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

[pulseimages]

My 24-105 L has to be the most disappointing L lens I have ever owned. It's only good from 24-70 from 70-105mm it's garbage. Even after sending it and the camera back to Canon to be calibrated it's still soft.

 

[mb66energy]

My 24-105 L has to be the most disappointing L lens I have ever owned. It's only good from 24-70 from 70-105mm it's garbage. Even after sending it and the camera back to Canon to be calibrated it's still soft.

From the reviews of that lens it was well known to me that I would be disappointed by that lens: Spoiled by 2.8 24mm (old version), 2.8 40 and 2.8 100 Macro non-IS I need (1) at least similar overall IQ and (2) the 100mm which is a very useful focal length for me -- 24-70 doesn't fit my view of a universal zoom lens.

Maybe Canon has seen the not so good optical properties of the 24-105 in the tele range as problem, especially with high res bodies. And what I hear from the 4.0 16-35 and 100-400 mk ii shows me that there has been some substantial progress in zoom technology (or quality control or both).

 

[dufflover]

I'm even thinking of getting a 24-105L on the cheap/2nd hand to add to my kit (long story short, for the intended purposes 24-105 @ f/4 better than a 17-55/2.8 (current), 15-85/5.6 and 18-135/5.6). Maybe I'll hold off to see how much this one costs or more likely pick one up for even cheaper than they are now when people split their kits.

I doubt I'll buy this new one though cos it'll surely cost quite a bit (be good no doubt) and my intended use is plugging a use gap on the cheap.

 

[slclick]

I'm even thinking of getting a 24-105L on the cheap/2nd hand to add to my kit (long story short, for the intended purposes 24-105 @ f/4 better than a 17-55/2.8 (current), 15-85/5.6 and 18-135/5.6). Maybe I'll hold off to see how much this one costs or more likely pick one up for even cheaper than they are now when people split their kits.

I doubt I'll buy this new one though cos it'll surely cost quite a bit (be good no doubt) and my intended use is plugging a use gap on the cheap.

Ymmv but on a crop body the 24-105 was very disappointing. However on a FF it's a great lens, does most things well for most folks. I also (in addition to 2 copies of the Canon variety, had a Sigma Art 24-105 which I thought was far better in terms of IQ and sharp across the range. It got better than the Canon reviews but only by a hair. My copy must have been an anomaly because it was much improved.

 

[deleteme]

Lots of negative comments on the 24-105L.
I have found that it is a real workhorse of a lens. It has been a solid performer for me for many years and while it is not the fastest or the absolute sharpest, it delivers great quality and has a flexibility unmatched by any other lens in Canon's lineup.

Sure the 24-70 2.8L is faster and sharper but it is a lot less flexible when you need that extra length.
As for f4, I rarely am shooting wide open as I need DOF for the vast bulk of what I shoot.


Pros love this lens as a great money maker by allowing them to shoot all day without changing a lens.
I regularly deliver images made with this lens to national magazines and ad agencies that reproduce brilliantly.

The fact that the edges may be a touch soft are irrelevant when the subject is not along the edges. As for distortion, yes it's there but LR corrects it and even uncorrected is unnoticeable in most images.

It is an object lesson in how a lens can be so good all around without being superb in anything but flexibility.

I would love an update to this already excellent lens. Better coatings and maybe a stretch to 120mm but other than that I'm OK

 

[TAF]

I am very much looking forward to this lens update.

My original 24-105L would be just about the perfect walkabout lens, except that it doesn't quite have the image clarity that I have come to expect (i.e.: that I know my 5D3 delivers when I use my even better L lenses on it).

The 24-70 2.8L is a much sharper lens, but the 'shortness' at the longer end renders it way less useful.

If the new 24-105 achieves the resolution of the 24-70, I'll be a very happy camper. If it were F2.8 I'd be even happier...

And allow me to note that the fact that Canon has chosen to update the 24-105 should make it clear to all those folks who previously insisted that the 24-70 WAS the replacement for the 24-105, it wasn't.

Now if only we can get a 24-135L IS f2.8; that would be a lens I might never take off the body.

 

[e_honda]

If the new 24-105 achieves the resolution of the 24-70, I'll be a very happy camper. If it were F2.8 I'd be even happier...
.
.
Now if only we can get a 24-135L IS f2.8; that would be a lens I might never take off the body.

Currently unrealistic in terms of size, weight and price.

It's a similar thing to those who wanted a 24-70 f2.0 from sigma and of course all they could muster was 24-35 (I have it and it's excellent)...and that lens is huge.

Assuming a kit lens at a kit lens price, the improvements will likely be better sharpness at the edges, a better IS system and less distortion at 24mm.

 

[pulseimages]

My 24-105 L has to be the most disappointing L lens I have ever owned. It's only good from 24-70 from 70-105mm it's garbage. Even after sending it and the camera back to Canon to be calibrated it's still soft.

From the reviews of that lens it was well known to me that I would be disappointed by that lens: Spoiled by 2.8 24mm (old version), 2.8 40 and 2.8 100 Macro non-IS I need (1) at least similar overall IQ and (2) the 100mm which is a very useful focal length for me -- 24-70 doesn't fit my view of a universal zoom lens.

Maybe Canon has seen the not so good optical properties of the 24-105 in the tele range as problem, especially with high res bodies. And what I hear from the 4.0 16-35 and 100-400 mk ii shows me that there has been some substantial progress in zoom technology (or quality control or both).

That's what I am hoping for in the updated 24-105 L II lens. If it's a lot better at the long end than version 1 I will sell my present one for it.

 

[RGF]

My 24-105 L has to be the most disappointing L lens I have ever owned. It's only good from 24-70 from 70-105mm it's garbage. Even after sending it and the camera back to Canon to be calibrated it's still soft.

From the reviews of that lens it was well known to me that I would be disappointed by that lens: Spoiled by 2.8 24mm (old version), 2.8 40 and 2.8 100 Macro non-IS I need (1) at least similar overall IQ and (2) the 100mm which is a very useful focal length for me -- 24-70 doesn't fit my view of a universal zoom lens.

Maybe Canon has seen the not so good optical properties of the 24-105 in the tele range as problem, especially with high res bodies. And what I hear from the 4.0 16-35 and 100-400 mk ii shows me that there has been some substantial progress in zoom technology (or quality control or both).

That's what I am hoping for in the updated 24-105 L II lens. If it's a lot better at the long end than version 1 I will sell my present one for it.

+10

 

[markhbfindlay]

I've had the 24-105 for many years and found it very sharp on both 7d and 5dm3. I sometimes use it on 70d to give me extra reach when I have 16-35mm on the 5d - a great combination. It's also surprisingly good at macro for flower photos, when I'm in the field and don't have my 100mm around. Less good? well the edges at the wide end aren't up to much, but you would expect that.
As to the new model, I'll wait and see, but if it shows up as sharper I might get it, as I now have the 5dsr and it could do with a standard zoom to match (I shoot mostly handheld and IS is useful).

 

[tron]

Good news. Now I am thinking of part-exchanging a 5D3 with 24-105 for a 5D4 with 24-105 II