DXOMark: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Tested

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The always polarizing DXOMark has completed their analysis of the new Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II lens.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>If high sharpness is your only objective when buying a lens, then the scores achieved by the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM might be a little discouraging. Looking on the bright side, however, Canon has improved sharpness in the periphery at all focal lengths, even if that’s at the expense of some sharpness in the center. Whether that’s clearly better is open to debate, but in optical performance Canon can be praised for high transmission and for maintaining low levels of lateral chromatic aberration (fringing is lower than many high-grade primes).</p>
<p>Sure, we would have liked to see peak sharpness leap up, but then the price hasn’t sky-rocketed either. Optical performance is just one aspect of lens design, and this update still feels like more than just a step in the right direction. <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-F4L-IS-II-USM-lens-review-Updating-a-classic">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>This seems to fall in line with what others have said about the lens. Is it worth the price to upgrade from version 1? Probably not. Is it a good option if you need the focal range? It is, though you can get the Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art for $200 less.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[captainkanji]

I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed

 

[unfocused]

I find it interesting that as much as people on this site like to whine about anti-Canon bias at DXOMark and DPReview, their reviews of this lens have generally been much more favorable than the collective group-think on this forum.

I'm actually more inclined to consider this lens after digesting these reviews.

 

[ahsanford]

Trust everyone else, then. TDP, LR, PZ, etc. all basically said the same thing: this lens is not a clear upgrade from a purely optical perspective. At some FLs at the TDP image quality tool, the Mk I's samples actually look a tad better.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/995-canon24105f4ismk2?start=1

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/canon-24-105-f4-is-mk-ii-mtf-results/

But you get a zoom lock and slightly better IS.

But I disagree with the CR Guy post in that the budget alternative is not the Sigma, which has had some problems -- the budget option is 100% the Mk I version of the 24-105L.

- A

 

[CVP]

I have the Sigma 24-105 Art, and it is WAY better. I dunno about AF speed, but it's much sharper.

 

[riker]

Guys, this is pretty straight.

Sigma 24-105: 25MP, 885g
Canon 24-105 Mk1: 18MP, 670g
Canon 24-105 Mk2: 14MP, 795g

...mounted on a 5DS R that is.
I know that resolution is not all of it, but I think it's most of it, especially with 5d3, 5d4 and 5ds on the market.
I never buy Sigma over Canon because of AF speed and accuracy and just because I'm so oldschool/nonrebel but if someone wants to get a 24-105 for some reason it really seems to be the better choice this time (if you don't mind the weight tho).

The results are pretty disappointing imho, after some 11 years, making an mk2 which weighs 20% more and not even optically significantly better?! And that's when Canon is upgrading lenses to cope with the increasing resolution of cameras.

 

[ahsanford]

Guys, this is pretty straight.

Sigma 24-105: 25MP, 885g
Canon 24-105 Mk1: 18MP, 670g
Canon 24-105 Mk2: 14MP, 795g

I cheer for Sigma, I do, but this particular lens got pulled from production at one point, did it not? I'd drive around that one until more people starting posting what a reliable soldier that one is.

But your other point is well made, using DXO data or whatever else you use: the Mk II version is not an optical improvement, which is a shocking exception for Canon (their 'sequels' almost always are a big step forward optically). People should consider that before forking over their money.

- A

 

[bereninga]

For me, I'd prob still go for the 24-105 MkI. The optical difference doesn't sound that big and you get the weather-sealing and reliable AF.

 

[rfdesigner]

For me, I'd prob still go for the 24-105 MkI. The optical difference doesn't sound that big and you get the weather-sealing and reliable AF.

http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-24-105mm-f40l-is-usm-274-p.asp

http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-usm-5320-p.asp

a 2:1 price differential without a 2:1 performance differential.. hmmmm.

 

[slclick]

It's our Fake News!

 

[ExodistPhotography]

I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed

Yea for real..


IDK, DXO says this one is worse then the one its replacing.. Something tells me they got a dud, or just that their testing method is as wack as we all think..

 

[slclick]

I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed

Yea for real..


IDK, DXO says this one is worse then the one its replacing.. Something tells me they got a dud, or just that their testing method is as wack as we all think..

Of all the Canon L lenses, from my experience the 24-105 was one of the most infamous for copy variation. I just am SMH at Canon if that was the case again for the Mark 2.

 

[mycanonphotos]

New 24-105L is a DUD... I think Canon just ran out of all it's older parts laying around for the older 24-105, now using parts that are more customary to its updated line...

 

[Hector1970]

A bit disappointing. I've no great issue with DXO. Tricky business comparing lens. At least it's a method. I was speaking to a guy last night who is an agent for repairing Sigma / Tamron / Tokina / Olympus. He's very impressed with Sigmas build quality. Repairs of the new lens are from bad falls. He is thinks they are robustly made and very accurate. He says they are miles better made than before. I've all L lens but am tempted now by Sigma.

 

[slclick]

Guys, this is pretty straight.

Sigma 24-105: 25MP, 885g
Canon 24-105 Mk1: 18MP, 670g
Canon 24-105 Mk2: 14MP, 795g

I cheer for Sigma, I do, but this particular lens got pulled from production at one point, did it not? I'd drive around that one until more people starting posting what a reliable soldier that one is.

But your other point is well made, using DXO data or whatever else you use: the Mk II version is not an optical improvement, which is a shocking exception for Canon (their 'sequels' almost always are a big step forward optically). People should consider that before forking over their money.

- A

My Sigma copy was better in many ways than my 2 Canons. Not by a lot but yes, noticeable. And fwiw, my 2 Canon copies were similar in sharpness and vignetting.

 

[gmon750]

I don't understand the hatred of this lens. I have the Mk 1 of this lens and even though I stopped using it when I bought faster f/2.8 lenses, I loved this lens immensely. Razor sharp clarity is overrated. I couldn't tell anyways and my photos were always sharp.

People here expect every lens to capture a pimple on a flea's butt from a mile away. I can't tell the difference in 99% of the shots I captured with my 24-105 and my much more expensive 24-70 f/2.8 lens given the same settings.

So please... unless you've actually used one, just don't.

 

[slclick]

I don't understand the hatred of this lens. I have the Mk 1 of this lens and even though I stopped using it when I bought faster f/2.8 lenses, I loved this lens immensely. Razor sharp clarity is overrated. I couldn't tell anyways and my photos were always sharp.

People here expect every lens to capture a pimple on a flea's butt from a mile away. I can't tell the difference in 99% of the shots I captured with my 24-105 and my much more expensive 24-70 f/2.8 lens given the same settings.

So please... unless you've actually used one, just don't.

I get where you're coming from and me, as I owned 3 of these I had no hatred just hopes. When you talk about Art or L quality you have certain expectations. Higher expectations than say an EF-S lens or non L glass. Isn't that reasonable? I do not think that there is much or let alone overall hatred of this lens just that when a Mark 2 or 3 of something with a red ring comes out you would think there would be more than an incremental bump.

 

[rfdesigner]

I don't understand the hatred of this lens. I have the Mk 1 of this lens and even though I stopped using it when I bought faster f/2.8 lenses, I loved this lens immensely. Razor sharp clarity is overrated. I couldn't tell anyways and my photos were always sharp.

People here expect every lens to capture a pimple on a flea's butt from a mile away. I can't tell the difference in 99% of the shots I captured with my 24-105 and my much more expensive 24-70 f/2.8 lens given the same settings.

So please... unless you've actually used one, just don't.

I'm not about to disagree.. for me the issue is the old lens can be had brand new for half the price of the new. What else is upgraded other than the price?

I've only got primes, but could do with a decent zoom to cover the same range for faster moving moments. Now I'm a cheapskate, so would have liked the new lens to be stella so as to push lots of well cared for MkIs onto the second hand market depressing prices. I can't now see that happening.

 

[scrup]

On the positive, these average ratings will help get the prices lower.

 

[slclick]

On the positive, these average ratings will help get the prices lower.

I for one would love to see any documentation on Canon's pricing related to the rankings and scores on DXO