New Canon 24-105mm L IS II Lens ?

[Nitroman]

Any news about an updated Canon 24-105mm L IS II zoom lens ?

I have the fabulous Canon 5Ds but 50mp shows this lens' weak points.

F4 would still be ok but f2.8 would be even better.

Not interested in the 24-70mm range as i like a wide and a portrait lens such as 85mm or 105mm to be in one zoom.

 

[j-nord]

I'd very much like a sharper version of this lens with the newer IS and USM. 24-70 just isn't long enough for landscapes, 105 would be very appreciated.

 

[gmon750]

I have the 24-105mm for my 5DM3. Love the lens, but I'm surprised you're using it for the 5Ds. It's a great all-around lens to have, but I agree that it may not be up-to-snuff for such a high-megapixel camera.

I may be just getting confused, but why would the 24-70mm not work for landscapes? It's still 24mm for both lenses, with the benefit of the 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 being much sharper to complement your camera.

I'd love to see Canon make an ƒ/2.8 (or less) version of this lens but I doubt anything other than what they currently have will be available (if ever) anytime soon. It would take away from the 24-70mm and perhaps the 70-200mm.

 

[Sporgon]

I have the 24-105mm for my 5DM3. Love the lens, but I'm surprised you're using it for the 5Ds. It's a great all-around lens to have, but I agree that it may not be up-to-snuff for such a high-megapixel camera.

There is a CR contributor Keith Breazeal who uses the 24-105L on a 5Ds to great effect. Just think of it as a 28-105

Bye the way, I think the 24-105 II has already been released - it's just called the 24-70 f/4 IS ! (But I agree with those that say they want to keep the 71-105 bit).

I have had both for over a year, but have now decided to sell the 24-70IS and keep the 24-105.

 

[tr573]

I may be just getting confused, but why would the 24-70mm not work for landscapes? It's still 24mm for both lenses, with the benefit of the 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 being much sharper to complement your camera.

some people like telephoto landscapes

 

[Woody]

I have had both for over a year, but have now decided to sell the 24-70IS and keep the 24-105.

I have been wondering if I should get the 24-70 f/4 IS as part of a new camera kit. I am currently using the 24-105 f/4 IS on my 6D, and am pleased with its performance. However, the supposedly better optics of the 24-70 f/4 IS tempts me.

But your decision to keep the 24-105 f/4 IS instead of the 24-70 f/4 IS is giving me pause.

 

[j-nord]

I may be just getting confused, but why would the 24-70mm not work for landscapes?

For me, in CO, shooting adjacent peaks or ridge lines means you need focal length. Right now I pair a 24-70 with a 300, I shoot almost an equal number of landscapes at 24, 70, and 300.

 

[j-nord]

Bye the way, I think the 24-105 II has already been released - it's just called the 24-70 f/4 IS ! (But I agree with those that say they want to keep the 71-105 bit).

24-70 f4 IS is a little sharper + better IS. It's still not sharp enough though. Ill probably get rid of mine by mid-end of this season. I'm not sure what ill replace it with yet. Lack of IS on the 24-70 f2.8ii is a real turn off. With good IS you can get some handheld water blur, super late sunset/early evening shots, dark stormy skies, etc.

 

[j-nord]

I have had both for over a year, but have now decided to sell the 24-70IS and keep the 24-105.

I have been wondering if I should get the 24-70 f/4 IS as part of a new camera kit. I am currently using the 24-105 f/4 IS on my 6D, and am pleased with its performance. However, the supposedly better optics of the 24-70 f/4 IS tempts me.

But your decision to keep the 24-105 f/4 IS instead of the 24-70 f/4 IS is giving me pause.

It's not a huge improvement in optics but the 24-70IS has some other advantages like smaller, better IS, AF and a 0.70x macro mode.

 

[jeffa4444]

I have had both for over a year, but have now decided to sell the 24-70IS and keep the 24-105.

I have been wondering if I should get the 24-70 f/4 IS as part of a new camera kit. I am currently using the 24-105 f/4 IS on my 6D, and am pleased with its performance. However, the supposedly better optics of the 24-70 f/4 IS tempts me.

But your decision to keep the 24-105 f/4 IS instead of the 24-70 f/4 IS is giving me pause.

The EF24-70mm f4L IS USM in my experiance with the 5DS is not a good lens, soft at 50mm and only marginally better at 24mm and 70mm. Stick with your EF 24-105mm f4L nothing in it.

 

[ahsanford]

Bye the way, I think the 24-105 II has already been released - it's just called the 24-70 f/4 IS ! (But I agree with those that say they want to keep the 71-105 bit).

+1. The EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM effectively replaced the 24-105 in the lineup as the 'Budget / Starter' L standard zoom. It's a wonderful piece of kit I use often.

And folks already got their 24-105 II -- it just wasn't called that. It was moved downmarket into a non-L rig with variable aperture and STM. Thoroughly agree with Canon on that move.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I have had both for over a year, but have now decided to sell the 24-70IS and keep the 24-105.

I have been wondering if I should get the 24-70 f/4 IS as part of a new camera kit. I am currently using the 24-105 f/4 IS on my 6D, and am pleased with its performance. However, the supposedly better optics of the 24-70 f/4 IS tempts me.

But your decision to keep the 24-105 f/4 IS instead of the 24-70 f/4 IS is giving me pause.

It's not a huge improvement in optics but the 24-70IS has some other advantages like smaller, better IS, AF and a 0.70x macro mode.

Yes. The 24-70 f/4L IS sits somewhere between the 24-105 and the 24-70 f/2.8L II in terms of IQ based on all the testing I've seen. But it is lighter and shorter than both. A perfect hiking/travel lens.

And the macro mode is fricken revolutionary in value if you take 'casual' / handheld / driveby macro. When I'm hiking, I flip a switch and an pow, it's "Hello, lizard" or a nice closeup of flora. Also, when traveling, the 100L can stay at home, which is a very nice selling point to the lens. I will be the first to concede the working distance for 0.7x reproduction is tiny, and you can shade your subject with the camera if you are not careful, but as I said before, it's for casual macro work -- serious macro work is a different kettle of fish.

- A

 

[Nitroman]

Yep, i love my 24-105mm f4 IS L. It is a fabulous walk about lens and deals with 80% of my lens requirements.

It is badly in need of an upgrade. My lens is so worn the red L ring has fallen off but it still works perfectly well.

I love the fact that one minute it's great for wide angle landscape, the next a portrait three quarter and then a close up with shallow depth of field and then a macro. Just a shame it's not f2.8.

Time for the Mark II version please Canon !

 

[j-nord]

I will be the first to concede the working distance for 0.7x reproduction is tiny, and you can shade your subject with the camera if you are not careful

- A

Better make sure you have a filter on the lens if you are trying to find the MFD. You will literally bump the lens element into things ;D

 

[brad-man]

Yep, i love my 24-105mm f4 IS L. It is a fabulous walk about lens and deals with 80% of my lens requirements.

It is badly in need of an upgrade. My lens is so worn the red L ring has fallen off but it still works perfectly well.

I love the fact that one minute it's great for wide angle landscape, the next a portrait three quarter and then a close up with shallow depth of field and then a macro. Just a shame it's not f2.8.

Time for the Mark II version please Canon !

Ha ha. When mine broke several years ago I glued it back on. I'm not sure why.

 

[jd7]

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).

 

[TeT]

24 105L II with the zoom lock and mini-macro mode would be a sure winner for me....

 

[ahsanford]

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

I see the 24-70 f/4L IS (which I own and love) as a generally better lens than the 24-105L for the feature/weight/size reasons, and the IQ is clearly somewhere between the 24-105 and the 24-70 f/2.8L II:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/

The sharpness data is where our eyes go, but the glaring bit to me there is the famously high distortion of 24-105 at 24mm, a landscape FL I am pretty fond of. PhotoZone backed this finding up, and I believe someone else stated it's a fine 28-105 lens for that reason.

But to say the only upside of the 24-105 is 'that is shoots 71-105' is (though generally true) is a bit misleading -- the 24-70 f/4 doesn't obliterate the 24-105 so much as slightly outperform it. Some folks don't see the IQ differences of the two lenses as being so great, and they see the comparison as a choice between [lighter + macro] vs. [heavier + 105mm], and many prefer the second combo.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

But the saving grace of the 24-105 is how many users have it today. I'd imagine it has to be the 'most deployed' L lens on the planet.

(I'm careful to not synonymize 'deployed' with 'sales' due to kitting -- I believe many folks bought one because it came along for the ride or they needed 'a' lens and not necessarily that one -- but I still contend there's a boatload of 24-105s out in the wild.)

So it makes me wonder if the sheer number of folks who own that lens get accustomed to that 105mm reach and Canon simply must follow up with a newer L version. I believe Canon made the right call going downmarket / non-L with the lens, but perhaps they see room for two f/4 standard zooms?

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

But the saving grace of the 24-105 is how many users have it today. I'd imagine it has to be the 'most deployed' L lens on the planet.

(I'm careful to not synonymize 'deployed' with 'sales' due to kitting -- I believe many folks bought one because it came along for the ride or they needed 'a' lens and not necessarily that one -- but I still contend there's a boatload of 24-105s out in the wild.)

So it makes me wonder if the sheer number of folks who own that lens get accustomed to that 105mm reach and Canon simply must follow up with a newer L version. I believe Canon made the right call going downmarket / non-L with the lens, but perhaps they see room for two f/4 standard zooms?

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.