Well here is the bottom line on the new 24-105L IS Version 2

Ray.Petri wrote in post #18196701
Hi Guys
I also have been wondering how to post pictures to this forum.
Can anyone explain Dropbox etc: Is it secure?

Anyway - Although the new 24-105 f4L has been readily available for over a week now - I got mine over 2 weeks ago - there seems to be a lack of members pictures posted. My excuse is I have not been anywhere interesting and cannot compete with the usual image quality posted on this forum.

Is this lack of posted pictures indicative that the lens is somewhat disappointing? I hope not!

Whereas the 100-400L MkII has page after page of excellent pictures posted in its thread.

I really must try the 24-105L MkII seriously soon.

I don't think a lens sample pictures thread has been started yet.
It seems most threads are comparing it to other lenses.

From my point of view, no, the lens is not disappointing. I like my copy and anticipate it spending a lot of time on my camera.

Don't think many people have it yet, so there's lots of speculation and he said, she said without any hands on experience..

Due primarily to weather, I've only been out with mine a few times, but the more I use it, experiment with it, appreciate it's strengths, I see how it is a solid and subtle heir to the v.1 I shot with for ten years..

Early morning dew on the fields...5D4 + 24-105 L II

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #18196701
Hi Guys
I also have been wondering how to post pictures to this forum.
Can anyone explain Dropbox etc: Is it secure?

Anyway - Although the new 24-105 f4L has been readily available for over a week now - I got mine over 2 weeks ago - there seems to be a lack of members pictures posted. My excuse is I have not been anywhere interesting and cannot compete with the usual image quality posted on this forum.

Is this lack of posted pictures indicative that the lens is somewhat disappointing? I hope not!

Whereas the 100-400L MkII has page after page of excellent pictures posted in its thread.

I really must try the 24-105L MkII seriously soon.

Its usually a mixture of things.

One, stellar lenses get adopted very quickly and therefore there is a plethora of images early on due to anticipation.
Two, 100-400 MK II or the Canon 2.8L zooms cost 2k and above (mostly) and are mostly used by serious hobbyists and professionals. The quality of the images can then also be attributed towards those shooting them and not just the lenses themselves.

24-105 is a very useful lens but its still a "kit" lens. Its not everyone's cup of tea, especially those who nitpick its flaws etc. Having said that, I am sure many are looking forward to image samples and reviews from this lens so post away.

John_T wrote in post #18196736
Don't think many people have it yet, so there's lots of speculation and he said, she said without any hands on experience..

Due primarily to weather, I've only been out with mine a few times, but the more I use it, experiment with it, appreciate it's strengths, I see how it is a solid and subtle heir to the v.1 I shot with for ten years..

Early morning dew on the fields...5D4 + 24-105 L II

Hosted photo: posted by John_T in
./showthread.php?p=181​96736&i=i202846212
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

You shot this at F/10

The cheap old 24-105 variable will look this good as well. As will a kit lens at F/10

really glad you like the lens. But for me, as a current 24-105 owner and my most used zoom for the past 8 yrs...I was hoping for 16-35 F/4 is sharpness and conrast and 70-200 F/4 IS sharpness..........Its just not there so I am very disappointed and Im sure other are as well. Like I said, If tyou dont have one and want a new one....get it

But as far as updating because of substantial improvement......Nope.​...not there....Its a Dud for people that wanted it to be really really good

Really disappointed. The Sigma is sharper and looks a bit better....The canon has the better IS system. Really dont know what Canon was thinking.

umphotography wrote in post #18197487
You shot this at F/10

The cheap old 24-105 variable will look this good as well. As will a kit lens at F/10

really glad you like the lens. But for me, as a current 24-105 owner and my most used zoom for the past 8 yrs...I was hoping for 16-35 F/4 is sharpness and conrast and 70-200 F/4 IS sharpness..........Its just not there so I am very disappointed and Im sure other are as well. Like I said, If tyou dont have one and want a new one....get it

But as far as updating because of substantial improvement......Nope.​...not there....Its a Dud for people that wanted it to be really really good

Really disappointed. The Sigma is sharper and looks a bit better....The canon has the better IS system. Really dont know what Canon was thinking.

So, you've branded the lens a dud based on one downsized picture and some net gossip.
If you look at the high contrast lighting and the huge amount of water vapour in the scene you'd realise it's pretty good.
As for the two lenses you quote, neither of them qualify as walk around optics.

Everybody wanted it to be really really good and, within the scope of its intended use, it is.

There are a lot of improvements to the lens over the V1 which you will not appreciate until you use one.

John_T wrote in post #18196736
Don't think many people have it yet, so there's lots of speculation and he said, she said without any hands on experience..

Due primarily to weather, I've only been out with mine a few times, but the more I use it, experiment with it, appreciate it's strengths, I see how it is a solid and subtle heir to the v.1 I shot with for ten years..

Early morning dew on the fields...5D4 + 24-105 L II

Hosted photo: posted by John_T in
./showthread.php?p=181​96736&i=i202846212
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

Man you have some gear in your sig...

I approve

I was going to get it, as I have never had the 24-105.

In the endi I decided to upgrade my 24-70 2.8 to the 24-70 2.8II.

I am glad I did now, shot some close range sport 2 nights ago, and the performance was genuinely awesome.

Sorry guys, but if you want the bottom line on this lens you'll have to ask Stone Cold Steve Austin

George Zip wrote in post #18197825
I was going to get it, as I have never had the 24-105.

In the endi I decided to upgrade my 24-70 2.8 to the 24-70 2.8II.

I am glad I did now, shot some close range sport 2 nights ago, and the performance was genuinely awesome.

Good on you. The 24-70 mk2 is astonishingly good and a good upgrade.

I sold my copy as I'm too shaky these days to live without IS and I'm frankly too lazy to carry a mono or tripod.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18197821
So, you've branded the lens a dud based on one downsized picture and some net gossip.
If you look at the high contrast lighting and the huge amount of water vapour in the scene you'd realise it's pretty good.
As for the two lenses you quote, neither of them qualify as walk around optics.

Everybody wanted it to be really really good and, within the scope of its intended use, it is.

There are a lot of improvements to the lens over the V1 which you will not appreciate until you use one.

I've used it quite extensively now. I wouldn't call it a dud by the fact the V1 is a good lens but the V2 is in no way a serious upgrade. Not on the level that we have seen in the recent past with lenses like the 100-400. Overblown reviews that rely on graphs and charts might tell you there is a difference but to the eyes? There is nothing there to warrant any kind of cost to make the upgrade. People should save their money till the V1 doesn't work or doesn't make sense to repair in economic terms before considering the V2. Upgrading or adding a different lens would be much wiser choice.

nqjudo wrote in post #18197836
I've used it quite extensively now. I wouldn't call it a dud by the fact the V1 is a good lens but the V2 is in no way a serious upgrade. Not on the level that we have seen in the recent past with lenses like the 100-400. Overblown reviews that rely on graphs and charts might tell you there is a difference but to the eyes? There is nothing there to warrant any kind of cost to make the upgrade. People should save their money till the V1 doesn't work or doesn't make sense to repair in economic terms before considering the V2. Upgrading or adding a different lens would be much wiser choice.

Granted it's not a huge upgrade but it is a good lens.
I had the V1 and it was a bit of a clunker in operation.

The V2 zoom ring has to be felt to be believed. It works so well I wish all zooms felt like that.
The new 10 blade aperture has tidied up the background blur.
The IS is leaps and bounds beyond the V1.
The focus mechanism and IS are very much quieter.
The zoom and manual focus rings are more comfortable.
I'm led to believe by the canon pro centre the environmental sealing is better.

I have posted some rough and ready sample images in the pertinent thread.

All in all it suits my needs.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18197839
Granted it's not a huge upgrade but it is a good lens.
I had the V1 and it was a bit of a clunker in operation.

The V2 zoom ring has to be felt to be believed. It works so well I wish all zooms felt like that.
The new 10 blade aperture has tidied up the background blur.
The IS is leaps and bounds beyond the V1.
The focus mechanism and IS are very much quieter.
The zoom and manual focus rings are more comfortable.
I'm led to believe by the canon pro centre the environmental sealing is better.

I have posted some rough and ready sample images in the pertinent thread.

All in all it suits my needs.

Seems like a good lens if your version1 is getting to the end of it's life, or you are starting out.

I think we have been spoiled by the leaps in lens improvements in Canon recently. Maybe this focal range can't be improved greatly due to the nature of what it is.

I suspect the incremental improvements will be appreciated more as time goes by. Sort of like the 5dII to the 5DIII

...if your dissect a frog, seeking the source of its life, what do you get?


For me, it takes all aspects of the lens and body, as well as the somebody pushing the buttons... to make an image, then to perform the appropriate PP. I can't consider one aspect of making an image without considering any other aspect that may be used in counterbalance and enhancement. Using this new lens, I'm finding all kinds of ways to integrate its new qualities while seeing, for example, that 5D4 raw files need added Sharpening and Detail to bring forward what's actually in there. In this new lens, the coatings, 10 blade aperture, precise and fast AF, precise and fast IS, etc., all combine subtly and obviously to produce better images than its predecessor, and some other lenses, ever did.

...oh, and try it with flash...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18197839
Granted it's not a huge upgrade but it is a good lens.
I had the V1 and it was a bit of a clunker in operation.

The V2 zoom ring has to be felt to be believed. It works so well I wish all zooms felt like that.
The new 10 blade aperture has tidied up the background blur.
The IS is leaps and bounds beyond the V1.
The focus mechanism and IS are very much quieter.
The zoom and manual focus rings are more comfortable.
I'm led to believe by the canon pro centre the environmental sealing is better.

I have posted some rough and ready sample images in the pertinent thread.

All in all it suits my needs.

It's a subtle upgrade. Just many where expecting 16-35 and 70-200 F4 IS performance thats all.

I'm holding out for the 2.8 IS model. And then I'll probably not buy it because my tammy is 750 value now vs. 3k for what the 2.8 IS will cost lol

fordmondeo wrote in post #18197839
Granted it's not a huge upgrade but it is a good lens.
I had the V1 and it was a bit of a clunker in operation.

The V2 zoom ring has to be felt to be believed. It works so well I wish all zooms felt like that.
The new 10 blade aperture has tidied up the background blur.
The IS is leaps and bounds beyond the V1.
The focus mechanism and IS are very much quieter.
The zoom and manual focus rings are more comfortable.
I'm led to believe by the canon pro centre the environmental sealing is better.

I have posted some rough and ready sample images in the pertinent thread.

All in all it suits my needs.

Sure. I can't argue with that but the fact you declared your V1 a 'clunker' speaks more to your particular circumstance than it does to the majority. The rest of the arguments you present are anecdotal. Zoom and focus rings - Sure, they're nice but the rings on the V1 weren't a challenge to work with. They are pretty nice as well. New aperture - This is a F/4 lens. Improved or not, bokeh really isn't a strong argument for purchasing either version. IS. Ok... we all love our gear and like to defend it to the death on forums but let's be realistic. It is 1 stop. Hardly leaps and bounds. Environmental sealing - most of my photography is travel. My 24-105 has worked hard in some very tough conditions and it never failed. It has the reputation of a go anywhere, do anything workhorse. If they improved on it I don't believe that it would benefit most users and may even be the reason for the V2s slight weight gain (an obvious negative).

So look, at the end of the day we have to be happy with what we shoot so if it makes you happy then that is really why counts no matter what I or anyone else thinks. The real issue for me is the optics and there is little evidence to suggest that the two versions are dissimilar to an important degree. Optically I couldn't tell the difference so the V2 went back and my upgrade funds are going elsewhere. We all view things differently so this is just my opinion. Yours is just as valid.