They might have different focal lengths and different maximum apertures, but the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Sony 24-105mm f/4 are very similar in price thanks to a rebate, and each would make a solid choice when it comes to a lens that does a little bit of everything. Which one should you choose?
Chris Brockhurst puts both of these lenses through their paces and compares the various features offered by each. Personally, I’d definitely vouch for the Sigma 24-70mm DG DN and not simply because I reviewed this lens last year and found it to be an excellent piece of kit. I regularly shoot action in relatively low light, and that extra maximum aperture has come in useful on countless occasions. In addition, I’m more interested in environmental portraits rather than tight crops on longer telephoto lengths, making the 70mm coupled with f/2.8 more desirable compared to 105mm coupled with f/4.
Of course, the other lens you might want to take into consideration is the new Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN, which isn’t currently available but will save you around $200, albeit with compromise in terms of the focal length.
Which would you go for? Let us know in the comments below.
If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout.
I would go with the 24-105. I don't need F2.8 + I shoot landscapes, so the extra reach before switching lenses can come in handy
Same for me with retail portraits. When I owned a 24-70, I found myself having to lug around a 70-200 along with it just to get those millimeters between 70 and 100. But I almost never had to shoot faster than f/4...my clients expect both eyes and the near ear and all the kids to be in focus.
Moreover, higher ISOs are just too good these days for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 to matter in most situations. Now, a two stop difference--if we were discussing an f/1.8 compared to an f/4--might be more meaningful.
Even for environmental portraits--or perhaps especially for environmental portraits--I'd want a smaller aperture to put more of the environmental details in focus.
I would pick Tamron 28-200 F2.8-5.6 over any of the above. You get F2.8 at wide end, amazing close focus ability which will give you fantastic bokeh, 200 mm is unachievable from any of the suggested lenses. It's just as sharp as both lenses above. Weather sealed, lighter and reasonably priced. Only downsize is that it doesn't have constant aperture for videographers..
I made the same choice... and you get the f4 till 105 as in the sony lens... perfect for landscape paired with a true wide or very good for "do it all lens". Really loving mine!!
I have Sony 24-105 G f/4 . It is well built lens, it is with fantastic focal range, excellent optic and it has build OSS . I use it for everything from pictures to video because is silent and does not change aperture. In combination with one fast prime lens or macro lens you cover nearly everything. Not to forget it has some macro ability as can focus from 38cm distance and gives you some pleasant close detail pictures.
If you are after sport or wild animals you need longer reach lens like 70-200 or 100-400 ect.
I cover that long ranges with LA-EA4 adapter and Minolta 135mm f/2.8, Sigma 105 Macro f/2.8, Minolta 70-210 f/4 and Minolta Reflex AF 500mm f/8.
‘One lens to rule them all...’
Nikon 24-120mm f4 AF-VR, often a kit lens with a D850 so it’s got to be decent (it is).
Oh but wait...
..it’s not for a mirrorless camera... so it doesn’t count....!
🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻
I have almost switched to Nikon several times just because of that lens. I use Canon's 24-105 and find myself always at 24-35 and right at 105 and wishing for more.
Now I would like a 35-150 in RF mount. Or maybe just a 28-135 constant f4.
I semi-recently bought the 24-105 and I love it. For me, the only reason that would exchange it for one of those sigmas is if they were significantly lighter but they aren't so...
I have the 24-105 as my one lens. Then if I'm taking more than one, I back it up with primes. I have the 85, 35, and 20 - all in f/1.8. The Sony 1.8s are all nice and small.
I own both. I shot video professionally and photos as a hobby.
The 24-105 f4 is such a nice all around lens but at f4 inside is not the best for video (I always run lights these days) and the A7iii is decent in low light.
I love the look of my 24-70 2.8 from Sigma, quiet and fast auto focus like the Sony, both have a customizable button, but the sigma is lacking in optical image stabilization, which is nice for video, so you have to stick with in body stabilization.
The 24-105 f4 is great for filming videography type subjects, I use it for filming science experiment., This lens is great for tabletop work with its close focusing distance. While the 24-70 2.8 is great for shooting food and people. I do enjoy how compressed the image gets at 105, but id take the sigma at 24mm and 2.8 it’s just a more commonly used focal length for me.
The aesthetic optical quality of the Sigma 24-70 2.8 won me over. I like catching lens flares with this lens, the colors are vibrant and it has a clean look. It does have a larger filter thread so more expensive filters. I’ve also heard this lens can let dust (that doesn’t affect the image) in so it’s not as sealed as the Sony.
Both are great all around lenses, if you are starting off and going full frame, pick the sigma for aesthetics, or pick the Sony for the longer focal range, optical stabilization, less dust issues, and close focusing ability.