Review: 24-105 f/4L IS II from Martin Bailey

[ahsanford]

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the f/2.8L II, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true.

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A

 

[tron]

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the f/2.8L II, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true.

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A

+1 we need some of TDP, Photozone, Lensrentals, lenstip... Even the charts in 50mm comparison had different magnification!

 

[docsmith]

MTF charts do not support that conclusion.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I agree, I am a skeptic, but a hopeful one. I liked my 24-105mm ver 1 until I got the 24-70 II.

Several more expert reviews are needed.

 

[In-The-Dark]

MTF charts do not support that conclusion.

Noob question, but, have there been case/s before, wherein actual resolution tests show higher results than published mtf charts?

 

[Eldar]

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the f/2.8L II, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true.

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A

I believe he is using the 24-70 f/2.8 version I. The picture is of the vII, but when he refers to the vII he says so specifically. I don´t find it credible that this lens is as sharp as the 24-70 f2.8L II. If so, TDP/Bryan needs to convince me.

 

[Stu_bert]

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the f/2.8L II, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true.

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A

I believe he is using the 24-70 f/2.8 version I. The picture is of the vII, but when he refers to the vII he says so specifically. I don´t find it credible that this lens is as sharp as the 24-70 f2.8L II. If so, TDP/Bryan needs to convince me.

In the comments section someone has asked for clarification and he is using the MK II lens in his comparisons. He only uses the 5Ds bodies. I agree he's not as thorough as TDP et al, it does bode well for real-world tests for many people, where perhaps you will have to pixel-peep to see the differences ?

It will be interesting to see about copy variance from TDP or lensrental, and some more in-depth comparisons.

From a travel perspective the 24-105 with the 100-400 is a nice pairing, though I think I might miss f/2.8 in low light conditions. But where weight is more of a concern, I can see that being a good solution with a pair of bodies.

 

[dak723]

For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.

 

[LordofTackle]

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the f/2.8L II, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true.

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A

I believe he is using the 24-70 f/2.8 version I. The picture is of the vII, but when he refers to the vII he says so specifically. I don´t find it credible that this lens is as sharp as the 24-70 f2.8L II. If so, TDP/Bryan needs to convince me.

My thoughts exactly. Most of the time he is talking just about 24-70/2.8. Somewhere later in the text he then quotes the Mark II Version...

 

[unfocused]

For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.

Exactly. For the needs I have, the 24-105 is far better than any 24-70, so the only thing it needs to accomplish is to be a little better than the first version.

 

[Eldar]

For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.

Exactly. For the needs I have, the 24-105 is far better than any 24-70, so the only thing it needs to accomplish is to be a little better than the first version.

Despite what I wrote above, I fully agree. I sold my 24-105 when I got the 24-70 f/2.8L II, but I miss the 70-105 range, for a walk around lesn and I will most likely buy v-II. But I do not expect the optical performance to equal the 24-70 f2.8L II. This review is promising though, so I´ll be reading TDP´s review as soon as it is out.

 

[bart13]

I might buy this lens. Would love to see a IS(during video) comparison with the mark1

 

[Stu_bert]

For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.

Because it future proofs the lens on other bodies that may come out. Lenses you might keep for over a decade (I know I have), bodies perhaps not. Therefore the comparison / information is part of that choice/decision...

 

[ahsanford]

For heaven's sake, the question shouldn't be is it as sharp, or sharper, or not as sharp as another lens - the question is "Is it sharp enough for you?" In all likelihood - it will be.

Because it future proofs the lens on other bodies that may come out. Lenses you might keep for over a decade (I know I have), bodies perhaps not. Therefore the comparison / information is part of that choice/decision...

+1. Some of us might not be shooting 22 MP rigs forever.

Resolution is not the only area to improve, of course, but it is somewhat expected if $1000 is leaving your pocket. Folks will be unlikely to pay that kind of money for just one more stop of IS and a zoom lock over what they already have.

- A

 

[LSXPhotog]

Turns out this lens is either really crappy or susceptible to crazy wide copy variation. The image results I'm seeing from this lens are horrible. I'm buying another 24-105 V1 as my backup to the 24-70. I sold it before the market dropped on them, but it looks like I'll just put that money back into another copy of a newer white box lens.

 

[tron]

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the f/2.8L II, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true.

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A

It seems you were right to be skeptical. After that I try hard not to write what I think of the specific photographer who wrote this "review". We can all draw our conclusions I guess...

 

[LesC]

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the f/2.8L II, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true.

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A

It seems you were right to be skeptical. After that I try hard not to write what I think of the specific photographer who wrote this "review". We can all draw our conclusions I guess...

That really does seem a strange review, but what reason would he have to make it up, unless he has a really poor copy of the 24-70 F2.8 MKII ? Unless it's to encourage you to buy the lens through his link to B&H ??

 

[tron]

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the f/2.8L II, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true.

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A

It seems you were right to be skeptical. After that I try hard not to write what I think of the specific photographer who wrote this "review". We can all draw our conclusions I guess...

That really does seem a strange review, but what reason would he have to make it up, unless he has a really poor copy of the 24-70 F2.8 MKII ? Unless it's to encourage you to buy the lens through his link to B&H ??

or anything else we do not know about...

 

[BLFPhoto]

Color me VERY skeptical that it will best the 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II. I was late in adopting that newer version, having lived with my very capable version I for years. Tank of a lens and it did well. But the Mk II? Completely different animal. I didn't really know what I was missing.

As for this 24-105 being that good? Probably not quite. But what I'll bet it has is the newer coatings. Those, as much as any lens designs, plays a part in the stellar performance of the 24-70 Mk II. Beyond the edge-to-edge and across-the-zoom-range sharpness improvement, the new coatings improve the contrast and color of the newest lens designs. The new 35mm is the same thing....really great contrast and colors, to go along with the sharpness improvement.

I'll wait and see how the copy-variation issue plays out. Probably a good check for LensRentals to report on. I have loved the 24-105 as a travel lens, but got rid of my version I a while ago. I'd love for the new one to be good.

 

[Don Haines]

Not a reviewer I've read before, but here you go:

https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/11/07/canon-ef24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-lens-review-podcast-548/

Of note: "it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens" -- and the 24-70 he was referring to was the f/2.8L II, which makes this an absolute whopper of a statement if true.

Color me highly skeptical until another source backs that up.

- A

and in related news... most people do not AFMA their lenses....