# Ef 24-105mm f/4 IS II--JiGgLy IS aGaiN!



## YuengLinger (Jun 23, 2017)

After having a Canon Professional Services tech tell me that a jello effect in any position was not normal, that it indicated problems with the IS motor on the ef 24-105mm f/4 IS II, I ordered a replacement.

Even more pronounced jiggling! (And very out-of-alignment elements, crazy soft on the sides, not sharp in the center.)

Was it a freak occurrence to get two bad IS motors in a row? Or...

Does the ef 24-105mm II have a new type of IS with a "normal" jello effect? Is this something for video?

By jello-effect, I mean that before the IS "locks" in for a shot, a brief period of clearly visible jiggling occurs, and then it does "stay still."

On the first lens this appeared, it only did so when the body/lens was held 45 degrees clockwise from horizontal/landscape orientation; otherwise, the effect was not visible. On the replacement, the jiggling was visible in many positions, and more pronounced. (Note that the replacement was probably somebody's return, as it had a significantly older serial number than the first one, and was delivered even when the lens was apparently still on backorder.)


----------



## SteveB77 (Sep 15, 2017)

Went from a 24-105 mark i to a mark ii. Do find the lens to be better. Also find that the is lens does sometimes jiggles about before locking. Doesn't do this all the time. What I am more worried about is that when the lens is zoomed out, the extended part of lens moves from side to side alot more than the mark i lens. Can someone check to see if this is normal.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 15, 2017)

When I had my 24-105 F4 it worked well and had no issues - but then I didn't use IS!

Just turn the IS off and (probably) be happy.


----------



## JBSF (Dec 3, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> After having a Canon Professional Services tech tell me that a jello effect in any position was not normal, that it indicated problems with the IS motor on the ef 24-105mm f/4 IS II, I ordered a replacement.
> 
> Even more pronounced jiggling! (And very out-of-alignment elements, crazy soft on the sides, not sharp in the center.)
> 
> ...



Thought I'd add an experience here. Yesterday I received a refurb 24-105 II from Canon, and it had several problems, though it looked unused. It too had the "jiggly" IS. After AFMA, the lens was still soft from 24-50mm, and from 50mm to 105mm, its sharpness was worse than a refurb 55-250 STM that I bought from Canon last year for $130. The STM is very sharp for the price, but is nowhere near as sharp as my 100-400 II.

I'll be returning it next week.

Am I expecting too much to get a 24-105 that matches the sharpness of the 100-400?


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 3, 2017)

I shoot with a 24-105 II, a 70-200, and a 100-400 II, and find the 100-400 II is the sharpest of all three ... tho at times in certain shot (most shots) that 70-200 is extremely sharp as well... both excellent lenses.

Both are sharper than the 24-105 II - but I find the 24-105 II is a better all around lens than the 24-105 original. I thought the 24-105 II would be sharper than it is, altho the "less sharp" images are generally at one end or the other, and sharper in the middle ranges. Altho I'm happy with the upgrade...

As we all know, one lens will be better than another depending on conditions of the shot, too. So, it's difficult to determine which lens is "better" than another unless we shoot under the exact same conditions with all three, which is possible in a 'test situation' but not generally practical or desired in the field in working situation ... 

Which clarifies nothing, I guess


----------



## JBSF (Dec 3, 2017)

monkey44 said:


> I shoot with a 24-105 II, a 70-200, and a 100-400 II, and find the 100-400 II is the sharpest of all three ... tho at times in certain shot (most shots) that 70-200 is extremely sharp as well... both excellent lenses.
> 
> Both are sharper than the 24-105 II - but I find the 24-105 II is a better all around lens than the 24-105 original. I thought the 24-105 II would be sharper than it is, altho the "less sharp" images are generally at one end or the other, and sharper in the middle ranges. Altho I'm happy with the upgrade...
> 
> ...



At least you verify that the 24-105 isn't as sharp as the 100-400. I have read other comments that the 24-105 is sharp at the wide and tele ends, and less so in the middle. The example I got was sharpest from 70-105, but still disappointing. I have not had to adjust AFMA on other lenses on the two bodies I'm using. The 24-105 back focused slightly at the wide end and significantly on the tele end. I'll try to get my hands on another one to try.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 3, 2017)

My copy of the lens doesn't appear to have any issue with this, thankfully. I'll keep an eye on it.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 3, 2017)

Fwiw I have found that if I’m to quick/rough when moving the lens and starting IS it will jump on any lens. It can also activate “auto-panning” on the lenses that do have that. So generally I move a bit with slower and smoother when I’m using IS, then it activates completely smooth.

I’m sure it’s a separate issue with the 24-105 II, but worth a try?


----------



## arthurbikemad (Dec 3, 2017)

I just got a new Mk2, mainly for video, no odd IS with mine that's for sure.


----------



## tron (Dec 3, 2017)

Very interesting thread. I just found it when I was thinking to rather stay with my version 1 but I would welcome if all of you would mention the first two numbers of the serial number of your lenses to see if it is possible to find a pattern there. Not certain of course but worth a try.


----------



## JBSF (Dec 3, 2017)

It's SN 5513000577.

In response to Viggo's last comment, the jiggling occurred every time, or nearly every time, I pressed the shutter button, and I handled the lens slowly and deliberately the entire time I used it. It would do it while focusing on a subject and would repeat it if I lifted my finger and touched the button again.

Just in case anybody wonders, I AFMA'd at both wide and tele ends (7D2). One reason I was attracted to this lens was the incredibly sharp images I have seen from some version 1 samples. I recalled in particular an image by Keith Breazeal of boots and stirrups on a guy at Bodie, shot on a 5DSr ( https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26737.210 ). The lens I got couldn't come anywhere close to that level of sharpness.



tron said:


> Very interesting thread. I just found it when I was thinking to rather stay with my version 1 but I would welcome if all of you would mention the first two numbers of the serial number of your lenses to see if it is possible to find a pattern there. Not certain of course but worth a try.


----------



## tron (Dec 3, 2017)

So we have a problematic starting with 55. 

The interesting part: In a local shop they have 24-105 II as part of a kit which can be split with number starting with 53 and a standalone lens with a number starting with 58 and I was tempted (again) until I saw this thread.
I was asking about the first two numbers due to Canon's advisory regarding possible AF issues on lenses with serial numbers starting with 48,49,50,51.

Also in Photozone in http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/995-canon24105f4ismk2?start=1

they mention: 

"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."

So for now I am keeping my version 1 which works fine with my 5D4

Anyone else having 24-105 II can you please tell us the first two numbers together with your opinion of the lens?


----------



## arthurbikemad (Dec 4, 2017)

Mine is 53, it has an AFMA of -1W and -4T (Focal) on my 5D4. Using it again yesterday for video with no strange IS issues, the IS on the Mk2 works GREAT for me at the long end. I am very happy I got the Mk2.


----------



## xps (Dec 18, 2017)

I own mine over one year, using it on the 5D Mark IV. And it has no issue with the IS, but the IS is louder than the IS on the 70-200 II 2.8.
My issue is the sharpness in the edges, that is worser than on other Canon lenses, even if there is no "L" on it.
Another thing is the electronic correction of distorsion et cetera. It is really heavy. It does an good job, but is really visibly heavy. (If someone is older in this forum - I compare it to the popping of slides, when the warmth changes the level of sharpness.). For me this shows, how much electronic correction has to be done. And - maybe I´m not right- but lesser correction needed is an better optical lens - isn´t it?

I´m still waiting for an newer 24-70 L


----------



## XL+ (Dec 19, 2017)

Indeed the 24-105 II seems to be not the best lens. Quite some electronic improvement. See files. On one, the electronic lens correction is activated.

The stabilizer works well. 
The shot attached is not 100% sharp, but acceptable for handheld. 1/6s


----------



## tron (Dec 19, 2017)

They are much much more than acceptable XL+


----------

