New EF 24-105 f/4L IS Replacement Coming With 5D Mark IV [CR3]

[CANONisOK]

... What does this do to our little 24-70mm L f/4? I thought the 24-105 L refresh would never happen as it would cannibalize the very new 24-70mm f/4.

So the question becomes, will the refreshed 24-105mm zoom have the same optical (or other) compromises to create differentiation between these similar products? ...

A $600 price difference between the two might create some differentiation.

That is a fine and dandy point. This is Canon's attempt to reclaim the price point they couldn't sustain with the 24-70L/4. That makes me feel better about the prospects for a high performance from the refresh. But that should also make this a very expensive "kit".

On the prior thread someone mentioned an Australian kit with 5D3 + 24-70L/2.8 ii. If that was a real branded kit (i.e., not just some retailer selling them together), I suppose it works be even more expensive than this new one. Any other similar high-dollar official kits released?

 

[ahsanford]

So the rumor is that the replacement for the 24-105L will be released the same time as the 5D IV, but wouldn't it make sense for Canon to include the 24-70L f/4 IS as a kit and to sell the 24-105 II on it's own? The price for the 24-70L f/4 IS has already dropped to "kit" value, and doing so for the new 24-105 doesn't make sense if it's IQ is better than the original L.

Video video video. If this thing has power zoom functionality and Canon sees a lucrative future turning all their stills people into videographers (even if just to nab a great still from video), then a 24-105L II with power zoom compatibility feature would make it a shoe-in to include with the 5D4.

If it's just another vanilla 24-105L lens that has no special video features, then yes, your suggestion to kit the 24-70 f/4L IS makes perfect sense.

- A

 

[slclick]

Take the Sigma, give it some BR gunk with Canon's reliable AF and BAM!....top seller. This lens will be the standard for years.

 

[ahsanford]

Take the Sigma, give it some BR gunk with Canon's reliable AF and BAM!....top seller. This lens will be the standard for years.

I feel like I'm in Canon's marketing bullpen right now. I could be mistaken, but I think this is exactly how lenses are conceived.

Sarcasm notwithstanding, if Canon puts BR gunk in an f/4 zoom when every f/1.4 prime could use it much more badly, I would be really surprised. Also, the only lens on the planet with BR is $1799, which is hardly a kit lens sort of price...

- A

 

[Loswr]

That's some unexpected news indeed. And CR3??? Wow!

An EF 24-105 f/4L IS successor would be really welcome, at least to me. But I really pray that Canon didn't mess it up (for me). So please:
- a real successor (L worth, improved IQ, etc.)
- no nano USM
- no power zoom doc

why would you not want nano USM?

it's essentially a linear motor drive USM with the same speed as regular USM but smooth racking for video.

I recognized nUSM as a not so powerful and not so fast solution of USM. (no personal experience)
And I realized that linear motors are not always good with optical elements, see the reviews of Lens Rental here about Sony linear drives.
If I am wrong and Canon did it mechanically right, I'd take back this constraint.

Here's what Canon has to say:

[quote author=Rudy Winston, Canon DLC]
Nano USM gets its name from the incredibly compact size of this motor. (The name has nothing directly to do with the type of vibrational energy it generates to drive a lens’s focus elements.) In this initial application, the motor itself is small enough to fit on the first joint of a model’s finger...

AF speed during still-image shooting rivals what users have come to expect from high-end lenses with Canon’s powerful ring-type USMs. It’s brisk and nearly instantaneous — an almost perfect match for the new AF system in the EOS 80D. Most users will doubtless agree that it’s a clear step forward from what we’ve come to expect in affordable lens focus, whether we’re referring to the previous Micro USM focus motors used in many such lenses, or the recent STM versions.
[/quote]

Worth noting that he references nanoUSM as a big imprevement for 'affordable lenses' which I take to mean non-L lenses. Is the tiny motor that is 'small enough to fit on the first joint of a model’s finger' big enough to drive the larger focusing groups found in many L-series lenses?

 

[ahsanford]

Neuro, I hear you, but the dichotomy of focusing needs means you're a shark or a jet, a North or a South, a Red Sox or a Yankees, etc.:

• Stills people want lightning fast focusing period, often chasing very fast moving things. Some in this camp can't stand focus by wire and want responsive mechanical focusing control at any time.
  
  
• Video favors less abrupt focusing and the smoothness of focus by wire, opportunity of a power zoom, tune-ability of focusing speed, etc.

Until Canon puts a Nano-USM / Ring-USM switch on the side of lens for both camps (which may not be possible), there will be no magic AF that makes everyone happy, IMHO.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Worth noting that he references nanoUSM as a big imprevement for 'affordable lenses' which I take to mean non-L lenses. Is the tiny motor that is 'small enough to fit on the first joint of a model’s finger' big enough to drive the larger focusing groups found in many L-series lenses?

Also, if this is a true sequel to the 24-105L without additional power zoom / video fanfare that Nano USM might support, surely it will stay as a true ring USM, right?

- A

 

[Meatcurry]

Slightly off topic, but my wife loves her Mk I 24-105L which just died. While I'm sure this lens is what she'd like as a replacement, she only shoots with a crop body. Is there a crop lens that can do a reasonable imitation of the 24-105 for less $?

Thanks!

Your best best(Canon) would be the EFS 15-85, FF equivalent of 24-135, it's well regarded.

 

[tphillips63]

I'm excited for this lens. I've had two of the the originals and sold them both but with a new copy I will probably keep it.
I always think I am going to need 2.8 but during the day it hardly ever happens and the size and range if the 24-105 is so great that it can serve a lot of family trips and outing easily for me.
Even the current lens produces great results if you are not a big time pixel peeper and even then they are many great photos with it.

 

[ewg963]

Sweet Glad to see a CR3 on that one.
Give it improved optics, improved IS, and the new Nano USM, and I'll be all over that lens.

+1

 

[Sporgon]

Expect the existing 24-105/f4L to "fall off" the recommended lens list for the 5Ds/R

I thought it was never on.

 

[ahsanford]

Expect the existing 24-105/f4L to "fall off" the recommended lens list for the 5Ds/R

I thought it was never on.

Sporgon is correct:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15356

- A

 

[shutterlag]

And Canon's glacial pace trudges onward...

 

[unfocused]

And Canon's glacial pace trudges onward...

Huh? What? Do you have a point or just uninformed trolling?

 

[unfocused]

I think there's some egg on my face.

- A

You are not the only one. Yesterday I said Canon would not replace the 24-105 until the surplus of the current model had been reduced. Shows what I know.

 

[unfocused]

Neuro, I hear you, but the dichotomy of focusing needs means you're a shark or a jet, a North or a South, a Red Sox or a Yankees, etc.:

• Stills people want lightning fast focusing period, often chasing very fast moving things. Some in this camp can't stand focus by wire and want responsive mechanical focusing control at any time.
  
  
• Video favors less abrupt focusing and the smoothness of focus by wire, opportunity of a power zoom, tune-ability of focusing speed, etc.

Until Canon puts a Nano-USM / Ring-USM switch on the side of lens for both camps (which may not be possible), there will be no magic AF that makes everyone happy, IMHO.

- A

So I'm wondering just how much slower Nano-USM might be. I use the 24-105 a lot, but almost never for fast action. Is this the kind of difference that will only bother you if are shooting at 10-14 frames per second. Also wondering if a lens of this size might respond more quickly that a long, fast telephoto.

 

[ahsanford]

So I'm wondering just how much slower Nano-USM might be. I use the 24-105 a lot, but almost never for fast action. Is this the kind of difference that will only bother you if are shooting at 10-14 frames per second. Also wondering if a lens of this size might respond more quickly that a long, fast telephoto.

I rant about USM > STM all the time as I only shoot stills.

From what little testing / reviews have been done, I hear nano-USM greatly bridges the 'speed to lock' gap that STM has to USM, which is great. If my much-ballyhooed 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM turns out to be Nano USM, it might be fine for me.

But focus by wire is not something I enjoy. It's not responsive and as precise as my full-time manual focus lenses. (I have no idea how Sony is focus by wire with these new G master lenses that cost a mint).

- A

 

[kevl]

I found the current 24-105 to be painfully soft. The images I got out of it required extra work to fit in with the rest of the images from events shot with other lenses.

I hope the new version will be sharp and have excellent contrast. If it is I may just sell my 24-70 2.8L II and get it for the extra range.

 

[Eldar]

I am very fond of my 24-70 f2.8L II and I will clearly not part with it. However, ever since I sold the 24-105 f4L IS, I have missed the versatility of that lens. Its focal range makes it a great general purpose walk around lens. Version 1 is not anywhere near the 24-70 in optical quality, but having seen what they did to some of the new releases, I have high hopes for this one.

 

[ahsanford]

I am very fond of my 24-70 f2.8L II and I will clearly not part with it. However, ever since I sold the 24-105 f4L IS, I have missed the versatility of that lens. Its focal range makes it a great general purpose walk around lens. Version 1 is not anywhere near the 24-70 in optical quality, but having seen what they did to some of the new releases, I have high hopes for this one.

The question is: will it have the IQ of the 24-70 f/4L IS (and presumably therefore be quite heavy to cover 71-105 with good resolution), or will it simply be a modernized Mk II of the 24-105L we know today -- same IQ but put on a diet weight-wise, a lock switch added, better IS, etc.

Prediction: It won't be as sharp as the 24-70 f/4L and get considerably lighter than the current 24-105L. It will be one or the other. I don't see both happening given the FL multiplier difference.

- A