Lensrentals.com Puts the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Through Testing

[ahsanford]

Just dropped:

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

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

 

[Loswr]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

 

[ahsanford]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

Agree. Unless you own the 24-70 f/4L IS. I'm pleased to see that it acquitted itself well in the testing.

I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club.

- A

 

[Larsskv]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

Agree. Unless you own the 24-70 f/4L IS. I'm pleased to see that it acquitted itself well in the testing.

I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club.

- A

+ 1 +1! I absolutely agree with you on both lenses, and am a happy member of the 24-70 f4 L IS fan club!

 

[Loswr]

I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club.

You're diluting your efforts when you sholud be focusing exclusively on the 50mm f/somethingorother IS USM.

 

[ahsanford]

I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club.

You're diluting your efforts when you sholud be focusing exclusively on the 50mm f/somethingorother IS USM.

With my nutty ways, Canon will finally announce it as a 50mm f/2 IS USM, there will be a deafening 'why bother' from the small DOF crowd, and I will be the only one who buys it.

I'll be delighted, I'm sure.

- A

 

[Etienne]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

Agree. Unless you own the 24-70 f/4L IS. I'm pleased to see that it acquitted itself well in the testing.

I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club.

- A

I have the 28 f/2.8 IS and I agree it is a nice little lens. Very sharp, small and light, and just wide enough to be useful as a wide lens. Great for street photography, and walk around.

If I didn't already have the original 24-105 f/4L IS I would get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the new 24-105 mkII. But I'll stick with my old lens, for the few times I use it, it does a good job.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself.

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

I had contemplated upgrading to the newer version but saw a test a couple weeks ago that had the same conclusion. I think I'll just wear out the old one and see what's available when the time comes.
In all seriousness, it doesn't really matter how good the IQ is since I only take photos to post on Facebook.

 

[rfdesigner]

Just dropped:

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

- A

all very nice

but mechanically is it a zoom version of the 35LII?

come on Roger, we want to see inside!

 

[Larsskv]

I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself.

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.

I'm on my third 24-70 f2.8LII, and it is sharper in the center, and it has good contrast and clarity, that gives a nice pop to its images. However, each of those three lenses have had some issues. At 35mm my current lens is pretty bad in the upper right (APS-C) corner. The 24-70 f4 L IS is not as sharp at its sharpest, but it is much more even and don't have any particular weak spots. For landscapes, the 24-70 f4 is arguably the better lens of the two.

 

[j-nord]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

Agree. Unless you own the 24-70 f/4L IS. I'm pleased to see that it acquitted itself well in the testing.

- A

Yeah at 24 and 70 it's better. Where is the 50mm comparison? Both of these lenses are "meh" for me. As a one lens, walk around solution, unfortunately, they are hard to beat. I just can't handle these boring focal lengths with boring max apertures.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself.

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.

I'm on my third 24-70 f2.8LII, and it is sharper in the center, and it has good contrast and clarity, that gives a nice pop to its images. However, each of those three lenses have had some issues. At 35mm my current lens is pretty bad in the upper right (APS-C) corner. The 24-70 f4 L IS is not as sharp at its sharpest, but it is much more even and don't have any particular weak spots. For landscapes, the 24-70 f4 is arguably the better lens of the two.

I disagree about the 24-70 f4 not having any weak spots: of all the lenses I own that cover 50mm, this one is the worst performer at that length (softest, least contrast), and that includes the 50 1.8 STM (although shooting that at 1.8 is similar, at f4 it runs circles around the 24-70). That weakness at 50mm is almost THE reason I still have the 24-105, where it is strongest at 50mm, and sharper near MFD.

If it were simply the 2.8 II version optically with an f4 aperture, it likely would have been an instant 24-105 replacement for me. Alas, it is not, and I keep both and enjoy the extra reach of 105mm.

 

[Larsskv]

I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself.

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.

I'm on my third 24-70 f2.8LII, and it is sharper in the center, and it has good contrast and clarity, that gives a nice pop to its images. However, each of those three lenses have had some issues. At 35mm my current lens is pretty bad in the upper right (APS-C) corner. The 24-70 f4 L IS is not as sharp at its sharpest, but it is much more even and don't have any particular weak spots. For landscapes, the 24-70 f4 is arguably the better lens of the two.

I disagree about the 24-70 f4 not having any weak spots: if all the lenses I own that cover 50mm, this one is the worst performer at that length (softest, least contrast), and that includes the 50 1.8 STM (although shooting that at 1.8 is similar, at f4 it runs circles around the 24-70). That weakness at 50mm is almost THE reason I still have the 24-105, where it is strongest at 50mm, and sharper near MFD.

If it were simply the 2.8 II version optically with an f4 aperture, it likely would have been an instant 24-105 replacement for me. Alas, it is not, and I keep both and enjoy the extra reach of 105mm.

I've heard people complain at the 50mm performance, but my experience does not support that. I dont find my 24-70 f4 bad at 50mm at all. It is overall better at 50mm, than my f2.8 is at 35mm.

Roger Cicala has tested the 24-70 f4 at 50mm, and found it to be very close to it's 70mm performance.

 

[grainier]

Let's hope they have at least improved design and reliability and you don't have to live wondering just when the flex cable will go and how much PITA fixing it will be.

 

[NancyP]

Well, it looks as if I may go for the 24-70 f/4 L IS as a walk-around lens. Maybe I will stick the 40mm f/2.8 in my pocket for a "normal" lens, if the 40-50 mm range is weak. Weight matters some. Of course I want a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards at Canon.

 

[ahsanford]

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper?

Better IS comes to mind. TDP stated a 4-6 stops of IS were possible (with a grain of salt given that IS testing by hand is somewhat irreproducible), which is a step up from the Mk I. A zoom lock -- as light as I'm sure it is -- is also a nice add.

On the IS front, I'm starting to hear some folks pitching the notion that today's IS is so good that they recommend a landscaper leave their tripod at home. It's heresy for some -- myself included -- but some people pulling off 5s, 10s, 15s exposures handheld tend to puff up their chests and say that tripods are a thing of the past. Practically, we know this is nonsense for a jillion reasons (bracketing, astro, timelapse, wind, using ND grads, etc.), but a handheld 10s exposure is still a handheld 10s exposure -- IS is improving and people are finding new ways to use it.

- A

 

[jd7]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

Agree. Unless you own the 24-70 f/4L IS. I'm pleased to see that it acquitted itself well in the testing.

I continue to love 'odd duck' glass that others drive past for not looking like the pre-ordained staple lenses. I think I am the only guy who paid the initial asking price for the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and thought it a bargain. I love that little gem. And I'm apparently the president of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club.

- A

+ 1 +1! I absolutely agree with you on both lenses, and am a happy member of the 24-70 f4 L IS fan club!

I've never tried the 28mm f/2.8 IS, but I'm another happy member of the 24-70 f/4L IS fan club. Not saying it's perfect, but the combination of relatively small size, light weight, good IS, (semi-)macro mode, and very good IQ (in my experience, even at its weakest point around 50mm) makes it a very useful/practical lens for me.

 

[jd7]

I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself.

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.

I'm on my third 24-70 f2.8LII, and it is sharper in the center, and it has good contrast and clarity, that gives a nice pop to its images. However, each of those three lenses have had some issues. At 35mm my current lens is pretty bad in the upper right (APS-C) corner. The 24-70 f4 L IS is not as sharp at its sharpest, but it is much more even and don't have any particular weak spots. For landscapes, the 24-70 f4 is arguably the better lens of the two.

I disagree about the 24-70 f4 not having any weak spots: if all the lenses I own that cover 50mm, this one is the worst performer at that length (softest, least contrast), and that includes the 50 1.8 STM (although shooting that at 1.8 is similar, at f4 it runs circles around the 24-70). That weakness at 50mm is almost THE reason I still have the 24-105, where it is strongest at 50mm, and sharper near MFD.

If it were simply the 2.8 II version optically with an f4 aperture, it likely would have been an instant 24-105 replacement for me. Alas, it is not, and I keep both and enjoy the extra reach of 105mm.

I've heard people complain at the 50mm performance, but my experience does not support that. I dont find my 24-70 f4 bad at 50mm at all. It is overall better at 50mm, than my f2.8 is at 35mm.

Roger Cicala has tested the 24-70 f4 at 50mm, and found it to be very close to it's 70mm performance.

That is my experience also. And that is not the first time I have heard someone say the f/4 IS is more even across the frame than the f/2.8 II (as good as the f/2.8 II may be in many respects), although I don't have enough experience with the f/2.8 II to have an opinion about that myself.