Updated 24-105 f/4L IS - II ... WHEN??? or WHY NOT???

[old-pr-pix]

One complaint I have with current 24-105 design is that is really isn't that close to an f4 lens. It's T-stop value is closer to making it an f5.6 lens - which is pretty slow. The Sigma version of 24-105 seems to be truer f4 -- testing shows the Sigma provides almost 1 full stop more light transmission.

A new Canon version of the 24-105L with up to date coatings, a tweaking to improve optical formula (and/or reduce copy-copy variation), latest IS technology, and superior weather sealing would seem to be in order at some point. I'm good for the moment with the one I have (cost $800 white box new several years ago) but would seriously consider upgrade if improvements were significant.

Likely Canon will keep cranking out the current design until it feels the tools and fixtures are getting so worn it can't make lenses that pass spec. any longer.

 

[4myrrh1]

It's a great lens. Definitely a workhorse on my camera too. I also wonder why not update this lens. I'd actually like Canon to go one step further an offer a 24-105 F2.8. How sweet would that be?

That is the answer to my shooting requirements. I need the 105 and also would make use of the 2.8 almost half the shooting that I do. It really would be an ultimate walk around lens.

 

[Pookie]

It's a great lens. Definitely a workhorse on my camera too. I also wonder why not update this lens. I'd actually like Canon to go one step further an offer a 24-105 F2.8. How sweet would that be?

That is the answer to my shooting requirements. I need the 105 and also would make use of the 2.8 almost half the shooting that I do. It really would be an ultimate walk around lens.

Ultimate walk around lens Not at the weight consideration of that FL range @2.8

 

[JonAustin]

Bought my first 24-105L new for $1,100 in 2005, after Canon resolved the optical issues with the early batches. It was my most-used lens, and it eventually developed zoom creep. None of the on-line fixes I tried helped with the creep.

Bought my second 24-105L new out of another photographer's kit for $715 in 2013, and sold my original for $500 the same month. Still my most-used lens, also developed zoom creep.

I've mulled over the 24-105L vs 24-70/4L decision many times, and I'm just not willing to give up the extra reach for a marginal improvement in IQ. I don't need the macro, nor can I justify one of each lens, given how similar they are.

I would jump on a new, improved version of the 24-105L, with all the latest design tech, especially if Canon were to integrate a zoom lock of some kind!

In the event Canon never releases a successor, I'll likely hold onto my current copy and add the inevitable 24-70/2.8L IS, once its price drops down from the stratosphere.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Bought my first 24-105L new for $1,100 in 2005, after Canon resolved the optical issues with the early batches. It was my most-used lens, and it eventually developed zoom creep. None of the on-line fixes I tried helped with the creep.

Bought my second 24-105L new out of another photographer's kit for $715 in 2013, and sold my original for $500 the same month. Still my most-used lens, also developed zoom creep.

I've mulled over the 24-105L vs 24-70/4L decision many times, and I'm just not willing to give up the extra reach for a marginal improvement in IQ. I don't need the macro, nor can I justify one of each lens, given how similar they are.

I would jump on a new, improved version of the 24-105L, with all the latest design tech, especially if Canon were to integrate a zoom lock of some kind!

In the event Canon never releases a successor, I'll likely hold onto my current copy and add the inevitable 24-70/2.8L IS, once its price drops down from the stratosphere.

I bought a couple 24-105 lenses recently during a recent eBay discount sale to resell to help fund the 80D. I still have one I haven't sold yet. I considered keeping the new one and selling my old one (from 2010). My old one works fine and does NOT have zoom creep yet so I figure maybe I have a good copy and I should leave well enough alone! You know, if it ain't broke...!

 

[SeppOz]

I have been one of the unfortunate ones caught by the diaphragm motor cable failure. Day two of a sight seeing holiday .
Apart from that, really like the lens on my 5D III; would like it brought up to date and that weakness fixed.

 

[Zv]

I like my old 24-105L just the way it is. I bought it used so it was fairly cheap and I've used it a lot. It failed on me once though (diaphragm issue) and that was an inconvenience but other than that it's performed it's job as a general purpose lens very well. I've thought about the 24-70 f/4 but I'm certain I need the extra reach when on holiday as I don't take a telephoto with me to save space.

Sure, I wouldn't say no to an updated version if I had the funds. A newer version with updated optics and IS would likely cost a bit more than what I'd like to fork out for a walk around lens. Eventually that cost would come down and I could see myself buying another used version.

I kind of like this category of lens to be average as it forces me to use my primes and specialist zooms a lot more. This results in better pictures overall as I think about the shots beforehand and choose the appropriate lens for the job. Even when that lens choice is the 24-105L I think it's IQ is more than good enough to get the job done.

 

[j-nord]

The 24-105L is a kit lens so they go for pretty cheap in the used market. I think the $1k msrp (currently, on b&h) is very steep. I believe the 24-70 f4 IS started at $1500 and is now going for $900 new even though it's undoubtedly a better, newer lens. Some argue the 24-70 f4 IS is the mkii version of the 24-105L being that its better across the board however, the huge drop in price in a few years means it isnt selling well. Between the 24-105 and 24-70 f4 I think the market is extremely saturated for such a lens. It would have to be an exceptionally sharp lens at a good price to convince mki or 24-70 f4 IS owners to upgrade. For these reasons, I doubt they will put out a 24-105ii any time soon.

That being said, Id definitely be interested in one if its noticably sharper than the 24-70 f4 IS and I can get one for around $1000. I got the 24-70 f4 IS for $800 after rebate a year ago.

+1

I haven't tried the 24-70 f/4, but from what I've read it gets soft around 50mm. Maybe earlier productions were affected and that's been fixed now. Does anyone who has the lens agree? Beyond that, the reviews say it's really good at 24 and 70mm and the macro feature is handy to have, so I agree this is your mkII version of the 24-105.

I bought a 24-105 when the white box market dropped to $500 so I haven't felt the need to try the 24-70. I agree that a new variant would need to provide compelling optics upgrade with a reasonable price tag for me to consider switching. There was a rumor not too long ago that we may be surprised at an upgrade of an existing lens...who knows if this one may be it.

I agree it's soft at 50mm but at f4 and f5.6, I think the softness disappears at f8 or f11 when compared to the other FLs. The sharpness is otherwise very consistent across the FLs. It's sharper across the board over the 24-105L.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I like my old 24-105L just the way it is. I bought it used so it was fairly cheap and I've used it a lot. It failed on me once though (diaphragm issue) and that was an inconvenience but other than that it's performed it's job as a general purpose lens very well. I've thought about the 24-70 f/4 but I'm certain I need the extra reach when on holiday as I don't take a telephoto with me to save space.

Sure, I wouldn't say no to an updated version if I had the funds. A newer version with updated optics and IS would likely cost a bit more than what I'd like to fork out for a walk around lens. Eventually that cost would come down and I could see myself buying another used version.

I kind of like this category of lens to be average as it forces me to use my primes and specialist zooms a lot more. This results in better pictures overall as I think about the shots beforehand and choose the appropriate lens for the job. Even when that lens choice is the 24-105L I think it's IQ is more than good enough to get the job done.

These are good points. However, most of my shooting isn't art or in a studio. It's on the go. I prefer the best quality lens I can get that also offers maximum versatility. If I'm at summer camp all week and I don't make it back to my tent for most of the day, I don't want to carry multiple lenses. So I use a Tamron 18-270 or 28-300 super zoom (newest/best I can get). For that "job", the IQ is sufficient. At night I'll pull out better faster lenses or primes. But I've also walked around all day with the 24-105 and was pretty happy. At more important events, I carry two bodies (one on each hip) with a 24-70 and a 70-200. But I honestly would prefer the 24-105 if it had close to the quality of the 24-70, esp if I just need/want to carry one body. I also carry the 16-35 f/4 and the 15mm Fish-Eye in a belt bag and/or a backpack. That is a great combo of lenses that allows a lot of creativity and versatility.

 

[jeffa4444]

Ive both the 24-105mm f4L IS USM and the 24-70mm f4L IS USM. Currently in the UK the 24-105 is £ 727.00 and the 24-70 is £ 675.00 for me that also reflects the 24-105 is actually a better lens my example of the 24-70mm f4L IS USM mirrors Photozone.de assessment the lens is got good enough to use on the 5DS yet Canon list it as a recommended lens.
The 24-105mm has slightly more purple fringing but is not worse from a sharpness perspective but is more versatile. If Canon could improve this lens, addressing at least the CAs then I would certainly buy the new one as you can happily go out and shoot with this lens only all day shooting landscape.

 

[jeffa4444]

The 24-105L is a kit lens so they go for pretty cheap in the used market. I think the $1k msrp (currently, on b&h) is very steep. I believe the 24-70 f4 IS started at $1500 and is now going for $900 new even though it's undoubtedly a better, newer lens. Some argue the 24-70 f4 IS is the mkii version of the 24-105L being that its better across the board however, the huge drop in price in a few years means it isnt selling well. Between the 24-105 and 24-70 f4 I think the market is extremely saturated for such a lens. It would have to be an exceptionally sharp lens at a good price to convince mki or 24-70 f4 IS owners to upgrade. For these reasons, I doubt they will put out a 24-105ii any time soon.

That being said, Id definitely be interested in one if its noticably sharper than the 24-70 f4 IS and I can get one for around $1000. I got the 24-70 f4 IS for $800 after rebate a year ago.

If my fairly new version of the 24-70mmf4L is anything to go by its not any better than when people tested it when it first came out. Mine has image shift and is soft at 45-60mm. The 24-105mm f4L I have does not have image shift and whilst not the sharpest lens loses nothing to the 24-70m f4L save for worse purple fringing (CAs)

 

[Zv]

I like my old 24-105L just the way it is. I bought it used so it was fairly cheap and I've used it a lot. It failed on me once though (diaphragm issue) and that was an inconvenience but other than that it's performed it's job as a general purpose lens very well. I've thought about the 24-70 f/4 but I'm certain I need the extra reach when on holiday as I don't take a telephoto with me to save space.

Sure, I wouldn't say no to an updated version if I had the funds. A newer version with updated optics and IS would likely cost a bit more than what I'd like to fork out for a walk around lens. Eventually that cost would come down and I could see myself buying another used version.

I kind of like this category of lens to be average as it forces me to use my primes and specialist zooms a lot more. This results in better pictures overall as I think about the shots beforehand and choose the appropriate lens for the job. Even when that lens choice is the 24-105L I think it's IQ is more than good enough to get the job done.

These are good points. However, most of my shooting isn't art or in a studio. It's on the go. I prefer the best quality lens I can get that also offers maximum versatility. If I'm at summer camp all week and I don't make it back to my tent for most of the day, I don't want to carry multiple lenses. So I use a Tamron 18-270 or 28-300 super zoom (newest/best I can get). For that "job", the IQ is sufficient. At night I'll pull out better faster lenses or primes. But I've also walked around all day with the 24-105 and was pretty happy. At more important events, I carry two bodies (one on each hip) with a 24-70 and a 70-200. But I honestly would prefer the 24-105 if it had close to the quality of the 24-70, esp if I just need/want to carry one body. I also carry the 16-35 f/4 and the 15mm Fish-Eye in a belt bag and/or a backpack. That is a great combo of lenses that allows a lot of creativity and versatility.

Yeah how good is that 16-35 f/4 eh? It's been on my 6D almost permanently since I bought it in December! I recently went on a few trips around Tokyo and Kyoto and it was the only lens I took. My first instinct was to go with the 24-105 as it's more versatile but it doesn't quite cut it at the wider focal lengths, does it? I find the middle of the range is where it performs better. I took a minor gamble (since I've visited these places several times before) and it paid off. The 16-35 worked pretty well as a walk around, with some cropping here and there! With a 70-200 in the bag too I would've been set.

That said I have some nice prints on my wall taken using the 24-105 @ 24mm which look quite detailed.

 

[unfocused]

Late to the party, but I am also a big fan of the 24-105. The 24-70 focal length is just too short for an all-around lens, which is what I use the 24-105 for, either paired with a 70-200, 70-300, or more recently the 100-400, all depending on the need at the time.

Given the availability and low cost of the 24-105, I've long suspected that Canon would like the lens to "cool down" for a few years (quit including it in kits, so the availability of white box versions starts to dry up). I see the possibility of a Version II at some point in the future, but only available as a separate lens and not included with a kit (They will leave that for the 24-70 f4 and the 24-105 STM.) I expect it will also go up significantly in price.

 

[jeffa4444]

The Canon 24-105mm f4L is £ 727 at leading dealers currently, the 24-70mm f4L is £ 675 and the 16-35mm f4L is
£ 682 in the UK so given that the performance of the 16-35mm f4L is so much better Canon should be able to deliver a better 24-105mm f4L or a 24-70mm f4L with better performance that whilst initially more expensive could settle down to a slight premium over existing optics. On that basis the more advantageous lens is a 24-105mm f4L MKII.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

The 24-105L is a kit lens so they go for pretty cheap in the used market. I think the $1k msrp (currently, on b&h) is very steep. I believe the 24-70 f4 IS started at $1500 and is now going for $900 new even though it's undoubtedly a better, newer lens. Some argue the 24-70 f4 IS is the mkii version of the 24-105L being that its better across the board however, the huge drop in price in a few years means it isnt selling well. Between the 24-105 and 24-70 f4 I think the market is extremely saturated for such a lens. It would have to be an exceptionally sharp lens at a good price to convince mki or 24-70 f4 IS owners to upgrade. For these reasons, I doubt they will put out a 24-105ii any time soon.

That being said, Id definitely be interested in one if its noticably sharper than the 24-70 f4 IS and I can get one for around $1000. I got the 24-70 f4 IS for $800 after rebate a year ago.

+1

I haven't tried the 24-70 f/4, but from what I've read it gets soft around 50mm. Maybe earlier productions were affected and that's been fixed now. Does anyone who has the lens agree? Beyond that, the reviews say it's really good at 24 and 70mm and the macro feature is handy to have, so I agree this is your mkII version of the 24-105.

I dunno, but I have it and my feelings about it are mixed. At 50mm it is easily the worst performer of all the lenses I have that cover that focal length, and that includes the 24-105 as well as the 50 1.8 STM. Not only is it soft, but contrast also takes a hit. It is also extremely soft (at almost any focal length) when closer than about 5 feet away from the subject.

But - it controls distortion well, the IS is superb, and at farther focus distances the IQ is (generally) excellent. It is FAR better than the 24-105 at 24mm...for still life and landscape it's great...for anything close up, not so much...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My thought after seeing and reading the recent patent is that the object of the new lens is mostly to cut manufacturing costs, and to make more profit, of course. It may also be a slight improvement, but I'd bet cost is the driver if the one in the patent is it. So maybe the initial cost will be less than I first assumed.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

My thought after seeing and reading the recent patent is that the object of the new lens is mostly to cut manufacturing costs, and to make more profit, of course. It may also be a slight improvement, but I'd bet cost is the driver if the one in the patent is it. So maybe the initial cost will be less than I first assumed.

Ah, yes. But do you think it will be a big improvement over the version 1 after all these years?

IMHO, all the new lenses (EF and L) are built in a less expensive design. Compare them to the older L lenses and they are using a thinner and more matte paint (as opposed to the 'baked/spattered' semi gloss black), less detailed silkscreen lettering, less 'bling' lettering or lettering badges, etc and the switches are frankly... cheap. Does it all work? Sure! Is it sufficient and fine? Yes. But it's not the same quality level, even if the older design was overkill.

And the prices went up! Canon is compelled to increase the profit margins due to so many years of currency devaluation and global economy issues. Not to mention the vague market shifts with regard to demand.