# Lensrentals.com Puts the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Through Testing



## ahsanford (Nov 30, 2016)

Just dropped:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/canon-24-105-f4-is-mk-ii-mtf-results/

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 30, 2016)

I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

_"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."
_
- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2016)

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not exactly a ringing endorsement...



Agree. Unless you own the 24-70 f/4L IS. I'm pleased to see that it acquitted itself well in the testing.

I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club.  

- A


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Not exactly a ringing endorsement...
> ...



+ 1 +1! I absolutely agree with you on both lenses, and am a happy member of the 24-70 f4 L IS fan club!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club.



You're diluting your efforts when you sholud be focusing exclusively on the 50mm f/somethingorother IS USM.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club.
> ...



With my nutty ways, Canon will finally announce it as a 50mm f/2 IS USM, there will be a deafening 'why bother' from the small DOF crowd, and I will be the only one who buys it. 

I'll be delighted, I'm sure. 

- A


----------



## Etienne (Nov 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Not exactly a ringing endorsement...
> ...



I have the 28 f/2.8 IS and I agree it is a nice little lens. Very sharp, small and light, and just wide enough to be useful as a wide lens. Great for street photography, and walk around.

If I didn't already have the original 24-105 f/4L IS I would get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the new 24-105 mkII. But I'll stick with my old lens, for the few times I use it, it does a good job.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:
> 
> _"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."
> _
> - A



And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself. 

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not exactly a ringing endorsement...



I had contemplated upgrading to the newer version but saw a test a couple weeks ago that had the same conclusion. I think I'll just wear out the old one and see what's available when the time comes.
In all seriousness, it doesn't really matter how good the IQ is since I only take photos to post on Facebook.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Just dropped:
> 
> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/canon-24-105-f4-is-mk-ii-mtf-results/
> 
> - A



all very nice

but mechanically is it a zoom version of the 35LII?

come on Roger, we want to see inside!


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 30, 2016)

Act444 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:
> ...



I'm on my third 24-70 f2.8LII, and it is sharper in the center, and it has good contrast and clarity, that gives a nice pop to its images. However, each of those three lenses have had some issues. At 35mm my current lens is pretty bad in the upper right (APS-C) corner. The 24-70 f4 L IS is not as sharp at its sharpest, but it is much more even and don't have any particular weak spots. For landscapes, the 24-70 f4 is arguably the better lens of the two.


----------



## j-nord (Nov 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Not exactly a ringing endorsement...
> ...



Yeah at 24 and 70 it's better. Where is the 50mm comparison? Both of these lenses are "meh" for me. As a one lens, walk around solution, unfortunately, they are hard to beat. I just can't handle these boring focal lengths with boring max apertures.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 30, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I disagree about the 24-70 f4 not having any weak spots: of all the lenses I own that cover 50mm, this one is the worst performer at that length (softest, least contrast), and that includes the 50 1.8 STM (although shooting that at 1.8 is similar, at f4 it runs circles around the 24-70). That weakness at 50mm is almost THE reason I still have the 24-105, where it is strongest at 50mm, and sharper near MFD. 

If it were simply the 2.8 II version optically with an f4 aperture, it likely would have been an instant 24-105 replacement for me. Alas, it is not, and I keep both and enjoy the extra reach of 105mm.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 30, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



I've heard people complain at the 50mm performance, but my experience does not support that. I dont find my 24-70 f4 bad at 50mm at all. It is overall better at 50mm, than my f2.8 is at 35mm. 

Roger Cicala has tested the 24-70 f4 at 50mm, and found it to be very close to it's 70mm performance.


----------



## grainier (Nov 30, 2016)

Let's hope they have at least improved design and reliability and you don't have to live wondering just when the flex cable will go and how much PITA fixing it will be.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 30, 2016)

Well, it looks as if I may go for the 24-70 f/4 L IS as a walk-around lens. Maybe I will stick the 40mm f/2.8 in my pocket for a "normal" lens, if the 40-50 mm range is weak. Weight matters some. Of course I want a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards at Canon.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 30, 2016)

Act444 said:


> And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper?



Better IS comes to mind. TDP stated a 4-6 stops of IS were possible (with a grain of salt given that IS testing by hand is somewhat irreproducible), which is a step up from the Mk I. A zoom lock -- as light as I'm sure it is -- is also a nice add. 

On the IS front, I'm starting to hear some folks pitching the notion that _today's IS is so good that they recommend a landscaper leave their tripod at home_. It's heresy for some -- myself included -- but some people pulling off 5s, 10s, 15s exposures handheld tend to puff up their chests and say that tripods are a thing of the past. Practically, we know this is nonsense for a jillion reasons (bracketing, astro, timelapse, wind, using ND grads, etc.), but a handheld 10s exposure is still a handheld 10s exposure -- IS is improving and people are finding new ways to use it.

- A


----------



## jd7 (Nov 30, 2016)

Larsskv said:


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



I've never tried the 28mm f/2.8 IS, but I'm another happy member of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club. Not saying it's perfect, but the combination of relatively small size, light weight, good IS, (semi-)macro mode, and very good IQ (in my experience, even at its weakest point around 50mm) makes it a very useful/practical lens for me.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 30, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



That is my experience also. And that is not the first time I have heard someone say the f/4 IS is more even across the frame than the f/2.8 II (as good as the f/2.8 II may be in many respects), although I don't have enough experience with the f/2.8 II to have an opinion about that myself.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Better IS comes to mind. TDP stated a 4-6 stops of IS were possible (with a grain of salt given that IS testing by hand is somewhat irreproducible), which is a step up from the Mk I. A zoom lock -- as light as I'm sure it is -- is also a nice add.



True, but those alone are hardly worth $1K - at least to me. YMMV though.

As for the 24-70 f4, I do like that lens overall - there is a reason I've kept it despite the major 50mm drawback. I've discovered it's a great go-to for travel use. The 2.8 version has been a great lens in my experience, although not perfect; I find it weakest at 70mm, particularly off-center. I'd rather use the wide end of the 70-200 2.8 if I required the 70mm focal length particularly (and yes, the IS is part of the reason as well).


----------



## YellowJersey (Dec 1, 2016)

I'm curios to see how it compares to the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 ART lens. I know the Sigma lacks weather sealing, but as I understand it, the IQ coming out of the Sigma is noticeably better than the Mk I, so I'd bet it's better than the Mk II, too. 

I used to have the Mk I, nearly had it for ten years. It was my first L series lens. But I sold it a little while ago as I was demanding sharper results. Looks like I'll probably be picking up the Sigma as a replacement.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 1, 2016)

i would also like to see comparison to Sigma. And even more so comparison to Canon 24-105 Non L. 

got 24-70/2.8 II, but would like the extra range, IS and a smaller/lighter lens for walkaround. if i could get 90% of the IQ at half the size and a quarter of the price, i might accept the darker/variable aperture of the Non L.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

Why do people wonder about the Sigma? The data is out there:


*TDP*

24mm f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

105mm f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

At 105mm, you can argue whether you want slightly sharper or fringe-free (the 24-105 f/4L II seems to have an odd blue cast to it). But they are close for sharpness. 

At 24mm, it's easier to see. The Sigma is sharper, especially in the mid frame.

Play around with the tool if you want other FLs.*


PZ*

_The L II isn't there, but if you presume it's about the same as the original 24-105L, you can compare that to the Sigma._

24-105 f/4L I: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/864-sigma24105f4eos?start=1

Sigma was phenomenal in the center but largely in line with the Canon elsewhere.


*LensTip:*

_The L II isn't there, but if you presume it's about the same as the original 24-105L, you can compare that to the Sigma._

I'll jump to resolution but you can peruse other areas at the bottom.

24-105 f/4L I: http://www.lenstip.com/240.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-105_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html

Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art: http://www.lenstip.com/389.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24-105_mm_f_4_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

They aren't terribly far off from each other. The Sigma was stronger in the center on the 24mm end, while the Canon did better in the frame corners in the 40mm neighborhood.


The problem of course is that one lens is a crummy way to size up how it performs. The three reviews had different findings.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Why do people wonder about the Sigma? The data is out there:
> ...
> The problem of course is that one lens is a crummy way to size up how it performs. The three reviews had different findings.



That's exactly why I would love to see Roger include the Sigma and the Canon 24-105 non L in his test ... applying his superior test methods [multiple copies], superior test equipment [OLAF], superior lens test know-how and his far superior writing skills ... 8)


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not exactly a ringing endorsement...


So I come to the conclusion that V2 offers:

about the same IQ
latest IS
zoom look
higher price and no good discounts as kit lens
probably lower production costs for Canon

So except for the latest IS (and maybe the zoom lock) a real big personal disappointment to me.
But it will save me some money, because I will not part with my V1 for some more years.

Disclaimer:
I never was expecting IQ to improve to 24-70/2.8 V2 level. 
But I was expecting it to get a visible gap to the non-L 24-105.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 1, 2016)

The area where Sigma 24-105 Art was not phenomenal in my experience .. I mean at all.. was AF consistency.
I played with the lens for a few days and gave up seeing how unpredictable AF results were. I see no value in out of focus images taken with what can be potentially a great glass. I believe that second generation of Sigma Art lenses will be a mighty force for OEM's to recon with though.



ahsanford said:


> Why do people wonder about the Sigma? The data is out there:
> 
> 
> Sigma was phenomenal in the center but largely in line with the Canon elsewhere.


----------



## infared (Dec 1, 2016)

Thanks Roger.
I will keep my excellent copy of my 24-70mm f/2.8L II. I was expensive and has less reach...but it's a pretty damn good lens for a zoom....


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 1, 2016)

Count me as one of the optimistic who sold a 5D III + 24-105 kit to fund an upgrade to the 5D IV.

Personally, I have not entered the video zone, but I can certainly understand the frustration some have over the cropped 4k with MASSIVE file sizes. So if we count this aspect of the 5D IV a STRIKE, *and the apocalyptic vignetting of the brand new 16-35 f/2.8 III*, and the *somewhat cynical refresh of the 24-105mm...

*

Canon, that's three strikes and you are OUT. But there are more players coming to bat, and many more innings to play, so I'm still in their stadium.

But more seriously, the 24-105mm is the workhorse, bread and butter lens of many portrait and event photographers, the ones who make a living, just, but aren't workshop superstars or celebrity wedding photographers. The current issue of PPA--and quite a few others!--has a cover photo taken with the the 24-105mm.

So, "kit lens" or not, this is a lens that serves a core of photographers who likely expected a little more of a nod from Canon.

And, oh yes, I was one who gave up on the 80D (poor QC and I just didn't like the images of that particular sensor), so, for the first time in...Maybe ever? I'm venturing to another brand, really ready to check out the Fuji X-T2. I would have loved to stay Canon with mirrorless, but the efforts to date? No thanks, I'm not hanging in for another new product that has to be defended with pretzel logic.

Just sayin...And you can look at how harshly over the years I've reacted to chronic Canon bashers, so, either I'm in a mood or Canon really needs to pick up their game.


----------



## jalbfb (Dec 1, 2016)

I will be getting the 5D4 in January and was going to get the newer 24-105 and sell off my present 5D3 and older version 24-105. But after this article, I'll sell the present 5D3 body and keep my 24-105 and save the $1100. I like the extra reach that 105 gives me and the IS, so I will probably stay away from the 24-70 although I must admit it is tempting. If the price of the newer lens comes down I may decide at that time to sell the older and get the newer.


----------



## infared (Dec 1, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Count me as one of the optimistic who sold a 5D III + 24-105 kit to fund an upgrade to the 5D IV.
> 
> Personally, I have not entered the video zone, but I can certainly understand the frustration some have over the cropped 4k with MASSIVE file sizes. So if we count this aspect of the 5D IV a STRIKE, *and the apocalyptic vignetting of the brand new 16-35 f/2.8 III*, and the *somewhat cynical refresh of the 24-105mm...
> 
> ...



Choices can be important.
I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II to buy the 16-35 f/4 IS. Even trade...no money out of pocket. Couldn't be happier. Way better.
As far as the 5DIV goes...I am just going to skip that, too. I shoot stills, I usually do not make prints larger than 30" 
or so..and my 5DIII gives me great files that are much easier to process in post and store. Perhaps when I can pick one up for $1800....I will see how I feel then. I just don't think, for me, that I would see $3500 worth of image improvement. If I have a great photo...it just won't make much difference.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 1, 2016)

infared said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Count me as one of the optimistic who sold a 5D III + 24-105 kit to fund an upgrade to the 5D IV.
> ...



Very reasonable! However, I was so keen to get the better AF I took a chance, and, so far, I'm glad. Just nailing so many shots exactly where they should be. Was it cost effective? Smart financially? Don't ask me that!

I AM glad that I didn't go for the kit with the new 24-105mm. My friend who bought my old one is happy!

Fantasy: The shortage of new 24-105mm was due to somebody realizing the new ones weren't as improved as engineered, production paused, and some tweaking is going on...Fantasy.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain.



Hey, at least you have a 28mm that gets some love from folks.  I own the 28mm f/1.8 and if one were to read about that lens on the internet you'd swear it wasn't capable of producing any image at all!


----------



## LesC (Dec 1, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm venturing to another brand, really ready to check out the Fuji X-T2. I would have loved to stay Canon with mirrorless, but the efforts to date?



Is that to replace the 80D (not the 5D MK1V too) ? I do like the look of the X-T2 but it's not that small (If I want small & light my EOD100D (SL1) + 17-40F4 L is a good combo). Mirrorless seem appealing but until I get to the stage where a DSLR is too much to carry I'm sticking with them - just prefer a real viewfinder.

As to the new 24-105, despite my original disappointment that there's not a big increase if any over the original, I'll probably end up getting one - maybe the price will drop after Xmas...


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 1, 2016)

Was looking forward to upgrading the 24-105 if the performance was a good upgrade ... BUT :: 

I own the ancient Canon 20-35 lens, and it's very solid. I bought it when I bought he 30D and the 28-135 years ago. Haven't used the 20-35 much since buying the 16-35 f4, but it performed well for years. Can't quite let myself sell it, and will probably keep the 24-105 v1 rather than spend for minimal upgrade on the v.2 - 

May sell the 16-35 and keep the 20-35 and the 24-105 v1 ... I don't often shoot wide anyway ... my major focus is wildlife and sports. The 20-35 is a really nice lens ... not sure why Canon quit building it, but it sure performs well - or, maybe I bought a very good copy??? On the good side, saved me $1100 ...


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

FYI:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31411.msg638352#msg638352

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 1, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain.
> ...



I like the 28 f/2.8 IS (refurb sale), but I don't use it much. It's small but I often find myself reaching for the 16-35 f/4 IS more.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 1, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> ...
> Fantasy: The shortage of new 24-105mm was due to somebody realizing the new ones weren't as improved as engineered, production paused, and some tweaking is going on...Fantasy.


I'm sure that'll stay a fantasy until V3 of that lens - sadly.

Only good thing is the reduction of the copy variation. 
But why make it larger then? Does the new IS need so much space? Don't think so.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



24mm distortion (previously a comically high amount) has been tamed as well. It's not a poor lens, mind you, it's just a very small improvement. 

We may find other upsides to it -- durability, AF consistency, IS noise reduction, etc. -- that aren't as sexy but still provide value. 

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 1, 2016)

LesC said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'm venturing to another brand, really ready to check out the Fuji X-T2. I would have loved to stay Canon with mirrorless, but the efforts to date?
> ...



Just by luck a friend of the family showed up after Thanksgiving with his X-T2, which I had been looking at for weeks.

It feels MUCH smaller, much lighter than the 80D, enough so that it is certainly worth whatever _theoretical_ difference in IQ. Our friend, a commercial artist working in NY city, has had it about two months, showed lots of images on his website, answered 90 minutes of questions...

I don't own one yet, but likely soon. Heck, they've been backordered about a week at the big online shops.

But I can see it is a carefully thought out, very mature and capable camera for many situations. Why wait for however many generations it takes Canon to catch up?

Love the ef 35mm 1.4 II. Agree it is amazing. Same for 5DIV.

But seeing some of Canon's uncharacteristic missteps, because they are rare, has me a bit off balance here. And I think the new version of the 24-105mm is a sign they are shrugging off some core customers, looking for profits elsewhere.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Just by luck a friend of the family showed up after Thanksgiving with his X-T2, which I had been looking at for weeks.
> 
> It feels MUCH smaller, much lighter than the 80D, enough so that it is certainly worth whatever _theoretical_ difference in IQ. Our friend, a commercial artist working in NY city, has had it about two months, showed lots of images on his website, answered 90 minutes of questions...
> 
> I don't own one yet, but likely soon. Heck, they've been backordered about a week at the big online shops.



Yep, forget the huge MP counts, 4K and features for days with the A7 line. The X-T2 enthusiast word of mouth seems quite loud these days. Folks love that thing, but I still don't 'get' it as its hard to apples-to-apples the end product in comparison to CaNikon FF rigs.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Just by luck a friend of the family showed up after Thanksgiving with his X-T2, which I had been looking at for weeks.
> ...



I think an easier comparison would be to current APS-C dSLRs, but that is another thread!

Relating to this thread, as a company wobbles, customers fall off. No, I'm not leaving Canon! I'm happy with the dSLR's and very good repair service. But I am now starting to look elsewhere for some photography needs--in large part because of disappointment with the 80D and the feeling that Canon is not sure where to go next. Something seems off with leadership for the missteps to be adding up, and this particular lens, as I've stated, has such a big footprint among a tier of professionals and many enthusiasts looking for L quality, whether it be intended as "entry level L" or not.

On CR, the 24-105mm gets little respect, but please check out publications that include which lens was used for images, talk to the grunts who work at the hundreds of community magazines around the country, who do senior photos, and you will see why I'm so surprised Canon has not done better here.

Could the have charged, say 15% more to produce 5-10% better IQ than the last one and still satisfied the bean counters? 

Maybe Canon is having an internal struggle deciding what the L line should include, which might explain having a non L the same focal lengths matching this one (except for aperture).

Wrapping up, while the industry may be in turmoil, Canon does not reassure its still loyal core of customers by beginning to give the impression of flailing about.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 1, 2016)

Etienne said:


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



I am a fan of the 24-70 f/4L IS, but no longer own one. I loaned it along with my 6D to my teen aged son for his trip to Europe and never got it back, as he has really gotten into photography. I'm considering it a gift at this point. 

I thought I could get by without a standard zoom, but wasn't happy juggling primes. To fill the void, I picked up a used 24-105 Mk1 in early October for $400 and got very lucky as its an excellent copy. 

So, I plan to hang on this Mk1 and am happy to pass on the 24-105 MkII.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 2, 2016)

Like many others, I'm a bit disappointed by the reviews. Honestly, I was expecting to, and would would have paid, 50% more than the retail price of the II for a really stellar upgrade.

But, in comparing all the 24-105s and seeing how small the differences are, I have to wonder is there is something that I don't understand which limits just how good a lens in this range can be. I suspect that if Canon could have made a better lens for another $500-$600 they probably would have done it.

I haven't ruled this lens out, but I'm not sure it's worth upgrading just for the zoom lock and improved IS. This was the only lens I was contemplating next year (after pretty much filling out my lens wants/needs over the past two years), so 2017 might be a no-lens purchase year (although I kind of doubt it.  )


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 2, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


ahsanford, don't get me wrong! 

This is for sure not a bad lens. And if the price comes a bit down it'll be worth the value.
But as I already have its predecessor it is very unattractive to me. 
And as all of you have pointed out that the V1 had it's (little) flaws I thought, Canon could - at least for that price - also improve the IQ. And I am more interested in the long end, 80 - 100 mm. So the 24-70 mm alternatives are no real ones to me. And I was willing to get into this acquisition. No more.

And to me the 24-105 non-L and this V2 lens are optically too close together to have a 66% price gap. (top-down 400 vs. 1200 € in Germany, street price - I know)


----------



## AlanF (Dec 2, 2016)

Photozone has just published a pretty damning review:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/995-canon24105f4ismk2

Well, no need to upgrade.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 2, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Photozone has just published a pretty damning review:
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/995-canon24105f4ismk2
> Well, no need to upgrade.



thx for sharing! 

@Canon: how stupid!


----------



## jd7 (Dec 3, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Like many others, I'm a bit disappointed by the reviews. Honestly, I was expecting to, and would would have paid, 50% more than the retail price of the II for a really stellar upgrade.
> 
> But, in comparing all the 24-105s and seeing how small the differences are, I have to wonder is there is something that I don't understand which limits just how good a lens in this range can be. I suspect that if Canon could have made a better lens for another $500-$600 they probably would have done it.
> 
> I haven't ruled this lens out, but I'm not sure it's worth upgrading just for the zoom lock and improved IS. This was the only lens I was contemplating next year (after pretty much filling out my lens wants/needs over the past two years), so 2017 might be a no-lens purchase year (although I kind of doubt it.  )



I am certainly no lens designer, so take this with a grain of salt, but my guess is producing a zoom lens which goes from wide angle to telephoto is a particular challenge. I get the impression a range which is all telephoto (eg 100-400) or all wide angle is probably easier (although not necessarily easy, I'm sure!). 

I am sure Canon does manufacture to a price point (not going to work commercially otherwise), but I suspect the lack of substantial IQ improvement in the 24-105s which have come out since the L mk 1 is probably testament to the fact it's a hard range to cover well.

Anyone with real knowledge of lens design care to comment?


----------



## LesC (Dec 3, 2016)

Seems a little strange, that Photozone review; the text suggests the lens is pretty poor on 50MP & only slightly improved on 21MP. However looking at the sample images, they don't look to bad at all - especially as all on the 50MP 5DSR. If it's better at lower MP too...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Not exactly a ringing endorsement...
> ...



I liked my 24-70 f/4 IS until I sold it for a 16-35 IS. I thought it was vastly better than any copy of the 24-105 IS I ever tried, none of which ever cut it for me at the wide end for landscape quality. I was also way pro 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS. The former was a good deal faster in real world too due to a much improved T value, I think like a crazy almost half stop more light and blur at f/4 (although I basically used it more for stopped down IS work). I never got the obsession with having to have that mega 24-105 range over the far superior image quality of 24-70 range. When I go long it's often more convenient to have it in a much wider and longer range in my 70-300 IS (which is actually my single most used lens of all).

I sold the 16-35 IS too though, it is a nice lens but I wanted to add sony sensor and video to my equipment and the lens sale helped offset the costs of adding in Sony stuff. A real shame Canon never did manage to really get top video or sensor quality going although the new 5D at least made a bit of a start in that direction, but from what I've seen my sony video still seems to show noticeably more detail and the sensor is still better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 9, 2016)

Act444 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:
> ...



stop down focus can fight focus shift at close distances and sharpen stuff up


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 9, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



50mm is the weak spot of the 24-70 IS but I find I tend to shoot the least at 50mm which often seems boring on FF and I bet most people shoot 90% near the extremes of the ranges of zooms. I bet 95% of my shots with it were 24mm-35mm or 65-70mm. Of course your mileage may well vary.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 9, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



The 24-70 2.8 II does suffer from focal plane tilt problems and it's very hard to get a uniform copy across the board, probably would need to try at 8-12 copies. But it has insane micro-contrast, it's pretty much APO and reject LoCA amazingly well, it starts super sharp anywhere remotely near the middle even at f/2.8. At the 60-70mm range the corners and field curvature can be a little odd and my 70-300 IS maybe handles the field in a more natural way although anywhere in the center, anywhere not at the corners, the 24-70 is crazy sharp at 70mm even at f/2.8. Some copies are a bit sharper at f/2.8 than others. The best copies are peak center sharpness basically by f/3.2 already while the others probably hit peak center sharpness 2/3 more stops down at f/4. I tried a bunch. My current copy does have on corner pair or corners that do still have focal plane a touch tilted but it's not too bad and over almost all of the frame, including far edges, the results are just fantastic, simply fantastic. Occasionally a scene may be tricky enough to get slightly got by focal tilt at one corner or two compared to 24-70 f/4 IS but in most cases the 24-70 II produces better overall results at 24mm and in the other cases that still holds for the bulk of the frame. I noticed that 24-70 f/4 IS copy variation was of a different sort, the tilt of the focal plane and just regular corner vs corner tended to almost always be in fine balance but the overall quality could vary. The worst copies are softer across the entire frame and far softer along all edges and corners and radically so at 50mm than a good copy.


----------

