# Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?



## jeffa4444 (Aug 20, 2014)

The Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM was launched in 2005 so its nearly ten years old. In that period sensor design has changed dramatically and as this is likely the most standard L zoom sold for full-frame due I think for an update. 
The existing lens is good but competition has now caught up and my biggest bug bear with it are the lateral CAs at either end of the zoom range especially the wide end. Yes you shout Lightroom profiles can correct that but I always think at the expense of some definition. 
I would also like to see if an internal zooming design could be adopted rather than the front tracking out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2014)

The refresh was called the 24-70mm f/4L IS.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 20, 2014)

So they just lobbed off 35mm in reach? 
Seriously if that is an answer then Sigma will definately take sales with their 24-105mm, secondly if that is an answer then why does Canon package the 24-105mm with cameras rather than the 24-70mm f4?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2014)

The 24-105 makes for a cheaper kit, but Canon now sells kits with the 24-70/4 IS, too. 

I don't think the Sigma 24-105 delivers significantly better IQ than the Canon 24-105, and the Canon is cheaper (as a new white box lens).


----------



## Tanispyre (Aug 21, 2014)

I agree, the 24-70 IS is a poor replacement for the 24-105, the loss of range is nowhere compensated by the gain of a special macro mode, and a minor increase in image quality. I think the 24-70 IS is a nice lens but Canon needs something better for a general walk around lens for their full frame cameras. A new 24-105, or even better a 24-135 lens would be greatly appreciated. 

What I think Canon should do is make a full frame equivalent of the EF-S 15-85 IS. Preferably with a constant aperture for the Videographers, and good weather sealing.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 21, 2014)

Filmmaker and travel photographer here. The Canon 24-105 is the BEST overall lens for full-frame filmmaking. I've found it absolutely indispensable filming with the 5D and as a walk-around lens and don't think there is any substitute. The

• tele reach
• IS and
• constant aperture 

are must haves for quick run and gun style shooting. 

Couldn't imagine life without it, so if Canon refreshes, I'd be among the first to buy. And my hope is that within a couple of years, they will refresh. Sure, we could use a longer tele throw, but I'd rather they improve quality.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 21, 2014)

I would love to see an updated 24-105 that uses newer IS tech, better optics and everything else. However, to approach the IQ of the 24-70 with the longer FL of the 24-105, it will be very expensive, maybe even more expensive than the 24-70 II or f/4. So, I suspect that Canon has determined that a refresh of the current 24-105 will not be significant enough to merit the effort if the new price is to stay in the same range as the current lens. The current lens is 'good enough' as it is.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't think the Sigma 24-105 delivers significantly better IQ than the Canon 24-105, and the Canon is cheaper (as a new white box lens).





Tanispyre said:


> I agree, the 24-70 IS is a poor replacement for the 24-105, the loss of range is nowhere compensated by the gain of a special macro mode, and a minor increase in image quality.





RustyTheGeek said:


> However, to approach the IQ of the 24-70 with the longer FL of the 24-105, it will be very expensive...



Those are your answers. 

Technically, this lens retails for more than $1,100 in the U.S., but no one pays that much. In a kit or as a "white box" it goes for about half that amount. It is one of the best bargains available and the incremental cost for improving it would be higher than most people are willing to pay.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 21, 2014)

And I'm okay with Canon if they don't refresh it -- just keep selling it. They have bigger things to work on, like that 14-24 or 12-24L I'll be buying


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 21, 2014)

I was very happy with my 24-105mm L. I remember when they first came out, and how difficult it was to get one. Just the same, I needed a wider aperture, and the 24-70mm f/2.8L provided it.

I doubt that we will see a replacement unless its a lower cost design that sells for more. Any time Canon upgrades a "L" lens, they move to the best possible performance that they believe can be sold. This usually results in a big price increase. There are some who might pay $ 1500-$1800 for a small improvement, but not many.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 21, 2014)

The 24 -105 was introduced with the original 5D and that combination made a budget wedding photographers 'kit'. The 105mm focal length went someway to compensate for the dof of an f4 lens so you can still produce some nice shallow dof portraits. I would suggest that for an event like a wedding the 24-105 is a much better lens to use than the 24-70 F4 IS, whereas if you are looking for a sharp landscape lens to use instead of primes, the latter is definitely better - assuming you get one that has been tuned up correctly. 

I don't think we will see a mark II because, as has been pointed out, to improve the IQ over that range the increase in cost is going to be prohibitive. Also the mark I is still such a good lens for weddings ! I don't do many, but on one recently I used the 24-105 much of the time, and I was really pleased with the results.


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Aug 21, 2014)

Gonna throw my two cents in here.

The last few years I've been doing documentary work in Uganda, Kenya, India and Australia, and I can say the 24-105 is my go to lens, right next to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Honestly, even if they updated this lens I don't think I would buy it unless it was literally a mind blowing difference in image quality. Just got my Sony A7s in the other day, and believe me when I say that was a pair made in heaven, especially with the APS-C mode built into the camera.

This lens gets a lot of crap from people, but I really can't think of a better lens that I've used for documentary work.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 21, 2014)

I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed... That was after the CPS discount.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 21, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed... That was after the CPS discount.



The 24–105 L shouldn't creep—mine certainly doesn't. The problem is usually easy to fix, though:

http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1182560


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed... That was after the CPS discount.
> ...



Zoom creep? Try the 15-85 EF-S for awhile and then you'll know what zoom creep is all about.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 22, 2014)

unfocused said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



The zoom creep i'm talking about is the kind where if i'm with my family, or walking with a client, or any thing of the sorts, just the vibrations of me walking with the camera on the strap around my neck/shoulder would be enough to move the zoom from the 24 to 105 position. It's usually a gradual thing but something where now i've got to check every few minutes to make sure it hasn't creeped on me.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 22, 2014)

Even if they had one of those locks like on the 70-300 L, i'd be happy


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 22, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed... That was after the CPS discount.
> ...


Ditto. I've had mine since 2009 and it still doesn't creep. Not that I know of anyway. (But I still wouldn't mind a lock on it.) Anyway, I like my 24-105 regardless of what is said about it.


----------



## pwp (Aug 22, 2014)

I accidentally packed the old 24-105 for a job recently instead of the 24-70 f/2.8II. Initially annoyed, I got to work and immediately appreciated the extra reach. When I got to the post-production I was amazed as I was reminded just how good this lens really is. I'm not about to rush out and sell the 24-70 f/2.8II, but I can see valid reasons for keeping the 24-105. 

It's a great lens, a lot of peoples all-time favorite and in no need of a refresh. What's not to like?

-pw


----------



## Zv (Aug 22, 2014)

I've had mine just under a year and it's easily my most used lens. I didn't have a high expectation at first but comparing it to my other lenses it does well. It's great for walkabouts, travel and events. Little bit soft on the tele end and f/4 which is understandable. I don't think this lens needs a refresh. Sigma's offering kind of proves that in a way (Sigma's is bigger and heavier and didn't really create the demand some expected). To improve upon it would mean a higher cost that frankly could go towards a prime lens instead. As a kit lens it ticks all the right boxes. I see it as something to build upon and you should have some other lenses to compliment it on FF anyway. If you need sharper or faster there's the excellent 24-70LII. 

I don't think the 24-70 f/L4 IS was meant to replace it. Seems both can exist side by side. The 24-70/4 will appeal to different photogs who likely shoot more landscape and nature stuff. As a travel lens I much prefer the 24-105.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 22, 2014)

I have the 6D. I have been debating on whether to get the Canon 24-105, the Sigma 24-105, the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II no-IS, or just putz about with the manual focus, manual aperture legacy prime lenses for a while longer.

My legacy lenses include pre-AI and AI/AIS Nikkors passed down from my father: 50 f/1.2, 55 f/3.5 P-C Macro, 105 f/2.5 (older), 135 f/ 2.8. Also resurrected from the back of the closet is my collection of M42 screw mount lenses from my old Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000, including the M-S 55 f/1.4 and M-S 60mm f/2.8 preset aperture 1:1 macro, both of which have appealing color and character a little different from the modern lenses, not to mention (for the 60mm macro) a funky hexagonal bokeh that can appear in some macro shots. The Nikkor 50 f/1.2 and 105 f/2.5 have their own character as well. I suppose that the difference between old and new coatings, optical design, etc means that the character of old lenses is in large part due to a pleasing balance of aberrations, whereas the modern lenses aim for and come far closer to absence of aberrations, thus are slightly "clinical" in character. I have no wide angle legacy lenses that are safe to use (known not to hang up the mirror) with the Canon 6D. I have modern Samyang 14, Zeiss 21 (bought used at the same time as the 6D - was going to buy zoom, saw Zeiss, made the "mistake" of putting it on the 6D - normal zoom purchase was postponed), Sigma Art 35 f/1.4 (formerly a fast normal prime for my 60D), each a delight in its own way.

I daresay that I will break down and get a modern zoom for convenience and weight savings vs carrying multiple, if individually small, old primes. I have had fun with old primes for the price of a few adapters.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So what needs fixing?
> 
> * distortion at the wide end - use the 16-35 f/4L
> * softness at the long end - use the 70-300L
> ...



*distortion at the wide end: think of it as a 28-105 and you won't go far wrong
*softness at the long end: improve your technique
*lack of IQ in the middle: give up photography and take up embroidery.


----------



## Zv (Aug 22, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > So what needs fixing?
> ...



Too right the things solid in the middle. Even 24mm works out quite good. I recently compared it to my 17-40L and it was sharper at all overlapping focal lengths. Not too shabby.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 22, 2014)

The 24-105mm is different from other lenses:

1. The 24-105mm is a kit lens for two FF cameras, so it's white box price is a high priority for Canon. Therefore, Canon will be more sensitive to it's production costs, and less willing to invest in making the big investment in replacing it.

[This plays part in both upgrades from crop and in competition to Nikon kits.]

2. Being a kit lens, it should be positioned so as to encourage photographers to upgrade to other lenses - better, wider, longer, faster, etc.

A new 24-105mm would be detrimental to both causes, so I expect Canon to delay upgrade as long as it can. Currently Canon has the advantage of being able to offer a more attractive price in a kit, so I don't see how an upgrade would be urgent from Canon's point of view.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 22, 2014)

My most frequent use of the 24-105 now is for video with an adapter on the EOS-M. It is remarkably good for this purpose.

I have magic lantern on the EOS-M, which has 3x video crop mode. This lens becomes 38-168 mm FF equiv in normal video mode, and about 115-500 mm in video crop mode. The results are far superior to any consumer camcorder, and at a lower price. Not to mention the humble 22mm f/2 becomes a 35mm / 115mm lens. 

All of that for around $1000 ... you could literally make a feature film ... just add some audio equipment and support gear.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 22, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> The 24-105mm is different from other lenses:
> 
> 1. The 24-105mm is a kit lens for two FF cameras, so it's white box price is a high priority for Canon. Therefore, Canon will be more sensitive to it's production costs, and less willing to invest in making the big investment in replacing it.
> 
> ...



Or... the 24-70 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 24-105 f/4 IS as the sole kit lens. The 24-105 f/4 IS could then be redesigned to have better performance but for a higher price tag that will not be discounted as heavily because it will no longer be a kit lens. Some will upgrade from the 24-70 f/4 IS to the 24-105 f/4 IS II because it will be better with a longer focal length.

If Canon were to offer an updated 24-105 f/4 IS II in a kit configuration, then there will little point for having the 24-70 f/4 IS in the first place. And if Canon designed the 24-70 f/4 IS to be a kit lens from the start, so that it's production costs are reasonable, then it can discount it in a kit aggressively while maintaining a reason for people to look for a reason to replace their kit lens.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 22, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105mm is different from other lenses:
> ...



I don't see Canon selling a kit lens that is 35mm shorter than Sigma's alternative, which will be cheaper than the 24-105mm mk2, and 50mm shorter than Nikon's kit lens.



Random Orbits said:


> If Canon were to offer an updated 24-105 f/4 IS II in a kit configuration, then there will little point for having the 24-70 f/4 IS in the first place. And if Canon designed the 24-70 f/4 IS to be a kit lens from the start, so that it's production costs are reasonable, then it can discount it in a kit aggressively while maintaining a reason for people to look for a reason to replace their kit lens.



That will create the image of Canon downgrading it's kit to make buyers draw the short straw.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 22, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Or... the 24-70 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 24-105 f/4 IS as the sole kit lens. The 24-105 f/4 IS could then be redesigned to have better performance but for a higher price tag that will not be discounted as heavily because it will no longer be a kit lens. Some will upgrade from the 24-70 f/4 IS to the 24-105 f/4 IS II because it will be better with a longer focal length.
> ...



Perhaps, but if it can offer the kit lens at *lower* price, then it gets people to buy into the Canon eco-system, which is what matters. The Sigma can't be included in a kit, so you'll always be paying full price for it. As long as the 24-105 is a kit lens, Canon will not be able to raise the price to make developing a more costly version II worth it. I am cynical, after all... :


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 22, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



If they really want to convince people to adopt the Canon FF system, they should update the 28–135 into a more respectable 24–135. Make that the kit lens (comparable to the standard 15-85 kit lens on crop), and price it at a significantly lower price than the 24–105, with less than L quality but significantly better build quality than the current 28–135 (which IMO is crap even by EF-S standards).

Then they could update the 24–105 with higher IQ as a non-kit lens.


----------



## philam65 (Aug 23, 2014)

> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 6D. I have been debating on whether to get the Canon 24-105, the Sigma 24-105, the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II no-IS, or just putz about with the manual focus, manual aperture legacy prime lenses for a while longer.
> ...


----------



## Zv (Aug 23, 2014)

philam65 said:


> > NancyP said:
> >
> >
> > > I have the 6D. I have been debating on whether to get the Canon 24-105, the Sigma 24-105, the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II no-IS, or just putz about with the manual focus, manual aperture legacy prime lenses for a while longer.
> > ...


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 23, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> If they really want to convince people to adopt the Canon FF system, they should update the 28–135 into a more respectable 24–135. Make that the kit lens (comparable to the standard 15-85 kit lens on crop), and price it at a significantly lower price than the 24–105, with less than L quality but significantly better build quality than the current 28–135 (which IMO is crap even by EF-S standards).



In film days, people bought a kit, then started figuring out what film they liked, what lenses they needed, and maybe start a home lab to develop & print their own B&W film.

Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.

Which is why I think Canon released a new & expensive L kit lens for the 5D, and for to Nikon eventually follow suit and release the Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR.

[It could be argued the EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4 L USM would have done the trick, but I think Canon wanted to encourage people to buy another lens to get f/2.8, and spoiling people with IS could encourage them to keep on buying lenses with IS.]


----------



## Badger (Aug 23, 2014)

I got this lens as part of a kit with the 6D. I think my issue is that it is an L lens and as such, I had certain expectations. I think if they removed the damned red ring from the lens, it would solve a ton of issues. Its a really good lens but for many of us non pros, we assumed that if it is an L lens, it would be at the pinnacle of quality and performance.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 23, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.



Non-L doesn't have to mean crap. Look at the EF-S 10–22, which (in relative terms on crop vs. full-frame) outperforms the 10–22 L II at corner sharpness (though not quite as sharp in the center). In my mind, the distinction between L and non-L is more materials (metal versus plastic), build tolerances, and aperture. So the non-L version might be f/4–f/5.6 instead of a constant f/4, it might have more plastic in its construction, and the barrel might wiggle a little more.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 23, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.
> ...





Badger said:


> I got this lens as part of a kit with the 6D. I think my issue is that it is an L lens and as such, I had certain expectations. I think if they removed the damned red ring from the lens, it would solve a ton of issues. Its a really good lens but for many of us non pros, we assumed that if it is an L lens, it would be at the pinnacle of quality and performance.



It probably was... nine years ago....


----------



## Zv (Aug 24, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.
> ...



I had the EF-S 10-22mm lens and at that time it was my third lens after the 18-55 kit and nifty fifty and yeah when I got it I was like "this thing is solid!". It worked well and I loved it (kinda miss it a little). Then I replaced it with the 17-40L and for a brief time I had both lenses. First thing I noticed about the 17-40L was that it was built like a tank. What i previously thought about "solid build quality" regarding the 10-22 went out the window! Damn that thing is tight! 

Regardless of optical performance (I think the 17-40L is quite good but others disagree) I no longer worry about my lenses when traveling and moving around. The lenses are built to take punishment and keep on working in adverse conditions. That part is worth the L designation in itself. 

It's amusing when you see people baby their plastic kit lenses with (cheap) filters plus a lens cap on top of that filter like some catastrophe is about to befall them at any moment.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 24, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.
> ...



Quality isn't just IQ. It's aperture (which I've mentioned), materials, and build tolerances as well.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 24, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



I guess my point was that folks who buy the kit lens with a FF DSLR are either upgrading from a crop and replacing all their lenses (in which case they'd probably like something with a focal range that's angle-equivalent to their main crop lens) or they're just starting out. In either case, it's probably their first FF lens (unless they own a long zoom), and for most of them, build quality will be a secondary concern to IQ, particularly since they're probably used to the sloppier build quality that seems to be fairly common in EF-S lenses.

And although most of the pros would lean towards an L lens because of the higher build quality, that doesn't necessarily have much bearing on what the next kit lens should be, because most of them already own lenses, and aren't likely to buy a kit with a lens anyway. 

But if the IQ sucks, that's a different matter, because it brings down the perception of the brand as a maker of quality gear. I think that if the lens's build quality is at least on par with the 10–22, and if the IQ is reasonably good, it will be well received as a starter lens for FF users, which is what a kit lens really is, after all.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 24, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> I guess my point was that folks who buy the kit lens with a FF DSLR are either upgrading from a crop and replacing all their lenses (in which case they'd probably like something with a focal range that's angle-equivalent to their main crop lens) or they're just starting out. In either case, it's probably their first FF lens (unless they own a long zoom), and for most of them, build quality will be a secondary concern to IQ



A. When I spend good money on a product, I expect it to have build quality to match. I also wanted something wider than the EF-S 17-85mm that I replaced with the EF 24-105mm. I upgraded from EF-S 10-22mm to EF 17-40mm.

B. People who get to the point of upgrading to FF should be able to read and understand lens reviews, search for photos taken with various lenses, and get a good feeling of what is it they're getting.

[OK, they might be idiots with cash to spare, in which case there's no point in discussing their motivation.]



dgatwood said:


> And although most of the pros would lean towards an L lens because of the higher build quality, that doesn't necessarily have much bearing on what the next kit lens should be, because most of them already own lenses, and aren't likely to buy a kit with a lens anyway.



Exactly - I don't expect pros to upgrade their kit lens, which is what the 24-105mm is.

If a pro wants an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM with significantly better IQ, he'd probably be willing to split extra cash on something that is too expensive to be kit. It's analogous to the difference between the EF-S 18-200 and the EF 28-300mm L. If you want convenient & cheap, buy crop. If you need convenient & pro, fork a few thousands of dollars on FF body & superzoom, knowing full well you're still making some compromises.

[In other words: the point of kit is cheap, and the reality of cheap is that it sucks, as in not being one of the best L lenses around.]


----------

