 35mm 1.4, and if they continue to produce such high quality lenses this will probably rock too.

    • robert

      All i will say is this. Sigma has made so many versions of the 24/28-70 and all sucked ass. None were decent performers at 2.8. From f/4 on it was decent but nothing special. Imo the only one who made a decent midrange zoom was tokina. Their 28-80 2.8 was ok and sharp from f/4.5. Flared like a bitch though. Tamron 28-105 2.8 sucked donkey nuts. Af was slow as crap.

      • longzoom

        Correct. Hope new ones will be to the level of 35/1.4. Go ahead, Sigma!

        • robert

          Lets hope. Im happy that sigma is taking things seriously. They seem to be putting out good stuff. I would not buy sigma again, as i had too many issues with their gear previously but im very happy theyre giving nikon a fight. Better for us the consumers.

          • longzoom

            It is even better for us pros. About the quality of zooms – Sig 18-35 of every respect is as good as any prime inside the range, so nobody knows yet. Let us see.

      • Jon Ingram

        haha, I totally agree. If they ever decide to compete with the 24-70′s, they need to start from the ground up.

      • fcuk_IT

        Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is a great lens. Sharp in the center @f/2.8 throughout the range.

        • Vamp898

          The Tamron is even way worse then the Sigma.

          But the old Tamron (28-75), the new Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 is a really good lense.

      • Remedy

        What a load of bullshit.
        http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/527-sigma2470f28eos?start=1

        Not only is it sharper at any length (yes at wider angles Canon has better borders), but it has less CA and Nikon version vignettes less too. On top of that it’s like fraction of the price of the old Canon 24-70 or Nikon 24-70 but it was way smaller and way lighter too (and thats important for all those metrosexual sissies with no measurable upper body strength). And the best part is it’s the OLD Sigma 24-70, the revised version was even better.
        Reality check dude.

        • Vamp898

          I own the current Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and at 70mm its only usable at f/8 and still then there is a lot of unsharpness.

          Im not satisfied with my 24-70 f/2.8 from Sigma.

          The Canon 24-70 f/4 was _much_ sharper, especially wide open and is only a piece of bit more expensive. Its like tiny bit more price for double performance.

          The Canon 24-70 f/4 is one of the best lenses i’ve seen in my life. I always thought “Hey your sigma is not the best, but usable stopped down and still very cheap”, but the f/4 24-70 is not expensive at all and waaaaay better.

          Even Sigmas own MTF Chart already show that its a bad performer and if the creator itself dont trust in his lense…

  • Eric Calabros

    Dear Sigma, you showed that you can make better glass than CaNikon. but please make lenses that we are missing in the lineup, 16mm and 24mm DX primes, a true portrait DX (58mm) prime to name a few. your aggressive move in 18-35 f/1.8 was more promising to shake up the market. something like 24-105 is too mainstream

    • Jon Ingram

      Yes, it would be nice to have some of those lenses you mention. I would personally like to see a new 20mm 1.8 ART lens which is actually sharp at 1.8 (unlike their current version). Standard zooms are good for Sigma making $ though, so it’s not a bad move. Hopefully they will continue to produce high quality glass.

  • sperdynamite

    Really excited to see the price on this. Nikon’s 24-120 would have been a great option for me but of course, they being Nikon, overpriced it. Here’s hoping for $8-900 dollars in stores.

  • Rob

    I love my Sigma 35 1.4, but this looks like a FAIL out of the gate:

    1. Same weight as Nikon 24-70 f/2.8
    2. 33% heavier than Nikon 24-120
    3. 82mm filter size – why???

    Unless this is optically superior to the 24-70 and comes in at much less than $1,000 USD, I don’t see this ending up in my bag. It doesn’t save weight, would require me to buy 82mm filters, and I lose a stop.

    • Jon Ingram

      I also prefer the 2.8 glass, but if they do this right I think there will be a big market for it. If, for example, IQ is on par with current 24-120 and 24-105′s on the market but it sells for less, a lot of people will buy it. 82 is a weird size, but I’m assuming it’s just the size they needed based on the optical design.

    • Joseph Li

      for some reason, maybe to cut down vignetting, many lenses are using or starting to use 82mm, such as the canon 16-35 f/2.8, Tamron 24-70 VC..and now this!

  • Terry Clark

    Bigger and heavier lens. Oh yeah, that’s where I want to go… NOT. I’ve gone from being a photographer to a pack mule. I use to carry everything I needed in a Domke bag on my shoulder, now it’s an oversize overnight suitcase that I drag behind me. This is progress how? That Fuji X system is looking better and better every day.

    • Jon Ingram

      lol Terry. I hear you. Maybe the new full frame Sony A7 will be good too when it’s released.

    • Rui Nelson Carneiro

      That’s because you have more money than experience.

      I only carry what I need for the job I have in mind.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      Yeah, it really sucks when you only have to carry one lens…

    • Eric Pepin

      Why are you bringing 8 lenses and 4 cameras, two bodies, two lenses, batteries cards charger and a few filters and your done.

    • http://www.ob1ne.wordpress.com/ o.b.1ne

      I’ve just bought into Fuji.. The nikon is way to heavy, especially with a 24-70mm. Try go hiking with that thing.

      • Remedy

        Try to get comparable in terms of quality equivalent to 24-70 on Fuji…. yeah that’s what I thought.

        • http://www.ob1ne.wordpress.com/ o.b.1ne

          So true. But why stop there how about go large format since size doesn’t matter? Yeah that’s what I thought. And what about fuji’s 35mm, where’s Nikon’s 50mm equivalent in terms of quality?

        • You must be joking

          Try to get comparable in IQ, build, functionality and size to X-E1 + Zeiss ZM or Leica lenses (just pick any of them)

          • Vamp898

            Yeah, Zeiss ZM :D 85mm f/4 LOL :D

            Who needs fast lenses with good Autofocus and zoom, there is Zeiss ZM!

            who cares about a camera helping get you “that” shot, its much more important what it weights.

            Im gonna buy a Compact Camera, its only 100g, it have to be the best thing out there!

            Even with 4 lenses you still dont have the focal range of the Sigma and then you already have much more lenses and more weight.

            Not to mention the price :D

            Those Fuji Guys are always funny :D

            “Hey i have a camera with much less features and a fixed non-fast non-autofocus lense and i have less weight! Take that!”
            :D :D :D

      • callibrator

        Good for you. So why still hanging around here then?

        Miss the good old times using a proper kit?

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Haha…epic!

        • http://www.ob1ne.wordpress.com/ o.b.1ne

          Didn’t know this site was strictly for nikon users. Does that mean I should stop checking out other camera websites like sony rumors or Leica rumors?

          • patto01

            Ignore them. They’re just jealous because you’ve freed yourself from the shackles of great image quality. Thanks to the testimony of other gimmick slaves, you’ve realized that your personal comfort is far more important than photos that sing! And don’t forget, you’ll get all the women because they love cute toys!
            Just kidding. Really!

            • http://www.ob1ne.wordpress.com/ o.b.1ne

              Nice come back! Yeah Fuji has really crap image quality don’t they? Lol. Seriously that’s the best come back you fanfags got haha

            • patto01

              Hmm.. What part of “Just kidding” is giving you trouble? If I hadn’t added that, I could see you missing the fact that I was just kidding. But… It was right there! I even put it on its own line so you wouldn’t miss it.
              I have an idea…take a photo of it with your awesome Fuji, zoom to 100%, and pan to the bottom left corner of your screen.
              “fanfags”? What does that even mean? Maybe you should tell your mom the Parental Control software stopped working again.

            • http://www.ob1ne.wordpress.com/ o.b.1ne

              ummm cause you’re being sarcastic in your remark. yeah i zoomed in at 10000% on all the corners and I can start to see microbes, man the 35mm is sharp sharp sharp.

              but seriously, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it fanfag. just kidding. really.

            • patto01

              See? Now I know you’re kidding. Just out of curiosity, though, you can see microbes with a 35mm lens? I usually have to use an adapter to attach my camera to an electron microscope to do that. Maybe I should get a Fuji! :-)

            • Ambient

              I don’t have a Fuji either, but whatever the product is – it must be evaluated due to it’s price/performance. For instance Fuji’s X-series are a bit expansive for 12-16mp. That’s why there’s Nikon, unless someone wants just retro style, compact camera… Weight is no issue if you want quality. Yea 20 years later, we won’t have to carry loads of heavy cameras like monster cell phones people used to have 15 years ago, but now it’s not the time.
              fanfag here, cheers! :)

          • Steven Lawrence

            do not knock my V1… it is a great camera and a joy to work with!

        • Jorge

          Dont’ be so rude. Obviously you have NO IDEA what a Fuji Can do. Go back to your D40 please.

      • Jorge

        See my above reply to Terry Clark.

    • outkasted

      I think heavy is all relative. I use my equipment for event and that bread and butter work. When people say they want a walk-around camera I think of a camera without a grip and a 1 or 2 lens combo. The ability to switch easy etc. Then there is the Street Photography aspect of wanting to be incognito which involves a smaller camera or camera phone. Different tools for the job. Although back in to day if you where a photojournalist you used the tools you had.

    • Jorge

      Here! Here!
      I just returned from another stock shooting trip. I packed my X-E1 with the 18-55 and my 35 F1.4 in small Lowepro. Three extra batteries and my 77mm Singh-Ray FIlters. Super light walk around. In a separate backpack I had my D800, D700 bodies, 18-35G Lens, 24-70 F2.8, and the 70-200 2.8
      Guess what stayed locked in the car each and every time I walked around (alot) Yup. The Nikon Gear…
      The Fuji is a lightweight, amazing workhorse! I’m so looking forward to the new X Mount 10-24 F4. As soon as that’s released, and it’s reviewed, my dSLR gear hits ebay.

  • Zoron

    where is my sigma 24-70 2.8 OS ??…..right not tamron.

    • Joseph Li

      I thought it’s going to be 24-70 f/2.0 OS…..

      • Zoron

        Even the DX 1.8 zoom has no OS…..so FX 2.0 zoom OS is very impossible

  • stoooopid

    wish it had been a 50-150 f/4 dx, but still looks nice. BTW, am I the only person who thinks a 50-150 f/4 dx lens would be sweet as hell? I know Sigma makes a 50-150 f/2.8, but that beast is as big as the 70-200 f/2.8 fx lenses. If they could make an f/4 version with sweet optics and more compact design for around $800, I think it might sell pretty well.

  • Glen

    I have the current 24-120 f/4 and contrary to what some have said I find it plenty sharp for the types of applications that I use it for and its rendering quality is excellent. I find myself often at 120mm with it also so giving up 15mm on the long is not something that would appeal to me. An 82mm filter size is also a non-starter and a serious mistake by Sigma IMHO. Of my 7 lenses, 5 have a 77mm front filter and two others have 67 which I easily adapt with a step-up ring.
    Given that the 24-120 can often be had for around $1000 on rebate and the Canon 24-105 is even cheaper it will be interesting to see what Sigma prices this lens at. Since given the same price the on brand versions are better on paper it will either need to come at a very good price (Say $699 or less) and be insanely sharp to make headway.

    • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

      I agree completely, have been using the 24-120 F/4 as my workhorse lens for events, and it performs very well at all focal lengths. It got mixed reviews, but interestingly, almost all negative reviews are from synthetic tests with questionably focused test charts, while when tested by real photographers (check out photographylife.com) it comes out as a really good lens for very reasonable compromises.

      Everyone is obsessed with sharpness only these days. While important, colour-rendition and micro contrast are also very important. The 24-120mm may not be exceedingly sharp, but it’s sharp enough on my d800, and when it comes to colour and contrast, it’s better than any standard zoom that I’ve tried (24-105 Canon on 5D II, or the APS-C Nikkors with similar focal lenghts).

      • Drazen B

        24-120 f/4 is indeed a great performer. D800 loves it, and as you say micro-contrast and color rendition are both exemplary on this lens. I would also add center sharpness that matches my 24-70 f/2.8 and only falls off ed the edges and corners compared to the ‘trinity’ zoom.
        The Achilles heel of this lens is the pronounced barrel distortion at its wide end which almost disappears at 35-40mm. But this is 5x mid-range zoom lens, a no easy feat for any lens manufacturer let alone Nikon, to produce without the noticeable distortion at its widest setting.

        Most of the negative reviews come from the brick-wall shooters and couch reviewers. For the rest of us who actually acquired this lens and used it in real life, it’s a God send we enjoy to use over and over again. Not perfect, but not bad either.

        • callibrator

          Well said. Also a proud owner of Nikkor 24-120 and loving it.

          • Matthias Eckert

            D700 and Nikkor 24-120 f4. Excellent combination.

        • Remedy

          If by great performer You mean disastrous distortion like in some chinese plastic toy knockoff 3$ lens from ebay, heavy CA at every lenght, very pronounced vignetting and tragic corner sharpness above 85mm then yes, it’s a great performer.

          • JakeB

            You seem to have ended up with a Chinese knockoff of this lens.
            Also, most of the nonsense you spouted above isn’t true, anyway.

          • Mario Andreolli

            “…heavy CA at every lenght, very pronounced vignetting and tragic corner sharpness above 85mm…”

            You’re not even close…try again, Sherlock.

            You seem to have mixed up the reviews of the older 24-120 f/3.5 – 5.6. And not even that one was as bad as you’re trying to portray.

            Wake up, mio bambino.

          • Drazen B

            You’ve proven again you don’t know what you’re talking about…sadly.

          • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

            I never see those disastrous distortions, they are corrected automatically during import into LR. If you can’t bother learning how to use LR, you probably don’t need this lens ;)

            Note that the distortions are uniform (no mustache or wavy patterns) hence if you set up LR to correct distortions automatically during import, you won’t see them.

        • zhuchok55

          Nikon 24-120 f/4 отличное стекло, Canon 24-105 немного уступает Nikon, но Sigma превзошла обе конторы.

  • Chris P

    Unlike a lot of the moaners on here whose knowledge of optics is to say the least somewhat lacking, this lens is almost certainly just what I have been waiting for to replace my Nikon 28-105 f3.5-4.5.

    It appears to be built up to a standard and not to the “Never mind the optical quality, see the zoom range” ethos of the Nikon 24-120 f4. That is why it has an 82 mm filter thread to minimise vignetting at full aperture, and is weighty, excellent glass and good build quality both result in a heavy lens.

    If you don’t want those attributes then go out and buy one of the many cheap wide range zooms available. As a famous US president said many years ago “If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen”, carrying on with the kitchen theme, on first look this lens looks as good to me as a set of top class knives, which are also heavy, looks to a chef.

  • Mike M

    This sounded awesome until I saw it was heavier than the 24-120 and had a goofball front element size…

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      …that is becoming the industry standard…

      • JakeB

        No, not really. Not on a f/4 lens.

      • Mike M

        Didn’t know Canon set the industry standards (and a couple oddballs from third party makers), especially on a website that caters to NIKON users…

      • Csaba

        Industry standard? The new 18-35mm is 77, the 16-35 and 24-120 are also 77, plus the F/2.8 lenses.

  • Joseph Li

    Hmmm…very nice to see another Art lens from Sigma, even though I am not super excited since we already have 24-120 f/4 for quite cheap under $1k. Even if this Sigma turns out to be super sharp, it’ still at f/4 and is quite slow in dark event shooting forcing us to be at 6400 iso or beyond. But if Sigma can do this for like $600 it will be amazing for many other users. 82mm filter tread does cause money but hey I love big lens with more glass.

    • Spy Black

      If you get even 2 real stops with stabilization (and typically you can get 3), the max F shouldn’t be that big a deal. It just needs to be sharp wide open at all zoom ranges and it wins.

  • Jon Ingram

    Looking forward to seeing the performance on this. Presumably this will be compatible with the new sigma docking port which could be used to fine tune focus at both ends of the lens. Still, for me the point of having a longer zoom is to have something versatile and light enough to carry with me if I feel like being lazy. At this weight, I might as well bring some 2.8 glass and get better pictures.

  • zhen

    Sigma don’t. I’m falling in love with you.

  • Archer

    Funny thing that I read this today. Just when I was driving home I was thinking about alternatives to my everyday lens, and concluded that there still isn’t one. Currently I have the 24-85 Nikkor, and I’m actually quite content with it. Nothing special but a nice alrounder. Had a look at the 24-120 but found it to be too expensive (double price) for the gain of a little more range but no real improvement in any other respect. This new Sigma makes me think … but unless it’s a hell of a performer it probably won’t be worth the change. I would love to have a lens of about 24-150mm. Would be a real killer for my type of photography.

  • STEVEN SPIELBRICK

    Well Actually…Sigma is playing catch up..what the real makers of great glass did years ago..Sigma did get great reviews for their 35mm 1.4 Art…Maybe they finally got their act together…Next on their plate will be the 85mm 1.4 Art…

  • Exm3racer

    Since Canon has a similar lens for $1150, I think it’s a safe bet it will be less than that. I hope it’s at least as sharp or sharper. I would definitely be interested in this as a replacement for my d600 kit lens. The 24-120 f4 isn’t a big enough step up in sharpness for me to spend $1300.

    • koenshaku

      Well the canon 24-105 F/4 I have seen for as low as $800 bucks, so they have their work cut out for them. I agree about the 24-120 f4, in fact I purchased the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 instead for what was about the same money. I don’t know if it was such a good idea though it lacks compatibility with Nikon like I had to disable some settings to get consistently sharp shots and with the VR (VC) images are on average softer than they would be with it off. So I am leery about buying outside of the brand now on..

      • Spy Black

        Have you ever worked with a Canon 24-105? It’s not that great. Insane amounts of CA, for starters.

  • DayDreaming

    If I had a D600 + this Sigma, that might equal a fantastic, moderately light mountaineering kit.

  • lobsterhat

    It is interesting that they are designating this as an “Art” lens and not as a “Contemporary” or “Sports” lens. So this is supposed to indicate image quality if – I understand correctly? The official spiel on their new nomenclature indicates the “Art” line as creative tools. I fail to see what could be that exceptionally creative about this lens’s max aperture or focal length range (the world has no shortage of standard zooms), so we are left with the implication of quality. The other lenses wearing this badge have turned out pretty well in that regard as well. I tend to believe they will deliver on this since this rebranding scheme is too new for them to start diluting it.

    • Spy Black

      If it has the IQ of, say, the 24-70mm f/2.8 and costs around $800-900, I say you have a winner.

  • Steve Griffin

    The MTF chart is a concern to me. Whilst the contrast looks great (red) the resolution (green) is unacceptable to say the least. The level of astigmatism at 24mm looks to make the lens useless at that FL and at the other end of the range images of linear details (twigs etc) would be quite disturbing.

    • decisivemoment

      Yeah; it’s worse than the 24-120 MTF. And at least that is mostly caused by vignetting; it’s actually very sharp into the corners, if you can somehow process the noise and underexposure out of the image. This lens is either an even bigger vignetter than the 24-120 (which I can’t imagine, given the enormous filter diameter) or else it just isn’t very sharp wide open.

  • Guest

    Is this DX or FX?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Full frame, probably will be released next year.

      • Spy Black

        Hopefully we’ll see this at PDN.

    • Andrew R

      It’s FX as the name includes “DG”. Sigma DX lens names include “DC” instead.

  • Spy Black

    Hmmm, this is FX, right? How much, and when?

  • Eastn

    Gopds wtf moving from standard 77mm to the 82mm filters? You can’t get most crap for 82mm. And just when you thought all pro lenses had one set of standard…

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      A whole lot of zooms are going to 82. Sigma has been on 82 for a LONG time. Other people including canikon are starting to follow suit.

      • Parsifal

        Hmm, most of the lenses you refer to are fast f/2.8, I don’t know many f/4 ones that go over 77mm.

        • Csaba

          16-35mm F/4, 24-120mm F/4 – just two, but probably among the more popular ones (I own both, and happy with them on the d800).

          • Parsifal

            Neither.
            Read carefully next time before you decide to answer.

            • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

              Right, sorry!

  • John

    Not looking good for Sigma if the MTF curve is true . . . It’s no better than the Nikon 24-85 AFS VR (which I found quite lacking in performance) and the 24-120/4, which also is not a great lens in any regard (adequate at most, but certainly not great).

    • decisivemoment

      The 24-120 at least is very sharp even into the corners at the wide end, in my view, but it’s a big vignetter at most settings except about 30-55mm and that’s what hammers the MTF. The Sigma’s MTF at the 24 end is concerning to me; it means it’s either an even bigger vignetter than the 24-120, which I think unlikely in view of the filter diameter, or else it just isn’t very sharp at f4 at the wide end. Perhaps it’s basically a 28-105 that has been stretched to 24-120, but then why does it weigh almost 900 grams? The 24-120 is quite heavy enough at 710.

  • bh_living

    This seems to have been pulled from Sigma’s website again :)

    • callibrator

      Got scared by too many “this thing is huge and heavy for a f/4 lens” feedbacks?

      • Mate Pilich

        LOL!

        :-)

        Not too far from the truth…I was going to comment something along those lines…

        • juz101

          Why would sigma go to all the effort of all the pics and info on the lens and just chuck it out because a few people don’t like the size? The difference in size and weight will not matter for the people needing a lenses with these specs. I love my 70-200 and use it alot for weddings, it is a very useful lens and unless I plan on having it it up to my eye for hrs then the usefulness of this lens is not deminished by it’s weight. Same goes for this new lens, sigma would not make A lens bigger than it needed to so by rights the size should, in part, define it’s build quality and it’s picture quality. I am not a pro lens reviewer and brick walls is pretty boring for me but I think sigma really has a winner here if quality can beat Nikon 24-120 and come close to the 24-70. In any case it’s going to be in my bag and sigma has my vote. Keep up the good work sigma.

  • babola

    Lack of weather seal at the mount? Again?
    Come on Sigma, how hard can that be…

    • King of Swaziland

      “Art” lenses don’t get weather sealing, because everyone knows that “Art” isn’t created in the rain.

      Sigma pigeonholed themselves into this logic, in typical Japanese fashion.

  • Dude

    Yay! Looks promising. Definitely better than the 24-120 f/4 in the long end. May be a worthwhile investment for me.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      How can it be better when it doesn’t even reach the long end of the Nikon 24-120…goofy?

    • genotypewriter

      Sigma lens as an investment?

      Now that’s a novel concept.

  • Juz10

    this will be an amazing lens if they can pull it off. Ive been to-ing and fro-ing between the Nikon 24-70 and the Nikon 24-120 but this has made things easier. I own the sigma 70-200 and 35 and this would fit in perfect if it can be released within the next 6 months. however I can not find the link for this lens. did sigma realise that it was prematurely put up and take it down or am I not looking properly?

  • decisivemoment

    I don’t like this creeping trend toward 82mm that Canon have started and Sigma and Tamron seem to be intent on following. DSLR cameras are already quite big enough, thank you very much. The 35mm format camera manufacturers should be reminding themselves of Nikon and Olympus in the late 1970s and figuring out new ways of making the stuff smaller. Especially now that there is viable competition from smaller formats.

  • David C

    One can see out of the gate the MTF values on the Canon are much better than the theoritical values of the sigma. Not that it means that actual photos will be less, but Sigma’s not off to a good start.

  • Mr.Mister

    Why would anyone buy a F:/4.0 when even kit lenses are 3.5′s ?

  • Back to top