# A question for 24-105 upgrade.



## tron (Nov 27, 2017)

Hello all,

I would like to ask community's opinion on the following matter.

I have (among other) 24-105 4L IS which I use as a general purpose lens when I cannot carry a large selection of lenses (in the later case I would rather use 24-70 2.8L II)

I use it for landscapes and for internal building shooting (museums, churches).
I am thinking about upgrading it to 24-105 4L IS II for the better IS.

I have seen all comparisons and Canon's MTF diagrams so I understand that I do not get much of an optical upgrade.

The offer I got is a rather modest 350 euros. So forum members suggestions are more than welcome.

Do I have a risk of getting a slightly worse lens optically ?
I believe the two lenses seem more or less the same with very small differences.

Keep in mind that my copy seems just fine fully open with 5DMkIV although I did not 
make specific tests, just judging from the results.

So based on the above would you upgrade it merely for the better IS for shooting museums and churches ?


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Nov 27, 2017)

Recently I upgraded from the Canon 24-105 F4L to the 24-105 F4L ii and to be perfectly honest I can't see any differences in the quality of the images from the two lenses. The mark 2 lens is not worse than the mark 1, but I don't think it is any better either.
The most useful feature is the zoom lock, as I always had zoom creep problems with the old lens.
Do you shoot much video? If so then you might find the improved image stabilisation useful. If not then if I were you I would keep the old version of the lens and save yourself the thick end of 1,000 euros.


----------



## tron (Nov 27, 2017)

Thanks for the info. I do not shoot video at all. I was just thinking of taking advantage of improved IS when shooting static objects at low level light so as to use lower shutter speed to control ISO. Other than that I am satisfied with 24-105 IQ at my 5DIV. And to tell the truth I have not tested handholding to the limit.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 27, 2017)

If you are using it inside churches and museums, then you are dealing with low light levels. Wouldn't you be looking for something a bit wider and a whole lot faster? The Sigma 18-35F1.8 comes to mind.....

<EDIT> OOPS! I meant 24-35... </EDIT>

Also, many of these places do not allow tripods, but you can usually get away with a monopod/walking stick......


----------



## midluk (Nov 27, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> If you are using it inside churches and museums, then you are dealing with low light levels. Wouldn't you be looking for something a bit wider and a whole lot faster? The Sigma 18-35F1.8 comes to mind.....


Or the 16-35 f/4L IS. With IS it has better low light capabilities than even the fastest non-stabilized lenses.


----------



## tron (Nov 27, 2017)

@midluk: Yes the 16-35 f/4 L IS is an option as well as the faster 16-35 f/2.8L III (at least somehow since it is one stop faster). I do have access to these lenses. But sometimes the 24-105 is helpful when you cannot go closer or wish to keep the target more straight by shooting from distance. 

@Don Haines: I believe the Sigma 18-35 is a crop lens only (I shoot FF) but the stick seems a brilliant idea. I haven't thought of that. I will look into it. Many thanks. By the way I also use a 16-35 lens but I refer to cases mentioned above: to keep the target more straight by shooting from distance.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 27, 2017)

tron said:


> @Don Haines: I believe the Sigma 18-35 is a crop lens only (I shoot FF) but the stick seems a brilliant idea. I haven't thought of that. I will look into it. Many thanks. By the way I also use a 16-35 lens but I refer to cases mentioned above: to keep the target more straight by shooting from distance.



OOPS! I meant to say 24-35!.... but as another poster has said, no IS 

I have a walking stick where I can unscrew the walnut ball from the top and mount the camera onto it. I find that it greatly improves my stability. just make sure that you limp a bit as you walk past the museum security  and mutter something about sprained ankles or arthritis.....


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 27, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> If you are using it inside churches and museums, then you are dealing with low light levels. Wouldn't you be looking for something a bit wider and a whole lot faster? The Sigma 18-35F1.8 comes to mind.....
> 
> <EDIT> OOPS! I meant 24-35... </EDIT>
> 
> Also, many of these places do not allow tripods, but you can usually get away with a monopod/walking stick......



Not to be picky... While the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art lens is a good performer and would probably work on the OP's 5D Mk IV the lens is made for APS-C sensors so the corners especially at 1.8 to probably 3.5 or so would be very, very dark.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I have a walking stick where I can unscrew the walnut ball from the top and mount the camera onto it. I find that it greatly improves my stability. just make sure that you limp a bit as you walk past the museum security  and mutter something about sprained ankles or arthritis.....



Indeed. I have a nice RRS monopod, but I also have a pair of Leki trekking poles with 1/4”-20 studs under the tops, and for certian museums I have —on occasion— brought one of them along with the rubber tip on the foot. Poor guy, he’s young to need a cane. Mwahaahaaaaa.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 27, 2017)

It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit. Benefits: better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear. Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 27, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit. Benefits: better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear. Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?



I did not realize the lens passed 1/3 stop more light. In a light limited situation, you need every bit of help you can get.


----------



## tron (Nov 27, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit. Benefits: better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear. Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?


Actually the cost is the cost of new lens minus 350 euros not 350 euros. Very useful information about the T stop difference. But I just saw in DXOMark that although the newer is better in T stop it is worse in sharpness: 14Mp vs. 18Mp for 5DsR or 15 vs. 17 for 5DMkIV. Strange that it has 15 with 5DIV and 14 with 5Dsr though...


----------



## wm700293 (Nov 27, 2017)

Well, I have the both original 24-105 f:4, the "new" 24-105 II f:4, and the 16-35 f:4. My "new" 24-105 is head and shoulders better than the original, in terms of build quality. It is a much 'tighter' better feeling lens, a relative pleasure to use. Yes, the lack of a zoom lock on the original lens has driven me crazy…

The only thing I do not like about the new lens is the positioning of the lens hood lock button at top dead center, or bottom dead center when on the lens. This position makes it easy to accidentally "unlatch" the hood when setting the camera down or when carrying the camera slung off of a shoulder in such a way that the button comes in contact with a surface or my hip or elsewhere, and the hood works its way off of the lens and to the ground, unnoticed. This tendency has me be constantly monitoring that button orientation situation.

This same button situation exists with the 16-35. I can't afford to replace too many lens hoods when Canon charges $25 to $50 apiece for them… Wouldn't you think the designers and quality control people would have noticed this?
Oh, that's right, they only design and inspect them, THEY DON'T USE THEM! OK, rant over.

I've been using Canon cameras for more than 50 years. 7S, 7SZ, TL, FT, F1 System, 10D, 5D, 5DIV, 16-35 f4, 24-105 f:4 (both), "nifty fifty" f:1.8, 50mm f:2.5 Macro & 1:1 EXTENDER, 28mm f:3.5, 40mm F:2.8, and 70-200 F:2.8, 1.4x & 2x extenders, oh - and I almost forgot - the venerable 28-135 f:3.5-f5.6, plus 8 580EX II flash units and miscellaneous RF lenses (both Canon & Leica), as well as various triggers, hammers and firing pins… and about a zillion filters of half-a-zillion sizes.

Anyway, either vintage of the 24-105 f:4 is an incredibly good "walk around" lens. I have no complaints other than as noted above, but I give higher marks to the "new" one. Oh, and by the way, the 16-35 f:4 is outstanding, in my opinion.

Regards,
Billy


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 27, 2017)

tron said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit. Benefits: better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear. Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?
> ...



Gotcha. I wouldn't put too much stock into the DXO score/acutance maps. Seems like they had a bad copy of the 24-105 II. Design MTFs show they should be similar. TDP review and charts also support they are similar... and here DXO gets a worse result. Which one do you believe?

Like you, I also have the 24-70 f/2.8 II. It's a great lens, but I find 70mm too short for portraits. But I got the 24-105 f/4 IS II to mainly use for videos (I was using a 18-135 for that and this would drop the ISO by a stop which is significant for plays) and as a walk-around option. I got my 25-104 f/4 IS II (white box) for about 700 USD. Look for a deal to come up -- I wouldn't pay the original MSRP for the new version, but the kit delta in the US is already less than 1000 USD for retail kits, so the gap is starting to close.


----------



## picturefan (Nov 30, 2017)

Long time I thought a 24-105 is the one and only option for a walk-around lens, but then i felt in love with the 24-70 IS  
Ok, a bit shorter fl, but so handy, just a lovely lens...


----------



## Neil1000 (Nov 30, 2017)

Please take a look at Juza


https://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&t=canon_24-105

the original 24-105 is one of the most slagged off Canon lenses of all time but look at how many editor award pictures it received.

I think possibly the best, most versatile Canon lens of all time

I shoot Sony now but this was/is a monster of a lens

Neil


----------



## tron (Nov 30, 2017)

I have no doubt that it can win awards and that it can be very versatile. My only consideration (if you read the original post) is that the version II has better IS and I mentioned indoor shooting (museums, churches). Of course it is a nice lens at least it has been with my now sold 5D3 and my 5D4.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 30, 2017)

I liked mine a lot, I only stopped using it when I got the 5DSR and found it just too soft on the high-res sensor to be acceptable. 

My brother is now using it with my old 5D Mark III quite happily.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 30, 2017)

This thread got me thinking about the 24-105 II ... 

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
(1) 16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
(2) 24-70/4L IS + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II
(3) 24-70/2.8L II + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II

Obviously there is no single "right answer" - personal photographic style and the precise use case (eg where you are travelling and how you are travelling) will be important factors. Still, I would be interested to hear what others think, particularly if you have traveled with any of these combinations.

I have traveled with the 24-70/4L IS quite, including taking it on hikes/camping trips, and I have been pretty happy with it, but I have been thinking about pairing it with another reasonably light zoom for travel. I have also been tempted by the 24-70/2.8L II but haven't bitten yet. The combination of lack of IS, weight, size and cost for one stop of aperture at those focal lengths (and some extra sharpness, although I wonder how often I would really see the benefit in travel situations) has held me back so far, even though the extra stop would be significant.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2017)

jd7 said:


> At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
> (1) 16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
> (2) 24-70/4L IS + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II
> (3) 24-70/2.8L II + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II



Best case, sort out your favorite 100 shot from your previous travels then look at the EXIF data.

I used to take two or three 1 series bodies 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's plus two or three primes depending on what I was concentrating on. Now I take a single 1 series body with a 35 f2 IS and a 100 L Macro, I get way more keepers and with stitching software the modest two focal lengths result in infinite combinations.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 1, 2017)

jd7 said:


> This thread got me thinking about the 24-105 II ...
> 
> At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
> (1) 16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
> ...



If I intend to be in a city or town walk-around, I usually opt for a 16-35 and a fast 50 prime. 50 is for indoor and some shallower DOF. My favorite/most used focal length is 35mm. If I'm shooting my kids' sports, then it's the 40 and the 100-400. If I'm restricting myself to one lens, then it's usually the 24-70 f/2.8 II or a 35mm prime.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 1, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
> ...



Thanks PBD. I've seen you say in other posts that you usually travel with a 35 IS and 100L these days. I am generally in favour of travelling light and concentrating on the photography rather than gear, but not sure I'm ready for two primes for travel 

The problem with looking at my EXIF data is that I have not owned an UWA for years (since I moved to FF) and I often don't carry my 70-200 on travels (unless it's a photography focused trip, which is rare for me), so it's inevitable that most of my favourite pics would come from the 24-70 range because nearly all of my photos will be in that range.

Edit - Just got two photos from previous travels printed at 45" x 30", and almost inevitably both were taken with my 24-70! Really looking forward to picking up the prints.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 1, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> If I intend to be in a city or town walk-around, I usually opt for a 16-35 and a fast 50 prime. 50 is for indoor and some shallower DOF. My favorite/most used focal length is 35mm. If I'm shooting my kids' sports, then it's the 40 and the 100-400. If I'm restricting myself to one lens, then it's usually the 24-70 f/2.8 II or a 35mm prime.



If I am not too worried about weight, and especially if I am staying in places where I am comfortable leaving some gear behind when I go out, I usually take my 35 1.4A as my "extra" travel lens. I agree 35mm often works really well! I find 24-70 to be pretty useful though because that ability to give from wide angle to long-normal just by turning the zoom means you can get quite different looking pics without a lens change. I would quite like to add a 16-35 to my kit, but I do have doubts about how often I'd actually use it wider than 24. But maybe I would if I had it available.


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 1, 2017)

Something I think is really worth considering are the third-party equivalents.
Sigma make a 24-105 f/4 IS which is far, far sharper than both the Canon ones, has more accurate transmission, and the IS it uses is about on par with the Canon mkII. It's also one of the few Sigma zooms which doesn't have any particular AF problems. The only downside to it compared to the Canons is it's not weather-sealed in any way, though it's built fairly well and it doesn't sound like you're taking it up mountains or anything like that.
The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is also worth a look. You're losing some long-end, obviously, but you're gaining more than twice the light in terms of actual transmission (which will also help your camera's AF system on top of enabling you to keep the ISO low) and at f/4 it is far, _far_ sharper than any either of the Canon 24-105s or the Sigma 24-105; shooting the Tamron at 70mm and f/4 and cropping will get you sharper details than zooming in to 105mm with any of the other three lenses at f/4. At f/2.8 it's about equal with the Canon 24-105 mk I is at f/4, so compared to what you currently have, you're not missing out on anything; at f/2.8 you're gaining light with the same IQ and at f/4 you're gaining a lot of IQ and still gaining a little bit of light over either of the Canon lenses. The VC works very well, unlike the Sigma it _is_ weather sealed, and though AF is just a tiny bit slower than the Canons, it's equally as accurate. Tamron recently released a mk II ('G2') which improves the optics, VC, and AF further, though also costs quite a bit more; the mkI/G1 can be found very cheap now and really it's 99% the same.

I know a lot of people won't even consider third-party lenses, but when it comes to this standard focal length, Sigma and Tamron both do a really good job.

As for the Canons, it's a really tough call. Value and "worth it" mean different things to different people; a price that doesn't bother one person might be far too much for another. Nobody can tell you whether the mk II is worth the money because we don't know what your income is, what your lifestyle is like, and what that money might mean to you.
However, from a purely technical point of view, it is _very_ hard to recommend the mk II over the mk I. The mk II is heavier and a little larger, which is a problem for a general purpose lens. The light transmission is a little better, but it's still about a third of a stop worse than it should be. At the wide end the corners are good but the middle is softer than the mk I, and at the long end the opposite happens. There's less distortion at the wide end, but distortion beyond 50mm is unchanged. The AF and IS are both a little bit quieter but not significantly so. The IS is improved by about one stop (though this is a tough one for me to judge as I'm very used to holding much heavier systems still at low shutter speeds without IS, so I can always push IS a little further than some people seem to be able) but the AF is the same.
In other words, optically it's basically a draw, and the electronic improvements come at the cost of size/weight.

To me, that makes it dead even. If someone doesn't have the mk I lens then they I'd say they should definitely go straight for the mk II (assuming they can afford it), but when someone like yourself already has the mk I, it really doesn't make much sense to bother, to me. Having used both—as well as the Sigma and Tamron I mentioned above—I struggle to tell the two Canons apart. For a general-purpose lens, I'd say the mk I is better simply because it's that little bit lighter; for professional studio use I'd say the mk II is better due to the lower distortion at the wide end. Even those scenarios are splitting hairs.


----------



## tron (Dec 1, 2017)

I know they are quite close IQ wise. As I mentioned in the beginning of this thread I would put the better IS to good use since I was referring to interior space photography (for the shots that cannot be done with a wider lens due to required angle or distance).


----------



## Macoose (Dec 1, 2017)

Tron,

The Digital Picture has a good review on the 24-105 II lens. In it, Bryan writes about how it differs from the old version.



https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx


----------



## tron (Dec 1, 2017)

Macoose said:


> Tron,
> 
> The Digital Picture has a good review on the 24-105 II lens. In it, Bryan writes about how it differs from the old version.
> 
> ...


Yes I know about it and it says practically what everyone is saying. IQwise it's splitting hairs. As mentioned to the previous poster please read the previous post regarding the intended use.


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 2, 2017)

Yes, I saw what you wrote about your intended use before, and I stand by what I previously said. No part of the new lens—including the IS, as I covered above—is improved in any significant way over the mk I.

To reiterate what I said above about the IS, I've gotten only about 1/2 of a stop more "handholding" out of the mk II's IS compared to the mk I's. And to put that in context, I can handhold a 600mm lens at 1/160th without IS and still get consistently still shots, with 1/125th being my absolute limit. I regularly use medium format and large format cameras handheld. So, suffice to say my hands are _very_ steady. The fact that even my steady hands can only get an extra half stop out of the mk II should illustrate to you how little of a difference there is between the mk I and MK II's IS systems. If you're getting shaky shots with the mk I, the mk II isn't going to help you; if you're getting steady shots with the mk I, the mk II is only going to extend that range a little bit.

The way you write makes it sound like you're already dead set on buying the new lens and you're looking for people to validate your decision. If you're that sure that it will make a difference to your use, then go ahead already and buy it. You're not going to have a worse experience with it than you have with the mk I. (Well, center sharpness at <35mm will be worse, and corner sharpness at >70mm will be worse, and of course it's heavier and bulkier...)
But if you're _not_ sure about it and you're desperate for someone to convince you that it will be the golden child which completely revolutionises how your shoot, forget it, 'cause the 24-105 mk II is not that lens.

You've already had a lot of input from many users, and apparently read a lot of formal reviews. You've already heard basically everything there is to say about this lens. If you're not convinced to buy it yet, there's nothing anybody can say that will convince you to buy it; if you've already made up your mind to buy it, there's nothing anybody can say that will convince you to not buy it. It's a workhorse lens. It works fine. It is marginally better than the mk I in some ways, unchanged in most ways, and very slightly worse in a couple of ways. Whether it is "worth it" to you is a question only you can answer, and from the sound of it, you already have done in your own head, even if you've not acknowledged it to yourself yet.


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2017)

Thanks for the IS info. Actually upgrade was not decided yet. I read that there were focusing issues with the new lens (version 2). Photozone.de mentioned:

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

In another site it was mentioned that there were focusing issues not being corrected via AFMA.

Also, Canon issued an advisory warning about a possible AF in lenses with serial numbers starting with 48, 49, 50, 51.

I believe all the above are glitches to be corrected but I decided that for now my version 1 (which by the way has never had any of the issues mentioned about version 1 lenses (error 01, a ribbon cable being torn, etc) 
is just fine and I will keep it 

Thank you ALL for the input in this.


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2017)

jd7 said:


> This thread got me thinking about the 24-105 II ...
> 
> At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
> (1) 16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
> ...


You are not that off-topic. Coincidentally on a trip to Florence which made me open this thread I had 16-35 2.8L III and 24-105 4L (v 1). Both lenses were very useful (and the overlap helped to avoid too many lens changes).


----------



## jd7 (Dec 3, 2017)

tron said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > This thread got me thinking about the 24-105 II ...
> ...



Thanks Tron. For my own part I'm thinking 24-70 + 70-200/300 is probably what I'm going to end up with, but I can also imagine the 16-35 being useful in Europe (narrow streets, and impressive building interiors). Do you use the 16-24 range much?


----------



## tron (Dec 3, 2017)

Yes, I used 16-35 in museums where going backwards would cause me to include people in the pictures and in churches. However if I were to visit them again I would spend more time in churches in order to also step back and shoot differently too. I had tried the 24-70 and 70-200 combination once but that resulted more lens changes. However that was in a completely different place which demanded the use of 70-200 too. I guess everything depends on what someone wants to shoot.


----------

