Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 15 Jun 2017 (Thursday) 17:29
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

The 24-105 ver2 must be pretty good

 
chuckmiller
Senior Member
326 posts
Joined May 2012
Tampa, Florida
Jun 15, 2017 17:29 |  #1

Because I keep watching our sales forum and NOBODY ever lists one.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Apricane
Senior Member
Apricane's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Canada's Federal Capital
Post has been edited 3 months ago by Apricane.
Jun 15, 2017 17:31 |  #2

It might also just be because it's still relatively new and/or people haven't been upgrading because they're either satisfied with the mkI and don't want to pay the upgrade price or, like me, already have the Sigma 24-105, making the mkII unattractive/unnecessa​ry.

Edit: yeah, all other things being equal, with the Sigma being $200 less and not that much heavier, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't so many Canon MkIIs around.


Apricane 500px (external link) flickr (external link) | 6D | T2i | 430EX II & 270EX II
15-85 | ∑24-105A | 55-250 STM | 70-300L
24 STM | 35 f/2 IS | 40 STM | 100L

LOG IN TO REPLY
eddieb1
Senior Member
eddieb1's Avatar
657 posts
Joined Apr 2013
Oregon
Jun 15, 2017 18:06 as a reply to Apricane's post |  #3

And it's an stm lens which many people do not like.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Jun 15, 2017 19:12 |  #4

Previously the 24-105 as a kit lens could be had with a body at a savings over buying them separately. Folks would could sell them immediately as white box, and still make save on the body.

Last I checked, canon is not pricing them at a discount, or at least not substancial discount.

My guess is people aren't buying nearly as many kits unless they are sure they want the lens.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
Apricane
Senior Member
Apricane's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Canada's Federal Capital
Jun 15, 2017 20:05 |  #5

I'm pretty sure that the lens the OP is referring to is the 24-105 f/4 USM mkII, not the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 STM.

And yeah, since the kit lens is now the 24-105 STM (I believe) then it figures that fewer people would have extra 24-105 mkIIs sitting around waiting to be sold.


Apricane 500px (external link) flickr (external link) | 6D | T2i | 430EX II & 270EX II
15-85 | ∑24-105A | 55-250 STM | 70-300L
24 STM | 35 f/2 IS | 40 STM | 100L

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Jun 16, 2017 03:17 |  #6

L lenses ship with FF cameras. It's the USM mkII that is going out with new FF bodies.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
5,932 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Post has been edited 3 months ago by Bassat.
Jun 16, 2017 06:05 |  #7

eddieb1 wrote in post #18379328 (external link)
And it's an stm lens which many people do not like.

My guess is that people who don't like the STM lens are people who have not used the STM lens. With the notable exception of weather sealing, it is a better lens all around than the f/4L, version I. Sharper across the frame, at any focal length or aperture, a bit less distortion at the wide end, way sharper at the long end, improved IS, smaller, cheaper, lighter, AND it focuses faster than EF-s STM lenses. It ain't ring USM, but its no slouch either. It does suffer from being only part-time manual (PTM?). Manual focus is only available while you have AF active, and a few seconds afterward. I wouldn't want an STM macro lens.

I think the whole 'focus-by-wire' thing turns people off. I don't understand that. The 85L II does the same thing, and it sells.

EDIT:
Oops! Forgot to mention that the 24-105II has been recalled. It only affected some copies, and I'm sure Canon has fixed the problem.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
5,932 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jun 16, 2017 06:08 |  #8

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18379643 (external link)
L lenses ship with FF cameras. It's the USM mkII that is going out with new FF bodies.

The 24-105 II is an L-lens.
https://shop.usa.canon​.com ...f-24-105mm-f-4l-is-ii-usm (external link)


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,693 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 3 months ago by TeamSpeed. 3 edits done in total.
Jun 16, 2017 06:42 |  #9

He knows, he is answering this post, which is a misguided reply to the comment "cameras ship with kit lenses". Kit lenses can be Ls as well. Nobody cares about the 24-105 3.5-5.6 and shouldn't have been brought into the discussion at all. "KIT" just means combo and doesn't designate a certain line of lenses. ;)

Apricane wrote in post #18379413 (external link)
I'm pretty sure that the lens the OP is referring to is the 24-105 f/4 USM mkII, not the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 STM.

And yeah, since the kit lens is now the 24-105 STM (I believe) then it figures that fewer people would have extra 24-105 mkIIs sitting around waiting to be sold.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18379368 (external link)
Previously the 24-105 as a kit lens could be had with a body at a savings over buying them separately. Folks would could sell them immediately as white box, and still make save on the body.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Action (external link) | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Jun 16, 2017 06:53 |  #10

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18379726 (external link)
He knows, he is answering this post, which is a misguided reply to the comment "cameras ship with kit lenses". Kit lenses can be Ls as well. Nobody cares about the 24-105 3.5-5.6 and shouldn't have been brought into the discussion at all. "KIT" just means combo and doesn't designate a certain line of lenses. ;)

yup.

given the thread title includes "24-105 ver2", the STM isn't part of the original line of discussion.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ascenta
Senior Member
Ascenta's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
Jun 16, 2017 08:42 |  #11

I agree with it likely due to the lens being fairly new. Plus the version 1 was so good (I many opinions) that people are likely just going with those, new or used.

I just picked one up so the serial number on mine is thankfully beyond the affected recalls.

Having used version 1 and 2, the differences are not huge. The most obvious improvement is the IS - a lot quieter. And don't drop it on your toes!




LOG IN TO REPLY
eddieb1
Senior Member
eddieb1's Avatar
657 posts
Joined Apr 2013
Oregon
Jun 16, 2017 08:45 |  #12

Bassat wrote in post #18379706 (external link)
My guess is that people who don't like the STM lens are people who have not used the STM lens. With the notable exception of weather sealing, it is a better lens all around than the f/4L, version I. Sharper across the frame, at any focal length or aperture, a bit less distortion at the wide end, way sharper at the long end, improved IS, smaller, cheaper, lighter, AND it focuses faster than EF-s STM lenses. It ain't ring USM, but its no slouch either. It does suffer from being only part-time manual (PTM?). Manual focus is only available while you have AF active, and a few seconds afterward. I wouldn't want an STM macro lens.

I think the whole 'focus-by-wire' thing turns people off. I don't understand that. The 85L II does the same thing, and it sells.

EDIT:
Oops! Forgot to mention that the 24-105II has been recalled. It only affected some copies, and I'm sure Canon has fixed the problem.

It depends what you read. I have read that the stm lens is not that great of an upgrade. If you have version 1, you really wouldn't gain anything by upgrading.




LOG IN TO REPLY
LonelyBoy
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2014
Jun 16, 2017 20:12 |  #13

Bassat wrote in post #18379706 (external link)
My guess is that people who don't like the STM lens are people who have not used the STM lens. With the notable exception of weather sealing, it is a better lens all around than the f/4L, version I. Sharper across the frame, at any focal length or aperture, a bit less distortion at the wide end, way sharper at the long end, improved IS, smaller, cheaper, lighter, AND it focuses faster than EF-s STM lenses. It ain't ring USM, but its no slouch either. It does suffer from being only part-time manual (PTM?). Manual focus is only available while you have AF active, and a few seconds afterward. I wouldn't want an STM macro lens.

I think the whole 'focus-by-wire' thing turns people off. I don't understand that. The 85L II does the same thing, and it sells.

EDIT:
Oops! Forgot to mention that the 24-105II has been recalled. It only affected some copies, and I'm sure Canon has fixed the problem.

...and speed. A full stop at the long end. I was all fired up for it until I saw that.


Vice President of the No-Talent Gear Head club
SL1 | 24 STM | 18-135 IS STM | 55-250 IS STM
5D3 | 35/2 IS | 40 STM | Σ50A | 50 STM | 100L | 24-70L 2.8 II | 24-105L | 70-200/2.8L IS II | 70-300L | 100-400L II

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,650 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Jun 17, 2017 01:35 |  #14

If nobody is buying it, then there's not many to sell used....


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
harcosparky
Goldmember
2,354 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Mar 2010
Harford County - ( Bel Air ) Maryland
Jun 17, 2017 10:13 |  #15

Well my guess is the reason you see nobody selling one, is because they are good.

If they were not so good, then all the dealers would have them in stock.

Try finding one in-stock that is not pulled from a kit.

Last time a dealer told me they had one, they had to break it out of a kit.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,939 views & 7 likes for this thread
The 24-105 ver2 must be pretty good
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.001 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is lrottner
1043 guests, 471 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016