Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens test report: Sigma AF 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM | A ("Art")
#1
Good, but not really so much better than the Nikkor counterpart:

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/96...a24105f4fx

-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#2
That's one of the most off conclusions I've seen so far, congratulations  :angry: I agree with "not being spectacular", but talking about Sigma hasn't made a good standard zoom is steep. What about the much more costly Nikon 24-70 I with all it's weaknesses?

 

At roughly 20% less the price of the Nikkor 24-120, the Sigma simply DON'T HAS TO BE better - even if it's "only equally", it's a bargain! I doubt yelling will help but I have to because I'm upset and you just don't mention:

 
  • what are these fantastic weather sealings of Nikon worth, this tiny rubber gasket? Please, Markus or anybody else, show me the Nikon warranty text clearly allow you to use the lens in rain or snow or ice temperatures. Otherwise, I would highly appreciate to never read again this senseless phrase of "not being weather sealed".
  • The Nikon you can AF microadjust, if you're body behind the lens allows. But only for one focal length and for one distance. Good luck! The Sigma is just delivering sharpness after adjustments. Don't tell me a lens should be alright out of the box - that's coincidence, nothing else.
  • One of the downsides of the Sigma is M82 filter size.  Sad 
  • Edit: And the extra weight, too.
 

VR/OS, which is at least a full stop, if not more, better than the Nikon 24-120! I know this is hard to verify in one test to be comparable, but just get a Nikkor and compare the Sigma down to 1/15. You're talking in both tests giving the Nikon 4 stops improvement and the Sigma 3 - I bet it's the other way round. Even the newer Nikkors don't perform like Sigma's OS

 

This lens leaves nothing to gain for the Nikon and if I take a rubber band with me, I have the weather seal as good as the bloody rubber gasket every PZ tester apparently needs to mention. This lens was short in supply, makes me wonder why? Obviously other people made the decision and saved some money by still getting the better value.

#3
Quote: 

 

 
  • what are these fantastic weather sealings of Nikon worth, this tiny rubber gasket? Please, Markus or anybody else, show me the Nikon warranty text clearly allow you to use the lens in rain or snow or ice temperatures. Otherwise, I would highly appreciate to never read again this senseless phrase of "not being weather sealed".
 

I don't know what goes into making something weather-sealed but I can tell you that I have left the 14-24mm out in below zero temperatures for more than two hours with frost coming down and completely freezing the lens.

 

After letting the lens thaw out (slowly) it just keeps working as it ever has.

 

So, I think that there is something more than a couple of rubber bands that make pro-grade lenses to be used in SPACE without any further modification.

 

As for the Sigma lens, if I didn't already own the 24-70mm Nikkor I would definitely take a very good look at it. 
#4
Studor13, I know, there's more than only the rubber gasket - but the 14-24 is a very good sample of being called weather sealed - freezing temperature and thawing it up slowly with probably no water inside the lens is one thing, and I think a lot of lenses can perform that exercise.

 

Photographing with the lens and AF in such conditions is another. While the front lens of the 14-24 is a magnet to water drops and a huge gap round the lens leaves the question weather there's a kind of seal inside - or not. Also, if it come stop seals, they do have an expiration date like any normal bicycle inner tube as well.

 

Both 24-105/120 have inner tubes (others than a bicycle, but still...) coming out. If anybody trusts those tubes to wipe away all drops before gliding in, please tell, better: show me. That's the bit when a rubber gasket is becoming nice cosmetics. A lot of lenses withstand some kind of raindrops easily. If it's pouring down, I can quickly see which really ARE selaed. Not much, I'd say. Couple of Pentax, Fuji, most professional grade Olympus, but after that come the grey zone in which one needs a bit of luck.

 

Or an umbrella.  Big Grin

#5
Wow... take a deep breath, please...
 
Quote:I agree with "not being spectacular", but talking about Sigma hasn't made a good standard zoom is steep.
Where did I write that? The verdict says, it's not significantly better than other lenses in this class. Disagree with that?
 
Quote:What about the much more costly Nikon 24-70 I with all it's weaknesses?
Different lens class, isn't it? But since you mention it: less weaknesses than the EX 24-70/2.8 HSM, IIRC...
 
Quote:At roughly 20% less the price of the Nikkor 24-120, the Sigma simply DON'T HAS TO BE better - even if it's "only equally", it's a bargain!
Difference in street price is closer to 10% than 20%. Which happens to match the difference in zoom range you get... roughly 10% less on the Sigma.
 
Quote:what are these fantastic weather sealings of Nikon worth, this tiny rubber gasket? Please, Markus or anybody else, show me the Nikon warranty text clearly allow you to use the lens in rain or snow or ice temperatures.
Why so hateful? Of course there are seals, and then there are better seals, with or withour warranty. Anyway, fact is: there ARE seals on the Nikkor (around the switches for example, I don't take the rubber ring on almost any Nikkor mount as a serious sealing). There is absolutely no word of any sealing coming from Sigma. To me this means: no sealing at all. Which I consider to be mentionable information.
 
Quote:The Nikon you can AF microadjust, if you're body behind the lens allows. But only for one focal length and for one distance. Good luck! The Sigma is just delivering sharpness after adjustments. Don't tell me a lens should be alright out of the box - that's coincidence, nothing else.
Well, in that case I'm living a life full of coincidences. Sorry, but we're talking about an f/4 standard zoom here. If AF is recognizably off on such a lens, is a case of warranty.
 
Quote:One of the downsides of the Sigma is M82 filter size.  Sad
Edit: And the extra weight, too.
Correct... and I didn't even emphasize that... maybe I should... Wink
 
Quote:VR/OS, which is at least a full stop, if not more, better than the Nikon 24-120!
Sorry, but that's not my experience. I see them equal. But yes, that's hard to verify in an objective test.
 
Quote:You're talking in both tests giving the Nikon 4 stops improvement
No, I don't. I wrote that NIKON claims 4 stops, but in the field we achieved 3 stops.
 
Quote:Even the newer Nikkors don't perform like Sigma's OS
 
They do... ever tried the 70-200/4 VR?
 
Quote:This lens leaves nothing to gain for the Nikon
Please read the verdict again. With a little lower blood pressure, maybe. In summary, they are more or less equal, with a slight advantage towards the Sigma (therefor a better star rating). It just depends on where your priorities are. Both lenses have their strengths, both have weak spots.

Both are good, none of them is stellar.

-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#6
Markus, I was not hateful, I was angry - to me that's a difference.

 

The difference of the "street price"? Here in Switzerland I can get the Sigma at 719.- and the Nikon at 887.- francs. 719/887 × 100 = 81.05%. So I checked at Foto Koch in Germany: 687 € to 857 €: again 80%! I don't know where you get your street prices, but the ones I did my research tell me not your 10%. And on the other hand, the difference in focal length is more like 14% (for the Sigma). So it would be more or less equal - if the 120 mm were as useful as the 105 mm in terms of resolution and optical performance.

 

As for VR vs OS: Not only I tried - I compared and the 70-200/4, which has the newer VR than the elder 24-120, was not on first place. While you just write: "The Nikkor's VR is equal to 4 stops" and "the Sigma's OS is equal to 3 stops" - if somebody tells me that, I like to see evidence. Until that, I consider it a false information. You say, you didn't wrote that? You even made it a "high end VR lens" Wink

 

Quote: 

 

The lens features optical stabilization (VR II) which Nikon claims allows for up to 4 stops slower shutter speeds. Actual results will vary depending on the photographer, of course. In our field tests up to three stops longer shutter times were easily possible (given a reasonably steady subject). Typical for most high end VR lenses, the 24-120/4 VR offers a switch to chose between "Normal" and "Active" VR operation.
 

Nikon can claim whatever they want and for some Tai-Chi masters this might be true, maybe they can handhold a ¼" at 24 mm or 1/15" at 105 or 120 mm. In reality, they haven't found the silver bullet themselves. If you say 3 stops are easily possible, it reads like with luck the fourth as well. Not my findings.

 

But I understand you're taking this 70-200/4 as a reference. Until I did my tests, it was the best VR I've seen. Now it appears like Sigma didn't only copy it from Nikon but improved as well.

 

Quote: 

 

Sigma released some great products recently, but have they really found the silver bullet in all categories ? No, they aren't there yet. Traditionally standard zoom lenses have been a weak spot in the Sigma range and the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG HSM OS | A is not capable of being substantially better than other lenses in this class.
 

Your test shows no weaker performance of the Sigma - if you found weaker points, I just didn't see them (besides of weight and size). How "substantially" the improvements might be, is hard to say, If I see the weak performance of the Nikkor at 120 mm, I'd say, this IQ I can crop anytime out of a 105 mm picture. So, by numbers the Nikkor has a bigger range - effectively it doesn't matter much.

 

What you're saying about the sealings I consider as the blurry talk a lot of reviewers come up with. Nobody actually did a comparison, how long which lens withstands which kind of weather. Hmmm, maybe I suggest Kai Wong to destroy a couple of lenses? Huh  Talking about such a feature needs a basis to discuss. My point is, Nikon doesn't use the "weather sealing" term in any of their lens descriptions. Why not? For sure not because the seals are useless, but because their warranty would have to deal with it. Would you use the 24-120 in the rain without additional cover and zooming in and out? Also, there's in each manual of a Nikon lens the safety instruction "keep dry, otherwise electrical hazard can occur". That immediately gives me the picture of Klaus, illuminated like a Christmas tree while he use a lens outside  Big Grin Of course, "safety instructions", real men don't read or need them. 

 

I agree with the results in terms of optical performance and value. The biggest non-agreement I have with you in terms of weather resistance. My impression is, that you testers at PZ trust Nikon more than Nikon itself. Have you seen Roger Cicalas teardown of the Sigma 35/1.4? Tiny rubber ring in front was also a kind of seal. Although Sigma clearly only stated their "Sports" series as weather- and dust- resistant. So, it's not "nothing" they do. They just don't pretend to have weather protection. As Nikon doesn't, either. It's only the testers totally convinced about that feature. Oh, and about 5 million forum readers  Rolleyes .

 

Can we come to the conclusion: "No really need to sell a 24-120 for it, just don't zoom until it's tele-end. But if you're about to buy a lens in  this class, the Sigma is very well worth the price and delivery slightly better IQ throughout it's range. And saves some money for an umbrella  Big Grin "?

 

Yes, it's not a lens of the "usual Art-series" level and features which are fast glass sharp wide open. I guess, Sigma put it into the Art series due to the constant aperture, but not as a competitor to their 18-35/1.8 or 24-35/2 monsters. The other line would have been "Contemporary" - for that it's not cheap enough.

#7
Quote:I don't know where you get your street prices
heise.de/preisvergleich
 
Quote:but the ones I did my research tell me not your 10%.
I didn't write "10", I wrote "closer to 10 than to 20".

 
Quote:While you just write: "The Nikkor's VR is equal to 4 stops"
No, I didn't. And thankfully you put the whole quote where I did not write this below this wrong statement.

Quote:If you say 3 stops are easily possible, it reads like with luck the fourth as well. Not my findings.
But mine. Anyway, allow me to quote myself: "Actual results will vary depending on the photographer, of course."

Quote:What you're saying about the sealings I consider as the blurry talk a lot of reviewers come up with. Nobody actually did a comparison, how long which lens withstands which kind of weather. Hmmm, maybe I suggest Kai Wong to destroy a couple of lenses? Huh  Talking about such a feature needs a basis to discuss. My point is, Nikon doesn't use the "weather sealing" term in any of their lens descriptions. Why not? For sure not because the seals are useless, but because their warranty would have to deal with it.
 
Quote:I agree with the results in terms of optical performance and value. The biggest non-agreement I have with you in terms of weather resistance. My impression is, that you testers at PZ trust Nikon more than Nikon itself. Have you seen Roger Cicalas teardown of the Sigma 35/1.4? Tiny rubber ring in front was also a kind of seal. Although Sigma clearly only stated their "Sports" series as weather- and dust- resistant. So, it's not "nothing" they do. They just don't pretend to have weather protection. As Nikon doesn't, either. It's only the testers totally convinced about that feature. Oh, and about 5 million forum readers  Rolleyes .
I have no idea why you're so upset about this minor feature... especially, since all I wrote in the Nikkor review is: "There're seals for dust and moisture protection." That's all. Where's the beef to justifiy such a rage? Maybe I just missed the pointed, but to me it's quite simple: the Nikkor has some seals (which doesn't mean it's water or ugly-weather-proof), the Sigma has not. Or at least Sigma doesn't claim it to have.

-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#8
"has some seals" - that is "more than the rubber gasket"? Did you open one or both lenses? Did you see any design layouts? I learnt (here and elsewhere) to be careful with assumptions.

 

Where does "the rage" come from? Well, I'm not entirely certain. I think it comes from a subjective impression that you testers at PZ write in a way that implies "genuine lenses are, if in doubt, the better choice and third party lenses are second choice at best" Maybe I read it the wrong way and became Sigma fanboy three years ago.

 

My point is: Which lens I ever look at - 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 20/1.4, 18-35/1.8, 150-600/5-6.3 S, the 24-105 lens you were testing - I find Nikon's offerings more expensive and less well performing. There was a time when I could rely on if you pay more, you get more. Sigma shows constantly some independence between price and performance. They offer firmware updates, customization and mount change service, they have the better OS and here in Switzerland a lifetime service once a year. That all is not part of a lens test, I'm aware of that.

 

But I appreciate they're doing things differently, they even do things they won't make a lot of turnaround with. I'm appreciating in a way that I buy their stuff with much more confidence than Nikon gear - there were a couple of debacles from the Nikon company, bodies and lenses had to go back to service for some work that should have been done before delivery.

#9
I think that things are getting or have gotten out of control for no reason.

 

Markus, in my opinion, did a good job with the review.

 

At the end of the day, I am certain that most of us just look at the resolution numbers and make our own conclusions.

 

Anyways, I hope everyone chill out and pour themselves another vin chaud. This is not the time of year to have arguments.

 

 

 

#10
I second Stupor13.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)