December 09, 2016, 12:46:54 PM

Author Topic: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II  (Read 13172 times)

monkey44

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2016, 01:42:34 PM »
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>

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2016, 01:42:34 PM »

JonAustin

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Telecom / IT consultant and semi-pro photographer
    • Austin & Austin Professional Services, LLC
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2016, 02:02:15 PM »
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

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.
Canon cameras, lenses, scanners & printers

j-nord

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 455
  • Derp
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2016, 03:05:30 PM »
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

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.
6D | 100-400ii | 24 f2.8 IS | 50 f1.8 STM | Roki 35 f1.4
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jnordgaard/

Antono Refa

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2016, 03:30:54 AM »
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

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.

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

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
  • 5DsR
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #49 on: October 19, 2016, 08:17:54 PM »
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.
5DsR, 6D, 60D & 40D. 400 f/5.6, 100-400 IS II, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II & f/4 IS, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/2.5, 24-105 f/4, 15-85 f/4-5.6 & 16-35 f/4.

JPAZ

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 768
  • If only I knew what I was doing.....
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #50 on: October 20, 2016, 01:55:04 PM »
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.
5d Mkiii; Eos-M3 and too many lenses; 430 EXii, 430 EXiii-RT and a whole lot of stuff.  Wanna buy my 17-40 my Pro-Optic (Samyang) 14 f/2.8 or my my M1?

AZMtnBiker

  • Canonflex
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #51 on: October 21, 2016, 01:04:20 AM »
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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #51 on: October 21, 2016, 01:04:20 AM »

Refurb7

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #52 on: October 21, 2016, 02:58:48 AM »
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

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #53 on: October 21, 2016, 12:31:25 PM »
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

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.

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.

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.
Canon 6d, t1i, 24-70/4L, 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 40/2.8, 50/1.8II, 100/2.8 macro, 70-300/4-5.6, g1x, 430exII, 90ex
Elan 7N with 28-105/3.5-4.5II, Rebel G with 35-70/3.5-4.5, A-1 with 28/2.8, 50/1.8, and 135/3.5

jeffa4444

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 978
Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2016, 11:31:46 AM »
Wait for the lens, the sample I tried was very good indeed.
Canon 5DS, Canon 6D, 16-35 f4L IS USM, 17-40 f4L USM, 28 f2.8, 24-70mm f4L IS USM, 24-105 f4L IS USM, 100mm f2.8L IS USM, 70-200 f4L USM, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM, 50 f1.8 STM, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II, 1.4EX III,  Canon G7 X, EOS 760D EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II
« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2016, 11:31:46 AM »