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

[Deleted member 7828]

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.

True, but those alone are hardly worth $1K - at least to me. YMMV though.

As for the 24-70 f4, I do like that lens overall - there is a reason I've kept it despite the major 50mm drawback. I've discovered it's a great go-to for travel use. The 2.8 version has been a great lens in my experience, although not perfect; I find it weakest at 70mm, particularly off-center. I'd rather use the wide end of the 70-200 2.8 if I required the 70mm focal length particularly (and yes, the IS is part of the reason as well).

 

[YellowJersey]

I'm curios to see how it compares to the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 ART lens. I know the Sigma lacks weather sealing, but as I understand it, the IQ coming out of the Sigma is noticeably better than the Mk I, so I'd bet it's better than the Mk II, too.

I used to have the Mk I, nearly had it for ten years. It was my first L series lens. But I sold it a little while ago as I was demanding sharper results. Looks like I'll probably be picking up the Sigma as a replacement.

 

[AvTvM]

i would also like to see comparison to Sigma. And even more so comparison to Canon 24-105 Non L.

got 24-70/2.8 II, but would like the extra range, IS and a smaller/lighter lens for walkaround. if i could get 90% of the IQ at half the size and a quarter of the price, i might accept the darker/variable aperture of the Non L.

 

[ahsanford]

Why do people wonder about the Sigma? The data is out there:


TDP

24mm f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

105mm f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

At 105mm, you can argue whether you want slightly sharper or fringe-free (the 24-105 f/4L II seems to have an odd blue cast to it). But they are close for sharpness.

At 24mm, it's easier to see. The Sigma is sharper, especially in the mid frame.

Play around with the tool if you want other FLs.


PZ

The L II isn't there, but if you presume it's about the same as the original 24-105L, you can compare that to the Sigma.

24-105 f/4L I: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/864-sigma24105f4eos?start=1

Sigma was phenomenal in the center but largely in line with the Canon elsewhere.


LensTip:

The L II isn't there, but if you presume it's about the same as the original 24-105L, you can compare that to the Sigma.

I'll jump to resolution but you can peruse other areas at the bottom.

24-105 f/4L I: http://www.lenstip.com/240.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-105_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html

Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art: http://www.lenstip.com/389.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24-105_mm_f_4_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

They aren't terribly far off from each other. The Sigma was stronger in the center on the 24mm end, while the Canon did better in the frame corners in the 40mm neighborhood.


The problem of course is that one lens is a crummy way to size up how it performs. The three reviews had different findings.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

Why do people wonder about the Sigma? The data is out there:
...
The problem of course is that one lens is a crummy way to size up how it performs. The three reviews had different findings.

That's exactly why I would love to see Roger include the Sigma and the Canon 24-105 non L in his test ... applying his superior test methods [multiple copies], superior test equipment [OLAF], superior lens test know-how and his far superior writing skills ... 8)

 

[Maximilian]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

So I come to the conclusion that V2 offers:

• about the same IQ
• latest IS
• zoom look
• higher price and no good discounts as kit lens
• probably lower production costs for Canon

So except for the latest IS (and maybe the zoom lock) a real big personal disappointment to me.
But it will save me some money, because I will not part with my V1 for some more years.

Disclaimer:
I never was expecting IQ to improve to 24-70/2.8 V2 level.
But I was expecting it to get a visible gap to the non-L 24-105.

 

[Alex_M]

The area where Sigma 24-105 Art was not phenomenal in my experience .. I mean at all.. was AF consistency.
I played with the lens for a few days and gave up seeing how unpredictable AF results were. I see no value in out of focus images taken with what can be potentially a great glass. I believe that second generation of Sigma Art lenses will be a mighty force for OEM's to recon with though.

Why do people wonder about the Sigma? The data is out there:


Sigma was phenomenal in the center but largely in line with the Canon elsewhere.

 

[infared]

Thanks Roger.
I will keep my excellent copy of my 24-70mm f/2.8L II. I was expensive and has less reach...but it's a pretty damn good lens for a zoom....

 

[YuengLinger]

Count me as one of the optimistic who sold a 5D III + 24-105 kit to fund an upgrade to the 5D IV.

Personally, I have not entered the video zone, but I can certainly understand the frustration some have over the cropped 4k with MASSIVE file sizes. So if we count this aspect of the 5D IV a STRIKE, and the apocalyptic vignetting of the brand new 16-35 f/2.8 III, and the somewhat cynical refresh of the 24-105mm...



Canon, that's three strikes and you are OUT. But there are more players coming to bat, and many more innings to play, so I'm still in their stadium.

But more seriously, the 24-105mm is the workhorse, bread and butter lens of many portrait and event photographers, the ones who make a living, just, but aren't workshop superstars or celebrity wedding photographers. The current issue of PPA--and quite a few others!--has a cover photo taken with the the 24-105mm.

So, "kit lens" or not, this is a lens that serves a core of photographers who likely expected a little more of a nod from Canon.

And, oh yes, I was one who gave up on the 80D (poor QC and I just didn't like the images of that particular sensor), so, for the first time in...Maybe ever? I'm venturing to another brand, really ready to check out the Fuji X-T2. I would have loved to stay Canon with mirrorless, but the efforts to date? No thanks, I'm not hanging in for another new product that has to be defended with pretzel logic.

Just sayin...And you can look at how harshly over the years I've reacted to chronic Canon bashers, so, either I'm in a mood or Canon really needs to pick up their game.

 

[jalbfb]

I will be getting the 5D4 in January and was going to get the newer 24-105 and sell off my present 5D3 and older version 24-105. But after this article, I'll sell the present 5D3 body and keep my 24-105 and save the $1100. I like the extra reach that 105 gives me and the IS, so I will probably stay away from the 24-70 although I must admit it is tempting. If the price of the newer lens comes down I may decide at that time to sell the older and get the newer.

 

[infared]

Count me as one of the optimistic who sold a 5D III + 24-105 kit to fund an upgrade to the 5D IV.

Personally, I have not entered the video zone, but I can certainly understand the frustration some have over the cropped 4k with MASSIVE file sizes. So if we count this aspect of the 5D IV a STRIKE, and the apocalyptic vignetting of the brand new 16-35 f/2.8 III, and the somewhat cynical refresh of the 24-105mm...



Canon, that's three strikes and you are OUT. But there are more players coming to bat, and many more innings to play, so I'm still in their stadium.

But more seriously, the 24-105mm is the workhorse, bread and butter lens of many portrait and event photographers, the ones who make a living, just, but aren't workshop superstars or celebrity wedding photographers. The current issue of PPA--and quite a few others!--has a cover photo taken with the the 24-105mm.

So, "kit lens" or not, this is a lens that serves a core of photographers who likely expected a little more of a nod from Canon.

And, oh yes, I was one who gave up on the 80D (poor QC and I just didn't like the images of that particular sensor), so, for the first time in...Maybe ever? I'm venturing to another brand, really ready to check out the Fuji X-T2. I would have loved to stay Canon with mirrorless, but the efforts to date? No thanks, I'm not hanging in for another new product that has to be defended with pretzel logic.

Just sayin...And you can look at how harshly over the years I've reacted to chronic Canon bashers, so, either I'm in a mood or Canon really needs to pick up their game.

Choices can be important.
I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II to buy the 16-35 f/4 IS. Even trade...no money out of pocket. Couldn't be happier. Way better.
As far as the 5DIV goes...I am just going to skip that, too. I shoot stills, I usually do not make prints larger than 30"
or so..and my 5DIII gives me great files that are much easier to process in post and store. Perhaps when I can pick one up for $1800....I will see how I feel then. I just don't think, for me, that I would see $3500 worth of image improvement. If I have a great photo...it just won't make much difference.

 

[YuengLinger]

Count me as one of the optimistic who sold a 5D III + 24-105 kit to fund an upgrade to the 5D IV.

Personally, I have not entered the video zone, but I can certainly understand the frustration some have over the cropped 4k with MASSIVE file sizes. So if we count this aspect of the 5D IV a STRIKE, and the apocalyptic vignetting of the brand new 16-35 f/2.8 III, and the somewhat cynical refresh of the 24-105mm...



Canon, that's three strikes and you are OUT. But there are more players coming to bat, and many more innings to play, so I'm still in their stadium.

But more seriously, the 24-105mm is the workhorse, bread and butter lens of many portrait and event photographers, the ones who make a living, just, but aren't workshop superstars or celebrity wedding photographers. The current issue of PPA--and quite a few others!--has a cover photo taken with the the 24-105mm.

So, "kit lens" or not, this is a lens that serves a core of photographers who likely expected a little more of a nod from Canon.

And, oh yes, I was one who gave up on the 80D (poor QC and I just didn't like the images of that particular sensor), so, for the first time in...Maybe ever? I'm venturing to another brand, really ready to check out the Fuji X-T2. I would have loved to stay Canon with mirrorless, but the efforts to date? No thanks, I'm not hanging in for another new product that has to be defended with pretzel logic.

Just sayin...And you can look at how harshly over the years I've reacted to chronic Canon bashers, so, either I'm in a mood or Canon really needs to pick up their game.

Choices can be important.
I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II to buy the 16-35 f/4 IS. Even trade...no money out of pocket. Couldn't be happier. Way better.
As far as the 5DIV goes...I am just going to skip that, too. I shoot stills, I usually do not make prints larger than 30"
or so..and my 5DIII gives me great files that are much easier to process in post and store. Perhaps when I can pick one up for $1800....I will see how I feel then. I just don't think, for me, that I would see $3500 worth of image improvement. If I have a great photo...it just won't make much difference.

Very reasonable! However, I was so keen to get the better AF I took a chance, and, so far, I'm glad. Just nailing so many shots exactly where they should be. Was it cost effective? Smart financially? Don't ask me that!

I AM glad that I didn't go for the kit with the new 24-105mm. My friend who bought my old one is happy!

Fantasy: The shortage of new 24-105mm was due to somebody realizing the new ones weren't as improved as engineered, production paused, and some tweaking is going on...Fantasy.

 

[Luds34]

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.

Hey, at least you have a 28mm that gets some love from folks. I own the 28mm f/1.8 and if one were to read about that lens on the internet you'd swear it wasn't capable of producing any image at all!

 

[LesC]

I'm venturing to another brand, really ready to check out the Fuji X-T2. I would have loved to stay Canon with mirrorless, but the efforts to date?

Is that to replace the 80D (not the 5D MK1V too) ? I do like the look of the X-T2 but it's not that small (If I want small & light my EOD100D (SL1) + 17-40F4 L is a good combo). Mirrorless seem appealing but until I get to the stage where a DSLR is too much to carry I'm sticking with them - just prefer a real viewfinder.

As to the new 24-105, despite my original disappointment that there's not a big increase if any over the original, I'll probably end up getting one - maybe the price will drop after Xmas...

 

[monkey44]

Was looking forward to upgrading the 24-105 if the performance was a good upgrade ... BUT ::

I own the ancient Canon 20-35 lens, and it's very solid. I bought it when I bought he 30D and the 28-135 years ago. Haven't used the 20-35 much since buying the 16-35 f4, but it performed well for years. Can't quite let myself sell it, and will probably keep the 24-105 v1 rather than spend for minimal upgrade on the v.2 -

May sell the 16-35 and keep the 20-35 and the 24-105 v1 ... I don't often shoot wide anyway ... my major focus is wildlife and sports. The 20-35 is a really nice lens ... not sure why Canon quit building it, but it sure performs well - or, maybe I bought a very good copy??? On the good side, saved me $1100 ...

 

[ahsanford]

FYI:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31411.msg638352#msg638352

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

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.

Hey, at least you have a 28mm that gets some love from folks. I own the 28mm f/1.8 and if one were to read about that lens on the internet you'd swear it wasn't capable of producing any image at all!

I like the 28 f/2.8 IS (refurb sale), but I don't use it much. It's small but I often find myself reaching for the 16-35 f/4 IS more.

 

[Maximilian]

...
Fantasy: The shortage of new 24-105mm was due to somebody realizing the new ones weren't as improved as engineered, production paused, and some tweaking is going on...Fantasy.

I'm sure that'll stay a fantasy until V3 of that lens - sadly.

Only good thing is the reduction of the copy variation.
But why make it larger then? Does the new IS need so much space? Don't think so.

 

[ahsanford]

...
Fantasy: The shortage of new 24-105mm was due to somebody realizing the new ones weren't as improved as engineered, production paused, and some tweaking is going on...Fantasy.

I'm sure that'll stay a fantasy until V3 of that lens - sadly.

Only good thing is the reduction of the copy variation.
But why make it larger then? Does the new IS need so much space? Don't think so.

24mm distortion (previously a comically high amount) has been tamed as well. It's not a poor lens, mind you, it's just a very small improvement.

We may find other upsides to it -- durability, AF consistency, IS noise reduction, etc. -- that aren't as sexy but still provide value.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm venturing to another brand, really ready to check out the Fuji X-T2. I would have loved to stay Canon with mirrorless, but the efforts to date?

Is that to replace the 80D (not the 5D MK1V too) ? I do like the look of the X-T2 but it's not that small (If I want small & light my EOD100D (SL1) + 17-40F4 L is a good combo). Mirrorless seem appealing but until I get to the stage where a DSLR is too much to carry I'm sticking with them - just prefer a real viewfinder.

As to the new 24-105, despite my original disappointment that there's not a big increase if any over the original, I'll probably end up getting one - maybe the price will drop after Xmas...

Just by luck a friend of the family showed up after Thanksgiving with his X-T2, which I had been looking at for weeks.

It feels MUCH smaller, much lighter than the 80D, enough so that it is certainly worth whatever theoretical difference in IQ. Our friend, a commercial artist working in NY city, has had it about two months, showed lots of images on his website, answered 90 minutes of questions...

I don't own one yet, but likely soon. Heck, they've been backordered about a week at the big online shops.

But I can see it is a carefully thought out, very mature and capable camera for many situations. Why wait for however many generations it takes Canon to catch up?

Love the ef 35mm 1.4 II. Agree it is amazing. Same for 5DIV.

But seeing some of Canon's uncharacteristic missteps, because they are rare, has me a bit off balance here. And I think the new version of the 24-105mm is a sign they are shrugging off some core customers, looking for profits elsewhere.