What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

News Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 ART

Q

Quentinquirelino

Well-Known Member
Today Sigma has announced the new 28-105mm f2.8 art for L-Mount (and E-Mount).

www.sigma-global.com

28-105mm F2.8 DG DN | Art | Lenses | SIGMA Corporation

Basic information for 28-105mm F2.8 DG DN | Art.
www.sigma-global.com www.sigma-global.com

Now our choices for standard zooms are even bigger as they already have been.
There is the 20-60/3.5-5.6 kit, the 24-105/4, the 28-70/2.8, a total of three 24-70/2.8, the Samyang 35-150/2-2.8 and now the 28-105/2.8.
 
Not sure how to feel about this one. This is very close to the lens that I want but I am a little disappointed by the performance for the price and size.

Corners look fairly soft at f2.8 and there is a lot of vignetting and distortion, especially on the wide end. Bokeh and flares look a little sketchy but not terrible. Close focus is 1:3.1 which is better than I expected but not the 1:2 of the Lumix and the field is not flat at all. There is no stabilization. 105mm is okay but I think I would really prefer 135mm.

For 1kg and $1.5k I was really hoping for more. Am I being unrealistic?
 
Josh Cameron just released a review of this lens on YouTube, earlier today (5Sept24). It's interesting...
 
It’s much bigger and heavier than the Panasonic 24-105. It also lacks OIS, and starts at 28mm, not 24mm. That’s a lot to lose for the extra stop of brightness.
 
inspiredtimothy said:
Not sure how to feel about this one. This is very close to the lens that I want but I am a little disappointed by the performance for the price and size.

Corners look fairly soft at f2.8 and there is a lot of vignetting and distortion, especially on the wide end. Bokeh and flares look a little sketchy but not terrible. Close focus is 1:3.1 which is better than I expected but not the 1:2 of the Lumix and the field is not flat at all. There is no stabilization. 105mm is okay but I think I would really prefer 135mm.

For 1kg and $1.5k I was really hoping for more. Am I being unrealistic?
Click to expand...
I think so. IQ looks pretty good to me in the PetaPixel video. I have less than zero intention of ever buying any 20 whatever to 105 zoom myself though.
 
I will put it this way, if I was using this zoom to shoot professionally just to get the shot and have everything in one lens, I would use it and it would do a good job. AF looks good, central portion of the frame is sharp, f2.8 is very helpful for event work or portraits, and $1500 is definitely not too much for a pro who is making good money off of photo or even video jobs.

If I was using this to create high quality art that would be printed large, I am not sure I would be happy with the cross frame IQ or rendering and may opt for the 24-70 and 70-200 instead. If I was shooting high quality video I would want something with internal zoom and stabilization.

If I was buying this to save money over buying both the 24-70 and the 70-200 I think I would be disappointed with sharpness at wide and long FLs and at the periphery, and I would be disappointed that the rendering is comparatively busier for the same or more money than both the other lenses.
 
inspiredtimothy said:
I will put it this way, if I was using this zoom to shoot professionally just to get the shot and have everything in one lens, I would use it and it would do a good job. AF looks good, central portion of the frame is sharp, f2.8 is very helpful for event work or portraits, and $1500 is definitely not too much for a pro who is making good money off of photo or even video jobs.

If I was using this to create high quality art that would be printed large, I am not sure I would be happy with the cross frame IQ or rendering and may opt for the 24-70 and 70-200 instead. If I was shooting high quality video I would want something with internal zoom and stabilization.

If I was buying this to save money over buying both the 24-70 and the 70-200 I think I would be disappointed with sharpness at wide and long FLs and at the periphery, and I would be disappointed that the rendering is comparatively busier for the same or more money than both the other lenses.
Click to expand...
Interesting POV, thanks for posting. I'm certainly in the second group and have some hesitations after reading Dustin Abbott's review. Particularly about the distortion at the wide end.
Too bad we can't get the Tamron 35-150, but I'm hopeful that Samyang's take on that FL range ends up being a good lens. Initial reports are a bit all over the place.
 
However, take a look at Dustin's review, particularly on distortion:



Generally, I'm not one to worry too much about distortion, assuming it can be corrected. But the distortion on this lens at 28mm looks tricky. Perhaps the embedded correction will do better; will be interesting to see how Capture One deals with it once the lens is supported.
 
GeorgeHudetz said:
However, take a look at Dustin's review, particularly on distortion:



Generally, I'm not one to worry too much about distortion, assuming it can be corrected. But the distortion on this lens at 28mm looks tricky. Perhaps the embedded correction will do better; will be interesting to see how Capture One deals with it once the lens is supported.
Click to expand...

When you get three different reviews picking on different "flaws" it says one thing. The lens is actually pretty damn good, and they're just looking for something to pick on, or make their review stand out from the others. Which actually has very very little to do with using it to take photos.
Once again, I have zero interest in acquiring any sort of 20 whatever to 104 lens, I own exactly one Sigma L mount lens, so no bias at all.
 
Markuswelder said:
When you get three different reviews picking on different "flaws" it says one thing. The lens is actually pretty damn good, and they're just looking for something to pick on, or make their review stand out from the others. Which actually has very very little to do with using it to take photos.
Once again, I have zero interest in acquiring any sort of 20 whatever to 104 lens, I own exactly one Sigma L mount lens, so no bias at all.
Click to expand...
I really don't think that's Dustin's style at all. And certainly, the lack of straight lines has a large impact on the photos you take. But yeah, we all have to make our own decisions.
 
GeorgeHudetz said:
I really don't think that's Dustin's style at all. And certainly, the lack of straight lines has a large impact on the photos you take. But yeah, we all have to make our own decisions.
Click to expand...
I wasn't picking on Dustin in particular. As you yourself wrote, the review's are all over the place. Why? I think it's because there aren't any real flaws, they're just looking for very very small differences to differentiate their reviews.
 
Here are two more reviews of the Sigma 28-105mm lens, both by LUMIX and SIGMA ambassador Ewen Bell.

The first is a traditonial-style review (12:55 duration)




The second is mainly b&w photos taken with the lens along with a bit of commentary about shooting mono (8:49 duration):

 
I’m looking at this lens for use on my SL2. But I suspect I may end up going with the Mark II version of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN. Lighter and $300 cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top