# Review: LensTip (finally) reviews the 24-105 f/4L IS II



## ahsanford (Mar 14, 2017)

From LT:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=498

LT didn't come to the same 'it's not much better than the Mk I' conclusion that many others have:

_"In my humble opinion releasing such a lens was an excellent Canon move. They provided a slightly weaker image quality in the frame centre compared to the predecessor and the Sigma A 24–105 mm f/4 DG OS HSM but the difference is often so insignificant that it would be hard to notice it in real life photos. However, we got a lot in return – and I really mean a lot. Firstly, a better image quality on the edges of the frame, lower chromatic and spherical aberration, lower distortion and vignetting plus a very good performance against bright light. As a result you can enjoy a universal lens with a sensible aperture fastness, equipped with a fast, accurate autofocus and an efficient image stabilization unit – a device practically without any serious flaws." _

- A


----------



## Act444 (Mar 14, 2017)

In general I think it's quite consistent with the other findings...from page 4: 



> The results are very good – you can notice that at first glance. Already at the maximum relative aperture, no matter the focal length used, MTFs are higher than 36 lpmm and it means the images are of good quality. On slight stopping down the resolution values get near 40 lpmm, reaching over 43 lpmm at most. On the one hand these results are significantly better than those of the cheap Canon EF 24–105 mm f/3.5–5.6 IS STM *but if you stack them up against the performance of its predecessor they haven’t improved. The rivals such as the Sigma A 24-105 mm f/4 DG OS HSM can even fare a tad better.*



It's up to the reviewer - or the reader - to draw the conclusion whether it's worth it or not (these guys seem to think so, some others not so much), but the _raw data_ seems to be more or less consistent with other reviews I've seen. 

I have a bigger question though - anyone who owns this lens and shoots at 24mm a lot - how easy is it to fix the distortion? I can never get rid of the waviness on version I shots at 24mm which kills any use for architecture or buildings. The 24-70 f4 is much better in this regard.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 14, 2017)

Act444 said:


> In general I think it's quite consistent with the other findings...from page 4:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1

If you read reviews by jumping first to resolution (as I am certainly guilty of doing), then yes, the data is in line with other reviewers. Other nice small improvements elsewhere were made as many reviewers have pointed out.

I still contend Canon didn't lay an egg here so much as confirm a notion: this is a kit lens, L series or not, and this was a kit lens refresh where the improvements are less dramatic and the big winner tends to be _Canon_: this new release props the price back up and surely cost less to build.

For those pining for a classic 'II' L-series experience -- one in which the new lens non-trivially improves -- this L is sadly the exception to the rule.

- A


----------



## tr573 (Mar 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > In general I think it's quite consistent with the other findings...from page 4:
> ...



The only thing that made me hugely disappointed is the fairly significant increase in bulk and weight compared to the paltry optical upgrade. The thing is pretty much the equal of the 24-70/2.8 physically, and I expected more significant improvement in IQ for that.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 14, 2017)

It was reviewed last week on their Polish site - which gets nicely translated by Chrome (optyczne.pl). Here is a collage of the old results for the Mk I, done on a 5D (left) and the the Mk II on a 5DIII (right). I'll stick with my Mk I.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 14, 2017)

The original version of the "kit lens" just made the cover of Professional Photographers of America magazine AGAIN. (Cover portrait, that is.)

It is a workhorse. Period. Any slight improvement will be welcomed by portrait and event photographers, if they even notice it's a II.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 14, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> The original version of the "kit lens" just made the cover of Professional Photographers of America magazine AGAIN. (Cover portrait, that is.)
> 
> It is a workhorse. Period. Any slight improvement will be welcomed by portrait and event photographers, if they even notice it's a II.



I hear you. I didn't mean 'kit' as a dig so much as a reality check for what role this lens serves _from Canon's perspective_: it must hit a certain cost target for FF kit profitability. That doesn't mean it's not a fine instrument.

I just think when you look at Canon's L 'sequel' lenses from the past five years:

24-70 f/2.8L II
16-35 f/2.8L III
100-400L II
35 f/1.4L II

_All of them_ got non-trivially sharper, so 24-105 fans were fired up the same would happen here with the announcement of the II, and they were left somewhat disappointed.

But no one's saying the 24-105L II is not up to snuff for professional work, which is much more about talent and know-how than it is about sharpness. Consider: working pros are getting magazine covers with iPhones these days. 

- A


----------



## unfocused (Mar 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...I still contend Canon didn't lay an egg here so much as confirm a notion: this is a kit lens, L series or not, and this was a kit lens refresh where the improvements are less dramatic and the big winner tends to be _Canon_: this new release props the price back up and surely cost less to build.
> 
> For those pining for a classic 'II' L-series experience -- one in which the new lens non-trivially improves -- this L is sadly the exception to the rule.



I have a slightly different take. It's not that this is built to a lesser standard because it is a kit lens. If that were the case there would be better performing versions in existence. But there aren't. I believe that if Canon (or anyone else) could build a better performing lens at a 50% to 100% price increase, they would have done so. But, it may simply not be possible to go from 24mm to 100mm or more and produce a stellar lens at anything other than an astronomical cost.


----------



## Act444 (Mar 17, 2017)

For some reason, I still find myself contemplating whether to go for it or not. I think ultimately it's going to come down to image quality and distortion handling at 24mm...thinking whether to consolidate the 24-70 f4 and V1 24-105 to one V2 24-105 that can handle still life (superior IS), shoot buildings (less/fixable distortion mechanics) AND have good enough sharpness for closeups (poor MFD resolving power of 24-70).


----------

