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

[GammyKnee]

I see a new number of comments here about the original 24-105mm and distortion at 24mm. Seems to be a reason why a number of people haven't bought it. I really wonder at times if the viewers of this website are photographers at all. A lot of people seem to spend their time comparing specs and mft's rather than taking photos. I've taken tens of thousands of photos with that lens and it's remarkably good and consistent with a great focal length range. I've never seen a single photo ring ruined by the lens. If something is wrong it's always been the photographer at fault. If you buy an old 24-105 and use it you will be more than happy. The new one I assume is even better or else it would not exist. Any lens distortion is minimal and easily corrected post processing. Shoot more and compare less. Bad photographers blame gear. I don't there bad cameras or lens nowadays. They improve every year. If only photographers (including me ) would improve as fast.

Depends what you're shooting.
People: I regularly use my 24-105 on gym shoots. Here, that distortion just isn't an issue
Landscape: Different story. Correcting the distortion does not come free, especially if you're printing large.

 

[dak723]

I see a new number of comments here about the original 24-105mm and distortion at 24mm. Seems to be a reason why a number of people haven't bought it. I really wonder at times if the viewers of this website are photographers at all. A lot of people seem to spend their time comparing specs and mft's rather than taking photos. I've taken tens of thousands of photos with that lens and it's remarkably good and consistent with a great focal length range. I've never seen a single photo ring ruined by the lens. If something is wrong it's always been the photographer at fault. If you buy an old 24-105 and use it you will be more than happy. The new one I assume is even better or else it would not exist. Any lens distortion is minimal and easily corrected post processing. Shoot more and compare less. Bad photographers blame gear. I don't there bad cameras or lens nowadays. They improve every year. If only photographers (including me ) would improve as fast.

Depends what you're shooting.
People: I regularly use my 24-105 on gym shoots. Here, that distortion just isn't an issue
Landscape: Different story. Correcting the distortion does not come free, especially if you're printing large.

Correcting the distortion does come free with Canon DPP. And I assume the distortion can be automatically corrected in many programs. Not an issue.

 

[GammyKnee]

Correcting the distortion does come free with Canon DPP. And I assume the distortion can be automatically corrected in many programs. Not an issue.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/you-can-correct-it-in-post-but/

Of course that's using PS not DPP, which may do a better job. I'm sure both of them do a better job than LR(!), where I sometimes back off the distortion correction because it looks over done to my eyes. But I like LR's workflow way more than either of those two so I live with it.

Is the distortion a big issue? No.

Do I have to frame a bit more loosely when shooting at 24 with 24-105, to allow for the cropping that will occur when I fix the distortion? Yes. Do I notice that my images aren't quiet as sharp at the edges and corners after correcting? Depends on the shot, but yes sometimes I do. Would other people notice that? Probably not. Would I rather that the 24-105 had less distortion at the wide end? Yes.

 

[jd7]

I see a new number of comments here about the original 24-105mm and distortion at 24mm. Seems to be a reason why a number of people haven't bought it. I really wonder at times if the viewers of this website are photographers at all. A lot of people seem to spend their time comparing specs and mft's rather than taking photos. I've taken tens of thousands of photos with that lens and it's remarkably good and consistent with a great focal length range. I've never seen a single photo ring ruined by the lens. If something is wrong it's always been the photographer at fault. If you buy an old 24-105 and use it you will be more than happy. The new one I assume is even better or else it would not exist. Any lens distortion is minimal and easily corrected post processing. Shoot more and compare less. Bad photographers blame gear. I don't there bad cameras or lens nowadays. They improve every year. If only photographers (including me ) would improve as fast.

Depends what you're shooting.
People: I regularly use my 24-105 on gym shoots. Here, that distortion just isn't an issue
Landscape: Different story. Correcting the distortion does not come free, especially if you're printing large.

Correcting the distortion does come free with Canon DPP. And I assume the distortion can be automatically corrected in many programs. Not an issue.

I think Gammyknee means correcting the distortion doesn't come free in terms of IQ, ie making the corrections causes "damage" to details, etc.

Anyway - and while I agree with others about waiting for further reviews before coming to any firm conclusions - my 24-70/4 is breathing a little easier for the first time since the 24-105/4 mk II was announced

Edit: I see Gammyknee responded at the same time I did

 

[geekpower]

blaming the photographer for straight lines looking curved :

fwiw, i can tolerate small amounts of distortion, and i prefer not to correct for it, because of the obvious loss of sharpness, but large amounts = no thanks.

i have the excellent 16-35/4L, so if i wanted to carry both lenses around, i would be covered on the wide end, but i feel like the whole point of this lens is to be versatile enough to walk around without packing anything else.

ps. i don't really understand why anybody would come to a fan site and criticize people for talking about the gear. obviously anyone with a little bit of skill can make the best of whatever gear they have at hand, but with limited budgets nobody is going to just buy a lens randomly and hope for the best. we want to know that our kit is going to suit our needs as best as possible without having to buy every lens in the lineup.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

Any lens distortion is minimal and easily corrected post processing. Shoot more and compare less. Bad photographers blame gear. I don't there bad cameras or lens nowadays. They improve every year. If only photographers (including me ) would improve as fast.

I admit, that you are basically right in terms of shooting real photos versus shooting mainly test photos to check the gear. And we have very good lenses since the 1980s + very good digital cameras since ca. 2005 ...

But: Correcting distortion is not easily done in post processing. As someone who likes to do everything right during shooting I see (1) a strong IQ loss (details, contrast) in the outer regions + texture quality in larger regions of the image, (2) increased processing time for full views and (3) sometimes loss of important image area which contains details or helps to give the right proportions.

At the moment I am shocked about the quality loss towards 105mm which is the more important focal length range I use.

At the moment I like to combine and am very satisfied with the following two-body-setups:
5D i + 2.8 24 (old one) (or 2.8 40) & 5D i + 2.8 100 macro (or 2.0 100)
All four lenses give, despite their "old" age, great IQ and do need lens corrections during post only under critical situations.

But - like others said - lets wait for further reviews e.g. by photozone or the-digital-picture where it is easier to compare both 24-105 lenses on a more scientific base to see the progress between both lenses (or not).

 

[candyman]

<snip>
At the moment I am shocked about the quality loss towards 105mm which is the more important focal length range I use.
<snip>

But - like others said - lets wait for further reviews e.g. by photozone or the-digital-picture where it is easier to compare both 24-105 lenses on a more scientific base to see the progress between both lenses (or not).

The comments about distortion at 24mm are valid.
But, for a 24-105 f/4 L-lens I expect also good performance between 70-105mm at aperture f/4!. Especially for a price of 1279 euro. It should be a good performer between 70-105mm at f/4. That is the whole purpose for that lens.
If that focal length would not matter, and performance at 24mm is important, than there are a lot of other options:
- 24-70mm f/4 IS
- 16-35mm f/4 IS
More expensive:
- 24-70mm f/2.8 II
- 16-35 f/2.8 III
And if the price is too high and constant aperture is less important but you still want a walkaround lens with focal length up to 105mm:
- 24-105 f/3.5 - f/5.6 IS STM


Let's hope we get some reviews comparing the old and new 24-105L f/4 and hopefully they include the 24-70mm f/4 and the 24-105 f/3.5-f/5.6 STM and the sigma 24-105 in the tests as well.

 

[Hector1970]

blaming the photographer for straight lines looking curved :


ps. i don't really understand why anybody would come to a fan site and criticize people for talking about the gear. obviously anyone with a little bit of skill can make the best of whatever gear they have at hand, but with limited budgets nobody is going to just buy a lens randomly and hope for the best. we want to know that our kit is going to suit our needs as best as possible without having to buy every lens in the lineup.

This is fair comment but I don't understand how people can come to fan site and write so dogmatically about gear that either don't have or can't use properly. People say things like the barrel distortion is terrible at 105mm but never show an example of a ruined photo. The impact on the photo is minimal and the issue is semi imaginary. What's wrong with most people's photos is not the barrel distortion but the basic photograph (terrible subject choice, wrong point of view ,poor light , poor lens choice, poor focusing, poor aperture choice, shaky hands etc. People here often only mimic sentences read elsewhere. They can't show themselves examples of where it impacts in real life shooting.

 

[Antono Refa]

Responses here make me wonder.

Comparing the price Amazon and B&H charge for the mk2 to the mk1 price history, it seems to me the price hasn't really changed of late.

If it delivers the extra stop of IS and a noticeable IQ improvement, I'll be happy to buy it in the kit when I upgrade to the 5DmkIV, in face of being a bit larger & heavier.

 

[AlanF]

PhotographyBlog is one review site I ignore, from experience. As pointed out in comments of their review of Tamron 150-600mm G2 they had the aperture wrong and even described it as having a greater zoom range than the Sigma 150-600mm. Their testing is not consistent from one lens to the next. Their review of the 400mm DO II was a complete joke - they couldn't get it to give sharp images at f/4 and f/5.6, ascribed to an unexplained AF error and still gave it a rave review for sharpness.

 

[AlmostDecent]

Interesting review. I particularly liked the page on "Main Rivals":

Nikkor 24-120 f/4
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 VR

etc.

Well thought out. I just know that when considering this new 24-1205 f/4L II, Canon shooters are weighing it against those Nikon lenses they plan to stick on their cameras.

 

[davidmurray]

Interesting review. I particularly liked the page on "Main Rivals":

Nikkor 24-120 f/4
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 VR

etc.

Well thought out. I just know that when considering this new 24-1205 f/4L II, Canon shooters are weighing it against those Nikon lenses they plan to stick on their cameras.

[Sniggggaaaaar]

Yup - thought the same.

 

[SteveM]

Not impressed. I've been waiting for this for a long time but will wait a little longer until more reviews are in. From the test pictures shown it is a long way from acceptable sharpness for L series glass.

 

[nicolas.det]

Most of the pictures are just blurry. The EF 24-105 mark I would to better in most of the shoot.
Either they got an horrible copy, or the AF is terrible or the new one is worse as the old one.

However, I noticed that most of the sample of this site are quiet bad. So maybe it's just that..
..

 

[TheJock]

This is quite handy considering Emirates Airlines destroyed my version 1 of the lens, and then took no responsibility citing “onboard baggage is the customers responsibility” even though 2 passengers spoke to the stewardess about the way she was man handling our bags trying to ram another into a space that didn’t exist, while we were strapped in with the seatbelts on sign illuminated!!

 

[Sabaki]

Sounds like the STM version may be better than this new one

 

[LesC]

I'm assuming this must be a pre-production model otherwise why are there no reviews elsewhere?

 

[mb66energy]

<snip>
At the moment I am shocked about the quality loss towards 105mm which is the more important focal length range I use.
<snip>

But - like others said - lets wait for further reviews e.g. by photozone or the-digital-picture where it is easier to compare both 24-105 lenses on a more scientific base to see the progress between both lenses (or not).

The comments about distortion at 24mm are valid.
But, for a 24-105 f/4 L-lens I expect also good performance between 70-105mm at aperture f/4!. Especially for a price of 1279 euro. It should be a good performer between 70-105mm at f/4. That is the whole purpose for that lens.

[...]

Absolutely, but after checking TDP where this lens was not tested yet, my hopes for a great universal lens are vanishing:
Brian has prepared a comparison of the MTF plots which gives a hint that the mk ii lens is only a very little better at 105mm (especially outer image regions) than the mk i lens but will shine at 24mm.

Maybe Canon had reportage photography in mind: crisp and detailed overview phographs of a scene in wide position and some details with the most important portion of the image in the center in tele position.

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.

 

[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.

 

[ahsanford]

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