# Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 8, 2015)

```
<p>Dustin Abbott, a friend of the site, has completed his review of the brand new Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM.</p>
<p>People ask a lot if the EF 24-105 f/4L IS is going to stick around in the lineup, especially now that this lens is available. I don’t have an answer for that, but there’s 3 options in this focal range now if you also include the very good EF 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now kitted with the EOS 6D and I suspect it’s going to be a kit option with all future non EOS-1 full frame cameras.</p>
<p><strong>From the review

</strong><em>“I’m rarely a fan of variable aperture lenses, but the reality is that almost all consumer grade zooms are variable aperture. It is this concession that allows them to be lighter and cheaper. That aside, this lens provides solid optics, great image stabilization, and fast, quiet focus.  It is a lens that I believe will make more and more sense as Canon introduces it as a kit bundled with cameras at a lower price point and as Canon’s next generation of full frame camera bodies add the technology that can fully utilize this lens.” <strong><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2015/01/canon-ef-24-105mm-f3-5-5-6-is-stm-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></em></p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wi6EpbiItn4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM $599: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081813-REG/canon_9521b002_ef_24_105mm_f_3_5_5_6_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA24105SU.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NI3C3TW/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00NI3C3TW&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=EWGKJK73XSY7AD7X" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 6D w/24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Kit $2199 – <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00RKNMFLM/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00RKNMFLM&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=5HZYD2C6YYXLHFC4" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1110376-REG/canon_8035b106_eos_6d_dslr_camera.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA6DK1.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## infared (Jan 8, 2015)

This is not a lens that I would purchase....but this is a very thrurough review of not only the lens performance itself but also a great perspective of the lens and how the paticular price and technologies integrates (or doesn'! :-\)into the bigger picture of the Canon Camera System.
Great review... it engaged me intellectually and what a BEAUTIFUL backdrop! Happy New Year!
Nice job Dustin and I am looking forward to the upcoming reviews that you teased us about especially the new 400mm f/4.0 DO IS II...Not that I can afford that lens, but it does appear to be a more affordable beauty of a beast!


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 8, 2015)

I really enjoyed reading this review, esp. the "why" part.
Thanks, Dustin Abott.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2015)

infared said:


> This is not a lens that I would purchase....but this is a very thrurough review of not only the lens performance itself but also a great perspective of the lens and how the paticular price and technologies integrates (or doesn'! :-\)into the bigger picture of the Canon Camera System.
> Great review... it engaged me intellectually and what a BEAUTIFUL backdrop! Happy New Year!
> Nice job Dustin and I am looking forward to the upcoming reviews that you teased us about especially the new 400mm f/4.0 DO IS II...Not that I can afford that lens, but it does appear to be a more affordable beauty of a beast!



Thanks for the feedback, and I think I share your opening sentiment.



Maximilian said:


> I really enjoyed reading this review, esp. the "why" part.
> Thanks, Dustin Abott.



Thanks. I don't think at this stage you can really have a serious conversation about this lens without including that dialogue.


----------



## Click (Jan 8, 2015)

That'a a very good review, Dustin. I especially like the "Why" part.

Well done Sir.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Jan 8, 2015)

WHY WOULD'NT U GUYS BUY THIS LENS??
CAUSE ITS NOT WEATHER SEALED OR CONSIDERED A "PRO" LENS??
THE STM TECH IS VERY GOOD NOT JUST FOR VIDEO's BUT FOR PHOTOS THERE SHARP "NOT L LENS SHARP" BUT THEY ARE SURPRISINGLY CRISP AND GOOD I OWN A 55-250mm STM AND THE PIC QUALITY SHOCKED ME SHOOTING 
TRACK & INFIELD THESE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS" GIVE IT A TRY IF NOT RETURN IT
there not weather sealed but there rain & cold proof enough for the job and just remember the only camera that support stm are the t4i,t5i,70D,SL1 and 7D Mark 2 maybe thats why the STM LENS ARENT GETTING SO MUCH LOVE?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 8, 2015)

"Muddying the waters is the fact that Canon released a 24-70 f/4L IS about a year ago. In a confusing move, it was initially priced considerably higher than the 24-105L despite a more limited range and optics that were only marginally better. "

If "marginally" means "very considerably at 24mm or 70mm stopped down for landscapes" then I'd agree.

The 24-70 f/4 IS is lighter, smaller, focuses MUCH more closely, delivers considerably better IQ near 24mm (and at 70mm as well) for landscape shooting since it doesn't turn FF edges and corners to mush and you don't need f/18 to begin to make the edges look like the center, it has a lot less distortion at 24mm, it doesn't suffer from purple fringing nasties much unlike the 24-105L, the IS is better.

It doesn't seem like much of a confusing move to me.

"These lenses each seemed to be answering a question that no one was asking, however."

All I know is I saw comment after comment begging for a lens that could deliver top quality at 24mm for landscapes on FF (especially if it could be a zoom) and for a long time there wasn't anything in the Canon world and then there was the partial answer the 24 1.4 II (but at quite a price premium for those using is mostly just far stopped down and of course it's a prime and not a zoom) or the 24 T&S II (but a bit awkward if you also wanted a general use lens and again it's not a zoom). Then with the 24-70 f/4 IS (and 24-70 II and, if you could live without zoom and wanted the lowest cost option, the 24 2.8 IS) the answer was finally met.

So I don't at all know about a lens that answered a question no one was asking (regarding the 24-70 f/4 IS). I saw a ton of people asking the question.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 8, 2015)

"The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS is an excellent lens that few people are complaining about."

I see more complaints about this lens than about ANY other L lens.

It's an odd one, that tends to appear the most often of all on both "favorite/best lens owned" and "least favorite/worst/ most disappointing lens owned". I think the kit business has something to do with it and you get lots of people having it as their only L and getting carried away by the red ring with stars in their eyes and then some simply valuing the convenience of it all above all else and then having those feelings bump up the optical quality in mind.

Sure it's better than the 28-135 IS optically, but it's also probably worse than any other currently selling L lens optically. IMO it never made much sense at it's originally pricing (unless you simply had to have the convenience factor where you got IS, wide range, decent AF all together as some like the Tamron 28-75 2.8 were faster and sharper and cost far, FAR, FARRRRR less although obviously with much less range, no IS and super slow AF). At the new $600 real world pricing it's a good lens though (then again with the new 24-70 f/4 IS pricing and this new 24-105 variable STM I'm not sure it makes sense again even at the new $600+ pricing).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 8, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> WHY WOULD'NT U GUYS BUY THIS LENS??
> CAUSE ITS NOT WEATHER SEALED OR CONSIDERED A "PRO" LENS??
> THE STM TECH IS VERY GOOD NOT JUST FOR VIDEO's BUT FOR PHOTOS THERE SHARP "NOT L LENS SHARP" BUT THEY ARE SURPRISINGLY CRISP AND GOOD I OWN A 55-250mm STM AND THE PIC QUALITY SHOCKED ME SHOOTING
> TRACK & INFIELD THESE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS" GIVE IT A TRY IF NOT RETURN IT
> there not weather sealed but there rain & cold proof enough for the job and just remember the only camera that support stm are the t4i,t5i,70D,SL1 and 7D Mark 2 maybe thats why the STM LENS ARENT GETTING SO MUCH LOVE?


Most people that says "STM focus is slow" is making an unfair comparison with much more expensive lenses.

The pancake 40mm STM has slow focus, but this is a compromise, due to the extremely compact mechanical, and is not the fault of STM engine. If you replace the focus motor for USM, the pancake 40mm could not do focus much faster, due to the movement of the front element during focus.

Even so hated 18-55mm STM is very fast focus. This new 24-105 STM can be a decent replacement for the old 28-135mm rest in peace.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 8, 2015)

Oh also don't forget that the 24-105L has a very poor T-stop measurement while the 24-70 f/4 IS has a much better one and I'd bet the 24-105 STM has a better one too.

The 24-105L T-stop is closer to f/5! Since most recent Canon lenses have had the T-stop very close to the aperture even the 24-105 STM might actually be faster than the 24-105L over most of the range and only just slightly behind at the very long end in reality. And the 24-70 f/4 IS is clearly ahead despite both being called f/4 lenses since the 24-70 f/4 IS gives a nearly true f/4 and the 24-105L far from it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "Muddying the waters is the fact that Canon released a 24-70 f/4L IS about a year ago. In a confusing move, it was initially priced considerably higher than the 24-105L despite a more limited range and optics that were only marginally better. "
> 
> If "marginally" means "very considerably at 24mm or 70mm stopped down for landscapes" then I'd agree.
> 
> ...



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

I think your point at 24mm is valid, but at all other focal lengths the 24-70 is marginally better (and sometimes a bit worse). There is also a thread here on Canon Rumors that is now 20 pages long of people sharing photos from the 24-105L and dialoguing about it, and the tenor of that discuss is mostly positive.

I would argue that the 24-105L being "good enough" is the reason that A) the price has dropped so quickly on the 24-70 f/4L and B) the Sigma 24-105 OS is currently off the production lines.

That being said, this review isn't about the 24-70 f/4L; it is about the 24-105 STM and where it fits in the Canon...errrr...canon 8)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > WHY WOULD'NT U GUYS BUY THIS LENS??
> ...



STM motors are definitely faster than the old micro-motors that Canon's 18-55, 18-135, 55-250, etc... had. The challenge for this lens is that it isn't replacing an older EF-S lens with newer and better technology; it is a full frame lens that shares a focal length with the 24-105L. That is the natural comparison. 

STM focus isn't as fast as a good USM motor; there is a slight bit of lag before focus acquisition begins. But it is certainly faster than the technology it is replacing and good enough for most consumers.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2015)

I appreciate the discussion from everyone. I think this lens is going to be a little polarizing because Canon is moving the STM technology out of the EF-S/EOS M sphere and into full frame lenses (most will agree that the 40mm Pancake was a different story for a lot of reasons).

I'm actually happy to hear the 24-70 f/4L have some ardent supporters. Frankly, I hadn't seen evidence of too many of them! For me, however, this is the biggest reason why the 24-70 f/4L still doesn't make a ton of sense:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 8, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I appreciate the discussion from everyone. I think this lens is going to be a little polarizing because Canon is moving the STM technology out of the EF-S/EOS M sphere and into full frame lenses (most will agree that the 40mm Pancake was a different story for a lot of reasons).
> 
> I'm actually happy to hear the 24-70 f/4L have some ardent supporters. Frankly, I hadn't seen evidence of too many of them! For me, however, this is the biggest reason why the 24-70 f/4L still doesn't make a ton of sense:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



Wow *Dustin*! That little image comparison is hard to argue with. (I realize there are a LOT more factors to consider before choosing a lens but that comparison is thought provoking.)


----------



## Act444 (Jan 8, 2015)

Thanks for the review...not too much out there on this lens it seems. 

A bit OT, but in regards to the 24-105 L vs the 24-70 f4 - having used both, I think they are different beasts despite sharing the same focal length. To simplify, it boils down to this for me:

The 24-105 is better for general shooting at events (sharper, greater range), outdoor and even indoor well-lit areas, if you have a newer generation DSLR. Also people and portraits (longer end of zoom can blur background nicely).

The 24-70 is better for landscapes (less distortion), still life (better IS) and travel (smaller, lighter).

Different strengths and weaknesses. I used the 24-105 for some of the purposes I listed under the 24-70 and came away dissatisfied...ditto with the 24-70 at an indoor event (very soft at MFD).


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 8, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Thanks for the review...not too much out there on this lens it seems.
> 
> A bit OT, but in regards to the 24-105 L vs the 24-70 f4 - having used both, I think they are different beasts despite sharing the same focal length. To simplify, it boils down to this for me:
> 
> ...



That nicely sums it up. I have both, and the 24-70 f4IS is definitely the better lens technically - _if_ you ignore the fact it can't go to 105 mm................

Anyway if you look on the "is this the 80D" thread you may find the appropriate home for the 24-105 STM - a budget FF camera ?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 8, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Thanks for the review...not too much out there on this lens it seems.
> 
> A bit OT, but in regards to the 24-105 L vs the 24-70 f4 - having used both, I think they are different beasts despite sharing the same focal length. To simplify, it boils down to this for me:
> 
> ...


That sums it up nicely. I have both and the 24-70 f4IS is definitely the better lens - technically - _if_ you ignore the fact it doesn't go to 105mm....

Anyway if the look on the "is this the 80D" thread you may find the home for this 24-105 STM - a budget FF camera ?


----------



## Act444 (Jan 8, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the review...not too much out there on this lens it seems.
> ...



I wouldn't even go as far to say one is better than the other...I guess it depends on what you shoot.

If I was forced to keep only one, I'd probably pick the 24-105. More versatile and same or better sharpness except at 24mm, where corner performance lags somewhat - and possibly 70mm when standing farther than 10 ft away.


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 8, 2015)

The 24-105 STM isn't (in) my bag, but I'm always happy to see Canon innovating and improving its product line. (I can see how some might be unhappy, if they feel like any work Canon does on a product they don't want is taking R&D resources away from a product they do.)

As for the 24-105L, I'm on my second, having purchased an early copy in 2005 (right after they fixed the flare problem). I was very satisfied with it, so much so that I replaced it with a new copy a couple of years ago, when a local Craigslister put the one out of a kit he'd bought up for sale. After selling my old copy, the "upgrade" only cost me $200.

It's a great walk-around / touring lens; I usually shoot it between f/4 and f/8, no problems. If I want to do "critical" wide-angle stuff, I'll pull out the 16-35/4.

I considered the 24-70/4 when it was released, and then again when its price dropped down near its current level, but it's not worth replacing my 24-105L with, since I prefer the longer reach over the "macro" capability, and don't have a need for both lenses. Someone mentioned the 24-70/4's size (½" shorter) and weight (2½ oz. lighter) advantages, but IMHO the differences are so slight as to be almost inconsequential.

Now, if they ever come out with a 24-70/2.8L IS, that'll get me attention.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 9, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I appreciate the discussion from everyone. I think this lens is going to be a little polarizing because Canon is moving the STM technology out of the EF-S/EOS M sphere and into full frame lenses (most will agree that the 40mm Pancake was a different story for a lot of reasons).
> 
> I'm actually happy to hear the 24-70 f/4L have some ardent supporters. Frankly, I hadn't seen evidence of too many of them! For me, however, this is the biggest reason why the 24-70 f/4L still doesn't make a ton of sense:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



I have to say that the tests (not necessarily his comments or star ratings at the end by any means, but all of the data in his plots) at photozone.de far more often match my own carefully tested findings than what I see at TDP.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

I've used two copies of 24-70 f/4 IS and about five of 24-105L and the photozone.de results are closer to what I saw. I was never satisfied with the 24-105L near 24mm for finely detailed edge to edge FF landscape work, but I had no issue with the 24-70 f/4 IS (although the 24 1.4 II and 24-70 II were a bit better). And the 24-70 f/4 IS shots of fine branches against clouds and such were so much freer of nasty longitudinal CA (never mind better lateral CA, although this is a bit more easily corrected) than the 24-105 L real world test shots.

I will say that the first 24-70 f/4 IS I tried, while better than the 24-105L, definitely was not as sharp anywhere in the border regions as the second copy, noticeable difference. So lens copy to copy variation is real. The first one also suffered more in the mid-range than the second copy (still not worse than the 24-105L, but maybe not any better at all for the first copy). So some may depend upon whether you get a poor copy or a really nice copy. From what I saw from my own careful tests (25' target, indoors with constant lighting, 6+ manual 10x liveview focused trials at each stage, refocused for mid-frame and edges) and real world snaps of tricky forest scenes my impression was that a good copy of the 24-70 f/4 IS is just simply quite noticeably, considerably, better at 24mm than the 24-105L. (Although I looked at it less, I also felt the same for 70mm, in fact the top 24-70 f/4 IS I tried actually did better FF 70mm edges than any 24-70 II I've tried (And that's a number of copies) although it wasn't quite ever with the biting mico-contrast center frame of teh 24-70 II and it's a bit more like the 24-105L micro-contrast there).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 9, 2015)

Anyway I'm getting too much into all the lenses that are not the 24-105 STM :-[.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I appreciate the discussion from everyone. I think this lens is going to be a little polarizing because Canon is moving the STM technology out of the EF-S/EOS M sphere and into full frame lenses (most will agree that the 40mm Pancake was a different story for a lot of reasons).
> ...



Count me as another happy user of the 24-70 f/4L IS. As I've said in another thread, my copy was excellent at 24 and 70 out of the box, but disappointing at 35 and downright poor at 50 ... my sister's 24-105L was definitely better at 35 and 50. However, after sending my lens back to Canon for calibration, I'll happily pit my 24-70 4L against a 24-105L at any focal length. As has already been pointed out to my by a couple of CR users, Roger Cicala has commented the 24-704L has a lot of adjustable parts (more than most lenses), and it does seem the 24-70 4L suffers from substantial copy to copy variation. Get one properly calibrated though, and I think it is a very good lens.

My brother has the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VR so I will have to do some comparisons if I can find some time. I did some very quick comparisons just after I got my lens calibrated and came away with the feeling my 24-70 4L was at least as sharp from f/4 (I was probably concentrating most on centre sharpness), and its focussing was quicker and more consistent than the Tamron. That said, my testing to-date was pretty limited (and the possibility of new lens owner bias cannot be ignored!  ) so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

I noticed this sentence in Dustin's review:
"The trend of many lenses that Canon has offered in the past few years have been lenses that didn’t necessarily wow people on paper (or thrill them with their announcement) but have proven to be extremely competent lenses that have won people over on their merits."

I have to say I agree with that. I wasn't that excited about the 40 2.8 or the 35 2 IS but now own and like both, and looking beyond lenses I think the same sentiment applies to the 6D. I think perhaps the 24-70 4L might end up being another lens to which the sentiment applies, if Canon can find a way to reduce copy variation and get the "average" 24-70 4L performing closer to its best performance.

Anyway, Dustin, thanks for the review of the 24-105 3.5-5.6. Interesting to get your take on a consumer-grade lens after reading your reviews of high end gear. The new 24-105 sounds like it could be a good lens for a lot of people, even if not many of the people who haunt places like CR.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I appreciate the discussion from everyone. I think this lens is going to be a little polarizing because Canon is moving the STM technology out of the EF-S/EOS M sphere and into full frame lenses (most will agree that the 40mm Pancake was a different story for a lot of reasons).
> ...



That's solid empirical evidence. And, you are right, there is variation from one reviewer to another at times. If you are happy with the 24-70, that's great. But you are also right that this isn't about 24-105L vs. 24-70L


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jan 9, 2015)

VERY nice review Dustin! Since this is not a lens I need, it was great to read your thoughts on where this lens fits into Canon's future plans.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 9, 2015)

Excellent review Dustin.

I concur with your questions regarding why this lens was introduced and how it fits in Canons lineup. With used and gray market 24-105L lenses selling for around $600 and 24-70/4 IS lenses selling for a few hundred more, this STM lens needs to sell for around $300 to be a value. Even if it did, I don't see the market for it. Most full frame buyers are going to invest in better glass.

Edit: OK, I just read the thread about the mystery DSLR (80D/FF Rebel). If Canon is coming out with a budget FF Rebel or whatever, maybe this lens makes sense as a kit option.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 9, 2015)

drmikeinpdx said:


> VERY nice review Dustin! Since this is not a lens I need, it was great to read your thoughts on where this lens fits into Canon's future plans.





bholliman said:


> Excellent review Dustin.
> 
> I concur with your questions regarding why this lens was introduced and how it fits in Canons lineup. With used and gray market 24-105L lenses selling for around $600 and 24-70/4 IS lenses selling for a few hundred more, this STM lens needs to sell for around $300 to be a value. Even if it did, I don't see the market for it. Most full frame buyers are going to invest in better glass.
> 
> Edit: OK, I just read the thread about the mystery DSLR (80D/FF Rebel). If Canon is coming out with a budget FF Rebel or whatever, maybe this lens makes sense as a kit option.



I'm on the same page with you both. I don't think this lens makes a lot of sense right now; I am trusting that Canon knows what it is doing and that it WILL make more sense in their big picture.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 9, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > VERY nice review Dustin! Since this is not a lens I need, it was great to read your thoughts on where this lens fits into Canon's future plans.
> ...


I think the only way it makes sense is as a cheap starter lens, a la the 18-55 for Rebels. Looking at Amazon here in the US, the 6D is $1799, 6D+24-105L is $2,399 and the 6D+24-105 STM is $2199 - so $400 vs. $600 when bought alone. If the 6D and its successors keep falling in price, and Canon markets it as an "aspirational model", I think we'll see a fair number of buyers who will pay for the kit and never buy another lens - again, just like the Rebel.

Also, Canon may kill off the 24-105L and the STM would be the de facto kit lens...


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 9, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> ... Also, Canon may kill off the 24-105L and the STM would be the de facto kit lens...



It actually wouldn't surprise me if Canon did just that. Especially, as jd7 wrote above, " if Canon can find a way to reduce copy variation and get the "average" 24-70 4L performing closer to its best performance."

_I neglected to say Thank You to Dustin in my post yesterday for his review of the STM. I watched the video in its entirety, and fully appreciate how much work, time and effort it takes to produce a segment of such length and quality._


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 9, 2015)

JonAustin said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ... Also, Canon may kill off the 24-105L and the STM would be the de facto kit lens...
> ...



That is very kind. Thank you, Jon


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 9, 2015)

jd7 said:


> I noticed this sentence in Dustin's review:
> "The trend of many lenses that Canon has offered in the past few years have been lenses that didn’t necessarily wow people on paper (or thrill them with their announcement) but have proven to be extremely competent lenses that have won people over on their merits."



That is a good point. Another case in point is the 70-300L. It was made fun of before it's release and laughed at for another year or so and now all you see is wild praise for it and it's considered one of the true strengths of Canon world since no other brand lets you get such quality of image or AF in such a small tele-zoom.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 10, 2015)

The 16-35 f4 is a counterexample...I know a lot of folks were excited about that lens from the get-go.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 10, 2015)

jd7 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



How does your 24-70 do at close focusing distance, particularly at the long end? Mine REALLY seems to struggle. It's fine until I get near MFD and then the picture totally softens up...

I find that the 24-105 is still noticeably better at 50mm though. It has gone back to being my default lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 10, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed this sentence in Dustin's review:
> ...



That is probably the single best example of all, and that is actually one of my favorite lenses despite its variable aperture.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 11, 2015)

Act444 said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Count me as another happy user of the 24-70 f/4L IS. As I've said in another thread, my copy was excellent at 24 and 70 out of the box, but disappointing at 35 and downright poor at 50 ... my sister's 24-105L was definitely better at 35 and 50. However, after sending my lens back to Canon for calibration, I'll happily pit my 24-70 4L against a 24-105L at any focal length. As has already been pointed out to my by a couple of CR users, Roger Cicala has commented the 24-704L has a lot of adjustable parts (more than most lenses), and it does seem the 24-70 4L suffers from substantial copy to copy variation. Get one properly calibrated though, and I think it is a very good lens.
> ...



I will do some tests with my 24-70 and see whether it gets softer near MFD at 70. Unfortunately it will probably be next weekend before I get a chance. Will report back as soon as I've had a chance to test.

With my 24-70, looking at sharpness you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference between focal lengths. At 50 it is pretty much as sharp as it is at 70 or 24. If anything, 35 might be its softest focal length now, but really there is not much difference at all at any focal length.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 18, 2015)

Act444 said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Count me as another happy user of the 24-70 f/4L IS. As I've said in another thread, my copy was excellent at 24 and 70 out of the box, but disappointing at 35 and downright poor at 50 ... my sister's 24-105L was definitely better at 35 and 50. However, after sending my lens back to Canon for calibration, I'll happily pit my 24-70 4L against a 24-105L at any focal length. As has already been pointed out to my by a couple of CR users, Roger Cicala has commented the 24-704L has a lot of adjustable parts (more than most lenses), and it does seem the 24-70 4L suffers from substantial copy to copy variation. Get one properly calibrated though, and I think it is a very good lens.
> ...



Hi Act444
Rather than hijack this thread further, I've started a new thread to try to answer your question about my 24-70 f/4 near MFD ...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24642.msg484694#msg484694


----------

