Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II

[Canon Rumors]

PhotographyBlog has completed their review of the recently announced and soon-to-be-released Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II. It looks like the new lens is a big upgrade over its predecessor, which is something we’re getting used to with Canon.</p>
<p><strong>From the review:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM is an excellent standard zoom lens that, as you’d perhaps expect, is much better than the 10-year-old Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM that it replaces, which incidentally is one of Canon’s most popular lenses.</p>
<p>It offers a very versatile focal range whilst being tack-sharp from 24mm to 50mm, both in the centre and at the edges of the frame. Sharpness at 70-105mm isn’t quite as good when shooting wide-open at f/4, but overall the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM delivers excellent sharpness across the frame. Vignetting at wide-open apertures and some barrel distortion at 24mm are the only other real optical issues of note. <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_24_105mm_f4_l_is_ii_usm_review/">Read the review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

</strong><em>Shipping in late October, 2016</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>USA </strong><em>$1099</em><strong>:</strong> <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274709-REG/canon_ef_24_105mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2bpjIRq">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA241052.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/2bIZnYi">Canon Store</a> | <a href="http://mpex.com/canon-ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-ii-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[ahsanford]

Just a few thoughts from the review:

• That's still a fair amount of distortion at 24mm. I would have thought that would have been near the top of their list of things to fix from the first version.
  
  
• All of the sharpness test shots from 24mm seem a bit soft. What gives? Seems unrelated to aperture, so I have to believe these were either focused or processed incorrectly.
  
  
• 105mm is (not-surprisingly) less than great wide open

More questions than answers here. Looks like we'll have to wait for the usual suspects to publish direct lens comparisons against the I version, the 24-70 f/4L IS, the 24-70 f/2.8L II, etc.

- A

 

[TommyLee]

I ALSO thought they would have worked over the distortion...at24mm
and soft especially at 100mm....

not much improved in my opinion...
I do wonder what the coma test shows...from lens tip... if they bother...

I actually thought I would get it ...whatever they did... and am on the list for it..

but... yawn......
I will likely pass here.....

//////

in the other direction...
the 16-35 iii is so nice and sharp at 16mm / f2.8...
that my small and friendly 14mm ii is now ....worried...
I loved it because it is so straight and small


I also have the tamron 15-30... too big and ...not as straight...
bt still pretty sharp...and useful I.S.


but looking at the wide end...of 16-35 iii wide open...
I am drawn to it... I had the mk II.... sold it....

for me I could live with 3 lenses... the 35L ii (tops) and the L macro...and then some wide thingy..
for a while I thought the 14mm ii would do it...
now I see the clarity of the 16-35....
IF THE COMA PROVES LOW...
AND the lines are reasonably straight....I will get it..

//////

ok 4 lenses ....add the 100-400 ii

but I could walk all day with the 16-35 and 100L macro.....
or if nite ....add the 35L ii


///////////

so I think canon may have missed a chance here...

with 100-400 ii AND vastly improved 35L ii,
they could cruise for a year....call-in sick everyday....in my opinion

with the 24-105 mk II...
they are gonna have to come in on saturdays for a while....

sigh... I wanted more....

Tom

LATER added note:
these cursory reviews....are not much use... to me.
TDP lets one compare lenses...and choose some parameters...
...also for me.... I want to see lenstip's coma diode test on all my lenses now.....

the 16-35 f2.8L mk iii is now of more interest to me.. because it is so good at 16mm wide-open.
but the LensTip coma diode test ....will decide for me.....
the rest is mostly known...now...

maybe my current 24-105 will just.... be some marginal backup...
as the camera bodys age.....
..it coulda been a contender....

 

[LesC]

Hmm, slightly underwhelming. I was hoping it might be getting near to the 24-70 F2.8L MKII & might have even considered replacing mine with it.

I guess we'll have to wait for more reviews as the reviewer could have even received a poor copy. I always thought my 24-70 wasn't that good in the corners but it's better than this

 

[colorblinded]

Well, this isn't what I was hoping to see. Better edge to edge sharpness would be nice, but since I'm stopped down a lot it's not a huuuuuuge concern.

I was really hoping to see distortion better controlled. Seeing 24mm has that much barrel distortion is a disappointment.

I'll wait and see how other reviews look, but there may not be enough reason to upgrade my existing 24-105 based on this.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I'll admit I was hoping for a bigger improvement, particularly on the distortion metric...

Glad to finally see a review though. I think a comparison with the previous 24-105 will be helpful to see exactly what the degree of improvement is. As far as I can see now, the old one distorted a lot, the new one appears to also do so (hopefully it's easier to fix?), and the old one struggled a bit at 105mm f4 - the new one appears to as well. Hmm. Hard to see a (noticeable) difference so far.

 

[Etienne]

This was never a priority lens for me, and I was a bit put off by the weight gain anyway. I doubt that I will ever sell my 24-105 f/4L IS (original) even though I don't use it much. When I use it I am quite happy with the results, in part because I don't have huge expectations from it. If I get another standard zoom it will be the 24-70 f/4L IS because it is a bit better at everything and still small and light, but again, it's a low priority lens for me.

I may be alone in this, but I wish Canon would make a small, light excellent 18-28 f/2.8L IS, and a 35-70 f/2.8L IS. These lenses are getting so big that it has me pinning for good EF-M primes to do a radical weight loss on my gear.

 

[applecider]

Personally these tests for sharpness that use inconsistent and soft targets are always very hard for me to interpret. In this respect the digital picture's methodology seems much better to me. It's a measurable metric type test.

I particularly don't get lens tests that include leafy trees in the corners as they can hide softness and all sorts of distortions. While subject oriented test photos are infinitely more interesting, those that have a plane of focus and visible lines just seem more scientific. Even the bookcase/books in the current review can suffer from so many method inconsistencies that I wonder if they are worth doing, certainly not worth making a buying decision on. Sure a portrait lens should have a portrait or two in its review, to demonstrate what the linear tests show and how it translates but not just portraits.

For instance the digital picture's lens comparison corner tests are a great way to see chromatic aberrations, and to compare f stops.

Where are brick walls when you need them? I guess every review adds a little.

 

[sunnyVan]

These photos of 5dmkiv and 24-105ii look very amateurish and unattractive.

 

[Frodo]

I like my 24-105 mk I. Lightroom corrections of distortion and chromatic aberration make it an ideal lens to match with my 20MP 6D (and previously 5D mk I and II). It is probably not up to the 5DS.
My biggest problem is the difference between the f-stop and the actual t-stop: it loses about 3/4 of a stop across its focal length range. For a lens that only starts off at f/4 and then should be stopped down a stop for good sharpness, you need good light. My 35mm f/2 IS is a genuine f/2 so 2 3/4 stops brighter than the 24-105. The 24-70 f/4 is a genuine f/4. I think that the increase in weight of the new lens was for bigger elements that draw more light.
Reading the posts here, I don't see a reason to upgrade.
Furthermore, this with the 6D was my hiking lens, but my M3 and 11-22 and 55-200 are more versatile and weigh less, so it won't get so much use in the future. It mainly my event lens where I need the flexibility of a zoom and this is where I miss a bright lens.

 

[Eldar]

I looked briefly through this review and came to the conclusion that it may be an indicator, but far from enough to form a proper view on what this lens can do.

As an example; Look at the sharpness images for 105mm. The so called Edge Crop shows an a and what looks like the start of an n or m. Where do you find that combo in black and white? (I had to look for a while) It is pretty close to the center at the back of the "... Negatives and Slide ..." book. So the actual edge sharpness is still unknown as far as I can see.

 

[candyman]

I looked briefly through this review and came to the conclusion that it may be an indicator, but far from enough to form a proper view on what this lens can do.

As an example; Look at the sharpness images for 105mm. The so called Edge Crop shows an a and what looks like the start of an n or m. Where do you find that combo in black and white? (I had to look for a while) It is pretty close to the center at the back of the "... Negatives and Slide ..." book. So the actual edge sharpness is still unknown as far as I can see.

I do agree.
Somehow I am not impressed with the testtechniques. And just wonder, are they using a pre-production sample? It is interesting that they already have this lens while the canon reports are that it will be available by the end of october / early november.


The difference in price with the older model is just about 350 euro. For canon standards - when releasing a newer model - not much. (see the difference in price of the new and old 16-35 f/2.8
So maybe little did change and our expectations are too high.

 

[bholliman]

I agree, this review leaves as many questions as answers, but from what I see here I'm not real impressed. When this lens was announced, I was excited and ready to place a pre-order, but now I'll wait for the reviews from TDP, Dustin Abbott, Lenstip and Photozone before moving forward.

I currently own two standard zooms, a 24-70 f/4 IS and just picked up a used copy of the 24-105 f/4 Mk1 cheap ($420 USD). My 17-year-old son borrowed my 6D and 24-70 to take to Europe and he will be there until May. I may end up just letting him keep those since he is starting to enjoy photography and I wasn't using my 6D much anyway.

I thought I could get along without a standard zoom, but found I really missed it so picked up the used 24-105 until I decided on a longer term standard zoom. If the Mk II proves to be a marginal upgrade, I will probably pass on it and may buy another 24-70 (f/4 IS or f/2.8 II) at some point. I haven't shot much with the 24-105 Mk1 I just acquired, so not sure how it will perform on my 5DsR. We are planning a short vacation to Pennsylvania next week and it will get some use then, so we will see. My expectations are limited, but if it performs decently I may just hang onto it for awhile. I understand the Mk1's optical limitations, but the zoom range will be handy for shooting the kids and as a one lens solution for day outings. For this type of photography, I'm not overly concerned about excellent image quality.

 

[sanj]

Not very impressed by this review. I will wait for Brian's. Or Ken.

 

[monkey44]

I'm looking forward to upgrading my 24-105, but this review does not convince me the price is worth it. I need a good mid-range zoom (like most of us), as the current 24-105 is not quite there. I was truly hoping this one does it, and still hold out hope until more tech reviews come in. I sure won't buy it on pre-order. Once it's available, maybe go in a test it, or order it and return it if it's less that a true upgrade. That's not a practice I approve, generally (the test and return) but at $1100, may just do it this time.

I was also hoping to save on the higher cost of the 24-70, as the 24-105 fits between the 16-35 and the 70-200, and give a little more room in the middle - but I might have to bite that bullet. BLAH ...

 

[geekpower]

ugh. distortion at the wide end is the main reason i don't own the old version, and even to the naked eye these new sample images look horrendous.

on the other hand, it was far from a scientific test, and i don't know how much i can trust somebody who manages to achieve a 122mm focal length with a 24-105 lens (see the captions of his samples).

i was really hoping this lens would be good enough for a single lens walk about, but i fear it's going to end up as one of those compromises that isn't particularly good at anything.

 

[GammyKnee]

ugh. distortion at the wide end is the main reason i don't own the old version, and even to the naked eye these new sample images look horrendous.

Yep, I own the old version and if there just was one thing I could change about it, it would be all that distortion at the wide end.

on the other hand, it was far from a scientific test, and i don't know how much i can trust somebody who manages to achieve a 122mm focal length with a 24-105 lens (see the captions of his samples).

Yeah, coupled with some truly dire product shots it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the competency of the review! On the other hand, there's no denying the distortion in that wall shot; it's just there, and there's a lot of it.

 

[Bennymiata]

My current 24-105 is my most used lens.
I use it mainly for receptions and I've got many, many great photos from it.

I'm waiting for this new version to come out as my lens is about 9 years old and getting very sloppy and I want to get it in a kit with a new 5d4.
Even if it is only a slight increase in IQ, the new coatings will make a good difference to me.

 

[IglooEater]

Funny how the deficiencies of this lens closely match up with the old version- really makes me feel they're in the same optical family.

 

[Hector1970]

I see a new number of comments here about the original 24-105mm and distortion at 24mm. Seems to be a reason why a number of people haven't bought it. I really wonder at times if the viewers of this website are photographers at all. A lot of people seem to spend their time comparing specs and mft's rather than taking photos. I've taken tens of thousands of photos with that lens and it's remarkably good and consistent with a great focal length range. I've never seen a single photo ring ruined by the lens. If something is wrong it's always been the photographer at fault. If you buy an old 24-105 and use it you will be more than happy. The new one I assume is even better or else it would not exist. Any lens distortion is minimal and easily corrected post processing. Shoot more and compare less. Bad photographers blame gear. I don't there bad cameras or lens nowadays. They improve every year. If only photographers (including me ) would improve as fast.