December 18, 2017, 08:05:41 AM

Author Topic: A question for 24-105 upgrade.  (Read 3586 times)

tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3254
A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« on: November 27, 2017, 09:11:27 AM »
Hello all,

I would like to ask community's opinion on the following matter.

I have (among other) 24-105 4L IS which I use as a general purpose lens when I cannot carry a large selection of lenses (in the later case I would rather use 24-70 2.8L II)

I use it for landscapes and for internal building shooting (museums, churches).
I am thinking about upgrading it to 24-105 4L IS II for the better IS.

I have seen all comparisons and Canon's MTF diagrams so I understand that I do not get much of an optical upgrade.

The offer I got is a rather modest 350 euros. So forum members suggestions are more than welcome.

Do I have a risk of getting a slightly worse lens optically ?
I believe the two lenses seem more or less the same with very small differences.

Keep in mind that my copy seems just fine fully open with 5DMkIV although I did not
make specific tests, just judging from the results.

So based on the above would you upgrade it merely for the better IS for shooting museums and churches ?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 09:17:21 AM by tron »

canon rumors FORUM

A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« on: November 27, 2017, 09:11:27 AM »

Ian_of_glos

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2017, 11:35:43 AM »
Recently I upgraded from the Canon 24-105 F4L to the 24-105 F4L ii and to be perfectly honest I can't see any differences in the quality of the images from the two lenses. The mark 2 lens is not worse than the mark 1, but I don't think it is any better either.
The most useful feature is the zoom lock, as I always had zoom creep problems with the old lens.
Do you shoot much video? If so then you might find the improved image stabilisation useful. If not then if I were you I would keep the old version of the lens and save yourself the thick end of 1,000 euros.

tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3254
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2017, 11:44:34 AM »
Thanks for the info. I do not shoot video at all. I was just thinking of taking advantage of improved IS when shooting static objects at low level light so as to use lower shutter speed to control ISO. Other than that I am satisfied with 24-105 IQ at my 5DIV. And to tell the truth I have not tested handholding to the limit.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6305
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2017, 11:46:38 AM »
If you are using it inside churches and museums, then you are dealing with low light levels. Wouldn't you be looking for something a bit wider and a whole lot faster? The Sigma 18-35F1.8 comes to mind.....

<EDIT> OOPS! I meant 24-35... </EDIT>

Also, many of these places do not allow tripods, but you can usually get away with a monopod/walking stick......
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 12:13:22 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

midluk

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2017, 11:50:57 AM »
If you are using it inside churches and museums, then you are dealing with low light levels. Wouldn't you be looking for something a bit wider and a whole lot faster? The Sigma 18-35F1.8 comes to mind.....
Or the 16-35 f/4L IS. With IS it has better low light capabilities than even the fastest non-stabilized lenses.
5D4+BG-E20, 70D+BG-E14, EF 24-70 f/4L IS, EF 16-35 f/4L IS, EF 100 f/2.8L IS macro, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, EF 100-400 L IS II, 2x 600EX-RT, 430EX III-RT, MT-26EX-RT

tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3254
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2017, 11:59:15 AM »
@midluk: Yes the 16-35 f/4 L IS is an option as well as the faster 16-35 f/2.8L III (at least somehow since it is one stop faster). I do have access to these lenses. But sometimes the 24-105 is helpful when you cannot go closer or wish to keep the target more straight by shooting from distance.

@Don Haines: I believe the Sigma 18-35 is a crop lens only (I shoot FF) but the stick seems a brilliant idea. I haven't thought of that. I will look into it. Many thanks. By the way I also use a 16-35 lens but I refer to cases mentioned above: to keep the target more straight by shooting from distance.

« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 12:06:54 PM by tron »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6305
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2017, 12:18:00 PM »

@Don Haines: I believe the Sigma 18-35 is a crop lens only (I shoot FF) but the stick seems a brilliant idea. I haven't thought of that. I will look into it. Many thanks. By the way I also use a 16-35 lens but I refer to cases mentioned above: to keep the target more straight by shooting from distance.

OOPS! I meant to say 24-35!.... but as another poster has said, no IS :(

I have a walking stick where I can unscrew the walnut ball from the top and mount the camera onto it. I find that it greatly improves my stability. just make sure that you limp a bit as you walk past the museum security :) and mutter something about sprained ankles or arthritis.....
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2017, 12:18:00 PM »

FramerMCB

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
  • Canon 40D & 7D
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2017, 12:36:36 PM »
If you are using it inside churches and museums, then you are dealing with low light levels. Wouldn't you be looking for something a bit wider and a whole lot faster? The Sigma 18-35F1.8 comes to mind.....

<EDIT> OOPS! I meant 24-35... </EDIT>

Also, many of these places do not allow tripods, but you can usually get away with a monopod/walking stick......

Not to be picky... While the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art lens is a good performer and would probably work on the OP's 5D Mk IV the lens is made for APS-C sensors so the corners especially at 1.8 to probably 3.5 or so would be very, very dark.
The worst picture ever is the one not taken: so shoot, shoot, shoot! Know your equipment first however to avoid as much as possible, bad photos. ;-)

Shooting with a Canon 40D & 7D, w/70-200mm f2.8L IS I, EF 24-85mm f4.0-5.6USM, Vivitar Series I 400mm f5.6 Olympus mount w/Fotodiox converter.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21843
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2017, 12:52:29 PM »
I have a walking stick where I can unscrew the walnut ball from the top and mount the camera onto it. I find that it greatly improves my stability. just make sure that you limp a bit as you walk past the museum security :) and mutter something about sprained ankles or arthritis.....

Indeed.  I have a nice RRS monopod, but I also have a pair of Leki trekking poles with 1/4”-20 studs under the tops, and for certian museums I have —on occasion— brought one of them along with the rubber tip on the foot.  Poor guy, he’s young to need a cane.  Mwahaahaaaaa. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Random Orbits

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1959
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2017, 01:06:10 PM »
It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit.  Benefits:  better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear.  Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 5-1500mm f/1.0L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 13752
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2017, 01:20:04 PM »
It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit.  Benefits:  better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear.  Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?

I did not realize the lens passed 1/3 stop more light.  In a light limited situation, you need every bit of help you can get.


tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3254
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2017, 01:23:48 PM »
It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit.  Benefits:  better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear.  Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?
Actually the cost is the cost of new lens minus 350 euros not 350 euros. Very useful information about the T stop difference. But I just saw in DXOMark that although the newer is better in T stop it is worse in sharpness: 14Mp vs. 18Mp for 5DsR or 15 vs. 17 for 5DMkIV. Strange that it has 15 with 5DIV and 14 with 5Dsr though...
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 01:33:27 PM by tron »

wm700293

  • Canonflex
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2017, 01:49:01 PM »
Well, I have the both original 24-105 f:4, the "new" 24-105 II f:4, and the 16-35 f:4. My "new" 24-105 is head and shoulders better than the original, in terms of build quality. It is a much 'tighter' better feeling lens, a relative pleasure to use. Yes, the lack of a zoom lock on the original lens has driven me crazy…
 
The only thing I do not like about the new lens is the positioning of the lens hood lock button at top dead center, or bottom dead center when on the lens. This position makes it easy to accidentally "unlatch" the hood when setting the camera down or when carrying the camera slung off of a shoulder in such a way that the button comes in contact with a surface or my hip or elsewhere, and the hood works its way off of the lens and to the ground, unnoticed. This tendency has me be constantly monitoring that button orientation situation.

This same button situation exists with the 16-35. I can't afford to replace too many lens hoods when Canon charges $25 to $50 apiece for them… Wouldn't you think the designers and quality control people would have noticed this?
Oh, that's right, they only design and inspect them, THEY DON'T USE THEM!        OK, rant over.

I've been using Canon cameras for more than 50 years. 7S, 7SZ, TL, FT, F1 System, 10D, 5D, 5DIV, 16-35 f4, 24-105 f:4 (both), "nifty fifty" f:1.8, 50mm f:2.5 Macro & 1:1 EXTENDER, 28mm f:3.5, 40mm F:2.8, and 70-200 F:2.8, 1.4x & 2x extenders, oh - and I almost forgot - the venerable 28-135 f:3.5-f5.6, plus 8 580EX II flash units and miscellaneous RF lenses (both Canon & Leica), as well as various triggers, hammers and firing pins… and about a zillion filters of half-a-zillion sizes.

Anyway, either vintage of the 24-105 f:4 is an incredibly good "walk around" lens. I have no complaints other than as noted above, but I give higher marks to the "new" one. Oh, and by the way, the 16-35 f:4 is outstanding, in my opinion.

Regards,
Billy
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 01:51:17 PM by wm700293 »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2017, 01:49:01 PM »

Random Orbits

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1959
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2017, 02:20:19 PM »
It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit.  Benefits:  better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear.  Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?
Actually the cost is the cost of new lens minus 350 euros not 350 euros. Very useful information about the T stop difference. But I just saw in DXOMark that although the newer is better in T stop it is worse in sharpness: 14Mp vs. 18Mp for 5DsR or 15 vs. 17 for 5DMkIV. Strange that it has 15 with 5DIV and 14 with 5Dsr though...

Gotcha.  I wouldn't put too much stock into the DXO score/acutance maps.  Seems like they had a bad copy of the 24-105 II.  Design MTFs show they should be similar.  TDP review and charts also support they are similar... and here DXO gets a worse result.  Which one do you believe?

Like you, I also have the 24-70 f/2.8 II.  It's a great lens, but I find 70mm too short for portraits.  But I got the 24-105 f/4 IS II to mainly use for videos (I was using a 18-135 for that and this would drop the ISO by a stop which is significant for plays)  and as a walk-around option.  I got my 25-104 f/4 IS II (white box) for about 700 USD.  Look for a deal to come up -- I wouldn't pay the original MSRP for the new version, but the kit delta in the US is already less than 1000 USD for retail kits, so the gap is starting to close.

picturefan

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2017, 01:38:29 PM »
Long time I thought a 24-105 is the one and only option for a walk-around lens, but then i felt in love with the 24-70 IS  :)
Ok, a bit shorter fl, but so handy, just a lovely lens...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2017, 01:38:29 PM »