# New EF 24-105 f/4L IS Replacement Coming With 5D Mark IV [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 9, 2016)

```
We reported yesterday that a new kit lens was coming with the EOS 5D Mark IV in August.</p>
<p>We have confirmed that the kit lens will indeed be an update for the EF 24-105 f/4L IS, which makes a lot more sense for a camera such as the EOS 5D Mark IV.</p>
<p>We have been unable to confirm if the new L lens will support the Power Zoom PZ-E1.</p>
<p>To re-iterate, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-kit-lens-coming-for-eos-5d-mark-iv-cr2/">yesterdays report of a Non L kit lens </a>coming with the EOS 5D Mark IV was incorrect and it will indeed be an L.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 9, 2016)

Damn...

My EF 24-105mm's aperture failed, and as the price of the fix is 1/3rd the price of a new one, I opted to buy new.


----------



## zim (Jun 9, 2016)

Excellent news, my interest in this lens has just been re-kindled


----------



## NorbR (Jun 9, 2016)

Sweet  Glad to see a CR3 on that one. 
Give it improved optics, improved IS, and the new Nano USM, and I'll be all over that lens.


----------



## EOS-1DX Mark II (Jun 9, 2016)

Finally! I miss this focal lenghts.


----------



## honestlo (Jun 9, 2016)

glad to here that.

I expect
better optics 
a closer min focusing distance
a built-in macro mode just as 24-70 f/4
support the power zoome PZ-E1


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 9, 2016)

The existing lens is very robust and reliable.
I've always been happy with its picture quality.
I've thought of moving it on a few times but it's a great focal length range on Full Frame.
I'm sure the new one will be better but the existing one will be a bargain.
As both are F4 it will be difficult to see any improvement in real life shooting, 
Hopefully the new lens will be fantastic.


----------



## davidj (Jun 9, 2016)

As a hopeful buyer of the 5D IV, this makes me very happy


----------



## slclick (Jun 9, 2016)

But this will just squash the variable aperture lens thread from yesterday and so many had powerful opinions.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 9, 2016)

slclick said:


> But this will just squash the variable aperture lens thread from yesterday and so many had powerful opinions.



I wrote the variable aperture kit lens rumor was, IMHO, unlikely. I guess I'll have to change my mind now...


----------



## CANONisOK (Jun 9, 2016)

Holy Moses! 

1) This is incredible. I've been so close to pulling the trigger on the old version, because it would make for a great travel zoom range, but hesitated because I was never in love with the optical performance of my old one. Hesitation and procrastination may have finally paid off!

2) What does this do to our little 24-70mm L f/4? I thought the 24-105 L refresh would never happen as it would cannibalize the very new 24-70mm f/4.

So the question becomes, will the refreshed 24-105mm zoom have the same optical (or other) compromises to create differentiation between these similar products? I doubt the pseudo-macro mode is enough to sway customers back to the little zoom with lesser reach.

With the quality of lenses Canon has been releasing for the past 6 years or so, it's hard to imagine them releasing anything less than a stellar performer in the L lineup. Especially with the renewed emphasis on resolution at the top end (5Dsr, 1Dx2, 5D4).

I'm intrigued to see what happens. But i suspect there is a strong possibility of this joining my kit soon.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 9, 2016)

My guess

Improved IQ - seems like the raison d'être for this upgrade.
Improved IS - 4th gen, rather than 3rd gen on the current mk1.
Diaphragm blades - I bet increase from 8 blades to 9.

Little stuff like zoom lock and pinch lens cap.

It's a kit lens, so I wouldn't be surprised to see shorter minimal focus distance, macro mode, and power zoom support w/ nUSM, as long as price remains reasonable for a kit lens. After all, the kit lens should be a starting point for a large an audience as possible, while remaining reasonably cheap.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jun 9, 2016)

NorbR said:


> Sweet  Glad to see a CR3 on that one.
> Give it improved optics, improved IS, and the new Nano USM, and I'll be all over that lens.



no... not nanoUSM, that's focus by wire so it will keep turning off and you have to restart the damn thing.

I have no problem with a focus/zoom by wire system, just so long as when the power's off manual focus and zoom still work.


----------



## james75 (Jun 9, 2016)

Sweet! Been hoping for a replacement. Thought about selling the current 24-105 for the sigma. Now I don't have to.


----------



## Luds34 (Jun 9, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> My guess
> 
> Improved IQ - seems like the raison d'être for this upgrade.
> Improved IS - 4th gen, rather than 3rd gen on the current mk1.
> ...



I like your thinking. Those 3 would all be welcome improvements. I'm a big prime guy myself, but sometimes you need to pack light and one good normal zoom is the compromise to make. I hope they offer a 6D mark II kit with this lens. If so I might have to consider going that route.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2016)

CANONisOK said:


> ... What does this do to our little 24-70mm L f/4? I thought the 24-105 L refresh would never happen as it would cannibalize the very new 24-70mm f/4.
> 
> So the question becomes, will the refreshed 24-105mm zoom have the same optical (or other) compromises to create differentiation between these similar products? ...



A $600 price difference between the two might create some differentiation.


----------



## james75 (Jun 9, 2016)

Will this lens be released by itself the same time it comes out with the kit? And what do you think the price will be?


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 9, 2016)

That's some unexpected news indeed. And CR3??? Wow!

An EF 24-105 f/4L IS successor would be really welcome, at least to me. But I really pray that Canon didn't mess it up (for me). So please:
- a real successor (L worth, improved IQ, etc.)
- no nano USM
- no power zoom dock


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 9, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> My guess
> 
> Improved IQ - seems like the raison d'être for this upgrade.
> Improved IS - 4th gen, rather than 3rd gen on the current mk1.
> ...


Like that thought except for nUSM and power zoom. 
I cannot imagine the L weather sealing working well with the mechanical connection of the power zoom.
We'll see...


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 9, 2016)

james75 said:


> Will this lens be released by itself the same time it comes out with the kit?


Surely! Being a kit lens doesn't mean sold with the kit only.



> And what do you think the price will be?


Take a look at MRSP (at sales start) and street price (after 1 or 2 years) of the 24-70/4L and add up at least some 20%. That's my guess for the price.


----------



## EOS-1DX Mark II (Jun 9, 2016)

What do you think about the filter size? My guess is 82 mm.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 9, 2016)

how many will cry bloody murder with it going back up to a $1300 MSRP, and cry that canon should sell a brand new one for the same price as a white boxed gray market ebay copy of the old one?


----------



## RGF (Jun 9, 2016)

What is Power Zoom PZ-E1?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 9, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> That's some unexpected news indeed. And CR3??? Wow!
> 
> An EF 24-105 f/4L IS successor would be really welcome, at least to me. But I really pray that Canon didn't mess it up (for me). So please:
> - a real successor (L worth, improved IQ, etc.)
> ...



why would you not want nano USM? 

it's essentially a linear motor drive USM with the same speed as regular USM but smooth racking for video.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> how many will cry bloody murder with it going back up to a $1300 MSRP, and cry that canon should sell a brand new one for the same price as a white boxed gray market ebay copy of the old one?



Lots of people on this forum, I'm sure.

Personally, I think $1,300 may be optimistic. I'd guess somewhere between $1,400 and $1,600. But, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 9, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > That's some unexpected news indeed. And CR3??? Wow!
> ...


I recognized nUSM as a not so powerful and not so fast solution of USM. (no personal experience)
And I realized that linear motors are not always good with optical elements, see the reviews of Lens Rental here about Sony linear drives.
If I am wrong and Canon did it mechanically right, I'd take back this constraint.


----------



## CanoKnight (Jun 9, 2016)

CANONisOK said:


> Holy Moses!
> 
> 1) This is incredible. I've been so close to pulling the trigger on the old version, because it would make for a great travel zoom range, but hesitated because I was never in love with the optical performance of my old one. Hesitation and procrastination may have finally paid off!
> 
> ...




My guess is a 24-120/4L at a higher price point so it won't cannibalize sales of the 24-70/4


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 9, 2016)

Yeah, as I said on these very forums many months ago, a 24-105 f/4 update has been in the works for a while now, so not surprising to get confirmation that it'll be debuting with the 5D4.


The 24-70 f/4 won't be affected much as that still has the semi-macro feature which the 24-105 will never get, and it's a given that a zoom with less range is going to remain the optically superior one. I don't expect the 24-105 update will actually mean much beyond the newer IS system to get you an extra stop-or-so there, and possibly a little optical improvement to bring it at least in line with the Sigma 24-105 f/4, which currently beats it in every department.


----------



## ehouli (Jun 9, 2016)

How successful has been the 24-70 f4 L? I don't see it as successful as the 24-105 f4L is/was. So probably Canon is taking the steps back and do what should have done I the first place: make an improved version of a lens that wasn't perfect but does a good job.


----------



## clicstudio (Jun 9, 2016)

For a second I thought it was a 24-105 F2.8L :-\


----------



## j-nord (Jun 9, 2016)

Nice this might be the lens I'm looking for! Hopefully, it's consistently sharp across the focal range unlike the 24-70 f4 (and the mki 24-105). Also, hopefully, the starting MSRP isn't ridiculous like the 24-70 f4 (went from $1500 to now $900 in a few short years).


----------



## thepancakeman (Jun 9, 2016)

Slightly off topic, but my wife loves her Mk I 24-105L which just died. While I'm sure this lens is what she'd like as a replacement, she only shoots with a crop body. Is there a crop lens that can do a reasonable imitation of the 24-105 for less $?

Thanks!


----------



## Dekaner (Jun 9, 2016)

This is good news. Echo what others have said - what happens to the 24-70 f4? (Yes, it will be cheaper, but I doubt you'll sell many once the 24-105 II is released.) My guess is that people have grown accustom to the $600 price tag on the current 24-105 and that updated pricing will come as a shock.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

I think there's some egg on my face. 

- A


----------



## NancyP (Jun 9, 2016)

None of the EF-S lenses are weather resistant, therefore, not L. That being said, there are two optically very good Canon lenses out there, the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6. I have the 15-85 lens, and it is a perfect travel/landscape/close-up (1:3.5) lens for those who don't need a fast aperture and do like pretty good IS (a generation or two more advanced that the 17-55). Another interesting and optically outstanding option is the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (no IS though). For those who want a two lens do-everything combo, the Sigma 18-35 and the new Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 might be killer combo. Finally, if your interests include video, skip all of the above and pick a lens with STM drive (many Canon versions out there, the 18-135 STM is good and popular - STM and good IS are more important that minimal difference in sharpness for video use). Reviews summarized and linked here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx


----------



## NancyP (Jun 9, 2016)

The new 24-105 L IS II, if optically significantly better than the I, might be perfect for me for a general use lens on 6D. It would be a reasonably close equivalent of the highly useful 15-85 I use for crop.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

RGF said:


> What is Power Zoom PZ-E1?



It's the deck-of-cards-sized little brick that mounts on the Canon EF‑S 18‑135mm f/3.5‑5.6 IS (nano) USM that was released recently. It's a unit for more controlled/quiet zooming for video applications.

There's logic to the idea that the 5D4 kit zoom has this functionality offered as well.

- A


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 9, 2016)

thepancakeman said:


> Slightly off topic, but my wife loves her Mk I 24-105L which just died. While I'm sure this lens is what she'd like as a replacement, she only shoots with a crop body. Is there a crop lens that can do a reasonable imitation of the 24-105 for less $?
> Thanks!


Unfortunately there is no similar lens to 24-105L for an APS-C body. The closest thing is the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8.
Yes, the zoom is shorter and mechanical quality is not optimal. It could be complemented by great 55-250mm STM.

There is also great (but dark) 15-85mm F3.5-5.6.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

NancyP said:


> None of the EF-S lenses are weather resistant, therefore, not L. That being said, there are two optically very good Canon lenses out there, the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6. I have the 15-85 lens, and it is a perfect travel/landscape/close-up (1:3.5) lens for those who don't need a fast aperture and do like pretty good IS (a generation or two more advanced that the 17-55).



It's amazing how folks rave about close focusing non-macro lenses, like the EF-S 15-85mm, like the 0.4x max mag of the Tamron 35mm Di VC, yet no one seems to talk at all about the absurdly impressive _0.7x reproduction in an L zoom!_. The 24-70 f/4L IS has this feature and it's wonderful -- it's the best do-it-all lens I've seen in that regard.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 9, 2016)

So the rumor is that the replacement for the 24-105L will be released the same time as the 5D IV, but wouldn't it make sense for Canon to include the 24-70L f/4 IS as a kit and to sell the 24-105 II on it's own? The price for the 24-70L f/4 IS has already dropped to "kit" value, and doing so for the new 24-105 doesn't make sense if it's IQ is better than the original L.


----------



## CANONisOK (Jun 9, 2016)

unfocused said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > ... What does this do to our little 24-70mm L f/4? I thought the 24-105 L refresh would never happen as it would cannibalize the very new 24-70mm f/4.
> ...


 That is a fine and dandy point. This is Canon's attempt to reclaim the price point they couldn't sustain with the 24-70L/4. That makes me feel better about the prospects for a high performance from the refresh. But that should also make this a very expensive "kit".

On the prior thread someone mentioned an Australian kit with 5D3 + 24-70L/2.8 ii. If that was a real branded kit (i.e., not just some retailer selling them together), I suppose it works be even more expensive than this new one. Any other similar high-dollar official kits released?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> So the rumor is that the replacement for the 24-105L will be released the same time as the 5D IV, but wouldn't it make sense for Canon to include the 24-70L f/4 IS as a kit and to sell the 24-105 II on it's own? The price for the 24-70L f/4 IS has already dropped to "kit" value, and doing so for the new 24-105 doesn't make sense if it's IQ is better than the original L.



_Video video video. _ If this thing has power zoom functionality and Canon sees a lucrative future turning all their stills people into videographers (even if just to nab a great still from video), then a 24-105L II with power zoom compatibility feature would make it a shoe-in to include with the 5D4.

If it's just another vanilla 24-105L lens that has no special video features, then yes, your suggestion to kit the 24-70 f/4L IS makes perfect sense.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jun 9, 2016)

Take the Sigma, give it some BR gunk with Canon's reliable AF and BAM!....top seller. This lens will be the standard for years.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

slclick said:


> Take the Sigma, give it some BR gunk with Canon's reliable AF and BAM!....top seller. This lens will be the standard for years.



I feel like I'm in Canon's marketing bullpen right now. I could be mistaken, but I think this is exactly how lenses are conceived. 

Sarcasm notwithstanding, if Canon puts _BR gunk in an f/4 zoom_ when every f/1.4 prime could use it much more badly, I would be really surprised. Also, the only lens on the planet with BR is $1799, which is hardly a kit lens sort of price...

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



Here's what Canon has to say:

[quote author=Rudy Winston, Canon DLC]
Nano USM gets its name from the incredibly compact size of this motor. (The name has nothing directly to do with the type of vibrational energy it generates to drive a lens’s focus elements.) In this initial application, the motor itself is small enough to fit on the first joint of a model’s finger...

AF speed during still-image shooting rivals what users have come to expect from high-end lenses with Canon’s powerful ring-type USMs. It’s brisk and nearly instantaneous — an almost perfect match for the new AF system in the EOS 80D. Most users will doubtless agree that it’s _*a clear step forward from what we’ve come to expect in affordable lens focus*_, whether we’re referring to the previous Micro USM focus motors used in many such lenses, or the recent STM versions.
[/quote]

Worth noting that he references nanoUSM as a big imprevement for 'affordable lenses' which I take to mean non-L lenses. Is the tiny motor that is 'small enough to fit on the first joint of a model’s finger' big enough to drive the larger focusing groups found in many L-series lenses?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

Neuro, I hear you, but the dichotomy of focusing needs means you're a shark or a jet, a North or a South, a Red Sox or a Yankees, etc.:


Stills people want lightning fast focusing period, often chasing very fast moving things. Some in this camp can't stand focus by wire and want responsive mechanical focusing control at any time.


Video favors less abrupt focusing and the smoothness of focus by wire, opportunity of a power zoom, tune-ability of focusing speed, etc.

Until Canon puts a Nano-USM / Ring-USM switch on the side of lens for both camps (which may not be possible), there will be no magic AF that makes everyone happy, IMHO.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Worth noting that he references nanoUSM as a big imprevement for 'affordable lenses' which I take to mean non-L lenses. Is the tiny motor that is 'small enough to fit on the first joint of a model’s finger' big enough to drive the larger focusing groups found in many L-series lenses?



Also, if this is a true sequel to the 24-105L without additional power zoom / video fanfare that Nano USM might support, surely it will stay as a true ring USM, right?

- A


----------



## Meatcurry (Jun 9, 2016)

thepancakeman said:


> Slightly off topic, but my wife loves her Mk I 24-105L which just died. While I'm sure this lens is what she'd like as a replacement, she only shoots with a crop body. Is there a crop lens that can do a reasonable imitation of the 24-105 for less $?
> 
> Thanks!



Your best best(Canon) would be the EFS 15-85, FF equivalent of 24-135, it's well regarded.


----------



## tphillips63 (Jun 9, 2016)

I'm excited for this lens. I've had two of the the originals and sold them both but with a new copy I will probably keep it.
I always think I am going to need 2.8 but during the day it hardly ever happens and the size and range if the 24-105 is so great that it can serve a lot of family trips and outing easily for me.
Even the current lens produces great results if you are not a big time pixel peeper and even then they are many great photos with it.


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 9, 2016)

NorbR said:


> Sweet  Glad to see a CR3 on that one.
> Give it improved optics, improved IS, and the new Nano USM, and I'll be all over that lens.


+1


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 9, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Expect the existing 24-105/f4L to "fall off" the recommended lens list for the 5Ds/R



I thought it was never on.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Expect the existing 24-105/f4L to "fall off" the recommended lens list for the 5Ds/R
> ...



Sporgon is correct:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15356

- A


----------



## shutterlag (Jun 9, 2016)

And Canon's glacial pace trudges onward...


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2016)

shutterlag said:


> And Canon's glacial pace trudges onward...



Huh? What? Do you have a point or just uninformed trolling?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I think there's some egg on my face.
> 
> - A



You are not the only one. Yesterday I said Canon would not replace the 24-105 until the surplus of the current model had been reduced. Shows what I know.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Neuro, I hear you, but the dichotomy of focusing needs means you're a shark or a jet, a North or a South, a Red Sox or a Yankees, etc.:
> 
> 
> Stills people want lightning fast focusing period, often chasing very fast moving things. Some in this camp can't stand focus by wire and want responsive mechanical focusing control at any time.
> ...



So I'm wondering just how much slower Nano-USM might be. I use the 24-105 a lot, but almost never for fast action. Is this the kind of difference that will only bother you if are shooting at 10-14 frames per second. Also wondering if a lens of this size might respond more quickly that a long, fast telephoto.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

unfocused said:


> So I'm wondering just how much slower Nano-USM might be. I use the 24-105 a lot, but almost never for fast action. Is this the kind of difference that will only bother you if are shooting at 10-14 frames per second. Also wondering if a lens of this size might respond more quickly that a long, fast telephoto.



I rant about USM > STM all the time as I only shoot stills.

From what little testing / reviews have been done, I hear nano-USM greatly bridges the 'speed to lock' gap that STM has to USM, which is great. If my much-ballyhooed 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM turns out to be Nano USM, it might be fine for me.

But _focus by wire_ is not something I enjoy. It's not responsive and as precise as my full-time manual focus lenses. (I have no idea how Sony is focus by wire with these new G master lenses that cost a mint).

- A


----------



## kevl (Jun 9, 2016)

I found the current 24-105 to be painfully soft. The images I got out of it required extra work to fit in with the rest of the images from events shot with other lenses. 

I hope the new version will be sharp and have excellent contrast. If it is I may just sell my 24-70 2.8L II and get it for the extra range.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 9, 2016)

I am very fond of my 24-70 f2.8L II and I will clearly not part with it. However, ever since I sold the 24-105 f4L IS, I have missed the versatility of that lens. Its focal range makes it a great general purpose walk around lens. Version 1 is not anywhere near the 24-70 in optical quality, but having seen what they did to some of the new releases, I have high hopes for this one.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I am very fond of my 24-70 f2.8L II and I will clearly not part with it. However, ever since I sold the 24-105 f4L IS, I have missed the versatility of that lens. Its focal range makes it a great general purpose walk around lens. Version 1 is not anywhere near the 24-70 in optical quality, but having seen what they did to some of the new releases, I have high hopes for this one.



The question is: will it have the IQ of the 24-70 f/4L IS (and presumably therefore be quite heavy to cover 71-105 with good resolution), or will it simply be a modernized Mk II of the 24-105L we know today -- same IQ but put on a diet weight-wise, a lock switch added, better IS, etc.

Prediction: It won't be as sharp as the 24-70 f/4L _and_ get considerably lighter than the current 24-105L. It will be one or the other. I don't see both happening given the FL multiplier difference.

- A


----------



## Eldar (Jun 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I am very fond of my 24-70 f2.8L II and I will clearly not part with it. However, ever since I sold the 24-105 f4L IS, I have missed the versatility of that lens. Its focal range makes it a great general purpose walk around lens. Version 1 is not anywhere near the 24-70 in optical quality, but having seen what they did to some of the new releases, I have high hopes for this one.
> ...


Could be, but what´s the purpose of releasing that focal length again, if it was not for a significant improvement? Improved IS, a lock switch and a few grams saved is (in my view) not enough. I think we will see a significant boost in performance and a significant boost in price.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Worth noting that he references nanoUSM as a big imprevement for 'affordable lenses' which I take to mean non-L lenses. Is the tiny motor that is 'small enough to fit on the first joint of a model’s finger' big enough to drive the larger focusing groups found in many L-series lenses? 
[/quote]
Thanks, Neuro, for pointing that out more precisely than I could today in the morning. 
So nUSM beeing more or less a superior substitution for STM and no high performance AF for high performance L lenses.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2016)

kevl said:


> I found the current 24-105 to be painfully soft. The images I got out of it required extra work to fit in with the rest of the images from events shot with other lenses...



This surprises me. I wouldn't claim that the 24-105 is as sharp as the 24-70, but if the softness is that evident I wonder if the lens is faulty.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

unfocused said:


> kevl said:
> 
> 
> > I found the current 24-105 to be painfully soft. The images I got out of it required extra work to fit in with the rest of the images from events shot with other lenses...
> ...



Agree, the 24-70 f/4L IS is sharper, but not tremendously so. Only at 24mm is it a night and day difference.

Kevl, if you have to stop your lens down to f/6.3 or something to net a useably sharp shot, you might want to have it looked at, or possibly try out another copy side by side in a store that will allow you to test it.

- A


----------



## RGF (Jun 9, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I am very fond of my 24-70 f2.8L II and I will clearly not part with it. However, ever since I sold the 24-105 f4L IS, I have missed the versatility of that lens. Its focal range makes it a great general purpose walk around lens. Version 1 is not anywhere near the 24-70 in optical quality, but having seen what they did to some of the new releases, I have high hopes for this one.



+1 but in the end I needed to buy back the 24-105 (when my 24-70 F2.8 II feel and had to be repaired) I need a mid-range zoom quickly so I got the 24-105

Nice thing about the 24-105 is the 77mm filter size. Let's hope Canon sticks with this filter size and does not increase the filter size to 82mm.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 9, 2016)

RGF said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I am very fond of my 24-70 f2.8L II and I will clearly not part with it. However, ever since I sold the 24-105 f4L IS, I have missed the versatility of that lens. Its focal range makes it a great general purpose walk around lens. Version 1 is not anywhere near the 24-70 in optical quality, but having seen what they did to some of the new releases, I have high hopes for this one.
> ...


Im happy to take 82mm if thats what it takes to increase the IQ. The sigma 24-105 is 82mm. I suspect Canon will go to 82mm if they overhaul the optical formula.


----------



## CANONisOK (Jun 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > kevl said:
> ...


 This is the other great hope I thought of after my first post. Canon lately has a fantastic reputation for less copy to copy variation. This was one of the biggest problem with the original. 

We'll just have to wait and see.. but again.. this is sounding more and more like an expensive kit. Anyone care to throw out an estimate? Is this a $4.5k USD kit? ~3300 body + 1200 lens.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 9, 2016)

My prediction: the Canon 5D Mk IV will come in at the same price or within $200.00 of the Mk III at introduction. The new 24-105mm f4L II will come in at around $1,399 - $1,499. In kit form the combo will be about $4,399 - $4,799.


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Jun 9, 2016)

As a 5DSR owner, who has stopped using his Canon 24-70 F2.8 II, and who sold his 50L, 85L II, his 135L all because they don't have IS, and then purchased the Sigma 24-105 F4 OS, Tamron 45 VC & 85 VC, I can pretty much predict that this lens is a must release for the big megapixel cameras that are coming in 2017 - i.e. it looks like we are jumping to 75Mpix. I wonder if this disproves the recent 24Mpix, which made no sense, 5D4 sensor size, and that we will instead be seeing the earlier rumoured 28-30 and thus a new IS lens can get marketed well. I still think there is something to Tony Northrupt's rumor that we are going to see the 6D_II first - and that the 5D4 is next year at 75Mpix.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

wallstreetoneil said:


> As a 5DSR owner, who has stopped using his Canon 24-70 F2.8 II, and who sold his 50L, 85L II, his 135L all because they don't have IS, and then purchased the Sigma 24-105 F4 OS, Tamron 45 VC & 85 VC, I can pretty much predict that this lens is a must release for the big megapixel cameras that are coming in 2017 - i.e. it looks like we are jumping to 75Mpix. I wonder if this disproves the recent 24Mpix, which made no sense, 5D4 sensor size, and that we will instead be seeing the earlier rumoured 28-30 and thus a new IS lens can get marketed well. I still think there is something to Tony Northrupt's rumor that we are going to see the 6D_II first - and that the 5D4 is next year at 75Mpix.



We can talk MP all day and I'll skip that topic. BUT, if you consider:

1) In the last 5 years, Canon has never released two FF rigs simultaneously* (unless it's a AA filter related like the 5DS/5DSR) that could steal business from one another. They announce / build-buzz / take pre-orders / ship / get reviews published / etc. for just one FF rig and _*then*_ they slide over to a similar cycle for another brand. This protects the sales of higher priced items as the only 'new' thing on the market at that time.

(*Yes, 1DX and 5D3 slightly overlapped, but that was not by design -- that was earthquake related)

2) We've heard 10x more about the 5D4 this year (rumor-wise) than the 6D2.

3) The 5D4 is 4+ years old now and is falling behind prior 5D refresh timing

4) An announcement of a 6D2 before a 5D4 will undoubtedly steal units to the 6D2 from the more expensive 5D4.

...all conventional wisdom would imply that we won't hear a thing from the 6D2 until the 5D4 is fully released.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> wallstreetoneil said:
> 
> 
> > ...i.e. it looks like we are jumping to 75Mpix. I wonder if this disproves the recent 24Mpix, which made no sense, 5D4 sensor size...
> ...



I would agree and add some additional thoughts.

I don't see that the 6D II really "needs" a quick refresh. It is the entry level full frame body and is filling that niche very well. I suspect that in some ways it could be the T3i of the full frame world – a relatively low-cost product that just keeps selling and selling.

It has a very good sensor with better low-light performance than the 5D III (because of the megapixel count). The autofocus receives complaints from those who treat specs as holy grails, but most users seem to feel it is better than they expected and that it meets their needs.

There are things that could be added and updated, but it's not as though any lack of features is hurting sales. (It is currently Amazon's second best selling full frame camera -- behind the 5DIII and ahead of the Nikon D750. For most of its life it was well ahead of the 5DIII.)

So, in addition to all the external clues ahsanford mentions, there does not seem to be the pent-up demand for a refresh that there is for a 5D IV.

As for a 75mp sensor, particularly in a 5D IV – I think that's something Tony Northrup threw out there just for click bait.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I would agree and add some additional thoughts.
> 
> [truncated]
> 
> As for a 75mp sensor, particularly in a 5D IV – I think that's something Tony Northrup threw out there just for click bait.



*And a 75 MP 5D4 is entirely against the identity of the 'do everything well' part of the 5D# brand.* The 5D3 represents the 'Sure, I can do that' professional rig -- low light, track moving subjects, silent at weddings, decent burst, great video, etc. -- and a much much higher res sensor would hamstring the 5D4's ability to keep on doing that. Consider: a 5D4 with a 75 MP sensor would only put through maybe 4 fps with the kingly 1DX2 as a bar for throughput (which the 5D# line has never been given). 

I am not 100% opposed to an MP bump with the 5D4, but it simply can't come at the form of an fps reduction or low light takeaway from the 5D3. Save that super high res rig for the next 5DS/5DSR and keep it away from the 5D4.

- A


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Jun 10, 2016)

Since there is already a 24-70 f4L IS, and a 24-70 f2.8 VR from nik, could it be a 24-70 f2.8L IS USM?

Because i don't see any possible reason to invest some money on another 24-70 or 24-105 f4-ish. Just dont make sense to me. Note that sigma will come with a stabilized 24-70 f2.8 art soon


----------



## NancyP (Jun 10, 2016)

The 6D is great for some people. It does a fine job for landscape and macro photography. AF has little relevance in most photos of these genres. I don't have the computer yet for slinging around ginormous files that I am only going to print to 13 x 19 at most. 20 MP is fine. With a really fast computer, I might consider the 5DSr, but until I get more wall space, I am still stuck at 13 x 19.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 10, 2016)

weird I though the 24-70 f/4 IS was the replacement


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

PeterAlex7 said:


> Since there is already a 24-70 f4L IS, and a 24-70 f2.8 VR from nik, could it be a 24-70 f2.8L IS USM?
> 
> Because i don't see any possible reason to invest some money on another 24-70 or 24-105 f4-ish. Just dont make sense to me. Note that sigma will come with a stabilized 24-70 f2.8 art soon



I will never buy a 24-105 lens, but even this forums' biggest 24-70 f/4L IS fan (hint: me) would concede that some people truly value reach over best possible IQ. There is a large pent-up 24-105 market that wants something better than a plasticky non-L lens.

And you don't ever kit a $2k+ showpiece like a 24-70 f/2.8 IS with a body. That will drive down the price. Kit lenses need to be reasonable +20-30% add-ons to the body price, so in the case of the 5D4, that means roughly a $750-1,200 lens. A 24-105 f/4L IS II with some kind of better video functionality (like power zoom compatibility) would seem to fit the bill.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> PeterAlex7 said:
> 
> 
> > Since there is already a 24-70 f4L IS, and a 24-70 f2.8 VR from nik, could it be a 24-70 f2.8L IS USM?
> ...



What are sales of the 24-70mm f/4 IS compared to 1) 24-105mm and 2) 24-70mm 2.8 II?


----------



## douglaurent (Jun 10, 2016)

Obviously many members of this forum have no vision that every new EF-mount lens, and each existing EF mount lens can be a less clever future investment like the Sony A-mount is now, if Canon decides to use a new mount with their coming large sensor mirrorless cameras. You then will have to sell your EF mount lenses or you will never have the mirrorless advantages.

On a different note, the 5D4 might show how stupid it is not to be able to attach EF-S lenses on full frame bodies, if the 4K video mode will be 1.3x like on the 1DC or 1DX2. The Sigma 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 for example are beautiful lens options for the 1DX2 4K video mode that cover the used sensor area.

Just the whole Canon crop lens lineup doesn't work, and all Canon full frame lenses of course will have a 1.3x crop and turn a 24-105 kit lens into a pretty strange 32-136mm focal length, which is simply not wide enough.
If Canon would be innovative, they should find a way to makie it possible to use EF-S lenses on the 5D4 as well!

Alternatively, Canon could implement crop modes like Sony did on the A7R2, which gives you 24-105mm, 36-158mm and in 4K video mode even 72-315mm with one single 24-105 kit lens. To repeat the facts: right now the old 24-105/4 is a 32-136/4 on the Canon flagship DSLR, and a 24-315/4 on an A7R2 when you do video. With a speedbooster adapter it even could be an f2.8 lens. Aside from releasing new lenses, Canon should also stop limiting what you can do with them.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> What are sales of the 24-70mm f/4 IS compared to 1) 24-105mm and 2) 24-70mm 2.8 II?



Undoubtedly low, but none of us have hard figures for this. One would assume the 24-105L to be a top 2 or top 3 selling EF mount lens, perhaps behind only the 50 f/1.8 II (and perhaps the new 50 f/1.8 STM). But it's impossible to back out how much of this is due to the value proposition that lens vs. the massive impact of kitting it with camera bodies. Were it never kitted and only available for the $999 it's being sold for now, the sales numbers would be nowhere near as high.

Amazon best sellers for lenses at this moment (out of all lenses for any mount / sensor size):

24-70 f/2.8L II = #28
24-105 f/4L IS = #38
24-70 f/4L IS = not in the top 100

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Obviously many members of this forum have no vision that every new EF-mount lens, and each existing EF mount lens can be a less clever future investment like the Sony A-mount is now, if Canon decides to use a new mount with their coming large sensor mirrorless cameras. You then will have to sell your EF mount lenses or you will never have the mirrorless advantages.



1) You presume Canon's FF mirrorless will have a new mount. There a great number of reasons that Canon may not do this, and instead possibly opting for a full-blown EF mount on their future FF mirrorless. And even if they _do_ go with a new mount, they would be fools of the highest order to not have a perfect/seamless step-up adaptor to the EF mount. 

2) Why would folks invest in Sony glass that is so often focus-by-wire? That's a step down for many users accustomed to full time (mechanical) manual focusing.

3) Canon could, I suppose, offer the crop modes you are referring to any time it likes. The fact that it doesn't do that today is hardly the lens' fault.

4) Then there's that small bit that Canon glass works on a Sony just fine. Good luck trying that the other way around.

I welcome the mirrorless future, I do. But I actually rate the EF mount as quite possibly the safest optical investment I could make.

- A


----------



## captainkanji (Jun 10, 2016)

The 24-105 needed replacement, but it's too late for me. I'm hooked on primes. Great IQ that I can afford.


----------



## Berowne (Jun 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ... but even this forums' biggest 24-70 f/4L IS fan (hint: me) ...
> - A



Is it really so good? I never considered to purchase one because of the unfavourable assessments in photozone about focus shift in this lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The A7S II has 12 MP. 

The Nikon Df has 16 MP. 

And both Canon and Nikon's flagship gripped sports/wildlife rigs were sitting at 18MP and 16 MP until very, very recently, and few were complaining about it.



dilbert said:


> Do you seriously think Canon wants to be the company that makes current model full frame digital cameras that are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to megapixels?



If they keep selling well, hell yes. Megapixels don't define an imaging company. I think they'd rather be known as the #1 imaging company, the company that delights photographers, etc.

And by the way, Canon also sells _other_ cameras with _different_ specs. The 5DS puts Canon in a unique position in that they offer the 'lowest' (to your definition) *and* the highest resolution of FF cameras on offer today -- I'd say they've got their bases covered.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

Berowne said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ... but even this forums' biggest 24-70 f/4L IS fan (hint: me) ...
> ...



Not at all. It's just perfect _for me_. It's a great walkaround / travel / hiking lens for my needs, that's all. 

Others cherish their 24-105s for different reasons. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Both the 6D and 5D3 represent the lowest megapixel count full frame cameras on offer today.



I see your knowledge of facts hasn't improved in the slightest since you suggested that a broadcast field lens was a camera and stated that the 1D C isn't a dSLR. 

:


----------



## Diltiazem (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Bottom of the pile maybe for megapixels, but top of the pile for popularity. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/SLR-Digital-Cameras/ci/6222/N/4288586280 

So, Canon's perspective on pixel count could be quite different than that of some of us. 

Anyways, we all can safely assume that MP count is going up in 6DII and 5DIV. We don't know by how much.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Both the 6D and 5D3 represent the lowest megapixel count full frame cameras on offer today.
> ...



Somehow this lens thread will turn into a resolution thread, and then it will turn into a _resolution + DR_ thread, and then he'll shake his fist at Canon corporate for not giving him the D810 sensor to put behind all his EF glass.

Makes perfect sense the more sleep deprived you are.

- A


----------



## Eldar (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The 5Ds is also quite clearly a rushed product and despite having the most megapixels it quite clearly suffers in overall IQ.


Really??

When I first saw the specification for the 5DS/DSR, I was very dissapointed, because it did not solve a number of requirements I had high on my list. But I still bought a 5DSR, primarily out of curiosity. And, having used it extensively for everything from portraits to landscape to events to wildlife to birds to just about any type of photography I do, I am simply very impressed with that camera. 

A fun observation (or weird if you like) is that the various forums are crowded with negative remarks about this/these camera(s), of which more than 90% comes from non-users. Look at what the actual (and qualified) users are saying and you'll see a totally different story.


----------



## Memdroid (Jun 10, 2016)

Last I checked the 5Ds is the DSLR with the largest megapixels that is available TODAY!
And to say this camera suffers in IQ is a blatant lie. It probably has the best resolution and colors of any Canon camera out there today. Clearly you have never ever used these cameras in the real world.
Stop spreading lies and get your facts straight before you shout out the most dubious statements with a total ignorant and arrogant attitude.


----------



## Meatcurry (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



If you care to check, the 5D3 and 5DS/R are quite different, the body, sensor, processors, mirrorbox, firmware, etc are all new, albeit based on the 5D3 because well you know its pretty much the definitive DSLR and its target audience were no doubt existing users, hence the similarity's.


----------



## Diltiazem (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Diltiazem said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Hope, you know what you are talking about. There is no need to reply. Don't prove yourself to be more clueless than you already did.


----------



## CANONisOK (Jun 10, 2016)

Eldar said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The 5Ds is also quite clearly a rushed product and despite having the most megapixels it quite clearly suffers in overall IQ.
> ...


 This is 100% correct. Somehow I killed my 5D3 on a only mildly rainy weekend in Oslo. I needed a camera for my trip to Italy in October and had a choice, either:

1. Get the 5D3 fixed, which is ridiculously expensive in Norge. And who knows how long the fix will last.
2. Buy another 5D3. Reduced price is okay, but knowing that the 5D4 was in the not-too-distant future.
3. Get a 6D. But I want crazy about AF system, lower quality weather sealing/construction, max shutter speed, different layout than my 5D3 & 7D2.
3. Buy the 5DSr. Don't "need" 50 mp... limited fps, etc. But I have the 7D3 for fast action, and this seemed like the best option for me.

I've fallen in love with this camera since I got it. No regrets not getting the 5Ds instead. The color is great, the resolution is spectacular. The ISO limitations don't bother me as I rarely shoot higher than 800. This paired with my 16-3L/4 IS us my main combo for traveling around Europe. Very few situations these cannot handle. I throw in a 135L or 70-300L and maybe the 50L for low light/ shallow DOF and have some great flexibility with minimal weight. I even find the camera shake concern to be minimal... and I'm a pixel peeper.

This 5Dsr has made me go from a position of being relatively interested in the 5D4 right at launch to being only vaguely interested. I will probably pick one up, but only after it has been out a while and when I can find a nice price break on it.

Point is, the 5Dsr is extremely versatile with fantastic IQ. It has really base me appreciate the glass I already have.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 10, 2016)

*5Ds bashing *

Most odd all the negative stuff about the 5Ds /R - must be a different camera to the one I use for my day to day architectural and industrial work ;-)

It fits a niche for quite a few photographers - if it's not for the sort of photography you do, then move on and wait for the 5D4, or use your the 5D3 and go out and take some photos...


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Both the 6D and 5D3 represent the lowest megapixel count full frame cameras on offer today.
> 
> Do you seriously think Canon wants to be the company that makes current model full frame digital cameras that are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to megapixels?



Canon wants to be the company that makes the most profit per share. If it can do so while

1. Having the top of the pile resolution wise FF camera
2. Having two bottom of the pile resolution wise FF cameras
3. And having yet higher resolution sensors in the works

Why would it care about #2?

[Counting down to the inevitable mirrorless and DR rebukes...]


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 10, 2016)

Agree with those that say it's a highly versatile lens. I use mine a hell of a lot for social type work, and I've just sold my 24-70L IS - how convenient ! The 71-105 does make for a lot of difference with me; it I'm going to have a zoom lens on I want it to _zoom_ !

Couple of recent shots with this old workhorse. To improve I'd say more res and less distortion at 24 mil, better corners throughout range, improve the lack of res in the mid to edge frame at around 70-80, tighten up 105 a bit. Add zoom lock, and, unfortunately I guess, add about $1,000 to the price.

First image at 32, where the old lens is stellar, second at 105 where it's adequate.


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 10, 2016)

Not mentioned so far is the performance on IR converted bodies. The old 24-105 lives on my converted 5d2. Many lenses have a central hot spot or other problems with IR, but not so with this lens. I wonder if the new version will also excel in the IR spectrum. OEMs don't usually test for this.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 10, 2016)

CANONisOK said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



My own two cents on this is that I got a 5DSR already having a 5DIII.
I've been quite underwhelmed by the 5DSR.
I wasn't impressed with it's ISO performance (although I told downsampling in DPP would help this - I haven't tried that out yet).
I don't like the noise in it. 
I find the 5DIII a better all-round camera - more practical so to speak.
File size on a 5DSR is an issue. You need really big hard drives to store the photos (at least at the rate I shoot).
On paper 50MP sounds better than 22MP but unless you are going for big prints or doing alot of cropping it's not a huge amount of use.

I think it would suit a very highly technical, very conservative shooter (takes few photos).

For the 5D IV I'd like better MP's rather than alot more of them.
If they are going to combine the new 24-105 with it, I think it will be a very good lens.
I really like the existing one. Very handy lens even though I've lots of better ones.
It's rock solid. I've never complained about it. If my pictures are bad it's not that lens fault.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 10, 2016)

CookieMonster said:


> The zoom lock is really lacking on the 24-104L F4.
> 
> Everytime i walk around with it, the lens comes out to 105mm and hangs out from under my coat. I'm feeling like i forgot to zip my pants and my dick is out.



Thank you for the graphic that none of us want to envision...

All you need is a rubber band to solve a lens creep issue. For those that want to use something more professional than a 5 cent rubber band, you can buy a $5 professionally made rubber band made specifically to stop lens creep. Google lens creep and you will get your answer.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 10, 2016)

aceflibble said:


> Yeah, as I said on these very forums many months ago, a 24-105 f/4 update has been in the works for a while now, so not surprising to get confirmation that it'll be debuting with the 5D4.
> 
> 
> The 24-70 f/4 won't be affected much as that still has the semi-macro feature which the 24-105 will never get, and it's a given that a zoom with less range is going to remain the optically superior one. I don't expect the 24-105 update will actually mean much beyond the newer IS system to get you an extra stop-or-so there, and possibly a little optical improvement to bring it at least in line with the Sigma 24-105 f/4, which currently beats it in every department.


Owning both the EF 24-105mm f4L and the EF 24-70mm f4L as well as the excellent EF 16-35mm f4L if Canon better the image quality and it gets anywhere close to the EF 16-35mm f4L then the EF 24-70mm f4L based on IQ is dead. Quality wise I would say my copy is the worst L lens I own optically Ive tested it on the CIPA High Resolution chart as well as the EF 24-105mm f4L and they are similar. The EF 24-105 f4L has move purple fringing but sharpness is similar but the EF 24-70mm f4L has bad image shift. Being spoilt with the EF 16-35mm f4L, the EF 100mm f2.8L Macro, the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L MKII as well as for the price the EF 50mm f1.8 STM the EF 24-70mm f4L was a shock at just how bad it is.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 10, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


Ive been more than happy with my 5DS, yes file sizes are larger but image sharpness & detail is much better than the 5D MKIII or the 6D. The ISO issue some have Ive not really found and Ive used the camera for mixed stuff (safari, landscape, portraits, birds). The 24-105mm on this make for an ideal one lens solution when wanting to travel lighter.


----------



## axtstern (Jun 10, 2016)

The 24-105 is the strangest L lens I own. It is the lens I most often carry with me but never put on.
When I pack the 100-400 L or the 300 4.0 L I always feel this lens would make a good companion but than I never use it.
When I use the M3 with the 11-22 there is so much space left in my bag that I usually pack the 24-105 as a supplement (as even with the adapter it beats all the native options) but I rarely use it.

Analyzing my light room catalog, then I shoot more with the Sigma 18-35, Canon 24-70 2.8, Tamron 24-70 VCD, Tamron 35-105 2.8, EFM 11-22, 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 L.
Even the Canon 85mm L and non L see more action than the 24-105 while that lens is always in my bag and the others only occasionally. 
The 24-105L has nothing to really fall in love with, but it is a lightweight backup insurance policy.
So now the insurance policy get a version II
The last version II iterations from Canon ment stellar optical quality, very conservative approach to extras and a step up in price.
I do not believe that a kit lense can step up in price by a large amount. The white box dealers who pick bundles apart will make sure of that and there are plenty of the old lenses out there…
I bought my 85L 1.2, the 24-70 2.8 L, the 70-200L 2.8, the 100-400 L and finally the 400 L 2.8 all used for a laughable price when the Version II (well a little more than version II for the 400 2.8) came out and the people started to update their model.
To be honest I do not see a 24-105 become a top seller until numbers are pushed through the kit bundle. This lens can do a lot but will always be beaten by the specialists. Tamron improves their ultra versatile zooms since years but always promotes the ‘Now I can do even more’ rather than ‘I can do better’ thought even if both is the case and at least they catch me. Changing a 18-270 lens into a 16-300 lens is for me more attractive than a solid pin cussion distortion improvement in the 18-30mm area . If the 24-105 would stay mediocre in optical quality but transform into a 24-135 or into a 24-105 2.8 ….that would catch my attention.


----------



## LesC (Jun 10, 2016)

Good news. I'll be tempted to trade in my EOS6D + 24-70 F2.8L II for a 5D MKIV with new 24-105 F4L. I've always thought my 24-70 is good but not as good as the hype surrounding it  The extra reach of the 24-105 + IS would be nice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2016)

dak723 said:


> CookieMonster said:
> 
> 
> > The zoom lock is really lacking on the 24-104L F4.
> ...



Edited.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 10, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, as I said on these very forums many months ago, a 24-105 f/4 update has been in the works for a while now, so not surprising to get confirmation that it'll be debuting with the 5D4.
> ...



I suspect that the new 24-105 II will be significantly better than Sigma's, just like the 35L II is better than the 35A. Otherwise, why revamp a lens that is still selling well for ~600 in kits? After the redesign, Canon will want to sell it at a premium price, so it won't be the kit lens. The 24-70 f/4 is a better kit lens option for "starters" and it has found it's value, which is much less than it's launch price. People that want better IQ will opt for better choices. The point of the kit lens is to get a person new to the EF eco-system going immediately, not to offer a top shelf lens at a discount price.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Why would folks invest in Sony glass that is so often focus-by-wire? That's a step down for many users accustomed to full time (mechanical) manual focusing.
> ...



I take it you've not used focus by wire lenses then? There really is no comparison. Much as I loved the 85L, manual focusing was nowhere near as responsive or pleasant as a mechanical manual focus lens.

Once again I wonder if you use cameras much at all.



dilbert said:


> Do you seriously think Canon wants to be the company that makes current model full frame digital cameras that are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to megapixels?



Well they also have the highest MP FF DSLRs on the market at present, so I don't really think it matters to them, no (and judging by the decidedly mixed responses to reports of increased MP counts, especially in the 5D mark IV, I think they would make a judgment as to which was more likely to generate sales, rather than simple 'we need more to be best!' mentality).


----------



## slclick (Jun 10, 2016)

LesC said:


> Good news. I'll be tempted to trade in my EOS6D + 24-70 F2.8L II for a 5D MKIV with new 24-105 F4L. I've always thought my 24-70 is good but not as good as the hype surrounding it  The extra reach of the 24-105 + IS would be nice.



I agree about the 24-70 comment, too often, loose talk about that lens being 'nearly magical' is getting far too close to how we describe the 135L.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Emphasis on "today".



Well it's always about today, right? Companies leapfrog each other as new products come out. Nobody can be on top in all areas all the time.



dilbert said:


> The 5Ds is also quite clearly a rushed product and despite having the most megapixels it quite clearly suffers in overall IQ.



A big fat CITATION NEEDED on this one. Suffers in what ways (compared to which other bodies)? It resolves more detail, and the consensus seems to be that noise levels are about the same as the 5D3 - which is no small achievement given the massive increase in MP. Normalised to the same size IQ is clearly better, as the images are no noisier (and given you can apply noise reduction before downsizing, they'll clean up better) and certainly sharper (the extra resolution giving better sharpness downsized). Not to mention the lack of banding... Once again, where are you getting these impressions from? Not first hand experience, but surely not from other people's reviews and images either.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2016)

Diltiazem said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I guess the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX II must really be at the bottom of the pile. I'm surprised they can even sell those low-megapixel bodies.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 10, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> My own two cents on this is that I got a 5DSR already having a 5DIII.
> I've been quite underwhelmed by the 5DSR.
> I wasn't impressed with it's ISO performance (although I told downsampling in DPP would help this - I haven't tried that out yet).
> I don't like the noise in it.
> ...



We're getting way off topic, but... It's interesting to have a different view. I agree file size is an issue, but we all knew about it in advance. It's not a surprise - you can hardly fault a camera for doing something you knew from the specs before buying.

As for noise... well people differ in what they want. Talking about downsampling - surely every time you view the full image on screen or in print, you've done precisely that. And that huge bump in resolution makes for sharper images and lower apparent noise (or at least no more noise than the 5D3). I'm using the 5Ds as an all-round camera, but I agree that's not for most people, nor is it the purpose of this model. But I think you're being a bit limited in your vision, if I may say, to claim it's only good for "highly conservative" people who take few photos (I'm neither).

What surprises me is, for a camera that is so similar to the 5D3 in so many ways (only 1fps lower, same ergonomics, etc) *except* for the extra resolution, why some people see there is no real downside to upgrading to this if you don't feel limited by the 5D3 in the first place (barring computer problems with the big file size, which is unavoidable and not too difficult to fix). Except money, of course - but I'd have wanted to replace the 5D3 after four years anyway, mine is reaching the end of its life (and the computer issue is similar - I find a new computer is necessary more frequently than a new camera).


----------



## Eldar (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> To *me* it looks like Canon realized it needed a high megapixel camera (because of the A7R/D810) and pushed out existing APS-C tech into a FF sensor. It quite clearly doesn't solve the overall noise problems that Canon has had so in that regard, it doesn't represent "new" or "latest" either.


Sorry Dilbert, you clearly never used a 5DSR. Read less rubbish on the web and spend more time shooting


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jun 10, 2016)

axtstern said:


> The 24-105 is the strangest L lens I own. It is the lens I most often carry with me but never put on.
> When I pack the 100-400 L or the 300 4.0 L I always feel this lens would make a good companion but than I never use it.
> When I use the M3 with the 11-22 there is so much space left in my bag that I usually pack the 24-105 as a supplement (as even with the adapter it beats all the native options) but I rarely use it.
> 
> ...



I am really surprised you say that. The 24-105 is my most used lens, with only the 100-400 coming anywhere near it - and then only if you combine the totals for the mk 1 and mk 2. The simple reason is that it does most things fairly well, it is very versatile and generally speaking I find the results are acceptable. When I go on holiday or even just on a day trip it is often the only lens I take. It is true that it does not excel at anything, and if i know what I am going to be shooting then I will take a more specialised lens. However, on the days when I am taking my camera just in case I stumble upon something interesting then the lens I choose is always the 24-105.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 10, 2016)

Ian_of_glos said:


> axtstern said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105 is the strangest L lens I own. It is the lens I most often carry with me but never put on.
> ...



I tend to agree with axtstern , those standard focal ranges are kinda boring especially at f4. However, its the type of lens that if you could only have 1 lens, it's one that a lot of people would grab. It's a safe lens with safe focal ranges but if you are going out to shoot something specific, there is almost always a better lens for the job. I live in the mountains where 24-105 is an incredibly useful range for landscapes, if it wasn't for that, I probably wouldn't carry a 24-105/24-70 (I didn't carry one of these lenses prior to moving to the mountains). Theres actually a good chance I'll get the 16-35iii over the 24-105ii to pair with the 100-400ii I have on order.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The 5Ds is also quite clearly a rushed product and despite having the most megapixels it quite clearly suffers in overall IQ.



Let me rephrase this one: "Dilbert has been quite clearly finding ways, by reading extensive number of online articles talking about specs' of cameras, to capture a decent photograph for over 10 years, and despite lacking of understanding as well as choosing light. He quite clearly suffers at every single time when trying to pull a decent image out of a scene." <-- Sound better?


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 10, 2016)

This is very good news. Would be my first FF compatible stabilized lens and welcome for general use. If it gives per pixel IQ just for the 5D for all focal lengths wide open straight to the edges and has low distortion - maybe my next lens. Combine it with the 100-400 on the second 5D body and I have a good compact high IQ package from 24 to 400mm!
Add a 70mm IS macro lens for special occasions ... and it is near to complete for allround shooters.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> wallstreetoneil said:
> 
> 
> > As a 5DSR owner, who has stopped using his Canon 24-70 F2.8 II, and who sold his 50L, 85L II, his 135L all because they don't have IS, and then purchased the Sigma 24-105 F4 OS, Tamron 45 VC & 85 VC, I can pretty much predict that this lens is a must release for the big megapixel cameras that are coming in 2017 - i.e. it looks like we are jumping to 75Mpix. I wonder if this disproves the recent 24Mpix, which made no sense, 5D4 sensor size, and that we will instead be seeing the earlier rumoured 28-30 and thus a new IS lens can get marketed well. I still think there is something to Tony Northrupt's rumor that we are going to see the 6D_II first - and that the 5D4 is next year at 75Mpix.
> ...



A+
I suspect the Canon 6D II sometime in early November of 2016 or early in 2017...just after Christmas/New Year's. Just to clarify, the announcement for it.


----------



## Dantana (Jun 10, 2016)

I think it's great that Canon is updating the 25-105L. I'm also very glad I own the original. It has served me very well. The pricing of the 6D with the 24-105L kit allowed me to move to full frame from EF-S and hit the ground running with a good, solid, full frame capable zoom. It's not perfect, and there are a few places that could see improvement, but I've used it a lot and gotten some great images out of it. It's a great all around zoom range, relatively small for what it does, and a nice step up in quality from the kit lens that I had from my Rebel.
I doubt I will upgrade to a new version, at least not now. But I wouldn't discount buying it in a kit if I upgrade my body to something with a higher MP count where a sharper lens would really show.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 10, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Diltiazem said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And the A7s. What can you shoot with that ? :


----------



## j-nord (Jun 10, 2016)

FramerMCB said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > wallstreetoneil said:
> ...


Almost no chance of 2016 for the 6Dii, early 2017 at the earliest. Canon spaces out their camera releases as much as possible. Makes no sense to release the 6Dii so close to the 5DIV.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Dilbert sometimes your a complete plank having owned the 5DS for 10 months and using it in all conditions I can assure you it is not a rushed product. The IQ is better than the 5D MKIII or the 6D in terms of resolution, colour imagery, and lack of banding. It has a better metering system and a better mirror lock up system but retains nearly all the features of the 5D MKIII (it has lower frame rate). Those that bitch about file sizes forget you can use mRaw and it has a cropping function. If you want to be critical at least try a product first or reserve your uneducated comments to yourself.


----------



## pulseimages (Jun 11, 2016)

My 24-105 L has to be the most disappointing L lens I have ever owned. It's only good from 24-70 from 70-105mm it's garbage. Even after sending it and the camera back to Canon to be calibrated it's still soft.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 11, 2016)

pulseimages said:


> My 24-105 L has to be the most disappointing L lens I have ever owned. It's only good from 24-70 from 70-105mm it's garbage. Even after sending it and the camera back to Canon to be calibrated it's still soft.



From the reviews of that lens it was well known to me that I would be disappointed by that lens: Spoiled by 2.8 24mm (old version), 2.8 40 and 2.8 100 Macro non-IS I need (1) at least similar overall IQ and (2) the 100mm which is a very useful focal length for me -- 24-70 doesn't fit my view of a universal zoom lens. 

Maybe Canon has seen the not so good optical properties of the 24-105 in the tele range as problem, especially with high res bodies. And what I hear from the 4.0 16-35 and 100-400 mk ii shows me that there has been some substantial progress in zoom technology (or quality control or both).


----------



## dufflover (Jun 12, 2016)

I'm even thinking of getting a 24-105L on the cheap/2nd hand to add to my kit (long story short, for the intended purposes 24-105 @ f/4 better than a 17-55/2.8 (current), 15-85/5.6 and 18-135/5.6). Maybe I'll hold off to see how much this one costs or more likely pick one up for even cheaper than they are now when people split their kits.

I doubt I'll buy this new one though cos it'll surely cost quite a bit (be good no doubt) and my intended use is plugging a use gap on the cheap.


----------



## slclick (Jun 12, 2016)

dufflover said:


> I'm even thinking of getting a 24-105L on the cheap/2nd hand to add to my kit (long story short, for the intended purposes 24-105 @ f/4 better than a 17-55/2.8 (current), 15-85/5.6 and 18-135/5.6). Maybe I'll hold off to see how much this one costs or more likely pick one up for even cheaper than they are now when people split their kits.
> 
> I doubt I'll buy this new one though cos it'll surely cost quite a bit (be good no doubt) and my intended use is plugging a use gap on the cheap.



Ymmv but on a crop body the 24-105 was very disappointing. However on a FF it's a great lens, does most things well for most folks. I also (in addition to 2 copies of the Canon variety, had a Sigma Art 24-105 which I thought was far better in terms of IQ and sharp across the range. It got better than the Canon reviews but only by a hair. My copy must have been an anomaly because it was much improved.


----------



## deleteme (Jun 12, 2016)

Lots of negative comments on the 24-105L. 
I have found that it is a real workhorse of a lens. It has been a solid performer for me for many years and while it is not the fastest or the absolute sharpest, it delivers great quality and has a flexibility unmatched by any other lens in Canon's lineup.

Sure the 24-70 2.8L is faster and sharper but it is a lot less flexible when you need that extra length.
As for f4, I rarely am shooting wide open as I need DOF for the vast bulk of what I shoot.


Pros love this lens as a great money maker by allowing them to shoot all day without changing a lens.
I regularly deliver images made with this lens to national magazines and ad agencies that reproduce brilliantly. 

The fact that the edges may be a touch soft are irrelevant when the subject is not along the edges. As for distortion, yes it's there but LR corrects it and even uncorrected is unnoticeable in most images.

It is an object lesson in how a lens can be so good all around without being superb in anything but flexibility. 

I would love an update to this already excellent lens. Better coatings and maybe a stretch to 120mm but other than that I'm OK


----------



## TAF (Jun 19, 2016)

I am very much looking forward to this lens update.

My original 24-105L would be just about the perfect walkabout lens, except that it doesn't quite have the image clarity that I have come to expect (i.e.: that I know my 5D3 delivers when I use my even better L lenses on it).

The 24-70 2.8L is a much sharper lens, but the 'shortness' at the longer end renders it way less useful.

If the new 24-105 achieves the resolution of the 24-70, I'll be a very happy camper. If it were F2.8 I'd be even happier...

And allow me to note that the fact that Canon has chosen to update the 24-105 should make it clear to all those folks who previously insisted that the 24-70 WAS the replacement for the 24-105, it wasn't.

Now if only we can get a 24-135L IS f2.8; that would be a lens I might never take off the body.


----------



## e_honda (Jun 21, 2016)

TAF said:


> If the new 24-105 achieves the resolution of the 24-70, I'll be a very happy camper. If it were F2.8 I'd be even happier...
> .
> .
> Now if only we can get a 24-135L IS f2.8; that would be a lens I might never take off the body.



Currently unrealistic in terms of size, weight and price.

It's a similar thing to those who wanted a 24-70 f2.0 from sigma and of course all they could muster was 24-35 (I have it and it's excellent)...and that lens is huge.

Assuming a kit lens at a kit lens price, the improvements will likely be better sharpness at the edges, a better IS system and less distortion at 24mm.


----------



## pulseimages (Jul 23, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > My 24-105 L has to be the most disappointing L lens I have ever owned. It's only good from 24-70 from 70-105mm it's garbage. Even after sending it and the camera back to Canon to be calibrated it's still soft.
> ...



That's what I am hoping for in the updated 24-105 L II lens. If it's a lot better at the long end than version 1 I will sell my present one for it.


----------



## RGF (Jul 24, 2016)

pulseimages said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...



+10


----------



## markhbfindlay (Jul 27, 2016)

I've had the 24-105 for many years and found it very sharp on both 7d and 5dm3. I sometimes use it on 70d to give me extra reach when I have 16-35mm on the 5d - a great combination. It's also surprisingly good at macro for flower photos, when I'm in the field and don't have my 100mm around. Less good? well the edges at the wide end aren't up to much, but you would expect that. 
As to the new model, I'll wait and see, but if it shows up as sharper I might get it, as I now have the 5dsr and it could do with a standard zoom to match (I shoot mostly handheld and IS is useful).


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2016)

Good news. Now I am thinking of part-exchanging a 5D3 with 24-105 for a 5D4 with 24-105 II


----------

