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

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-24-105-f4l-is-ii-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-24-105-f4l-is-ii-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>With a 5D Mark III

</strong>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.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take

</strong>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. Â I’d love to see it with the same hood/zoom design of the 24-70.</p>
<p>I have no idea if there’s some kind of design they could come up with to aid video.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>

 

[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!

 

[skitron]

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.

 

[Admin US West]

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.

 

[skitron]

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.

 

[t.linn]

whats wrong with the original 24-105L anyways?

My biggest issue with the 24-105 is vignetting at the wide end. If I have a polarizer on this lens, it really functions more like a 28-105. I find this very frustrating. The barrel distortion at the wide end is also an issue for me—though it is one more easily fixed.

I tend to shoot at wider angles so, for me, anything above 50mm is a convenience. I'll use it, but far less frequently that the wider end. If there is going to be a compromise in quality, I'd like it to be at the long end of the zoom range. It's the opposite with the 24-105. (Having said that, this is the case with almost any zoom lens. It's easier to engineer longer focal lengths.)

Based on the age of the current 24-105, I would be surprised if it is replaced. It would take an additional feature, perhaps related to video, to justify a refresh. I'm actually hoping that the 5DIII includes a new 24-70 f/2.8L II as the "kit lens". That lens is past due.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, at f/8 in the center, is actually pretty darn sharp.

My copy of the 24-105mm f/4L IS is reasonably sharp. It's not as sharp as my other lenses in that focal range (4 L-series primes and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), but it's certainly not soft. The trade-off in terms of versatility is worth it, to me.