24 - 105 mm f/4 L IS II

[Fleetie]

I had actually decided to buy the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens (and NOT the 24-70 f/2.8 L as I discussed elsewhere on CR), but now, today, I see a worrying rumour here on the CR front page, about a possibly impending Mark II version of this lens.

I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere on CR before, though I may have missed it. That makes me think it's not even certain to be in the pipeline, and even if it is, it may be a while.

I was going to buy the current version of this lens as early as next week. The point is, spring is coming, and soon I will come out of "photographic hibernation" and want to go out at weekends and start taking pretty pics again, and I want the (weatherproof) lens to do that. I will want the lens for the start of spring-time this year.

So I am inclined still to buy the current version of the lens, UNLESS anyone knows thart the Mark II is coming, and soon, and when.

Comments, please?

Martin

 

[nicolas.det]

Re: 24 - 105 mm f/4 L II

To my mind, buy it. The EF 24-105 mm f/4 L is already a very good lens.

Do not hold you breath on any rumors, live your live now!.

I have the lens since 2008 and I am very happy with it. Produce good result on 400D and 5DII. On full frame, there is some vignetting and distortions from 24 to 35 mm but not so bad and easily correctable in software.

The corner are not so sharp at 24mm and F4, but it's ok. Small CA. I take it with me most of the time. It is relative small and versatile. I can travel without!

In Studio, starting F5.6 you get stellar centre resolution . Nice to get sharp eyes!

Regards

 

[Flake]

Re: 24 - 105 mm f/4 L II

For a faulty design it's had quite a good lifespan! For anyone who doesn't know early models of this lens were subject to a product recall and the rectangular shield was attached to the rear of the lens which lessens flare. Without it the lens was dreadful in contra light situations.

With the 3 stop IS it's a life saver in the Northern hemisphere where light levels for 6 months of the year are not the great, people claim to be able to get useable images as slow as 1/6th sec so an extra stop isn't really going to make a great deal of difference (although it's nice to have). The 24 - 70mm although probably optically better is a disaster when light levels are low, and for at least 4 months of the year here it's unuseable outside of the studio because it hasn't got IS.

The current lens is plenty good enough for pro photography, and I'm told was designed with wedding photographers in mind. The extra 35mm and the IS make it a very attractive alternative to the 24 - 70mm L even at the loss of a stop, there's a huge weight saving too.

The second user market for 24 - 105mm IS L lenses is very strong, and if you buy well you won't lose much money on resale. It's much better than the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L which doesn't hold its value quite so well.

 

[ronderick]

Re: 24 - 105 mm f/4 L II

I think the 24-105 is a good balance between versatility with image quality. With the exception of barrel distortion blemish at th 24-end, I think this lens is the best jack-of-all-trade L lens, usable from landscape photography to street snapshots.

Released since 2005, it's been the kit lens for both 5D and 5D MKII. While it might look like time for replacement, that doesn't make the current model any less appealing.

Again, you can always buy the current one and sell it when the replacement is confirmed. Most L lens are good value retainers...

 

[Fleetie]

Re: 24 - 105 mm f/4 L II

Yeah, thanks guys. I would have bought it anyway, and I am not gonna go through this spring without a suitable L-series walkaround lens. For daytime use, it should be fine. Also, I seldom shoot wide (my widest Canon lens at the moment is 50mm on a 7D which is 80mm equivalent, so 24mm (==38mm) FOR ME will seem plenty wide!), so the barrel distortion and CA that I've read about at the wide end of this lens is unlikely to "crop" up much for me. I'll probably be taking most of my shots with the lens set to between 35mm and 85mm, I am guessing. But it'll be nice to have the extra range there for when I need it.

So I'll go for it anyway, I think. As someone said, I'm not gonna put my photographic life on hold waiting for something that may not come any time soon.


Martin

 

[Fleetie]

I had actually decided to buy the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens (and NOT the 24-70 f/2.8 L as I discussed elsewhere on CR), but now, today, I see a worrying rumour here on the CR front page, about a possibly impending Mark II version of this lens.

I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere on CR before, though I may have missed it. That makes me think it's not even certain to be in the pipeline, and even if it is, it may be a while.

I was going to buy the current version of this lens as early as next week. The point is, spring is coming, and soon I will come out of "photographic hibernation" and want to go out at weekends and start taking pretty pics again, and I want the (weatherproof) lens to do that. I will want the lens for the start of spring-time this year.

So I am inclined still to buy the current version of the lens, UNLESS anyone knows thart the Mark II is coming, and soon, and when.

Comments, please?

Martin

Martin, what else were you planning to buy? Anything else? New camera? Another lens?

Nothing else in the very near future. Money is an issue, and it'll take me probably 3 months to finish paying for the 24-105L lens.

I am VERY happy with my 7D, and although my next camera will almost certainly be FF, (maybe the 5DIII), that's at least 2 years off for me yet, I think.

I am not even sure what my next lens will be after the 24-105L. I don't think I'll know until I've played with it for a while.

I do like fast primes, though. The 85/1.2L looks tasty, but would I actually need it? Right now, no.

Martin

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't even think there will be a 24-105mm f/4L IS II. Nikon had a 200-400mm f/4, now Canon has announced one. Nikon has a 24-120mm f/4 VR, so I suspect the 24-105mm L will be updated to a 24-120mm f/4L IS at some point.

In the meantime, the 24-105mm f/4L IS remains an excellent lens (aside from the barrel distortion at 24mm on FF, not an issue for you, and one that DxO handles quite well for me).

 

[JLN]

This would be the 1st ive heard of a 24-105 replacement.
I use to own one prior to getting the 24-70, and I will say the 24-105 is already an excellent lens.
It's only fault that I remember noticing was vignetting when shooting wide open at 24mm on a FF camera.

Considering it's a relatively young lens, I don't imagine that they would do much to it to upgrade, perhaps work on the vignetting, but really thats nit-picking.

Perhaps extending it to a 24-120 to 'compete' with nikon's new offering could be viable, but really 15mm of extra reach isn't going to do much.

 

[Flake]

If you have a crop frame camera you should consider the 17 - 55mm f/2.8 IS which gives a more useable focal range. As you've heard the 24 - 105mm is weakest at the wide end and it's only got the equavalent fov of a 40mm lens so you'll spend a dissproportionate amount of time at 24mm and wishing for a few millimetres less when you want wide angle.

The 17 - 55mm had a stop advantage over the 24 - 105mm L and still has IS. This something which FF users can't get at these focal lengths & apertures, you might perhaps consider yourself fortunate!

 

[Fleetie]

That is true, and I have indeed considered it (17-55 f/2.8 IS), but weather-sealing is a requirement for me.

I go out for walks and I like to have my camera out, and I don't want to faff and worry and have to put it away somewhere when it starts raining.

If I need other lenses too, I can get them later.

 

[kubelik]

That is true, and I have indeed considered it (17-55 f/2.8 IS), but weather-sealing is a requirement for me.

I go out for walks and I like to have my camera out, and I don't want to faff and worry and have to put it away somewhere when it starts raining.

If I need other lenses too, I can get them later.

any sort of rain that you are willing to walk in, your lens will probably be content to walk in as well. keep it under your jacket until you see a shooting situation.

honestly, I'd be more worried about water infiltration of your camera body rather than the lens. I've hauled some sigma plastic-fantastics around through rain and snow and they've turned out just fine

 

[Admin US West]

The new 24-105 replacement was rumored last year as well. Lens rumors are very difficult to get accurate information on. It does not seem unreasonable that a new one could be coming with a wider focal range, but it will be much more expensive, so it won't pull down the value of my existing one that I paid $700 for new three or four years ago. Back then the 5D kit with 24-105 cost a $600 premium over the base camera, and I bought the lens from a person who already had a 24-105 and just wanted to defray the cost of his 5D.

Mine has been a wonderful lens, on a crop camera, its a bit better than it is on my 5D. I don't use it except as a outdoor walk around, and prefer to use primes if I can. I even returned my new 70-200mm f/2.8L II because I found it easier to carry three primes with me.

If a new 24-105 replacement came out with a 5D MK III, I'd be tempted to buy the kit.

 

[Etienne]

The new 24-105 replacement was rumored last year as well. Lens rumors are very difficult to get accurate information on. It does not seem unreasonable that a new one could be coming with a wider focal range, but it will be much more expensive, so it won't pull down the value of my existing one that I paid $700 for new three or four years ago. Back then the 5D kit with 24-105 cost a $600 premium over the base camera, and I bought the lens from a person who already had a 24-105 and just wanted to defray the cost of his 5D.

Mine has been a wonderful lens, on a crop camera, its a bit better than it is on my 5D. I don't use it except as a outdoor walk around, and prefer to use primes if I can. I even returned my new 70-200mm f/2.8L II because I found it easier to carry three primes with me.

If a new 24-105 replacement came out with a 5D MK III, I'd be tempted to buy the kit.

I'd buy the kit too, and sell my original 24-105. The original is still a great lens, but upgrading with the kit would be cheaper than upgrading later, so why not?

 

[wtlloyd]

I've got one, it's a decent kit lens....but have you ever watched when you apply lens correction in ACR?
I would definitely replace it if a new version came out.

 

[S P]

I own the current 24-105L and shoot it on my 5D Mark II. It's a fantastic lens. I love the range, and the stability, and f/4 on full-frame is still enough to get some nice "pop" and yank backgrounds out of focus a bit. What could they really improve on this lens? Maybe they'd make it a 24-120 like Nikon has done? Who knows. I love mine though. Excellent lens. What could really use an update is the 17-40L which I also own. I think its optics are a bit on the weak side for an L lens with the corners and edges getting pretty smeary. I'd love to see an update for this lens and would consider buying that. As it stands the optics on the 17-40L aren't really up to resolving all 21MP on the 5D2.

 

[WarStreet]

When I saw the Nikon 24-120 I thought that most Canon users won't like such a high zoom lens. I don't like a one lens for everything with quality penalty strategy. Considering this lens launched 5 years after the Canon 24-105, it seems to be a bit inferior to the Canon equivalent.

True, that in real life the penalty when translated to cropping ability, or print size might be insignificant, while the advantage for extra reach can give you a better framed shot with less cropping needed.

If Canon decide to go for this route, at least we are lucky that Canon lens technology is going to be used and we should expect an improved lens.

 

[gbaturin]

The 24 105 is still number one on my hit list, two years after buying a 50D. I reckon it is an absolute must own for any casual and or travel photographer. Go for it, it will still work for you when you move up to FF.

 

[Fleetie]

Well, I bought my 24-105mm last night after work. By the time I finish work, at this time of year, it's too dark to do much when I get home, so I'll have to wait for the weekend to play with it properly.

Initial impressions:

* I love having an L-series lens, FINALLY!

* Despite the above, and what people say about L-series build quality, the rings don't move SUPER-smoothly.
It doesn't even come remotely close to the lovely motion on my Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.2 film camera lens.
(I have an adaptor so I can use my non-AF Zuiko lenses on my 7D.)

* I tested the IS last night, and I liked what I found. It really works!

* Yes, the IS system does make a noise, but I also find it reassuring to hear it working.


I'll post some more about it when I've had a proper play with it, hopefully on Saturday.


Martin

 

[Admin US West]

When I saw the Nikon 24-120 I thought that most Canon users won't like such a high zoom lens. I don't like a one lens for everything with quality penalty strategy. Considering this lens launched 5 years after the Canon 24-105, it seems to be a bit inferior to the Canon equivalent.

The Nikon 24-120 VR was a "D" lens and launched in 2003. It should not even be mentioned in the same breath as a Canon 24-105mm L.

It was considered to be horrible, and made the 10 worst lenses of all time list. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm

That is why they replaced it in 2010, no one knowledgable wanted it. The new lens (AF-S 24-120 mm f/4G ED VR ) is a G lens and much better, it has a ultrasonic focus motor, but optically is not anything to brag about, particularly edges and corners.

I certainly would not consider trading one for my 24-105mm L.

 

[kubelik]

When I saw the Nikon 24-120 I thought that most Canon users won't like such a high zoom lens. I don't like a one lens for everything with quality penalty strategy. Considering this lens launched 5 years after the Canon 24-105, it seems to be a bit inferior to the Canon equivalent.

The Nikon 24-120 VR was a "D" lens and launched in 2003. It should not even be mentioned in the same breath as a Canon 24-105mm L.

It was considered to be horrible, and made the 10 worst lenses of all time list. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm

That is why they replaced it in 2010, no one knowledgable wanted it. The new lens (AF-S 24-120 mm f/4G ED VR ) is a G lens and much better, it has a ultrasonic focus motor, but optically is not anything to brag about, particularly edges and corners.

I certainly would not consider trading one for my 24-105mm L.

scales, thanks for the link; that's a really hilarious article (and not because it pokes fun at Nikon, I'd love to read a similar article with the 10 worst Canon lenses).