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

[JonAustin]

I was looking forward to better reviews for this lens, as well. I won't trade up from the v1 unless / until I come across a great offer on Craigslist for one out of a kit. If the net price is right (after I sell off the v1), it'll be worth it to me, if only for the zoom lock.

I'd still prefer a 24-85/2.8L IS USM replacement for the 24-70/2.8L II, oh, and an "ahsanford special" 50mm prime.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

Hey Tamron - you reading this? Figure out a better set of optics and the 24-105 and the market is yours.

 

[slclick]

So basically the Mark 2 is now as good as the Sigma.

 

[jd7]

So basically the Mark 2 is now as good as the Sigma.

Cannot say I've done the IQ comparison myself, but it's not too far from the same size and weight of the Sigma.

To be more specific, the Canon is still a bit lighter (90g) and thinner than the Sigma, but it's longer. Much closer to the Sigma than the Canon mk 1 lens though.

 

[tron]

I am glad I saw the reviews so I will not be an early adopter (or an adopter at all for this lens) as I was with 5D4.

 

[LesC]

I'm tempted by some of the black Friday deals but think I'll wait for more reviews. However....

Once the MK1's are sold out if you want a 24-105 L lens with IS, this will still be the only choice. Maybe for the range of this lens, the IQ is the best that can be achieved for the price?

 

[bholliman]

So basically the Mark 2 is now as good as the Sigma.

Undoubtedly with better autofocus and Canon service and support behind it.

 

[monkey44]

I'm tempted by some of the black Friday deals but think I'll wait for more reviews. However....

Once the MK1's are sold out if you want a 24-105 L lens with IS, this will still be the only choice. Maybe for the range of this lens, the IQ is the best that can be achieved for the price?

Well, almost the only way - we have Canon Refurbished, which should run for awhile - and is generally as good as new, with the same warranty and a better price. I've bought several cameras and lenses thru "refurbished" and have really good luck. The gear looks brand new and functions as well as new. Bought a 7D once with four click on shutter, for example.

 

[LesC]

Is Canon Refurb only in the US or is there a UK store too?

 

[slclick]

So basically the Mark 2 is now as good as the Sigma.

Cannot say I've done the IQ comparison myself, but it's not too far from the same size and weight of the Sigma.

To be more specific, the Canon is still a bit lighter (90g) and thinner than the Sigma, but it's longer. Much closer to the Sigma than the Canon mk 1 lens though.

I owned both and the Sigma was better in many ways but not by much....sounds a lot like the TDP review.

 

[candyman]

I have tested now 3 copies of this new lens. All copies haves production date October 2016.
The results are consistent.
At 24mm and 105mm more vignetting than version 1 of this lens.
And, the center sharpness at 105mm is less than in version 1 - within perspective at 100% zoom.


I am not a technical person like some here in this forum but the canon dealer specialist told me following and I like to hear some opinions:
"For image quality Canon focussed in version 1 mainly on very good center sharpness (good sharpness midcorner and moderate corner sharpness) across the full focal length (24-105).
Besides build quality, stabilizer and coating (ghosting / flare) Canon focussed in version 2 on good sharpness across the full focal length (24-105) form center to corner. Because of that they had to do some consessions like accept some increased vignetting and less sharpness center (for example 105) - again noticable in 100% zoom. This in respect to relative increasement of price from the old version while still make it an attractive kit-lens for people to buy.

What do you think?

 

[tron]

I have tested now 3 copies of this new lens. All copies haves production date October 2016.
The results are consistent.
At 24mm and 105mm more vignetting than version 1 of this lens.
And, the center sharpness at 105mm is less than in version 1 - within perspective at 100% zoom.


I am not a technical person like some here in this forum but the canon dealer specialist told me following and I like to hear some opinions:
"For image quality Canon focussed in version 1 mainly on very good center sharpness (good sharpness midcorner and moderate corner sharpness) across the full focal length (24-105).
Besides build quality, stabilizer and coating (ghosting / flare) Canon focussed in version 2 on good sharpness across the full focal length (24-105) form center to corner. Because of that they had to do some consessions like accept some increased vignetting and less sharpness center (for example 105) - again noticable in 100% zoom. This in respect to relative increasement of price from the old version while still make it an attractive kit-lens for people to buy.

What do you think?

A non technical person could very well respond that it is not so smart to make something better and at the same time make something else worse in the process if that something else is important like center sharpness for example. As a general purpose lens it is equally possible to be used for portraits fully open at 105mm as it is possible to be used for landscapes at that focal length.

 

[candyman]

I have tested now 3 copies of this new lens. All copies haves production date October 2016.
The results are consistent.
At 24mm and 105mm more vignetting than version 1 of this lens.
And, the center sharpness at 105mm is less than in version 1 - within perspective at 100% zoom.


I am not a technical person like some here in this forum but the canon dealer specialist told me following and I like to hear some opinions:
"For image quality Canon focussed in version 1 mainly on very good center sharpness (good sharpness midcorner and moderate corner sharpness) across the full focal length (24-105).
Besides build quality, stabilizer and coating (ghosting / flare) Canon focussed in version 2 on good sharpness across the full focal length (24-105) form center to corner. Because of that they had to do some consessions like accept some increased vignetting and less sharpness center (for example 105) - again noticable in 100% zoom. This in respect to relative increasement of price from the old version while still make it an attractive kit-lens for people to buy.

What do you think?

A non technical person could very well respond that it is not so smart make something better and make something else worse in the process if that something else is important like ceter sharpness for example. As a general purpose lens it is equally possible to be used for portraits fully open at 105mm as it is possible to be used for landscapes at that focal length.

Yes, of course my view as well but are there technical challenges that have impact (considering to keep the price of the lens reasonable)?

 

[old-pr-pix]

Has anyone compared the light transmission between the Mk1 and Mk2 versions? The Mk1 is noted to be about 2/3 stop slower than the Sigma version due to less efficient light transmission. Perhaps Mk2 version has better transmission at expense of more vignetting wide open? Having close to an extra stop might be worth it.

 

[LesC]

I'm presuming what the dealer said is his opinion rather than what Canon told him. However, if this was Canon's intention it seems a little odd that they'd be willing to sacrifice even some centre sharpness for overall 'good' performance across the frame? Surely most people would expect L glass to be very good in the centre at least.

And if really was their intention to have 'good' performance across the frame, is the corner sharpness at 24mm even at F8 shown in the TDP review 'better' than the MK1 ?

All told, it seems the MKII may have slightly better build quality but no real improvement if any in IQ which is somewhat strange. Given the fact the the previous design is 11 years old and the new lens is more expensive you'd expect at least some improvement in IQ?

I can't see any existing MK1 owners having any reason to replace theirs but if it's there's only this & the 24-70 F4 as 'standard' L zooms with IS, I guess it will still sell. Despite having the 24-70 F2.8 myself, I might still go for it myself; it is nice to have IS at times although I do feel rather underwhelmed

 

[LesC]

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals findings: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/canon-24-105-f4-is-mk-ii-mtf-results/

 

[tron]

Patience! Version III 10 years from now will have superb IQ with one small detail 4.5 stops of vignetting at the wide end fully open ;D I do not know if this rings a bell... ;D

 

[dufflover]

*gong* Roger's given the word too ...

Hope it just makes some mk1's even cheaper then. The differences don't seem to be worth much price difference plus the extra bulk.

 

[xps]

Personal experience:
Needed an universal zoom for hiking with 5D Mk IV as my old bones like to carry lighter gear.

Pre buying decisions:
Shot a lot of shots with the 24-105 Version one and dthe Sigma 24-104. There the sigma won the race definitively.
Subjective the image quality from 24-70mm was better and sharper over the whole picture (especially the corners). At the maximum focal range, the Canon was better. And the IS sees to be better working on the Sigma.
But: I own a lot of ilters and other stuff for 77mm lenses, so I waited for the Mk II from Canon.

Now I own it for some weeks and have mixed feelings about it. The IS is definitvely better than on version I. But on my 5D MK IV and 5DsR, I feel the MK 1 is better. Especially in the corners. A friend of mine (owns 5DsR and 24-105 Mk 1) and I did one week hiking and this is our feeling summed up over 2500 landscape shots. For the daily shooting as an universal lens, maybe the MK 1 will be enough.

For 1000€ after cashback I´m definitvely not satisfied.
I do not know, if CPS service can make this lens better.

 

[ahsanford]

Personal experience:
Needed an universal zoom for hiking with 5D Mk IV as my old bones like to carry lighter gear.

Pre buying decisions:
Shot a lot of shots with the 24-105 Version one and dthe Sigma 24-104. There the sigma won the race definitively.
Subjective the image quality from 24-70mm was better and sharper over the whole picture (especially the corners). At the maximum focal range, the Canon was better. And the IS sees to be better working on the Sigma.
But: I own a lot of ilters and other stuff for 77mm lenses, so I waited for the Mk II from Canon.

Now I own it for some weeks and have mixed feelings about it. The IS is definitvely better than on version I. But on my 5D MK IV and 5DsR, I feel the MK 1 is better. Especially in the corners. A friend of mine (owns 5DsR and 24-105 Mk 1) and I did one week hiking and this is our feeling summed up over 2500 landscape shots. For the daily shooting as an universal lens, maybe the MK 1 will be enough.

For 1000€ after cashback I´m definitvely not satisfied.
I do not know, if CPS service can make this lens better.

Hiking --> lower weight, weather sealing, random unplanned macro opportunities
Landscape --> 24mm ought to be sharp

You could not make a stronger case for the 24-70 f/4L IS. I believe it to be the best hiking lens available.

Or, perhaps put another way, why is a 4.5x FL multiplier zoom getting used on a 50 MP canvas? One would think you'd be better served with a naturally sharper lower FL multiplier lens.

- A