24-105 f/4L II and 16-35 f/2.8L III Pre-Order Links Found

[ahsanford]

First they posted a pre-order for the 5D4, now DigitalRev is offering up a pre-order page for the new 24-105L II:

http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-24-105mm-f/MTEwNDkyNA_A_A

...and the 16-35 f/2.8L III:
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-16-35mm-f/MTEwNDkwNQ_A_A

- A

 

[IglooEater]

Click bait, click bait everywhere
And all the sites did shrink,
Click bait, click bait everywhere
Nor any useful link

 

[GuyF]

Click bait, click bait everywhere
And all the sites did shrink,
Click bait, click bait everywhere
Nor any useful link

Coleridge would be proud.

 

[WesternGuy]

Any ideas on how the 24-105 II is going to be different/better than the old 24-105? It is my walk-around lens and I would really like to understand why I should invest in a new one.

WesternGuy

 

[GuyF]

Any ideas on how the 24-105 II is going to be different/better than the old 24-105?

They'll improve the IS, distortion and a few other aspects.

 

[WesternGuy]

Any ideas on how the 24-105 II is going to be different/better than the old 24-105?

They'll improve the IS, distortion and a few other aspects.

If that is all, why bother? I was hoping maybe they would make it an f/2.8 at least. Oh well, I guess one can wish.

WesternGuy

 

[privatebydesign]

Any ideas on how the 24-105 II is going to be different/better than the old 24-105?

They'll improve the IS, distortion and a few other aspects.

If that is all, why bother? I was hoping maybe they would make it an f/2.8 at least. Oh well, I guess one can wish.

WesternGuy

Then it would be a MkI, a 24-105 f2.8 L IS, not a 24-105 f4 L IS MkII, wouldn't it?

 

[WesternGuy]

Any ideas on how the 24-105 II is going to be different/better than the old 24-105?

They'll improve the IS, distortion and a few other aspects.

If that is all, why bother? I was hoping maybe they would make it an f/2.8 at least. Oh well, I guess one can wish.

WesternGuy

Then it would be a MkI, a 24-105 f2.8 L IS, not a 24-105 f4 L IS MkII, wouldn't it?

I suppose, but I also think that it depends on your perspective and whether the emphasis is on the 24-105 L IS, or the f/4 vs f/2.8, but why split hairs. I don't really care, it is just that it would be nice to have a 24-105 f/2.8 L IS lens. What Canon call it is up to them.

WesternGuy

WesternGuy

 

[-1]

Any ideas on how the 24-105 II is going to be different/better than the old 24-105?

They'll improve the IS, distortion and a few other aspects.

If that is all, why bother? I was hoping maybe they would make it an f/2.8 at least. Oh well, I guess one can wish.

WesternGuy

Then it would be a MkI, a 24-105 f2.8 L IS, not a 24-105 f4 L IS MkII, wouldn't it?

I suppose, but I also think that it depends on your perspective and whether the emphasis is on the 24-105 L IS, or the f/4 vs f/2.8, but why split hairs. I don't really care, it is just that it would be nice to have a 24-105 f/2.8 L IS lens. What Canon call it is up to them.

Yeahh... That would surely be a big honkytonk of glasss. Walkabout Texas style!

 

[StudentOfLight]

Any ideas on how the 24-105 II is going to be different/better than the old 24-105? It is my walk-around lens and I would really like to understand why I should invest in a new one.

WesternGuy

My guess is it will have Nano-USM for reasonably fast autofocus in stills while giving smooth autofocus in video. Optically, maybe reduced Chromatic Aberration and a better corner sharpness at the telephoto end.

 

[privatebydesign]

Any ideas on how the 24-105 II is going to be different/better than the old 24-105?

They'll improve the IS, distortion and a few other aspects.

If that is all, why bother? I was hoping maybe they would make it an f/2.8 at least. Oh well, I guess one can wish.

WesternGuy

Then it would be a MkI, a 24-105 f2.8 L IS, not a 24-105 f4 L IS MkII, wouldn't it?

I suppose, but I also think that it depends on your perspective and whether the emphasis is on the 24-105 L IS, or the f/4 vs f/2.8, but why split hairs. I don't really care, it is just that it would be nice to have a 24-105 f/2.8 L IS lens. What Canon call it is up to them.

WesternGuy

WesternGuy

Sorry, my 'emphasis' was on reading what was written, a 24-105 f/4L II (the subject and title of the thread) isn't going to be an f/2.8! :

By definition an f4 can't be an f2.8.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Canon should improve the actual light transmission of the 24-105L. Newer coatings could help with that. The Sigma 24-105 is both sharper and faster (T-stop of 4.2 vs. Canon at 5.1, roughly 2/3 stop faster).

 

[Ozarker]

Any ideas on how the 24-105 II is going to be different/better than the old 24-105?

They'll improve the IS, distortion and a few other aspects.

If that is all, why bother? I was hoping maybe they would make it an f/2.8 at least. Oh well, I guess one can wish.

WesternGuy

Then it would be a MkI, a 24-105 f2.8 L IS, not a 24-105 f4 L IS MkII, wouldn't it?

I suppose, but I also think that it depends on your perspective and whether the emphasis is on the 24-105 L IS, or the f/4 vs f/2.8, but why split hairs.

WesternGuy

WesternGuy

It isn't about splitting hairs. :

It also doesn't depend on your perspective and whether the emphasis is on the 24-105 L IS, or the f/4 vs f/2.8. :

The man just coreccted your wrongnessess. Ignore that. My spelling depends on my perspective and my emphasis in on the letter c and the nessess.

 

[honestlo]

New 24-105 F/4 L II USM images.

http://digicame-info.com/2016/08/ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-usm.html

- Weight 795g (old 670g)
- Total length 118mm (old 107mm)
- Maximum diameter of 83.5mm (same)
- Filter Size 77mm (same)

and you can see there are total 3 switches on the lens. Two of the left should be AF/MF and IS on / off and the one on the right may be simply a lens lock or lock plus macro (just like the switch on 24-70 F/4 L)