Nikon 24-85mm verses Sigma 24-105mm lenses at 24mm

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

This is a test I did comparing these three lenses.

Nikon 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 G lens
Sigma 24-105mm F4.0 A lens
Nikon 24mm PC-E G lens

The camera was a Nikon D800 using live view to manually focus the lenses at the base of the trees and the grass. I used mirror up so to reduce camera shake.

These are just the 24mm images at F11.0 and F16.0 as if I posted all the images at the different zoom settings and F stops it would be six gig. My interest is the bottom corners of the images for sharpness. I own both the Nikon lenses and was testing the Sigma to see if I would purchase it.

Download the raw images from the link below

http://www.hightail.com/download/elNMa3ZCZ1BOMUFaQ2NUQw

Enjoy

Simon

[MichaelEzra]

Thanks, Simon! It was useful to see this comparison.

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

After my testing I have now purchased a Nikon 24-120 F4.0 G lens to replace my Nikon 24-85 F3.5-4.5 G lens as the Sigma 24-105mm lens was rubbish.

From what I have seen with the few images I have taken with the new lens I am very pleased with my purchase.

I have the new Nikon 80-400mm F4.5-5.6G ED VR lens arriving any day so am looking forward to that.

Cheers

Simon

[chex]

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but why was the sigma rubbish?

I usually never buy third party zooms (I do have sigma primes) but this lens has been getting great reviews and I was seriously considering buying it.

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Chex,

The reason why after testing this lens was simple. It is very soft in the corners even stopped down.I ended up getting the Nikon 24-120mm F4.0 G lens and I'm very happy with the results.

Have a look at the attached images.

Cheers

Simon

[chex]

thank you!

[Quentin]

The Sigma is far from rubbish.  I have a 60 inch x 40 inch print of this shot, take at 24mm, on the wall of my office and it looks sharp across the frame.

[David Eichler]

Hello,

After my testing I have now purchased a Nikon 24-120 F4.0 G lens to replace my Nikon 24-85 F3.5-4.5 G lens as the Sigma 24-105mm lens was rubbish.

From what I have seen with the few images I have taken with the new lens I am very pleased with my purchase.

I have the new Nikon 80-400mm F4.5-5.6G ED VR lens arriving any day so am looking forward to that.

Cheers

Simon


"...the Sigma 24-105mm lens was rubbish."  The lens was rubbish? How many copies of the lens did you try? Do you have testing equipment that confirms that the lens was properly centered and otherwise operating with the manufacturer's specs? It is a fact that there can be significant variations in quality to manufacturing inconsistencies or a lens getting jarred out of spec during shipping. Wideangle zooms are particularly prone to these things because of the complexities of their designs. I have seem such variations myself with a number of different Canon lenses, and the variations can be quite substantial, with one copy of a lens being quite bad to the point of being useless, while another copy will be excellent. This review suggests that the design and build quality of the lens lens is good: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/864-sigma24105f4eos?start=2

[dwswager]

Can't comment on the Sigma, but the G versions of the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 is a great performer.  Much better than the AF-D version that should be avoided.  It is not weather sealed nor does it have the Nano Crystal coat of the gold ring 24-70mm f/2.8 or 24-120mm f/4 VR, but from an optical standpoint, once stopped down it gets very good.

Other than high end special items, I've never had great luck with 3rd party lenses.  I've heard that Sigma and even Tamron stuff has gotten much better recently.  That is certainly a plus.  But it is relatively easy to build a kit of lower cost Nikon zooms that performs very well like:

18-35 f/3.5-4.5G
24-84mm f/3.5-4.5G
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR

[Lightsmith]

I was considering the Sigma 24-105mm lens until I read all the reviews on B&H by owners having problems with this lens malfunctioning. I would wait until a revised model is released where these design issues have been addressed.

[indusphoto]

I am surprised that you went with 24-120. It is quite soft in corners at 24mm, at any apertures.

[ACH DIGITAL]

I have the Nikon 24-85mm and use it for casual portraiture. Not bad, quite nice bokeh.





ACH

[dwswager]

I have the Nikon 24-85mm and use it for casual portraiture. Not bad, quite nice bokeh.

+1

The 25-85mm G (stay away from the AF-D versions) is a great lens.  Just like the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G, it is an outstanding performer and a great value.

[David Anderson]

Simon, just curious, do you use the 24 or 28 primes when shooting wide much ?
I think the 28G has great corners.

Quentin, please don't photograph my boat without written permission... 

[LesPalenik]

The 25-85mm G (stay away from the AF-D versions) is a great lens.  Just like the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G, it is an outstanding performer and a great value.

That does not correspond with my experience. Perhaps, it is my particular copy, but I am not impressed with this lens.
The biggest problem are the edges shot at wide end.  At 24mm, the corners exhibit significant geometrical distortion and are badly blurred.
The lens is OK if you shoot it between 40-70mm at F8 or F11, or if you crop off the corners. Even so, I get noticeably better quality with a 50mm Nikon or 90mm Tamron.