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

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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

This is a kit lens, the goal was probably to get manufacturing costs down and not to improve IQ except as much as could be done and still meet production cost goals.

I'd bet that the lens costs less than the MK I to produce, and as sales at initial pricing pay off the initial investment in startup costs, the price will drop.

 

[sebasan]

Dxo scores for Tamron 85mm: 45 for nikon d810, 42 for Canon 5DSR. They have the same results in the main categories, but the resolution in the Canon is better (38 vs 36) so it is pretty obvious that the Nikon deserves a better overall score. Well, they are the same "investigators" that gave the 1dxII sensor the same overall score to the d5.

 

[XL+]

Well, the 24-105 II was an "compromise solution", as I needed an zoom lens for hiking with IS for lesser light situations when shooting out of the hand.
It is big and heavy and well built. 77mm are reasonable to use with Lee filters.
I am - honestly said - a little bit disappointed by the sharpness of the 24-105 II, if you look at the areas outside of the center.
For more than 1300 bugs, it could have been a bit more of that.
I hope for improvements when Adobe releases new lens profiles for Lightroom.

I do not bash it, I looked at other lenses too, but stayed with this one, as it was announced as an better successor than the competitors.

BtW: If Canon releases an 2.8 24-70 III with IS, the 24-105 will be sold next day.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

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.

I do think the 24-105 camp has some unrealistic expecations of a 4.5x zoom lens, yes, but you may be missing our simpler/bigger-picture point: 24-105 lenses are fine, but this new one isn't demonstrably better than the old one.

Many folks love their 24-105 f/4L IS Mk I's but were hopeful a Mk II would make great improvements. That didn't happen, and they are bummed about it. That's it.

- A

 

[Sharlin]

I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed

Ironically, Buzzfeed does some pretty good actual journalism too these days.

 

[ahsanford]

I trust DXO about as much as I do Buzzfeed

Ironically, Buzzfeed does some pretty good actual journalism too these days.

On investigative work, I'd agree, but this past week blew all that up. I'm deeply disappointed in their decision to make that report public. Many major papers and networks were peddled that same report before the election and they (correctly) sat on it as it couldn't be verified. Buzzfeed -- out of some sense of intent or misplaced sense of responsibility -- horribly $#!+ the bed with that decision, IMHO.

Journalists need to publish verified content or they taint the entire profession with the specter of fake news.

But I'm off topic, my apologies.

- A

 

[unfocused]

...I do think the 24-105 camp has some unrealistic expecations of a 4.5x zoom lens, yes, but you may be missing our simpler/bigger-picture point: 24-105 lenses are fine, but this new one isn't demonstrably better than the old one.

Many folks love their 24-105 f/4L IS Mk I's but were hopeful a Mk II would make great improvements. That didn't happen, and they are bummed about it. That's it.

Yes, that was my initial reaction. However, as time goes by, I'm starting to put this into perspective.

Despite what some individuals may say, the test results indicate that no manufacturer has a better 24-105 zoom, and Nikon's longer zoom is apparently quite a bit worse.

I believe that if Canon could have made a better zoom and charged half-again or even twice the price, they probably would have. But, I suspect that the incremental cost for optical improvements was way more than 2X.

I disagree with those who say it is a "kit" lens and therefore Canon cut corners. The 24-70 f4 is perfectly suited to become the bargain kit lens. So far, Canon does not seem inclined to discount the 24-105 as a kit lens and I suspect they will continue to follow that strategy. I expect it to drop in price over the next year to 18 months, but I also don't expect it to fall much below $1,000.

 

[ahsanford]

Yes, that was my initial reaction. However, as time goes by, I'm starting to put this into perspective.

Despite what some individuals may say, the test results indicate that no manufacturer has a better 24-105 zoom, and Nikon's longer zoom is apparently quite a bit worse.

I believe that if Canon could have made a better zoom and charged half-again or even twice the price, they probably would have. But, I suspect that the incremental cost for optical improvements was way more than 2X.

I disagree with those who say it is a "kit" lens and therefore Canon cut corners. The 24-70 f4 is perfectly suited to become the bargain kit lens. So far, Canon does not seem inclined to discount the 24-105 as a kit lens and I suspect they will continue to follow that strategy. I expect it to drop in price over the next year to 18 months, but I also don't expect it to fall much below $1,000.

All fair, but why replace it if they can't improve it very much? Consider:

• EF is an epic ecosystem that needs to be maintained. So so so many more lenses could have used a refresh more than the 24-105L I, and if they couldn't improve it much, the only real winner with such a product is Canon's bottom line (as we presume it's now cheaper to build).
  
  
• Canon doesn't build its L lens reputation with clone-like updates to lenses. Making a Mk II about as good as the Mk I is what you do with an EF-S 18-55 refresh, a non-L 70-300 refresh, etc. -- not what you do with an L lens.
  
  
  
• They could have left the optics the same but added something to the mix (more than a lock switch ). Perhaps they could have put the 24-70 f/4L IS macro mode in there, or gone the nano-USM route + power zoom option to go with that shiny new DPAF + touchscreen + 4K FF rig they just launched.
  

So I'm not saying Canon didn't have a reason to put out such a modest refresh, but it appears that reason is cost and little else. I'm not whining about it as I don't use 4.5x zooms and I was never going to buy it, but many people here were hoping for something more: more sharpness, a new feature, less weight, etc.

In absence of that 'something more', one could legitimately question why they even did this. The minute an L lens update only benefits Canon, what an L lens represents is (ever-so-slightly) diminished in my eyes.

- A

 

[rfdesigner]

In absence of that 'something more', one could legitimately question why they even did this. The minute an L lens update only benefits Canon, what an L lens represents is (ever-so-slightly) diminished in my eyes.

- A

I think Roger (len rentals) said it had better consistancy. Perhaps the various test results don't get better, but the lens you're holding gets better?, however for double the price I could buy two of the old ones and just pick the better one and give the other to a worthy cause.

 

[Nado]

This is how ridickulous Dicksomark is. 14 perceptual megapixels on a 50 megapixel camera with no "aa"filter. Check the 5d iv at 30mp and the perceptual megapixels goes up to 15. Idiots.

This mkii lens does have better corner sharpness, better stabilization, and extra aperture blade for smoother bokeh.... they did do something.

At least canon did not claim that this lens will be capable of resolving 100mp, be future proof, tested to 50lpm and so on, then produce general quality. Now, if they did claim or advertise those comments as did phony, I would have a problem with it.

 

[TeT]

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

This lens is killing me, the mark 1 v the sigma there was not a clear winner. They excelled in different areas.. with the Mark II; everyone else is a winner, including the STM in a few comparisons ...

 

[Antono Refa]

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?

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.

 

[XL+]

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?

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.

We compared some shots from last landscape shootings a few days ago, and the image quality difference in MK I & II is really not worth upgrading. Maybe you can see some small improvements. If you upgrade because you need an better IS, the MK II is visibly better.
The shot included was handheld (5D IV and 24-105mm II at 41mm, 5.6 1/6s, Iso 100). (I know this is not an shot you present your friends or show them on the Internet or someone else. But for 1/6s handheld it is amazingly sharp. (If you notice my frozen fingers at -10°C))

Compared to the sigma Art competitor, I must personally say, IQ is quite as good as my Canon. Only the IS lacks.
Btw: (Compared to the Sony A7R2 with the 24-70 GM lens, I´m still a lot behind in IQ. Marvellous IQ. The only thing that is ing is: The 7 batteries, our colleague needed for this 4h shooting at minus 10° (I needed just 2 and the second one was half full) and the lens with its deep recessed groove where the tube extension is placed in. There a lot of snow retained inside. Also a littile bit the lacking IS)

 

[infared]

The choice that I made when I owned the Mark 1 was to sell it and buy the 24-70 f/2.8L II when it came out. The performance of that lens was so much better that I did not miss the extra reach that I lost. I could always use my 100mm f/2.8L Macro if I really have to have it ...or just put the white beast on the camera. It is kind of hard to believe that in 2016 Canon releases Mark II version of an extremely popular lens with a red ring on it and did not give it the kind of optical improvement that all other "L" upgrades have received. Especially considering all the new larger MP sensors. It make's one a little nervous about a new 50mm that Canon just can't seem to nail...but I have my Sigma Art...so it doesn't matter what Canon does there.

 

[Act444]

Many folks love their 24-105 f/4L IS Mk I's but were hopeful a Mk II would make great improvements. That didn't happen, and they are bummed about it. That's it.

Yup, I'm in this camp. My 24-105 is one of, if not the, most used lenses in my collection. I was HIGHLY anticipating version II, and even set aside some funds for the upgrade that I once thought was certain. I consider all aspects of lens performance but sharpness is at the top of the list, and this is where the new one is falling short. It's one thing if one review says it - maybe they got a dud, one could reason - but when you read like 6 and they're all in general agreement...to top it off, I even thought I read somewhere that the new version still has that not fully-correctable "moustache" distortion at 24mm that plagued the old version.

On the positive side, it's nice to hear that the new one is a little brighter and closer to a true f4.

 

[Mikeymb]

For me, the primary intent of the 24-105 focal length range is a general purpose, walk around lens. Put it on and off you go, not carrying any other lens. It could be touring, family times, whatever. The red ring gives you the comfort zone of “high quality” and good weather sealing.

Scenario – you are in Italy, on a one hour quick walk. The doors are open in this old Church, in you go. It is spectacular, marble, gilt work, not well lit and, you are virtually the only one there. The 24-105 will do the job. The f4 is not really a limitation, the IS gives you what you need. A few minutes later a women climbs the steps to the organ and begins practising for tomorrows service. There are massive organ pipes on either side of the Church, true stereo (old time) sound resonating. OK, eye contact then climb the steps and do what our cameras can do, switch to video and record this “happening”. Now the Camera and Lens combination is being asked to record video in a dimly lit space – the IS becomes critical. The width 24 sets the scene, the reach follows fingers on the keyboard and feet on the pedals.

So, in the scenario above, if the 24-70 2.8 II had been the chosen lens, I know the whole Organ scenario would have been compromised. The flexibility to go video in a “walk around” scenario is handicapped. Canon, why?

OK, our new 24-105 II. Seems to have it right for the intended purpose. A little extra weight, no real problem, we DSLR people, have made a choice to carry larger objects than point and shoot. Better IS, right thing to do. Sharpness – as our camera bodies evolve they resolve more. So, lenses need to follow suit, they need to resolve more to mate with camera bodies that exist today and over the next 8-10 years. This is a refresh intended (I would assume) to last thru maybe 3 generations of camera bodies to come. Canon, why?

For me, Canon has come close on both of the above lenses but left us with dilemmas (opportunities for other manufacturers) on both. Why?

 

[JoFT]

I am quite happy not to buy this lens.


I do own the Mk1. It is a pretty perfect lens as universal lens for traveling. It delivers nice images. That what you expect when you start @ f4.


If you want to get more iQ start carrying gear.


I maintain to be happy with Mk1.

 

[scyrene]

I'm surprised that owners of the mark I were clamouring for the upgrade. I own it because it was the kit lens, and have kept it because its resale value isn't worth the hassle of trying to get rid.

That's not to say I don't rate it; it's a great versatile lens and produces good quality images given its versatile focal range, so on occasions when I didn't know what to expect and only wanted to take one lens along, this was the one - and it usually exceeded my modest expectations. I don't expect I'd use it for landscapes if I was really into that; it is what it is - but it gives you the wide-ish FOV if you need it.

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.

Incidentally, the one thing I've noticed since getting the 5Ds is the difference in IS on this lens compared to newer/better ones. I have to remember that I can't shoot at 4 stops slower and expect pixel-sharp images, and I might with the 70-200 (but that latter lens cost me at least 2.5x as much, so I'm disappointed).

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[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.