< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM lens officially announced

Sigma-24-105mm-f4-DG-OS-HSM-lens
Update: the price of the lens is $899.

The full frame Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM lens I covered few days ago is now officially announced. The price is not yet listed at B&H - expect more details in November. Here is the press release:

Sigma Corporation announces new, optically stabilized 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM lens

Standard zoom with versatile focal range, features stabilization, outstanding image quality

RONKONKOMA, NY — October 16, 2013 — Sigma Corporation of America (www.sigmaphoto.com), a leading researcher, developer, manufacturer and service provider of some of the world's most impressive lines of lenses, cameras and flashes, today announced its newest addition to the Sigma Art line of lenses for full-frame cameras, the 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM.

True to its categorization as a Sigma Art lens, the new 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM is designed for artistic expression and top-notch image quality. This versatile lens covers the basic shooting range from wide to medium tele with an inner focusing system that eliminates front lens rotation, enhancing the lens stability and allowing the use of circular polarizing filters. It also boasts a constant aperture of F4, and contains Sigma’s proprietary Optical Stabilizer (OS) technology to compensate for camera shake. Moreover, it was designed to surpass the required quality inspection of every Global Vision lens with Sigma’s own modulation transfer function (MTF) “A1” measuring system to create new optical standard to align with the high-spec cameras on today’s market.

“For many years, Sigma users have been seeking a standard zoom lens in this range,” said Mark Amir-Hamzeh, president of Sigma Corporation of America. “The 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM is yet another example of Sigma listening to its users and delivering new and innovative products with the highest image quality.”

Amir-Hamzeh added that this new lens combines the largest possible fixed aperture to zoom ratio that will maintain optimal integrity for many kinds of photography, including landscapes, architecture, portraiture and still-life. With a minimum focusing distance of 45cm and a maximum magnification ratio of 1:4.6, this lens is also excellent for close-up photography.

High-performance glass elements, including SLD, FLD, which is equal to fluorite, and glass-molded single- and double-sided aspheric lenses have been included into the optical system to prevent aberration, field curvature, distortions and color aberration. The 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM lens is also able to suppress chromatic aberration very effectively at the telephoto-end, and can achieve superior image quality throughout the zoom range. Unlike lenses with similar specifications, this lens overcomes low peripheral brightness. Although it is designed for full frame cameras, it also works with APS-C sensors, giving an increase to focal length.

The lens’ Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) ensures a silent, high-speed auto focus function and enables full-time manual focusing capability. The 24-105mm is also compatible with Sigma’s USB dock allowing photographers to update its firmware and change focus parameters using Sigma's Optimization Pro software. It is also compatible with Sigma’s recently announced Mount Conversion Service.

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

    While I’m a big fan of Sigma and especially what they have been doing lately I don’t see a real need for a lens of this length and speed.

    From what I can tell by the press release they sent out, this lens is supposed to be a competitor to the Nikon 24-120 by being sharper and having less vignetting (hence the 82mm filter ring).

    • patto01

      If the quality exceeds the 24-120 and the price is low enough, I’ll buy one. For a long time, I’ve waffled between the 24-70, with its high price and no VR, and the 24-120, with its still, kinda high price and mediocre optics.
      I’d love to get something to replace my 24-85, as a hiking lens, but with a little more reach.

      • J. Dennis Thomas

        I guess if you look at it as a FX version of the 17-70 it makes sense. It would have been cool to see it be done as a 2.8-4 though. I think that would have been easily accomplished. Not sure why it got an ‘A’ designation. This is clearly a ‘C’ lens.

        For my needs a longer reach with mediocre optics is better. Not at the price of the Nikon 24-120 though. Anything over $1000 should be stellar in performance.

        As with just about any lens it will work for some and not for others.

        • SmurtAlex

          It would have been much heavier at 2.8.

          Do any of you think about glass characteristics before you throw out stupid lens specs like that?

          I WANT A 14-400mm f/1.4 MAKE IT HAPPEN NIKON DURRRRRRRRRRRRR.

          • robert

            his avatar is of a face with a DURRRRR expression hahaha

            • SmurtAlex

              Hahahaha ohmaygahd.

              At the hilariousness of your behest, I’m going to analyze his stupidity even more.

              “Not sure why it got an ‘A’ designation. This is clearly a ‘C’ lens”

              Because it’s their art series, if they named one a Crap series it wouldn’t sell well because the majority of their lenses (including ones that don’t pass QC) would have to be included within it.

              “For my needs a longer reach with mediocre optics is better”

              Let’s see, you have 80-400 VR new, 80-400 VR old, 70-200mm Sigma Old versions, 24-120mm first gen, (long reach and mediocre optics) the list goes on and on.

              “As with just about any lens it will work for some and not for others.”

              Not true.

              Many lenses will work for everyone, the problem is few people understand how to use them.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              You are truly a clever little troll. Hiding behind your little computer with your clever little troll name.

              You have no practical knowledge of photography but you do know how to talk shît. Good for you dude.

              I’d love to see your portfolio.

            • patto01

              You should probably stop posting. You’re just embarrassing yourself now.

          • robert

            his avatar is of a face with a DURRRRR expression hahaha

      • SmurtAlex

        Mediocre optics compared to what, exactly?

        It trounces their former 24-120, what more can you ask for? /how long can you complain about every little thing and still call yourself a photographer?

        Maybe calling yourself a boreographer would be slightly more appropriate.

        • patto01

          Mediocre compared to the 24-70. I’m judging it relative to everything, not just lenses within its class. Its mediocrity appears to be part and parcel with its range. If a lens with a shorter range, i.e. 24-105, has better optics, as evidenced by its IQ, then I would prefer it to the greater range of the 24-120.

          I don’t view this as complaining but, even if I were to, I fail to see the correlation between complaining and being a photographer. I am a photographer by virtue of the fact I regularly photograph objects. If I complained “about every little thing,” that would make me a complainer which is not incompatible with being a photographer.

          If you’re trying to be a humorist, I can tell you that jokes based in truth are received better than inventing words for the purpose of creating puns.

          • desmo

            You’re comparing an F4 lens to an
            F2.8 lens with a shorter zoom range

            you twit

            • patto01

              When choosing between two disparate items, you have to make compromises. In my original post, I implied (maybe I shouldn’t assume any particular level of intelligence on the part of potential readers) that I was torn between the IQ/range/price of the 24-70 and the IQ/range/price of the 24-120, relative to the level of compromise I’m willing to make. How does that make me a twit?

  • Daniel

    24-120 got bad IQ
    This should be the perfect walk around lens

    • aaaa

      yea infact it is used by steve mccurry on d800 >_>

      • robert

        yea, and? so if one pro photog likes it, then it makes it a stellar lens optically? its a nice lens when stopped down, but nothing special when open and that why you buy a lens like this. to have the option of shooting wide open for isolation and selective focus.

        • SmurtAlex

          Optics don’t matter as much as nerds make them out to be.

          • robert

            all I know is what my eyes see. using ps can fix under performing lenses..
            I guess you just have a low standard youre happy with. the 24-120 is a compromise optically. no one has yet to make a 3x+ zoom lens that is stellar..yet. all the top zoom lenses are 2.5x and less.

            • SmurtAlex

              Maybe there’s something wrong with your eyes.

              Real artists don’t care about perfect optical sharpness 99% of the time.

              I’m sorry that my experience shooting art means nothing to a gearhead. That is one compromise I’m not willing to make.

              Are you honestly worrying about a perfect 3x+ zoom lens to shoot the best pictures better?

              Just use what you have and learn to shoot better, ffs these arguments are so incredibly juvenile that I feel silly as f**ck even having to argue against this shti

  • Dpablo unfiltered

    The only reason I’m not more excited about this is because the performance of most lenses with that much range give me a case of the blahs. However, I think this may dramatically exceed my expectations. F2.8 isn’t fast in that range, so if this is sharp at all apertures then…

    • SmurtAlex

      It’s going to be sharp, heavy, and expensive. Maybe you’ll save 1-200 over a name brand lens, at the MOST.

      Nerds will love it and pros will be indifferent. So is the current day paradigm for sigma.

    • robert

      youre absolutely right with your hesitation of the performance, but we will have to see. there is no lens out there that has a range MORE than 3x that is really great. it just not possible. many have tried, all were, like you said “blah”

      Id buy a used 28-70 AFS used and an 105 AFD macro for around the $1000 mark. plus you get an extra stop of light for a brighter VW.

      • SmurtAlex

        18-200 IS great for a superzoom. Same with 28-300. Gearheads will be picky in obscenely silly ways.

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          I do like what I saw with the 28-300. I think it’s actually better than that 24-85 lens that came out at the same time. It’s part of what makes me think that Sigma might be able to do something here. The other thing that makes me think so is the Minolta 28-135.

  • preston

    If this is an equivalent improvement in image quality as their 35/1.4 was over the Nikon 35/1.4 and it is $700 or less I’ll sell my 24-85 vr and buy this in a heartbeat. Nikon 24-120/4 vr is way too expensive to have same build quality, same image quality, and basically same aperture range (3.5-4.5 vs constant 4) as the 24-85.

    • preston

      (I really wish they had given it 77mm filter ring though!)

      • J. Dennis Thomas

        The 82mm size is what allows less vignetting. An 82mm filter doesn’t cost much more than a 77. When I buy a new lens I always buy a new filter anyway. I figure if it’s time for a new lens then it’s time for a new filter as well.

        • SmurtAlex

          Yeah and it’s not that hard to fit all my existing 77mm filters on an 82mm ring without messing with adapters.

          /Sarcasm off.

          • J. Dennis Thomas

            What’s more important to you? Better image quality or compatibility with your old filters?

            Buy some new filters for christ’s sake. OR don’t buy this lens. It’s pretty simple.

            • bbqCatsInSpaceMcGee

              Filters are always a consideration. If the Sigma has similar image quality to the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR, then it may well be worth going with the 77mm Nikon over the Sigma. 77mm filters are much less expensive (~$400 total for the quality 77mm setup below vs. ~$850 for 82mm), and of course the cost is vastly different if you’re already heavily invested in 77mm filters.

              82mm B+W 0.9 ND 103: $200

              82mm B+W 1.8 ND 106: $226
              82mm B+W 3.0 ND 110: $224
              82mm B+W KSM CPL: $198

              vs.

              77mm B+W 0.9 ND 103: $75
              77mm B+W 1.8 ND 106: $99
              77mm B+W 3.0 ND 110: $101
              77mm B+W KSM CPL: $116

            • patto01

              With the exception of CPLs, I use square filters for that very reason. Even if most of your lenses are threaded for 77mm filters, they won’t all be.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              I kind of pointed out, in a sarcastic way, that if you don’t want to buy new filters then this isn’t the lens for you.

              You can get an 82mm VND filter for $200, so that kills $400 there. Plus, I doubt people that are looking at a lens of this caliber are the kind of people that are buying B+W filters. Hoya or Tiffen filters will work just fine on this lens.

              Personally I don’t use ND filters much and I have an 82mm CPL because I have a few lenses that take them.

              There’s no lens choice that’s going to fit everyone’s guidelines (no matter what any troll says)

          • J. Dennis Thomas

            What’s more important to you? Better image quality or compatibility with your old filters?

            Buy some new filters for christ’s sake. OR don’t buy this lens. It’s pretty simple.

    • RC

      Somehow I don’t think this is going to be significantly less expensive than the Nikon version.

  • sperdynamite

    Basically Sigma is making Canon’s lens line up for Nikon users, which I see as a good thing. Bring on the 135 1.8, please make a pro 50, and keep the quality coming! Happy 35mm 1.4 owner here.

    • SmurtAlex

      What? Nikon has 35 and 24-120mm lenses already?

      15mm shorter, while being heavier, wider, and extending outside of the barrel is a good thing?!?!!?!?

      • sperdynamite

        Yeah but the 24-120 is too expensive, and honestly so is the Nikon 35. Canon’s used and in many cases new lenses go for much cheaper. I see no reason why Nikon’s ƒ4 lineup should cost as much as it does. You can get a Canon 24-105 for like $800 bucks refurbished. You could set up a Canon L system based on the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200 ƒ4 IS or no, for ridiculously cheap. Canon also has 135 and 200mm L primes under $1k. All of the above are very well regarded optics for entry level shooters. Nikon, ƒ4 zoom? It’s gonna be mediocre and $1300 bucks. Who are they kidding? They don’t even kit it with the D600, instead some shite variable aperture zoom. The 6D comes with an L lens! And now tonight we have a $2400 dollar fast normal. I seriously think they’re trolling me specifically for switching to Canon, then switching back to Nikon and getting a D600. It’s been nothing but trouble and puzzling announcements ever since I bought another Nikon…

        • KnightPhoto

          Too much mixed data… the Canon 17-40 or 24-105 aren’t particularly inspiring lenses. There isn’t a ton of need for an f/2.8 200mm prime. Where does that leave us, the Canon 70-200 f/4’s are great. Their 135mm f/2 is as last generation as Nikon’s. The 6D doesn’t have nearly the features of the D610, it’s biggest selling point is WiFi and GPS, but it isn’t nearly a photographer’s camera that the D610 is. Sure maybe if you are a centre point AF guy, but I thought that went out 10 years ago (except in the Canon camp where it persists by necessity). And the $1,699 Nikon 58mm most likely will wipe the floor with Canon’s 50mm f/1.2 which is an ancient dog as is their 85mm f/1.2 (slow focussing and not particularly sharp).

          Like I say, mixed data…

          • sperdynamite

            Canon’s 50 and 85mm lenses are two of their most loved optics, and I’ve used them, they are amazing pieces of glass. You may not be impressed by Canon’s f4 line up, but at least it’s available to photographers on a budget. Not with Nikon, we get the same mediocre quality in the f4 zooms, but at a price nearing Canon’s 2.8 lenses. If Sigma can make these options available to us, then I’m all for it.

      • J. Dennis Thomas

        The Nikon 24-120 extends outside of the barrel as well.

      • J. Dennis Thomas

        The Nikon 24-120 extends outside of the barrel as well.

        • SmurtAlex

          You are correct, I shouldn’t be comparing this new sigma with 2.8s.

      • sperdynamite

        As for size and weight, if I’m going for compact, I’m not using my Nikon anyways. I only pick up my FF DSLR when I’m working. X100s, and possibly the Sony A7 in the future will fulfill my portability needs. No Nikon since the FM3a has been particularly compact.

        • SmurtAlex

          Okay, so you’ve shown that a compact kit isn’t necessary for you on a DSLR, how is a LARGER heavier lens better than nikon’s current offering?

          • sperdynamite

            Because time that makes sense these days, to use a DSLR like a Nikon, is when you’re working, so size isn’t so much of a big deal. Same as I treat my Pentax 6×7, same as I treat my 8×10. Why would you buy a Nikon and complain about size? It was huge when you bought it, it’s gonna keep doing that.

      • sperdynamite

        As for size and weight, if I’m going for compact, I’m not using my Nikon anyways. I only pick up my FF DSLR when I’m working. X100s, and possibly the Sony A7 in the future will fulfill my portability needs. No Nikon since the FM3a has been particularly compact.

  • robert

    funny how NR posts and announces these companies are announcing and then they follow with their announcement.
    like theyre waiting for NR to ok it first for everyone then they announce.

  • robert

    funny how NR posts and announces these companies are announcing and then they follow with their announcement.
    like theyre waiting for NR to ok it first for everyone then they announce.

    • SmurtAlex

      Rumors spread like wildefire, -free PR.

      They have been using fstoppers as their unpaid pimpettes for a while now, though (sigma).

  • robert

    weird the 82mm filter, but im guessing the OS is the issue that forces that.

    How I dislike those lenses that have those different sections sticking out. that hood pumping in and out.

    why not a nice chunky 1 piece unit with internal zooming? better for holding/stability and also you can add bigger zoom/focus rings on it.

    also less exposure and possible issues with sand and dust getting in. and almost every zoom like that has some gaps which makes it have some movement/jiggle.

    • KnightPhoto

      Sigma’s current 50mm has a ridiculous diameter as well. It’s weird this obsession with avoiding vignetting if you ask me. IIRC the Sigma 50 get’s beat for sharpness in the corners by the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 anyways. Anyhow, I do have the Sigma 50mm and it has great bokeh, and it’s not a bad lens in actual use.

      Vignetting’s only a big issue if u r stitching panoramas, and if you’re stitching you can just use a high quality prime, you don’t need a 5X zoom, yes?

  • Aldo

    Waiting on the rumored 24-70 f2.0 with VR from sigma

  • Spy Black

    I hope they have this lens at PDN.

  • RC

    I’m already greatly enjoying my Nikon 24-120mm F4, so I have no need for this lens.

  • Dpablo unfiltered

    Hell everyone, let’s not jump to conclusions. Sigma is a breakthrough company. They have been known to make things that nobody else has made or even thought could be. They made the first wide angle zoom, the 21-35 and it was ok. Now that is a common length. They then made a 15-30 and followed that with a couple 12-24 zooms. They stand alone at 12mm in their zoom. They matched that effort with an 8-16 crop sensor zoom that is actually quite good and are still standing alone with that. They were the first and only people to make a zoom faster than 2.8 for a crop sensor camera and it is quite good. They are the first and only people to make a 2.8 zoom that goes to 300. And if you count that thing that you need a roll cart for, they are also the first and only people to make a 2.8 zoom that goes to 500.

    Let’s see if they can get a little over 4x into a zoom and still have good image quality. They have made some seemingly impossible things before. My ancient Minolta 28-135 says they might pull this off.

    • Groosome

      Some good points but they don’t stand alone with the 12-24 – Nikon has one. Don’t know who made 1st though.

      • Andrzej Lukowiec

        DX… not FX :D

  • Global

    Dumb comment – but some people might not realize this:

    Sigma DG lenses are FULL FRAME (FX). This is a very interesting option if its much better in quality than the Nikon 24-120/4VR or less expensive.

  • Back to top