# EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 19, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-24-105-f4l-is-ii-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-24-105-f4l-is-ii-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>With a 5D Mark III

</strong>Whenever we see a new 5D, Iâ€™m told weâ€™ll also see it kitted with a new 24-105 f/4L IS II lens.</p>
<p><strong>CRâ€™s Take

</strong>There has been talk about this in the past, itâ€™s definitely possible. The optics of this lens could be improved, though I think itâ€™s very good. Ã‚ Iâ€™d love to see it with the same hood/zoom design of the 24-70.</p>
<p>I have no idea if thereâ€™s some kind of design they could come up with to aid video.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 19, 2011)

Digic V, 5DIII specs, new kit lens...

Things are heating up for an official announcement. I'm still saying June, but wouldn't be surprised to hear from Canon in May about a "release" in September. Of course, it'll probably be November-January before people actually get them in their hands.

This is not just my conjecture -- it's my raving-mad wishful thinking.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 19, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> Digic V, 5DIII specs, new kit lens...
> 
> Things are heating up for an official announcement. I'm still saying June, but wouldn't be surprised to hear from Canon in May about a "release" in September. Of course, it'll probably be November-January before people actually get them in their hands.
> 
> This is not just my conjecture -- it's my raving-mad wishful thinking.



A June announcement sounds a bit early to me. A September release, and Nov-Jan availably does sound just about right to me; and would be right on the 3 year mark. I don't recall Canon ever announcing/acknowledging a body that far before the release date though.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2011)

I've always wondered: Is the only advantage of reverse zooming (like the 24-70L) being able to use a hood that doesn't move? Or is there more behind that design?

I'd love to see more lenses that reverse zoom with stationary hoods.


----------



## LuCoOc (Apr 19, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I've always wondered: Is the only advantage of reverse zooming (like the 24-70L) being able to use a hood that doesn't move? Or is there more behind that design?
> 
> I'd love to see more lenses that reverse zoom with stationary hoods.



This hood design is more effektive than a hood mounted to the moving part of the lens. the 24-105's hood is actually for 24mm. a hood being more effektive at longer focal length would cause vignetting at the wide end of the lens. however the 24-70's is all in one and ensures maximum flare resistance.


----------



## MK5GTI (Apr 19, 2011)

how come these rumor post lately are all CR1.... which people should ignore right?

whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2011)

LuCoOc said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I've always wondered: Is the only advantage of reverse zooming (like the 24-70L) being able to use a hood that doesn't move? Or is there more behind that design?
> ...



No, I understand that. I have a 24-70L. I'm just asking if the more effective hood is the purpose for a reverse design. Is that the reason they designed the 24-70 to reverse zoom or is it just a added bonus?

I believe Nikon's 24-70 reverse zooms too.

I just find it interesting.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2011)

MK5GTI said:


> how come these rumor post lately are all CR1.... which people should ignore right?
> 
> whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?



It has quite a bit of barrel distortion at 24, for one.


----------



## 4systemuser (Apr 19, 2011)

I think this coming because Canon needs better CDAF for video.

And ther are many rumors I 've read saying the 24-105f4LMK2 has an extra pin contact for CDAF.


----------



## ronderick (Apr 19, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> MK5GTI said:
> 
> 
> > how come these rumor post lately are all CR1.... which people should ignore right?
> ...



Just to echo others, the new version should do away with the extending zoom. I absolutely hate it when the front elements accidently elongates during transportation. The movable parts also seem to make the lens more susceptable to dust and other particles.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2011)

MK5GTI said:


> whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?



Maybe it was just that the copy I tried was not the greatest, but I found it to be not much different than a 28-135 in terms of sharpness and distortion, and only ever so slightly sharper than a 18-55 II. It did have noticably better color and smoother bokeh though. I know it'll never be like the 70-200s in terms of sharpness but it needs to at least be closer to those than a 18-55 II for me to consider it. Also, I agree with others about the 24-70L hood design


----------



## Gcon (Apr 19, 2011)

I love my EF 24-105 f/4L IS. The only bad things I can say about it are:
1. Barrel distortion at 24mm is quite pronounced but fixable in Lightroom.
2. IS is not tripod sensing. In my early forays into landscape shooting with this lens I destroyed some great shots by forgetting to turn that off. Most newer IS'es are smarter than that.

I've never had any problems with flaring with this lens, so the same hood is fine by me. My experience has been that the wider the lens, the more flaring your are likely to get, so the better hood you'll need. Being a relatively slow f/4, I don't think it needs as good a shielding as the 24-70mm f/2.8 shot wide open.

I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens. It's every bit as sharp if not better than my 24-70mm f/2.8 on my camera body (5D2). Some people (who probably have never owned one) might say that since it's a kit lens, it can't be any good. These people probably owned EF-S kit lenses (the horrible 18-55) and were burned by that.

I won't be rushing to upgrade my 24-105. I'd prefer Canon release an improved 17-40, and the updated the 35mm and 50mm primes. More than anything I want a compact full frame (5DIII) that has 7D-like AF and WEATHER SEALING! (Are you hearing me Canon?!)


----------



## samalcoff (Apr 19, 2011)

If only they'd pair the new camera with the 24-70....


----------



## J. McCabe (Apr 19, 2011)

Considering that it's a relatively "young" lens (released 2005), and that announced lenses are already late, I would be a bit surprised if a new lens would reach the market so quickly.

On the other hand
- Kit lenses are upgraded on a shorter cycle
- The 24-105mm could be improved for a higher resolution sensor
- Canon could profit from selling new lenses with new bodies

So, personally - I think it possible.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Apr 19, 2011)

ronderick said:


> Just to echo others, the new version should do away with the extending zoom. I absolutely hate it when the front elements accidently elongates during transportation. The movable parts also seem to make the lens more susceptable to dust and other particles.



I totally agree with this, though I have my doubts of Canon following through with this. I know Sigma released something similar to this in the zoom range of 24-70 without any extending parts. This would be the big winner, til then I'll be sticking with the 17-40 and 70-200 with no extending parts!


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2011)

Gcon said:


> I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens.



Have you objectively compared the sharpness of it to a 100 macro or 70-200 or something else known to be sharp? The reason I ask is to help determine if the particular one I tried was just off or if it is a characteristic of the design. I may be interested in the existing one if a II doesn't materialize fairly soon and there is reason to try another copy.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 19, 2011)

skitron said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens.
> ...



I have all three lenses you mention. The 24-105mm L is not quite as sharp as the 100mm L or the 70-200mm L, but it is close. Its invalid, of course to compare a 4:1 zoom with a prime or a telephoto zoom, wide angles are not as sharp as telephotos.

If you want objective comparisons, there are plenty of sites to do this, I like photozone for comparisons. The results on a crop or on a FF camera will vary as well, so when someone likes a lens on their crop camera, it may not be the same on FF. Thats why so many user comments need to be taken in context to the body they use.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > Gcon said:
> ...



OK, that helps. I don't expect it to be like a 70-200 but I would expect it to be quite a bit better than a 28-135 or 18-55, which this one wasn't in terms of sharpness. So it sounds to me like it's worth another try if the II doesn't show up soon.

Of course its all relative but if a 18-55 was a "1" and the 100 macro was a "100" on a scale of sharpness, this particular 24-105 would have been about a "15" at best. Sound like yours might be about a "60" or "70" on such a scale? I would be happy with that.


----------



## t.linn (Apr 19, 2011)

MK5GTI said:


> whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?



My biggest issue with the 24-105 is vignetting at the wide end. If I have a polarizer on this lens, it really functions more like a 28-105. I find this very frustrating. The barrel distortion at the wide end is also an issue for meâ€”though it is one more easily fixed.

I tend to shoot at wider angles so, for me, anything above 50mm is a convenience. I'll use it, but far less frequently that the wider end. If there is going to be a compromise in quality, I'd like it to be at the long end of the zoom range. It's the opposite with the 24-105. (Having said that, this is the case with almost any zoom lens. It's easier to engineer longer focal lengths.)

Based on the age of the current 24-105, I would be surprised if it is replaced. It would take an additional feature, perhaps related to video, to justify a refresh. I'm actually hoping that the 5DIII includes a new 24-70 f/2.8L II as the "kit lens". That lens is past due.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2011)

skitron said:


> Of course its all relative but if a 18-55 was a "1" and the 100 macro was a "100" on a scale of sharpness, this particular 24-105 would have been about a "15" at best. Sound like yours might be about a "60" or "70" on such a scale? I would be happy with that.



The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, at f/8 in the center, is actually pretty darn sharp. 

My copy of the 24-105mm f/4L IS is reasonably sharp. It's not as sharp as my other lenses in that focal range (4 L-series primes and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), but it's certainly not soft. The trade-off in terms of versatility is worth it, to me.


----------



## jhanken (Apr 19, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> It has quite a bit of barrel distortion at 24, for one.



You know I think it does. I never notice it until I use the default lens correction in Lightroom, it can make a significant improvement. Then again, we always can use Lightroom, so...


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > Of course its all relative but if a 18-55 was a "1" and the 100 macro was a "100" on a scale of sharpness, this particular 24-105 would have been about a "15" at best. Sound like yours might be about a "60" or "70" on such a scale? I would be happy with that.
> ...



LOL, my bad for not specifying this was all at f/5.6 50mm for the zooms tested (plus this was an old non IS 18-55 II).


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 19, 2011)

t.linn said:


> MK5GTI said:
> 
> 
> > whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?
> ...



+1 for the 24-70. I'd rather have less reach and better IQ.


----------



## traveller (Apr 19, 2011)

The only problem with a reverse zoom + hood design like the 24-70L, is that it makes the lens its maximum length at all times when the hood is mounted. Not exactly a deal breaker, but for a lens like the 24-105L, one of whose advantages is compactness, it may be an issue. 

I would also think that if Canon did decide to redesign the optics (as opposed to fiddling with the electronics), they might also give it a bit more reach at the long end; perhaps a 24-120 (cf Nikon AF-S 24-120 f/4G) or a 24-135?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 19, 2011)

skitron said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens.
> ...



I have and it is not as sharp across the frame on either 50D or 5D2 as 100 macro or 70-200 2.8 noIS or 4 IS or a whole lot of lenses really. Tamron zooms are sharper too (17-50/28-75/70-200). 18-55 IS kit lens was too actually. In fact only stuff like the original 18-55 or the 18-200 and 28-135 and 28-105 and 75-300 and all that sort of stuff are less sharp (sometimes noticeably less so). That said, it's sharp enough on APS-C across the frame to not worry about it, you wouldn't notice unless comparing side by side, and it has rich color (lot more pop than the 18-55 IS kit). But the focal length also doesn't make so much sense on APS-C and when you get to FF it starts falling apart IMO. 

On 5D2 it is all squishy and nasty at the edges and it doesn't let you see any fine landscape details or interesting patterns in mosses, bark, etc. Blechhh. Horrible distortion too although that is a lesser concern. A Zeiss 21 or canon 24 II or 24 T&S II or 35 2 or 1.4 and so on will blow it away, some of those look just as sharp as the longer lenses too. It is tricky to make a truly top notch wide prime for FF though. It would be interesting if they do come out with a 24-105 II and they manage to pull it off. That would be very nice indeed.

I think the 24-105 is the least sharp of all the current L lenses. Although some people swear it is sharp even edge to edge FF. Maybe they have low standards or maybe the QC is just simply awful for this design.


----------



## gmrza (Apr 20, 2011)

t.linn said:


> Based on the age of the current 24-105, I would be surprised if it is replaced. It would take an additional feature, perhaps related to video, to justify a refresh. I'm actually hoping that the 5DIII includes a new 24-70 f/2.8L II as the "kit lens". That lens is past due.



That has been my thinking. One of my concerns about the 24-70 is its field curvature (see the review on photozone.de). An interesting question would also be whether an IS version of the 24-70 is feasible. Given the f/2.8 aperture, I am not sure, however whether that would make the lens too bulky. (Nikon doesn't have a 24-70 f/2.8 VR lens, so there may be a good reason for that.)


----------



## catz (Apr 20, 2011)

skitron said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens.
> ...



70-200 2.8L is much better lens than 24-105. I have both. Even on 1080p video the difference can be easily seen, there is no doubt on which scenes were taken with the 70-200 and which were 24-105 at 70-105 range. The biggest difference seems in contrast and color reproduction. For some reason, the 70-200 seems to end up with a slightly higher dynamic range and more vivid colors with same picture style settings and the overall color tone of the picture has more neutral tone on it by default. 24-105 is not bad either, it is much more neutral than e.g. 12-24 Sigma lens I have, might be the lens coating that causes this. 24-105 is also considerable sharper than the Sigma. However, the 70-200 is still the best lens I have.

I have no reason to trade my 24-105 though. It is still superior lens to non-L EF lenses and some Sigmas. I like the help of the IS on shooting video. The effect is not strong and not quite enough for stabilization but it takes away micro-shaking of hands/rig. 24-105 is also easy to carry around and it balances on steadicam (lightweight enough and 24 mm position works best for this purpose). I generally love the lens, but it is not as wonderfully astonishing as the 70-200 2.8L IS USM.

So 24-105 is my second best lens but I use it most of the time because I don't want to carry 70-200 everywhere because it is so heavy.

Edit: My sigma is 12-24, not 10-22. Sorry for typo.


----------



## Picsfor (Apr 20, 2011)

if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.

It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...


----------



## John Smith (Apr 20, 2011)

Picsfor said:


> if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.
> 
> It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
> But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...



I would most certainly upgrade by 24-105mm f/4 for a 24-105mm f/2.8, but think it is unlikely - it would hurt or kill the sales of the 24-70mm f/2.8

Canon has two lines of lenses - the f/4 line (17-40mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm), and the f/2.8 line (16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm). The f/4 line is attractive to prosumers, and is one of the advantages Canon has over Nikon, who doesn't have a 70-200mm f/4.


----------



## Justin (Apr 20, 2011)

John Smith said:


> Picsfor said:
> 
> 
> > if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.
> ...



I'd trade the 70-200 f/4 any day for a 14-24 2.8. Now that Canon has a 70-200 2.8 II that resolves as well or better than the f/4 version I am quite happy. I guess I would keep both in a perfect world but it's not necessary.

As for the 24-105 upgrade potential: I'd be most happy with a range increase. How about 24-120? Make it a true 5x zoom? That extra reach would be hugely helpful on vacation and walking around.


----------



## Gcon (Apr 20, 2011)

skitron said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens.
> ...



I have used a borrowed 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and own the 100mm f/2.8L macro. The macro is so sharp, it would have to be one of the sharpest lenses of any out there in terms of mainstream lenses. I haven't shot enough with the 70-200 enough to have an opinion. The 100mm trumps everything, but that's not a fair comparison 
I've only really compared it to my 24-70mm f/2.8L, and find it to be comparatively sharp. I like the smaller size, bigger zoom and IS over the 24-70, which is a bit of stinker in really contrasty situations (bad CA), and flary as well. Of course f/4 is slow, so the 24-70 comes out for gigs. http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavaconda/tags/ef24105mmf4lisusm/ for examples. Check my profile for other tagged shots for other lenses.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2011)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I have and it is not as sharp across the frame on either 50D or 5D2 as 100 macro or 70-200 2.8 noIS or 4 IS or a whole lot of lenses really.
> ...



Yes, and I also took plenty of shots using either liveview AF or max-zoom liveview manual focusing.
It's certainly not blurry in the center and it looks sharp there but if you then compare it to a top notch lens then you see it's not quite as crisp with the single pixel contrast transitions and it's not as sharp or biting. But the larger problem is that the edges are mangled, even stopped way down, on something like a 5D2 (at least with many copies of this lens, maybe not all).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 20, 2011)

Picsfor said:


> if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.
> 
> It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
> But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...



I think what you are really asking for is an additional lens, a 24-70 2.8 IS or something. I would never expect them to just make this lens become 2.8. Many people wouldn't want the extra bulk/weight/expense of FF 2.8 (granted the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is a FF lens and it is very small though).


----------



## J. McCabe (Apr 20, 2011)

Justin said:


> John Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Picsfor said:
> ...



I would like to see a Canon response to the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, and the (lower quality, but wider) Sigma 12-24mm, but an ultra-wide zoom and a standard telephoto zoom are two different lenses ...


----------



## Justin (Apr 26, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> > John Smith said:
> ...



Amen. Canon has been lacking in the ultra wide zoom market. The 14 mm is superb and one of Canon's best lenses. The ts-e's are really fantastic, but what most photojournalists crave is a 14-24 2.8.


----------



## niko (Apr 26, 2011)

Justin said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > Justin said:
> ...



If we take the last few years as an example we can see a bit of a pattern for Canon released lenses:
Nikon released an updated 70-200 2.8, so did Canon
Nikon released an updated 105mm macro so did Canon
Nikon updated all of their super telephoto primes - so did Canon
Nikon released 200-400 4 so did Canon (at least announced development)
Nikon 24 1.4 - Canon already has a very good version
Nikon released 35mm 1.4 - Canon?
Nikon released 14-24 2.8 - Canon?
Nikon 16-35 4 IS - Canon?
Nikon 24-70 2.8 - Canon?

Based on this I would expect those to be the next lens releases from Canon, with also perhaps an imporoved 24-105


----------



## NXT1000 (May 3, 2011)

yeah 24-105mmL f4 II, like the difference between nikon 18-200mm and nikon 18-200mm II, they change the switch on the lens. 

I expect little changes. It is a very good lens already.


----------



## bvukich (May 3, 2011)

NXT1000 said:


> yeah 24-105mmL f4 II, like the difference between nikon 18-200mm and nikon 18-200mm II, they change the switch on the lens.
> 
> I expect little changes. It is a very good lens already.



I would expect optical changes to be minimal, and a change to a more modern 4-stop IS system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2011)

NXT1000 said:


> yeah 24-105mmL f4 II, like the difference between nikon 18-200mm and nikon 18-200mm II, they change the switch on the lens.
> 
> I expect little changes. It is a very good lens already.



It's a very _convenient_ zoom lens, and it's 'good,' but I wouldn't say very good. Of the nine L-series lenses I have (4 zooms and 5 primes), the 24-105mm is the softest. I'm not saying it's a soft lens - but while it's better than consumer zoom lenses, there's a lot of room for improvement in the IQ of the 24-105mm.


----------



## NXT1000 (May 6, 2011)

bvukich said:


> I would expect optical changes to be minimal, and a change to a more modern 4-stop IS system.



Yeah, that will be possible too, maybe even better focusing speed, i am not interested in another f4 zoom. It is so dark indoor.


----------



## NXT1000 (May 6, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's a very _convenient_ zoom lens, and it's 'good,' but I wouldn't say very good. Of the nine L-series lenses I have (4 zooms and 5 primes), the 24-105mm is the softest. I'm not saying it's a soft lens - but while it's better than consumer zoom lenses, there's a lot of room for improvement in the IQ of the 24-105mm.



For the range it cover, wide to tele, i really think it is a very good lens. yes i hate it when i zoom in 100%, but it print very well even to large print. Let not talk about primes, which zoom lens that cover the range around 24-105mm is better, with IS, weight and size? That i want to know.


----------

