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

[Canon Rumors]

The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the brand new Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II. It looks like it’s a lens with some improvements over the original, such as improved IS, build quality and flare reduction.</p>
<p>However, do not expect it to have the same great sharpness that recent Canon zooms have shown. Afterall, this is a $1099 lens from Canon. I get the feeling that it’s a good upgrade, but not a great one like the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III.</p>
<p><strong>From TDP</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>No, it doesn’t have perfect image quality, but the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens is one of the best general purpose lenses available. It has an extremely useful range of focal lengths in a very-well constructed body that is ready for professional-duty use. It is nicely sized and has a weight that will not quickly wear you down. And, the excellent image stabilization system will make a dramatic difference in some low light situations. The fast, accurate and quiet AF system will not let you down, the overall lens design will delight and the price is not terribly high. As the 24-105 L I fades into history, this is the lens that will take its place. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II:</strong> <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274709-REG/canon_ef_24_105mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2bpjIRq">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA241052.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/2bIZnYi">Canon Store</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-ii-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[ahsanford]

And that, folks, is the closest Bryan Carnathan comes to saying something negative about a Canon product. There's some White House Press Secretary-level wordsmithing and posturing here to make his case without saying the word he cannot say: disappointed (which is nowhere to be found in his review).

That he should draw a conclusion that our expectations may have been too high is disheartening. We are allowed to be disappointed at Canon setting a low bar, even if they hit that modest target. 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.

And while I fully appreciate resolution isn't the only thing to look forward to in a lens -- their strides in IS are impressive -- I'm hard pressed to think of a 'sequel' / II / III lens Canon has put out in recent memory that didn't show strides with sharpness.

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

And that, folks, is the closest Bryan Carnathan comes to saying something negative about a Canon product. There's some White House Press Secretary-level wordsmithing and posturing here to make his case without saying the word he cannot say: disappointed (which is nowhere to be found in his review).

That he should draw a conclusion that our expectations were too high is disheartening. We are allowed to be disappointed at Canon setting a low bar, even if they hit that modest target. 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.

My expectations from the MTF charts & MSRP were the mk2 was just a refresh of the mk1, so my expectations were low and I'm not disappointed.

 

[e_honda]

This is no surprise.

Just like the new 50mm 1.8 STM, there really wasn't much of an image quality/sharpness improvement over the old one. The new 50mm just has better build quality and more aperture blades. Looks like the new 24-105 simply has the modernized IS system.

It's basically a kit lens relative to the other L lenses. Had they made the improvement that much more dramatic (for the same price), they probably figured it'd cannibalize sales of things like the 24-70 II and 16-35 II and III.

 

[AJ]

... the price is not terribly high.

$1099 isn't exactly cheap either

 

[e_honda]

... the price is not terribly high.

$1099 isn't exactly cheap either

No, it's not, but I believe the original version retailed for about the same price upon introduction.

The "street price" of the original dropped dramatically because of all the bundles it was put in with the 5D IIs and IIIs. The same thing will happen over the next several years for the same reason for the MK II.

 

[SteveM]

Disappointing. IQ is very very important, to me at least. I'm not likely to invest £1100+ in a lens of the same image quality as the one I already own. The IS is inconsequential if the image quality is not improved. I've yet to read if the poor distortions at wide angles have been rectified to some degree.
I'm half tempted to go and buy another of the version 1 lens whilst it is still available at a low price - mine is probably 10 years old though it still works admirably well.

 

[candyman]

My own personal findings from some basic comparison between the original 24-105L and the 24-105L II were not positive. I have slightly different results from TDP.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31206.msg636250#msg636250
The Canon dealer was also surprised of those results. I am disappointed. And somehow I believe that it may have been a bad copy. The mark II comes at a price of €1279. While the original comes currently at €949 (not bulk/white box). It is a lot of money for the 24-105L II. For that price I think one should expect better improvement in image quality and not just improved stabilizer and reduction of ghosting and flare

 

[Joe M]

Strictly looking at the sharpness weakness of version 1, the range of 70-105 could be better. The new version is better there, most notably around 70mm. Getting this in a kit as opposed to the original is better. However, chucking the original and buying this lens is just as Bryan says, maybe not the best way to spend your money. Hey, it's not a bad lens, just not stellar. Although, for $1500CAN, I'd like the lens to be a little better myself. Going to be a tough call for many people.

 

[LesC]

Not looking very promising at all. Does seem rather odd that Canon are replacing an 11 year old lens which offers little or no improvement in IQ & at around double the cost of the original which is still available!

 

[tr573]

And that, folks, is the closest Bryan Carnathan comes to saying something negative about a Canon product. There's some White House Press Secretary-level wordsmithing and posturing here to make his case without saying the word he cannot say: disappointed (which is nowhere to be found in his review).

That he should draw a conclusion that our expectations may have been too high is disheartening. We are allowed to be disappointed at Canon setting a low bar, even if they hit that modest target. 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.

And while I fully appreciate resolution isn't the only thing to look forward to in a lens -- their strides in IS are impressive -- I'm hard pressed to think of a 'sequel' / II / III lens Canon has put out in recent memory that didn't show strides with sharpness.

- A

The most disappointing part is that it gained a not insignificant amount of weight for so little IQ improvement.

 

[LesC]

Looking at the TDF comparisons, the non-L 24-105 STM appears to have just as good IQ at a third of the price too...

 

[LSXPhotog]

Well the good news is that I sold my 24-105 last month in anticipation of the market dropping and this lens kicking butt. The bad news is that it doesn't kick butt. So I'll probably pick up a fresh white box lens and have another backup to my 24-70 2.8L II when I have to service it.

This performance is highly disappointing to say the least. The corner sharpness at 24 is dismal and may actually be worse than the version 1!? Yikes, Canon...come on.

 

[SeanS]

My own personal findings from some basic comparison between the original 24-105L and the 24-105L II were not positive. I have slightly different results from TDP.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31206.msg636250#msg636250
The Canon dealer was also surprised of those results. I am disappointed. And somehow I believe that it may have been a bad copy. The mark II comes at a price of €1279. While the original comes currently at €949 (not bulk/white box). It is a lot of money for the 24-105L II. For that price I think one should expect better improvement in image quality and not just improved stabilizer and reduction of ghosting and flare

It sounds to me like the copy you tested may be a bit of an outlier, but... I could be mistaken.

We plan on testing an additional copy or two to see what we get, but early indications are that our initial tests generally reflect the performance you can expect. Bryan wasn't expecting huge gains in sharpness; however, I know he expected a bit of headway on that front. That's not to say that another copy may not perform very slightly better in the wide-to-normal focal lengths, but I don't think one should expect version II to be noticeably sharper than version I at anything except the longest focal length(s).

Concerned that our tested sample was underperforming, we touched base with a popular rental company (which will remain nameless, but quite easy to guess I'm sure) and they basically confirmed our findings as they were seeing similar results. They had run some tests and found the 24-105L II was a bit sharper on the long end and very nearly identical to the original model in the balance of the focal length range.

But as always, we need to put this lens into context. The original version was an extremely popular lens, not only because it was packaged in kits at a discount (although that's a big part of it), but because it was a lens that performed quite well. And the updated version does feature improved distortion, flare and vignetting as well as an improved IS system, all of which contribute to better overall image quality. Unfortunately, improving sharpness doesn't seem to have been a top priority for this particular Canon refresh. But high expectations aside, it's still going to serve a great many photographers very well.

 

[LesC]

I've been looking at the comparison page here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=961&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1072&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0 and I can see barely any difference between the EF24-105 STM & the EF24-105 F4L II.

It does make me wonder if there should be some kind of benchmark required for a lens to have an 'L' tag. Like many I naturally assume an L lens should have noticeably better IQ, not just better build quality than an no 'L' version...

 

[tr573]

I've been looking at the comparison page here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=961&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1072&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0 and I can see barely any difference between the EF24-105 STM & the EF24-105 F4L II.

It does make me wonder if there should be some kind of benchmark required for a lens to have an 'L' tag. Like many I naturally assume an L lens should have noticeably better IQ, not just better build quality than an no 'L' version...

There is a benchmark - the MAP

 

[ritholtz]

Mark 2 seems to be little better starting from 50mm on 5DsR.

 

[docsmith]

And that, folks, is the closest Bryan Carnathan comes to saying something negative about a Canon product.
- A

Ha....actually check out his review of the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 III USM. The words "mediocre" and "cheap" were used multiple times. I own this lens and it is obviously not an "L" lens. But before I made real money, and back in the film days, I took a lot of photos that are still up on my walls with it.

As for the 24-105 II, V1 was a good to very good lens. V2 is very slightly better optically, but has better CA, flare, IS, distortion etc. It is a better version of an already good to very good lens. Did we all want Canon to knock V2 out of the park and give us prime like IQ. Sure. But it is a better version of a good to very good lens.

 

[monkey44]

Based on all the info we have at this time - I expect the new 24-105 v2 will give photographers that don't own the v1 yet a good lens for the bag. But, I also expect the guys that already own a v1 (including myself) will not upgrade for $1100 bucks ... not practical at this point. Some might likely buy the v1 even how at a good price too, despite the v2 release.

Once we've learned the limitations of the v1, and allow for that in our shots, the upgrade offers only limited improvement which can offset with other lenses when necessary.

 

[Etienne]

These lenses are getting bigger and heavier.
This walk-around lens is not a big priority, so it's a definite pass for me, and I'll keep the original 24-105 for when I need this sort of thing.
I'm more interested in the primes. I'd like to see what Canon can do with a 24 f/1.4 mkIII. I'd love to see a 50mm f/1.4 IS (or even a really good f/1.8 IS), a 20mm f/2.8 IS, a small 85 f/1.8 IS (but I may go for the upcoming 85 f/1.4 IS, ouch$$$$), and how about a really good 135 f/2 IS that takes teleconverters?