It's not always complaining, so much as noting that it won't be able to be used for certain tasks. The lens is quite impressive and will likely be a hit with a lot of shooters. Unfortunately for me I really value 24mm in my run and gun setups. I love the sigma 24-70 though. They make great glass, the optics on this are also quite impressive.
@@dylannolan7454 I've seen a lot of comments saying "Needed Optical Stabilization", "Would have liked to see IS in a lens with such long reach", etc... These are complaints. It's very normal for a 3rd party lens to have one or two compromises, especially when it's half the price of a GM or RF lens. Personally I agree with you, I almost exclusively use a 24-70 because I love the 24mm wide range.
Its definitely okay for it to not have IS at that price point but having IS is definitely extremely helpful at 105mm, which is where the Canon lens mentioned in this video shines. But the somehwat comparable Canon lens is like ~3.5k, so more than twice as expensive but therefore offers a very clearly visibly wider FOV at 24mm, is parfocal with linear manual focus (which is incredibly important for video) and has OIS in multiple modes, which definitely justifies the much higher price tag. Of course the additional multi functional ring and the 2 extra buttons on the Canon lens are also very helpful for fast pace documentary shooting. So per dollar both lenses probably perform equally. You will get twice as much niceness if you pay twice as much money. It definitely makes sense. If you're a video nazi like me, going for the Canon lens is reasonable, but you can 100% do incredible documentaries with the Sigma lens too but you will be more flexible with the Canon lens. Obviously you'd need an RF mount to use the Canon lens and an E or L mount for Sigmas lens.
@disco.jellyfish Agreed, I'm addressing the ones complaining about the lack of IS given the price range it's in. It's not a reasonable expectation to have. And not to take anything away from the Canon lens, it's a 10/10 in every regard; but as an FX3 user, I'd rather save the ~$3K since I already have IBIS, whereas a Canon R5C user might feel more pressured to cave in.
@@Dano-Media The Canon 24-105 is not perfect though. You will get rather strong distortion both barrel and pin cussion depending wether you are at the widest or narrowest focal length. Chromatic Abberation is rather good for a zoom lens. Its definitely not a prime and you will appreciate all the in camera digital corrections or having a couple of settings ready to be applied in post to your raw footage if you shoot raw video on this lens. It also vignettes at 24mm if you scan the whole 3:2 vista vision sensor area (which you never do when shooting video through a spherical lens). Just keep in mind that its not a perfect lens. But its probably one of the best full frame zoom lenses for documentary run and gun purposes. You will likely not be shooting Hollywood films on this.
Would have liked to see stabilisation in a lens with such a long reach. It's one of the reasons I still use the sony 28-135mm f4 PZ. That would make it very viable for documentary work. I'm still waiting on an all purpose zoom that starts at 24mm wide which I consider my favorite very wide focal length, but I appreciate that it's quite hard to do on FF zoom glass.
For Sony users this lens with no stabilization is probably a let down.. but for Panasonic shooters this lens does not need stabilization because the IBIS on Lumix cameras is THAT GOOD
Thats actually a good point. 28 is indeed rather long on Super 35 but I also think that 28 and 24 are clearly two very different things. Thats a big advantage on the Canon Lens along its other advantages (Of course the Canon lens also costs more than twice as much and is only avaliable on RF mount) but effective 36mm is still a rather usuable starting focal length for a standard zoom. Just barely but it definitely works.
Quality review as always. I did my review with the Lumix S5II and that combo was really marvellous, and of course in IBIS did it's thing so the absence of IS in the lens was not an issue. This is a great L-mount lens and balances well with the camera body. I'm more focused on stills, although did get to to use this for a few interviews and was an ideal bit if kit.
I still cant pick this over the tamron 35-150 . You just get much more. As a pro photographer and someone who shoots in studio and mainly on location, the Tamron is still the best bet. After having that 35mm on the low end and constant aperture all the way to 150mm, Tamron invented the best zoom lens on the market right now.
if it had a linear option on E mount i would probably just buy this tomorrow :\ might still get it, but it would make it the truely all in one do it all lens. could say the same for stableization, but thats not something i need personally, but i would like to see it for others as well. hopefully were able to get a linear update tho
Impressive offering from Sigma here. I own the G-Master 70-200mm 2.8 II, and I love that lens. However, if I had to add a new lens to my kit, this would be it due to the versatility.
Thanks for making such a great video on this. Definitely want this lens, but I do have the 35-150 and would love a 24 at the wide end. Thankfully I have fx3 with ibis, but lens stab would have been nice
Just bought one and returned it. Heads up if you’re buying this for video use: as you zoom in, the lens jumps open the internal iris to compensate for light loss. Was bummed. Can achieve better quality zooms for cheaper with an Mc-21 and a used canon 24-105 ii. Too bad, had high hopes. Just a caution!!
The Blackmagic 6K FF has an L-mount but does not have the ability to change the focus throw of the lens. How does this lens perform on that camera? Is it linear? Is the specific focus throw listed anywhere?
Without the stabilisation I see no reason to buy this and will wait for the Sony version to come out. I have the Tamron 35-150 and apart from not being quite as wide I think the Tamron is better in most scenarios, great breathing, very sharp, can be set in software to linear focus or non linear focus, faster at the wid end and almost parfocal!
biggest reason would probably be the price/bang for buck value. if sony ever releases it is possible that it is even close to double the price of this. and also some people do prefer sigma optics/build.
With IBIS bodies the lens stabilization became much less important and useful than in times of DSLR. I use bunch of Sigma primes on IBIS bodies and those extra 3-4 stops it comfortably gives are enough I guess. And I fully agree with your opinion about the Tamron 35-150. It is a marvelous lens for very reasonable price.
The level of the game of Sigma, it seems to be "Compete just with itself" because there's no competitor for Sigma in this game. So, the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 has to compete, by necessity, with the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8. You have to make the choice between what suits best for you: Best Low Light (f/1.8 zoom) versus Best Zoom Range (28-105mm), or you just buy both and you're good to go for whatever you want to do! Great, Sigma!!👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
A Sony 24-105 F2.8 PZ OSS is what we need to really complete the FX3 and FX6. I'm thinking they can do it! 28mm isn't wide enough for me, and not having PZ on the 24-105 F4 OSS is a real bummer. Oh wait, this is a Sigma video... Oh well. lol
For SIGMA, its actually a good idea to release this kind of len to attract wedding or event photographer instead, it would be a horrible decision for them to release smt like a 24 105 2.8, cuz Sony certainly will destroy them in term of auto-focus, not to say to pack both focus and stablizer motor (3rd party) will create such a huge len and a major turn-off😅
In a vacuum this lens seems great on paper, but compared to the Canon RF 24-105 it leaves a lot to be desired I would rather it be a longer lens with internal zoom, better for rigs The sigma 18-35 and 50-100 are internal zoom... Really would be mice if it have lens stabilization.. especially when pairing it with an FX6...
trash.... what are you suppose to do with 28mm at the low end ... and a 105 is allow not that usable... lens could be a good lens ... but the length is trash --> FOR ME, not you guys, for ME!
I don't get people complaining it doesn't have IS. It's a $1500 f2.8 full frame lens, something's gotta give at this price range.
It's not always complaining, so much as noting that it won't be able to be used for certain tasks. The lens is quite impressive and will likely be a hit with a lot of shooters. Unfortunately for me I really value 24mm in my run and gun setups. I love the sigma 24-70 though. They make great glass, the optics on this are also quite impressive.
@@dylannolan7454 I've seen a lot of comments saying "Needed Optical Stabilization", "Would have liked to see IS in a lens with such long reach", etc... These are complaints. It's very normal for a 3rd party lens to have one or two compromises, especially when it's half the price of a GM or RF lens.
Personally I agree with you, I almost exclusively use a 24-70 because I love the 24mm wide range.
Its definitely okay for it to not have IS at that price point but having IS is definitely extremely helpful at 105mm, which is where the Canon lens mentioned in this video shines. But the somehwat comparable Canon lens is like ~3.5k, so more than twice as expensive but therefore offers a very clearly visibly wider FOV at 24mm, is parfocal with linear manual focus (which is incredibly important for video) and has OIS in multiple modes, which definitely justifies the much higher price tag. Of course the additional multi functional ring and the 2 extra buttons on the Canon lens are also very helpful for fast pace documentary shooting.
So per dollar both lenses probably perform equally. You will get twice as much niceness if you pay twice as much money. It definitely makes sense. If you're a video nazi like me, going for the Canon lens is reasonable, but you can 100% do incredible documentaries with the Sigma lens too but you will be more flexible with the Canon lens. Obviously you'd need an RF mount to use the Canon lens and an E or L mount for Sigmas lens.
@disco.jellyfish Agreed, I'm addressing the ones complaining about the lack of IS given the price range it's in. It's not a reasonable expectation to have.
And not to take anything away from the Canon lens, it's a 10/10 in every regard; but as an FX3 user, I'd rather save the ~$3K since I already have IBIS, whereas a Canon R5C user might feel more pressured to cave in.
@@Dano-Media The Canon 24-105 is not perfect though. You will get rather strong distortion both barrel and pin cussion depending wether you are at the widest or narrowest focal length. Chromatic Abberation is rather good for a zoom lens. Its definitely not a prime and you will appreciate all the in camera digital corrections or having a couple of settings ready to be applied in post to your raw footage if you shoot raw video on this lens. It also vignettes at 24mm if you scan the whole 3:2 vista vision sensor area (which you never do when shooting video through a spherical lens).
Just keep in mind that its not a perfect lens. But its probably one of the best full frame zoom lenses for documentary run and gun purposes. You will likely not be shooting Hollywood films on this.
Now we wait for Sony to do a 24-105 f2.8
In 10 years maybe 😂.
@@BaldRavenHaired…and triple the price!
Why? This is available
@@Yupthereitismthey have a f/4 version, but a f/2.8 would be amazing
They won't do it. Their goal is to make lenses that is small and compact. You can see the pattern they are doing.
Would have liked to see stabilisation in a lens with such a long reach. It's one of the reasons I still use the sony 28-135mm f4 PZ. That would make it very viable for documentary work.
I'm still waiting on an all purpose zoom that starts at 24mm wide which I consider my favorite very wide focal length, but I appreciate that it's quite hard to do on FF zoom glass.
Yeah exactly. That's what a lot of people want but sony don't seem interested.
On an FX6/FX9 stabilisation is my preference over lens speed. The are only a handful of stabilised zoom lenses for the FX6/FX9
For Sony users this lens with no stabilization is probably a let down.. but for Panasonic shooters this lens does not need stabilization because the IBIS on Lumix cameras is THAT GOOD
42-157mm on the FX30. Seems like a great kit on sticks.
Thats actually a good point. 28 is indeed rather long on Super 35 but I also think that 28 and 24 are clearly two very different things. Thats a big advantage on the Canon Lens along its other advantages (Of course the Canon lens also costs more than twice as much and is only avaliable on RF mount) but effective 36mm is still a rather usuable starting focal length for a standard zoom. Just barely but it definitely works.
i was literally looking for a 24-105mm lens yesterday and this is basically what i wanted
Needed that optical stabilisation.
Funny to see it on an FX6 in the thumbnail, a camera that doesn't even have true sensor stabilization.
needed everything except sharpness and range lol
This is where I was waiting for!!!
Another splendid review!
Quality review as always. I did my review with the Lumix S5II and that combo was really marvellous, and of course in IBIS did it's thing so the absence of IS in the lens was not an issue. This is a great L-mount lens and balances well with the camera body. I'm more focused on stills, although did get to to use this for a few interviews and was an ideal bit if kit.
informative review thanks CVP
between this and Red going down in price my dream setup will be mine next year
I still cant pick this over the tamron 35-150 . You just get much more. As a pro photographer and someone who shoots in studio and mainly on location, the Tamron is still the best bet. After having that 35mm on the low end and constant aperture all the way to 150mm, Tamron invented the best zoom lens on the market right now.
welling to see how it is standing against tamron 35-150
if it had a linear option on E mount i would probably just buy this tomorrow :\ might still get it, but it would make it the truely all in one do it all lens. could say the same for stableization, but thats not something i need personally, but i would like to see it for others as well. hopefully were able to get a linear update tho
Impressive offering from Sigma here. I own the G-Master 70-200mm 2.8 II, and I love that lens. However, if I had to add a new lens to my kit, this would be it due to the versatility.
Would love to see a matchup between this and my trusty Panasonic 24-105 f/4
Do I need it? No. Do I want it? Yes.
I have the 24-70mm, 35-150mm and 2x 70-200mm for my zooms.
If Sony makes ones I really hope they make a power zoom attachment like Canon did
That would be amazing for doc shoots
DG DN, DN for Dezz Nu...sorry, bad habit. Great info!
Sigma for the win once again!
Thanks for making such a great video on this. Definitely want this lens, but I do have the 35-150 and would love a 24 at the wide end. Thankfully I have fx3 with ibis, but lens stab would have been nice
The manual focus is a dealbreaker for me. Sigma should absolutely fix this on e-mount.
Ha! So you had the c80 footage during this time but had to keep quiet! 😆 Good job keeping a lid on it 🤐
Just bought one and returned it.
Heads up if you’re buying this for video use: as you zoom in, the lens jumps open the internal iris to compensate for light loss. Was bummed. Can achieve better quality zooms for cheaper with an Mc-21 and a used canon 24-105 ii. Too bad, had high hopes. Just a caution!!
Could you please elaborate further?
excellent review
Tamron, your turn.
I hope the rumors of a 28-180 are true
I hope the rumors of a 28-180 are true
@@estebanmarquez6636 that's gonna be huge even at f4
@@olivertrees I know right? Maybe they can pull off a miracle.
It already have a 35-150
great for stills, but without stablisation its a nogo for video. i wonder if sony wouldn't let them.
Great test as always, thank you guys! Btw what camera profile you use for test shots here? Looks like S-log 3 with some 709 lut
Honestly, the Sony 24-105 f4 is great. And wider.
The Blackmagic 6K FF has an L-mount but does not have the ability to change the focus throw of the lens. How does this lens perform on that camera? Is it linear? Is the specific focus throw listed anywhere?
Without the stabilisation I see no reason to buy this and will wait for the Sony version to come out. I have the Tamron 35-150 and apart from not being quite as wide I think the Tamron is better in most scenarios, great breathing, very sharp, can be set in software to linear focus or non linear focus, faster at the wid end and almost parfocal!
biggest reason would probably be the price/bang for buck value. if sony ever releases it is possible that it is even close to double the price of this. and also some people do prefer sigma optics/build.
With IBIS bodies the lens stabilization became much less important and useful than in times of DSLR. I use bunch of Sigma primes on IBIS bodies and those extra 3-4 stops it comfortably gives are enough I guess.
And I fully agree with your opinion about the Tamron 35-150. It is a marvelous lens for very reasonable price.
@@petrpohnan875 this is very true but I’d like to use it on the FX6 and that has no ibis
The level of the game of Sigma, it seems to be "Compete just with itself" because there's no competitor for Sigma in this game. So, the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 has to compete, by necessity, with the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8. You have to make the choice between what suits best for you: Best Low Light (f/1.8 zoom) versus Best Zoom Range (28-105mm), or you just buy both and you're good to go for whatever you want to do!
Great, Sigma!!👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
I think the 28-105mm lens would be more suitable for my Sony A7S III, the low-light monster
A Sony 24-105 F2.8 PZ OSS is what we need to really complete the FX3 and FX6. I'm thinking they can do it! 28mm isn't wide enough for me, and not having PZ on the 24-105 F4 OSS is a real bummer. Oh wait, this is a Sigma video... Oh well. lol
If this had IS it'd be a no brainer. But this is a major deal breaker as an FX6 owner. Sigma 70-200 it is...
If Sony could do this with stabilization I’d spend $1000 more for that!
For SIGMA, its actually a good idea to release this kind of len to attract wedding or event photographer instead, it would be a horrible decision for them to release smt like a 24 105 2.8, cuz Sony certainly will destroy them in term of auto-focus, not to say to pack both focus and stablizer motor (3rd party) will create such a huge len and a major turn-off😅
Great news! I am on fire 🔥 . Dunno how to explain my emotions 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉❤️❤️❤️❤️💖💖💖
Thought this was the lens i'd been waiting for until the lack of linear manual focussing.
Sony wont make that.... look at how much money the canon 24-105 f2.8 cost ... its insane.
Do you guys think that this is the other product CVP mentioned in their last video?
Gives me a little hope Sony might actually push for a 24-105 power zoom.. c'mon Sony!
Super
Does the FX6 gyro stabilization via Sony Catalyst work with this lens?
@CVP can you provide an answer to this question?
Sony 24-105 f4 seems more appealing to me.
28 :/ I need a 15-50...
heavy
Internal Zoom
Dem as non native english , i heard 28 - 25 mm 😂
haha would be interesting lens :D
for L mount there is Samyang 35-150 for 1300$ and if weren't some downsides this Samyang looks better in comparison .
Great on optics but no stabilization is pointless.
Image looks not sharp compared with the 24-70 ua-cam.com/video/ogt5F3pN9jo/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=272
In a vacuum this lens seems great on paper, but compared to the Canon RF 24-105 it leaves a lot to be desired
I would rather it be a longer lens with internal zoom, better for rigs
The sigma 18-35 and 50-100 are internal zoom...
Really would be mice if it have lens stabilization.. especially when pairing it with an FX6...
1.5k $ 🥲
When it comes to zooms, Tamron is usually ahead of the game and Sigma is just a mediocre follower.
NO NO NO
Fly by wire 👎
trash.... what are you suppose to do with 28mm at the low end ... and a 105 is allow not that usable... lens could be a good lens ... but the length is trash --> FOR ME, not you guys, for ME!
28mm prevents it from being a truly versatile lens.
Should've been internal zoom