I've heard several bad reviews and one good one, I'll keep watching them. There are so many other things we need to see in reviews and that may take a while.
Upvote
0
TDP Image Quality posted - 24-105L II
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
meywd said:
Version II = Better than the previous one.
Im hoping that was a bad copy they tested.
Upvote
0
Why? See bolt above.meywd said:
But I really hopw that Brian got a bad copy. Otherwise I'd be really disappointed.
OTOH it saves me money because now I know I can stick with my "old but good" V1, and if I ever go into new bodies I can buy body only.
(I thought about getting this hoped to better lens with my next boy)
Upvote
0
By the way:
If you take a look at the MTF charts these results can only be interpreted that Bryan got a bad copy.
Or... I don't read the MTF charts properly ... or ... they're faked, which I cannot believe with Canon.
If you take a look at the MTF charts these results can only be interpreted that Bryan got a bad copy.
Or... I don't read the MTF charts properly ... or ... they're faked, which I cannot believe with Canon.
Upvote
0
Its entirely possible that Bryan got a bad copy and copies 2 and maybe 3 will be better. But let's not overreact. V1 was a very good lens, V2 MTF charts are only a little better and certainly not up to other new releases (16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, etc).
We should not expect much better. Maybe a little. But there is less CA, appears to be less distortion, and if IS is truly better, this will still be a very good general purpose lens and will take many excellent pictures.
Was I hoping for a prime like zoom yet again, sure. But the MTF charts are not there.
We should not expect much better. Maybe a little. But there is less CA, appears to be less distortion, and if IS is truly better, this will still be a very good general purpose lens and will take many excellent pictures.
Was I hoping for a prime like zoom yet again, sure. But the MTF charts are not there.
Upvote
0
In-The-Dark said:
Or...Version II = Cheaper for Canon to produce than the previous one = more profit for Canon. Just sayin'.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:In-The-Dark said:
Or...Version II = Cheaper for Canon to produce than the previous one = more profit for Canon. Just sayin'.
I could see that happening with kit EF-S glass, but this is an L lens. Have we ever seen a 'II' / sequel L lens get worse than its predecessor?
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:neuroanatomist said:In-The-Dark said:
Or...Version II = Cheaper for Canon to produce than the previous one = more profit for Canon. Just sayin'.
I could see that happening with kit EF-S glass, but this is an L lens. Have we ever seen a 'II' / sequel L lens get worse than its predecessor?
- A
to reduce cost they can keep the naming and refresh it without telling anyone
Upvote
0
Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Stop production at a serial XX-XXXXX start on the new lens from YY-XXXXX and up.
Anyway it seem IS was upgraded, and maybe they fixed the zoom creep.
Upvote
0
meywd said:
V2 does have a zoom lock, so that will be nice for hiking. I recently upgraded to 5D4 and V2 of this lens, but haven't had much chance to try it out.
Upvote
0
Maximilian said:
Canon's MTF charts are computer generated charts and show a perfect lens (no such animal). However, lenses should be reasonably close.
Bryan knows what he is doing, and can recognize a lens that has been damaged or mis-assembled, because they almost always are out of alignment internally which becomes obvious in a photo.
What he cannot check for is internal lenses that are out of specification or slightly out of tolerance such that the error stacks up.
Based on his images, the lens appears to be assembled correctly with no shipping damage, so the most likely conclusion is that it is as tested. However, its also possible that production screwed up on internal lens grinding, which could only be found by disassembly of a lens and using Canon's specifications to check it. If that is the issue, then future copies might have some tweaking done, and magically provide better images. I wonder.
Upvote
0
Wow, what an unpleasant surprise! Canon really made me believe over the last few years that they are going to design nothing, but great, top-notch lenses with major improvement over respective prodecessors when it comes to L series. Super telephoto version II lenses were all class leading, 100-400 II is awsome, 400 F4 DO II is very good, 16-35 F4 IS is amazing. Well that winning-streak has come to an end, as these two latest announced wide angle zooms are cleary set-backs. Latest is not the greatest anymore.
The 16-35 F2.8 III makes no sense to buy with that ridiculous vignetting and now TDP test has proven that 24-105 II falls to version I optically. I mean come on, just by looking at TDP comparison tests, its cristal clear that version II is less sharper, has more CA... you name it.
So I wonder, why would one upgrade from version I to II? (Or for that matter from 16-35 2.8 II to III?) Both these successors looks like a dead-end to me.
The 16-35 F2.8 III makes no sense to buy with that ridiculous vignetting and now TDP test has proven that 24-105 II falls to version I optically. I mean come on, just by looking at TDP comparison tests, its cristal clear that version II is less sharper, has more CA... you name it.
So I wonder, why would one upgrade from version I to II? (Or for that matter from 16-35 2.8 II to III?) Both these successors looks like a dead-end to me.
Upvote
0
AdamBotond said:
24-105L II -- I await more information. No single review is enough to get me to buy or skip a product. But yes, the IQ thus far is not compelling.
16-35 f/2.8L III -- I would be much less hasty to condemn that lens. Name me a sharper f/2.8 UWA FF zoom that is front-filterable (I would contend that such a lens does not exist). It has a whopping drawback, for sure, but the vignetting is only stands out from 16-20mm @ f/2.8. It matters, I'm not dismissing it, but again, it's a huge resolution improvement over its predecessor.
- A
Upvote
0
atlcroc said:
That's....disappointing to put it mildly.
That said, I have to say, the original 24-105 is no slouch (on a 5D3) - particularly around 50mm which I find to be its sweet spot. It's not as good at 105mm f/4, although in good light it is still good enough. Can't really expect it to be the 24-70 2.8 or 16-35 2.8... So even if they kept sharpness the same, but vastly improved distortion at the wide end, that would be OK - but it doesn't appear that they've even done that. :-\
I very nearly sprung for V II expecting that it would be better across the board - probably would have happened had the local store had them in stock...anyway, good thing I held off, and looks like I will continue to do so for the time being.
Upvote
0
