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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 14, 2016)

```
PhotographyBlog has completed their review of the recently announced and soon-to-be-released Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II. It looks like the new lens is a big upgrade over its predecessor, which is something we’re getting used to with Canon.</p>
<p><strong>From the review:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM is an excellent standard zoom lens that, as you’d perhaps expect, is much better than the 10-year-old Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM that it replaces, which incidentally is one of Canon’s most popular lenses.</p>
<p>It offers a very versatile focal range whilst being tack-sharp from 24mm to 50mm, both in the centre and at the edges of the frame. Sharpness at 70-105mm isn’t quite as good when shooting wide-open at f/4, but overall the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM delivers excellent sharpness across the frame. Vignetting at wide-open apertures and some barrel distortion at 24mm are the only other real optical issues of note. <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_24_105mm_f4_l_is_ii_usm_review/">Read the review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

</strong><em>Shipping in late October, 2016</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>USA </strong><em>$1099</em><strong>:</strong> <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274709-REG/canon_ef_24_105mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2bpjIRq">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA241052.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/2bIZnYi">Canon Store</a> | <a href="http://mpex.com/canon-ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-ii-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2016)

Just a few thoughts from the review:


That's still a fair amount of distortion at 24mm. I would have thought that would have been near the top of their list of things to fix from the first version.


All of the sharpness test shots from 24mm seem a bit soft. What gives? Seems unrelated to aperture, so I have to believe these were either focused or processed incorrectly.


105mm is (not-surprisingly) less than great wide open

More questions than answers here. Looks like we'll have to wait for the usual suspects to publish direct lens comparisons against the I version, the 24-70 f/4L IS, the 24-70 f/2.8L II, etc.

- A


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 14, 2016)

I ALSO thought they would have worked over the distortion...at24mm
and soft especially at 100mm....

not much improved in my opinion...
I do wonder what the coma test shows...from lens tip... if they bother...

I actually thought I would get it ...whatever they did... and am on the list for it..

but... yawn......
I will likely pass here.....

//////

in the other direction...
the 16-35 iii is so nice and sharp at 16mm / f2.8...
that my small and friendly 14mm ii is now ....worried...
I loved it because it is so straight and small


I also have the tamron 15-30... too big and ...not as straight...
bt still pretty sharp...and useful I.S.


but looking at the wide end...of 16-35 iii wide open...
I am drawn to it... I had the mk II.... sold it....

for me I could live with 3 lenses... the 35L ii (tops) and the L macro...and then some wide thingy..
for a while I thought the 14mm ii would do it...
now I see the clarity of the 16-35.... 
IF THE COMA PROVES LOW...
AND the lines are reasonably straight....I will get it..

//////

ok 4 lenses ....add the 100-400 ii

but I could walk all day with the 16-35 and 100L macro.....
or if nite ....add the 35L ii


///////////

so I think canon may have missed a chance here...

with 100-400 ii AND vastly improved 35L ii, 
they could cruise for a year....call-in sick everyday....in my opinion

with the 24-105 mk II...
they are gonna have to come in on saturdays for a while....

sigh... I wanted more....

Tom

LATER added note:
these cursory reviews....are not much use... to me.
TDP lets one compare lenses...and choose some parameters...
...also for me.... I want to see lenstip's coma diode test on all my lenses now.....

the 16-35 f2.8L mk iii is now of more interest to me.. because it is so good at 16mm wide-open.
but the LensTip coma diode test ....will decide for me..... 
the rest is mostly known...now...

maybe my current 24-105 will just.... be some marginal backup...
as the camera bodys age.....
..it coulda been a contender....


----------



## LesC (Oct 14, 2016)

Hmm, slightly underwhelming. I was hoping it might be getting near to the 24-70 F2.8L MKII & might have even considered replacing mine with it.

I guess we'll have to wait for more reviews as the reviewer could have even received a poor copy. I always thought my 24-70 wasn't that good in the corners but it's better than this


----------



## colorblinded (Oct 14, 2016)

Well, this isn't what I was hoping to see. Better edge to edge sharpness would be nice, but since I'm stopped down a lot it's not a huuuuuuge concern.

I was really hoping to see distortion better controlled. Seeing 24mm has that much barrel distortion is a disappointment.

I'll wait and see how other reviews look, but there may not be enough reason to upgrade my existing 24-105 based on this.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 14, 2016)

I'll admit I was hoping for a bigger improvement, particularly on the distortion metric...

Glad to finally see a review though. I think a comparison with the previous 24-105 will be helpful to see exactly what the _degree_ of improvement is. As far as I can see now, the old one distorted a lot, the new one appears to also do so (hopefully it's easier to fix?), and the old one struggled a bit at 105mm f4 - the new one appears to as well. Hmm. Hard to see a (noticeable) difference so far.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 14, 2016)

This was never a priority lens for me, and I was a bit put off by the weight gain anyway. I doubt that I will ever sell my 24-105 f/4L IS (original) even though I don't use it much. When I use it I am quite happy with the results, in part because I don't have huge expectations from it. If I get another standard zoom it will be the 24-70 f/4L IS because it is a bit better at everything and still small and light, but again, it's a low priority lens for me.

I may be alone in this, but I wish Canon would make a small, light excellent 18-28 f/2.8L IS, and a 35-70 f/2.8L IS. These lenses are getting so big that it has me pinning for good EF-M primes to do a radical weight loss on my gear.


----------



## applecider (Oct 14, 2016)

Personally these tests for sharpness that use inconsistent and soft targets are always very hard for me to interpret. In this respect the digital picture's methodology seems much better to me. It's a measurable metric type test. 

I particularly don't get lens tests that include leafy trees in the corners as they can hide softness and all sorts of distortions. While subject oriented test photos are infinitely more interesting, those that have a plane of focus and visible lines just seem more scientific. Even the bookcase/books in the current review can suffer from so many method inconsistencies that I wonder if they are worth doing, certainly not worth making a buying decision on. Sure a portrait lens should have a portrait or two in its review, to demonstrate what the linear tests show and how it translates but not just portraits. 

For instance the digital picture's lens comparison corner tests are a great way to see chromatic aberrations, and to compare f stops.

Where are brick walls when you need them? I guess every review adds a little.


----------



## sunnyVan (Oct 14, 2016)

These photos of 5dmkiv and 24-105ii look very amateurish and unattractive.


----------



## Frodo (Oct 14, 2016)

I like my 24-105 mk I. Lightroom corrections of distortion and chromatic aberration make it an ideal lens to match with my 20MP 6D (and previously 5D mk I and II). It is probably not up to the 5DS.
My biggest problem is the difference between the f-stop and the actual t-stop: it loses about 3/4 of a stop across its focal length range. For a lens that only starts off at f/4 and then should be stopped down a stop for good sharpness, you need good light. My 35mm f/2 IS is a genuine f/2 so 2 3/4 stops brighter than the 24-105. The 24-70 f/4 is a genuine f/4. I think that the increase in weight of the new lens was for bigger elements that draw more light.
Reading the posts here, I don't see a reason to upgrade.
Furthermore, this with the 6D was my hiking lens, but my M3 and 11-22 and 55-200 are more versatile and weigh less, so it won't get so much use in the future. It mainly my event lens where I need the flexibility of a zoom and this is where I miss a bright lens.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 15, 2016)

I looked briefly through this review and came to the conclusion that it may be an indicator, but far from enough to form a proper view on what this lens can do. 

As an example; Look at the sharpness images for 105mm. The so called Edge Crop shows an a and what looks like the start of an n or m. Where do you find that combo in black and white? (I had to look for a while) It is pretty close to the center at the back of the "... Negatives and Slide ..." book. So the actual edge sharpness is still unknown as far as I can see.


----------



## candyman (Oct 15, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I looked briefly through this review and came to the conclusion that it may be an indicator, but far from enough to form a proper view on what this lens can do.
> 
> As an example; Look at the sharpness images for 105mm. The so called Edge Crop shows an a and what looks like the start of an n or m. Where do you find that combo in black and white? (I had to look for a while) It is pretty close to the center at the back of the "... Negatives and Slide ..." book. So the actual edge sharpness is still unknown as far as I can see.




I do agree.
Somehow I am not impressed with the testtechniques. And just wonder, are they using a pre-production sample? It is interesting that they already have this lens while the canon reports are that it will be available by the end of october / early november.


The difference in price with the older model is just about 350 euro. For canon standards - when releasing a newer model - not much. (_see the difference in price of the new and old 16-35 f/2.8_ 
So maybe little did change and our expectations are too high.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 15, 2016)

I agree, this review leaves as many questions as answers, but from what I see here I'm not real impressed. When this lens was announced, I was excited and ready to place a pre-order, but now I'll wait for the reviews from TDP, Dustin Abbott, Lenstip and Photozone before moving forward.

I currently own two standard zooms, a 24-70 f/4 IS and just picked up a used copy of the 24-105 f/4 Mk1 cheap ($420 USD). My 17-year-old son borrowed my 6D and 24-70 to take to Europe and he will be there until May. I may end up just letting him keep those since he is starting to enjoy photography and I wasn't using my 6D much anyway.

I thought I could get along without a standard zoom, but found I really missed it so picked up the used 24-105 until I decided on a longer term standard zoom. If the Mk II proves to be a marginal upgrade, I will probably pass on it and may buy another 24-70 (f/4 IS or f/2.8 II) at some point. I haven't shot much with the 24-105 Mk1 I just acquired, so not sure how it will perform on my 5DsR. We are planning a short vacation to Pennsylvania next week and it will get some use then, so we will see. My expectations are limited, but if it performs decently I may just hang onto it for awhile. I understand the Mk1's optical limitations, but the zoom range will be handy for shooting the kids and as a one lens solution for day outings. For this type of photography, I'm not overly concerned about excellent image quality.


----------



## sanj (Oct 15, 2016)

Not very impressed by this review. I will wait for Brian's.  Or Ken.


----------



## monkey44 (Oct 15, 2016)

I'm looking forward to upgrading my 24-105, but this review does not convince me the price is worth it. I need a good mid-range zoom (like most of us), as the current 24-105 is not quite there. I was truly hoping this one does it, and still hold out hope until more tech reviews come in. I sure won't buy it on pre-order. Once it's available, maybe go in a test it, or order it and return it if it's less that a true upgrade. That's not a practice I approve, generally (the test and return) but at $1100, may just do it this time.

I was also hoping to save on the higher cost of the 24-70, as the 24-105 fits between the 16-35 and the 70-200, and give a little more room in the middle - but I might have to bite that bullet. BLAH ...


----------



## geekpower (Oct 15, 2016)

ugh. distortion at the wide end is the main reason i don't own the old version, and even to the naked eye these new sample images look horrendous.

on the other hand, it was far from a scientific test, and i don't know how much i can trust somebody who manages to achieve a 122mm focal length with a 24-105 lens (see the captions of his samples).

i was really hoping this lens would be good enough for a single lens walk about, but i fear it's going to end up as one of those compromises that isn't particularly good at anything.


----------



## GammyKnee (Oct 15, 2016)

geekpower said:


> ugh. distortion at the wide end is the main reason i don't own the old version, and even to the naked eye these new sample images look horrendous.



Yep, I own the old version and if there just was one thing I could change about it, it would be all that distortion at the wide end.



geekpower said:


> on the other hand, it was far from a scientific test, and i don't know how much i can trust somebody who manages to achieve a 122mm focal length with a 24-105 lens (see the captions of his samples).



Yeah, coupled with some truly dire product shots it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the competency of the review! On the other hand, there's no denying the distortion in that wall shot; it's just there, and there's a lot of it.


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 15, 2016)

My current 24-105 is my most used lens.
I use it mainly for receptions and I've got many, many great photos from it.

I'm waiting for this new version to come out as my lens is about 9 years old and getting very sloppy and I want to get it in a kit with a new 5d4.
Even if it is only a slight increase in IQ, the new coatings will make a good difference to me.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 16, 2016)

Funny how the deficiencies of this lens closely match up with the old version- really makes me feel they're in the same optical family.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 16, 2016)

I see a new number of comments here about the original 24-105mm and distortion at 24mm. Seems to be a reason why a number of people haven't bought it. I really wonder at times if the viewers of this website are photographers at all. A lot of people seem to spend their time comparing specs and mft's rather than taking photos. I've taken tens of thousands of photos with that lens and it's remarkably good and consistent with a great focal length range. I've never seen a single photo ring ruined by the lens. If something is wrong it's always been the photographer at fault. If you buy an old 24-105 and use it you will be more than happy. The new one I assume is even better or else it would not exist. Any lens distortion is minimal and easily corrected post processing. Shoot more and compare less. Bad photographers blame gear. I don't there bad cameras or lens nowadays. They improve every year. If only photographers (including me ) would improve as fast.


----------



## GammyKnee (Oct 16, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> I see a new number of comments here about the original 24-105mm and distortion at 24mm. Seems to be a reason why a number of people haven't bought it. I really wonder at times if the viewers of this website are photographers at all. A lot of people seem to spend their time comparing specs and mft's rather than taking photos. I've taken tens of thousands of photos with that lens and it's remarkably good and consistent with a great focal length range. I've never seen a single photo ring ruined by the lens. If something is wrong it's always been the photographer at fault. If you buy an old 24-105 and use it you will be more than happy. The new one I assume is even better or else it would not exist. Any lens distortion is minimal and easily corrected post processing. Shoot more and compare less. Bad photographers blame gear. I don't there bad cameras or lens nowadays. They improve every year. If only photographers (including me ) would improve as fast.



Depends what you're shooting.
People: I regularly use my 24-105 on gym shoots. Here, that distortion just isn't an issue
Landscape: Different story. Correcting the distortion does not come free, especially if you're printing large.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 16, 2016)

GammyKnee said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I see a new number of comments here about the original 24-105mm and distortion at 24mm. Seems to be a reason why a number of people haven't bought it. I really wonder at times if the viewers of this website are photographers at all. A lot of people seem to spend their time comparing specs and mft's rather than taking photos. I've taken tens of thousands of photos with that lens and it's remarkably good and consistent with a great focal length range. I've never seen a single photo ring ruined by the lens. If something is wrong it's always been the photographer at fault. If you buy an old 24-105 and use it you will be more than happy. The new one I assume is even better or else it would not exist. Any lens distortion is minimal and easily corrected post processing. Shoot more and compare less. Bad photographers blame gear. I don't there bad cameras or lens nowadays. They improve every year. If only photographers (including me ) would improve as fast.
> ...



Correcting the distortion does come free with Canon DPP. And I assume the distortion can be automatically corrected in many programs. Not an issue.


----------



## GammyKnee (Oct 16, 2016)

dak723 said:


> Correcting the distortion does come free with Canon DPP. And I assume the distortion can be automatically corrected in many programs. Not an issue.



https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/you-can-correct-it-in-post-but/

Of course that's using PS not DPP, which may do a better job. I'm sure both of them do a better job than LR(!), where I sometimes back off the distortion correction because it looks over done to my eyes. But I like LR's workflow way more than either of those two so I live with it.

Is the distortion a big issue? No.

Do I have to frame a bit more loosely when shooting at 24 with 24-105, to allow for the cropping that will occur when I fix the distortion? Yes. Do I notice that my images aren't quiet as sharp at the edges and corners after correcting? Depends on the shot, but yes sometimes I do. Would other people notice that? Probably not. Would I rather that the 24-105 had less distortion at the wide end? Yes.


----------



## jd7 (Oct 16, 2016)

dak723 said:


> GammyKnee said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



I think Gammyknee means correcting the distortion doesn't come free in terms of IQ, ie making the corrections causes "damage" to details, etc.

Anyway - and while I agree with others about waiting for further reviews before coming to any firm conclusions - my 24-70/4 is breathing a little easier for the first time since the 24-105/4 mk II was announced 

Edit: I see Gammyknee responded at the same time I did


----------



## geekpower (Oct 16, 2016)

blaming the photographer for straight lines looking curved :

fwiw, i can tolerate small amounts of distortion, and i prefer not to correct for it, because of the obvious loss of sharpness, but large amounts = no thanks.

i have the excellent 16-35/4L, so if i wanted to carry both lenses around, i would be covered on the wide end, but i feel like the whole point of this lens is to be versatile enough to walk around without packing anything else.

ps. i don't really understand why anybody would come to a fan site and criticize people for talking about the gear. obviously anyone with a little bit of skill can make the best of whatever gear they have at hand, but with limited budgets nobody is going to just buy a lens randomly and hope for the best. we want to know that our kit is going to suit our needs as best as possible without having to buy every lens in the lineup.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 16, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> [...]
> 
> Any lens distortion is minimal and easily corrected post processing. Shoot more and compare less. Bad photographers blame gear. I don't there bad cameras or lens nowadays. They improve every year. If only photographers (including me ) would improve as fast.



I admit, that you are basically right in terms of shooting real photos versus shooting mainly test photos to check the gear. And we have very good lenses since the 1980s + very good digital cameras since ca. 2005 ...

But: Correcting distortion is not easily done in post processing. As someone who likes to do everything right during shooting I see (1) a strong IQ loss (details, contrast) in the outer regions + texture quality in larger regions of the image, (2) increased processing time for full views and (3) sometimes loss of important image area which contains details or helps to give the right proportions.

At the moment I am shocked about the quality loss towards 105mm which is the more important focal length range I use.

At the moment I like to combine and am very satisfied with the following two-body-setups:
5D i + 2.8 24 (old one) (or 2.8 40) & 5D i + 2.8 100 macro (or 2.0 100)
All four lenses give, despite their "old" age, great IQ and do need lens corrections during post only under critical situations. 

But - like others said - lets wait for further reviews e.g. by photozone or the-digital-picture where it is easier to compare both 24-105 lenses on a more scientific base to see the progress between both lenses (or not).


----------



## candyman (Oct 16, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> <snip>
> *At the moment I am shocked about the quality loss towards 105mm which is the more important focal length range I use.*
> <snip>
> 
> But - like others said - lets wait for further reviews e.g. by photozone or the-digital-picture where it is easier to compare both 24-105 lenses on a more scientific base to see the progress between both lenses (or not).




The comments about distortion at 24mm are valid.
But, for a 24-105 f/4 L-lens I expect also good performance between 70-105mm at aperture f/4!. Especially for a price of 1279 euro. It should be a good performer between 70-105mm at f/4. That is the whole purpose for that lens.
If that focal length would not matter, and performance at 24mm is important, than there are a lot of other options:
- 24-70mm f/4 IS
- 16-35mm f/4 IS
More expensive:
- 24-70mm f/2.8 II
- 16-35 f/2.8 III
And if the price is too high and constant aperture is less important but you still want a walkaround lens with focal length up to 105mm:
- 24-105 f/3.5 - f/5.6 IS STM


Let's hope we get some reviews comparing the old and new 24-105L f/4 and hopefully they include the 24-70mm f/4 and the 24-105 f/3.5-f/5.6 STM and the sigma 24-105 in the tests as well.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 16, 2016)

geekpower said:


> blaming the photographer for straight lines looking curved :
> 
> 
> ps. i don't really understand why anybody would come to a fan site and criticize people for talking about the gear. obviously anyone with a little bit of skill can make the best of whatever gear they have at hand, but with limited budgets nobody is going to just buy a lens randomly and hope for the best. we want to know that our kit is going to suit our needs as best as possible without having to buy every lens in the lineup.



This is fair comment but I don't understand how people can come to fan site and write so dogmatically about gear that either don't have or can't use properly. People say things like the barrel distortion is terrible at 105mm but never show an example of a ruined photo. The impact on the photo is minimal and the issue is semi imaginary. What's wrong with most people's photos is not the barrel distortion but the basic photograph (terrible subject choice, wrong point of view ,poor light , poor lens choice, poor focusing, poor aperture choice, shaky hands etc. People here often only mimic sentences read elsewhere. They can't show themselves examples of where it impacts in real life shooting.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 16, 2016)

Responses here make me wonder.

Comparing the price Amazon and B&H charge for the mk2 to the mk1 price history, it seems to me the price hasn't really changed of late.

If it delivers the extra stop of IS and a noticeable IQ improvement, I'll be happy to buy it in the kit when I upgrade to the 5DmkIV, in face of being a bit larger & heavier.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2016)

PhotographyBlog is one review site I ignore, from experience. As pointed out in comments of their review of Tamron 150-600mm G2 they had the aperture wrong and even described it as having a greater zoom range than the Sigma 150-600mm. Their testing is not consistent from one lens to the next. Their review of the 400mm DO II was a complete joke - they couldn't get it to give sharp images at f/4 and f/5.6, ascribed to an unexplained AF error and still gave it a rave review for sharpness.


----------



## AlmostDecent (Oct 17, 2016)

Interesting review. I particularly liked the page on "Main Rivals":

Nikkor 24-120 f/4
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 VR

etc.

Well thought out. I just _know _that when considering this new 24-1205 f/4L II, Canon shooters are weighing it against those Nikon lenses they plan to stick on their cameras.


----------



## davidmurray (Oct 17, 2016)

AlmostDecent said:


> Interesting review. I particularly liked the page on "Main Rivals":
> 
> Nikkor 24-120 f/4
> Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 VR
> ...



[Sniggggaaaaar]

Yup - thought the same.


----------



## SteveM (Oct 17, 2016)

Not impressed. I've been waiting for this for a long time but will wait a little longer until more reviews are in. From the test pictures shown it is a long way from acceptable sharpness for L series glass.


----------



## nicolas.det (Oct 17, 2016)

Most of the pictures are just blurry. The EF 24-105 mark I would to better in most of the shoot.
Either they got an horrible copy, or the AF is terrible or the new one is worse as the old one.

However, I noticed that most of the sample of this site are quiet bad. So maybe it's just that..
..


----------



## TheJock (Oct 17, 2016)

This is quite handy considering Emirates Airlines destroyed my version 1 of the lens, and then took no responsibility citing “onboard baggage is the customers responsibility” even though 2 passengers spoke to the stewardess about the way she was man handling our bags trying to ram another into a space that didn’t exist, while we were strapped in with the seatbelts on sign illuminated!!


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 17, 2016)

Sounds like the STM version may be better than this new one


----------



## LesC (Oct 17, 2016)

I'm assuming this must be a pre-production model otherwise why are there no reviews elsewhere?


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 17, 2016)

candyman said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...



Absolutely, but after checking TDP where this lens was not tested yet, my hopes for a great universal lens are vanishing:
Brian has prepared a comparison of the MTF plots which gives a hint that the mk ii lens is only a very little better at 105mm (especially outer image regions) than the mk i lens but will shine at 24mm.

Maybe Canon had reportage photography in mind: crisp and detailed overview phographs of a scene in wide position and some details with the most important portion of the image in the center in tele position.

Zooms which go from stronger wide angle to real tele are - my opinion as physicist who has some feeling about the complexity of systems (and lens designs) - a bunch of compromises. While 16-35 mk iii and 100-400 mk ii seem to be stellar lenses in terms of IQ.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 17, 2016)

Ill reserve my judgment until I see more tests/reviews/comparison. However, if it doesn't out perform the 24-70 f4 IS and approach the 24-70 f2.8 II then, Im not interested regardless of price.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 17, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Ill reserve my judgment until I see more tests/reviews/comparison. However, if it doesn't out perform the 24-70 f4 IS and approach the 24-70 f2.8 II then, Im not interested regardless of price.



_Matching_ the 24-70 f/4L IS would be a reasonable bar. Expecting a relatively similar price point / relatively similar year of release 4.5x zoom to outperform a 3x zoom is an unreasonable expectation, IMHO. Physics is a b---- that way.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Oct 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Ill reserve my judgment until I see more tests/reviews/comparison. However, if it doesn't out perform the 24-70 f4 IS and approach the 24-70 f2.8 II then, Im not interested regardless of price.
> ...



Considering the starting MSRP I wasn't expecting much. Prior to release of pricing, I was hoping they'd move the lens slightly up market while keeping their profit margin low for such a high volume lens. So far it looks like it's just a slight improvement and a lens I'll never buy.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 17, 2016)

I am awaiting the in-detail tests and comparisons between all the options including the old one and the STM, but also the 24-70s. Roger Cicala will be receiving a few of these - watch his blog for information about image quality and sample-to-sample variation. Another interesting metric Cicala gives, after the lens has been out for a year or two, is the repair rate.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 17, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> Zooms which go from stronger wide angle to real tele are - my opinion as physicist who has some feeling about the complexity of systems (and lens designs) - a bunch of compromises. While 16-35 mk iii and 100-400 mk ii seem to be stellar lenses in terms of IQ.



I agree that the greatest challenge to better IQ for both the original 24-105L and its new successor are their overreach in terms of focal length range. It's nice to have more FL on the long end than the 24-70's offer, but 105mm may be 'a bridge too far.' I don't know what an uncompromised upper FL limit would be, maybe somewhere in the 85- to 96-mm range. 

I'm on my 2nd 24-105L; it's 'good enough,' although I would certainly pay for better. Since I also have a 16-35/4L, I tend to switch to it when I find I'm spending most of my time on the wide end of the 24-105. Perhaps Canon should consider developing a high-quality 35-105 ... Any new lens will of course take years to develop, so I'm not holding my breath. 

I'll watch for reviews from better sources than this, as well, but I probably won't upgrade to the 24-105 II, unless I come across a really good price on a new one out of a kit, as I did with my current vI.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 18, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Zooms which go from stronger wide angle to real tele are - my opinion as physicist who has some feeling about the complexity of systems (and lens designs) - a bunch of compromises. While 16-35 mk iii and 100-400 mk ii seem to be stellar lenses in terms of IQ.
> ...



It definitely seems getting to 100 on one end and 24 on the other is a major compromise. It seems the 24 is the bigger issue. Canons should have gone to 28 (like the 28-300) or even 35 as you suggested. Id much rather see something like a 28-120L or 35-135L than a 24-105. Getting to 24 (with big compromises) is far less important now that we have 2 extremely good 16-35mm offerings.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2016)

j-nord said:


> It definitely seems getting to 100 on one end and 24 on the other is a major compromise. It seems the 24 is the bigger issue. Canons should have gone to 28 (like the 28-300) or even 35 as you suggested. Id much rather see something like a 28-120L or 35-135L than a 24-105. Getting to 24 (with big compromises) is far less important now that we have 2 extremely good 16-35mm offerings.



Respectfully disagree. Not having 24-28 or 24-35 on a standard zoom means that you will constantly changeout your lens to get wide enough for some things.

Back in my crop days, I had an EF-S 10-22 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I for general / walkabout / touristy stuff, and it seemed like I was changing out the 24-70 for the 10-22 far too frequently.

I moved to FF and the 24-70 _perfectly_ covered my needs. 24-28mm FF is a sweet spot of 'wide but not unnaturally wide' to me, and I used it often.

So I think there's a reason Canon abandoned the 28-something zooms, but I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## monkey44 (Oct 18, 2016)

I remember shooting lots of great images with the 30D and 28-135 ... even now, when looking back in the archives, that lens gave some great shots ... I think that zoom and a 16-35 would work well together - 

It seems the build quality on the older lenses might have been better than the kit lenses of today - then, we jump to the 'L' build. It seems the older lens build was somewhere in between kit and 'L' of today. I shot over ten years with 30D / 28-135 combo and 100-400 v1, until moving to the 5DM3, 7D (Sold) and recently a 7D2 upgrade ... I'm less than happy with the 24-105 (it's a bit temperamental) , and hope this new 24-105 v2 fits the bill. It will sit perfectly between 16-35 and 70-200. Just enough overlap to lessen the number of lens changes in the field. 

With a premium 24-105 v2, a very good outdoor kit would become 16-35, 24-105 v2, 100-400 v2, and could eliminate the 70-200 ... altho the 70-200 is such a great lens, would be difficult to leave it home unless the 24-104 v2 is stellar. <puzzled until reviews come in>


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Respectfully disagree. Not having 24-28 or 24-35 on a standard zoom means that you will constantly changeout your lens to get wide enough for some things.
> 
> Back in my crop days, I had an EF-S 10-22 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I for general / walkabout / touristy stuff, and it seemed like I was changing out the 24-70 for the 10-22 far too frequently.
> 
> ...



The wealth of 24-xx zoom choices reinforces your viewpoint. But if it's not practically possible to produce a high-quality zoom which spans the FL range from 24 to 105mm, there may be consumers who would sacrifice the wide end of the range for high quality at the longer end. What none of us has is access to Canon's market research, which reflects where to best invest their R&D budget.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > It definitely seems getting to 100 on one end and 24 on the other is a major compromise. It seems the 24 is the bigger issue. Canons should have gone to 28 (like the 28-300) or even 35 as you suggested. Id much rather see something like a 28-120L or 35-135L than a 24-105. Getting to 24 (with big compromises) is far less important now that we have 2 extremely good 16-35mm offerings.
> ...



I'd rather see better, consistent IQ across the range, even if that means moving the range to the longer end. But, I get it, as a 1 lens set up, its virtually impossible to go with out 24mm.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 19, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Respectfully disagree. Not having 24-28 or 24-35 on a standard zoom means that you will constantly changeout your lens to get wide enough for some things.
> ...



Canon used to make kit lenses that started at 28mm (28-105/135mm), as well as lenses that started at 35mm (35-80/105/135mm).

That those lenses are discontinued, in contrast to IS-less 75-300mm lenses, seems to me to indicate people do indeed prefer lenses that start wider.

On the other hand, I did see a wedding photographer using the EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM. Apparently he likes it for its low weight and wide aperture.


----------



## nc0b (Oct 20, 2016)

I use my 24-105mm all the time on my 6D, and if two of us are shooting, my wife uses it and I use the 5DsR. We definitely need 24mm a lot of the time. As far as reliability of the 28-135mm, I have owned two of them and the IS failed on both. You could hear the gyros chattering and see the image blur in the view finder. The first one was purchased 14 years ago. I haven't purchased any additional non-L lenses because of that for a long time. I did have a 70-300mm non-L, which worked well as long as I owned it. I traded it plus $500 for the 70-200mm f/4 IS L. 

I have no complaints with the 24-105mm, as I generally shoot at f/8 and ISO 400. If, however, the 24-105 II is significantly better, I will upgrade. Unless Canon comes out with a 500mm f/5.6, I am pretty well set for lenses. The big whites are beyond what I choose to spend on a lens. I am quite happy shooting the 100-400mm II with the 5DsR since I have so much latitude in cropping. On this month long trip to Canada and New England, I was astounded at how little atmospheric distortion I observed near sunset at the Bay of Fundy. Shots at 500 yards with the 100-400 II were amazingly detailed with tiny crops of under 100k. I haven't needed the 1.4X TC III on the zoom so far.


----------



## JPAZ (Oct 20, 2016)

My 24-105 mk1 sits while my 24-70 f/2.8 ii gets quite the workout. IS would be nice, especially if I ever upgrade to a 5Div. But for now, I am going to sit tight. I kind of wished the new 24-105 would be a good alternative to the f/2.8 because of the bit mroe reach and the IS.


----------



## AZMtnBiker (Oct 21, 2016)

I've been anxiously awaiting some sort of review on this lens since I don't yet have a zoom in that focal range for my 5D mkiv (came from a 7D MKII and the 17-55 was my walk-around lens there). I've almost pulled the trigger on the 24-70 f2.8 II several times but I keep thinking, "I'll wait to see some reviews of the new 24-105". I'll reserve final judgement but, for now, it's looking like I'm a step closer to settling on the 24-70.


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 21, 2016)

AZMtnBiker said:


> I've been anxiously awaiting some sort of review on this lens since I don't yet have a zoom in that focal range for my 5D mkiv (came from a 7D MKII and the 17-55 was my walk-around lens there). I've almost pulled the trigger on the 24-70 f2.8 II several times but I keep thinking, "I'll wait to see some reviews of the new 24-105". I'll reserve final judgement but, for now, it's looking like I'm a step closer to settling on the 24-70.



The 24-70/2.8 II has spoiled me for any other mid-range zoom. It is so good. But I really need the 2.8 and don't need the 70-105.


----------



## mrzero (Oct 21, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The standard kit zooms that started at 28mm in the film days generally accompanied cameras that are now crop sensors, i.e. Rebels and _0D series. Those are now sold with kit zooms that start with 18mm crop lenses, which is the equivalent of 28mm on full frame.

So, it seems the thinking is 28mm (equivalent) is good enough for entry- and mid-level users, but 24mm is desired by the more demanding users. I think that is probably very true.

I appreciate the lighter weight of my 24-70/4 but I do miss the extra reach to 105 sometimes. I might have accepted the extra weight of this updated 24-105, but I feel like most of my general zoom work falls at the wider end of the range and thus the distortion is the deciding factor. Lower weight, less distortion where I shoot the most - so I'm sticking with the little guy.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 24, 2016)

Wait for the lens, the sample I tried was very good indeed.


----------



## gilbertmc (Dec 30, 2016)

I am still wondering if to buy the first or the second edition.

Today I will rent the second edition and see how the shots will look. After reading reviews and comments, it seems the first edition is still better than the second one. But also since I process all the photos, I guess the second edition will be a good improvement from the first and worth to get the second instead of the first.

If somebody can tell me why should I get the second instead of the first or viceversa I would appreciate.

Thank you


----------



## LesC (Dec 30, 2016)

gilbertmc said:


> I am still wondering if to buy the first or the second edition.
> 
> Today I will rent the second edition and see how the shots will look. After reading reviews and comments, it seems the first edition is still better than the second one. But also since I process all the photos, I guess the second edition will be a good improvement from the first and worth to get the second instead of the first.
> 
> ...



Once the original Version MK1's are sold out there will only be the MKII so the decision will be made unless you want to buy second-hand  

As it stands, as I see it as they seem very similar in performance - I suspect copy variance will mean that you could compare the MKI and MKII versions and someone would find the MKI marginally better, another may find vice versa. However, if you currently have the MK1, probably no need to 'upgrade' but if you don't have either, seems sensible to go for the MKII - it does have better IS and supposedly better construction. I believe the MKII had some problems with the ribbon cable failing but of course only time will tell if the MKII proves to be more reliable.

I've got the 24-70 F2.8L MKII but still intend to get the new 24-105 for the times when the extra reach and particularly IS will be handy.

Let us know what you think of the rented MKII


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 30, 2016)

[/quote] I believe the MKII had some problems with the ribbon cable failing but of course only time will tell if the MKII proves to be more reliable.

I've got the 24-70 F2.8L MKII but still intend to get the new 24-105 for the times when the extra reach and particularly IS will be handy.

Let us know what you think of the rented MKII 
[/quote]

Just curious - Where did you hear 'problems with the ribbon cable failing' ? Seems Mk II hasn't hardly hit the sales channels yet - only in the camera/lens package ... MKII is on backorder everywhere that I can see ... even Canon USA


----------



## LesC (Dec 30, 2016)

Just curious - Where did you hear 'problems with the ribbon cable failing' ? Seems Mk II hasn't hardly hit the sales channels yet - only in the camera/lens package ... MKII is on backorder everywhere that I can see ... even Canon USA

[/quote]

Ah, sorry, that was a typo - I should have said it was the MKI that I believe had the problems with the ribbon cable...


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 31, 2016)

LesC said:


> Just curious - Where did you hear 'problems with the ribbon cable failing' ? Seems Mk II hasn't hardly hit the sales channels yet - only in the camera/lens package ... MKII is on backorder everywhere that I can see ... even Canon USA



That's kinda what i thought - seems unusual that both would have the same issue  

Ah, sorry, that was a typo - I should have said it was the MKI that I believe had the problems with the ribbon cable...
[/quote]


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 4, 2017)

Was production paused?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 4, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Was production paused?



Of the 24-105 f/4L IS II?

I thought it was fully released... But now that you mention it, Adorama and B&H still have it listed as a Pre-Order item.

Yet Amazon has it (only one left) at a nasty $1,299 asking price but Amazon will not state if its gray market, pulled out of a kit, etc.

Perhaps 5D4 kit demand was higher than anticipated? Canon might have diverted new II lenses in production into the kits, possibly stalling the rollout of it as a standalone item.

- A


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 4, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Perhaps 5D4 kit demand was higher than anticipated? Canon might have diverted new II lenses in production into the kits, possibly stalling the rollout of it as a standalone item.



The mk2 is marginally better than the mk1, which is readily available for half the price, so I would expect people who own a FF camera, as a group, to be savvy enough not to create such a high demand for the mk2.

My guess is

1. New Canon lenses are always on short supply shortly after announcement.

2. Which is exacerbated by some copies shipped in kit.

3. And by firmware upgrade, IIRC something to do with IS on 5DmkIV.


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 4, 2017)

Have been watching the Canon site - and it's not been available there either, at least when I checked (infrequently) ...

I figured maybe the demand was less than anticipated due to the reviews that show it a limited improvement. SO, those of us that own the v1 did not jump out there. And, perhaps (a long shot) Canon held up the lens release and tweaked it a bit to up the upgrade .... I'm not even sure that's possible, but who knows. Canon might have discovered a 'fixable' small bit of engineering that sharpens it, or pulls in the corners enough to make it worth a delay.

That's pure speculation on my part (maybe wishful thinking) as I'm not a 'tech guy' ... and don't even know if it could or would happen. <puzzled>


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 4, 2017)

uri.raz said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps 5D4 kit demand was higher than anticipated? Canon might have diverted new II lenses in production into the kits, possibly stalling the rollout of it as a standalone item.
> ...



You would be surprised... i know a few portrait photographers whom charge over $3000 a session on a regular basis who use this lens as their go-to lens and recommend it to their underlings... True working photographer are a different breed than other photographers... Plus, they aren't ignorant in that there are sharper lenses out there, but they know that would include more retouching work they have to do or pay someone else to do it, and time is $$...


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2017)

No surprises here.

The lens is readily available as part of the 5DIV kit so clearly no "tweaking" or "pausing" in production.

To state the obvious: It's a kit lens, so the first priority for manufacturing is to fill the kits. 

I doubt if Canon expects to sell many non-kit versions in the first year or so, since it isn't a major improvement over the prior version. Individual sales are likely to be mostly to photographers who need to replace the original.

In defense of the lens itself, it's as good as any other lens of this range that is on the market and significantly better than the Nikon 24-120. I believe that if Canon could have made a better lens for under $2,000, they would have done so. But, we are probably at the upper limits of what a lens in this range can do with current technology.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 4, 2017)

awinphoto said:


> uri.raz said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Which contradicts the post... how?


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 4, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > uri.raz said:
> ...



Just commenting on how he was saying paraphrasing that people who own a FF camera (those whom should know better) would be savvy enough NOT to create a high demand for the lens... and I am saying i know a lot of working pro's who are jumping and creating high demand, including me in the second quarter of this year God willing. This lens may not wet the appetite of some on this forum, but will for a lot of people.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 5, 2017)

In concept, 24-105 with IS is such a useful combination. And since I didn't have the original to fall back on, I went ahead and ordered it--in spite of the fact that I was also underwhelmed by the early reviews. In the era of high-ISO sensors, it seemed like a logical update for my classic 24-70 f2.8. Unfortunately, it's release was delayed beyond a deadline i had to meet. Since a top-end fast 50 was the other lens I wanted to complete my arsenal, I cancelled the 24-105 and ordered the Sigma Art 50. It is heavy for a 50, but then the new 24-105 has put on a fair bit of weight compared to the original. (Crotchety Ken R has decreed the new version too plump to be a suitable walk-around lens.)

And as advertised, the Sigma is a very nice lens. With a little legwork it can be made to cover much of the sweet spot of the 24-105. I put it on my 5D4 and handed it to my niece, who is a professional wedding shooter (shoots a D700). She went nuts; ran around the house blazing away at obscure targets hidden in dark corners behind chairs, etc., and then marveling at the sharpness and isolation of the subject.

It would surely be nice to have IS, and the flexibility of the zoom, but at this point I--and my budget-- are thinking I could wait to see if Canon hits it out of the park with the third iteration of this lens. Once you've tasted the new 100-400mm II, you're inclined to hold Canon to a very high standard.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 5, 2017)

awinphoto said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



I know some of the people who bought the mk2 just because its a newer model. That's not savvy behavior.

People who make money from their equipment are smart enough to justify expenses. Somehow, I've heard no such justification.


----------

