# DXOMark: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Tested



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 13, 2017)

```
The always polarizing DXOMark has completed their analysis of the new Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II lens.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>If high sharpness is your only objective when buying a lens, then the scores achieved by the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM might be a little discouraging. Looking on the bright side, however, Canon has improved sharpness in the periphery at all focal lengths, even if that’s at the expense of some sharpness in the center. Whether that’s clearly better is open to debate, but in optical performance Canon can be praised for high transmission and for maintaining low levels of lateral chromatic aberration (fringing is lower than many high-grade primes).</p>
<p>Sure, we would have liked to see peak sharpness leap up, but then the price hasn’t sky-rocketed either. Optical performance is just one aspect of lens design, and this update still feels like more than just a step in the right direction. <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-F4L-IS-II-USM-lens-review-Updating-a-classic">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>This seems to fall in line with what others have said about the lens. Is it worth the price to upgrade from version 1? Probably not. Is it a good option if you need the focal range? It is, though you can get the Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art for $200 less.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## captainkanji (Jan 13, 2017)

I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed


----------



## unfocused (Jan 13, 2017)

I find it interesting that as much as people on this site like to whine about anti-Canon bias at DXOMark and DPReview, their reviews of this lens have generally been much more favorable than the collective group-think on this forum.

I'm actually more inclined to consider this lens after digesting these reviews.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2017)

Trust everyone else, then. TDP, LR, PZ, etc. all basically said the same thing: this lens is not a clear upgrade from a purely optical perspective. At some FLs at the TDP image quality tool, the Mk I's samples actually look a tad better.

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

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

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/canon-24-105-f4-is-mk-ii-mtf-results/

But you get a zoom lock and slightly better IS.

But I disagree with the CR Guy post in that the budget alternative is _not_ the Sigma, which has had some problems -- the budget option is 100% the Mk I version of the 24-105L.

- A


----------



## CVP (Jan 13, 2017)

I have the Sigma 24-105 Art, and it is WAY better. I dunno about AF speed, but it's much sharper.


----------



## riker (Jan 13, 2017)

Guys, this is pretty straight.

Sigma 24-105: 25MP, 885g
Canon 24-105 Mk1: 18MP, 670g
Canon 24-105 Mk2: 14MP, 795g

...mounted on a 5DS R that is.
I know that resolution is not all of it, but I think it's most of it, especially with 5d3, 5d4 and 5ds on the market.
I never buy Sigma over Canon because of AF speed and accuracy and just because I'm so oldschool/nonrebel but if someone wants to get a 24-105 for some reason it really seems to be the better choice this time (if you don't mind the weight tho).

The results are pretty disappointing imho, after some 11 years, making an mk2 which weighs 20% more and not even optically significantly better?! And that's when Canon is upgrading lenses to cope with the increasing resolution of cameras.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2017)

riker said:


> Guys, this is pretty straight.
> 
> Sigma 24-105: 25MP, 885g
> Canon 24-105 Mk1: 18MP, 670g
> Canon 24-105 Mk2: 14MP, 795g



I cheer for Sigma, I do, but this particular lens got pulled from production at one point, did it not? I'd drive around that one until more people starting posting what a reliable soldier that one is.

But your other point is well made, using DXO data or whatever else you use: the Mk II version is not an optical improvement, which is a shocking exception for Canon (their 'sequels' almost always are a big step forward optically). People should consider that before forking over their money.

- A


----------



## bereninga (Jan 13, 2017)

For me, I'd prob still go for the 24-105 MkI. The optical difference doesn't sound that big and you get the weather-sealing and reliable AF.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 13, 2017)

bereninga said:


> For me, I'd prob still go for the 24-105 MkI. The optical difference doesn't sound that big and you get the weather-sealing and reliable AF.



http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-24-105mm-f40l-is-usm-274-p.asp

http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-usm-5320-p.asp

a 2:1 price differential without a 2:1 performance differential.. hmmmm.


----------



## slclick (Jan 13, 2017)

It's our Fake News!


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 13, 2017)

captainkanji said:


> I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed


Yea for real..


IDK, DXO says this one is worse then the one its replacing.. Something tells me they got a dud, or just that their testing method is as wack as we all think..


----------



## slclick (Jan 13, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed
> ...



Of all the Canon L lenses, from my experience the 24-105 was one of the most infamous for copy variation. I just am SMH at Canon if that was the case again for the Mark 2.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jan 13, 2017)

New 24-105L is a DUD... I think Canon just ran out of all it's older parts laying around for the older 24-105, now using parts that are more customary to its updated line...


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 13, 2017)

A bit disappointing. I've no great issue with DXO. Tricky business comparing lens. At least it's a method. I was speaking to a guy last night who is an agent for repairing Sigma / Tamron / Tokina / Olympus. He's very impressed with Sigmas build quality. Repairs of the new lens are from bad falls. He is thinks they are robustly made and very accurate. He says they are miles better made than before. I've all L lens but am tempted now by Sigma.


----------



## slclick (Jan 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> riker said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, this is pretty straight.
> ...



My Sigma copy was better in many ways than my 2 Canons. Not by a lot but yes, noticeable. And fwiw, my 2 Canon copies were similar in sharpness and vignetting.


----------



## gmon750 (Jan 13, 2017)

I don't understand the hatred of this lens. I have the Mk 1 of this lens and even though I stopped using it when I bought faster f/2.8 lenses, I loved this lens immensely. Razor sharp clarity is overrated. I couldn't tell anyways and my photos were always sharp.

People here expect every lens to capture a pimple on a flea's butt from a mile away. I can't tell the difference in 99% of the shots I captured with my 24-105 and my much more expensive 24-70 f/2.8 lens given the same settings.

So please... unless you've actually used one, just don't.


----------



## slclick (Jan 13, 2017)

gmon750 said:


> I don't understand the hatred of this lens. I have the Mk 1 of this lens and even though I stopped using it when I bought faster f/2.8 lenses, I loved this lens immensely. Razor sharp clarity is overrated. I couldn't tell anyways and my photos were always sharp.
> 
> People here expect every lens to capture a pimple on a flea's butt from a mile away. I can't tell the difference in 99% of the shots I captured with my 24-105 and my much more expensive 24-70 f/2.8 lens given the same settings.
> 
> So please... unless you've actually used one, just don't.



I get where you're coming from and me, as I owned 3 of these I had no hatred just hopes. When you talk about Art or L quality you have certain expectations. Higher expectations than say an EF-S lens or non L glass. Isn't that reasonable? I do not think that there is much or let alone overall hatred of this lens just that when a Mark 2 or 3 of something with a red ring comes out you would think there would be more than an incremental bump.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 13, 2017)

gmon750 said:


> I don't understand the hatred of this lens. I have the Mk 1 of this lens and even though I stopped using it when I bought faster f/2.8 lenses, I loved this lens immensely. Razor sharp clarity is overrated. I couldn't tell anyways and my photos were always sharp.
> 
> People here expect every lens to capture a pimple on a flea's butt from a mile away. I can't tell the difference in 99% of the shots I captured with my 24-105 and my much more expensive 24-70 f/2.8 lens given the same settings.
> 
> So please... unless you've actually used one, just don't.



I'm not about to disagree.. for me the issue is the old lens can be had brand new for half the price of the new. What else is upgraded other than the price?

I've only got primes, but could do with a decent zoom to cover the same range for faster moving moments. Now I'm a cheapskate, so would have liked the new lens to be stella so as to push lots of well cared for MkIs onto the second hand market depressing prices. I can't now see that happening.


----------



## scrup (Jan 13, 2017)

On the positive, these average ratings will help get the prices lower.


----------



## slclick (Jan 13, 2017)

scrup said:


> On the positive, these average ratings will help get the prices lower.



I for one would love to see any documentation on Canon's pricing related to the rankings and scores on DXO


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 13, 2017)

slclick said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > On the positive, these average ratings will help get the prices lower.
> ...



This is a kit lens, the goal was probably to get manufacturing costs down and not to improve IQ except as much as could be done and still meet production cost goals.

I'd bet that the lens costs less than the MK I to produce, and as sales at initial pricing pay off the initial investment in startup costs, the price will drop.


----------



## sebasan (Jan 13, 2017)

Dxo scores for Tamron 85mm: 45 for nikon d810, 42 for Canon 5DSR. They have the same results in the main categories, but the resolution in the Canon is better (38 vs 36) so it is pretty obvious that the Nikon deserves a better overall score. Well, they are the same "investigators" that gave the 1dxII sensor the same overall score to the d5.


----------



## XL+ (Jan 13, 2017)

Well, the 24-105 II was an "compromise solution", as I needed an zoom lens for hiking with IS for lesser light situations when shooting out of the hand.
It is big and heavy and well built. 77mm are reasonable to use with Lee filters.
I am - honestly said - a little bit disappointed by the sharpness of the 24-105 II, if you look at the areas outside of the center.
For more than 1300 bugs, it could have been a bit more of that.
I hope for improvements when Adobe releases new lens profiles for Lightroom.

I do not bash it, I looked at other lenses too, but stayed with this one, as it was announced as an better successor than the competitors.

BtW: If Canon releases an 2.8 24-70 III with IS, the 24-105 will be sold next day.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2017)

gmon750 said:


> Razor sharp clarity is overrated.



*...to you. * I happen to personally agree with you, but inferring that your photographic sensibilities _are fact_ is not unlike trying to club someone over the head with your viewpoint. Some folks (right or wrong) value sharpness as the end-all be-all most important aspect of a lens.



gmon750 said:


> People here expect every lens to capture a pimple on a flea's butt from a mile away. I can't tell the difference in 99% of the shots I captured with my 24-105 and my much more expensive 24-70 f/2.8 lens given the same settings.



I do think the 24-105 camp has some unrealistic expecations of a 4.5x zoom lens, yes, but you may be missing our simpler/bigger-picture point: 24-105 lenses are fine, _but this new one isn't demonstrably better than the old one._ 

Many folks love their 24-105 f/4L IS Mk I's but were hopeful a Mk II would make great improvements. That didn't happen, and they are bummed about it. That's it.

- A


----------



## Sharlin (Jan 13, 2017)

captainkanji said:


> I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed



Ironically, Buzzfeed does some pretty good actual journalism too these days.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed
> ...



On investigative work, I'd agree, but _this past week blew all that up_. I'm deeply disappointed in their decision to make that report public. Many major papers and networks were peddled that same report before the election and they (correctly) sat on it as it couldn't be verified. Buzzfeed -- out of some sense of intent or misplaced sense of responsibility -- horribly $#!+ the bed with that decision, IMHO.

Journalists need to publish verified content or they taint the entire profession with the specter of fake news. 

But I'm off topic, my apologies.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jan 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...I do think the 24-105 camp has some unrealistic expecations of a 4.5x zoom lens, yes, but you may be missing our simpler/bigger-picture point: 24-105 lenses are fine, _but this new one isn't demonstrably better than the old one._
> 
> Many folks love their 24-105 f/4L IS Mk I's but were hopeful a Mk II would make great improvements. That didn't happen, and they are bummed about it. That's it.



Yes, that was my initial reaction. However, as time goes by, I'm starting to put this into perspective. 

Despite what some individuals may say, the test results indicate that no manufacturer has a better 24-105 zoom, and Nikon's longer zoom is apparently quite a bit worse. 

I believe that if Canon could have made a better zoom and charged half-again or even twice the price, they probably would have. But, I suspect that the incremental cost for optical improvements was way more than 2X. 

I disagree with those who say it is a "kit" lens and therefore Canon cut corners. The 24-70 f4 is perfectly suited to become the bargain kit lens. So far, Canon does not seem inclined to discount the 24-105 as a kit lens and I suspect they will continue to follow that strategy. I expect it to drop in price over the next year to 18 months, but I also don't expect it to fall much below $1,000.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Yes, that was my initial reaction. However, as time goes by, I'm starting to put this into perspective.
> 
> Despite what some individuals may say, the test results indicate that no manufacturer has a better 24-105 zoom, and Nikon's longer zoom is apparently quite a bit worse.
> 
> ...



All fair, but why replace it if they can't improve it very much? Consider:


EF is an epic ecosystem that needs to be maintained. So so so many more lenses could have used a refresh more than the 24-105L I, and if they couldn't improve it much, the only real winner with such a product is Canon's bottom line (as we presume it's now cheaper to build).


Canon doesn't build its L lens reputation with clone-like updates to lenses. Making a Mk II about as good as the Mk I is what you do with an EF-S 18-55 refresh, a non-L 70-300 refresh, etc. -- not what you do with an L lens.



They could have left the optics the same but added something to the mix (more than a lock switch ). Perhaps they could have put the 24-70 f/4L IS macro mode in there, or gone the nano-USM route + power zoom option to go with that shiny new DPAF + touchscreen + 4K FF rig they just launched.


So I'm not saying Canon didn't have a reason to put out such a modest refresh, _but it appears that reason is cost and little else_. I'm not whining about it as I don't use 4.5x zooms and I was never going to buy it, but many people here were hoping for something more: more sharpness, a new feature, less weight, etc.

In absence of that 'something more', one could legitimately question why they even did this. The minute an L lens update only benefits Canon, _what an L lens represents_ is (ever-so-slightly) diminished in my eyes.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> In absence of that 'something more', one could legitimately question why they even did this. The minute an L lens update only benefits Canon, _what an L lens represents_ is (ever-so-slightly) diminished in my eyes.
> 
> - A



I think Roger (len rentals) said it had better consistancy. Perhaps the various test results don't get better, but the lens you're holding gets better?, however for double the price I could buy two of the old ones and just pick the better one and give the other to a worthy cause.


----------



## Nado (Jan 14, 2017)

This is how ridickulous Dicksomark is. 14 perceptual megapixels on a 50 megapixel camera with no "aa"filter. Check the 5d iv at 30mp and the perceptual megapixels goes up to 15. Idiots.

This mkii lens does have better corner sharpness, better stabilization, and extra aperture blade for smoother bokeh.... they did do something. 

At least canon did not claim that this lens will be capable of resolving 100mp, be future proof, tested to 50lpm and so on, then produce general quality. Now, if they did claim or advertise those comments as did phony, I would have a problem with it.


----------



## TeT (Jan 14, 2017)

CVP said:


> I have the Sigma 24-105 Art, and it is WAY better. I dunno about AF speed, but it's much sharper.



This lens is killing me, the mark 1 v the sigma there was not a clear winner. They excelled in different areas.. with the Mark II; everyone else is a winner, including the STM in a few comparisons ...


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 14, 2017)

slclick said:


> I get where you're coming from and me, as I owned 3 of these I had no hatred just hopes. When you talk about Art or L quality you have certain expectations. Higher expectations than say an EF-S lens or non L glass. Isn't that reasonable?



And what are those expectations based on? Your own wishes, or some Canon publication saying a lens has to be that good to get a red ring?



slclick said:


> I do not think that there is much or let alone overall hatred of this lens just that when a Mark 2 or 3 of something with a red ring comes out you would think there would be more than an incremental bump.



The mk2 is priced same as the mk1, and that's a clear way of saying it's a refresh.

That means you get a new 4 stops IS, lock lever, lower copy to copy variances, and a small difference in image quality.

Its the same as one of the EF-S 18-55mm upgrades Canon made a while ago, where it made small changes, like painting some lettering on the barrel rather than cut into the metal and fill it with cover, or replacing a metal mount with a plastic mount.

That is, my guess is the upgrade had more to do with Canon saving money by sharing parts & manufacturing processes with other lenses, deflecting pressure on having modern IS, and making a quick buck by selling a bunch of copies in non-white boxes.

That disappoints you? Do like I did, and don't upgrade.


----------



## XL+ (Jan 14, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I get where you're coming from and me, as I owned 3 of these I had no hatred just hopes. When you talk about Art or L quality you have certain expectations. Higher expectations than say an EF-S lens or non L glass. Isn't that reasonable?
> ...



We compared some shots from last landscape shootings a few days ago, and the image quality difference in MK I & II is really not worth upgrading. Maybe you can see some small improvements. If you upgrade because you need an better IS, the MK II is visibly better.
The shot included was handheld (5D IV and 24-105mm II at 41mm, 5.6 1/6s, Iso 100). (I know this is not an shot you present your friends or show them on the Internet or someone else. But for 1/6s handheld it is amazingly sharp. (If you notice my frozen fingers at -10°C))

Compared to the sigma Art competitor, I must personally say, IQ is quite as good as my Canon. Only the IS lacks. 
Btw: (Compared to the Sony A7R2 with the 24-70 GM lens, I´m still a lot behind in IQ. Marvellous IQ. The only thing that is  ing is: The 7 batteries, our colleague needed for this 4h shooting at minus 10° (I needed just 2 and the second one was half full) and the lens with its deep recessed groove where the tube extension is placed in. There a lot of snow retained inside. Also a littile bit the lacking IS)


----------



## infared (Jan 14, 2017)

The choice that I made when I owned the Mark 1 was to sell it and buy the 24-70 f/2.8L II when it came out. The performance of that lens was so much better that I did not miss the extra reach that I lost. I could always use my 100mm f/2.8L Macro if I really have to have it ...or just put the white beast on the camera. It is kind of hard to believe that in 2016 Canon releases Mark II version of an extremely popular lens with a red ring on it and did not give it the kind of optical improvement that all other "L" upgrades have received. Especially considering all the new larger MP sensors. It make's one a little nervous about a new 50mm that Canon just can't seem to nail...but I have my Sigma Art...so it doesn't matter what Canon does there.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Many folks love their 24-105 f/4L IS Mk I's but were hopeful a Mk II would make great improvements. That didn't happen, and they are bummed about it. That's it.



Yup, I'm in this camp. My 24-105 is one of, if not the, most used lenses in my collection. I was HIGHLY anticipating version II, and even set aside some funds for the upgrade that I once thought was certain. I consider all aspects of lens performance but sharpness is at the top of the list, and this is where the new one is falling short. It's one thing if one review says it - maybe they got a dud, one could reason - but when you read like 6 and they're all in general agreement...to top it off, I even thought I read somewhere that the new version still has that not fully-correctable "moustache" distortion at 24mm that plagued the old version. 

On the positive side, it's nice to hear that the new one is a little brighter and closer to a true f4.


----------



## Mikeymb (Jan 14, 2017)

For me, the primary intent of the 24-105 focal length range is a general purpose, walk around lens. Put it on and off you go, not carrying any other lens. It could be touring, family times, whatever. The red ring gives you the comfort zone of “high quality” and good weather sealing.

Scenario – you are in Italy, on a one hour quick walk. The doors are open in this old Church, in you go. It is spectacular, marble, gilt work, not well lit and, you are virtually the only one there. The 24-105 will do the job. The f4 is not really a limitation, the IS gives you what you need. A few minutes later a women climbs the steps to the organ and begins practising for tomorrows service. There are massive organ pipes on either side of the Church, true stereo (old time) sound resonating. OK, eye contact then climb the steps and do what our cameras can do, switch to video and record this “happening”. Now the Camera and Lens combination is being asked to record video in a dimly lit space – the IS becomes critical. The width 24 sets the scene, the reach follows fingers on the keyboard and feet on the pedals.

So, in the scenario above, if the 24-70 2.8 II had been the chosen lens, I know the whole Organ scenario would have been compromised. The flexibility to go video in a “walk around” scenario is handicapped. Canon, why?

OK, our new 24-105 II. Seems to have it right for the intended purpose. A little extra weight, no real problem, we DSLR people, have made a choice to carry larger objects than point and shoot. Better IS, right thing to do. Sharpness – as our camera bodies evolve they resolve more. So, lenses need to follow suit, they need to resolve more to mate with camera bodies that exist today and over the next 8-10 years. This is a refresh intended (I would assume) to last thru maybe 3 generations of camera bodies to come. Canon, why?

For me, Canon has come close on both of the above lenses but left us with dilemmas (opportunities for other manufacturers) on both. Why?


----------



## JoFT (Jan 14, 2017)

I am quite happy not to buy this lens. 


I do own the Mk1. It is a pretty perfect lens as universal lens for traveling. It delivers nice images. That what you expect when you start @ f4. 


If you want to get more iQ start carrying gear. 


I maintain to be happy with Mk1.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 14, 2017)

I'm surprised that owners of the mark I were clamouring for the upgrade. I own it because it was the kit lens, and have kept it because its resale value isn't worth the hassle of trying to get rid.

That's not to say I don't rate it; it's a great versatile lens and produces good quality images given its versatile focal range, so on occasions when I didn't know what to expect and only wanted to take one lens along, this was the one - and it usually exceeded my modest expectations. I don't expect I'd use it for landscapes if I was really into that; it is what it is - but it gives you the wide-ish FOV if you need it.

Anyhow I'd have thought (although it seems I'm wrong, at least for some other forum users) that the mark II is meant to be the latest kit lens - not an upgrade for owners of the mark I, but another versatile beginner's L. Who buys a second kit lens at the same level? It's a shame there's no do-it-all lens at the next IQ level, but that's life, it's all a compromise.

Incidentally, the one thing I've noticed since getting the 5Ds is the difference in IS on this lens compared to newer/better ones. I have to remember that I can't shoot at 4 stops slower and expect pixel-sharp images, and I might with the 70-200 (but that latter lens cost me at least 2.5x as much, so I'm disappointed).


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Anyhow I'd have thought (although it seems I'm wrong, at least for some other forum users) that the mark II is meant to be the latest kit lens - not an upgrade for owners of the mark I, but another versatile beginner's L. Who buys a second kit lens at the same level? It's a shame there's no do-it-all lens at the next IQ level, but that's life, it's all a compromise.



I'm speculating, but about half this forum sees that lens as a staple tool for full-frame use, and they bristle at the thought that their most used lens is a 'kit' offering. They cite the weather-sealing, L reputation, etc. as some rebuttal to the smear of calling it a kit lens. This is partially in defense of money spent, but I have no doubt people are taking great images with 24-105 lenses and folks are sticking up for that fact.

And the other half sees it with some detachment and comes to the conclusion that the 24-105L is _absolutely_ a kit lens:


It is kitted with FF bodies and produced in very large numbers.
It is not as sharp as other L zoom offerings with smaller FL multiples.
It gets updated for little apparent reason or benefit to the public, implying Canon is trying to keep the costs down and reduce copy to copy variation. The lens is effectively a manufacturing continuous improvement opportunity more than a better tool to take better images.
Buying a new 24-105L at MAP price is nuts as you can get one for 60% on the used/refurbished side of things if you are patient (due to how many are pumped into the field).

And you could say the exact same things for an 18-55 lens --> the 24-105L (both versions) are kit lenses to me. It's a reality, but it's not an insult. Both are fine instruments.

- A


----------



## Mikeymb (Jan 14, 2017)

Canon 5D 12.8 mp released 2005 along with 24-105 I. The 5D IV 30.1 mp released 2016 along with 24-105 II. Call the 24-105 II what you want (kit), it should have resolving power in tune with the body that it is being mated with not 2005 resolving power - in my opinion.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 14, 2017)

Canon is one of the luckiest companies on earth.

It refreshes a lens, sells it for the same price, and customers bitch they didn't get a big update for a big price bump.

And when Canon actually does it with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, customers bitch they didn't get an even more expensive version with IS.

Drug dealers don't get such good customers.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Anyhow I'd have thought (although it seems I'm wrong, at least for some other forum users) that the mark II is meant to be the latest kit lens - not an upgrade for owners of the mark I, but another versatile beginner's L. Who buys a second kit lens at the same level? It's a shame there's no do-it-all lens at the next IQ level, but that's life, it's all a compromise.
> ...



Oh, interesting. I don't perceive 'kit lens' as perjorative but merely a statement of how the lens was bundled with bodies when sold.

And as I say, it's a great lens whose IQ is pretty good - although I've not tried any non-L kit lenses for a long time, I'm sure those are better than the ones I remember. It's a starter lens though - again not a perjorative, but it would make a good first lens for anyone starting out at the FF level. But it's not a lens people covet, and its poor resale value partly reflects that (plus there's been a glut).

I dunno if there's enough of a market for a better version to justify it being made, with IQ similar to the 24-70, with IS, but I'd personally be very interested.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2017)

scyrene said:


> And as I say, it's a great lens whose IQ is pretty good - although I've not tried any non-L kit lenses for a long time, I'm sure those are better than the ones I remember. It's a starter lens though - again not a perjorative, but it would make a good first lens for anyone starting out at the FF level. But it's not a lens people covet, and its poor resale value partly reflects that (plus there's been a glut).
> 
> I dunno if there's enough of a market for a better version to justify it being made, with IQ similar to the 24-70, with IS, but I'd personally be very interested.



That's the rub. Some people don't like but _love_ their 24-105 (some have even asked for 24-120 or 24-135) and want much better IQ along the lines of the 24-70 f/2.8L II. Despite physics not thinking fondly of that idea, there are folks on this very forum that want (I'm guessing) a $2k leave-it-on-the-camera-at-all-times sort of standard zoom for 90% of their shooting. Doubt Canon would ever make such a lens.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 14, 2017)

Mikeymb said:


> Canon 5D 12.8 mp released 2005 along with 24-105 I. The 5D IV 30.1 mp released 2016 along with 24-105 II. Call the 24-105 II what you want (kit), it should have resolving power in tune with the body that it is being mated with not 2005 resolving power - in my opinion.



I suggest you read more about what kit lenses usually are.


----------



## Mikeymb (Jan 14, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Mikeymb said:
> 
> 
> > Canon 5D 12.8 mp released 2005 along with 24-105 I. The 5D IV 30.1 mp released 2016 along with 24-105 II. Call the 24-105 II what you want (kit), it should have resolving power in tune with the body that it is being mated with not 2005 resolving power - in my opinion.
> ...



I suggest you compare 2005 body to lens match versus 2016 body to lens match


----------



## slclick (Jan 14, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I get where you're coming from and me, as I owned 3 of these I had no hatred just hopes. When you talk about Art or L quality you have certain expectations. Higher expectations than say an EF-S lens or non L glass. Isn't that reasonable?
> ...






And fwiw, I'll never buy a 24-105 again, none of the three were that good. I'd rather use multiple great lenses than one good..


----------



## tron (Jan 14, 2017)

One expense less then. It isn't as we aren't tempted by many great Canon lenses. ;D


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 15, 2017)

Mikeymb said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Mikeymb said:
> ...



I did.

You missed the point about kit lenses not being designed to match sensor resolution. And probably another point regarding sensor resolution outpacing lens sharpness, at a given price point. And probably another regarding what resolution most photographers need most of the time. And probably another about the psychological processes that most people go through during through their teens and early twenties.


----------



## infared (Jan 15, 2017)

I get a kick out of people defending Canon delivering a mediocre "L" lens in 2016. Fanbois much?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 15, 2017)

You could get a second hand Mark 1 24-105 and have a fair chunk of change left for a second lens instead of buying the Mark II new. At current pricing the mark 1 24-105 is quite a bargain.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 15, 2017)

I have the MK1 and the MKII. I also have access to lens projection & MTF at my workplace plus a light sphere to shoot the CIPA high resolution chart which I shot with my 5DS. 

Straight out of the gate this lens is not a massive improvement over the MK1 version if you dont care about CAs (I do). Its sharper into the corners and Ive found equally sharp in the centre. Is it worth the upgrade? I think it is because it provides cleaner images with the better control of CAs and to me that was the biggest issue with the MKI lens. 

Personally I think DXO testing methods are flawed as high end professional renters of Motion Picture & Still equipment the most valuable tools for testing lenses are MTF (on and off axis) and the projector. We dont know whether DXO optimised the lens to a camera (back focus) and you want to independently check a lens prior to putting it on a camera. 

Ignore DXO in real world subject matter, with wind, motion and other factors such as focusing accuracy were not always getting 100% and then their is our own personal technique. I know with the 5DS I have to use higher shutter speeds than with the 6D and generally shot with it most of the time on a tripod. 

Dont write the EF 24-105mm f4L II off the CA improvements are significant.


----------



## LesC (Jan 15, 2017)

As the MK1 will soon no longer be available new (here in the UK stocks are running out it seems), if you want a new 24-105 L lens, the MKII will be the only option.

Yes, I was a little underwhelmed by the reviews but if it has optical performance the same as (or slightly improved) on the MKI with improved corner sharpness, improved control of CA & better IS then it will soon become the lens to go for unless you go for the much more expensive 24-70 F2.8L MKII.

It seems to me that although looking at reviews and charts is all well and good, real world performance particularly from someone like jeffa4444 who has both is often more insightful.

I do have the 24-70 F2.8L MKII but I will be getting the 24-105 at some time as I feel the IS will often be more of a factor in giving me sharp photographs than the alleged superior IQ of the 24-70 which I've never considered _that_ amazing.

I may well wait for the 6D MKII hopefully later this year & get it as a kit if possible.


----------



## hovland (Jan 15, 2017)

Had a 24-105 f/4l mk I, but was not happy with it , so when the mk II was launched, I sold it. But after reading various review’s, I seriously consider to by the 24-105mm f/3,5-5,6 IS STM instead. For few the times I need that walk around lens. I actually do not use that focal range much, my most used lenses is the 70-200 2,8 mkII, and the 16-35 F4 IS. + the sigma 50mm art. (5d mk4 body)

Anny one else who have done the same ?


----------



## VeeTee (Jan 15, 2017)

Can anyone tell me the difference between these two 24-105 lenses?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000B84KAW/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1484501207&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+24-105
$629 on amazon 
item weight 1.48lb
Item model number 0344B006

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1484501207&sr=1-4&keywords=canon+24-105
$999 on amazon
Item model number 0344B002 
Item Weight 1.5 pounds


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 15, 2017)

VeeTee said:


> Can anyone tell me the difference between these two 24-105 lenses?
> 
> Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras
> https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000B84KAW/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1484501207&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+24-105
> ...


It's the same lens model. The difference is that the cheapest was removed from a kit with body + lens, and sold separately.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 16, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> gmon750 said:
> 
> 
> > Razor sharp clarity is overrated.
> ...



Here is my stance on sharpness. While razor sharp clarity may be overrated for many out there. The photographer may always not be the deciding factor. Many photogs make their living from commercial photography shooting everything from products to architecture and landscapes that will often get blown up in large sizes like seen in airports, or just in your run of the mill magazine. So the photographer needs to be able to offer the sharpest, most detailed rich image possible to the client. If its not, they will likely go to someone else. There is a reason medium format cameras are on the market. But not everyone can afford those beautiful monsters and everyone has to start somewhere before they can. So while the new 24-105 II may still be overkill for a 13x19 A3+ print. Its not up to the professional level we all expect from a L lens, kit or not..


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 16, 2017)

I don't have the numbers, but readers of Professional Photographer and Rangefinder know that the 24-105mm is one of the most commonly used lenses for images in these periodicals. I know that local pros on our area (Southeastern USA) who shoot portraits for individual clients and for the community magazines also frequently use the lens.

Once again, the obsessions of gear heads clash with the realities of working photographers.

Very sad Canon could not have done a little better with the refresh, but not likely to upset those who use it most if it matches the current in practical use. Especially if the IS truly is a little better.


----------



## LesC (Jan 16, 2017)

And guess which is the most used lens out of "15,829,692 photos from year 2016 which have been posted on an assortment of websites, including Flickr, 500px and Pixabay, with ExifTool technology"

https://explorecams.com/stats/global


----------



## slclick (Jan 16, 2017)

Once again this particular lens seems to have more copy to copy variation which leads to a a bigger YMMV factor on sharpness, hatred vs love and value. I think the horse is dead here.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 16, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> So while the new 24-105 II may still be overkill for a 13x19 A3+ print. Its not up to the professional level we all expect from a L lens, kit or not.



And your expectations from L lenses are based on... Canon official publication? Pulled it out of your a..hhmm, hat?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> ExodistPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > So while the new 24-105 II may still be overkill for a 13x19 A3+ print. Its not up to the professional level we all expect from a L lens, kit or not.
> ...



Could Canon have done better here? Yes. 

Could they have done *much* better here? I'm less sure about that.

This could be more a matter of physics than Canon's desire to keep things inexpensive. Consider: I'm not aware of a clearly much better 4.5x FL zoom lens out there. From what I've read, both 24-105 Ls are not markedly different resolution-wise than the 70-300L (4.3x), and only the 100-400L II (in fairness, a 4.0x lens, not a 4.5x) is a real positive standout.

I'm not giving Canon a pass here -- new products should do new things for us, and this one (largely) doesn't. But perhaps making an eye popping 24-105L II would have required a massive redesign and increase in size and weight that Canon didn't see the value in.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 16, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm not giving Canon a pass here -- new products should do new things for us



Those are *your* *expectations*, not an ISO standard, Canon promise, or dictionary definition.

Canon is out there to make money. If there's money in refreshing a kit lens, Canon will do that. If there's no money in making a kit lens that's up to A2+ prints, Canon will not do that.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not giving Canon a pass here -- new products should do new things for us
> ...



Agree completely. Now flip what you just said and consider _our_ perspective. If Canon continues to make products that principally only benefit Canon, we as consumers will likely keep our money in our pockets.

Just as an example, could you imagine the thud heard round the world if the 6D2 was simply a same-priced rehash of the 6D1 whose only difference was that it was cheaper for Canon to build?

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jan 16, 2017)

The problem that I have with much of this discussion, is that it is taking place in a world that seems divorced from the realities and limitations of design/price.

Count me as one of those who uses the 24-105 as a basic all-around lens. I was excited to learn about an update and had high hopes for improvements, even though I can't say that I've ever been let down by the current lens. 

Initially, I was disappointed with the reviews. Then, I compared this lens to other models. The conclusion, supported by reviews, is that no competitor makes a better lens (neither Sigma's "Art" lens nor Nikon's slightly longer version). 

As I've written before, I am one of those who would have paid 50% to 100% more for a significantly improved lens. But, I have concluded that Canon couldn't (nor could anyone else) design a better lens for a reasonable increase in price. 

I imagine that designing a lens that goes from wide-angle to telephoto is more complicated than designing one that remains at telephoto or wide-angle. I don't think it has all that much to do with the actual range (although certainly wide range lenses are more challenging) as it does with having to move from wide to tele. 24-70 is obviously easier to design and produce, but can hardly be deemed telephoto.

So, yeah, I have no problem with people expressing some disappointment, but that ought to be tempered with reality. It would be one thing if Sigma, Nikon, Tamron, Tokina, Sony or Fuji made a demonstrably better version of this lens, but the reality is no such version exists. 

At the same time, I think it's misleading to simply declare that this is a "kit" lens and therefore expectations should be reduced. It is also an "L" lens and Canon has an unstated rule that "L" versions are the best available version. So, yeah, as customers we should demand and expect the best. But, as customers, we should also recognize that best does not always mean perfect.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 17, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ...
> 
> So, yeah, I have no problem with people expressing some disappointment, but that ought to be tempered with reality. It would be one thing if Sigma, Nikon, Tamron, Tokina, Sony or Fuji made a demonstrably better version of this lens, but the reality is no such version exists.
> 
> At the same time, I think it's misleading to simply declare that this is a "kit" lens and therefore expectations should be reduced. It is also an "L" lens and Canon has an unstated rule that "L" versions are the best available version. So, yeah, as customers we should demand and expect the best. But, as customers, we should also recognize that best does not always mean perfect.



The 24-105 f/4 IS II launch brings to mind another launch that wasn't an unqualified success: the 24-70 f/4 IS. Neither can match the IQ of the 24-70 f/2.8 II, and I think the initial price was a large part of the issue. The 24-70 f/4 IS started around 1500, and the 24-105 f/4 IS started at 1100 even as part of a kit. Early adopters pay a premium. Wait a year or two, and the street prices fall significantly, especially for kit/white box versions. Once the price of the 240-105 f/4 IS II falls within 100 of the original, few will be opting for the older version (gain in IS is worth more than a slight increase in weight). However, I am surprised at not seeing the variable aperture 24-105 replace the L version in kits... If Canon had done that, then I could have seen a higher priced/grade 24-105 f/4 IS II.

However, not all Ls are at the same standard. Price has a lot to do with it. All the 70-200 variants and the 16-16-35 variants/17-40 being available new suggest that Canon understands this. Kits have tremendous downward price pressure, which is why 24-70 f/2.8 II is not offered. A kit lens has to be profitable even if the price of the kit is reduced substantially. That is design/manufacturing requirement that many L lenses don't have to meet.


----------



## LesC (Feb 8, 2017)

Review from Kai Wong here: https://youtu.be/oWenwqsbKYI


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2017)

The humble 24-105mm I was used to create at least two of the images in the 2016 WPPI Diamond Awards. Lots of Nikon stuff in there, but Canon is represented well.

Still on back order here in the States...I'm imagining a production tweak. Europe is just getting the repacked white box stuff. ;D


----------



## LesC (Feb 8, 2017)

Not many on sale in the UK, but what there is isn't white-box  As much as I'd like to think there were 'production tweaks' , can't see waht if anything they could do?


----------

