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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 21, 2016)

```
The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the brand new Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II. It looks like it’s a lens with some improvements over the original, such as improved IS, build quality and flare reduction.</p>
<p>However, do not expect it to have the same great sharpness that recent Canon zooms have shown. Afterall, this is a $1099 lens from Canon. I get the feeling that it’s a good upgrade, but not a great one like the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III.</p>
<p><strong>From TDP</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>No, it doesn’t have perfect image quality, but the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens is one of the best general purpose lenses available. It has an extremely useful range of focal lengths in a very-well constructed body that is ready for professional-duty use. It is nicely sized and has a weight that will not quickly wear you down. And, the excellent image stabilization system will make a dramatic difference in some low light situations. The fast, accurate and quiet AF system will not let you down, the overall lens design will delight and the price is not terribly high. As the 24-105 L I fades into history, this is the lens that will take its place. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II:</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="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-ii-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 21, 2016)

And *that*, folks, is the closest Bryan Carnathan comes to saying something negative about a Canon product. There's some White House Press Secretary-level wordsmithing and posturing here to make his case without saying the word he cannot say: _disappointed_ (which is nowhere to be found in his review).

That he should draw a conclusion that our expectations may have been too high is disheartening. We are allowed to be disappointed at Canon setting a low bar, even if they hit that modest target. If Canon can offer a best in industry ultra-wide f/4 zoom for $1,199, they should have bested an optically ordinary original 24-105 f/4L IS by a country mile.

And while I fully appreciate resolution isn't the only thing to look forward to in a lens -- their strides in IS are impressive -- I'm hard pressed to think of a 'sequel' / II / III lens Canon has put out in recent memory that didn't show strides with sharpness.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> And *that*, folks, is the closest Bryan Carnathan comes to saying something negative about a Canon product. There's some White House Press Secretary-level wordsmithing and posturing here to make his case without saying the word he cannot say: _disappointed_ (which is nowhere to be found in his review).
> 
> That he should draw a conclusion that our expectations were too high is disheartening. We are allowed to be disappointed at Canon setting a low bar, even if they hit that modest target. If Canon can offer a best in industry ultra-wide f/4 zoom for $1,199, they should have bested an optically ordinary original 24-105 f/4L IS by a country mile.



My expectations from the MTF charts & MSRP were the mk2 was just a refresh of the mk1, so my expectations were low and I'm not disappointed.


----------



## e_honda (Nov 21, 2016)

This is no surprise. 

Just like the new 50mm 1.8 STM, there really wasn't much of an image quality/sharpness improvement over the old one. The new 50mm just has better build quality and more aperture blades. Looks like the new 24-105 simply has the modernized IS system.

It's basically a kit lens relative to the other L lenses. Had they made the improvement that much more dramatic (for the same price), they probably figured it'd cannibalize sales of things like the 24-70 II and 16-35 II and III.


----------



## AJ (Nov 21, 2016)

> ... the price is not terribly high.



$1099 isn't exactly cheap either


----------



## e_honda (Nov 21, 2016)

AJ said:


> > ... the price is not terribly high.
> 
> 
> 
> $1099 isn't exactly cheap either



No, it's not, but I believe the original version retailed for about the same price upon introduction.

The "street price" of the original dropped dramatically because of all the bundles it was put in with the 5D IIs and IIIs. The same thing will happen over the next several years for the same reason for the MK II.


----------



## SteveM (Nov 21, 2016)

Disappointing. IQ is very very important, to me at least. I'm not likely to invest £1100+ in a lens of the same image quality as the one I already own. The IS is inconsequential if the image quality is not improved. I've yet to read if the poor distortions at wide angles have been rectified to some degree. 
I'm half tempted to go and buy another of the version 1 lens whilst it is still available at a low price - mine is probably 10 years old though it still works admirably well.


----------



## candyman (Nov 21, 2016)

My own personal findings from some basic comparison between the original 24-105L and the 24-105L II were not positive. I have slightly different results from TDP. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31206.msg636250#msg636250
The Canon dealer was also surprised of those results. I am disappointed. And somehow I believe that it may have been a bad copy. The mark II comes at a price of €1279. While the original comes currently at €949 (not bulk/white box). It is a lot of money for the 24-105L II. For that price I think one should expect better improvement in image quality and not just improved stabilizer and reduction of ghosting and flare


----------



## Joe M (Nov 21, 2016)

Strictly looking at the sharpness weakness of version 1, the range of 70-105 could be better. The new version is better there, most notably around 70mm. Getting this in a kit as opposed to the original is better. However, chucking the original and buying this lens is just as Bryan says, maybe not the best way to spend your money. Hey, it's not a bad lens, just not stellar. Although, for $1500CAN, I'd like the lens to be a little better myself. Going to be a tough call for many people.


----------



## LesC (Nov 21, 2016)

Not looking very promising at all. Does seem rather odd that Canon are replacing an 11 year old lens which offers little or no improvement in IQ & at around double the cost of the original which is still available!


----------



## tr573 (Nov 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> And *that*, folks, is the closest Bryan Carnathan comes to saying something negative about a Canon product. There's some White House Press Secretary-level wordsmithing and posturing here to make his case without saying the word he cannot say: _disappointed_ (which is nowhere to be found in his review).
> 
> That he should draw a conclusion that our expectations may have been too high is disheartening. We are allowed to be disappointed at Canon setting a low bar, even if they hit that modest target. If Canon can offer a best in industry ultra-wide f/4 zoom for $1,199, they should have bested an optically ordinary original 24-105 f/4L IS by a country mile.
> 
> ...



The most disappointing part is that it gained a not insignificant amount of weight for so little IQ improvement.


----------



## LesC (Nov 21, 2016)

Looking at the TDF comparisons, the non-L 24-105 STM appears to have just as good IQ at a third of the price too...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 21, 2016)

Well the good news is that I sold my 24-105 last month in anticipation of the market dropping and this lens kicking butt. The bad news is that it doesn't kick butt. So I'll probably pick up a fresh white box lens and have another backup to my 24-70 2.8L II when I have to service it.

This performance is highly disappointing to say the least. The corner sharpness at 24 is dismal and may actually be worse than the version 1!? Yikes, Canon...come on.


----------



## SeanS (Nov 21, 2016)

candyman said:


> My own personal findings from some basic comparison between the original 24-105L and the 24-105L II were not positive. I have slightly different results from TDP.
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31206.msg636250#msg636250
> The Canon dealer was also surprised of those results. I am disappointed. And somehow I believe that it may have been a bad copy. The mark II comes at a price of €1279. While the original comes currently at €949 (not bulk/white box). It is a lot of money for the 24-105L II. For that price I think one should expect better improvement in image quality and not just improved stabilizer and reduction of ghosting and flare



It sounds to me like the copy you tested may be a bit of an outlier, but... I could be mistaken.

We plan on testing an additional copy or two to see what we get, but early indications are that our initial tests generally reflect the performance you can expect. Bryan wasn't expecting huge gains in sharpness; however, I know he expected a bit of headway on that front. That's not to say that another copy may not perform very slightly better in the wide-to-normal focal lengths, but I don't think one should expect version II to be noticeably sharper than version I at anything except the longest focal length(s).

Concerned that our tested sample was underperforming, we touched base with a popular rental company (which will remain nameless, but quite easy to guess I'm sure) and they basically confirmed our findings as they were seeing similar results. They had run some tests and found the 24-105L II was a bit sharper on the long end and very nearly identical to the original model in the balance of the focal length range. 

But as always, we need to put this lens into context. The original version was an extremely popular lens, not only because it was packaged in kits at a discount (although that's a big part of it), but because it was a lens that performed quite well. And the updated version does feature improved distortion, flare and vignetting as well as an improved IS system, all of which contribute to better overall image quality. Unfortunately, improving sharpness doesn't seem to have been a top priority for this particular Canon refresh. But high expectations aside, it's still going to serve a great many photographers very well.


----------



## LesC (Nov 21, 2016)

I've been looking at the comparison page here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=961&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1072&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0 and I can see barely any difference between the EF24-105 STM & the EF24-105 F4L II.

It does make me wonder if there should be some kind of benchmark required for a lens to have an 'L' tag. Like many I naturally assume an L lens should have noticeably better IQ, not just better build quality than an no 'L' version...


----------



## tr573 (Nov 21, 2016)

LesC said:


> I've been looking at the comparison page here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=961&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1072&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0 and I can see barely any difference between the EF24-105 STM & the EF24-105 F4L II.
> 
> It does make me wonder if there should be some kind of benchmark required for a lens to have an 'L' tag. Like many I naturally assume an L lens should have noticeably better IQ, not just better build quality than an no 'L' version...



There is a benchmark - the MAP


----------



## ritholtz (Nov 21, 2016)

Mark 2 seems to be little better starting from 50mm on 5DsR.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> And *that*, folks, is the closest Bryan Carnathan comes to saying something negative about a Canon product.
> - A



Ha....actually check out his review of the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 III USM. The words "mediocre" and "cheap" were used multiple times. I own this lens and it is obviously not an "L" lens. But before I made real money, and back in the film days, I took a lot of photos that are still up on my walls with it.

As for the 24-105 II, V1 was a good to very good lens. V2 is very slightly better optically, but has better CA, flare, IS, distortion etc. It is a better version of an already good to very good lens. Did we all want Canon to knock V2 out of the park and give us prime like IQ. Sure. But it is a better version of a good to very good lens.


----------



## monkey44 (Nov 21, 2016)

Based on all the info we have at this time - I expect the new 24-105 v2 will give photographers that don't own the v1 yet a good lens for the bag. But, I also expect the guys that already own a v1 (including myself) will not upgrade for $1100 bucks ... not practical at this point. Some might likely buy the v1 even how at a good price too, despite the v2 release.

Once we've learned the limitations of the v1, and allow for that in our shots, the upgrade offers only limited improvement which can offset with other lenses when necessary.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 22, 2016)

These lenses are getting bigger and heavier.
This walk-around lens is not a big priority, so it's a definite pass for me, and I'll keep the original 24-105 for when I need this sort of thing.
I'm more interested in the primes. I'd like to see what Canon can do with a 24 f/1.4 mkIII. I'd love to see a 50mm f/1.4 IS (or even a really good f/1.8 IS), a 20mm f/2.8 IS, a small 85 f/1.8 IS (but I may go for the upcoming 85 f/1.4 IS, ouch$$$$), and how about a really good 135 f/2 IS that takes teleconverters?


----------



## dak723 (Nov 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> If Canon can offer a best in industry ultra-wide f/4 zoom for $1,199, they should have bested an optically ordinary original 24-105 f/4L IS by a country mile.



As usual on this forum, people's expectations are beyond what is probably actually possible. This is a zoom with a WIDE range. It is probably impossible to make it as sharp as the 24-70, for example (and still be in a reasonable price range). Both the Mark I and Mark II (and maybe even the STM version) may be as sharp as a 24-105mm lens is ever going to be. For the advantages one gets by having a wide zoom range, there will be sacrifices.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 22, 2016)

Hmmmmm...this is probably the first L series lens released in the last few years that doesn't excite me in the least.

I'm not saying it's a bad lens but it doesn't keep the standard set by the 24-70ii, 35ii, 100-400ii, 16-35 etc etc so I won't be looking at adding this to my kit.

I would've like this lens to have been a good few degrees better than the STM version and it doesn't seem to be that way at all


----------



## dufflover (Nov 22, 2016)

AJ said:


> > ... the price is not terribly high.
> 
> 
> 
> $1099 isn't exactly cheap either



_"Afterall, this is a $1099 lens from Canon."_

I hope Canon do not share that sort of attitude.
Then again we already know them as lens price hikers ...


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 22, 2016)

dufflover said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > > ... the price is not terribly high.
> ...



A pair of eyeglasses in the USA costs over $400. What do you think quality should cost in 2016? Do I like higher prices? No, but much of the increase in price is due to endless printing of money, years of zero interest rates. 

What Canon products are out of line with price increases we see for cars, food, health care...

You can't believe that lenses should be like computers and TVs, where cheaper and cheaper ways of producing, plus the much more massive markets, gives the illusion of prices remaining relatively flat while new features are introduced. Or can you?


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > AJ said:
> ...


You are right for the lenses. For the cameras though it is a different issue. Not totally, but still different. In addition it is an L lens. Maybe if they could make it much better than the first version they could price it higher. Just my opinion...


----------



## JoeDavid (Nov 22, 2016)

Compared to the competition (used the 1Ds Mark III for similar resolution to the D3x):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=733&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Not so bad a lens over the range but neither is stellar...


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 22, 2016)

dufflover said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > > ... the price is not terribly high.
> ...



The original 24-105L still lists at 999, but in practice the going rate is closer to 400-600 because there are so many white box units available and it is heavily discounted in kits. The same will happen with the 24-105L II and then the real prices difference between the two will narrow. For a 100-200 difference, less vignetting, better IS and slightly better IQ at the long end will be worth it.

The real head scratcher is why they didn't just use the existing 24-105 f/4-5.6 as the kit lens, and that would have given them space to design a better 24-105L II that would be priced near 2k.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> The real head scratcher is why they didn't just use the existing 24-105 f/4-5.6 as the kit lens, and that would have given them space to design a better 24-105L II that would be priced near 2k.



I think the 24-105 non-L is intended to be the kit lens for a Rebel/xxxD-style FF camera, if/when Canon gets around to releasing one. The new version of the venerable 28-135 that was a kit lens for a _long_ time.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > The real head scratcher is why they didn't just use the existing 24-105 f/4-5.6 as the kit lens, and that would have given them space to design a better 24-105L II that would be priced near 2k.
> ...



Interesting thought. I wonder why they developed/produced it so early if that is the case. Seems like those resources could have been used to get ahsanford his 50 f/1.4 replacement... or Canon just likes to toy with him.


----------



## Maiaibing (Nov 23, 2016)

OK, so lets have some perspective here: You could get a Sigma 85mm ART for the price of this lens...


----------



## tron (Nov 23, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...


ahsanford shouldn't worry. There is a CR3 that there will be a 50/1.4 replacement until ... 2040 ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> OK, so lets have some perspective here: You could get a Sigma 85mm ART for the price of this lens...



How well does it perform at 24-84mm and 86-105mm?


----------



## geekpower (Nov 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so lets have some perspective here: You could get a Sigma 85mm ART for the price of this lens...
> ...



well now, that's the thing, isn't it?

if you want a 24-105 with constant aperture, weather resistance, and decent auto focus, this is the only game in town, so canon doesn't really need to bust their humps in the optical department. just like the V1, lots and lots and lots and lots of people will live with the distortion and softness because of the convenience of not having to change lenses (or carry them around), and many of them will treasure the pictures they take with it, because it was what they used on that family vacation or whatever.

but also, like with the V1, people who want this range, but know they could get better IQ by lugging around 2 or 3 lenses, will end up disappointed, and facing a difficult choice of whether they really want to lug around all that gear or not.

personally, i could have got the V1 in a kit when i bought my 6d, but passed. i was prepared to "settle" for a non-perfect V2 as long as it showed decent improvement, but it looks like i will be passing once again. i have the short end covered already. now i'm toying with the idea of covering that long end with a 70-200, or possibly waiting to see if the mythical 135 IS ever comes.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 23, 2016)

I was excited when this lens was announced, but my anticipation cooled when I saw the MFT charts were only marginally better than the Mk1. As it stands, I'll be passing on this one. I recently picked up a used copy of the Mk1 for just over $400, and its a very good copy - much sharper than my previous one. I've been using it as a general purpose lens for family outings when I don't want to carry 2-3 lenses with me and its performed very well. Might be the best $400 I ever invested in photography gear.

As others pointed out, it may not be possible to make an extremely sharp lens covering this 4x focal range.

I also have a nice 24-70 f/4 IS that I may or may not keep, having 2 standard zooms is probably not that practical in my situation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2016)

geekpower said:


> but also, like with the V1, people who want this range, but know they could get better IQ by lugging around 2 or 3 lenses, will end up disappointed, and facing a difficult choice of whether they really want to lug around all that gear or not.
> 
> personally, i could have got the V1 in a kit when i bought my 6d, but passed. i was prepared to "settle" for a non-perfect V2 as long as it showed decent improvement, but it looks like i will be passing once again. i have the short end covered already. now i'm toying with the idea of covering that long end with a 70-200, or possibly waiting to see if the mythical 135 IS ever comes.



I had the 24-105 MkI (two copies, one bought used then sold when I got a new copy in a 5DII kit). I sold the second one after getting the 24-70/2.8L II. I would have been tempted by a 24-105 II with substantially improved optics, as it is I'll stick with the 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II for local use or 70-300L for travel.


----------



## LesC (Nov 25, 2016)

I see the Canon UK site says of the MKII: "EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM features a revised optical design compared to its predecessor, for improved resolution and edge-to-edge sharpness throughout the zoom range." How much do manufacturers have to justify what they claim?

Having said that and although I have the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII I'm still tempted to get the new 24-105 too. As it's almost half the price of the 24-70 & has extra range & IS I won't be expecting as much from it but the extra reach & IS will be nice at times. Hopefully slightly better build quality than the MKI too.

Also I've never been that impressed with my 24-70 so if the difference between the two lenses is minimal I may well sell the 24-70. I'd still like to see some more reviews of the new 24-105 although there are the odd quite good deals around this weekend ....


----------



## candyman (Nov 25, 2016)

LesC said:


> I see the Canon UK site says of the MKII: "EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM features a revised optical design compared to its predecessor, for improved resolution and edge-to-edge sharpness throughout the zoom range." How much do manufacturers have to justify what they claim?
> 
> Having said that and although I have the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII I'm still tempted to get the new 24-105 too. As it's almost half the price of the 24-70 & has extra range & IS I won't be expecting as much from it but the extra reach & IS will be nice at times. *Hopefully slightly better build quality than the MKI too*.
> 
> Also I've never been that impressed with my 24-70 so if the difference between the two lenses is minimal I may well sell the 24-70. I'd still like to see some more reviews of the new 24-105 although there are the odd quite good deals around this weekend ....




This I can confirm. 
I prefer the design and the build quality of the MKII.


----------



## LesC (Nov 25, 2016)

I believe you returned your MKII; did you get another in the end or are you waiting for further reviews?


----------



## candyman (Nov 25, 2016)

LesC said:


> I believe you returned your MKII; did you get another in the end or are you waiting for further reviews?




Yes, I returned the lens. They did not have other copies. So I am waiting for larger supply (thus stock) and try another copy. I don't like the vignetting at 24mm and 105mm of the MKII but it is something you can work with in post-processing. But I really need 105mm sharp center and corners as well. The MKII copy was just less sharp than my MK1. Bummer.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 25, 2016)

I have to say the thing I'm disappointed - and surprised - about, is that the II lens is noticeably bigger and heavier than the I lens even though (it seems) the optics have not been much improved.

Will wait for some more reviews, and hopefully a LensRentals test, but at this point I think I'll probably be sticking with my 24-70 f/4L IS as a general purpose zoom.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 27, 2016)

I was looking forward to better reviews for this lens, as well. I won't trade up from the v1 unless / until I come across a great offer on Craigslist for one out of a kit. If the net price is right (after I sell off the v1), it'll be worth it to me, if only for the zoom lock.

I'd still prefer a 24-85/2.8L IS USM replacement for the 24-70/2.8L II, oh, and an "ahsanford special" 50mm prime.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Nov 28, 2016)

Hey Tamron - you reading this? Figure out a better set of optics and the 24-105 and the market is yours.


----------



## slclick (Nov 28, 2016)

So basically the Mark 2 is now as good as the Sigma.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 28, 2016)

slclick said:


> So basically the Mark 2 is now as good as the Sigma.



Cannot say I've done the IQ comparison myself, but it's not too far from the same size and weight of the Sigma. 

To be more specific, the Canon is still a bit lighter (90g) and thinner than the Sigma, but it's longer. Much closer to the Sigma than the Canon mk 1 lens though.


----------



## tron (Nov 28, 2016)

I am glad I saw the reviews so I will not be an early adopter (or an adopter at all for this lens) as I was with 5D4.


----------



## LesC (Nov 28, 2016)

I'm tempted by some of the black Friday deals but think I'll wait for more reviews. However....

Once the MK1's are sold out if you want a 24-105 L lens with IS, this will still be the only choice. Maybe for the range of this lens, the IQ is the best that can be achieved for the price?


----------



## bholliman (Nov 29, 2016)

slclick said:


> So basically the Mark 2 is now as good as the Sigma.



Undoubtedly with better autofocus and Canon service and support behind it.


----------



## monkey44 (Nov 29, 2016)

LesC said:


> I'm tempted by some of the black Friday deals but think I'll wait for more reviews. However....
> 
> Once the MK1's are sold out if you want a 24-105 L lens with IS, this will still be the only choice. Maybe for the range of this lens, the IQ is the best that can be achieved for the price?



Well, almost the only way - we have Canon Refurbished, which should run for awhile - and is generally as good as new, with the same warranty and a better price. I've bought several cameras and lenses thru "refurbished" and have really good luck. The gear looks brand new and functions as well as new. Bought a 7D once with four click on shutter, for example.


----------



## LesC (Nov 29, 2016)

Is Canon Refurb only in the US or is there a UK store too?


----------



## slclick (Nov 29, 2016)

jd7 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > So basically the Mark 2 is now as good as the Sigma.
> ...



I owned both and the Sigma was better in many ways but not by much....sounds a lot like the TDP review.


----------



## candyman (Nov 30, 2016)

I have tested now 3 copies of this new lens. All copies haves production date October 2016. 
The results are consistent.
At 24mm and 105mm more vignetting than version 1 of this lens.
And, the center sharpness at 105mm is less than in version 1 - within perspective at 100% zoom.


I am not a technical person like some here in this forum but the canon dealer specialist told me following and I like to hear some opinions: 
_"For image quality Canon focussed in version 1 mainly on very good center sharpness (good sharpness midcorner and moderate corner sharpness) across the full focal length (24-105). _
_Besides build quality, stabilizer and coating (ghosting / flare) Canon focussed in version 2 on good sharpness across the full focal length (24-105) form center to corner. Because of that they had to do some consessions like accept some increased vignetting and less sharpness center (for example 105) - again noticable in 100% zoom. This in respect to relative increasement of price from the old version while still make it an attractive kit-lens for people to buy._

What do you think?


----------



## tron (Nov 30, 2016)

candyman said:


> I have tested now 3 copies of this new lens. All copies haves production date October 2016.
> The results are consistent.
> At 24mm and 105mm more vignetting than version 1 of this lens.
> And, the center sharpness at 105mm is less than in version 1 - within perspective at 100% zoom.
> ...


A non technical person could very well respond that it is not so smart to make something better and at the same time make something else worse in the process if that something else is important like center sharpness for example. As a general purpose lens it is equally possible to be used for portraits fully open at 105mm as it is possible to be used for landscapes at that focal length.


----------



## candyman (Nov 30, 2016)

tron said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I have tested now 3 copies of this new lens. All copies haves production date October 2016.
> ...


Yes, of course my view as well but are there technical challenges that have impact (considering to keep the price of the lens reasonable)?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 30, 2016)

Has anyone compared the light transmission between the Mk1 and Mk2 versions? The Mk1 is noted to be about 2/3 stop slower than the Sigma version due to less efficient light transmission. Perhaps Mk2 version has better transmission at expense of more vignetting wide open? Having close to an extra stop might be worth it.


----------



## LesC (Nov 30, 2016)

I'm presuming what the dealer said is his opinion rather than what Canon told him. However, if this was Canon's intention it seems a little odd that they'd be willing to sacrifice even some centre sharpness for overall 'good' performance across the frame? Surely most people would expect L glass to be very good in the centre at least.

And if really was their intention to have 'good' performance across the frame, is the corner sharpness at 24mm even at F8 shown in the TDP review 'better' than the MK1 ?

All told, it seems the MKII may have slightly better build quality but no real improvement if any in IQ which is somewhat strange. Given the fact the the previous design is 11 years old and the new lens is more expensive you'd expect at least some improvement in IQ? 

I can't see any existing MK1 owners having any reason to replace theirs but if it's there's only this & the 24-70 F4 as 'standard' L zooms with IS, I guess it will still sell. Despite having the 24-70 F2.8 myself, I might still go for it myself; it is nice to have IS at times although I do feel rather underwhelmed


----------



## LesC (Nov 30, 2016)

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals findings: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/canon-24-105-f4-is-mk-ii-mtf-results/


----------



## tron (Dec 1, 2016)

Patience! Version III 10 years from now will have superb IQ with one small detail 4.5 stops of vignetting at the wide end fully open ;D I do not know if this rings a bell... ;D


----------



## dufflover (Dec 2, 2016)

*gong* Roger's given the word too ...

Hope it just makes some mk1's even cheaper then. The differences don't seem to be worth much price difference plus the extra bulk.


----------



## xps (Dec 4, 2016)

Personal experience:
Needed an universal zoom for hiking with 5D Mk IV as my old bones like to carry lighter gear.

Pre buying decisions:
Shot a lot of shots with the 24-105 Version one and dthe Sigma 24-104. There the sigma won the race definitively. 
Subjective the image quality from 24-70mm was better and sharper over the whole picture (especially the corners). At the maximum focal range, the Canon was better. And the IS sees to be better working on the Sigma.
But: I own a lot of ilters and other stuff for 77mm lenses, so I waited for the Mk II from Canon.

Now I own it for some weeks and have mixed feelings about it. The IS is definitvely better than on version I. But on my 5D MK IV and 5DsR, I feel the MK 1 is better. Especially in the corners. A friend of mine (owns 5DsR and 24-105 Mk 1) and I did one week hiking and this is our feeling summed up over 2500 landscape shots. For the daily shooting as an universal lens, maybe the MK 1 will be enough.

For 1000€ after cashback I´m definitvely not satisfied. 
I do not know, if CPS service can make this lens better.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 4, 2016)

xps said:


> Personal experience:
> Needed an universal zoom for hiking with 5D Mk IV as my old bones like to carry lighter gear.
> 
> Pre buying decisions:
> ...



Hiking --> lower weight, weather sealing, random unplanned macro opportunities
Landscape --> 24mm ought to be sharp

You could not make a stronger case for the 24-70 f/4L IS. I believe it to be the best hiking lens available.

Or, perhaps put another way, why is a 4.5x FL multiplier zoom getting used on a 50 MP canvas? One would think you'd be better served with a naturally sharper lower FL multiplier lens.

- A


----------



## LesC (Dec 4, 2016)

I guess we all hope for the Holy Grail, a high FL multiplier zoom with excellent performance although such a beast probably doesn't exist. You'd be forgiven for thinking it did according to Canon USA's description of the new 24-105:

"For incredible versatility, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM has been redesigned to deliver *superb L-series optical performance that pairs smoothly with the high-resolution, full-frame sensors* of SLR cameras. Featuring a zoom range of 24-105mm and a constant f/4 aperture, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM is ideal for landscapes, portraits, sports and more, offering effective all-day performance for advanced photography and videography. It helps reduce ghosting and flare, and has improved peripheral brightness as well as a 10-blade circular aperture that helps deliver sharp, evenly illuminated images with gorgeous background blur. It even has an improved IS system for better handheld performance, especially in challenging light. From wide-angle to mid-telephoto and everywhere in-between, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM is a durable, compact performer you can count on for excellent performance and gorgeous results in more places, more often"

Is there such a thing as the trades description act in the US  Although I guess it's all subjective ...


----------



## xps (Dec 5, 2016)

LesC said:


> I guess we all hope for the Holy Grail, a high FL multiplier zoom with excellent performance although such a beast probably doesn't exist. You'd be forgiven for thinking it did according to Canon USA's description of the new 24-105:
> 
> "For incredible versatility, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM has been redesigned to deliver *superb L-series optical performance that pairs smoothly with the high-resolution, full-frame sensors* of SLR cameras. Featuring a zoom range of 24-105mm and a constant f/4 aperture, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM is ideal for landscapes, portraits, sports and more, offering effective all-day performance for advanced photography and videography. It helps reduce ghosting and flare, and has improved peripheral brightness as well as a 10-blade circular aperture that helps deliver sharp, evenly illuminated images with gorgeous background blur. It even has an improved IS system for better handheld performance, especially in challenging light. From wide-angle to mid-telephoto and everywhere in-between, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM is a durable, compact performer you can count on for excellent performance and gorgeous results in more places, more often"
> 
> Is there such a thing as the trades description act in the US  Although I guess it's all subjective ...



Yes, these words "For incredible versatility, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM has been redesigned to deliver superb L-series optical performance that pairs smoothly with the high-resolution, full-frame sensors of SLR cameras." summs up my expectation. Maybe the last exceptional upgrades of Canon lenses made me believing these advertisements


----------



## tron (Dec 5, 2016)

xps said:


> LesC said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we all hope for the Holy Grail, a high FL multiplier zoom with excellent performance although such a beast probably doesn't exist. You'd be forgiven for thinking it did according to Canon USA's description of the new 24-105:
> ...


Exactly! Thankfully there are reliable test sites that reveal the truth and help us .. focus (pun intended) on the really good lenses...


----------

