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

[jhanken]

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

You know I think it does. I never notice it until I use the default lens correction in Lightroom, it can make a significant improvement. Then again, we always can use Lightroom, so...

 

[skitron]

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.

LOL, my bad for not specifying this was all at f/5.6 50mm for the zooms tested (plus this was an old non IS 18-55 II).

 

[HughHowey]

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.

+1 for the 24-70. I'd rather have less reach and better IQ.

 

[traveller]

The only problem with a reverse zoom + hood design like the 24-70L, is that it makes the lens its maximum length at all times when the hood is mounted. Not exactly a deal breaker, but for a lens like the 24-105L, one of whose advantages is compactness, it may be an issue.

I would also think that if Canon did decide to redesign the optics (as opposed to fiddling with the electronics), they might also give it a bit more reach at the long end; perhaps a 24-120 (cf Nikon AF-S 24-120 f/4G) or a 24-135?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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 and it is not as sharp across the frame on either 50D or 5D2 as 100 macro or 70-200 2.8 noIS or 4 IS or a whole lot of lenses really. Tamron zooms are sharper too (17-50/28-75/70-200). 18-55 IS kit lens was too actually. In fact only stuff like the original 18-55 or the 18-200 and 28-135 and 28-105 and 75-300 and all that sort of stuff are less sharp (sometimes noticeably less so). That said, it's sharp enough on APS-C across the frame to not worry about it, you wouldn't notice unless comparing side by side, and it has rich color (lot more pop than the 18-55 IS kit). But the focal length also doesn't make so much sense on APS-C and when you get to FF it starts falling apart IMO.

On 5D2 it is all squishy and nasty at the edges and it doesn't let you see any fine landscape details or interesting patterns in mosses, bark, etc. Blechhh. Horrible distortion too although that is a lesser concern. A Zeiss 21 or canon 24 II or 24 T&S II or 35 2 or 1.4 and so on will blow it away, some of those look just as sharp as the longer lenses too. It is tricky to make a truly top notch wide prime for FF though. It would be interesting if they do come out with a 24-105 II and they manage to pull it off. That would be very nice indeed.

I think the 24-105 is the least sharp of all the current L lenses. Although some people swear it is sharp even edge to edge FF. Maybe they have low standards or maybe the QC is just simply awful for this design.

 

[gmrza]

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.

That has been my thinking. One of my concerns about the 24-70 is its field curvature (see the review on photozone.de). An interesting question would also be whether an IS version of the 24-70 is feasible. Given the f/2.8 aperture, I am not sure, however whether that would make the lens too bulky. (Nikon doesn't have a 24-70 f/2.8 VR lens, so there may be a good reason for that.)

 

[catz]

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?

70-200 2.8L is much better lens than 24-105. I have both. Even on 1080p video the difference can be easily seen, there is no doubt on which scenes were taken with the 70-200 and which were 24-105 at 70-105 range. The biggest difference seems in contrast and color reproduction. For some reason, the 70-200 seems to end up with a slightly higher dynamic range and more vivid colors with same picture style settings and the overall color tone of the picture has more neutral tone on it by default. 24-105 is not bad either, it is much more neutral than e.g. 12-24 Sigma lens I have, might be the lens coating that causes this. 24-105 is also considerable sharper than the Sigma. However, the 70-200 is still the best lens I have.

I have no reason to trade my 24-105 though. It is still superior lens to non-L EF lenses and some Sigmas. I like the help of the IS on shooting video. The effect is not strong and not quite enough for stabilization but it takes away micro-shaking of hands/rig. 24-105 is also easy to carry around and it balances on steadicam (lightweight enough and 24 mm position works best for this purpose). I generally love the lens, but it is not as wonderfully astonishing as the 70-200 2.8L IS USM.

So 24-105 is my second best lens but I use it most of the time because I don't want to carry 70-200 everywhere because it is so heavy.

Edit: My sigma is 12-24, not 10-22. Sorry for typo.

 

[Picsfor]

if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.

It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...

 

[John Smith]

if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.

It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...

I would most certainly upgrade by 24-105mm f/4 for a 24-105mm f/2.8, but think it is unlikely - it would hurt or kill the sales of the 24-70mm f/2.8

Canon has two lines of lenses - the f/4 line (17-40mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm), and the f/2.8 line (16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm). The f/4 line is attractive to prosumers, and is one of the advantages Canon has over Nikon, who doesn't have a 70-200mm f/4.

 

[Justin]

if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.

It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...

I would most certainly upgrade by 24-105mm f/4 for a 24-105mm f/2.8, but think it is unlikely - it would hurt or kill the sales of the 24-70mm f/2.8

Canon has two lines of lenses - the f/4 line (17-40mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm), and the f/2.8 line (16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm). The f/4 line is attractive to prosumers, and is one of the advantages Canon has over Nikon, who doesn't have a 70-200mm f/4.

I'd trade the 70-200 f/4 any day for a 14-24 2.8. Now that Canon has a 70-200 2.8 II that resolves as well or better than the f/4 version I am quite happy. I guess I would keep both in a perfect world but it's not necessary.

As for the 24-105 upgrade potential: I'd be most happy with a range increase. How about 24-120? Make it a true 5x zoom? That extra reach would be hugely helpful on vacation and walking around.

 

[Gcon]

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 used a borrowed 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and own the 100mm f/2.8L macro. The macro is so sharp, it would have to be one of the sharpest lenses of any out there in terms of mainstream lenses. I haven't shot enough with the 70-200 enough to have an opinion. The 100mm trumps everything, but that's not a fair comparison
I've only really compared it to my 24-70mm f/2.8L, and find it to be comparatively sharp. I like the smaller size, bigger zoom and IS over the 24-70, which is a bit of stinker in really contrasty situations (bad CA), and flary as well. Of course f/4 is slow, so the 24-70 comes out for gigs. http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavaconda/tags/ef24105mmf4lisusm/ for examples. Check my profile for other tagged shots for other lenses.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have and it is not as sharp across the frame on either 50D or 5D2 as 100 macro or 70-200 2.8 noIS or 4 IS or a whole lot of lenses really.

Have you spent time tuning the micro-focus adjust parameters for this lens?

Yes, and I also took plenty of shots using either liveview AF or max-zoom liveview manual focusing.
It's certainly not blurry in the center and it looks sharp there but if you then compare it to a top notch lens then you see it's not quite as crisp with the single pixel contrast transitions and it's not as sharp or biting. But the larger problem is that the edges are mangled, even stopped way down, on something like a 5D2 (at least with many copies of this lens, maybe not all).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.

It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...

I think what you are really asking for is an additional lens, a 24-70 2.8 IS or something. I would never expect them to just make this lens become 2.8. Many people wouldn't want the extra bulk/weight/expense of FF 2.8 (granted the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is a FF lens and it is very small though).

 

[J. McCabe]

if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.

It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...

I would most certainly upgrade by 24-105mm f/4 for a 24-105mm f/2.8, but think it is unlikely - it would hurt or kill the sales of the 24-70mm f/2.8

Canon has two lines of lenses - the f/4 line (17-40mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm), and the f/2.8 line (16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm). The f/4 line is attractive to prosumers, and is one of the advantages Canon has over Nikon, who doesn't have a 70-200mm f/4.

I'd trade the 70-200 f/4 any day for a 14-24 2.8. Now that Canon has a 70-200 2.8 II that resolves as well or better than the f/4 version I am quite happy. I guess I would keep both in a perfect world but it's not necessary.

As for the 24-105 upgrade potential: I'd be most happy with a range increase. How about 24-120? Make it a true 5x zoom? That extra reach would be hugely helpful on vacation and walking around.

I would like to see a Canon response to the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, and the (lower quality, but wider) Sigma 12-24mm, but an ultra-wide zoom and a standard telephoto zoom are two different lenses ...

 

[Justin]

if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.

It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...

I would most certainly upgrade by 24-105mm f/4 for a 24-105mm f/2.8, but think it is unlikely - it would hurt or kill the sales of the 24-70mm f/2.8

Canon has two lines of lenses - the f/4 line (17-40mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm), and the f/2.8 line (16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm). The f/4 line is attractive to prosumers, and is one of the advantages Canon has over Nikon, who doesn't have a 70-200mm f/4.

I'd trade the 70-200 f/4 any day for a 14-24 2.8. Now that Canon has a 70-200 2.8 II that resolves as well or better than the f/4 version I am quite happy. I guess I would keep both in a perfect world but it's not necessary.

As for the 24-105 upgrade potential: I'd be most happy with a range increase. How about 24-120? Make it a true 5x zoom? That extra reach would be hugely helpful on vacation and walking around.

I would like to see a Canon response to the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, and the (lower quality, but wider) Sigma 12-24mm, but an ultra-wide zoom and a standard telephoto zoom are two different lenses ...

Amen. Canon has been lacking in the ultra wide zoom market. The 14 mm is superb and one of Canon's best lenses. The ts-e's are really fantastic, but what most photojournalists crave is a 14-24 2.8.

 

[niko]

if they could get this lens to work at f2.8 - that would be nice - otherwise, i've had mine since 2007 and it has been my mainstay lens on 30D, 40D and 5D2.

It fulfills its role very nice as far as i'm concerned, and doesn't need any more sharpness added to it.
But then, i haven't seen what the IQ of the lesser spotted 5D3, 1D5 or 1Ds4/5 or 1DsQ are like...

I would most certainly upgrade by 24-105mm f/4 for a 24-105mm f/2.8, but think it is unlikely - it would hurt or kill the sales of the 24-70mm f/2.8

Canon has two lines of lenses - the f/4 line (17-40mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm), and the f/2.8 line (16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm). The f/4 line is attractive to prosumers, and is one of the advantages Canon has over Nikon, who doesn't have a 70-200mm f/4.

I'd trade the 70-200 f/4 any day for a 14-24 2.8. Now that Canon has a 70-200 2.8 II that resolves as well or better than the f/4 version I am quite happy. I guess I would keep both in a perfect world but it's not necessary.

As for the 24-105 upgrade potential: I'd be most happy with a range increase. How about 24-120? Make it a true 5x zoom? That extra reach would be hugely helpful on vacation and walking around.

I would like to see a Canon response to the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, and the (lower quality, but wider) Sigma 12-24mm, but an ultra-wide zoom and a standard telephoto zoom are two different lenses ...

Amen. Canon has been lacking in the ultra wide zoom market. The 14 mm is superb and one of Canon's best lenses. The ts-e's are really fantastic, but what most photojournalists crave is a 14-24 2.8.

If we take the last few years as an example we can see a bit of a pattern for Canon released lenses:
Nikon released an updated 70-200 2.8, so did Canon
Nikon released an updated 105mm macro so did Canon
Nikon updated all of their super telephoto primes - so did Canon
Nikon released 200-400 4 so did Canon (at least announced development)
Nikon 24 1.4 - Canon already has a very good version
Nikon released 35mm 1.4 - Canon?
Nikon released 14-24 2.8 - Canon?
Nikon 16-35 4 IS - Canon?
Nikon 24-70 2.8 - Canon?

Based on this I would expect those to be the next lens releases from Canon, with also perhaps an imporoved 24-105

 

[NXT1000]

yeah 24-105mmL f4 II, like the difference between nikon 18-200mm and nikon 18-200mm II, they change the switch on the lens.

I expect little changes. It is a very good lens already.

 

[bvukich]

yeah 24-105mmL f4 II, like the difference between nikon 18-200mm and nikon 18-200mm II, they change the switch on the lens.

I expect little changes. It is a very good lens already.

I would expect optical changes to be minimal, and a change to a more modern 4-stop IS system.

 

[neuroanatomist]

yeah 24-105mmL f4 II, like the difference between nikon 18-200mm and nikon 18-200mm II, they change the switch on the lens.

I expect little changes. It is a very good lens already.

It's a very convenient zoom lens, and it's 'good,' but I wouldn't say very good. Of the nine L-series lenses I have (4 zooms and 5 primes), the 24-105mm is the softest. I'm not saying it's a soft lens - but while it's better than consumer zoom lenses, there's a lot of room for improvement in the IQ of the 24-105mm.

 

[NXT1000]

I would expect optical changes to be minimal, and a change to a more modern 4-stop IS system.

Yeah, that will be possible too, maybe even better focusing speed, i am not interested in another f4 zoom. It is so dark indoor.