New Canon 24-105mm L IS II Lens ?

[iaind]

Have both it and 24-70 f2.8 II. Guess which gets used most? !!

 

[j-nord]

Have both it and 24-70 f2.8 II. Guess which gets used most? !!

Honestly not sure, could go either way based on the question and the way you asked it.

 

[Nitroman]

So have any patents been passed for a replacement 24-105mm lens ?

The 5Ds is desperate for a 24-105mm f4 IS L II as the original is soft - especially at the extremes. This is an important and popular lens, i'm very surprised no mention of an updated version ...

 

[wsmith96]

I believe the 24-70 f/4 IS L is your replacement for the 24-105. Have you tried it on your 5Ds to compare against the 24-105?

 

[Busted Knuckles]

24-70 f4 is nice but it by no means a replacement for the 24-105. I have tried it on the 5DsR and oof the 16-35 really shows how weak the 24-105 is on the short end and we all knew it was soft on the long.

I would drop a $1k on a new 24-105 mk2 in a heartbeat if it was in the 16-35 IQ neighborhood - I have the old one, battle worn and right now not working and I haven't bothered to send it to Canon to get fixed. Simply not worth it. I use the 16-35, 50 art and the 70-200.

The 24-105 mk1 was "good in its day" but was not a future proof lens. The new sensors really show its weaknesses.

I wouldn't mind if Canon mirrored Nikon and stretched the long end to 120. Even if it was a bit larger lens for it.

A little of the blue goo would be nice as well.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon has a long history of making kit lenses starting with 28mm and ending at 80, 90, 105, and 135mm. Nikon's kit lens is 24-120mm f/4.

I understand that, but Nikon's 24-120 shows exactly why you don't offer that lens at an L (or equivalent) level:

24mm: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=733

120mm: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=733&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

At 5x, the wheels tend to come off the bus optically. To my knowledge, only the 100-400 II does a good job of a large FL multiple. There are some fans of the 70-300L as well. But a 5x zoom lens for > $1,000 seems like money poorly spent unless you are comically strapped for space, are in a terrible environment to change out lenses (rain forest? desert?) or are principally shooting video.

This is why I agree with Canon on the 24-105 moving downmarket to non-L, STM, variable aperture territory.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I would drop a $1k on a new 24-105 mk2 in a heartbeat if it was in the 16-35 IQ neighborhood.

If Canon could pull that off, it would cost you far more $1,000. Probably an animal sacrifice would be required...

I hear you, a Mark II version of the 24-105 would be appreciated. But hoping a 4x+ zoom lens might have the same IQ as a roughly-same-timeframe-designed 2.2x lens is wishful thinking, IMHO.

- A

 

[j-nord]

Canon has a long history of making kit lenses starting with 28mm and ending at 80, 90, 105, and 135mm. Nikon's kit lens is 24-120mm f/4.

I understand that, but Nikon's 24-120 shows exactly why you don't offer that lens at an L (or equivalent) level:

24mm: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=733

120mm: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=733&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

At 5x, the wheels tend to come off the bus optically. To my knowledge, only the 100-400 II does a good job of a large FL multiple. There are some fans of the 70-300L as well. But a 5x zoom lens for > $1,000 seems like money poorly spent unless you are comically strapped for space, are in a terrible environment to change out lenses (rain forest? desert?) or are principally shooting video.

This is why I agree with Canon on the 24-105 moving downmarket to non-L, STM, variable aperture territory.

- A

I'd also like to point out that the 24-70 f4 IS price tanked in very few years, this lens segment is well saturated. Canon would have to put out a very improved lens at a very affordable price to get people to upgrade from either the 24-105 or the 24-70 f4 IS. I don't see this type of lens being on any of Canon's short lists for 'refresh'. Maybe this will change if the 5DIV has a 30+mpix sensor and thus an IQ improvement will be in greater demand.

 

[ahsanford]

I'd also like to point out that the 24-70 f4 IS price tanked in very few years, this lens segment is well saturated. Canon would have to put out a very improved lens at a very affordable price to get people to upgrade from either the 24-105 or the 24-70 f4 IS. I don't see this type of lens being on any of Canon's short lists for 'refresh'. Maybe this will change if the 5DIV has a 30+mpix sensor and thus an IQ improvement will be in greater demand.

Canon famously asked $1499 for that 24-70, which is farcical. I see that as a bad business decision more than anything else. That's a $900-ish lens to me, which is where it has settled.

But yes, the 24-something market is pretty saturated. I don't see a new offering there anytime soon unless it is on the very high end, like the mythical 24-70 f/2.8L IS, which may have gotten some wind in its sales since Nikon finally offered one.

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

Between the 24-70L IS and the 24-105L IS, the way I see it is:

Advantages of the 24-70L IS:
Better IQ - sharper across whole frame (I feel that is the case with my 24-70L IS v the 24-105Ls I have used, and it seems to be borne out by Lens Rentals resolution tests), less distortion (esp at wide angles), less CA, better flare resistance / contrast shooting into a light source
Faster T stop
Lighter
Smaller
Macro mode (albeit only really for casual macro use)

More modern IS system
Zoom lock (OK it's not very significant! I like it when hiking though.)

Advantages of the 24-105L IS:
It does 71-105

I can understand, though, why that single advantage of the 24-105L is enough reason for some to prefer that lens! (It has occurred to me I might be better of with the 24-105L, but I don't think I will go that way.)

I would be interested in a 24105L IS II though. While I actually do quite like the macro mode on the 24-70L IS, I would trade it and the size/weight difference for the extra reach if it otherwise had the advantages of the 24-70L listed above (if that's possible).

Given a choice of either the 24-105mm f4L IS USM or the 24-70mm f4L IS USM I would take the 24-105. The 24-70mm f4L IS USM I have a. exhibits image shift b. Is soft from 45-65mm until you stop down to around f8. It does control CAs better but its no way good enough for the 5DS. By comparison my copy of the 24-105mm is no softer & has better reach (Ive tested both in controlled conditions using the CIPA resolution chart & an even field illumination sphere)
Given that 24-70mm should be a fairly easy range for Canon to produce a sharp lens at f4 this lens design is flawed by comparison the 16-35mm f4L IS USM lens is a class leader.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I dunno, even on the 22MP 5D3 the weakness of the 24-70 f4 in the 40-60mm range is obvious...let alone on a 5DS/R!

On the bright side, it is smaller and distorts much less than the 24-105, so it does have its place. Plus it's got that semi-macro mode and the IS is outstanding. Personally I think it shines for general tourism shots, still life and landscape photography. Otherwise the 24-105 is sharper (as long as you don't go wider than 28mm) and has more reach.

 

[ahsanford]

I dunno, even on the 22MP 5D3 the weakness of the 24-70 f4 in the 40-60mm range is obvious...let alone on a 5DS/R!

I agree there are better performers in the middle of the FL range, but it's still better than the every-pro-on-the-planet-owned 24-70 f/2.8L I at 50mm. Not every lens can be as sharp as the current 24-70 f/2.8L II, and for about half the price, we shouldn't expect it to.

- A

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I know - I was comparing it more to the 24-105 which is similarly priced. In the 40-65mm range it has been my experience that the 24-105 is the (notably) better performer, at least in my case. The converse is true at 24mm.

Basically, it comes down to preference. For me, one lens can't replace the other...but if I HAD to pick one...I'd probably go with the 24-105.

As for version 2 of that lens, if they can improve performance at 24mm while maintaining the quality of the rest of the range - I'd be all in. I think the current version suits my needs fine however.

 

[Rob Carter]

20-30 years ago I used to have a 24-104 F2.8. I cannot remember who made it but it was not Canon. It was slow to auto-focus, heavy and mechanically unreliable. So I can see why Canon has not gone along the route to a F2.8 all along the zoom range.

I have always been disappointed to hear that the 24-104 loses almost a stop as you zoom and is very nearly a F4-F5.6.

In the days of high usable ISO I would think a target to aim for will be a wider zoom range, lower weight and smaller aperture.

 

[ahsanford]

In the days of high usable ISO I would think a target to aim for will be a wider zoom range, lower weight and smaller aperture.

A few years back I said something to the effect of 'In 10 years time, we're much more likely to see f/2.8 primes and f/4 zooms with 6-7 stops of IS than we'll ever see an f/1.0 prime or f/2 zoom.' i.e. IS could possibly evolve in a same-weight context over time, whereas an f/1.0 prime or f/2 zooms will simply be a monster because physics is physics and no one would want such a lead weight.

Of course, I've eaten my words at Sigma and Tokina have released f/2 FF zooms and Sigma has f/1.8 crop zooms now, so what do I know? ???

- A

 

[Rob Carter]

I cannot stress too strongly about weight reduction. With claims of DSLR quality from an Apple phones I can see why more and more people are not carrying a ‘brick’ around. For my leisure time I go walking, where at one time I would see a lot of DSLR cameras on the fells and peaks I no longer see them. Everybody uses their camera phone.

A situation that Canon must be well aware of but unable to effectively do anything about.

 

[j-nord]

I cannot stress too strongly about weight reduction. With claims of DSLR quality from an Apple phones I can see why more and more people are not carrying a ‘brick’ around. For my leisure time I go walking, where at one time I would see a lot of DSLR cameras on the fells and peaks I no longer see them. Everybody uses their camera phone.

A situation that Canon must be well aware of but unable to effectively do anything about.

Smart phone cameras are a fixed focal length, no manual controls, jpg only, etc, hardly comparable with DSLR kits. If your main concern is weight rather than the countless advantages of good glass and DSLR then, by all means use your iPhone... There is little to no room to make a brick of glass any lighter.