Canon 24-105 vs Sigma 24-105

[TonyP]

I recently purchased a 6D without the kit lens. My photographer friends suggested I'd find F4 frustrating in low light but what I'm quickly discovering is that for video, which is primarily why I bought the camera, it has a lot going for it. IS, versatile focal length, so I'm asking you all for some honest feedback. As a video lens, how does this hold up? I've rented one a couple of times outdoor, daylight shooting. Does it do okay in lower light and with higher ISO?

Also, how's the Sigma 24-105 compare?

Also also, I've rented and loved the 135 F2 for photography but didn't have an opportunity to use it for any video. Any thoughts? It lacks the versatility obviously, but it's faster and the color is phenomenal. While I loved it for stills I wonder how practical it would be for video work.

Thanks!

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

The Canon 24-105 is my most used video lens. It does everything and the satbilization is phenomenal for handheld work. It's just an all-around workhorse of a lens. When you have it on a full frame body, all you need is an additional 50mm prime for lowlight and you can shoot anything.

[zijital]

IMHO the Canon 24-105mm is one of the best buys you can get, at least on the used market, as there are so many of them out there you can easily pick one up for around $600.

---

We have a 24-105 that we use a LOT with our two C100s. We have an older Sigma 24-70 f2.8 which rarely gets used b/c most of our freelance / staff shooters prefer the 24-105.

I think the 6D is pretty clean at high ISOs so even f4 or f5.6 should be enough in many situations. Now if you're trying to shoot something in extreme low light, then get as fast as a lens as you can because you will want all the light you can get.

But just think that a 6D at 1600 ISO (I'm guessing) is still going to give a cleaner picture than a HVX200. So even though the HVX has a f/1.8 lens the 6D w/ a f/4 at a higher ISO will probably look less grainy.

[New_Zealand]

I pick up a brand new Canon 24-105 for $650 off of Ebay. I just saw one on there brand new for $450. They call them White Box since they came from a kit lens. I also have a 1.8 50mm lens for low light. Both works great for me.

[wgtwo]

https://vimeo.com/88093705

Sigma has better light transmission by almost a stop.

[nyvz]

https://vimeo.com/88093705

Sigma has better light transmission by almost a stop.

Not surprising, doesn't the canon also ramp exposure toward the end even though it says it's a constant stop? I usually avoid the canon 24-105 since it's a bit slow and the exposure seemed to ramp and the last one I used was really soft, but it might've been a particularly bad copy. I do see a lot of other people using it though, but I assume it's because it's a kit lens for so many bodies.

[wgtwo]

It might ramp, though I've never noticed it. It definitely isn't constant aperture when it's not wide open, though. Sigma apparently is.

[S.Blanchardon]

Sigma's is way above the the Canon counterpart. Better image and built quality.

[wgtwo]

But it's far less parfocal than Canon's. Plus weird focus ring placement.

[Sheldon Charron]

I shot this whole commercial with the Canon 6D and the 24-105L. Highest ISO I went was 1250. A lot of the footage was 4-5.6 at 320-640. No added lighting. Just the shop fluorescent lights and daylight from the windows.

[egproductions]

Yes a 24-105 F4 with IS is a very versatile lens, especially for outdoor or well lit situations. That being said, the Canon has significant barrel distortion. You might not notice it all the time but when trying to film straight lines its pretty terrible to look at. I've read mixed reviews on the sigma, but if its anything like their other art lenses then it should produce a very nice image.

[Sheldon Charron]

Yes a 24-105 F4 with IS is a very versatile lens, especially for outdoor or well lit situations. That being said, the Canon has significant barrel distortion. You might not notice it all the time but when trying to film straight lines its pretty terrible to look at. I've read mixed reviews on the sigma, but if its anything like their other art lenses then it should produce a very nice image.

True on the barrel distortion. When fairly wide and trying to do a dolly move of a shelf or counter top it was hard to find a way to shoot so it was not badly distorted.

[mdsilverman22]

I've been using my Canon 24-105 f/4 for over a year with my C100 and it's really gotten the job done. I will say that in extreme low light (wedding receptions) I tend to need a small video light and bump up the ISO to around 6400 which is acceptable on the C100 but I don't know how that would work on the 6D. If you want a nice very nice zoom that is better in low light and if you don't need the reach of the 24-105 then you can pick up a 24-70 f/2.8 mk I on ebay for a decent price. I've heard that many people get even better results with this lens and it's a full stop faster (no IS though).

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

I wouldn't trade the fantastic IS and 70-105mm reach for a stop of light. At least not when I am using it on a lowlight beast like the 6D, C100/300. On a rebel/7D, the 24-70mm might be a bit more desirable vs f/4 as they don't look good above 1250 ISO. The 24-70 is a bit sharper for stills, for 1080p video, not so much. The 24-105 has more barrel distortion at the 24mm end.

It might sound weird but I like having that distortion at the wide end, when the image is very wide and you move your camera it distorts the scene beautifully and makes it almost feel like you're flying through the scene/walls, it's a pleasing aesthetic for "me". Everybody hates it though. Just like how I love viggentting and distorted bokeh at the edges, everybody hates these for some reason. I think they're beautiful!

[Erik Wittbusch]

I like the focal length so much.

I used the 24-105 very often. The distortion is one thing - it's not that much better on the Sigma though.
But the Canon flares so easily that it's barely unusable in direct light or with lightsources in the picture.
It gets more extreme when using the speedboster...