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

[j-nord]

Ill reserve my judgment until I see more tests/reviews/comparison. However, if it doesn't out perform the 24-70 f4 IS and approach the 24-70 f2.8 II then, Im not interested regardless of price.

Matching the 24-70 f/4L IS would be a reasonable bar. Expecting a relatively similar price point / relatively similar year of release 4.5x zoom to outperform a 3x zoom is an unreasonable expectation, IMHO. Physics is a b---- that way.

- A

Considering the starting MSRP I wasn't expecting much. Prior to release of pricing, I was hoping they'd move the lens slightly up market while keeping their profit margin low for such a high volume lens. So far it looks like it's just a slight improvement and a lens I'll never buy.

 

[NancyP]

I am awaiting the in-detail tests and comparisons between all the options including the old one and the STM, but also the 24-70s. Roger Cicala will be receiving a few of these - watch his blog for information about image quality and sample-to-sample variation. Another interesting metric Cicala gives, after the lens has been out for a year or two, is the repair rate.

 

[JonAustin]

Zooms which go from stronger wide angle to real tele are - my opinion as physicist who has some feeling about the complexity of systems (and lens designs) - a bunch of compromises. While 16-35 mk iii and 100-400 mk ii seem to be stellar lenses in terms of IQ.

I agree that the greatest challenge to better IQ for both the original 24-105L and its new successor are their overreach in terms of focal length range. It's nice to have more FL on the long end than the 24-70's offer, but 105mm may be 'a bridge too far.' I don't know what an uncompromised upper FL limit would be, maybe somewhere in the 85- to 96-mm range.

I'm on my 2nd 24-105L; it's 'good enough,' although I would certainly pay for better. Since I also have a 16-35/4L, I tend to switch to it when I find I'm spending most of my time on the wide end of the 24-105. Perhaps Canon should consider developing a high-quality 35-105 ... Any new lens will of course take years to develop, so I'm not holding my breath.

I'll watch for reviews from better sources than this, as well, but I probably won't upgrade to the 24-105 II, unless I come across a really good price on a new one out of a kit, as I did with my current vI.

 

[j-nord]

Zooms which go from stronger wide angle to real tele are - my opinion as physicist who has some feeling about the complexity of systems (and lens designs) - a bunch of compromises. While 16-35 mk iii and 100-400 mk ii seem to be stellar lenses in terms of IQ.

I agree that the greatest challenge to better IQ for both the original 24-105L and its new successor are their overreach in terms of focal length range. It's nice to have more FL on the long end than the 24-70's offer, but 105mm may be 'a bridge too far.' I don't know what an uncompromised upper FL limit would be, maybe somewhere in the 85- to 96-mm range.

I'm on my 2nd 24-105L; it's 'good enough,' although I would certainly pay for better. Since I also have a 16-35/4L, I tend to switch to it when I find I'm spending most of my time on the wide end of the 24-105. Perhaps Canon should consider developing a high-quality 35-105 ... Any new lens will of course take years to develop, so I'm not holding my breath.

I'll watch for reviews from better sources than this, as well, but I probably won't upgrade to the 24-105 II, unless I come across a really good price on a new one out of a kit, as I did with my current vI.

It definitely seems getting to 100 on one end and 24 on the other is a major compromise. It seems the 24 is the bigger issue. Canons should have gone to 28 (like the 28-300) or even 35 as you suggested. Id much rather see something like a 28-120L or 35-135L than a 24-105. Getting to 24 (with big compromises) is far less important now that we have 2 extremely good 16-35mm offerings.

 

[ahsanford]

It definitely seems getting to 100 on one end and 24 on the other is a major compromise. It seems the 24 is the bigger issue. Canons should have gone to 28 (like the 28-300) or even 35 as you suggested. Id much rather see something like a 28-120L or 35-135L than a 24-105. Getting to 24 (with big compromises) is far less important now that we have 2 extremely good 16-35mm offerings.

Respectfully disagree. Not having 24-28 or 24-35 on a standard zoom means that you will constantly changeout your lens to get wide enough for some things.

Back in my crop days, I had an EF-S 10-22 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I for general / walkabout / touristy stuff, and it seemed like I was changing out the 24-70 for the 10-22 far too frequently.

I moved to FF and the 24-70 perfectly covered my needs. 24-28mm FF is a sweet spot of 'wide but not unnaturally wide' to me, and I used it often.

So I think there's a reason Canon abandoned the 28-something zooms, but I could be wrong.

- A

 

[monkey44]

I remember shooting lots of great images with the 30D and 28-135 ... even now, when looking back in the archives, that lens gave some great shots ... I think that zoom and a 16-35 would work well together -

It seems the build quality on the older lenses might have been better than the kit lenses of today - then, we jump to the 'L' build. It seems the older lens build was somewhere in between kit and 'L' of today. I shot over ten years with 30D / 28-135 combo and 100-400 v1, until moving to the 5DM3, 7D (Sold) and recently a 7D2 upgrade ... I'm less than happy with the 24-105 (it's a bit temperamental) , and hope this new 24-105 v2 fits the bill. It will sit perfectly between 16-35 and 70-200. Just enough overlap to lessen the number of lens changes in the field.

With a premium 24-105 v2, a very good outdoor kit would become 16-35, 24-105 v2, 100-400 v2, and could eliminate the 70-200 ... altho the 70-200 is such a great lens, would be difficult to leave it home unless the 24-104 v2 is stellar. <puzzled until reviews come in>

 

[JonAustin]

Respectfully disagree. Not having 24-28 or 24-35 on a standard zoom means that you will constantly changeout your lens to get wide enough for some things.

Back in my crop days, I had an EF-S 10-22 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I for general / walkabout / touristy stuff, and it seemed like I was changing out the 24-70 for the 10-22 far too frequently.

I moved to FF and the 24-70 perfectly covered my needs. 24-28mm FF is a sweet spot of 'wide but not unnaturally wide' to me, and I used it often.

So I think there's a reason Canon abandoned the 28-something zooms, but I could be wrong.

- A

The wealth of 24-xx zoom choices reinforces your viewpoint. But if it's not practically possible to produce a high-quality zoom which spans the FL range from 24 to 105mm, there may be consumers who would sacrifice the wide end of the range for high quality at the longer end. What none of us has is access to Canon's market research, which reflects where to best invest their R&D budget.

 

[j-nord]

It definitely seems getting to 100 on one end and 24 on the other is a major compromise. It seems the 24 is the bigger issue. Canons should have gone to 28 (like the 28-300) or even 35 as you suggested. Id much rather see something like a 28-120L or 35-135L than a 24-105. Getting to 24 (with big compromises) is far less important now that we have 2 extremely good 16-35mm offerings.

Respectfully disagree. Not having 24-28 or 24-35 on a standard zoom means that you will constantly changeout your lens to get wide enough for some things.

Back in my crop days, I had an EF-S 10-22 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I for general / walkabout / touristy stuff, and it seemed like I was changing out the 24-70 for the 10-22 far too frequently.

I moved to FF and the 24-70 perfectly covered my needs. 24-28mm FF is a sweet spot of 'wide but not unnaturally wide' to me, and I used it often.

So I think there's a reason Canon abandoned the 28-something zooms, but I could be wrong.

- A

I'd rather see better, consistent IQ across the range, even if that means moving the range to the longer end. But, I get it, as a 1 lens set up, its virtually impossible to go with out 24mm.

 

[Antono Refa]

Respectfully disagree. Not having 24-28 or 24-35 on a standard zoom means that you will constantly changeout your lens to get wide enough for some things.

Back in my crop days, I had an EF-S 10-22 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I for general / walkabout / touristy stuff, and it seemed like I was changing out the 24-70 for the 10-22 far too frequently.

I moved to FF and the 24-70 perfectly covered my needs. 24-28mm FF is a sweet spot of 'wide but not unnaturally wide' to me, and I used it often.

So I think there's a reason Canon abandoned the 28-something zooms, but I could be wrong.

- A

The wealth of 24-xx zoom choices reinforces your viewpoint. But if it's not practically possible to produce a high-quality zoom which spans the FL range from 24 to 105mm, there may be consumers who would sacrifice the wide end of the range for high quality at the longer end. What none of us has is access to Canon's market research, which reflects where to best invest their R&D budget.

Canon used to make kit lenses that started at 28mm (28-105/135mm), as well as lenses that started at 35mm (35-80/105/135mm).

That those lenses are discontinued, in contrast to IS-less 75-300mm lenses, seems to me to indicate people do indeed prefer lenses that start wider.

On the other hand, I did see a wedding photographer using the EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM. Apparently he likes it for its low weight and wide aperture.

 

[nc0b]

I use my 24-105mm all the time on my 6D, and if two of us are shooting, my wife uses it and I use the 5DsR. We definitely need 24mm a lot of the time. As far as reliability of the 28-135mm, I have owned two of them and the IS failed on both. You could hear the gyros chattering and see the image blur in the view finder. The first one was purchased 14 years ago. I haven't purchased any additional non-L lenses because of that for a long time. I did have a 70-300mm non-L, which worked well as long as I owned it. I traded it plus $500 for the 70-200mm f/4 IS L.

I have no complaints with the 24-105mm, as I generally shoot at f/8 and ISO 400. If, however, the 24-105 II is significantly better, I will upgrade. Unless Canon comes out with a 500mm f/5.6, I am pretty well set for lenses. The big whites are beyond what I choose to spend on a lens. I am quite happy shooting the 100-400mm II with the 5DsR since I have so much latitude in cropping. On this month long trip to Canada and New England, I was astounded at how little atmospheric distortion I observed near sunset at the Bay of Fundy. Shots at 500 yards with the 100-400 II were amazingly detailed with tiny crops of under 100k. I haven't needed the 1.4X TC III on the zoom so far.

 

[JPAZ]

My 24-105 mk1 sits while my 24-70 f/2.8 ii gets quite the workout. IS would be nice, especially if I ever upgrade to a 5Div. But for now, I am going to sit tight. I kind of wished the new 24-105 would be a good alternative to the f/2.8 because of the bit mroe reach and the IS.

 

[AZMtnBiker]

I've been anxiously awaiting some sort of review on this lens since I don't yet have a zoom in that focal range for my 5D mkiv (came from a 7D MKII and the 17-55 was my walk-around lens there). I've almost pulled the trigger on the 24-70 f2.8 II several times but I keep thinking, "I'll wait to see some reviews of the new 24-105". I'll reserve final judgement but, for now, it's looking like I'm a step closer to settling on the 24-70.

 

[Refurb7]

I've been anxiously awaiting some sort of review on this lens since I don't yet have a zoom in that focal range for my 5D mkiv (came from a 7D MKII and the 17-55 was my walk-around lens there). I've almost pulled the trigger on the 24-70 f2.8 II several times but I keep thinking, "I'll wait to see some reviews of the new 24-105". I'll reserve final judgement but, for now, it's looking like I'm a step closer to settling on the 24-70.

The 24-70/2.8 II has spoiled me for any other mid-range zoom. It is so good. But I really need the 2.8 and don't need the 70-105.

 

[mrzero]

Respectfully disagree. Not having 24-28 or 24-35 on a standard zoom means that you will constantly changeout your lens to get wide enough for some things.

Back in my crop days, I had an EF-S 10-22 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I for general / walkabout / touristy stuff, and it seemed like I was changing out the 24-70 for the 10-22 far too frequently.

I moved to FF and the 24-70 perfectly covered my needs. 24-28mm FF is a sweet spot of 'wide but not unnaturally wide' to me, and I used it often.

So I think there's a reason Canon abandoned the 28-something zooms, but I could be wrong.

- A

The wealth of 24-xx zoom choices reinforces your viewpoint. But if it's not practically possible to produce a high-quality zoom which spans the FL range from 24 to 105mm, there may be consumers who would sacrifice the wide end of the range for high quality at the longer end. What none of us has is access to Canon's market research, which reflects where to best invest their R&D budget.

Canon used to make kit lenses that started at 28mm (28-105/135mm), as well as lenses that started at 35mm (35-80/105/135mm).

That those lenses are discontinued, in contrast to IS-less 75-300mm lenses, seems to me to indicate people do indeed prefer lenses that start wider.

On the other hand, I did see a wedding photographer using the EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM. Apparently he likes it for its low weight and wide aperture.

The standard kit zooms that started at 28mm in the film days generally accompanied cameras that are now crop sensors, i.e. Rebels and _0D series. Those are now sold with kit zooms that start with 18mm crop lenses, which is the equivalent of 28mm on full frame.

So, it seems the thinking is 28mm (equivalent) is good enough for entry- and mid-level users, but 24mm is desired by the more demanding users. I think that is probably very true.

I appreciate the lighter weight of my 24-70/4 but I do miss the extra reach to 105 sometimes. I might have accepted the extra weight of this updated 24-105, but I feel like most of my general zoom work falls at the wider end of the range and thus the distortion is the deciding factor. Lower weight, less distortion where I shoot the most - so I'm sticking with the little guy.

 

[jeffa4444]

Wait for the lens, the sample I tried was very good indeed.

 

[gilbertmc]

I am still wondering if to buy the first or the second edition.

Today I will rent the second edition and see how the shots will look. After reading reviews and comments, it seems the first edition is still better than the second one. But also since I process all the photos, I guess the second edition will be a good improvement from the first and worth to get the second instead of the first.

If somebody can tell me why should I get the second instead of the first or viceversa I would appreciate.

Thank you

 

[LesC]

I am still wondering if to buy the first or the second edition.

Today I will rent the second edition and see how the shots will look. After reading reviews and comments, it seems the first edition is still better than the second one. But also since I process all the photos, I guess the second edition will be a good improvement from the first and worth to get the second instead of the first.

If somebody can tell me why should I get the second instead of the first or viceversa I would appreciate.

Thank you

Once the original Version MK1's are sold out there will only be the MKII so the decision will be made unless you want to buy second-hand

As it stands, as I see it as they seem very similar in performance - I suspect copy variance will mean that you could compare the MKI and MKII versions and someone would find the MKI marginally better, another may find vice versa. However, if you currently have the MK1, probably no need to 'upgrade' but if you don't have either, seems sensible to go for the MKII - it does have better IS and supposedly better construction. I believe the MKII had some problems with the ribbon cable failing but of course only time will tell if the MKII proves to be more reliable.

I've got the 24-70 F2.8L MKII but still intend to get the new 24-105 for the times when the extra reach and particularly IS will be handy.

Let us know what you think of the rented MKII

 

[monkey44]

[/quote] I believe the MKII had some problems with the ribbon cable failing but of course only time will tell if the MKII proves to be more reliable.

I've got the 24-70 F2.8L MKII but still intend to get the new 24-105 for the times when the extra reach and particularly IS will be handy.

Let us know what you think of the rented MKII
[/quote]

Just curious - Where did you hear 'problems with the ribbon cable failing' ? Seems Mk II hasn't hardly hit the sales channels yet - only in the camera/lens package ... MKII is on backorder everywhere that I can see ... even Canon USA

 

[LesC]

Just curious - Where did you hear 'problems with the ribbon cable failing' ? Seems Mk II hasn't hardly hit the sales channels yet - only in the camera/lens package ... MKII is on backorder everywhere that I can see ... even Canon USA

[/quote]

Ah, sorry, that was a typo - I should have said it was the MKI that I believe had the problems with the ribbon cable...

 

[monkey44]

Just curious - Where did you hear 'problems with the ribbon cable failing' ? Seems Mk II hasn't hardly hit the sales channels yet - only in the camera/lens package ... MKII is on backorder everywhere that I can see ... even Canon USA

That's kinda what i thought - seems unusual that both would have the same issue

Ah, sorry, that was a typo - I should have said it was the MKI that I believe had the problems with the ribbon cable...
[/quote]