# New Canon 24-105mm L IS II Lens ?



## Nitroman (May 4, 2016)

Any news about an updated Canon 24-105mm L IS II zoom lens ?

I have the fabulous Canon 5Ds but 50mp shows this lens' weak points.

F4 would still be ok but f2.8 would be even better.

Not interested in the 24-70mm range as i like a wide and a portrait lens such as 85mm or 105mm to be in one zoom.


----------



## j-nord (May 4, 2016)

I'd very much like a sharper version of this lens with the newer IS and USM. 24-70 just isn't long enough for landscapes, 105 would be very appreciated.


----------



## gmon750 (May 4, 2016)

I have the 24-105mm for my 5DM3. Love the lens, but I'm surprised you're using it for the 5Ds. It's a great all-around lens to have, but I agree that it may not be up-to-snuff for such a high-megapixel camera. 

I may be just getting confused, but why would the 24-70mm not work for landscapes? It's still 24mm for both lenses, with the benefit of the 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 being much sharper to complement your camera.

I'd love to see Canon make an ƒ/2.8 (or less) version of this lens but I doubt anything other than what they currently have will be available (if ever) anytime soon. It would take away from the 24-70mm and perhaps the 70-200mm.


----------



## Sporgon (May 4, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> I have the 24-105mm for my 5DM3. Love the lens, but I'm surprised you're using it for the 5Ds. It's a great all-around lens to have, but I agree that it may not be up-to-snuff for such a high-megapixel camera.



There is a CR contributor Keith Breazeal who uses the 24-105L on a 5Ds to great effect. Just think of it as a 28-105 

Bye the way, I think the 24-105 II has already been released - it's just called the 24-70 f/4 IS ! (But I agree with those that say they want to keep the 71-105 bit). 

I have had both for over a year, but have now decided to sell the 24-70IS and keep the 24-105.


----------



## tr573 (May 4, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> I may be just getting confused, but why would the 24-70mm not work for landscapes? It's still 24mm for both lenses, with the benefit of the 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 being much sharper to complement your camera.



some people like telephoto landscapes


----------



## Woody (May 5, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> I have had both for over a year, but have now decided to sell the 24-70IS and keep the 24-105.



I have been wondering if I should get the 24-70 f/4 IS as part of a new camera kit. I am currently using the 24-105 f/4 IS on my 6D, and am pleased with its performance. However, the supposedly better optics of the 24-70 f/4 IS tempts me.

But your decision to keep the 24-105 f/4 IS instead of the 24-70 f/4 IS is giving me pause.


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> I may be just getting confused, but why would the 24-70mm not work for landscapes?



For me, in CO, shooting adjacent peaks or ridge lines means you need focal length. Right now I pair a 24-70 with a 300, I shoot almost an equal number of landscapes at 24, 70, and 300.


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Bye the way, I think the 24-105 II has already been released - it's just called the 24-70 f/4 IS ! (But I agree with those that say they want to keep the 71-105 bit).



24-70 f4 IS is a little sharper + better IS. It's still not sharp enough though. Ill probably get rid of mine by mid-end of this season. I'm not sure what ill replace it with yet. Lack of IS on the 24-70 f2.8ii is a real turn off. With good IS you can get some handheld water blur, super late sunset/early evening shots, dark stormy skies, etc.


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

Woody said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I have had both for over a year, but have now decided to sell the 24-70IS and keep the 24-105.
> ...



It's not a huge improvement in optics but the 24-70IS has some other advantages like smaller, better IS, AF and a 0.70x macro mode.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 5, 2016)

Woody said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I have had both for over a year, but have now decided to sell the 24-70IS and keep the 24-105.
> ...


The EF24-70mm f4L IS USM in my experiance with the 5DS is not a good lens, soft at 50mm and only marginally better at 24mm and 70mm. Stick with your EF 24-105mm f4L nothing in it.


----------



## ahsanford (May 5, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Bye the way, I think the 24-105 II has already been released - it's just called the 24-70 f/4 IS ! (But I agree with those that say they want to keep the 71-105 bit).



+1. The EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM effectively replaced the 24-105 in the lineup as the 'Budget / Starter' L standard zoom. It's a wonderful piece of kit I use often.

And folks already got their 24-105 II -- _it just wasn't called that_. It was moved downmarket into a non-L rig with variable aperture and STM. Thoroughly agree with Canon on that move.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 5, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Yes. The 24-70 f/4L IS sits somewhere between the 24-105 and the 24-70 f/2.8L II in terms of IQ based on all the testing I've seen. But it is lighter and shorter than both. A perfect hiking/travel lens.

And the macro mode is fricken revolutionary in value if you take 'casual' / handheld / driveby macro. When I'm hiking, I flip a switch and an pow, it's "Hello, lizard" or a nice closeup of flora. Also, when traveling, the 100L can stay at home, which is a very nice selling point to the lens. I will be the first to concede the working distance for 0.7x reproduction is tiny, and you can shade your subject with the camera if you are not careful, but as I said before, it's for casual macro work -- serious macro work is a different kettle of fish.

- A


----------



## Nitroman (May 5, 2016)

Yep, i love my 24-105mm f4 IS L. It is a fabulous walk about lens and deals with 80% of my lens requirements.

It is badly in need of an upgrade. My lens is so worn the red L ring has fallen off but it still works perfectly well. 

I love the fact that one minute it's great for wide angle landscape, the next a portrait three quarter and then a close up with shallow depth of field and then a macro. Just a shame it's not f2.8. 

Time for the Mark II version please Canon !


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I will be the first to concede the working distance for 0.7x reproduction is tiny, and you can shade your subject with the camera if you are not careful
> 
> - A



Better make sure you have a filter on the lens if you are trying to find the MFD. You will literally bump the lens element into things ;D


----------



## brad-man (May 5, 2016)

Nitroman said:


> Yep, i love my 24-105mm f4 IS L. It is a fabulous walk about lens and deals with 80% of my lens requirements.
> 
> It is badly in need of an upgrade. My lens is so worn the red L ring has fallen off but it still works perfectly well.
> 
> ...



Ha ha. When mine broke several years ago I glued it back on. I'm not sure why.


----------



## jd7 (May 7, 2016)

Between the 24-70L IS and the 24-105L IS, the way I see it is:

Advantages of the 24-70L IS:
Better IQ - sharper across whole frame (I feel that is the case with my 24-70L IS v the 24-105Ls I have used, and it seems to be borne out by Lens Rentals resolution tests), less distortion (esp at wide angles), less CA, better flare resistance / contrast shooting into a light source
Faster T stop
Lighter
Smaller
Macro mode (albeit only really for casual macro use)
More modern IS system
Zoom lock (OK it's not very significant! I like it when hiking though.)

Advantages of the 24-105L IS:
It does 71-105

I can understand, though, why that single advantage of the 24-105L is enough reason for some to prefer that lens! (It has occurred to me I might be better of with the 24-105L, but I don't think I will go that way.)

I would be interested in a 24105L IS II though. While I actually do quite like the macro mode on the 24-70L IS, I would trade it and the size/weight difference for the extra reach if it otherwise had the advantages of the 24-70L listed above (if that's possible).


----------



## TeT (May 7, 2016)

24 105L II with the zoom lock and mini-macro mode would be a sure winner for me....


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Advantages of the 24-105L IS:
> It does 71-105



I see the 24-70 f/4L IS (which I own and love) as a generally better lens than the 24-105L for the feature/weight/size reasons, and the IQ is clearly somewhere between the 24-105 and the 24-70 f/2.8L II:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/

The sharpness data is where our eyes go, but the glaring bit to me there is the famously high distortion of 24-105 at 24mm, a landscape FL I am pretty fond of. PhotoZone backed this finding up, and I believe someone else stated it's a fine _*28*_-105 lens for that reason.

But to say the only upside of the 24-105 is 'that is shoots 71-105' is (though generally true) is a bit misleading -- the 24-70 f/4 doesn't obliterate the 24-105 so much as slightly outperform it. Some folks don't see the IQ differences of the two lenses as being so great, and they see the comparison as a choice between [lighter + macro] vs. [heavier + 105mm], and many prefer the second combo.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2016)

_But_ the saving grace of the 24-105 is how many users have it today. I'd imagine it has to be the 'most deployed' L lens on the planet. 

(I'm careful to not synonymize 'deployed' with 'sales' due to kitting -- I believe many folks bought one because it came along for the ride or they needed 'a' lens and not necessarily that one -- but I still contend there's a boatload of 24-105s out in the wild.)

So it makes me wonder if the sheer number of folks who own that lens get accustomed to that 105mm reach and Canon simply must follow up with a newer L version. I believe Canon made the right call going downmarket / non-L with the lens, but perhaps they see room for two f/4 standard zooms?

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (May 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> _But_ the saving grace of the 24-105 is how many users have it today. I'd imagine it has to be the 'most deployed' L lens on the planet.
> 
> (I'm careful to not synonymize 'deployed' with 'sales' due to kitting -- I believe many folks bought one because it came along for the ride or they needed 'a' lens and not necessarily that one -- but I still contend there's a boatload of 24-105s out in the wild.)
> 
> So it makes me wonder if the sheer number of folks who own that lens get accustomed to that 105mm reach and Canon simply must follow up with a newer L version. I believe Canon made the right call going downmarket / non-L with the lens, but perhaps they see room for two f/4 standard zooms?



Canon has a long history of making kit lenses starting with 28mm and ending at 80, 90, 105, and 135mm. Nikon's kit lens is 24-120mm f/4.


----------



## iaind (May 8, 2016)

Have both it and 24-70 f2.8 II. Guess which gets used most? !!


----------



## j-nord (May 9, 2016)

iaind said:


> Have both it and 24-70 f2.8 II. Guess which gets used most? !!



Honestly not sure, could go either way based on the question and the way you asked it.


----------



## Nitroman (May 14, 2016)

So have any patents been passed for a replacement 24-105mm lens ?

The 5Ds is desperate for a 24-105mm f4 IS L II as the original is soft - especially at the extremes. This is an important and popular lens, i'm very surprised no mention of an updated version ...


----------



## wsmith96 (May 14, 2016)

I believe the 24-70 f/4 IS L is your replacement for the 24-105. Have you tried it on your 5Ds to compare against the 24-105?


----------



## Busted Knuckles (May 14, 2016)

24-70 f4 is nice but it by no means a replacement for the 24-105. I have tried it on the 5DsR and oof the 16-35 really shows how weak the 24-105 is on the short end and we all knew it was soft on the long.

I would drop a $1k on a new 24-105 mk2 in a heartbeat if it was in the 16-35 IQ neighborhood - I have the old one, battle worn and right now not working and I haven't bothered to send it to Canon to get fixed. Simply not worth it. I use the 16-35, 50 art and the 70-200.

The 24-105 mk1 was "good in its day" but was not a future proof lens. The new sensors really show its weaknesses.

I wouldn't mind if Canon mirrored Nikon and stretched the long end to 120. Even if it was a bit larger lens for it. 

A little of the blue goo would be nice as well.


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon has a long history of making kit lenses starting with 28mm and ending at 80, 90, 105, and 135mm. Nikon's kit lens is 24-120mm f/4.



I understand that, but Nikon's 24-120 shows exactly why you don't offer that lens at an L (or equivalent) level:

24mm: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=733

120mm: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=733&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

At 5x, the wheels tend to come off the bus optically. To my knowledge, only the 100-400 II does a good job of a large FL multiple. There are some fans of the 70-300L as well. But a 5x zoom lens for > $1,000 seems like money poorly spent unless you are comically strapped for space, are in a terrible environment to change out lenses (rain forest? desert?) or are principally shooting video.

This is why I agree with Canon on the 24-105 moving downmarket to non-L, STM, variable aperture territory.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2016)

Busted Knuckles said:


> I would drop a $1k on a new 24-105 mk2 in a heartbeat if it was in the 16-35 IQ neighborhood.



If Canon could pull that off, it would cost you far more $1,000. Probably an animal sacrifice would be required...

I hear you, a Mark II version of the 24-105 would be appreciated. But hoping a 4x+ zoom lens might have the same IQ as a roughly-same-timeframe-designed 2.2x lens is wishful thinking, IMHO.

- A


----------



## j-nord (May 16, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has a long history of making kit lenses starting with 28mm and ending at 80, 90, 105, and 135mm. Nikon's kit lens is 24-120mm f/4.
> ...


I'd also like to point out that the 24-70 f4 IS price tanked in very few years, this lens segment is well saturated. Canon would have to put out a very improved lens at a very affordable price to get people to upgrade from either the 24-105 or the 24-70 f4 IS. I don't see this type of lens being on any of Canon's short lists for 'refresh'. Maybe this will change if the 5DIV has a 30+mpix sensor and thus an IQ improvement will be in greater demand.


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I'd also like to point out that the 24-70 f4 IS price tanked in very few years, this lens segment is well saturated. Canon would have to put out a very improved lens at a very affordable price to get people to upgrade from either the 24-105 or the 24-70 f4 IS. I don't see this type of lens being on any of Canon's short lists for 'refresh'. Maybe this will change if the 5DIV has a 30+mpix sensor and thus an IQ improvement will be in greater demand.



Canon famously asked $1499 for that 24-70, which is farcical. I see that as a bad business decision more than anything else. That's a $900-ish lens to me, which is where it has settled.

But yes, the 24-something market is pretty saturated. I don't see a new offering there anytime soon unless it is on the very high end, like the mythical 24-70 f/2.8L IS, which may have gotten some wind in its sales since Nikon finally offered one.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 16, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Between the 24-70L IS and the 24-105L IS, the way I see it is:
> 
> Advantages of the 24-70L IS:
> Better IQ - sharper across whole frame (I feel that is the case with my 24-70L IS v the 24-105Ls I have used, and it seems to be borne out by Lens Rentals resolution tests), less distortion (esp at wide angles), less CA, better flare resistance / contrast shooting into a light source
> ...


Given a choice of either the 24-105mm f4L IS USM or the 24-70mm f4L IS USM I would take the 24-105. The 24-70mm f4L IS USM I have a. exhibits image shift b. Is soft from 45-65mm until you stop down to around f8. It does control CAs better but its no way good enough for the 5DS. By comparison my copy of the 24-105mm is no softer & has better reach (Ive tested both in controlled conditions using the CIPA resolution chart & an even field illumination sphere)
Given that 24-70mm should be a fairly easy range for Canon to produce a sharp lens at f4 this lens design is flawed by comparison the 16-35mm f4L IS USM lens is a class leader.


----------



## Act444 (May 16, 2016)

I dunno, even on the 22MP 5D3 the weakness of the 24-70 f4 in the 40-60mm range is obvious...let alone on a 5DS/R!

On the bright side, it is smaller and distorts much less than the 24-105, so it does have its place. Plus it's got that semi-macro mode and the IS is outstanding. Personally I think it shines for general tourism shots, still life and landscape photography. Otherwise the 24-105 is sharper (as long as you don't go wider than 28mm) and has more reach.


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2016)

Act444 said:


> I dunno, even on the 22MP 5D3 the weakness of the 24-70 f4 in the 40-60mm range is obvious...let alone on a 5DS/R!



I agree there are better performers in the middle of the FL range, but it's still better than the every-pro-on-the-planet-owned 24-70 f/2.8L I at 50mm. Not every lens can be as sharp as the current 24-70 f/2.8L II, and for about half the price, we shouldn't expect it to.

- A


----------



## Act444 (May 16, 2016)

I know - I was comparing it more to the 24-105 which is similarly priced. In the 40-65mm range it has been my experience that the 24-105 is the (notably) better performer, at least in my case. The converse is true at 24mm. 

Basically, it comes down to preference. For me, one lens can't replace the other...but if I HAD to pick one...I'd probably go with the 24-105. 

As for version 2 of that lens, if they can improve performance at 24mm while maintaining the quality of the rest of the range - I'd be all in. I think the current version suits my needs fine however.


----------



## Rob Carter (May 16, 2016)

20-30 years ago I used to have a 24-104 F2.8. I cannot remember who made it but it was not Canon. It was slow to auto-focus, heavy and mechanically unreliable. So I can see why Canon has not gone along the route to a F2.8 all along the zoom range.

I have always been disappointed to hear that the 24-104 loses almost a stop as you zoom and is very nearly a F4-F5.6.

In the days of high usable ISO I would think a target to aim for will be a wider zoom range, lower weight and smaller aperture.


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2016)

Rob Carter said:


> In the days of high usable ISO I would think a target to aim for will be a wider zoom range, lower weight and smaller aperture.



A few years back I said something to the effect of 'In 10 years time, we're much more likely to see f/2.8 primes and f/4 zooms with 6-7 stops of IS than we'll ever see an f/1.0 prime or f/2 zoom.' i.e. IS could possibly evolve in a same-weight context over time, whereas an f/1.0 prime or f/2 zooms will simply be a monster because physics is physics and no one would want such a lead weight.

Of course, I've eaten my words at Sigma and Tokina have released f/2 FF zooms and Sigma has f/1.8 crop zooms now, so what do I know? ???

- A


----------



## Rob Carter (May 17, 2016)

I cannot stress too strongly about weight reduction. With claims of DSLR quality from an Apple phones I can see why more and more people are not carrying a ‘brick’ around. For my leisure time I go walking, where at one time I would see a lot of DSLR cameras on the fells and peaks I no longer see them. Everybody uses their camera phone.

A situation that Canon must be well aware of but unable to effectively do anything about.


----------



## j-nord (May 17, 2016)

Rob Carter said:


> I cannot stress too strongly about weight reduction. With claims of DSLR quality from an Apple phones I can see why more and more people are not carrying a ‘brick’ around. For my leisure time I go walking, where at one time I would see a lot of DSLR cameras on the fells and peaks I no longer see them. Everybody uses their camera phone.
> 
> A situation that Canon must be well aware of but unable to effectively do anything about.


Smart phone cameras are a fixed focal length, no manual controls, jpg only, etc, hardly comparable with DSLR kits. If your main concern is weight rather than the countless advantages of good glass and DSLR then, by all means use your iPhone... There is little to no room to make a brick of glass any lighter.


----------

