A couple of days ago I told you Sony will introduce a new 24-105mm lens along the new generation A-mount cameras. Well, the main competitor, the Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 just got tested at DxOmark (Click here). It will not be easy for Sony to beat the IQ of that lens!
The Sigma A-mount lens can be preordered at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here) and Adorama (Click here).
56 Responses
Looks great! Let’s see some proper review soon!
Filter Thread 82 mm??? VTF?
Good performance will come with some compromises.
What’s harder to beat is Sigma pricing(compared to Sony of course).
It has no weathersealing, something Sony does seem to offer in all higher end zooms and primes. Considering the ff Sony cameras are weathersealed this Sigma doesn’t excite. A good optical performer, lighter than this, wethersealed, with SSM, would be a more mature choice. The only thing Sony has to really work out is rentability of each lens.
not sure which “high end” Sony zooms (OR primes for that matter) are weather sealed, but MOST of them have never been claimed by Sony to be weather sealed. The CZ1635, CZ2470, CZ85, CZ135 are NOT weather sealed
G lenses tend to be weather sealed like the new 70-200. As for the Zeiss zooms, there is no such claim, but judging from people’s experiences they are tough enough.
What other G-Series lenses are weather sealed???
Yeah, I went strong on that statement, but I the long tele primes were. Sony can’t advertise their gear, you can’t even see that the new 70-200 is weather sealed in most specs I found. As for Zeiss, here are two good articles worth reading:
http://www.swiatobrazu.pl/sony_dslr_a900_at_dakar_rally.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml
I can find a couple of things worth mentioning:
1.New FF lenses from 2014 seem to be weathersealed. The 50mm 1.4 Zeiss in the A mount. The FE primes that came along the A7&A7r, the standard FE zoom(kit lens).
2. Judging purely on a personal experience with the 24-70 i came to believe what others have mentioned also. This lens seem to have a degree of weather sealing. I used it in light rain a couple of times and also in the mountains, in heavy snow and cold temeperatures. Nothing seamed to bother it. I was also forced to take a few shots in the rain with the 70-200. No problem there.
So, the lack of any mention, i believe is meant to discourage such practice. Some Sony lenses do come with premium build quality. I trust the 24-70 enough to know it won’t be bothered by a few drops of rain but i would strongly advice against doing the same with the 85&135 primes. I don’t have any experience with the 24 or 16-35.
I see that on the new FF lenses that Sony came out with the weathersealing tag is present. What i obviously can’t find is a gasket ring to seal the lens mount&body combo.
So despite the marketing oriented specs tag, to my untrained eye there’s absolutely nothing to allow me to understand where the sealing has been applied in newer lenses.
If someone could just donate and older generation lens like the 24-70 and a newer generation lens like the 50mm Zeiss to have them taken apart to see where the differences are…for scientifical practice that is 😛
I’m a wilderness adventure photographer as well. We should hang out some time.
I find weather sealing to be overrated anyway. Sure, if the choice is there for a reasonable price, I’d go for it, but it’s not like regular gear is failing at the first drop of water.
what happened to the rumored olympus designed 400mm lens? and what other A-mount are on the horizon?
I second that. Please update us on that 400mm. I am about to buy the 400mm APO G Minolta, but if the Sony version is just behind the corner, and priced realistically, I might just wait and go for that one instead.
+1 on the 400mm. I wait patiently.
Again with DxO and its very misleading, out of context, apples-to-coconuts review conclusions.
Amazing how they can pick one as the better zoom lens when, in their own findings, some of the lenses perform best at different focal lengths. Boil it down to one number and the number-worshiping zombies will follow mindlessly without understanding anything about how the number was formed.
Compared to the Canon 24-105:
Similar sharpness at 24-50mm, sharper between 70-105mm at f/4-f/5.6, especially outside de center and half a stop better transmission values. In other words, the Sigma is the better low light lens.
There are heaps of other aspects that are not reflected in their measurements.
I have found that DXO actual data presented in the graphs etc is a pretty reliable indicator of real life performance. The problem comes from their attempt to base a multitude of individual variables in a single score. Same as with cameras ignore the overall score and read the data set.
Yes, good lens for Sony that haven’t a 24-105 f4, but the DXO test really valid for all camera? If compare similar sensor (same MP and format) with different mount of lens the result for sony are strange. This is not possible for this lens but i find strange case of Tamron 24-70 f2.8
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-USD-Sony-versus-Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-on-Nikon-D600-versus-Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___1169_0_885_834_884_795
Why for you?
Pardon my ignorance/stupidity, but I thought the idea was to get ‘native’ FE mount lenses? I thought using an A mount lens via an adapter automatically brought with it compromises?
Contrary to popularly belief on this forum, apparently, Sony is telling the truth when they say they are still supporting and growing the A-mount ecosystem. The new Sony lens is primarily for native A-Mount shooters, not the A7(r).
Not everyone believes in this test. Sony lens will blow away this Sigma to dust surely.
…just like the Sony 35mm f/1.4G vs the Sigma Art 35, the 16-35mm f/2.8 v the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, the Zeiss 85mm vs the Sigma 85mm.
Yep. Sony sure has a long history of releasing better lenses than the newer Sigma counterparts.
I also believe in the Tooth Fairy, and the affordable Leica
The Sigma lenses you mentioned are clearly sharper than Sony’s but however Sigma’s color rendition cannot compete with Sony. Sony’s color rendition is perhaps world best.
Give us the Sigma 50mm ART lens! Someone save me from blowing a ton of money on that overpriced zeiss.
if those are the only lenses you’ve ever used, then yes, they’re the best in the world 😉
Both Sigmas that you’ve mentioned have been released years apart from Sony lenses.
Sony SAL35F1.4G – 1980s, is the Minolta 35 1.4G, which dates back to 1980s. Sony only slightly updated it. Optical formula is the same.
Sigma 35 F1.4 – 2013
Sony SAL1635ZA – 2009, Full Frame lens
Sigma 18-35 f1.8 – 2013, APSC lens
It would be more fair to compare Sigma 18-35/1.8 to Sony SAL1650. Sigma offers extra 1.3 of a light stop as well as slightly sharper, while Sony offers more usable zoom range with in-camera compensation for whoever is using jpegs. Although i would disagree on the sharpness tests. When comparing to SLRGear’s findings, my SAL1650 is tack sharp at both 16mm and 50mm on my A65, with no de-centering found by SLRGear. Distortion at 16mm kind of sucks, but nothing lightroom can’t correct.
Apples and oranges. The Sony 35mm f/1.4 is an ancient optical design compared to the Sigma (the new FE 35mm is slower for being much smaller but sharper throughout its aperture range though). The Sony 2.8 zoom you mention is a FF lens where as the Sigma is an APS-C lens. The 85mm Zeiss is still the better lens.
I have had the pleasure of using the 85 Zeiss for three years now. There’s abslolutely no comparison with any other lens manufacturer on the market.
End of story.
The Zeiss is briliant even wide open, focuses a little bit slow but for the type of work it is made for that’s not a problem, nails focus far better than Sigmas do, has superb bokeh and colour rendition, you might note some CAs wide open, nothing to bother your photos.
The lens is quite sharp around f 2.0 and tack sharp at f 2.8. You will find the f 1.4 center to be very good.
So the 85 Zeiss is trully a wonder lens.
Also it is worth mentioning the Sigma’s focusing issues wide open with the “Art” 35mm. I can’t find o good reason for buying a lens that is meant for low light when it hits a poor succes rate of in focus shots between f1.4-2.8.
The Sony 35 G is a very old lens. I am convinced that there will be a new version out very soon. That would be the same situation of the old 50 being an older minolta design. The 50 Zeiss came out, so did the new 70-200, so will the 35.
Something else worth taking into consideration is the light gathering capabilities of an 2.8 FF design which is obvious as good as an f1.8 APSC lens design 😉 F 1.8 APSC would roughly be the equivalent of FF 2.8 in terms of deapth of field and light gathering.
Sensor size is irrelevant to light gathering capacity of a lens. Macro focus, especially bellows or tubes, will reduce a lens light gathering capability though.
An fstop is the same regardless of sensor size, assuming the lens is designed to fully cover that sensor. But putting a full frame lens on a crop sensor is the same fstop value. Same as putting a medium format lens on a full frame, or crop sensor.
That’s the case of a FF lens, i agree. In the case of the f1.8 APSC Sigma lens, it would return roughly the same light gathering capacity as would the equivalent FF 2.8 on a FF sensor. That’s a fact. I was reffering to the APSC lens.
This is good news. Sigma is putting pressure to Canon and Nikon. Zeiss is indeed in its own class…
“…Zeiss is indeed in its own class……”
Not any more. Sigma ART 35mm also crushes Zeiss (made by Cosina) 35/2 and 85mm into small pieces.
Except it focuses so slow – painfully slow in low light which kind of negates the reason I bought it (TWICE!) for my concert photography. The image quality is indeed peerless but they have to fix the AF speed.
Good on Sigma to take the lead in awesome optics for a reasonable price. There is no reason why Sony and Canikon should do the same. Charging a premium on new crappy lenses is only detouring sales when there are great optics from Minolta and legacy lenses. We have the technology so it should be cheaper and better. Paying $1000 for a 55mm 1.8 CZ is stupid. I don’t care if it took them 5 years to make it…it obviously means they were on a lot of coffee breaks. Get with it Zeiss.
To add, I’m not a fan of Sigma but it obviously shows that they have a new direction lately…possibly because of their bad rep. Germans should be the best at anything mechanical and I hope they come out on top in the next while. Someone needs to set a new standard in the camera world. It’s just not moving fast enough unless you can pay thousands of dollars. It’s not catering to the group that’s paying the bills at Sony – the low end and pro-sumers. Us non-pros want good glass that we can afford as a hobby and for the occasional paid work. We should’t be limited because we’re not making $5000 a day for a shoot. If you as a company are making higher resolution sensors in mid-range bodies that we can’t take advantage of then what’s the point? People will become start to the fact through research and stop buying the next model with 10+ more MP than the last model.
I want the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 and I’ve come stupid close to buying it. I just can’t justify 1500.00 on a 50mm…who the hell else does this? I mean, you have the canon 1.2 but that’s my point. Absolutely rediculous and I don’t care if it has weather sealing and SSM. The entry level sony 50mm should have SSM as well- the focusing sucks. I seriously want a better 50mm but my options are so very limited. I wait in anticiation for a sigma 50mm 1.4. Goodbye zeiss.
and what about the Sony 18-105mm? looks very good, and price is excelent: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1001011-REG/sony_selp18105g_18_105mm_f_4_g_lens.html
APS-C lens and E mount only.
I can’t wait for Sigma to start producing some of these full frame lenses in E-mount…
Me too but I won’t be holding my breath. This lens in E-mount & weather sealed would be all the zoom I need. Large, yes, but I’ve got primes when I want to shoot compact.
Definitely, I think that’s one thing that will get me to fully switch. I’m getting this feeling that that if Sony/Zeiss made f1.4 FE lenses they would cost as much as the Sony ZA 50mm f1.4 for A-mount. I think Sigma’s our best chance for something affordable with good optical performance.
might be worth checking this http://sigma-rumors.com/2013/10/no-plans-from-sigma-tu-support-sony-a7-a7r-cameras/
Im tempted. If there is a new A99 mk II coming. Then i will truy to buy both. Sounds like a good plan. A99 mk II and Sigma 24-105
DXOMARK is not above board. The a99 outperforms (scores higher than) the Canon 5d Mark III but most lenses (Sigma mostly, but also Sony Zeiss compared to Sigma) score higher, mostly by more than a few points on their metric, on the Mrk III. It’s BS. Further, how does a lower light performance that equates to a stop or less than a full stop lead to an overall score lower by 5 or 6 on camera scores? Hey DXOMARK, how about finally testing the Sony Zeiss 135mmm and the recent Sony Zeiss 50mm, so then you can say the a99 and those lenses score lower than the Mark III and Canon’s equivalents, and/or the Sigma 50mm f1.4. Whatever. Fact is DXO has tested more Nikon and Canon, and have an affinity for those manufacturers. No wonder the a7r comes just one point shy of the Nikon 800e, of course it does!
“Fact is DXO has tested more Nikon and Canon, ”
Fact is also that Canon and Nikon are by far the biggest selling camera makers out there with literally millions of extra users. The Canon FF sensor is actually very competent in every area other than low ISO DR.In all other areas the Canon is slightly ahead of the A99.
Dxomark said so, so it must be true…
Sony can’t match the optics for the price. Sony should licence these Sigma designs, and resell them in weather-sealed, housings with SSM II auto focusing systems.
+1.
Completely agree. Whats the point in having 11% stake in Tamron, when the only two lenses that are licensed – are the horribly outdated SAL18200 and SAL18250. On top of that a crazy small overall lens portfolio.
Drop that 11% into Sigma! At least these guys are capable of providing a ton of options to your customers, and seem to be on the roll lately. Heck, why not ask for an exclusive contract on specific set of lenses?
Sometimes the choices these companys make are truly surprising.
*Companies
When will there be a darn edit feature?
…apart from the fact that Sigma isn’t publicly traded but private company so no 11% and no sharing of designs
Also the 28-75/2.8 is a Tamron design, even from the KM days.
This notion of “this lens beats that” is dumb. Firstly, a company makes a lens based on the calculation of cost and profit. Just about any of the major optics companies can make fantastic lenses, but they’d have to charge so much that mere peasants will go rant about it.
Honestly, all this talk about this will beat that is dumb. At the end of the day, Sigma obviously made some calculations on how much it made on one lens, and which corners to cut. Time will tell, and we will see what those corners are eventually.
A modern version of the Mino 28-135 would be great for A mount users. Renew the 100/2, 200/2.8, 28/2 and 35/2 while you’re at it Sony. Buy dibs on some of the old Contax zooms too.
Just received mine today !