EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

Share

With a 5D Mark III Whenever we see a new 5D, I’m told we’ll also see it kitted with a new 24-105 f/4L IS II lens.

CR’s Take There has been talk about this in the past, it’s definitely possible. The optics of this lens could be improved, though I think it’s very good.  I’d love to see it with the same hood/zoom design of the 24-70.

I have no idea if there’s some kind of design they could come up with to aid video.

cr

[HughHowey]

Digic V, 5DIII specs, new kit lens...

Things are heating up for an official announcement. I'm still saying June, but wouldn't be surprised to hear from Canon in May about a "release" in September. Of course, it'll probably be November-January before people actually get them in their hands.

This is not just my conjecture -- it's my raving-mad wishful thinking.

[bvukich]

Digic V, 5DIII specs, new kit lens...

Things are heating up for an official announcement. I'm still saying June, but wouldn't be surprised to hear from Canon in May about a "release" in September. Of course, it'll probably be November-January before people actually get them in their hands.

This is not just my conjecture -- it's my raving-mad wishful thinking.

A June announcement sounds a bit early to me.  A September release, and Nov-Jan availably does sound just about right to me; and would be right on the 3 year mark.  I don't recall Canon ever announcing/acknowledging a body that far before the release date though.

[EYEONE]

I've always wondered: Is the only advantage of reverse zooming (like the 24-70L) being able to use a hood that doesn't move? Or is there more behind that design?

I'd love to see more lenses that reverse zoom with stationary hoods.

[LuCoOc]

I've always wondered: Is the only advantage of reverse zooming (like the 24-70L) being able to use a hood that doesn't move? Or is there more behind that design?

I'd love to see more lenses that reverse zoom with stationary hoods.

This hood design is more effektive than a hood mounted to the moving part of the lens. the 24-105's hood is actually for 24mm. a hood being more effektive at longer focal length would cause vignetting at the wide end of the lens. however the 24-70's is all in one and ensures maximum flare resistance.

[MK5GTI]

how come these rumor post lately are all CR1.... which people should ignore right?

whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?

[EYEONE]

I've always wondered: Is the only advantage of reverse zooming (like the 24-70L) being able to use a hood that doesn't move? Or is there more behind that design?

I'd love to see more lenses that reverse zoom with stationary hoods.

This hood design is more effektive than a hood mounted to the moving part of the lens. the 24-105's hood is actually for 24mm. a hood being more effektive at longer focal length would cause vignetting at the wide end of the lens. however the 24-70's is all in one and ensures maximum flare resistance.

No, I understand that. I have a 24-70L. I'm just asking if the more effective hood is the purpose for a reverse design. Is that the reason they designed the 24-70 to reverse zoom or is it just a added bonus?

I believe Nikon's 24-70 reverse zooms too.

I just find it interesting.

[EYEONE]

how come these rumor post lately are all CR1.... which people should ignore right?

whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?

It has quite a bit of barrel distortion at 24, for one.

[4systemuser]

I think this coming because Canon needs better CDAF for video.

And ther are many rumors I 've read saying the 24-105f4LMK2 has an extra pin contact for CDAF.

[ronderick]

how come these rumor post lately are all CR1.... which people should ignore right?

whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?

It has quite a bit of barrel distortion at 24, for one.

Just to echo others, the new version should do away with the extending zoom. I absolutely hate it when the front elements accidently elongates during transportation. The movable parts also seem to make the lens more susceptable to dust and other particles.

[skitron]

whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?

Maybe it was just that the copy I tried was not the greatest, but I found it to be not much different than a 28-135 in terms of sharpness and distortion, and only ever so slightly sharper than a 18-55 II. It did have noticably better color and smoother bokeh though. I know it'll never be like the 70-200s in terms of sharpness but it needs to at least be closer to those than a 18-55 II for me to consider it. Also, I agree with others about the 24-70L hood design

[Gcon]

I love my EF 24-105 f/4L IS. The only bad things I can say about it are:
1. Barrel distortion at 24mm is quite pronounced but fixable in Lightroom.
2. IS is not tripod sensing. In my early forays into landscape shooting with this lens I destroyed some great shots by forgetting to turn that off. Most newer IS'es are smarter than that.

I've never had any problems with flaring with this lens, so the same hood is fine by me. My experience has been that the wider the lens, the more flaring your are likely to get, so the better hood you'll need. Being a relatively slow f/4, I don't think it needs as good a shielding as the 24-70mm f/2.8 shot wide open.

I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens. It's every bit as sharp if not better than my 24-70mm f/2.8 on my camera body (5D2). Some people (who probably have never owned one) might say that since it's a kit lens, it can't be any good. These people probably owned EF-S kit lenses (the horrible 18-55) and were burned by that.

I won't be rushing to upgrade my 24-105. I'd prefer Canon release an improved 17-40, and the updated the 35mm and 50mm primes. More than anything I want a compact full frame (5DIII) that has 7D-like AF and WEATHER SEALING! (Are you hearing me Canon?!)

[samalcoff]

If only they'd pair the new camera with the 24-70....

[J. McCabe]

Considering that it's a relatively "young" lens (released 2005), and that announced lenses are already late, I would be a bit surprised if a new lens would reach the market so quickly.

On the other hand
- Kit lenses are upgraded on a shorter cycle
- The 24-105mm could be improved for a higher resolution sensor
- Canon could profit from selling new lenses with new bodies

So, personally - I think it possible.

[Canon 14-24]

Just to echo others, the new version should do away with the extending zoom. I absolutely hate it when the front elements accidently elongates during transportation. The movable parts also seem to make the lens more susceptable to dust and other particles.

I totally agree with this, though I have my doubts of Canon following through with this.  I know Sigma released something similar to this in the zoom range of 24-70 without any extending parts.  This would be the big winner, til then I'll be sticking with the 17-40 and 70-200 with no extending parts!