I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens.
Have you objectively compared the sharpness of it to a 100 macro or 70-200 or something else known to be sharp? The reason I ask is to help determine if the particular one I tried was just off or if it is a characteristic of the design. I may be interested in the existing one if a II doesn't materialize fairly soon and there is reason to try another copy.
I have all three lenses you mention. The 24-105mm L is not quite as sharp as the 100mm L or the 70-200mm L, but it is close. Its invalid, of course to compare a 4:1 zoom with a prime or a telephoto zoom, wide angles are not as sharp as telephotos.
If you want objective comparisons, there are plenty of sites to do this, I like photozone for comparisons. The results on a crop or on a FF camera will vary as well, so when someone likes a lens on their crop camera, it may not be the same on FF. Thats why so many user comments need to be taken in context to the body they use.
OK, that helps. I don't expect it to be like a 70-200 but I would expect it to be quite a bit better than a 28-135 or 18-55, which this one wasn't in terms of sharpness. So it sounds to me like it's worth another try if the II doesn't show up soon.
Of course its all relative but if a 18-55 was a "1" and the 100 macro was a "100" on a scale of sharpness, this particular 24-105 would have been about a "15" at best. Sound like yours might be about a "60" or "70" on such a scale? I would be happy with that.