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

[Antono Refa]

Canon is one of the luckiest companies on earth.

It refreshes a lens, sells it for the same price, and customers bitch they didn't get a big update for a big price bump.

And when Canon actually does it with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, customers bitch they didn't get an even more expensive version with IS.

Drug dealers don't get such good customers.

 

[scyrene]

Anyhow I'd have thought (although it seems I'm wrong, at least for some other forum users) that the mark II is meant to be the latest kit lens - not an upgrade for owners of the mark I, but another versatile beginner's L. Who buys a second kit lens at the same level? It's a shame there's no do-it-all lens at the next IQ level, but that's life, it's all a compromise.

I'm speculating, but about half this forum sees that lens as a staple tool for full-frame use, and they bristle at the thought that their most used lens is a 'kit' offering. They cite the weather-sealing, L reputation, etc. as some rebuttal to the smear of calling it a kit lens. This is partially in defense of money spent, but I have no doubt people are taking great images with 24-105 lenses and folks are sticking up for that fact.

And the other half sees it with some detachment and comes to the conclusion that the 24-105L is absolutely a kit lens:

• It is kitted with FF bodies and produced in very large numbers.
• It is not as sharp as other L zoom offerings with smaller FL multiples.
• It gets updated for little apparent reason or benefit to the public, implying Canon is trying to keep the costs down and reduce copy to copy variation. The lens is effectively a manufacturing continuous improvement opportunity more than a better tool to take better images.
• Buying a new 24-105L at MAP price is nuts as you can get one for 60% on the used/refurbished side of things if you are patient (due to how many are pumped into the field).

And you could say the exact same things for an 18-55 lens --> the 24-105L (both versions) are kit lenses to me. It's a reality, but it's not an insult. Both are fine instruments.

- A

Oh, interesting. I don't perceive 'kit lens' as perjorative but merely a statement of how the lens was bundled with bodies when sold.

And as I say, it's a great lens whose IQ is pretty good - although I've not tried any non-L kit lenses for a long time, I'm sure those are better than the ones I remember. It's a starter lens though - again not a perjorative, but it would make a good first lens for anyone starting out at the FF level. But it's not a lens people covet, and its poor resale value partly reflects that (plus there's been a glut).

I dunno if there's enough of a market for a better version to justify it being made, with IQ similar to the 24-70, with IS, but I'd personally be very interested.

 

[ahsanford]

And as I say, it's a great lens whose IQ is pretty good - although I've not tried any non-L kit lenses for a long time, I'm sure those are better than the ones I remember. It's a starter lens though - again not a perjorative, but it would make a good first lens for anyone starting out at the FF level. But it's not a lens people covet, and its poor resale value partly reflects that (plus there's been a glut).

I dunno if there's enough of a market for a better version to justify it being made, with IQ similar to the 24-70, with IS, but I'd personally be very interested.

That's the rub. Some people don't like but love their 24-105 (some have even asked for 24-120 or 24-135) and want much better IQ along the lines of the 24-70 f/2.8L II. Despite physics not thinking fondly of that idea, there are folks on this very forum that want (I'm guessing) a $2k leave-it-on-the-camera-at-all-times sort of standard zoom for 90% of their shooting. Doubt Canon would ever make such a lens.

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

Canon 5D 12.8 mp released 2005 along with 24-105 I. The 5D IV 30.1 mp released 2016 along with 24-105 II. Call the 24-105 II what you want (kit), it should have resolving power in tune with the body that it is being mated with not 2005 resolving power - in my opinion.

I suggest you read more about what kit lenses usually are.

 

[Mikeymb]

Canon 5D 12.8 mp released 2005 along with 24-105 I. The 5D IV 30.1 mp released 2016 along with 24-105 II. Call the 24-105 II what you want (kit), it should have resolving power in tune with the body that it is being mated with not 2005 resolving power - in my opinion.

I suggest you read more about what kit lenses usually are.

I suggest you compare 2005 body to lens match versus 2016 body to lens match

 

[slclick]

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?

And what are those expectations based on? Your own wishes, or some Canon publication saying a lens has to be that good to get a red ring?


Based upon years of experience with L Series lenses.

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.

The mk2 is priced same as the mk1, and that's a clear way of saying it's a refresh.

That means you get a new 4 stops IS, lock lever, lower copy to copy variances, and a small difference in image quality.

Its the same as one of the EF-S 18-55mm upgrades Canon made a while ago, where it made small changes, like painting some lettering on the barrel rather than cut into the metal and fill it with cover, or replacing a metal mount with a plastic mount.

That is, my guess is the upgrade had more to do with Canon saving money by sharing parts & manufacturing processes with other lenses, deflecting pressure on having modern IS, and making a quick buck by selling a bunch of copies in non-white boxes.

That disappoints you? Do like I did, and don't upgrade.

And fwiw, I'll never buy a 24-105 again, none of the three were that good. I'd rather use multiple great lenses than one good..

 

[tron]

One expense less then. It isn't as we aren't tempted by many great Canon lenses. ;D

 

[Antono Refa]

Canon 5D 12.8 mp released 2005 along with 24-105 I. The 5D IV 30.1 mp released 2016 along with 24-105 II. Call the 24-105 II what you want (kit), it should have resolving power in tune with the body that it is being mated with not 2005 resolving power - in my opinion.

I suggest you read more about what kit lenses usually are.

I suggest you compare 2005 body to lens match versus 2016 body to lens match

I did.

You missed the point about kit lenses not being designed to match sensor resolution. And probably another point regarding sensor resolution outpacing lens sharpness, at a given price point. And probably another regarding what resolution most photographers need most of the time. And probably another about the psychological processes that most people go through during through their teens and early twenties.

 

[infared]

I get a kick out of people defending Canon delivering a mediocre "L" lens in 2016. Fanbois much?

 

[jolyonralph]

You could get a second hand Mark 1 24-105 and have a fair chunk of change left for a second lens instead of buying the Mark II new. At current pricing the mark 1 24-105 is quite a bargain.

 

[jeffa4444]

I have the MK1 and the MKII. I also have access to lens projection & MTF at my workplace plus a light sphere to shoot the CIPA high resolution chart which I shot with my 5DS.

Straight out of the gate this lens is not a massive improvement over the MK1 version if you dont care about CAs (I do). Its sharper into the corners and Ive found equally sharp in the centre. Is it worth the upgrade? I think it is because it provides cleaner images with the better control of CAs and to me that was the biggest issue with the MKI lens.

Personally I think DXO testing methods are flawed as high end professional renters of Motion Picture & Still equipment the most valuable tools for testing lenses are MTF (on and off axis) and the projector. We dont know whether DXO optimised the lens to a camera (back focus) and you want to independently check a lens prior to putting it on a camera.

Ignore DXO in real world subject matter, with wind, motion and other factors such as focusing accuracy were not always getting 100% and then their is our own personal technique. I know with the 5DS I have to use higher shutter speeds than with the 6D and generally shot with it most of the time on a tripod.

Dont write the EF 24-105mm f4L II off the CA improvements are significant.

 

[LesC]

As the MK1 will soon no longer be available new (here in the UK stocks are running out it seems), if you want a new 24-105 L lens, the MKII will be the only option.

Yes, I was a little underwhelmed by the reviews but if it has optical performance the same as (or slightly improved) on the MKI with improved corner sharpness, improved control of CA & better IS then it will soon become the lens to go for unless you go for the much more expensive 24-70 F2.8L MKII.

It seems to me that although looking at reviews and charts is all well and good, real world performance particularly from someone like jeffa4444 who has both is often more insightful.

I do have the 24-70 F2.8L MKII but I will be getting the 24-105 at some time as I feel the IS will often be more of a factor in giving me sharp photographs than the alleged superior IQ of the 24-70 which I've never considered that amazing.

I may well wait for the 6D MKII hopefully later this year & get it as a kit if possible.

 

[hovland]

Had a 24-105 f/4l mk I, but was not happy with it , so when the mk II was launched, I sold it. But after reading various review’s, I seriously consider to by the 24-105mm f/3,5-5,6 IS STM instead. For few the times I need that walk around lens. I actually do not use that focal range much, my most used lenses is the 70-200 2,8 mkII, and the 16-35 F4 IS. + the sigma 50mm art. (5d mk4 body)

Anny one else who have done the same ?

 

[VeeTee]

Can anyone tell me the difference between these two 24-105 lenses?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000B84KAW/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1484501207&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+24-105
$629 on amazon
item weight 1.48lb
Item model number 0344B006

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1484501207&sr=1-4&keywords=canon+24-105
$999 on amazon
Item model number 0344B002
Item Weight 1.5 pounds

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Can anyone tell me the difference between these two 24-105 lenses?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000B84KAW/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1484501207&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+24-105
$629 on amazon
item weight 1.48lb
Item model number 0344B006

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1484501207&sr=1-4&keywords=canon+24-105
$999 on amazon
Item model number 0344B002
Item Weight 1.5 pounds

It's the same lens model. The difference is that the cheapest was removed from a kit with body + lens, and sold separately.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

Razor sharp clarity is overrated.

...to you. I happen to personally agree with you, but inferring that your photographic sensibilities are fact is not unlike trying to club someone over the head with your viewpoint. Some folks (right or wrong) value sharpness as the end-all be-all most important aspect of a lens.

- A

Here is my stance on sharpness. While razor sharp clarity may be overrated for many out there. The photographer may always not be the deciding factor. Many photogs make their living from commercial photography shooting everything from products to architecture and landscapes that will often get blown up in large sizes like seen in airports, or just in your run of the mill magazine. So the photographer needs to be able to offer the sharpest, most detailed rich image possible to the client. If its not, they will likely go to someone else. There is a reason medium format cameras are on the market. But not everyone can afford those beautiful monsters and everyone has to start somewhere before they can. So while the new 24-105 II may still be overkill for a 13x19 A3+ print. Its not up to the professional level we all expect from a L lens, kit or not..

 

[YuengLinger]

I don't have the numbers, but readers of Professional Photographer and Rangefinder know that the 24-105mm is one of the most commonly used lenses for images in these periodicals. I know that local pros on our area (Southeastern USA) who shoot portraits for individual clients and for the community magazines also frequently use the lens.

Once again, the obsessions of gear heads clash with the realities of working photographers.

Very sad Canon could not have done a little better with the refresh, but not likely to upset those who use it most if it matches the current in practical use. Especially if the IS truly is a little better.

 

[LesC]

And guess which is the most used lens out of "15,829,692 photos from year 2016 which have been posted on an assortment of websites, including Flickr, 500px and Pixabay, with ExifTool technology"

https://explorecams.com/stats/global

 

[slclick]

Once again this particular lens seems to have more copy to copy variation which leads to a a bigger YMMV factor on sharpness, hatred vs love and value. I think the horse is dead here.

 

[Antono Refa]

So while the new 24-105 II may still be overkill for a 13x19 A3+ print. Its not up to the professional level we all expect from a L lens, kit or not.

And your expectations from L lenses are based on... Canon official publication? Pulled it out of your a..hhmm, hat?