If you need a lens that can cover a lot of ground without switching gear, the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 DG DN Art might be what you’re looking for. With a constant f/2.8 aperture and a flexible focal range, it aims to be a one-lens solution for many types of shooting environments.
Coming to you from Benj Haisch, this excellent video review explores the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 DG DN Art lens. One of its biggest draws is the constant f/2.8 aperture, which provides consistent light throughout the zoom range. This can be a huge advantage if you shoot in changing light conditions. Haisch explains that this lens also gives you extra reach compared to more typical 24-70mm zooms. That extra 35mm may not seem like a lot, but in practical use, it makes a significant difference. It allows you to crop in a bit tighter, while still maintaining good compression and depth of field, which is particularly useful for portrait and event work.
Haisch compares this lens to competitors like the 35-150mm option offered by a few makers, explaining the trade-offs between wide and long focal lengths. The Sigma's 28mm gives you a wider field of view than the 35mm options, which can be crucial in tight spaces. At the same time, the 105mm focal length gives you more reach than a 70mm lens would. This makes the 28-105mm a versatile option if you're looking for something that covers both ends of the focal range without sacrificing too much on either side.
Weight is another consideration. This Sigma lens weighs just under 1,000 grams, making it relatively light for a full frame zoom lens. Haisch notes that it feels lighter than expected, which can be a big plus if you're carrying it around for long periods. The lens is designed with a matte finish that resembles Sony’s camera bodies, creating a cohesive feel when mounted on Sony gear. It also includes features like customizable function buttons, an aperture ring, and a declicked option for smooth aperture adjustments during video work.
However, there are some downsides. Haisch points out that the lens sufers from barrel distortion at 28mm and pincushion distortion at 105mm. While this is common for lenses in this category, it’s something to be aware of, especially if you’re shooting video. Photography users can easily correct this in post-processing using Lightroom profiles, but video users may find it a bit more challenging since in-camera corrections don’t apply during filming.
Another positive is the minimum focus distance of 1.31 feet at 105mm. While it’s not a true macro lens, it allows you to get close enough for most situations. This makes it a versatile tool, particularly if you work in environments where you need to get up close and personal with your subject. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Haisch.
Alex Cooke asked:
"Is the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 the Best All-in-One Lens for the Price?"
Personally, the Tamron 50-300mm would be far more useful for more genres of photography than this 28-105mm.
Not only is the Tamron a 6x zoom where the Sigma is only a 4x zoom, but the Tarmron would be far more capable for close-up work, as it has a magnification ratio of 1:2 while this Sigma has a magnification ratio of only 1:3.1
Additionally, the Tamron is only $800 whereas this Sigma is almost double that at $1,500. So not only is the Tamron far more useful with focal length range and close-up ability, but it is also much more affordable.
Seems to me the Tamron is a clear winner inasmuch as overall usefulness and versatility is concerned, especially if 106mm to 300mm is something you use much more than 28mm to 49mm, and it you're almost always stopping down to at least f4 anyway,
You're comparing apples to oranges. Clearly, an f2.8 zoom is aimed at folks who 1) shoot in low light, and/or 2) want shallow DoF. While I intend to get a 50-300 to pair with my 20-40 for walkabout, the 50-300 does not address either of the two priorities I described above. For that, I prefer my 35-150/2.0-2.8.
Poor Canon shooters want to think the best in Canon's lineup is the best in any lineup. So sad.
The answer to the question depends on what you want to do with it. As an event shooter, I'd much rather have a 35-150/2.0-2.8. A 28-105/2.8 is 1) not as bright, and 2) too limited at both ends of the zoom range. With a 35-150, I need only one other lens: an ultra-wide-angle zoom such as my Tamron 20-40/2.8. These two cover all my bases. Plus, I get f2.0 at 35mm. Groovy.
And, while 28-105 or 24-105 might be decent one-lens solutions, this f2.8 is bigger and heavier than most folks want for walkabout.
I have to wonder who this lens is for.
Jacques Cornell wrote:
"Poor Canon shooters want to think the best in Canon's lineup is the best in any lineup. So sad."
I don't understand why you wrote that .... it is not true at all.
I have been a Canon shooter for almost 20 years, and I can not remember thinking that at any time. Although I have owned and used some very good Canon lenses, I actually think that Tamron, Sigma, and Laowa make much more useful lenses than Canon makes.
Canon is not very innovative, and tends to stick to the traditional focal length / aperture combinations. They only just started making somewhat innovative lenses over the past several years, probably because they were forced to do so because all of their competitors have embraced innovation.
The last 7 lenses I have bought have all been 3rd party lenses, and it is NOT a budget thing. It is because the best lenses for what I do are NOT Canon lenses, because Canon does not make the kinds of lenses I need.
So why do you have such a bizarre misconception of Canon shooters thinking, to a man, that Canon lenses are the best? Many, many, many of my friends shoot Canon but use Sigma, Tamron, and Laowa lenses. You seem to have gotten bad information somewhere, or maybe you only talk to photographers on the internet and do not have a lot of real-life interaction with Canon shooters.
The tone of articles and their titles about the Sigma and Canon 28-105/2.8 zooms implies that these are "the best" whatever, as if nothing like them exists anywhere outside the Canon universe.
Also, I didn't say ALL Canon shooters, "to a man", but it seems that SOME, particularly in the camera media, have a somewhat myopic view of the importance of these lenses in the broader world of camera gear.
FWIW, I shot Canon professionally 2002-2012.
Ok, fair enough.
But personally, I prefer to base my statements on things I hear real people say in real life. If you base your general overarching statements on things you read online, they can be wrong because that doesn't accurately represent reality. Often, online personalities say things they don't really mean, or don't mean literally, just to generate clicks and views. Just because a few dozen people posting videos and writing articles say that they think some Canon lens is "the best" does not at all mean that most Canon shooters feel that way.
First I am a hobbyist so I can capture what gets my eye working. As a Sony user from beginning days I really have a hard time with those wanting very fast glass. We have ISO auto (always on) and for bokeh just use the the small square over your subject or with Eye and subject AF you get the bokeh.
The one lens I have on my newest camera the A7RM5 is the FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS (36-360mm in APS-C) for that what ever happens while on a walkabout or on a drive about. And for wider capture the E 10-18mm f/4 OSS (15-27mm) but in Full Frame 12-18mm (18mm if light shield in rear removed) has threads for filters up front and the new rear filters by Haida filters. A Sony !2-24mm is big heavy lens so in the field the little tiny E 10-18mm is a dream, just do not use the tulip in FF.
The first image is the 24-105mm after both A7RM5 and lens updates at 92mm on a windy afternoon stop action and wow bokeh. The last three are using the 24-240 and the 3rd is at 240 and using little square focused on the donkey's head still buttery in fore and after ground. The forth was taken when driving home I saw a crescent moon setting with earth glow and I also captured the comet unknowingly so also good in low light. If anything Sony should update the 24-240mm to be like the 200-600mm as a inside telephoto lens and with the new magnetic AF rails and not needed but all would buy if a f/4 or even f/2.8.
Fast Glass on a Sony why with todays software noise is no longer a real problem and with auto ISO and ISO's rarely above 12800 even if doing indoor play work, they use lights!!! I used the E 10-18mm in FF mode in 2015 to do wide 30sec. Astro Milky Ways and rarely above 6400 mostly 3200 on very dark beaches, even cities and towns are so bright again f/4 is good for stopping motion.
A added thing is I have collected most every lens before the II models that still work great, Sony has covered all basic lens models and now just improving the old with the I and II and at low prices again but I guess the the new generation of video makers want more or think they need more!
"I really have a hard time with those wanting very fast glass."
Why do you "have a hard time" with pros who shoot moving subjects in very low light wanting fast glass if that's what the job requires?
"We have ISO auto"
This is irrelevant. I use Auto ISO in event work, up to ISO 25,600 as a matter of convenience and operational speed. But, setting ISO to "Auto" doesn't make the camera gather more light.
"and for bokeh just use the the small square over your subject or with Eye and subject AF you get the bokeh."
That's not how bokeh works. A larger aperture, longer focal length and/or closer subject distance is what makes depth of focus shallower. It's got nothing to do with "the small square over your subject" or "Eye and subject AF".
Edwin Genaux wrote:
"As a Sony user from beginning days I really have a hard time with those wanting very fast glass. We have ISO auto (always on) and for bokeh just use the the small square over your subject or with Eye and subject AF you get the bokeh."
Why do you "have a hard time" with the choices that other photographers make? Do you think you know better than they do what will work best for the photography that they are doing?
Firstly, these days the desire for fast glass often has little to do with shooting in low light or wanting faster shutter speeds. It is more often about the shallow depth of field that a wide aperture provides.
Secondly, what you say about AF and the small square and bokeh doesn't make any sense to me. Autofocus has nothing to do with bokeh at all. So what relationship do you see between the small square autofocus point and bokeh? The images you included with your comment don't exhibit shallow depth of field, or particularly nice bokeh, so I am further confused by your statement about the AF square and bokeh.
I must be different from most other posters.
The 24mm width is far, far more important for me than the longer focal length.
Doing more landscape shots, the 2.8 would be handy, but clearly not as important for those ,say, shooting indoors.
My preference would probably be to retain my excellent 24-70 2.8 as it suits my needs.
Also have and frequently use a wide angle zoom, so perhaps I am not in the target audience for this, quality, lens.