# Updated 24-105 f/4L IS - II ... WHEN??? or WHY NOT???



## RustyTheGeek (May 14, 2016)

Gonna throw this out there and see what happens...

I love the quality of my 24-70 f/2.8L - II. I _really_ love the quality of my 70-200 f/2.8L IS - II !!

But honestly, my first love (and first L lens way back) was the 24-105 f/4L IS. And I still use that lens all the time. It's a very versatile zoom FL and the IS is very useful. It's a great value of an L lens. It's a great single lens walk around solution and it works pretty well on both APS-C and FF cameras.

So when will they come out with a 24-105 that has updated tech and upgraded quality like the other new L lenses??? And for all those that say, "They never will!", why not?

FWIW - my vote is in the #1 or #2 range. In spite of what some think, I like this lens and would love a new version. I wouldn't wait very long unless it was way over priced. That might put me off a while.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 14, 2016)

I doubt that I'd buy one for 3X the price. The one out there now is great. 

The selection of options does not give this choice, there would have to be a infinite number of detail reasons listed to cover everyone. 

It is a simple yes or no question to me, we all know the price would be $1500 and you can get the current version for under $600 most of the time.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 14, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I doubt that I'd buy one for 3X the price. The one out there now is great.
> 
> The selection of options does not give this choice, there would have to be a infinite number of detail reasons listed to cover everyone.
> 
> It is a simple yes or no question to me, we all know the price would be $1500 and you can get the current version for under $600 most of the time.



I changed the selection options to be more simple. Think that works better?

As for price, let's keep in mind that the current version (while it's pretty good) is heavily discounted due to the saturated market and large supply. Plus it's been out for a long time and is still popular. Retail price is around $1000 which is realistic. A new version at $1300 - $1500 starting out isn't abnormal with the price dropping back to around $1200 after a while. That's to be expected.


----------



## drob (May 14, 2016)

It's a great lens. Definitely a workhorse on my camera too. I also wonder why not update this lens. I'd actually like Canon to go one step further an offer a 24-105 F2.8. How sweet would that be?


----------



## j-nord (May 14, 2016)

The 24-105L is a kit lens so they go for pretty cheap in the used market. I think the $1k msrp (currently, on b&h) is very steep. I believe the 24-70 f4 IS started at $1500 and is now going for $900 new even though it's undoubtedly a better, newer lens. Some argue the 24-70 f4 IS is the mkii version of the 24-105L being that its better across the board however, the huge drop in price in a few years means it isnt selling well. Between the 24-105 and 24-70 f4 I think the market is extremely saturated for such a lens. It would have to be an exceptionally sharp lens at a good price to convince mki or 24-70 f4 IS owners to upgrade. For these reasons, I doubt they will put out a 24-105ii any time soon. 

That being said, Id definitely be interested in one if its noticably sharper than the 24-70 f4 IS and I can get one for around $1000. I got the 24-70 f4 IS for $800 after rebate a year ago.


----------



## j-nord (May 14, 2016)

drob said:


> It's a great lens. Definitely a workhorse on my camera too. I also wonder why not update this lens. I'd actually like Canon to go one step further an offer a 24-105 F2.8. How sweet would that be?


Unlikely since it would closely compete with the 24-70 f2.8 ii but would be even more expensive.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 14, 2016)

j-nord said:


> The 24-105L is a kit lens so they go for pretty cheap in the used market. I think the $1k msrp (currently, on b&h) is very steep. I believe the 24-70 f4 IS started at $1500 and is now going for $900 new even though it's undoubtedly a better, newer lens. Some argue the 24-70 f4 IS is the mkii version of the 24-105L being that its better across the board however, the huge drop in price in a few years means it isnt selling well. Between the 24-105 and 24-70 f4 I think the market is extremely saturated for such a lens. It would have to be an exceptionally sharp lens at a good price to convince mki or 24-70 f4 IS owners to upgrade. For these reasons, I doubt they will put out a 24-105ii any time soon.
> 
> That being said, Id definitely be interested in one if its noticably sharper than the 24-70 f4 IS and I can get one for around $1000. I got the 24-70 f4 IS for $800 after rebate a year ago.



+1 

I haven't tried the 24-70 f/4, but from what I've read it gets soft around 50mm. Maybe earlier productions were affected and that's been fixed now. Does anyone who has the lens agree? Beyond that, the reviews say it's really good at 24 and 70mm and the macro feature is handy to have, so I agree this is your mkII version of the 24-105. 

I bought a 24-105 when the white box market dropped to $500 so I haven't felt the need to try the 24-70. I agree that a new variant would need to provide compelling optics upgrade with a reasonable price tag for me to consider switching. There was a rumor not too long ago that we may be surprised at an upgrade of an existing lens...who knows if this one may be it.


----------



## midluk (May 14, 2016)

This would be the perfect kit lens for a 5D series camera. So it might be released together with the 5D4. Or we have to wait a few years for the 5D5.

This at least would ease the decision whether to get a 24-70 or 24-105 when I go FF.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 14, 2016)

midluk said:


> This would be the perfect kit lens for a 5D series camera. So it might be released together with the 5D4. Or we have to wait a few years for the 5D5.
> 
> This at least would ease the decision whether to get a 24-70 or 24-105 when I go FF.



Yes, you are correct! It _would_ be the perfect kit lens for a 5D series camera! Which is why it WAS the kit lens for the 5D Mark II.  In fact, that's how I obtained mine back in early 2010. A friend purchased the 5D Mark II + 24-105 Kit and I purchased the 24-105 from her because she already had that lens.

I think the 24-105 is more versatile than the 24-70 but I also understand that the challenges in IQ improvement increase with larger FL zoom ranges. So I think I understand why the 24-105 isn't promoted as much/given the same love as as the 24-70. But in a perfect world, I would love to see a 24-105 f/2.8 IS with the IQ of the 24-70 f/2.8 - II. I know that's not going to happen but I would settle for top notch IQ in a 24-105 f/4 IS - II. It would go well with the 16-35 f/4 IS and 70-200 IS all using a 77mm filter. And image isolation/bokeh aside, I can usually get away with f/4 using the newer camera sensors.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 14, 2016)

OK, not sure how I missed the similar 24-105 thread (started by Nitroman) that was started a couple weeks ago. I actually did look before I posted! D'Oh! :


----------



## Maximilian (May 14, 2016)

Hi Rusty! 

Good Poll! I feel tha same like you! I really love that lens and I would like to see it improved to todays standards.
So you know what I've voted for. 

But honestly I believe - like others - that the successor in the eyes of Canon is already there and called 24-70/4.0 L.

But I reallyreallyreally hope that that's not Canon's last word on that.


----------



## jd7 (May 15, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> I haven't tried the 24-70 f/4, but from what I've read it gets soft around 50mm. Maybe earlier productions were affected and that's been fixed now. Does anyone who has the lens agree?



My 24-70/4 IS has no problem at 50 mm. I might be able to convince myself it is ever so slightly less sharp at 50 mm than at other focal lengths, but if there is a difference it is splitting hairs. Basically it's the same throughout the whole focal length range.

That said, my copy was very poor at 50 mm, and almost as poor at 35 mm, when I first bought it. I nearly returned it, but instead I got it calibrated by Canon.


----------



## LoneRider (May 15, 2016)

I think you need a 4th option, well maybe. I am transitioning from crop to FF, and with that I need to replace the 28-135 lens that came with the 50D. It is most definitely a budget lens.

Anyway, it is likely going to be replaced with a Sigma 24-105 F4 in the coming weeks for summer vacations. And of course the 7D is likely to be replaced by the 5D-iv.


----------



## jd7 (May 15, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I think the 24-105 is more versatile than the 24-70 but I also understand that the challenges in IQ improvement increase with larger FL zoom ranges. So I think I understand why the 24-105 isn't promoted as much/given the same love as as the 24-70. But in a perfect world, I would love to see a 24-105 f/2.8 IS with the IQ of the 24-70 f/2.8 - II. I know that's not going to happen but I would settle for top notch IQ in a 24-105 f/4 IS - II. It would go well with the 16-35 f/4 IS and 70-200 IS all using a 77mm filter. And image isolation/bokeh aside, I can usually get away with f/4 using the newer camera sensors.



Hi Rusty
I agree with most of that, except perhaps about a 2.8 version. In theory I would love it, but in practice I think it would be so much bigger and heavier that it would cease to be a good walk around lens ... and at least for me that is what you I want in the context of that focal length range. I suppose Canon could make both a 2.8 and a 4, but then where would that leave the 24-70 2.8? And I assume it's not easy in any event - the extra focal length range of a 24-105 compared with 24-70 would make it harder to design a lens with the same IQ.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 15, 2016)

jd7 said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 24-105 is more versatile than the 24-70 but I also understand that the challenges in IQ improvement increase with larger FL zoom ranges. So I think I understand why the 24-105 isn't promoted as much/given the same love as as the 24-70. But in a perfect world, I would love to see a 24-105 f/2.8 IS with the IQ of the 24-70 f/2.8 - II. I know that's not going to happen but I would settle for top notch IQ in a 24-105 f/4 IS - II. It would go well with the 16-35 f/4 IS and 70-200 IS all using a 77mm filter. And image isolation/bokeh aside, I can usually get away with f/4 using the newer camera sensors.
> ...



Yep! I agree. Just make a new 24-105 f/4 with top notch IQ and new IS Tech. Super Macro would be nice too (like the 24-70 f/4 IS). In other words, I wish they had just made the current 24-70 f/4 IS a 24-105. :-[


----------



## The Supplanter (May 15, 2016)

Would anyone be interested if the lens in the link replaced the current 24-105 f4 IS?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27308.0


----------



## dak723 (May 15, 2016)

You missed this option to vote for:

I have the existing lens - am happy with it - and don't see any reason to update it as it already has IS. It does the job and there would be no reason to spend money on a newer version.


----------



## davidmurray (May 15, 2016)

I've already got good longer focal length lenses for when I want the very best and I have the time to play around with swapping lenses. The gap in my bag is wide to short telephoto constant f2.8 that I can leave on my 5D3 as a general purpose take everywhere lens that doesn't require a gym membership to handle.

F4 is not quite fast enough in a number of circumstances where a flash would be too intrusive.


----------



## jd7 (May 15, 2016)

PA_phoxerballzz said:


> Would anyone be interested if the lens in the link replaced the current 24-105 f4 IS?
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27308.0



Personally, no. I wouldn't want the max aperture to be slower than 4, and I'd be willing to forgo the extra focal length range to have that.


----------



## rcarca (May 15, 2016)

I loved the 24-105 when I bought my 5Diii. It was largely replaced by my 24-70 and 70-200 both 2.8. And then it was stolen and I have mourned its passing! I am even contemplating getting a new one because of its versatility. But an updated version would be perfect and will come out approximately 2 months after I push the button on acquiring the existing one!


----------



## old-pr-pix (May 15, 2016)

One complaint I have with current 24-105 design is that is really isn't that close to an f4 lens. It's T-stop value is closer to making it an f5.6 lens - which is pretty slow. The Sigma version of 24-105 seems to be truer f4 -- testing shows the Sigma provides almost 1 full stop more light transmission.

A new Canon version of the 24-105L with up to date coatings, a tweaking to improve optical formula (and/or reduce copy-copy variation), latest IS technology, and superior weather sealing would seem to be in order at some point. I'm good for the moment with the one I have (cost $800 white box new several years ago) but would seriously consider upgrade if improvements were significant. 

Likely Canon will keep cranking out the current design until it feels the tools and fixtures are getting so worn it can't make lenses that pass spec. any longer.


----------



## 4myrrh1 (May 15, 2016)

drob said:


> It's a great lens. Definitely a workhorse on my camera too. I also wonder why not update this lens. I'd actually like Canon to go one step further an offer a 24-105 F2.8. How sweet would that be?


That is the answer to my shooting requirements. I need the 105 and also would make use of the 2.8 almost half the shooting that I do. It really would be an ultimate walk around lens.


----------



## Pookie (May 15, 2016)

4myrrh1 said:


> drob said:
> 
> 
> > It's a great lens. Definitely a workhorse on my camera too. I also wonder why not update this lens. I'd actually like Canon to go one step further an offer a 24-105 F2.8. How sweet would that be?
> ...



Ultimate walk around lens  Not at the weight consideration of that FL range @2.8


----------



## JonAustin (May 15, 2016)

Bought my first 24-105L new for $1,100 in 2005, after Canon resolved the optical issues with the early batches. It was my most-used lens, and it eventually developed zoom creep. None of the on-line fixes I tried helped with the creep.

Bought my second 24-105L new out of another photographer's kit for $715 in 2013, and sold my original for $500 the same month. Still my most-used lens, also developed zoom creep.

I've mulled over the 24-105L vs 24-70/4L decision many times, and I'm just not willing to give up the extra reach for a marginal improvement in IQ. I don't need the macro, nor can I justify one of each lens, given how similar they are.

I would jump on a new, improved version of the 24-105L, with all the latest design tech, especially if Canon were to integrate a zoom lock of some kind!

In the event Canon never releases a successor, I'll likely hold onto my current copy and add the inevitable 24-70/2.8L IS, once its price drops down from the stratosphere.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 16, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> Bought my first 24-105L new for $1,100 in 2005, after Canon resolved the optical issues with the early batches. It was my most-used lens, and it eventually developed zoom creep. None of the on-line fixes I tried helped with the creep.
> 
> Bought my second 24-105L new out of another photographer's kit for $715 in 2013, and sold my original for $500 the same month. Still my most-used lens, also developed zoom creep.
> 
> ...



I bought a couple 24-105 lenses recently during a recent eBay discount sale to resell to help fund the 80D. I still have one I haven't sold yet. I considered keeping the new one and selling my old one (from 2010). My old one works fine and does NOT have zoom creep yet so I figure maybe I have a good copy and I should leave well enough alone! You know, if it ain't broke...!


----------



## SeppOz (May 16, 2016)

I have been one of the unfortunate ones caught by the diaphragm motor cable failure. Day two of a sight seeing holiday  .
Apart from that, really like the lens on my 5D III; would like it brought up to date and that weakness fixed.


----------



## Zv (May 16, 2016)

I like my old 24-105L just the way it is. I bought it used so it was fairly cheap and I've used it a lot. It failed on me once though (diaphragm issue) and that was an inconvenience but other than that it's performed it's job as a general purpose lens very well. I've thought about the 24-70 f/4 but I'm certain I need the extra reach when on holiday as I don't take a telephoto with me to save space. 

Sure, I wouldn't say no to an updated version if I had the funds. A newer version with updated optics and IS would likely cost a bit more than what I'd like to fork out for a walk around lens. Eventually that cost would come down and I could see myself buying another used version. 

I kind of like this category of lens to be average as it forces me to use my primes and specialist zooms a lot more. This results in better pictures overall as I think about the shots beforehand and choose the appropriate lens for the job. Even when that lens choice is the 24-105L I think it's IQ is more than good enough to get the job done.


----------



## j-nord (May 16, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105L is a kit lens so they go for pretty cheap in the used market. I think the $1k msrp (currently, on b&h) is very steep. I believe the 24-70 f4 IS started at $1500 and is now going for $900 new even though it's undoubtedly a better, newer lens. Some argue the 24-70 f4 IS is the mkii version of the 24-105L being that its better across the board however, the huge drop in price in a few years means it isnt selling well. Between the 24-105 and 24-70 f4 I think the market is extremely saturated for such a lens. It would have to be an exceptionally sharp lens at a good price to convince mki or 24-70 f4 IS owners to upgrade. For these reasons, I doubt they will put out a 24-105ii any time soon.
> ...



I agree it's soft at 50mm but at f4 and f5.6, I think the softness disappears at f8 or f11 when compared to the other FLs. The sharpness is otherwise very consistent across the FLs. It's sharper across the board over the 24-105L.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 16, 2016)

Zv said:


> I like my old 24-105L just the way it is. I bought it used so it was fairly cheap and I've used it a lot. It failed on me once though (diaphragm issue) and that was an inconvenience but other than that it's performed it's job as a general purpose lens very well. I've thought about the 24-70 f/4 but I'm certain I need the extra reach when on holiday as I don't take a telephoto with me to save space.
> 
> Sure, I wouldn't say no to an updated version if I had the funds. A newer version with updated optics and IS would likely cost a bit more than what I'd like to fork out for a walk around lens. Eventually that cost would come down and I could see myself buying another used version.
> 
> I kind of like this category of lens to be average as it forces me to use my primes and specialist zooms a lot more. This results in better pictures overall as I think about the shots beforehand and choose the appropriate lens for the job. Even when that lens choice is the 24-105L I think it's IQ is more than good enough to get the job done.



These are good points. However, most of my shooting isn't art or in a studio. It's on the go. I prefer the best quality lens I can get that also offers maximum versatility. If I'm at summer camp all week and I don't make it back to my tent for most of the day, I don't want to carry multiple lenses. So I use a Tamron 18-270 or 28-300 super zoom (newest/best I can get). For that "job", the IQ is sufficient. At night I'll pull out better faster lenses or primes. But I've also walked around all day with the 24-105 and was pretty happy. At more important events, I carry two bodies (one on each hip) with a 24-70 and a 70-200. But I honestly would prefer the 24-105 if it had close to the quality of the 24-70, esp if I just need/want to carry one body. I also carry the 16-35 f/4 and the 15mm Fish-Eye in a belt bag and/or a backpack. That is a great combo of lenses that allows a lot of creativity and versatility.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 16, 2016)

Ive both the 24-105mm f4L IS USM and the 24-70mm f4L IS USM. Currently in the UK the 24-105 is £ 727.00 and the 24-70 is £ 675.00 for me that also reflects the 24-105 is actually a better lens my example of the 24-70mm f4L IS USM mirrors Photozone.de assessment the lens is got good enough to use on the 5DS yet Canon list it as a recommended lens. 
The 24-105mm has slightly more purple fringing but is not worse from a sharpness perspective but is more versatile. If Canon could improve this lens, addressing at least the CAs then I would certainly buy the new one as you can happily go out and shoot with this lens only all day shooting landscape.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 16, 2016)

j-nord said:


> The 24-105L is a kit lens so they go for pretty cheap in the used market. I think the $1k msrp (currently, on b&h) is very steep. I believe the 24-70 f4 IS started at $1500 and is now going for $900 new even though it's undoubtedly a better, newer lens. Some argue the 24-70 f4 IS is the mkii version of the 24-105L being that its better across the board however, the huge drop in price in a few years means it isnt selling well. Between the 24-105 and 24-70 f4 I think the market is extremely saturated for such a lens. It would have to be an exceptionally sharp lens at a good price to convince mki or 24-70 f4 IS owners to upgrade. For these reasons, I doubt they will put out a 24-105ii any time soon.
> 
> That being said, Id definitely be interested in one if its noticably sharper than the 24-70 f4 IS and I can get one for around $1000. I got the 24-70 f4 IS for $800 after rebate a year ago.


If my fairly new version of the 24-70mmf4L is anything to go by its not any better than when people tested it when it first came out. Mine has image shift and is soft at 45-60mm. The 24-105mm f4L I have does not have image shift and whilst not the sharpest lens loses nothing to the 24-70m f4L save for worse purple fringing (CAs)


----------



## Zv (May 16, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I like my old 24-105L just the way it is. I bought it used so it was fairly cheap and I've used it a lot. It failed on me once though (diaphragm issue) and that was an inconvenience but other than that it's performed it's job as a general purpose lens very well. I've thought about the 24-70 f/4 but I'm certain I need the extra reach when on holiday as I don't take a telephoto with me to save space.
> ...



Yeah how good is that 16-35 f/4 eh? It's been on my 6D almost permanently since I bought it in December! I recently went on a few trips around Tokyo and Kyoto and it was the only lens I took. My first instinct was to go with the 24-105 as it's more versatile but it doesn't quite cut it at the wider focal lengths, does it? I find the middle of the range is where it performs better. I took a minor gamble (since I've visited these places several times before) and it paid off. The 16-35 worked pretty well as a walk around, with some cropping here and there! With a 70-200 in the bag too I would've been set. 

That said I have some nice prints on my wall taken using the 24-105 @ 24mm which look quite detailed.


----------



## unfocused (May 16, 2016)

Late to the party, but I am also a big fan of the 24-105. The 24-70 focal length is just too short for an all-around lens, which is what I use the 24-105 for, either paired with a 70-200, 70-300, or more recently the 100-400, all depending on the need at the time. 

Given the availability and low cost of the 24-105, I've long suspected that Canon would like the lens to "cool down" for a few years (quit including it in kits, so the availability of white box versions starts to dry up). I see the possibility of a Version II at some point in the future, but only available as a separate lens and not included with a kit (They will leave that for the 24-70 f4 and the 24-105 STM.) I expect it will also go up significantly in price.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 16, 2016)

The Canon 24-105mm f4L is £ 727 at leading dealers currently, the 24-70mm f4L is £ 675 and the 16-35mm f4L is 
£ 682 in the UK so given that the performance of the 16-35mm f4L is so much better Canon should be able to deliver a better 24-105mm f4L or a 24-70mm f4L with better performance that whilst initially more expensive could settle down to a slight premium over existing optics. On that basis the more advantageous lens is a 24-105mm f4L MKII.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 16, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105L is a kit lens so they go for pretty cheap in the used market. I think the $1k msrp (currently, on b&h) is very steep. I believe the 24-70 f4 IS started at $1500 and is now going for $900 new even though it's undoubtedly a better, newer lens. Some argue the 24-70 f4 IS is the mkii version of the 24-105L being that its better across the board however, the huge drop in price in a few years means it isnt selling well. Between the 24-105 and 24-70 f4 I think the market is extremely saturated for such a lens. It would have to be an exceptionally sharp lens at a good price to convince mki or 24-70 f4 IS owners to upgrade. For these reasons, I doubt they will put out a 24-105ii any time soon.
> ...



I dunno, but I have it and my feelings about it are mixed. At 50mm it is easily the _worst_ performer of all the lenses I have that cover that focal length, and that includes the 24-105 as well as the 50 1.8 STM. Not only is it soft, but contrast also takes a hit. It is also extremely soft (at almost any focal length) when closer than about 5 feet away from the subject. 

But - it controls distortion well, the IS is superb, and at farther focus distances the IQ is (generally) excellent. It is FAR better than the 24-105 at 24mm...for still life and landscape it's great...for anything close up, not so much...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 16, 2016)

My thought after seeing and reading the recent patent is that the object of the new lens is mostly to cut manufacturing costs, and to make more profit, of course. It may also be a slight improvement, but I'd bet cost is the driver if the one in the patent is it. So maybe the initial cost will be less than I first assumed.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 17, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My thought after seeing and reading the recent patent is that the object of the new lens is mostly to cut manufacturing costs, and to make more profit, of course. It may also be a slight improvement, but I'd bet cost is the driver if the one in the patent is it. So maybe the initial cost will be less than I first assumed.



Ah, yes. But do you think it will be a big improvement over the version 1 after all these years?

IMHO, all the new lenses (EF and L) are built in a less expensive design. Compare them to the older L lenses and they are using a thinner and more matte paint (as opposed to the 'baked/spattered' semi gloss black), less detailed silkscreen lettering, less 'bling' lettering or lettering badges, etc and the switches are frankly... cheap. Does it all work? Sure! Is it sufficient and fine? Yes. But it's not the same quality level, even if the older design was overkill.

And the prices went up! Canon is compelled to increase the profit margins due to so many years of currency devaluation and global economy issues. Not to mention the vague market shifts with regard to demand.


----------

