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

[NancyP]

I have the 6D. I have been debating on whether to get the Canon 24-105, the Sigma 24-105, the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II no-IS, or just putz about with the manual focus, manual aperture legacy prime lenses for a while longer.

My legacy lenses include pre-AI and AI/AIS Nikkors passed down from my father: 50 f/1.2, 55 f/3.5 P-C Macro, 105 f/2.5 (older), 135 f/ 2.8. Also resurrected from the back of the closet is my collection of M42 screw mount lenses from my old Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000, including the M-S 55 f/1.4 and M-S 60mm f/2.8 preset aperture 1:1 macro, both of which have appealing color and character a little different from the modern lenses, not to mention (for the 60mm macro) a funky hexagonal bokeh that can appear in some macro shots. The Nikkor 50 f/1.2 and 105 f/2.5 have their own character as well. I suppose that the difference between old and new coatings, optical design, etc means that the character of old lenses is in large part due to a pleasing balance of aberrations, whereas the modern lenses aim for and come far closer to absence of aberrations, thus are slightly "clinical" in character. I have no wide angle legacy lenses that are safe to use (known not to hang up the mirror) with the Canon 6D. I have modern Samyang 14, Zeiss 21 (bought used at the same time as the 6D - was going to buy zoom, saw Zeiss, made the "mistake" of putting it on the 6D - normal zoom purchase was postponed), Sigma Art 35 f/1.4 (formerly a fast normal prime for my 60D), each a delight in its own way.

I daresay that I will break down and get a modern zoom for convenience and weight savings vs carrying multiple, if individually small, old primes. I have had fun with old primes for the price of a few adapters.

 

[Sporgon]

So what needs fixing?

* distortion at the wide end - use the 16-35 f/4L
* softness at the long end - use the 70-300L
* lack of IQ in the middle - 24-70 f/4

So instead of fixing the 24-105 and making it better, Canon effectively encourage you to sell it and buy three other lenses instead, resulting in a net of two new lens sales to replace one lens.

And given that Sigma failed to deliver a substantially better lens with a bigger construction, what motivation is there for Canon to fix the current model?

*distortion at the wide end: think of it as a 28-105 and you won't go far wrong
*softness at the long end: improve your technique
*lack of IQ in the middle: give up photography and take up embroidery.

 

[Zv]

So what needs fixing?

* distortion at the wide end - use the 16-35 f/4L
* softness at the long end - use the 70-300L
* lack of IQ in the middle - 24-70 f/4

So instead of fixing the 24-105 and making it better, Canon effectively encourage you to sell it and buy three other lenses instead, resulting in a net of two new lens sales to replace one lens.

And given that Sigma failed to deliver a substantially better lens with a bigger construction, what motivation is there for Canon to fix the current model?

*distortion at the wide end: think of it as a 28-105 and you won't go far wrong
*softness at the long end: improve your technique
*lack of IQ in the middle: give up photography and take up embroidery.

Too right the things solid in the middle. Even 24mm works out quite good. I recently compared it to my 17-40L and it was sharper at all overlapping focal lengths. Not too shabby.

 

[Antono Refa]

The 24-105mm is different from other lenses:

1. The 24-105mm is a kit lens for two FF cameras, so it's white box price is a high priority for Canon. Therefore, Canon will be more sensitive to it's production costs, and less willing to invest in making the big investment in replacing it.

[This plays part in both upgrades from crop and in competition to Nikon kits.]

2. Being a kit lens, it should be positioned so as to encourage photographers to upgrade to other lenses - better, wider, longer, faster, etc.

A new 24-105mm would be detrimental to both causes, so I expect Canon to delay upgrade as long as it can. Currently Canon has the advantage of being able to offer a more attractive price in a kit, so I don't see how an upgrade would be urgent from Canon's point of view.

 

[Etienne]

My most frequent use of the 24-105 now is for video with an adapter on the EOS-M. It is remarkably good for this purpose.

I have magic lantern on the EOS-M, which has 3x video crop mode. This lens becomes 38-168 mm FF equiv in normal video mode, and about 115-500 mm in video crop mode. The results are far superior to any consumer camcorder, and at a lower price. Not to mention the humble 22mm f/2 becomes a 35mm / 115mm lens.

All of that for around $1000 ... you could literally make a feature film ... just add some audio equipment and support gear.

 

[Random Orbits]

The 24-105mm is different from other lenses:

1. The 24-105mm is a kit lens for two FF cameras, so it's white box price is a high priority for Canon. Therefore, Canon will be more sensitive to it's production costs, and less willing to invest in making the big investment in replacing it.

[This plays part in both upgrades from crop and in competition to Nikon kits.]

2. Being a kit lens, it should be positioned so as to encourage photographers to upgrade to other lenses - better, wider, longer, faster, etc.

A new 24-105mm would be detrimental to both causes, so I expect Canon to delay upgrade as long as it can. Currently Canon has the advantage of being able to offer a more attractive price in a kit, so I don't see how an upgrade would be urgent from Canon's point of view.

Or... the 24-70 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 24-105 f/4 IS as the sole kit lens. The 24-105 f/4 IS could then be redesigned to have better performance but for a higher price tag that will not be discounted as heavily because it will no longer be a kit lens. Some will upgrade from the 24-70 f/4 IS to the 24-105 f/4 IS II because it will be better with a longer focal length.

If Canon were to offer an updated 24-105 f/4 IS II in a kit configuration, then there will little point for having the 24-70 f/4 IS in the first place. And if Canon designed the 24-70 f/4 IS to be a kit lens from the start, so that it's production costs are reasonable, then it can discount it in a kit aggressively while maintaining a reason for people to look for a reason to replace their kit lens.

 

[Antono Refa]

The 24-105mm is different from other lenses:

1. The 24-105mm is a kit lens for two FF cameras, so it's white box price...

<snip>

Or... the 24-70 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 24-105 f/4 IS as the sole kit lens. The 24-105 f/4 IS could then be redesigned to have better performance but for a higher price tag that will not be discounted as heavily because it will no longer be a kit lens. Some will upgrade from the 24-70 f/4 IS to the 24-105 f/4 IS II because it will be better with a longer focal length.

I don't see Canon selling a kit lens that is 35mm shorter than Sigma's alternative, which will be cheaper than the 24-105mm mk2, and 50mm shorter than Nikon's kit lens.

If Canon were to offer an updated 24-105 f/4 IS II in a kit configuration, then there will little point for having the 24-70 f/4 IS in the first place. And if Canon designed the 24-70 f/4 IS to be a kit lens from the start, so that it's production costs are reasonable, then it can discount it in a kit aggressively while maintaining a reason for people to look for a reason to replace their kit lens.

That will create the image of Canon downgrading it's kit to make buyers draw the short straw.

 

[Random Orbits]

Or... the 24-70 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 24-105 f/4 IS as the sole kit lens. The 24-105 f/4 IS could then be redesigned to have better performance but for a higher price tag that will not be discounted as heavily because it will no longer be a kit lens. Some will upgrade from the 24-70 f/4 IS to the 24-105 f/4 IS II because it will be better with a longer focal length.

I don't see Canon selling a kit lens that is 35mm shorter than Sigma's alternative, which will be cheaper than the 24-105mm mk2, and 50mm shorter than Nikon's kit lens.

If Canon were to offer an updated 24-105 f/4 IS II in a kit configuration, then there will little point for having the 24-70 f/4 IS in the first place. And if Canon designed the 24-70 f/4 IS to be a kit lens from the start, so that it's production costs are reasonable, then it can discount it in a kit aggressively while maintaining a reason for people to look for a reason to replace their kit lens.

That will create the image of Canon downgrading it's kit to make buyers draw the short straw.

Perhaps, but if it can offer the kit lens at lower price, then it gets people to buy into the Canon eco-system, which is what matters. The Sigma can't be included in a kit, so you'll always be paying full price for it. As long as the 24-105 is a kit lens, Canon will not be able to raise the price to make developing a more costly version II worth it. I am cynical, after all... :

 

[dgatwood]

Or... the 24-70 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 24-105 f/4 IS as the sole kit lens. The 24-105 f/4 IS could then be redesigned to have better performance but for a higher price tag that will not be discounted as heavily because it will no longer be a kit lens. Some will upgrade from the 24-70 f/4 IS to the 24-105 f/4 IS II because it will be better with a longer focal length.

I don't see Canon selling a kit lens that is 35mm shorter than Sigma's alternative, which will be cheaper than the 24-105mm mk2, and 50mm shorter than Nikon's kit lens.

If Canon were to offer an updated 24-105 f/4 IS II in a kit configuration, then there will little point for having the 24-70 f/4 IS in the first place. And if Canon designed the 24-70 f/4 IS to be a kit lens from the start, so that it's production costs are reasonable, then it can discount it in a kit aggressively while maintaining a reason for people to look for a reason to replace their kit lens.

That will create the image of Canon downgrading it's kit to make buyers draw the short straw.

Perhaps, but if it can offer the kit lens at lower price, then it gets people to buy into the Canon eco-system, which is what matters. The Sigma can't be included in a kit, so you'll always be paying full price for it. As long as the 24-105 is a kit lens, Canon will not be able to raise the price to make developing a more costly version II worth it. I am cynical, after all... :

If they really want to convince people to adopt the Canon FF system, they should update the 28–135 into a more respectable 24–135. Make that the kit lens (comparable to the standard 15-85 kit lens on crop), and price it at a significantly lower price than the 24–105, with less than L quality but significantly better build quality than the current 28–135 (which IMO is crap even by EF-S standards).

Then they could update the 24–105 with higher IQ as a non-kit lens.

 

[philam65]

I have the 6D. I have been debating on whether to get the Canon 24-105, the Sigma 24-105, the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II no-IS, or just putz about with the manual focus, manual aperture legacy prime lenses for a while longer.


I purchased a reconditioned Canon 24-105 f/4 for use with my 7D. I was never impressed by the images I got despite careful AF micro adjustment. In short, the images were typically soft and limited me to only very light cropping, even when I went to the extreme of using a tripod and mirror-lockup. I was seriously considering selling the lens and replacing it with one or two primes since 7D plus primes produced nice results for me. Then I got a 6D body and everything changed! No AF micro adjustment required for the 24-105 on the 6D and the images were GREAT! I am now very happy with the 24-105 and use it frequently...but only with the 6D. Just my own experience...can't explain why the same lens produces such different results on two bodies...but I'm sure lots of forum experts have an opinion.

 

[Zv]

I have the 6D. I have been debating on whether to get the Canon 24-105, the Sigma 24-105, the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II no-IS, or just putz about with the manual focus, manual aperture legacy prime lenses for a while longer.


I purchased a reconditioned Canon 24-105 f/4 for use with my 7D. I was never impressed by the images I got despite careful AF micro adjustment. In short, the images were typically soft and limited me to only very light cropping, even when I went to the extreme of using a tripod and mirror-lockup. I was seriously considering selling the lens and replacing it with one or two primes since 7D plus primes produced nice results for me. Then I got a 6D body and everything changed! No AF micro adjustment required for the 24-105 on the 6D and the images were GREAT! I am now very happy with the 24-105 and use it frequently...but only with the 6D. Just my own experience...can't explain why the same lens produces such different results on two bodies...but I'm sure lots of forum experts have an opinion.

Because one was an 18 megapixel crop sensor with quite a strong AA filter and a propensity for noise and the other was a full frame 20 megapixel (much newer too) sensor camera that delivers exceptional IQ even at high ISOs.

Apple and oranges.

 

[Antono Refa]

If they really want to convince people to adopt the Canon FF system, they should update the 28–135 into a more respectable 24–135. Make that the kit lens (comparable to the standard 15-85 kit lens on crop), and price it at a significantly lower price than the 24–105, with less than L quality but significantly better build quality than the current 28–135 (which IMO is crap even by EF-S standards).

In film days, people bought a kit, then started figuring out what film they liked, what lenses they needed, and maybe start a home lab to develop & print their own B&W film.

Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.

Which is why I think Canon released a new & expensive L kit lens for the 5D, and for to Nikon eventually follow suit and release the Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR.

[It could be argued the EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4 L USM would have done the trick, but I think Canon wanted to encourage people to buy another lens to get f/2.8, and spoiling people with IS could encourage them to keep on buying lenses with IS.]

 

[Badger]

I got this lens as part of a kit with the 6D. I think my issue is that it is an L lens and as such, I had certain expectations. I think if they removed the damned red ring from the lens, it would solve a ton of issues. Its a really good lens but for many of us non pros, we assumed that if it is an L lens, it would be at the pinnacle of quality and performance.

 

[dgatwood]

Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.

Non-L doesn't have to mean crap. Look at the EF-S 10–22, which (in relative terms on crop vs. full-frame) outperforms the 10–22 L II at corner sharpness (though not quite as sharp in the center). In my mind, the distinction between L and non-L is more materials (metal versus plastic), build tolerances, and aperture. So the non-L version might be f/4–f/5.6 instead of a constant f/4, it might have more plastic in its construction, and the barrel might wiggle a little more.

 

[dgatwood]

Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.

Non-L doesn't have to mean crap. Look at the EF-S 10–22, which (in relative terms on crop vs. full-frame) outperforms the 10–22 L II at corner sharpness (though not quite as sharp in the center). In my mind, the distinction between L and non-L is more materials (metal versus plastic), build tolerances, and aperture. So the non-L version might be f/4–f/5.6 instead of a constant f/4, it might have more plastic in its construction, and the barrel might wiggle a little more.

I got this lens as part of a kit with the 6D. I think my issue is that it is an L lens and as such, I had certain expectations. I think if they removed the damned red ring from the lens, it would solve a ton of issues. Its a really good lens but for many of us non pros, we assumed that if it is an L lens, it would be at the pinnacle of quality and performance.

It probably was... nine years ago....

 

[Zv]

Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.

Non-L doesn't have to mean crap. Look at the EF-S 10–22, which (in relative terms on crop vs. full-frame) outperforms the 10–22 L II at corner sharpness (though not quite as sharp in the center). In my mind, the distinction between L and non-L is more materials (metal versus plastic), build tolerances, and aperture. So the non-L version might be f/4–f/5.6 instead of a constant f/4, it might have more plastic in its construction, and the barrel might wiggle a little more.

I had the EF-S 10-22mm lens and at that time it was my third lens after the 18-55 kit and nifty fifty and yeah when I got it I was like "this thing is solid!". It worked well and I loved it (kinda miss it a little). Then I replaced it with the 17-40L and for a brief time I had both lenses. First thing I noticed about the 17-40L was that it was built like a tank. What i previously thought about "solid build quality" regarding the 10-22 went out the window! Damn that thing is tight!

Regardless of optical performance (I think the 17-40L is quite good but others disagree) I no longer worry about my lenses when traveling and moving around. The lenses are built to take punishment and keep on working in adverse conditions. That part is worth the L designation in itself.

It's amusing when you see people baby their plastic kit lenses with (cheap) filters plus a lens cap on top of that filter like some catastrophe is about to befall them at any moment.

 

[Antono Refa]

Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.

Non-L doesn't have to mean crap. Look at the EF-S 10–22, which (in relative terms on crop vs. full-frame) outperforms the 16–35 L II at corner sharpness (though not quite as sharp in the center). In my mind, the distinction between L and non-L is more materials (metal versus plastic), build tolerances, and aperture. So the non-L version might be f/4–f/5.6 instead of a constant f/4, it might have more plastic in its construction, and the barrel might wiggle a little more.

Quality isn't just IQ. It's aperture (which I've mentioned), materials, and build tolerances as well.

 

[dgatwood]

Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.

Non-L doesn't have to mean crap. Look at the EF-S 10–22, which (in relative terms on crop vs. full-frame) outperforms the 16–35 L II at corner sharpness (though not quite as sharp in the center). In my mind, the distinction between L and non-L is more materials (metal versus plastic), build tolerances, and aperture. So the non-L version might be f/4–f/5.6 instead of a constant f/4, it might have more plastic in its construction, and the barrel might wiggle a little more.

Quality isn't just IQ. It's aperture (which I've mentioned), materials, and build tolerances as well.

I guess my point was that folks who buy the kit lens with a FF DSLR are either upgrading from a crop and replacing all their lenses (in which case they'd probably like something with a focal range that's angle-equivalent to their main crop lens) or they're just starting out. In either case, it's probably their first FF lens (unless they own a long zoom), and for most of them, build quality will be a secondary concern to IQ, particularly since they're probably used to the sloppier build quality that seems to be fairly common in EF-S lenses.

And although most of the pros would lean towards an L lens because of the higher build quality, that doesn't necessarily have much bearing on what the next kit lens should be, because most of them already own lenses, and aren't likely to buy a kit with a lens anyway.

But if the IQ sucks, that's a different matter, because it brings down the perception of the brand as a maker of quality gear. I think that if the lens's build quality is at least on par with the 10–22, and if the IQ is reasonably good, it will be well received as a starter lens for FF users, which is what a kit lens really is, after all.

 

[Antono Refa]

I guess my point was that folks who buy the kit lens with a FF DSLR are either upgrading from a crop and replacing all their lenses (in which case they'd probably like something with a focal range that's angle-equivalent to their main crop lens) or they're just starting out. In either case, it's probably their first FF lens (unless they own a long zoom), and for most of them, build quality will be a secondary concern to IQ

A. When I spend good money on a product, I expect it to have build quality to match. I also wanted something wider than the EF-S 17-85mm that I replaced with the EF 24-105mm. I upgraded from EF-S 10-22mm to EF 17-40mm.

B. People who get to the point of upgrading to FF should be able to read and understand lens reviews, search for photos taken with various lenses, and get a good feeling of what is it they're getting.

[OK, they might be idiots with cash to spare, in which case there's no point in discussing their motivation.]

And although most of the pros would lean towards an L lens because of the higher build quality, that doesn't necessarily have much bearing on what the next kit lens should be, because most of them already own lenses, and aren't likely to buy a kit with a lens anyway.

Exactly - I don't expect pros to upgrade their kit lens, which is what the 24-105mm is.

If a pro wants an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM with significantly better IQ, he'd probably be willing to split extra cash on something that is too expensive to be kit. It's analogous to the difference between the EF-S 18-200 and the EF 28-300mm L. If you want convenient & cheap, buy crop. If you need convenient & pro, fork a few thousands of dollars on FF body & superzoom, knowing full well you're still making some compromises.

[In other words: the point of kit is cheap, and the reality of cheap is that it sucks, as in not being one of the best L lenses around.]