[lordbeau]

Do we think this is better than the Nikon 24-120mm, a lens which I hated? (Heavy and not very sharp).

 

If so, I might get it but I get the feeling it's probably no better!

[Rainer]

I have not had the Sigma 24-105 in my hands ... but just from the data

shown in the reviews here, I wouldn't expect much of a difference when

comparing it to the Nikon 24-120/4 (or to the Canon 24-105/4) ... if

you already found the Nikon 24-120 too heavy ... the Sigma is nearly 200gr

heavier.

 

Just my 2cts ... Rainer

[JJ_SO]

I replaced the 24-85/3.5-4.5 from Nikon with the Sigma. Don't know about the 24-120 Nikon, never tried one. Here it's 25% more expensive - for only 15mm more focal length?


I just wanted a good standard zoom and it is good - better than the Nikkor 24-85. Also heavy. Also zooming "in the wrong direction". Also huge, I don't have M82 filters. I'm biased, I became a Sigma fan since I bought the 35 Art.


Annoying: When adjusting AF, it pretends to be Micro Nikkor 105/2.8 and of course, the AF adjustment value is different. Hope they fix that soon. I'm not fully enthusiastic about the lens but for the purpose I bought it, it's alright and I like it heavy. At 2.5kg with grip and D800 it's heavy enough. Additionally, I compared it with the VR of the 70-200/4 at 105mm which so far was the best VR in my collection and the 105/2.8. For me the Sigma was the best out of this three.


I think I already posted some sample shots here? http://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/Sigm.../i-L8Sw4BS

[artmaltman]

The Sigma 24-105mm is now my most used lens on Nikon D750. (I usually shoot lightweight f/1.8 native primes.)  

 

I get great results wide open. Sharp and beautiful. 

 

What swayed me to try it was a particular DXO measurement that I find extremely helpful: sharpness, "field" which shows you the sharpness across the entire frame at a given FL and aperture. The Sigma is sharp (green) across the board wide open. By contrast the Nikon 24-120mm was NOT, and in particular, it was very weak around 85mm wide open, which is an important FL for me. (DXO measured the Sigma on Canon bodies but the sharpness measurement turned out yo be a good indicator for my Nikon.)

 

It is worth the weight IMHO. 

[JJ_SO]

I wished I'd dared to leave the primes at home while I'm on a trip in Wales. Always a hand short when changing lenses often, lots of wind makes me wonder what I'll have to dust-retouch when home. On the other hand: if a subject is not worth a lens change, it's just a possible waste of disk-space.


Good to read you're happy with it

[Brightcolours]

The Sigma 24-105mm is now my most used lens on Nikon D750. (I usually shoot lightweight f/1.8 native primes.)  

 

I get great results wide open. Sharp and beautiful. 

 

What swayed me to try it was a particular DXO measurement that I find extremely helpful: sharpness, "field" which shows you the sharpness across the entire frame at a given FL and aperture. The Sigma is sharp (green) across the board wide open. By contrast the Nikon 24-120mm was NOT, and in particular, it was very weak around 85mm wide open, which is an important FL for me. (DXO measured the Sigma on Canon bodies but the sharpness measurement turned out yo be a good indicator for my Nikon.)

 

It is worth the weight IMHO. 

DXO doesn't give reliable info. There are many instances where their "data" is obvious nonsense. And on their "field" map showing sharpness across the frame: It doesn't. They only "measure" 3 data points. and the whole colour map gets interpolated and rotated to produce that "graph".

 

Non the less, happy to read you are happy with your Sigma. For its type it appears to be a nice lens indeed.

[Scythels]

 

They only "measure" 3 data points. and the whole colour map gets interpolated and rotated to produce that "graph"

Source?