Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II by TDP

[dak723]

If Canon can offer a best in industry ultra-wide f/4 zoom for $1,199, they should have bested an optically ordinary original 24-105 f/4L IS by a country mile.

As usual on this forum, people's expectations are beyond what is probably actually possible. This is a zoom with a WIDE range. It is probably impossible to make it as sharp as the 24-70, for example (and still be in a reasonable price range). Both the Mark I and Mark II (and maybe even the STM version) may be as sharp as a 24-105mm lens is ever going to be. For the advantages one gets by having a wide zoom range, there will be sacrifices.

 

[Sabaki]

Hmmmmm...this is probably the first L series lens released in the last few years that doesn't excite me in the least.

I'm not saying it's a bad lens but it doesn't keep the standard set by the 24-70ii, 35ii, 100-400ii, 16-35 etc etc so I won't be looking at adding this to my kit.

I would've like this lens to have been a good few degrees better than the STM version and it doesn't seem to be that way at all

 

[dufflover]

... the price is not terribly high.

$1099 isn't exactly cheap either

"Afterall, this is a $1099 lens from Canon."

I hope Canon do not share that sort of attitude.
Then again we already know them as lens price hikers ...

 

[YuengLinger]

... the price is not terribly high.

$1099 isn't exactly cheap either

"Afterall, this is a $1099 lens from Canon."

I hope Canon do not share that sort of attitude.
Then again we already know them as lens price hikers ...

A pair of eyeglasses in the USA costs over $400. What do you think quality should cost in 2016? Do I like higher prices? No, but much of the increase in price is due to endless printing of money, years of zero interest rates.

What Canon products are out of line with price increases we see for cars, food, health care...

You can't believe that lenses should be like computers and TVs, where cheaper and cheaper ways of producing, plus the much more massive markets, gives the illusion of prices remaining relatively flat while new features are introduced. Or can you?

 

[tron]

... the price is not terribly high.

$1099 isn't exactly cheap either

"Afterall, this is a $1099 lens from Canon."

I hope Canon do not share that sort of attitude.
Then again we already know them as lens price hikers ...

A pair of eyeglasses in the USA costs over $400. What do you think quality should cost in 2016? Do I like higher prices? No, but much of the increase in price is due to endless printing of money, years of zero interest rates.

What Canon products are out of line with price increases we see for cars, food, health care...

You can't believe that lenses should be like computers and TVs, where cheaper and cheaper ways of producing, plus the much more massive markets, gives the illusion of prices remaining relatively flat while new features are introduced. Or can you?

You are right for the lenses. For the cameras though it is a different issue. Not totally, but still different. In addition it is an L lens. Maybe if they could make it much better than the first version they could price it higher. Just my opinion...

 

[JoeDavid]

Compared to the competition (used the 1Ds Mark III for similar resolution to the D3x):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=733&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Not so bad a lens over the range but neither is stellar...

 

[Random Orbits]

... the price is not terribly high.

$1099 isn't exactly cheap either

"Afterall, this is a $1099 lens from Canon."

I hope Canon do not share that sort of attitude.
Then again we already know them as lens price hikers ...

The original 24-105L still lists at 999, but in practice the going rate is closer to 400-600 because there are so many white box units available and it is heavily discounted in kits. The same will happen with the 24-105L II and then the real prices difference between the two will narrow. For a 100-200 difference, less vignetting, better IS and slightly better IQ at the long end will be worth it.

The real head scratcher is why they didn't just use the existing 24-105 f/4-5.6 as the kit lens, and that would have given them space to design a better 24-105L II that would be priced near 2k.

 

[Loswr]

The real head scratcher is why they didn't just use the existing 24-105 f/4-5.6 as the kit lens, and that would have given them space to design a better 24-105L II that would be priced near 2k.

I think the 24-105 non-L is intended to be the kit lens for a Rebel/xxxD-style FF camera, if/when Canon gets around to releasing one. The new version of the venerable 28-135 that was a kit lens for a long time.

 

[Random Orbits]

The real head scratcher is why they didn't just use the existing 24-105 f/4-5.6 as the kit lens, and that would have given them space to design a better 24-105L II that would be priced near 2k.

I think the 24-105 non-L is intended to be the kit lens for a Rebel/xxxD-style FF camera, if/when Canon gets around to releasing one. The new version of the venerable 28-135 that was a kit lens for a long time.

Interesting thought. I wonder why they developed/produced it so early if that is the case. Seems like those resources could have been used to get ahsanford his 50 f/1.4 replacement... or Canon just likes to toy with him.

 

[Maiaibing]

OK, so lets have some perspective here: You could get a Sigma 85mm ART for the price of this lens...

 

[tron]

The real head scratcher is why they didn't just use the existing 24-105 f/4-5.6 as the kit lens, and that would have given them space to design a better 24-105L II that would be priced near 2k.

I think the 24-105 non-L is intended to be the kit lens for a Rebel/xxxD-style FF camera, if/when Canon gets around to releasing one. The new version of the venerable 28-135 that was a kit lens for a long time.

Interesting thought. I wonder why they developed/produced it so early if that is the case. Seems like those resources could have been used to get ahsanford his 50 f/1.4 replacement... or Canon just likes to toy with him.

ahsanford shouldn't worry. There is a CR3 that there will be a 50/1.4 replacement until ... 2040 ;D

 

[Loswr]

OK, so lets have some perspective here: You could get a Sigma 85mm ART for the price of this lens...

How well does it perform at 24-84mm and 86-105mm?

 

[geekpower]

OK, so lets have some perspective here: You could get a Sigma 85mm ART for the price of this lens...

How well does it perform at 24-84mm and 86-105mm?

well now, that's the thing, isn't it?

if you want a 24-105 with constant aperture, weather resistance, and decent auto focus, this is the only game in town, so canon doesn't really need to bust their humps in the optical department. just like the V1, lots and lots and lots and lots of people will live with the distortion and softness because of the convenience of not having to change lenses (or carry them around), and many of them will treasure the pictures they take with it, because it was what they used on that family vacation or whatever.

but also, like with the V1, people who want this range, but know they could get better IQ by lugging around 2 or 3 lenses, will end up disappointed, and facing a difficult choice of whether they really want to lug around all that gear or not.

personally, i could have got the V1 in a kit when i bought my 6d, but passed. i was prepared to "settle" for a non-perfect V2 as long as it showed decent improvement, but it looks like i will be passing once again. i have the short end covered already. now i'm toying with the idea of covering that long end with a 70-200, or possibly waiting to see if the mythical 135 IS ever comes.

 

[bholliman]

I was excited when this lens was announced, but my anticipation cooled when I saw the MFT charts were only marginally better than the Mk1. As it stands, I'll be passing on this one. I recently picked up a used copy of the Mk1 for just over $400, and its a very good copy - much sharper than my previous one. I've been using it as a general purpose lens for family outings when I don't want to carry 2-3 lenses with me and its performed very well. Might be the best $400 I ever invested in photography gear.

As others pointed out, it may not be possible to make an extremely sharp lens covering this 4x focal range.

I also have a nice 24-70 f/4 IS that I may or may not keep, having 2 standard zooms is probably not that practical in my situation.

 

[Loswr]

but also, like with the V1, people who want this range, but know they could get better IQ by lugging around 2 or 3 lenses, will end up disappointed, and facing a difficult choice of whether they really want to lug around all that gear or not.

personally, i could have got the V1 in a kit when i bought my 6d, but passed. i was prepared to "settle" for a non-perfect V2 as long as it showed decent improvement, but it looks like i will be passing once again. i have the short end covered already. now i'm toying with the idea of covering that long end with a 70-200, or possibly waiting to see if the mythical 135 IS ever comes.

I had the 24-105 MkI (two copies, one bought used then sold when I got a new copy in a 5DII kit). I sold the second one after getting the 24-70/2.8L II. I would have been tempted by a 24-105 II with substantially improved optics, as it is I'll stick with the 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II for local use or 70-300L for travel.

 

[LesC]

I see the Canon UK site says of the MKII: "EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM features a revised optical design compared to its predecessor, for improved resolution and edge-to-edge sharpness throughout the zoom range." How much do manufacturers have to justify what they claim?

Having said that and although I have the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII I'm still tempted to get the new 24-105 too. As it's almost half the price of the 24-70 & has extra range & IS I won't be expecting as much from it but the extra reach & IS will be nice at times. Hopefully slightly better build quality than the MKI too.

Also I've never been that impressed with my 24-70 so if the difference between the two lenses is minimal I may well sell the 24-70. I'd still like to see some more reviews of the new 24-105 although there are the odd quite good deals around this weekend ....

 

[candyman]

I see the Canon UK site says of the MKII: "EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM features a revised optical design compared to its predecessor, for improved resolution and edge-to-edge sharpness throughout the zoom range." How much do manufacturers have to justify what they claim?

Having said that and although I have the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII I'm still tempted to get the new 24-105 too. As it's almost half the price of the 24-70 & has extra range & IS I won't be expecting as much from it but the extra reach & IS will be nice at times. Hopefully slightly better build quality than the MKI too.

Also I've never been that impressed with my 24-70 so if the difference between the two lenses is minimal I may well sell the 24-70. I'd still like to see some more reviews of the new 24-105 although there are the odd quite good deals around this weekend ....

This I can confirm.
I prefer the design and the build quality of the MKII.

 

[LesC]

I believe you returned your MKII; did you get another in the end or are you waiting for further reviews?

 

[candyman]

I believe you returned your MKII; did you get another in the end or are you waiting for further reviews?

Yes, I returned the lens. They did not have other copies. So I am waiting for larger supply (thus stock) and try another copy. I don't like the vignetting at 24mm and 105mm of the MKII but it is something you can work with in post-processing. But I really need 105mm sharp center and corners as well. The MKII copy was just less sharp than my MK1. Bummer.

 

[jd7]

I have to say the thing I'm disappointed - and surprised - about, is that the II lens is noticeably bigger and heavier than the I lens even though (it seems) the optics have not been much improved.

Will wait for some more reviews, and hopefully a LensRentals test, but at this point I think I'll probably be sticking with my 24-70 f/4L IS as a general purpose zoom.