# PhotoZone Review: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM II



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

The 24-105L II tested on both 50MP and 21 MP:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/995-canon24105f4ismk2?start=1

And, like at TDP, the *Mk I slightly outresolves the Mk II*. When compared on the 21 MP rig (5D2), the Mk I is a hair better. 

_"Honestly, we were a little shocked by these results. The first tested sample also showed a higher than usual optical decentering. Thus we repeated the exercise with a 2nd sample. This one was well centered (albeit still back-focusing like hell) but not really better."_

Distortion was improved on the 24mm end from that staggering 5% (Mk I) to 3.2% (Mk II). For perspective, the 24-70 f/2.8L II was 2.8% and the 24-70 f/4L IS was 2.4% at their site, which they consider 'moderate' distortion for such a FL range of lens.

But evidence continues to mount that this lens does not clearly one-up its predecessor like prior 'II' and 'III' sort of sequels.

- A


----------



## Act444 (Dec 1, 2016)

Ouch! Not exactly a raving review there. 

There seems to be a growing consistency among the major reviewers with regard to this lens - it was expected to perform better than it actually did, both in the real world and in tests. 

Well, at least it'll save me some money - at least as long as my V1 keeps working...


----------



## tron (Dec 1, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Ouch! Not exactly a raving review there.
> 
> There seems to be a growing consistency among the major reviewers with regard to this lens - it was expected to perform better than it actually did, both in the real world and in tests.
> 
> *Well, at least it'll save me some money - at least as long as my V1 keeps working...*


I was thinking exactly the same thing ;D

So this is the final confirmation regarding my opinion of the first review of 24-105 II


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

tron said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Ouch! Not exactly a raving review there.
> ...



Yep. Three trusted reviewers have had their look at it:


TDP: IQ does not flatter compared to the Mk I, but it's fine. Our expectations might have been too high. 


PZ: Unimpressed. Slightly less sharp than its predecessor.


LensRentals: Mk II is slightly better but not much -- the improvements are smaller than the copy to copy variability we measured, so your Mk I version might actually be better than the Mk II.

Now I'm not saying people should _avoid_ this lens, but it's clearly not the huge leap forward the 100-400L II was, the 35L II was, the 24-70 f/2.8L II was, etc. So I'd personally pass on this lens. But if you're in the market for a modern standard zoom with first party AF that offers a zoom lock and has better IS than the Mk I version, I'd wait until the prices come down and then pounce.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> So this is the final confirmation regarding my opinion of the first review of 24-105 II



Yep. Three trusted reviewers have had their look at it:


TDP: IQ does not flatter compared to the Mk I, but it's fine. Our expectations might have been too high. 


PZ: Unimpressed. Slightly less sharp than its predecessor.


LensRentals: Mk II is slightly better but not much -- the improvements are smaller than the copy to copy variability we measured, so your Mk I version might actually be better than the Mk II.

Now I'm not saying people should _avoid_ this lens, but it's clearly not the huge leap forward the 100-400L II was, the 35L II was, the 24-70 f/2.8L II was, etc. So I'd personally pass on this lens. But if you're in the market for a modern standard zoom with first party AF that offers a zoom lock and has better IS than the Mk I version, I'd wait until the prices come down and then pounce.

- A
[/quote]

This feels similar to when the 24-70 f/4 IS launched at ~1500 USD. It felt overpriced at that price compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the 24-105 f/4. Now that it is closer in price to the 24-105 f/4, it makes a lot more sense. Same thing with the 24-105 f/4 II. It feels overpriced at 1100 when you can get white box versions of the original around 500. The price will normalize to what is should be, perhaps even more quickly than the 24-70 f/4 IS.


----------



## SteveM (Dec 1, 2016)

I've been waiting for the updated version for years. Photozone was the review I was waiting for....not good is it. That's me out I'm afraid. I'm highly tempted to buy another copy of the version 1 as mine is quite old and well used. That or I'll give it a good polish tonight.


----------



## tron (Dec 1, 2016)

SteveM said:


> I've been waiting for the updated version for years. Photozone was the review I was waiting for....not good is it. That's me out I'm afraid. I'm highly tempted to buy another copy of the version 1 as mine is quite old and well used. That or I'll give it a good polish tonight.


First, you can sell yours and then why not. Mine is not used up a lot since I got the 24-70 2.8 II (and a was also using a 16-35 (fist version 1 and then the 4 IS) so there was overlap. I keep it as a one lens solution when I cannot carry a lot but I also was thinking of upgrading it. Not anymore.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 1, 2016)

Reasons for people to sell M1 for M2: Better distortion, CA, and IS. These things do matter. How much is up to you.

The only people I can really see selling M1 for M2 would be those that want the better IS (my M1 had very disappointing IS, but I used the 24-70 II now). 

Mostly, I think this is just an updated lens that fits Canon's new look, new materials, has some very minor improvements, is priced lower than the M1 as recently as 2015 (CPW), and might be less expensive for Canon to manufacture.

This just slides into the spot previously held by M1, which is a good lens, rather than dramatically improving upon its predecessor. I am thinking it is the off year "all new" car model rather than the drastically changed new car model that happens every 4-5 years. You know, the "hey the tail lights look different" or "hey, new rims" new car model. Nothing wrong here, except we wanted to be blown away and are not.


----------



## tron (Dec 1, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Reasons for people to sell M1 for M2: Better distortion, CA, and IS. These things do matter. How much is up to you.
> 
> The only people I can really see selling M1 for M2 would be those that want the better IS (my M1 had very disappointing IS, but I used the 24-70 II now).
> 
> ...


I do not know anything about lens design (apart from the fact that I understand it is harder to make a long range zoom as good as any short range of the equivalent focal legth) but judging from the new generation of lenses (zoom and fixed) I was expecting a quality similar or at least close to 24-70 2.8 II even if it costed more. But regarding the real price I disagree. The M1 version can be found for much less if someone is patient. But sooner or later I guess the same will happen with version 2 (there will be broken kits eventually).


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Mostly, I think this is just an updated lens that fits Canon's new look, new materials, has some very minor improvements, is priced lower than the M1 as recently as 2015 (CPW), and might be less expensive for Canon to manufacture.
> 
> This just slides into the spot previously held by M1, which is a good lens, rather than dramatically improving upon its predecessor. I am thinking it is the off year "all new" car model rather than the drastically changed new car model that happens every 4-5 years. You know, the "hey the tail lights look different" or "hey, new rims" new car model. Nothing wrong here, except we wanted to be blown away and are not.



Everything you just said (all very fair) sounds like how we assess the latest umpteenth version of an EF-S 18-55mm lens. (Think on _that _for a moment!)

I recognize that there are different price points for solid L lenses and highest end L lenses. But I honestly don't recall (and in fairness I've only been shooting for about 12 years now) a time where an L lens was released as a clean 1:1 replacement of a prior lens -- a sequel, 'II', 'III' -- where the new lens was not a clear cut above optically. When's the last time that happened?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But I honestly don't recall (and in fairness I've only been shooting for about 12 years now) a time where an L lens was released as a clean 1:1 replacement of a prior lens -- a sequel, 'II', 'III' -- where the new lens was not a clear cut above optically. When's the last time that happened?



One that occurs to me is the 85L -> 85L II. The optical elements and formula were the same, they just updated the AF performance (1.8x faster, or if you prefer really slow -> pretty darn slow), rounded the aperture blades, and new coatings which reduced flare. Really not a clear cut above optically, IMO.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But I honestly don't recall (and in fairness I've only been shooting for about 12 years now) a time where an L lens was released as a clean 1:1 replacement of a prior lens -- a sequel, 'II', 'III' -- where the new lens was not a clear cut above optically. When's the last time that happened?
> ...



I finally get an answer! I've been asking on a few different threads. Thanks, Neuro.

So Canon has not put out a 'meh' L sequel in ten years. I'm not looking for license to complain about the 24-105L II -- heck, it wasn't on my radar at all -- but I think Canon could have done more here.

I'm hoping this is a relative one-off. Possibly Canon had a mandate to contain cost in such a high volume kit lens product, so I'm hopeful the killing streak they've been on of late (24-70 f/2.8L II, 16-35 f/4L IS, 100-400L II, 35L II, etc.) will resume in 2017.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Dec 1, 2016)

tron said:


> But regarding the real price I disagree. The M1 version can be found for much less if someone is patient. But sooner or later I guess the same will happen with version 2 (there will be broken kits eventually).



V1 is listed on CPW for $999 right now and was listed above that in 2015. Canon makes money by selling new lenses. Sure we could find it for $500-600, and in a kit, it had that or slightly above that in value, but those are used prices.

Look, I wanted better too. Didn't happen.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Agreed about the killing streak to return. My best guess as to why the 24-105 II isn't better has something to do with price point. With the exception of the 16-35 f4 L IS, all of those other lenses where approaching or over $2k at initial release. Could be that they didn't think anyone, other than a few CR forum members, would spend $2k for a 24-105 II. 

Not sure

As for other V2s that are minor upgrades, I've always heard the 24 f/1.4 V1 was pretty solid:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=480&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=247&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=247&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

V1 actually has better vignetting than V2:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=480&Camera=453&LensComp=247

Granted, V2 has much better control of CA and weather sealing.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The 24-105 LIS has always caused a lot of controversy in the pro forums. Many felt that it was only just an L due to it's infamous copy to copy variation...and that it was so cheap compared to other L's. While it's a worthy update, it's not really a worth upgrade...unless some one has a pants copy of the mkI. 
I happen to have a stellar copy of the 24-70 f2.8 L mkI. I compared it to the mkII which I hired for a week on a photography workshop. Apart from the extra aperture blades and a little bit more sharpness (with my copy it's wasn't a massive difference), there wasn't much to choose from them. Addmittedly, I don't use a 5DSR and I'm still happy using my 5DIII's. But it wasn't worth the eye watering launch price. Sure things have stabilised a bit more since then.


----------



## geekpower (Dec 2, 2016)

as disappointing as this lens is, i'm not actually worried about canon not killing it with future lenses. it's doubtful they tried to make an amazeballs lens here and failed. much more likely that they built exactly the lens they meant to, which is a "good enough" kit lens to have the red ring without taking away anyone's reason to buy primes or more expensive zooms if they care about the quality that much.


----------



## Act444 (Dec 2, 2016)

Actually, there's one more thing I'd like to know: How is the light transmission on the new V2? Another weak spot of the old one is the T-stop being 2/3 stop darker at the long end, which results in the 24-70 F4 being somewhat brighter despite both being F4. I'd like to know if the new 24-105 is closer to being a true 4.0 or not.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 2, 2016)

geekpower said:


> as disappointing as this lens is, i'm not actually worried about canon not killing it with future lenses. it's doubtful they tried to make an amazeballs lens here and failed. much more likely that *they built exactly the lens they meant to, which is a "good enough" kit lens to have the red ring without taking away anyone's reason to buy primes or more expensive zooms if they care about the quality that much*.


This! Other reason, likely, is cost reduction of the original design. We live in the age of hidden price, labour and material cost inflation. At some point, price correction for the product is a must.


----------



## moreorless (Dec 5, 2016)

geekpower said:


> as disappointing as this lens is, i'm not actually worried about canon not killing it with future lenses. it's doubtful they tried to make an amazeballs lens here and failed. much more likely that they built exactly the lens they meant to, which is a "good enough" kit lens to have the red ring without taking away anyone's reason to buy primes or more expensive zooms if they care about the quality that much.



Honestly though this really isn't anything that knew it is? in this range we've had the Nikon 24-120mm F/4 and the Sigma 24-105mm F/4 that have failed to move things forward significantly so perhaps its just a limition of the specs if your building for a reasonably small size?

I think it makes the Canon 24-70mm F/4 make more sense in retrospect as well.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2016)

moreorless said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > as disappointing as this lens is, i'm not actually worried about canon not killing it with future lenses. it's doubtful they tried to make an amazeballs lens here and failed. much more likely that they built exactly the lens they meant to, which is a "good enough" kit lens to have the red ring without taking away anyone's reason to buy primes or more expensive zooms if they care about the quality that much.
> ...



How funny would it be if the only thing another 24-105L being offered teaches us is that physics is, in fact, _physics_. 4.5x FL multiplier zooms don't cut the mustard like 3x multiplier lenses do. 

Consider: I have not heard more people extol the virtues of the 24-70 f/4L IS _in its entire lifecycle to date_ than I've heard since 24-105 f/4L IS II testing came out. 

- A


----------



## jd7 (Dec 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> How funny would it be if the only thing another 24-105L being offered teaches us is that physics is, in fact, _physics_. 4.5x FL multiplier zooms don't cut the mustard like 3x multiplier lenses do.
> 
> Consider: I have not heard more people extol the virtues of the 24-70 f/4L IS _in its entire lifecycle to date_ than I've heard since 24-105 f/4L IS II testing came out.
> 
> - A



At the risk of being pedantic ... isn't the 24-105 more like a 3.4x FL zoom rather than a 4.5x? It starts at 24 mm, and goes up by 81 mm, making the ratio 81/24 = 3.375x FL?


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2016)

jd7 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > How funny would it be if the only thing another 24-105L being offered teaches us is that physics is, in fact, _physics_. 4.5x FL multiplier zooms don't cut the mustard like 3x multiplier lenses do.
> ...


What kind of logic is that? With that logic a 35-70 zoom lens is a 1x ;D

Sorry you have to divide 105 by 24...


----------



## Act444 (Dec 6, 2016)

A fixed focal length lens would be 1x

24-105 is 105/24 = 4.375x zoom

24-70 is 70/24 = 2.92x, often rounded up to 3x zoom


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

Act444 said:


> A fixed focal length lens would be 1x
> 
> 24-105 is 105/24 = 4.375x zoom
> 
> 24-70 is 70/24 = 2.92x, often rounded up to 3x zoom



Yep. I just use 3x and 4.5x to keep it simple, but yes, that's the rub.

- A


----------



## jd7 (Dec 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > A fixed focal length lens would be 1x
> ...



Fair enough, I got that one wrong! I was thinking about the range of the zoom (as a factor of the widest focal length), but now I think about it more you were referring to a focal length multiplier, and that does make sense if it is simply the factor by which you have to multiply the shortest/widest focal length to get the longest focal length.


----------

