Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?

[jeffa4444]

The Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM was launched in 2005 so its nearly ten years old. In that period sensor design has changed dramatically and as this is likely the most standard L zoom sold for full-frame due I think for an update.
The existing lens is good but competition has now caught up and my biggest bug bear with it are the lateral CAs at either end of the zoom range especially the wide end. Yes you shout Lightroom profiles can correct that but I always think at the expense of some definition.
I would also like to see if an internal zooming design could be adopted rather than the front tracking out.

 

[Loswr]

The refresh was called the 24-70mm f/4L IS.

 

[jeffa4444]

So they just lobbed off 35mm in reach?
Seriously if that is an answer then Sigma will definately take sales with their 24-105mm, secondly if that is an answer then why does Canon package the 24-105mm with cameras rather than the 24-70mm f4?

 

[Loswr]

The 24-105 makes for a cheaper kit, but Canon now sells kits with the 24-70/4 IS, too.

I don't think the Sigma 24-105 delivers significantly better IQ than the Canon 24-105, and the Canon is cheaper (as a new white box lens).

 

[Tanispyre]

I agree, the 24-70 IS is a poor replacement for the 24-105, the loss of range is nowhere compensated by the gain of a special macro mode, and a minor increase in image quality. I think the 24-70 IS is a nice lens but Canon needs something better for a general walk around lens for their full frame cameras. A new 24-105, or even better a 24-135 lens would be greatly appreciated.

What I think Canon should do is make a full frame equivalent of the EF-S 15-85 IS. Preferably with a constant aperture for the Videographers, and good weather sealing.

 

[transpo1]

Filmmaker and travel photographer here. The Canon 24-105 is the BEST overall lens for full-frame filmmaking. I've found it absolutely indispensable filming with the 5D and as a walk-around lens and don't think there is any substitute. The

• tele reach
• IS and
• constant aperture

are must haves for quick run and gun style shooting.

Couldn't imagine life without it, so if Canon refreshes, I'd be among the first to buy. And my hope is that within a couple of years, they will refresh. Sure, we could use a longer tele throw, but I'd rather they improve quality.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I would love to see an updated 24-105 that uses newer IS tech, better optics and everything else. However, to approach the IQ of the 24-70 with the longer FL of the 24-105, it will be very expensive, maybe even more expensive than the 24-70 II or f/4. So, I suspect that Canon has determined that a refresh of the current 24-105 will not be significant enough to merit the effort if the new price is to stay in the same range as the current lens. The current lens is 'good enough' as it is.

 

[unfocused]

I don't think the Sigma 24-105 delivers significantly better IQ than the Canon 24-105, and the Canon is cheaper (as a new white box lens).

I agree, the 24-70 IS is a poor replacement for the 24-105, the loss of range is nowhere compensated by the gain of a special macro mode, and a minor increase in image quality.

However, to approach the IQ of the 24-70 with the longer FL of the 24-105, it will be very expensive...

Those are your answers.

Technically, this lens retails for more than $1,100 in the U.S., but no one pays that much. In a kit or as a "white box" it goes for about half that amount. It is one of the best bargains available and the incremental cost for improving it would be higher than most people are willing to pay.

 

[transpo1]

And I'm okay with Canon if they don't refresh it -- just keep selling it. They have bigger things to work on, like that 14-24 or 12-24L I'll be buying

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I was very happy with my 24-105mm L. I remember when they first came out, and how difficult it was to get one. Just the same, I needed a wider aperture, and the 24-70mm f/2.8L provided it.

I doubt that we will see a replacement unless its a lower cost design that sells for more. Any time Canon upgrades a "L" lens, they move to the best possible performance that they believe can be sold. This usually results in a big price increase. There are some who might pay $ 1500-$1800 for a small improvement, but not many.

 

[Sporgon]

The 24 -105 was introduced with the original 5D and that combination made a budget wedding photographers 'kit'. The 105mm focal length went someway to compensate for the dof of an f4 lens so you can still produce some nice shallow dof portraits. I would suggest that for an event like a wedding the 24-105 is a much better lens to use than the 24-70 F4 IS, whereas if you are looking for a sharp landscape lens to use instead of primes, the latter is definitely better - assuming you get one that has been tuned up correctly.

I don't think we will see a mark II because, as has been pointed out, to improve the IQ over that range the increase in cost is going to be prohibitive. Also the mark I is still such a good lens for weddings ! I don't do many, but on one recently I used the 24-105 much of the time, and I was really pleased with the results.

 

[DanThePhotoMan]

Gonna throw my two cents in here.

The last few years I've been doing documentary work in Uganda, Kenya, India and Australia, and I can say the 24-105 is my go to lens, right next to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Honestly, even if they updated this lens I don't think I would buy it unless it was literally a mind blowing difference in image quality. Just got my Sony A7s in the other day, and believe me when I say that was a pair made in heaven, especially with the APS-C mode built into the camera.

This lens gets a lot of crap from people, but I really can't think of a better lens that I've used for documentary work.

 

[awinphoto]

I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed... That was after the CPS discount.

 

[dgatwood]

I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed... That was after the CPS discount.

The 24–105 L shouldn't creep—mine certainly doesn't. The problem is usually easy to fix, though:

http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1182560

 

[unfocused]

I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed... That was after the CPS discount.

The 24–105 L shouldn't creep—mine certainly doesn't. The problem is usually easy to fix, though:

http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1182560

Zoom creep? Try the 15-85 EF-S for awhile and then you'll know what zoom creep is all about.

 

[awinphoto]

I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed... That was after the CPS discount.

The 24–105 L shouldn't creep—mine certainly doesn't. The problem is usually easy to fix, though:

http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1182560

Zoom creep? Try the 15-85 EF-S for awhile and then you'll know what zoom creep is all about.

The zoom creep i'm talking about is the kind where if i'm with my family, or walking with a client, or any thing of the sorts, just the vibrations of me walking with the camera on the strap around my neck/shoulder would be enough to move the zoom from the 24 to 105 position. It's usually a gradual thing but something where now i've got to check every few minutes to make sure it hasn't creeped on me.

 

[awinphoto]

Even if they had one of those locks like on the 70-300 L, i'd be happy

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed... That was after the CPS discount.

The 24–105 L shouldn't creep—mine certainly doesn't. The problem is usually easy to fix, though:

http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1182560

Ditto. I've had mine since 2009 and it still doesn't creep. Not that I know of anyway. (But I still wouldn't mind a lock on it.) Anyway, I like my 24-105 regardless of what is said about it.

 

[pwp]

I accidentally packed the old 24-105 for a job recently instead of the 24-70 f/2.8II. Initially annoyed, I got to work and immediately appreciated the extra reach. When I got to the post-production I was amazed as I was reminded just how good this lens really is. I'm not about to rush out and sell the 24-70 f/2.8II, but I can see valid reasons for keeping the 24-105.

It's a great lens, a lot of peoples all-time favorite and in no need of a refresh. What's not to like?

-pw

 

[Zv]

I've had mine just under a year and it's easily my most used lens. I didn't have a high expectation at first but comparing it to my other lenses it does well. It's great for walkabouts, travel and events. Little bit soft on the tele end and f/4 which is understandable. I don't think this lens needs a refresh. Sigma's offering kind of proves that in a way (Sigma's is bigger and heavier and didn't really create the demand some expected). To improve upon it would mean a higher cost that frankly could go towards a prime lens instead. As a kit lens it ticks all the right boxes. I see it as something to build upon and you should have some other lenses to compliment it on FF anyway. If you need sharper or faster there's the excellent 24-70LII.

I don't think the 24-70 f/L4 IS was meant to replace it. Seems both can exist side by side. The 24-70/4 will appeal to different photogs who likely shoot more landscape and nature stuff. As a travel lens I much prefer the 24-105.