A question for 24-105 upgrade.

[tron]

Hello all,

I would like to ask community's opinion on the following matter.

I have (among other) 24-105 4L IS which I use as a general purpose lens when I cannot carry a large selection of lenses (in the later case I would rather use 24-70 2.8L II)

I use it for landscapes and for internal building shooting (museums, churches).
I am thinking about upgrading it to 24-105 4L IS II for the better IS.

I have seen all comparisons and Canon's MTF diagrams so I understand that I do not get much of an optical upgrade.

The offer I got is a rather modest 350 euros. So forum members suggestions are more than welcome.

Do I have a risk of getting a slightly worse lens optically ?
I believe the two lenses seem more or less the same with very small differences.

Keep in mind that my copy seems just fine fully open with 5DMkIV although I did not
make specific tests, just judging from the results.

So based on the above would you upgrade it merely for the better IS for shooting museums and churches ?

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Recently I upgraded from the Canon 24-105 F4L to the 24-105 F4L ii and to be perfectly honest I can't see any differences in the quality of the images from the two lenses. The mark 2 lens is not worse than the mark 1, but I don't think it is any better either.
The most useful feature is the zoom lock, as I always had zoom creep problems with the old lens.
Do you shoot much video? If so then you might find the improved image stabilisation useful. If not then if I were you I would keep the old version of the lens and save yourself the thick end of 1,000 euros.

 

[tron]

Thanks for the info. I do not shoot video at all. I was just thinking of taking advantage of improved IS when shooting static objects at low level light so as to use lower shutter speed to control ISO. Other than that I am satisfied with 24-105 IQ at my 5DIV. And to tell the truth I have not tested handholding to the limit.

 

[Don Haines]

If you are using it inside churches and museums, then you are dealing with low light levels. Wouldn't you be looking for something a bit wider and a whole lot faster? The Sigma 18-35F1.8 comes to mind.....

<EDIT> OOPS! I meant 24-35... </EDIT>

Also, many of these places do not allow tripods, but you can usually get away with a monopod/walking stick......

 

[midluk]

If you are using it inside churches and museums, then you are dealing with low light levels. Wouldn't you be looking for something a bit wider and a whole lot faster? The Sigma 18-35F1.8 comes to mind.....

Or the 16-35 f/4L IS. With IS it has better low light capabilities than even the fastest non-stabilized lenses.

 

[tron]

@midluk: Yes the 16-35 f/4 L IS is an option as well as the faster 16-35 f/2.8L III (at least somehow since it is one stop faster). I do have access to these lenses. But sometimes the 24-105 is helpful when you cannot go closer or wish to keep the target more straight by shooting from distance.

@Don Haines: I believe the Sigma 18-35 is a crop lens only (I shoot FF) but the stick seems a brilliant idea. I haven't thought of that. I will look into it. Many thanks. By the way I also use a 16-35 lens but I refer to cases mentioned above: to keep the target more straight by shooting from distance.

 

[Don Haines]

@Don Haines: I believe the Sigma 18-35 is a crop lens only (I shoot FF) but the stick seems a brilliant idea. I haven't thought of that. I will look into it. Many thanks. By the way I also use a 16-35 lens but I refer to cases mentioned above: to keep the target more straight by shooting from distance.

OOPS! I meant to say 24-35!.... but as another poster has said, no IS

I have a walking stick where I can unscrew the walnut ball from the top and mount the camera onto it. I find that it greatly improves my stability. just make sure that you limp a bit as you walk past the museum security and mutter something about sprained ankles or arthritis.....

 

[FramerMCB]

If you are using it inside churches and museums, then you are dealing with low light levels. Wouldn't you be looking for something a bit wider and a whole lot faster? The Sigma 18-35F1.8 comes to mind.....

<EDIT> OOPS! I meant 24-35... </EDIT>

Also, many of these places do not allow tripods, but you can usually get away with a monopod/walking stick......

Not to be picky... While the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art lens is a good performer and would probably work on the OP's 5D Mk IV the lens is made for APS-C sensors so the corners especially at 1.8 to probably 3.5 or so would be very, very dark.

 

[Loswr]

I have a walking stick where I can unscrew the walnut ball from the top and mount the camera onto it. I find that it greatly improves my stability. just make sure that you limp a bit as you walk past the museum security and mutter something about sprained ankles or arthritis.....

Indeed. I have a nice RRS monopod, but I also have a pair of Leki trekking poles with 1/4”-20 studs under the tops, and for certian museums I have —on occasion— brought one of them along with the rubber tip on the foot. Poor guy, he’s young to need a cane. Mwahaahaaaaa.

 

[Random Orbits]

It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit. Benefits: better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear. Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit. Benefits: better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear. Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?

I did not realize the lens passed 1/3 stop more light. In a light limited situation, you need every bit of help you can get.

 

[tron]

It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit. Benefits: better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear. Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?

Actually the cost is the cost of new lens minus 350 euros not 350 euros. Very useful information about the T stop difference. But I just saw in DXOMark that although the newer is better in T stop it is worse in sharpness: 14Mp vs. 18Mp for 5DsR or 15 vs. 17 for 5DMkIV. Strange that it has 15 with 5DIV and 14 with 5Dsr though...

 

[wm700293]

Well, I have the both original 24-105 f:4, the "new" 24-105 II f:4, and the 16-35 f:4. My "new" 24-105 is head and shoulders better than the original, in terms of build quality. It is a much 'tighter' better feeling lens, a relative pleasure to use. Yes, the lack of a zoom lock on the original lens has driven me crazy…

The only thing I do not like about the new lens is the positioning of the lens hood lock button at top dead center, or bottom dead center when on the lens. This position makes it easy to accidentally "unlatch" the hood when setting the camera down or when carrying the camera slung off of a shoulder in such a way that the button comes in contact with a surface or my hip or elsewhere, and the hood works its way off of the lens and to the ground, unnoticed. This tendency has me be constantly monitoring that button orientation situation.

This same button situation exists with the 16-35. I can't afford to replace too many lens hoods when Canon charges $25 to $50 apiece for them… Wouldn't you think the designers and quality control people would have noticed this?
Oh, that's right, they only design and inspect them, THEY DON'T USE THEM! OK, rant over.

I've been using Canon cameras for more than 50 years. 7S, 7SZ, TL, FT, F1 System, 10D, 5D, 5DIV, 16-35 f4, 24-105 f:4 (both), "nifty fifty" f:1.8, 50mm f:2.5 Macro & 1:1 EXTENDER, 28mm f:3.5, 40mm F:2.8, and 70-200 F:2.8, 1.4x & 2x extenders, oh - and I almost forgot - the venerable 28-135 f:3.5-f5.6, plus 8 580EX II flash units and miscellaneous RF lenses (both Canon & Leica), as well as various triggers, hammers and firing pins… and about a zillion filters of half-a-zillion sizes.

Anyway, either vintage of the 24-105 f:4 is an incredibly good "walk around" lens. I have no complaints other than as noted above, but I give higher marks to the "new" one. Oh, and by the way, the 16-35 f:4 is outstanding, in my opinion.

Regards,
Billy

 

[Random Orbits]

It comes down to comparing the cost of the upgrade (350 euros?) vs. the expected benefit. Benefits: better IS, lower transmission (4.4 Tstop vs. 5.1 Tstop according to DXO and also noted in TDP review), new lens with less wear and tear. Will the IS and 1/3 stop better transmission help you get better shots?

Actually the cost is the cost of new lens minus 350 euros not 350 euros. Very useful information about the T stop difference. But I just saw in DXOMark that although the newer is better in T stop it is worse in sharpness: 14Mp vs. 18Mp for 5DsR or 15 vs. 17 for 5DMkIV. Strange that it has 15 with 5DIV and 14 with 5Dsr though...

Gotcha. I wouldn't put too much stock into the DXO score/acutance maps. Seems like they had a bad copy of the 24-105 II. Design MTFs show they should be similar. TDP review and charts also support they are similar... and here DXO gets a worse result. Which one do you believe?

Like you, I also have the 24-70 f/2.8 II. It's a great lens, but I find 70mm too short for portraits. But I got the 24-105 f/4 IS II to mainly use for videos (I was using a 18-135 for that and this would drop the ISO by a stop which is significant for plays) and as a walk-around option. I got my 25-104 f/4 IS II (white box) for about 700 USD. Look for a deal to come up -- I wouldn't pay the original MSRP for the new version, but the kit delta in the US is already less than 1000 USD for retail kits, so the gap is starting to close.

 

[picturefan]

Long time I thought a 24-105 is the one and only option for a walk-around lens, but then i felt in love with the 24-70 IS
Ok, a bit shorter fl, but so handy, just a lovely lens...

 

[Neil1000]

Please take a look at Juza


https://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&t=canon_24-105

the original 24-105 is one of the most slagged off Canon lenses of all time but look at how many editor award pictures it received.

I think possibly the best, most versatile Canon lens of all time

I shoot Sony now but this was/is a monster of a lens

Neil

 

[tron]

I have no doubt that it can win awards and that it can be very versatile. My only consideration (if you read the original post) is that the version II has better IS and I mentioned indoor shooting (museums, churches). Of course it is a nice lens at least it has been with my now sold 5D3 and my 5D4.

 

[jolyonralph]

I liked mine a lot, I only stopped using it when I got the 5DSR and found it just too soft on the high-res sensor to be acceptable.

My brother is now using it with my old 5D Mark III quite happily.

 

[jd7]

This thread got me thinking about the 24-105 II ...

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
(1) 16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
(2) 24-70/4L IS + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II
(3) 24-70/2.8L II + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II

Obviously there is no single "right answer" - personal photographic style and the precise use case (eg where you are travelling and how you are travelling) will be important factors. Still, I would be interested to hear what others think, particularly if you have traveled with any of these combinations.

I have traveled with the 24-70/4L IS quite, including taking it on hikes/camping trips, and I have been pretty happy with it, but I have been thinking about pairing it with another reasonably light zoom for travel. I have also been tempted by the 24-70/2.8L II but haven't bitten yet. The combination of lack of IS, weight, size and cost for one stop of aperture at those focal lengths (and some extra sharpness, although I wonder how often I would really see the benefit in travel situations) has held me back so far, even though the extra stop would be significant.

 

[privatebydesign]

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
(1) 16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
(2) 24-70/4L IS + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II
(3) 24-70/2.8L II + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II

Best case, sort out your favorite 100 shot from your previous travels then look at the EXIF data.

I used to take two or three 1 series bodies 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's plus two or three primes depending on what I was concentrating on. Now I take a single 1 series body with a 35 f2 IS and a 100 L Macro, I get way more keepers and with stitching software the modest two focal lengths result in infinite combinations.