Currently being tested?
“We’re told that at the SWPP convention in the UK, Steve Allen during his presentation stated that he is currently testing the pre-production version of the Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM Mk II lens. He had the 5D Mk II camera pre-production model since November 08.”
From [NL]
Keith makes the obvious point… NDA?
I’ve heard nothing about this lens outside of this in a long while.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
I hate to ask and seem ignorant, but who is Keith???
This news is good for me because I am planning on getting the 24-105 Mk1 in about 6 months (finance permitting) so one hopes its price should dip a little.
I would be pissed off if i had bought the old version with my 5D Mark II if they release a new version soon :D
Does this lens really need an update? Everything I have heard about it is good. I don’t understand why Canon remakes lenses (unless the old ones have problems). The 24 1.4 probably needed an update. But the 35 1.4 is a great lens. Why not do more variety. Like a 28 1.4. Remaking old lenses just kills the value of the old one’s and makes the new one’s less attractive because so many people already have the same lens. Why not make a new lens that has never existed to give some variety.
logan +1
Canon would have some gall to release a new 24-105 after selling a handful of the old version in 5D II kits, full well knowing that its replacement is under development. I don’t think they’re THAT callous.
I agree with logan. We have heard rumours of an updated 35/1.4, 17-40, 24-105, 24-70, 100-400, plus one or two of the long primes. Why? These lenses are already some of the best that Canon produce. Give us a decent 28mm instead!!
Adam : Keith is the editor at NL.
DN : One has to be shameless to work at Canon those days.
I think much the same way as you guys: If Canon introduced a 24-105 II after just shelling out entire truck loads of the lens that would mean considerably annoying quite a few 5DII kit buyers. Or peops like me that used the opportunity to buy a new 24-105 that was taken out of a 5DII kit at a reduced price for one of the lesser EOS models.
My bet is: If they really do feel the need to upgrade this particular lens (which would be strange since it is one of the more recent ones in their lineup, introduced only in Oct 2005, and not having a particular bad reputation), then it will be introduced alongside a 5DII successor… which is 2-3 years off in the future.
Regarding the 24-105’s reputation: mine is en route to a Canon service center for calibration (focus problem and perhaps a centering defect). With more and more complaints popping up regarding problems with this lens in recent months, my I guess is Canon did cut back on QC measures to get the lenses out in significant quantity to bundle 5DII kits.
Logan +2
Logan +3
Logan +4
Logan you the man! +5
First Canon should improve the amount of data and information presented at the internet _and_ inside the box of the lenses. Why is there no MTF-diagram at the middle of the zooms. Why don’t we get lines at 60 lines per mm? Any idea???
If true, this is unfortunate timing for me, as I have just purchased a new 24-205L. There was no CR rating in this rumor so I guess we’ll have to believe that it was outside the current scale. May be [CR -2]?
Jeez, i bought the 24 – 105 instead of the 24 -70. Mainly because its newer, sharper and better to work with. Also thinking that if the New 24 – 70 would come. I could get some value for selling the 24 – 105. This would suck!
But than again, its an awesome lens.
why 24-105?why not 35L?
I agree with you Logan. +6
-6 logan
very disappointing so far
noticeably less micro contrast than a tamron 28-75 zoom
not great
in fact, the worst performing lens I have tried on a 5dmkii so far
Not going to upgrade until later this year so a better 24-105 would be great for me.
If they do have one coming it would have been better to launch the new lens and 5dII together though.
This is silly! I have had three magazine covers and countless other photos published in magazines shot with this lens purchased in late 2005. I have also had a 24×36 print made and ALL are razor sharp! The current lens is on my 5D 95% of the time and it’s fantastic. It doesn’t need to be upgraded.
If anything needs to be upgraded its Canon’s quality control. I’ve had two copies of the 24-105 – one was very poor away from the centre, the other wasn’t.
yep….they deffinitely need to fire their QC dept. and start over… there are too many high end lenses that have too many bad copies floating around… for those prices you really need some consistency… the good copies that are out there are proof that the designs aren’t flawed per se… its just a matter of sample to sample variation in the execution of those designs (the 24-70/24-105/100-400 come to mind)
why replace this lens? If replace the 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization, is the good ideia!
Craig +1
This is indeed silly. This may not be a popular thing to say, but most of the QC issues are probably due to people who don’t know what they are doing (read: UE). Don’t mean to be harsh, but you hear this whole QC stuff all the time. Just pick a lens, the 24-70 gets a fair share of them as well.
I just got this lens (24-105 4L IS USM) and compared it to my Canon 28-135 IS USM. In short, yes there is a diference in sharpness but one must look good and long. Is it worth the $600.00 differene? That depends on your chemistry. How fanaic are you about tack sharpness? I feel, that the difference should e few hundred but 600.00?