Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Count me as another happy user of the 24-70 f/4L IS. As I've said in another thread, my copy was excellent at 24 and 70 out of the box, but disappointing at 35 and downright poor at 50 ... my sister's 24-105L was definitely better at 35 and 50. However, after sending my lens back to Canon for calibration, I'll happily pit my 24-70 4L against a 24-105L at any focal length. As has already been pointed out to my by a couple of CR users, Roger Cicala has commented the 24-704L has a lot of adjustable parts (more than most lenses), and it does seem the 24-70 4L suffers from substantial copy to copy variation. Get one properly calibrated though, and I think it is a very good lens.
My brother has the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VR so I will have to do some comparisons if I can find some time. I did some very quick comparisons just after I got my lens calibrated and came away with the feeling my 24-70 4L was at least as sharp from f/4 (I was probably concentrating most on centre sharpness), and its focussing was quicker and more consistent than the Tamron. That said, my testing to-date was pretty limited (and the possibility of new lens owner bias cannot be ignored!
) so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.I noticed this sentence in Dustin's review:
"The trend of many lenses that Canon has offered in the past few years have been lenses that didn’t necessarily wow people on paper (or thrill them with their announcement) but have proven to be extremely competent lenses that have won people over on their merits."
I have to say I agree with that. I wasn't that excited about the 40 2.8 or the 35 2 IS but now own and like both, and looking beyond lenses I think the same sentiment applies to the 6D. I think perhaps the 24-70 4L might end up being another lens to which the sentiment applies, if Canon can find a way to reduce copy variation and get the "average" 24-70 4L performing closer to its best performance.
Anyway, Dustin, thanks for the review of the 24-105 3.5-5.6. Interesting to get your take on a consumer-grade lens after reading your reviews of high end gear. The new 24-105 sounds like it could be a good lens for a lot of people, even if not many of the people who haunt places like CR.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
That's solid empirical evidence. And, you are right, there is variation from one reviewer to another at times. If you are happy with the 24-70, that's great. But you are also right that this isn't about 24-105L vs. 24-70L
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx
Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
VERY nice review Dustin! Since this is not a lens I need, it was great to read your thoughts on where this lens fits into Canon's future plans.
Upvote
0
Excellent review Dustin.
I concur with your questions regarding why this lens was introduced and how it fits in Canons lineup. With used and gray market 24-105L lenses selling for around $600 and 24-70/4 IS lenses selling for a few hundred more, this STM lens needs to sell for around $300 to be a value. Even if it did, I don't see the market for it. Most full frame buyers are going to invest in better glass.
Edit: OK, I just read the thread about the mystery DSLR (80D/FF Rebel). If Canon is coming out with a budget FF Rebel or whatever, maybe this lens makes sense as a kit option.
I concur with your questions regarding why this lens was introduced and how it fits in Canons lineup. With used and gray market 24-105L lenses selling for around $600 and 24-70/4 IS lenses selling for a few hundred more, this STM lens needs to sell for around $300 to be a value. Even if it did, I don't see the market for it. Most full frame buyers are going to invest in better glass.
Edit: OK, I just read the thread about the mystery DSLR (80D/FF Rebel). If Canon is coming out with a budget FF Rebel or whatever, maybe this lens makes sense as a kit option.
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx said:
bholliman said:
I'm on the same page with you both. I don't think this lens makes a lot of sense right now; I am trusting that Canon knows what it is doing and that it WILL make more sense in their big picture.
Upvote
0
I think the only way it makes sense is as a cheap starter lens, a la the 18-55 for Rebels. Looking at Amazon here in the US, the 6D is $1799, 6D+24-105L is $2,399 and the 6D+24-105 STM is $2199 - so $400 vs. $600 when bought alone. If the 6D and its successors keep falling in price, and Canon markets it as an "aspirational model", I think we'll see a fair number of buyers who will pay for the kit and never buy another lens - again, just like the Rebel.TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
Also, Canon may kill off the 24-105L and the STM would be the de facto kit lens...
Upvote
0
JonAustin
Telecom / IT consultant and semi-pro photographer
mackguyver said:
It actually wouldn't surprise me if Canon did just that. Especially, as jd7 wrote above, " if Canon can find a way to reduce copy variation and get the "average" 24-70 4L performing closer to its best performance."
I neglected to say Thank You to Dustin in my post yesterday for his review of the STM. I watched the video in its entirety, and fully appreciate how much work, time and effort it takes to produce a segment of such length and quality.
Upvote
0
jd7 said:
That is a good point. Another case in point is the 70-300L. It was made fun of before it's release and laughed at for another year or so and now all you see is wild praise for it and it's considered one of the true strengths of Canon world since no other brand lets you get such quality of image or AF in such a small tele-zoom.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
jd7 said:LetTheRightLensIn said:
Count me as another happy user of the 24-70 f/4L IS. As I've said in another thread, my copy was excellent at 24 and 70 out of the box, but disappointing at 35 and downright poor at 50 ... my sister's 24-105L was definitely better at 35 and 50. However, after sending my lens back to Canon for calibration, I'll happily pit my 24-70 4L against a 24-105L at any focal length. As has already been pointed out to my by a couple of CR users, Roger Cicala has commented the 24-704L has a lot of adjustable parts (more than most lenses), and it does seem the 24-70 4L suffers from substantial copy to copy variation. Get one properly calibrated though, and I think it is a very good lens.
My brother has the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VR so I will have to do some comparisons if I can find some time. I did some very quick comparisons just after I got my lens calibrated and came away with the feeling my 24-70 4L was at least as sharp from f/4 (I was probably concentrating most on centre sharpness), and its focussing was quicker and more consistent than the Tamron. That said, my testing to-date was pretty limited (and the possibility of new lens owner bias cannot be ignored!
I noticed this sentence in Dustin's review:
"The trend of many lenses that Canon has offered in the past few years have been lenses that didn’t necessarily wow people on paper (or thrill them with their announcement) but have proven to be extremely competent lenses that have won people over on their merits."
I have to say I agree with that. I wasn't that excited about the 40 2.8 or the 35 2 IS but now own and like both, and looking beyond lenses I think the same sentiment applies to the 6D. I think perhaps the 24-70 4L might end up being another lens to which the sentiment applies, if Canon can find a way to reduce copy variation and get the "average" 24-70 4L performing closer to its best performance.
Anyway, Dustin, thanks for the review of the 24-105 3.5-5.6. Interesting to get your take on a consumer-grade lens after reading your reviews of high end gear. The new 24-105 sounds like it could be a good lens for a lot of people, even if not many of the people who haunt places like CR.
How does your 24-70 do at close focusing distance, particularly at the long end? Mine REALLY seems to struggle. It's fine until I get near MFD and then the picture totally softens up...
I find that the 24-105 is still noticeably better at 50mm though. It has gone back to being my default lens.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
That is probably the single best example of all, and that is actually one of my favorite lenses despite its variable aperture.
Upvote
0
Act444 said:
I will do some tests with my 24-70 and see whether it gets softer near MFD at 70. Unfortunately it will probably be next weekend before I get a chance. Will report back as soon as I've had a chance to test.
With my 24-70, looking at sharpness you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference between focal lengths. At 50 it is pretty much as sharp as it is at 70 or 24. If anything, 35 might be its softest focal length now, but really there is not much difference at all at any focal length.
Upvote
0
Act444 said:jd7 said:Count me as another happy user of the 24-70 f/4L IS. As I've said in another thread, my copy was excellent at 24 and 70 out of the box, but disappointing at 35 and downright poor at 50 ... my sister's 24-105L was definitely better at 35 and 50. However, after sending my lens back to Canon for calibration, I'll happily pit my 24-70 4L against a 24-105L at any focal length. As has already been pointed out to my by a couple of CR users, Roger Cicala has commented the 24-704L has a lot of adjustable parts (more than most lenses), and it does seem the 24-70 4L suffers from substantial copy to copy variation. Get one properly calibrated though, and I think it is a very good lens.
My brother has the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VR so I will have to do some comparisons if I can find some time. I did some very quick comparisons just after I got my lens calibrated and came away with the feeling my 24-70 4L was at least as sharp from f/4 (I was probably concentrating most on centre sharpness), and its focussing was quicker and more consistent than the Tamron. That said, my testing to-date was pretty limited (and the possibility of new lens owner bias cannot be ignored!
I noticed this sentence in Dustin's review:
"The trend of many lenses that Canon has offered in the past few years have been lenses that didn’t necessarily wow people on paper (or thrill them with their announcement) but have proven to be extremely competent lenses that have won people over on their merits."
I have to say I agree with that. I wasn't that excited about the 40 2.8 or the 35 2 IS but now own and like both, and looking beyond lenses I think the same sentiment applies to the 6D. I think perhaps the 24-70 4L might end up being another lens to which the sentiment applies, if Canon can find a way to reduce copy variation and get the "average" 24-70 4L performing closer to its best performance.
Anyway, Dustin, thanks for the review of the 24-105 3.5-5.6. Interesting to get your take on a consumer-grade lens after reading your reviews of high end gear. The new 24-105 sounds like it could be a good lens for a lot of people, even if not many of the people who haunt places like CR.
How does your 24-70 do at close focusing distance, particularly at the long end? Mine REALLY seems to struggle. It's fine until I get near MFD and then the picture totally softens up...
I find that the 24-105 is still noticeably better at 50mm though. It has gone back to being my default lens.
Hi Act444
Rather than hijack this thread further, I've started a new thread to try to answer your question about my 24-70 f/4 near MFD ...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24642.msg484694#msg484694
Upvote
0
Similar threads
