# Review: 24-105 f/4L IS II from Martin Bailey



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2016)

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the_ f/2.8L II_, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true. 

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A


----------



## tron (Nov 11, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:
> 
> https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/
> 
> ...


+1 we need some of TDP, Photozone, Lensrentals, lenstip... Even the charts in 50mm comparison had different magnification!


----------



## docsmith (Nov 11, 2016)

MTF charts do not support that conclusion.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2016)

I agree, I am a skeptic, but a hopeful one. I liked my 24-105mm ver 1 until I got the 24-70 II. 

Several more expert reviews are needed.


----------



## In-The-Dark (Nov 12, 2016)

docsmith said:


> MTF charts do not support that conclusion.



Noob question, but, have there been case/s before, wherein actual resolution tests show higher results than published mtf charts?


----------



## Eldar (Nov 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:
> 
> https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/
> 
> ...


I believe he is using the 24-70 f/2.8 version I. The picture is of the vII, but when he refers to the vII he says so specifically. I don´t find it credible that this lens is as sharp as the 24-70 f2.8L II. If so, TDP/Bryan needs to convince me.


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 12, 2016)

Eldar said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:
> ...



In the comments section someone has asked for clarification and he is using the MK II lens in his comparisons. He only uses the 5Ds bodies. I agree he's not as thorough as TDP et al, it does bode well for real-world tests for many people, where perhaps you will have to pixel-peep to see the differences ?

It will be interesting to see about copy variance from TDP or lensrental, and some more in-depth comparisons.

From a travel perspective the 24-105 with the 100-400 is a nice pairing, though I think I might miss f/2.8 in low light conditions. But where weight is more of a concern, I can see that being a good solution with a pair of bodies.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 12, 2016)

For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.


----------



## LordofTackle (Nov 12, 2016)

Eldar said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:
> ...



My thoughts exactly. Most of the time he is talking just about 24-70/2.8. Somewhere later in the text he then quotes the Mark II Version...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 12, 2016)

dak723 said:


> For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.



Exactly. For the needs I have, the 24-105 is far better than any 24-70, so the only thing it needs to accomplish is to be a little better than the first version.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.
> ...


Despite what I wrote above, I fully agree. I sold my 24-105 when I got the 24-70 f/2.8L II, but I miss the 70-105 range, for a walk around lesn and I will most likely buy v-II. But I do not expect the optical performance to equal the 24-70 f2.8L II. This review is promising though, so I´ll be reading TDP´s review as soon as it is out.


----------



## bart13 (Nov 12, 2016)

I might buy this lens. Would love to see a IS(during video) comparison with the mark1


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 16, 2016)

dak723 said:


> For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.



Because it future proofs the lens on other bodies that may come out. Lenses you might keep for over a decade (I know I have), bodies perhaps not. Therefore the comparison / information is part of that choice/decision...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 16, 2016)

Stu_bert said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.
> ...



+1. Some of us might not be shooting 22 MP rigs forever.

Resolution is not the only area to improve, of course, but it is somewhat expected if $1000 is leaving your pocket. Folks will be unlikely to pay that kind of money for just one more stop of IS and a zoom lock over what they already have. 

- A


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 25, 2016)

Turns out this lens is either really crappy or susceptible to crazy wide copy variation. The image results I'm seeing from this lens are horrible. I'm buying another 24-105 V1 as my backup to the 24-70. I sold it before the market dropped on them, but it looks like I'll just put that money back into another copy of a newer white box lens.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:
> 
> https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/
> 
> ...


It seems you were right to be skeptical. After that I try hard not to write what I think of the specific photographer who wrote this "review". We can all draw our conclusions I guess...


----------



## LesC (Dec 6, 2016)

tron said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:
> ...



That really does seem a strange review, but what reason would he have to make it up, unless he has a really poor copy of the 24-70 F2.8 MKII ? Unless it's to encourage you to buy the lens through his link to B&H ??


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2016)

LesC said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


 or anything else we do not know about...


----------



## BLFPhoto (Dec 7, 2016)

Color me VERY skeptical that it will best the 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II. I was late in adopting that newer version, having lived with my very capable version I for years. Tank of a lens and it did well. But the Mk II? Completely different animal. I didn't really know what I was missing.

As for this 24-105 being that good? Probably not quite. But what I'll bet it has is the newer coatings. Those, as much as any lens designs, plays a part in the stellar performance of the 24-70 Mk II. Beyond the edge-to-edge and across-the-zoom-range sharpness improvement, the new coatings improve the contrast and color of the newest lens designs. The new 35mm is the same thing....really great contrast and colors, to go along with the sharpness improvement. 

I'll wait and see how the copy-variation issue plays out. Probably a good check for LensRentals to report on. I have loved the 24-105 as a travel lens, but got rid of my version I a while ago. I'd love for the new one to be good.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:
> 
> https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/
> 
> ...


and in related news... most people do not AFMA their lenses....


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:
> ...


But the ones who test them in TDP, lenstip, photozone and lensrentals use live view so lack of AFMA has nothing to do with new 24-105 not being stellar. I believe the reviews of these 4 sites.


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 7, 2016)

tron said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Them I believe too, but no one of them claimed the new 24-105 being as sharp or even sharper than the 24-70 II, I believe!!

When I changed from the version I 24-105 to the 24-70 II that was an eye-opener. That lens is so much sharper and has so much better color and contrast

I never looked back and never used the 24-105 again.


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


+1 Except from possibly cases where one have to carry one lens only and the task is not too important the 24-105 could do but I agree it's 24-70 2.8 II that I use most of the time. As far as 24-70 ii comparison that's why I said that I do not believe the specific photographer. If the 24-105 II is at most equal to vesion 1 and version 1 is worse than 24-70 2.8 II well then anyone can deduct the obvious!


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2016)

Can you check at the end of 

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

I copy an extract:

Martin Bailey
Posted at 11:04h, 18 November Reply

Thanks Rob!

The Mark I lens had a variable aperture, whereas the Mark II is a constant f/4, so this should no longer happen.



Do I miss something important or is something wrong with this guy?


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 7, 2016)

Ahm.....strange?
Did he compare to the STM version?


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Ahm.....strange?
> Did he compare to the STM version?


He definetely "said Mark I lens" !!!!!!!!!


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 7, 2016)

Yep. It's strange. Maybe faulty memory?  After all he states that he sold the Mark I several years ago....^^

But on that topic of changing light: can a lens that has a constant aperture (f-stop) have different T-stops at different focal lengths??
I'm aware that f/4 does not necessarily mean T/4 (usually they round the values a fair bit) but I don't know whether this means that the light transmission can change with focal length although the lens has a constant aperture...


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2016)

Anyway who cares! It's not a lens that will make us anxious to buy it anyway ;D


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 7, 2016)

Not really


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2016)

He's delusional.


----------



## cpreston (Dec 7, 2016)

tron said:


> Can you check at the end of
> 
> https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/
> 
> ...



All of Canon's L zooms except for the 70-200 have a loss of light transmission while zooming if the aperture is not wide open. On the old 24-105, the loss was about a stop and a half zooming from 24-105. Mind you, this is only when the lens is not at f/4. For video, it is a real pain. If Canon, fixed this on the version II lens, it would be a big deal for some uses. Based on the comment at the end of the post, it doesn't appear that Canon has fixed this issue.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 7, 2016)

ahhhh the forum that never ceases to make my blood pressure rise lol... You know, the original 24-105 lens is a very good lens... To be honest, it's one of those lenses that is my most consistent and reliable lenses... Even more consistent than my 70-200. Yes my 85 prime is sharper than the 24-105, once again, the 24-105 is more reliable, and as a working professional, I can always increase sharpening in raw processing, if it's off, it's off. So to me, the new one has the lock which has been a pain in my side with the 24-105 for ths last 3 years with lens creep, and if it's marginally sharper, shoot that's enough right there to make me sell my current lens and buy the new ones... If you guys dont like it, that's on you... But for me and my use, this lens looks like a slam dunk.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2016)

awinphoto said:


> ahhhh the forum that never ceases to make my blood pressure rise lol... You know, the original 24-105 lens is a very good lens... To be honest, it's one of those lenses that is my most consistent and reliable lenses... Even more consistent than my 70-200. Yes my 85 prime is sharper than the 24-105, once again, the 24-105 is more reliable, and as a working professional, I can always increase sharpening in raw processing, if it's off, it's off. So to me, the new one has the lock which has been a pain in my side with the 24-105 for ths last 3 years with lens creep, and if it's marginally sharper, shoot that's enough right there to make me sell my current lens and buy the new ones... If you guys dont like it, that's on you... But for me and my use, this lens looks like a slam dunk.



This or any similar wrist band works just great to stop the lens creep!

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/834030-REG/LENSBAND_628586557901_Lens_Band_Black.html


----------



## Crumpton (Jan 23, 2017)

I have a similar lens band but from a no-name manufacturer. It works well though. 
I ordered mine from BestBuy with a Canon - EF-S 55-250mm. Too bad they does not ship outside of US and I had to use shipw.com package forwarding service to get mine in Europe. However this whole hassle worthed because I managed to get my lens $100 cheaper than here.


----------

