# TDP Image Quality posted - 24-105L II



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2016)

At long last, here it is -- the new 24-105L II.

5DS R + 24-105L II vs. 24-105L I @ 24mm f/4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Wow. The I version looks considerably better than the II in the center and mid-frame areas!


5DS R + 24-105L II vs. 24-105L I @ 105mm f/4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Looks like a fair amount of purple fringing at 105mm for the II version and not the I version.

Color me disappointed. Most Mk II versions of L lenses don't get out the door without a clear bump in performance. I know those are just two simple comparisons (and he's only got one copy of the new lens), but they should have been softball pitches to swing at for Canon. 

Wow.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2016)

24-105L II vs. the non-L 24-105 STM @ 24mm f/4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=961&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

The non-L wins in that comparison, IMHO, esp the midframe area.

24-105L II vs. the non-L 24-105 STM @ 105mm f/5.6 (aperture stopped down on the L to match the non-L):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=961&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

That's a poor result. The 24-105L II -- stopped down one stop -- is considerably softer / more fringing than the non-L shot wide open. Wow.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 14, 2016)

It *IS* designed as a kit lens. The 24-70 f/4 IS came out at more than 1500 USD and that was a ridiculous price. The 24-105 f/4 II has a lower initial price, and is probably designed to minimize cost so that the kit prices can be slashed in the future.


----------



## meywd (Nov 14, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> It *IS* designed as a kit lens. The 24-70 f/4 IS came out at more than 1500 USD and that was a ridiculous price. The 24-105 f/4 II has a lower initial price, and is probably designed to minimize cost so that the kit prices can be slashed in the future.



That's ok but why release a version two if its worse?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2016)

meywd said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It *IS* designed as a kit lens. The 24-70 f/4 IS came out at more than 1500 USD and that was a ridiculous price. The 24-105 f/4 II has a lower initial price, and is probably designed to minimize cost so that the kit prices can be slashed in the future.
> ...



+1. I'm not condemning this lens from a few IQ samples from just one lens, but I'm eager to read Mr. Carnathan's writeup in light of this result. Knowing him, he might pursue a dialogue with Canon professionals who have sorted out similar nutty findings in the past. Who knows -- he might have gotten a bad copy.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2016)

Hang on -- if you run my original comparison on the 7D2, it's a lot rosier for the Mk II lens, especially on the long end:

24mm f/4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

105mm f/4 (*THIS* is what I was expecting to see):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


Would that imply we've got an AFMA issue going on?

Call me crazy, but I sense a retraction / retest / story from Carnathan to be forthcoming on the FF result.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2016)

Holy cow, from Bryan Carnathan himself just now, when I asked him if he got a bad copy:
_
"That is a question that I have to answer. While I was not expecting a significant improvement over the version I lens (based on the MTF charts), I was hoping for a little better than this. My outdoor test images do not paint a better picture and a friend was underwhelmed with their copy, but this lens has some other nice advantages that I'll share in the review. Also keep in mind that CA correction helps in the periphery."
_

*Oof.*  

For those that follow TDP, Bryan saying "I was hoping for a little better than this" simply never happens. And it would appear he's also seeing this result in his standard outside of his house aperture / lens mouseovers of crops of bushes and trees.

Stay tuned...

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Would that imply we've got an AFMA issue going on?
> 
> Call me crazy, but I sense a retraction / retest / story from Carnathan to be forthcoming on the FF result.



From TDP's desciption of their ISO 12233 chart testing:

[quote author=Bryan Carnathan / TDP]
Tests are conducted using computer-aided Live View manual focusing (with center-point-only autofocus additionally tested). The best of the many re-focused shots (typically at least 10 sets and often 15-20) are used for the results for each camera/lens/focal-length/aperture combination. 
[/quote]


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Would that imply we've got an AFMA issue going on?
> ...


[/quote]

I always forget -- thanks, Neuro.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 14, 2016)

Maybe time to slow down. Not at the CR end--we respond like lightning and damn the torpedoes, but at the review end. Don't post partial reviews or half-baked first impressions. Be methodical and certain.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 14, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Maybe time to slow down. Not at the CR end--we respond like lightning and damn the torpedoes, but at the review end. Don't post partial reviews or half-baked first impressions. Be methodical and certain.



His test method is sound. What is available are IQ crops. He is planning on testing a second copy of the lens, which will take time. There are lenses which have multiple sets of results (including the 24-70 f/2.8 II, when first tested on the 1Ds III). The crop sets are available in advance of the actual writeup -- that is typical. Hopefully, the second copy will have improved IQ at least as good as version 1, but I think that expecting version 2 to be much better is out of the question (the MTFs don't imply that and Bryan's initial testing doesn't either).

It is telling (from ahsanford's post) that both Bryan's and his friend's copy exhibited similar deficiencies...


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 14, 2016)

maybe it's time where economical pressure is rising. So maybe the new lens is cheaper to produce and some goodies as better IS may somehow compensate.

What was interestng for me is, that the sigma art lens is not better. this shows how good the original version is and how difficult such devices are to design. 

At the moment there is much hype for the new version, most people blindly believe the new version to be "much better" and so is the price. The price will come down as for all kit lenses, i just do not know why we have the 24-70 F4 and the 24-105 STM lenses for? Both of them i never saw in the wind, where the old 24-105 is everywhere, not only on my camera 

I would really like to pay for a 24-70 2.8 IS, which would improve the FF camera system by 1 stop of light gattering ability, i like to be out at night without tripod (which may be called unprofessional, who cares). Maybe i need a 35 2.0 IS


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2016)

hendrik-sg said:


> At the moment there is much hype for the new version, most people blindly believe the new version to be "much better" and so is the price.



I'll give you a few reasons why Canon folks were fired up for this Mk II version:

35 f/1.4L II
16-35 f/2.8L III (aside from some staggering vignetting)
100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
24-70 f/2.8L II

What do all of those have in common? They were sequels to successful lenses, and every one of those lenses above absolutely mopped the floor with its predecessor -- Canon has not made a bad sequel to an L lens in recent memory. I'm hard pressed to think of even one in the last 10 years.

So... yeah. Hopes were high for this one.

- A


----------



## geekpower (Nov 15, 2016)

i really wanted this lens to be awesome. i hate to say it, but when it was announced i did wonder what would become of the 24-70 f4/L if this was even close in sharpness but had better reach. sounds like perhaps that lens is not in danger of obsolescence after all. will reserve judgement until a few full reviews are out, but so far, not so good.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 15, 2016)

I was REALLY excited for this lens -- and while I'll still wait for more reviews to come in, it's sinking in that I may end up keeping my version I longer than anticipated...(it seems to be one of the "good copies" so to speak, besting my 24-70 f4 in the 50-70mm range)


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2016)

geekpower said:


> i really wanted this lens to be awesome. i hate to say it, but when it was announced i did wonder what would become of the 24-70 f4/L if this was even close in sharpness but had better reach. sounds like perhaps that lens is not in danger of obsolescence after all. will reserve judgement until a few full reviews are out, but so far, not so good.



The killer app of the 24-105 is clearly 71-105mm. 

The killer app with the 24-70 f/4L IS is the macro (and the size/weight to some extent).

My 24-70 f/4L IS will not be replaced until another L standard zoom with a 0.7x max mag is released. In that light, it's place in the cabinet is all but assured for the next 10 years.

- A


----------



## TeT (Nov 15, 2016)

did Brian do these? He may need a different copy to test or I see know reason to rush out and upgrade..


----------



## AJ (Nov 15, 2016)

Goes to show that "L" isn't everything.


----------



## TeT (Nov 15, 2016)

AJ said:


> Goes to show that "L" isn't everything.



Not so, L really is everything... This is surprising. I am interested to hear what brian says in his review.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 15, 2016)

I'm really surprised, but reserving judgment. This would be the first time in years (maybe ever) that a II version is not optically stellar. Even the non-L lenses like the 24, 28 and 35 IS versions are optically much superior to their predecessors.

I do not believe Canon would have updated this lens without giving it much improved optics. Time will tell, I guess.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 15, 2016)

I've heard several bad reviews and one good one, I'll keep watching them. There are so many other things we need to see in reviews and that may take a while.


----------



## In-The-Dark (Nov 15, 2016)

meywd said:


> That's ok but why release a version two if its worse?



Version II = Better than the previous one.

Im hoping that was a bad copy they tested.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 15, 2016)

meywd said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It *IS* designed as a kit lens. The 24-70 f/4 IS came out at more than 1500 USD and that was a ridiculous price. The 24-105 f/4 II has a lower initial price, and is probably designed *to minimize cost* so that the kit prices can be slashed in the future.
> ...


Why? See bolt above. 
But I really hopw that Brian got a bad copy. Otherwise I'd be really disappointed.
OTOH it saves me money because now I know I can stick with my "old but good" V1, and if I ever go into new bodies I can buy body only. 
(I thought about getting this hoped to better lens with my next boy)


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 15, 2016)

By the way:

If you take a look at the MTF charts these results can only be interpreted that Bryan got a bad copy. 
Or... I don't read the MTF charts properly ... or ... they're faked, which I cannot believe with Canon.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 15, 2016)

Its entirely possible that Bryan got a bad copy and copies 2 and maybe 3 will be better. But let's not overreact. V1 was a very good lens, V2 MTF charts are only a little better and certainly not up to other new releases (16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, etc). 

We should not expect much better. Maybe a little. But there is less CA, appears to be less distortion, and if IS is truly better, this will still be a very good general purpose lens and will take many excellent pictures.

Was I hoping for a prime like zoom yet again, sure. But the MTF charts are not there.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 15, 2016)

Don't forget--there appears to have been a pause in production.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2016)

In-The-Dark said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > That's ok but why release a version two if its worse?
> ...



Or...Version II = Cheaper for Canon to produce than the previous one = more profit for Canon. Just sayin'.


----------



## JoeDavid (Nov 15, 2016)

Makes me wonder if the push off until December for the standalone lens release is an attempt to get a handle on quality control. If so it would suck to by the kit right now.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> In-The-Dark said:
> 
> 
> > meywd said:
> ...



I could see that happening with kit EF-S glass, but this is an L lens. Have we _ever_ seen a 'II' / sequel L lens get worse than its predecessor? 

- A


----------



## meywd (Nov 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In-The-Dark said:
> ...



to reduce cost they can keep the naming and refresh it without telling anyone


----------



## atlcroc (Nov 15, 2016)

Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2016)

meywd said:


> to reduce cost they can keep the naming and refresh it without telling anyone



That's an inventory and ordering nightmare. You'd never know which version of the lens you'd get!

- A


----------



## meywd (Nov 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > to reduce cost they can keep the naming and refresh it without telling anyone
> ...



Stop production at a serial XX-XXXXX start on the new lens from YY-XXXXX and up.

Anyway it seem IS was upgraded, and maybe they fixed the zoom creep.


----------



## jmontagu13 (Nov 15, 2016)

meywd said:


> Anyway it seem IS was upgraded, and maybe they fixed the zoom creep.



V2 does have a zoom lock, so that will be nice for hiking. I recently upgraded to 5D4 and V2 of this lens, but haven't had much chance to try it out.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 15, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> By the way:
> 
> If you take a look at the MTF charts these results can only be interpreted that Bryan got a bad copy.
> Or... I don't read the MTF charts properly ... or ... they're faked, which I cannot believe with Canon.



Canon's MTF charts are computer generated charts and show a perfect lens (no such animal). However, lenses should be reasonably close.

Bryan knows what he is doing, and can recognize a lens that has been damaged or mis-assembled, because they almost always are out of alignment internally which becomes obvious in a photo.

What he cannot check for is internal lenses that are out of specification or slightly out of tolerance such that the error stacks up.

Based on his images, the lens appears to be assembled correctly with no shipping damage, so the most likely conclusion is that it is as tested. However, its also possible that production screwed up on internal lens grinding, which could only be found by disassembly of a lens and using Canon's specifications to check it. If that is the issue, then future copies might have some tweaking done, and magically provide better images. I wonder.


----------



## AdamBotond (Nov 15, 2016)

Wow, what an unpleasant surprise! Canon really made me believe over the last few years that they are going to design nothing, but great, top-notch lenses with major improvement over respective prodecessors when it comes to L series. Super telephoto version II lenses were all class leading, 100-400 II is awsome, 400 F4 DO II is very good, 16-35 F4 IS is amazing. Well that winning-streak has come to an end, as these two latest announced wide angle zooms are cleary set-backs. Latest is not the greatest anymore. 

The 16-35 F2.8 III makes no sense to buy with that ridiculous vignetting and now TDP test has proven that 24-105 II falls to version I optically. I mean come on, just by looking at TDP comparison tests, its cristal clear that version II is less sharper, has more CA... you name it. 

So I wonder, why would one upgrade from version I to II? (Or for that matter from 16-35 2.8 II to III?) Both these successors looks like a dead-end to me.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2016)

AdamBotond said:


> So I wonder, why would one upgrade from version I to II? (Or for that matter from 16-35 2.8 II to III?) Both these successors looks like a dead-end to me.



24-105L II -- I await more information. No single review is enough to get me to buy or skip a product. But yes, the IQ thus far is not compelling.

16-35 f/2.8L III -- I would be _much_ less hasty to condemn that lens. Name me a sharper f/2.8 UWA FF zoom that is front-filterable (I would contend that such a lens does not exist). It has a whopping drawback, for sure, but the vignetting is only stands out from 16-20mm @ f/2.8. It matters, I'm not dismissing it, but again, it's a huge resolution improvement over its predecessor.

- A


----------



## Act444 (Nov 16, 2016)

atlcroc said:


> Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. *Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me.* To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.



That's....disappointing to put it mildly.

That said, I have to say, the original 24-105 is no slouch (on a 5D3) - particularly around 50mm which I find to be its sweet spot. It's not as good at 105mm f/4, although in good light it is still good enough. Can't really expect it to be the 24-70 2.8 or 16-35 2.8... So even if they kept sharpness the same, but vastly improved distortion at the wide end, that would be OK - but it doesn't appear that they've even done that. :-\

I very nearly sprung for V II expecting that it would be better across the board - probably would have happened had the local store had them in stock...anyway, good thing I held off, and looks like I will continue to do so for the time being.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 16, 2016)

atlcroc said:


> Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.



Totally missed this post. Thanks for sharing.

A Mk II that isn't sharper than its predecessor? Between TDP and a few early adopters, we're not exactly hearing any ringing praise.

- A


----------



## davidj (Nov 16, 2016)

125g is a lot of extra weight for no added sharpness.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 16, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> atlcroc said:
> 
> 
> > Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.
> ...



Samsung.


----------



## AJ (Nov 16, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> atlcroc said:
> 
> 
> > Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.
> ...


It's a very consistent message.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 16, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > By the way:
> ...


I understand your arguments and I am quite willing to follow them. 
I wasn't suggesting a damage but maybe a lens to the limits of the production tolerances.

But if that isn't the reason I must say seeing what Canon could achieve with new lens releases lately got me quite disappointed that this lens doesn't seem to deliver an optical improvement over it's predecessor. 

So maybe we'll have to wait for further tests and I am now eagerly awaiting the analysis from Roger and his colleagues at LR and maybe they're also doing a copy variation evaluation as well.


----------



## hne (Nov 16, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> atlcroc said:
> 
> 
> > Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.
> ...



I'd guess one of the things they prioritized in the design of this lens is to fix the issue with the aperture flex cable being damage.


----------



## Josh Denver (Nov 16, 2016)

The price of the lens did not have a pump up, and it fixed the most requested defect in the MK I which is barrel distortion at 24mm. And designed an entirely new USM motor that does not produce sound while retaining USM speed. IS for both video and photos is also improved over the already IS king MK I. It also fixes the huge problem we video shooters had with the MKI which is exposure change whilst zooming (and returning back to normal momentarily which is why it doesn't affect photography)

Along with the body improvements, I am quite content as a video shooter to upgrade to the MKII. Very excited as the MKI is the best FF video lens ever made. Even with no optical leaps, with these key improvement, it's absolutely a worthy successor. It's a cheap lens, much cheaper than L designation requirements. 

The delay the lens had also might be due to Quality Control issues on the optical level. We never know. And I never judge any product until it's a full production model normally sold by the company.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 16, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Very excited as the MKI is the best FF video lens ever made.



Really?

I don't think its in the top 10, or 50 even. It might be good for a low cost lens, but is not even parfocal like the high end video lenses.

Proclaiming it the best FF video lens ever made seems questionable. Zeiss, for example makes FF video lenses that blow it away, Canon makes FF video lenses that are surpurb, and a number of other lens makers too.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 16, 2016)

I compare to Samsung because they had such a disaster with the phones AND washing machines in a short time.

I hope we aren't seeing the same thing with the 24-105mm and the 16-35 f/2.8 III!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 16, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > Very excited as the MKI is the best FF video lens ever made.
> ...



It's maybe the best low-cost zoom lens for video purposes where matching, gearing, etc. aren't considerations?


----------



## davidj (Nov 16, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Proclaiming it the best FF video lens ever made seems questionable. Zeiss, for example makes FF video lenses that blow it away, Canon makes FF video lenses that are surpurb, and a number of other lens makers too.



Aren't the Canon cinema lenses (assuming that's what you're talking about) for Super 35 sensors?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2016)

davidj said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Proclaiming it the best FF video lens ever made seems questionable. Zeiss, for example makes FF video lenses that blow it away, Canon makes FF video lenses that are surpurb, and a number of other lens makers too.
> ...



AFAIK, the Canon CN-E primes cover a FF image circle, but the CN-E zooms only cover Super35. Zeiss makes FF cine zooms.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> davidj said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Yep, a few years back, Uncle Rog at LR posted on using a Zeiss 70-200 T2.9 for stills and if I recall correctly, it outresolved every other 70-200 f/2.8 out there, including the fairly legendary Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

I tried to link that posting, but apparently it was lost in the move to the new site design. Anyway, here's the link:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/first-look-zeiss-cz-2-70-200mm-t2-9/

So, yes, there are cine lenses out there that might take stellar stills, but (a) they are shockingly expensive, (b) they lack AF, (c) they are heavy as hell and (d) the _reason_ they are shockingly expensive is that at a ton of cost/material was sunk into ideal video functionality that a stills user may not give a damn about (smooth focus pulls, obsessiveness about focusing calibrations, being parfocal, different erognomic setup, etc.).

But yeah, if you are an optics obsessive and lust after retrofitting NASA glass on to your SLR, have at it. I'll keep clicking away with stuff ideally made for stills on a native EF mount.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 17, 2016)

Odd that Arri uses Cooke glass in promo material instead of the class leading 24-105.


----------

