Lensrentals.com Puts the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Through Testing

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
YuengLinger said:
Just by luck a friend of the family showed up after Thanksgiving with his X-T2, which I had been looking at for weeks.

It feels MUCH smaller, much lighter than the 80D, enough so that it is certainly worth whatever theoretical difference in IQ. Our friend, a commercial artist working in NY city, has had it about two months, showed lots of images on his website, answered 90 minutes of questions...

I don't own one yet, but likely soon. Heck, they've been backordered about a week at the big online shops.

Yep, forget the huge MP counts, 4K and features for days with the A7 line. The X-T2 enthusiast word of mouth seems quite loud these days. Folks love that thing, but I still don't 'get' it as its hard to apples-to-apples the end product in comparison to CaNikon FF rigs.

- A
 
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,751
2,269
USA
ahsanford said:
YuengLinger said:
Just by luck a friend of the family showed up after Thanksgiving with his X-T2, which I had been looking at for weeks.

It feels MUCH smaller, much lighter than the 80D, enough so that it is certainly worth whatever theoretical difference in IQ. Our friend, a commercial artist working in NY city, has had it about two months, showed lots of images on his website, answered 90 minutes of questions...

I don't own one yet, but likely soon. Heck, they've been backordered about a week at the big online shops.

Yep, forget the huge MP counts, 4K and features for days with the A7 line. The X-T2 enthusiast word of mouth seems quite loud these days. Folks love that thing, but I still don't 'get' it as its hard to apples-to-apples the end product in comparison to CaNikon FF rigs.

- A

I think an easier comparison would be to current APS-C dSLRs, but that is another thread!

Relating to this thread, as a company wobbles, customers fall off. No, I'm not leaving Canon! I'm happy with the dSLR's and very good repair service. But I am now starting to look elsewhere for some photography needs--in large part because of disappointment with the 80D and the feeling that Canon is not sure where to go next. Something seems off with leadership for the missteps to be adding up, and this particular lens, as I've stated, has such a big footprint among a tier of professionals and many enthusiasts looking for L quality, whether it be intended as "entry level L" or not.

On CR, the 24-105mm gets little respect, but please check out publications that include which lens was used for images, talk to the grunts who work at the hundreds of community magazines around the country, who do senior photos, and you will see why I'm so surprised Canon has not done better here.

Could the have charged, say 15% more to produce 5-10% better IQ than the last one and still satisfied the bean counters?

Maybe Canon is having an internal struggle deciding what the L line should include, which might explain having a non L the same focal lengths matching this one (except for aperture).

Wrapping up, while the industry may be in turmoil, Canon does not reassure its still loyal core of customers by beginning to give the impression of flailing about.
 
Upvote 0
Etienne said:
ahsanford said:
neuroanatomist said:
Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

Agree. Unless you own the 24-70 f/4L IS. I'm pleased to see that it acquitted itself well in the testing.

I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club. :D

- A

I have the 28 f/2.8 IS and I agree it is a nice little lens. Very sharp, small and light, and just wide enough to be useful as a wide lens. Great for street photography, and walk around.

If I didn't already have the original 24-105 f/4L IS I would get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the new 24-105 mkII. But I'll stick with my old lens, for the few times I use it, it does a good job.

I am a fan of the 24-70 f/4L IS, but no longer own one. I loaned it along with my 6D to my teen aged son for his trip to Europe and never got it back, as he has really gotten into photography. I'm considering it a gift at this point.

I thought I could get by without a standard zoom, but wasn't happy juggling primes. To fill the void, I picked up a used 24-105 Mk1 in early October for $400 and got very lucky as its an excellent copy.

So, I plan to hang on this Mk1 and am happy to pass on the 24-105 MkII.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Like many others, I'm a bit disappointed by the reviews. Honestly, I was expecting to, and would would have paid, 50% more than the retail price of the II for a really stellar upgrade.

But, in comparing all the 24-105s and seeing how small the differences are, I have to wonder is there is something that I don't understand which limits just how good a lens in this range can be. I suspect that if Canon could have made a better lens for another $500-$600 they probably would have done it.

I haven't ruled this lens out, but I'm not sure it's worth upgrading just for the zoom lock and improved IS. This was the only lens I was contemplating next year (after pretty much filling out my lens wants/needs over the past two years), so 2017 might be a no-lens purchase year (although I kind of doubt it. :) )
 
Upvote 0

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
5,665
8,492
Germany
ahsanford said:
Maximilian said:
YuengLinger said:
...
Fantasy: The shortage of new 24-105mm was due to somebody realizing the new ones weren't as improved as engineered, production paused, and some tweaking is going on...Fantasy.
I'm sure that'll stay a fantasy until V3 of that lens - sadly.

Only good thing is the reduction of the copy variation.
But why make it larger then? Does the new IS need so much space? Don't think so.

24mm distortion (previously a comically high amount) has been tamed as well. It's not a poor lens, mind you, it's just a very small improvement.

We may find other upsides to it -- durability, AF consistency, IS noise reduction, etc. -- that aren't as sexy but still provide value.

- A
ahsanford, don't get me wrong!

This is for sure not a bad lens. And if the price comes a bit down it'll be worth the value.
But as I already have its predecessor it is very unattractive to me.
And as all of you have pointed out that the V1 had it's (little) flaws I thought, Canon could - at least for that price - also improve the IQ. And I am more interested in the long end, 80 - 100 mm. So the 24-70 mm alternatives are no real ones to me. And I was willing to get into this acquisition. No more.

And to me the 24-105 non-L and this V2 lens are optically too close together to have a 66% price gap. (top-down 400 vs. 1200 € in Germany, street price - I know)
 
Upvote 0

jd7

CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,064
418
unfocused said:
Like many others, I'm a bit disappointed by the reviews. Honestly, I was expecting to, and would would have paid, 50% more than the retail price of the II for a really stellar upgrade.

But, in comparing all the 24-105s and seeing how small the differences are, I have to wonder is there is something that I don't understand which limits just how good a lens in this range can be. I suspect that if Canon could have made a better lens for another $500-$600 they probably would have done it.

I haven't ruled this lens out, but I'm not sure it's worth upgrading just for the zoom lock and improved IS. This was the only lens I was contemplating next year (after pretty much filling out my lens wants/needs over the past two years), so 2017 might be a no-lens purchase year (although I kind of doubt it. :) )

I am certainly no lens designer, so take this with a grain of salt, but my guess is producing a zoom lens which goes from wide angle to telephoto is a particular challenge. I get the impression a range which is all telephoto (eg 100-400) or all wide angle is probably easier (although not necessarily easy, I'm sure!).

I am sure Canon does manufacture to a price point (not going to work commercially otherwise), but I suspect the lack of substantial IQ improvement in the 24-105s which have come out since the L mk 1 is probably testament to the fact it's a hard range to cover well.

Anyone with real knowledge of lens design care to comment?
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
neuroanatomist said:
Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

Agree. Unless you own the 24-70 f/4L IS. I'm pleased to see that it acquitted itself well in the testing.

I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club. :D

- A

I liked my 24-70 f/4 IS until I sold it for a 16-35 IS. I thought it was vastly better than any copy of the 24-105 IS I ever tried, none of which ever cut it for me at the wide end for landscape quality. I was also way pro 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS. The former was a good deal faster in real world too due to a much improved T value, I think like a crazy almost half stop more light and blur at f/4 (although I basically used it more for stopped down IS work). I never got the obsession with having to have that mega 24-105 range over the far superior image quality of 24-70 range. When I go long it's often more convenient to have it in a much wider and longer range in my 70-300 IS (which is actually my single most used lens of all).

I sold the 16-35 IS too though, it is a nice lens but I wanted to add sony sensor and video to my equipment and the lens sale helped offset the costs of adding in Sony stuff. A real shame Canon never did manage to really get top video or sensor quality going although the new 5D at least made a bit of a start in that direction, but from what I've seen my sony video still seems to show noticeably more detail and the sensor is still better.
 
Upvote 0
Act444 said:
ahsanford said:
I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself.

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.

stop down focus can fight focus shift at close distances and sharpen stuff up
 
Upvote 0
Act444 said:
Larsskv said:
Act444 said:
ahsanford said:
I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself.

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.

I'm on my third 24-70 f2.8LII, and it is sharper in the center, and it has good contrast and clarity, that gives a nice pop to its images. However, each of those three lenses have had some issues. At 35mm my current lens is pretty bad in the upper right (APS-C) corner. The 24-70 f4 L IS is not as sharp at its sharpest, but it is much more even and don't have any particular weak spots. For landscapes, the 24-70 f4 is arguably the better lens of the two.

I disagree about the 24-70 f4 not having any weak spots: of all the lenses I own that cover 50mm, this one is the worst performer at that length (softest, least contrast), and that includes the 50 1.8 STM (although shooting that at 1.8 is similar, at f4 it runs circles around the 24-70). That weakness at 50mm is almost THE reason I still have the 24-105, where it is strongest at 50mm, and sharper near MFD.

If it were simply the 2.8 II version optically with an f4 aperture, it likely would have been an instant 24-105 replacement for me. Alas, it is not, and I keep both and enjoy the extra reach of 105mm.

50mm is the weak spot of the 24-70 IS but I find I tend to shoot the least at 50mm which often seems boring on FF and I bet most people shoot 90% near the extremes of the ranges of zooms. I bet 95% of my shots with it were 24mm-35mm or 65-70mm. Of course your mileage may well vary.
 
Upvote 0
jd7 said:
Larsskv said:
Act444 said:
Larsskv said:
Act444 said:
ahsanford said:
I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself.

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.

I'm on my third 24-70 f2.8LII, and it is sharper in the center, and it has good contrast and clarity, that gives a nice pop to its images. However, each of those three lenses have had some issues. At 35mm my current lens is pretty bad in the upper right (APS-C) corner. The 24-70 f4 L IS is not as sharp at its sharpest, but it is much more even and don't have any particular weak spots. For landscapes, the 24-70 f4 is arguably the better lens of the two.

I disagree about the 24-70 f4 not having any weak spots: if all the lenses I own that cover 50mm, this one is the worst performer at that length (softest, least contrast), and that includes the 50 1.8 STM (although shooting that at 1.8 is similar, at f4 it runs circles around the 24-70). That weakness at 50mm is almost THE reason I still have the 24-105, where it is strongest at 50mm, and sharper near MFD.

If it were simply the 2.8 II version optically with an f4 aperture, it likely would have been an instant 24-105 replacement for me. Alas, it is not, and I keep both and enjoy the extra reach of 105mm.

I've heard people complain at the 50mm performance, but my experience does not support that. I dont find my 24-70 f4 bad at 50mm at all. It is overall better at 50mm, than my f2.8 is at 35mm.

Roger Cicala has tested the 24-70 f4 at 50mm, and found it to be very close to it's 70mm performance.

That is my experience also. And that is not the first time I have heard someone say the f/4 IS is more even across the frame than the f/2.8 II (as good as the f/2.8 II may be in many respects), although I don't have enough experience with the f/2.8 II to have an opinion about that myself.

The 24-70 2.8 II does suffer from focal plane tilt problems and it's very hard to get a uniform copy across the board, probably would need to try at 8-12 copies. But it has insane micro-contrast, it's pretty much APO and reject LoCA amazingly well, it starts super sharp anywhere remotely near the middle even at f/2.8. At the 60-70mm range the corners and field curvature can be a little odd and my 70-300 IS maybe handles the field in a more natural way although anywhere in the center, anywhere not at the corners, the 24-70 is crazy sharp at 70mm even at f/2.8. Some copies are a bit sharper at f/2.8 than others. The best copies are peak center sharpness basically by f/3.2 already while the others probably hit peak center sharpness 2/3 more stops down at f/4. I tried a bunch. My current copy does have on corner pair or corners that do still have focal plane a touch tilted but it's not too bad and over almost all of the frame, including far edges, the results are just fantastic, simply fantastic. Occasionally a scene may be tricky enough to get slightly got by focal tilt at one corner or two compared to 24-70 f/4 IS but in most cases the 24-70 II produces better overall results at 24mm and in the other cases that still holds for the bulk of the frame. I noticed that 24-70 f/4 IS copy variation was of a different sort, the tilt of the focal plane and just regular corner vs corner tended to almost always be in fine balance but the overall quality could vary. The worst copies are softer across the entire frame and far softer along all edges and corners and radically so at 50mm than a good copy.
 
Upvote 0