The STM is still the king of the 24-105s!

Bassat wrote in post #18216497
The STM is still the best 24-105mm lens Canon makes.

... if price and weight is all you care about.

Hmm, I still like my 24-105 Mk I... For me, it's a good general purpose walk-around lens. On a crop-sensor camera, I don't like the angle-of-view range, but on a full-frame it's just right for me.

In fact, for weddings, I put my 70-200/2.8 on one body and the 24-105 on another. I know that the "standard" for wedding work is the 24-70/2.8, but the extra focal length range from 70-105 is really useful to me. And besides, focal length is a very strong factor in blurring out the background at the longer end, more so than aperture (alone). But that's a different topic. And that extra aperture at the short end, uh, I don't really miss it much. Yeah, maybe once in a while in a dark chapel or other setting, but I want to make sure I don't go *too* shallow on the DOF anyways...

Here's what I've captured with that old, dejected Mk I lens... Personally, I'm okay with it. In fact, the whole "focus by wire" thing bugs me. I don't like when I'm waiting for a shot and the focus action stops with the meter reading. I want to keep being able to adjust focus without waking up the meter each time.

Image hosted by forum (830013) © dasmith232 THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

King=Elvis ߘ

Bassat wrote in post #18217250
They've already got a cheap 24-105. I own a copy of it. I was hoping for 'better'. Less distortion at the wide end, sharper (at least to STM levels), faster focus than STM, better IS (than version I). I'm willing to pay to upgrade. Version II upgrades the IS, and not much else.

Exactly

Im really disappointed. My 24-105L V1 is 8.5 yrs old. I need to get a replacement

Was hoping for 16-35, 70-200F4L sharpness, AF speed, Build, ECT ECT ECT

Canon went CHEAP and put out nothing new, a bit better IS performance,with a new box and something for the gear heads to think they need

24-105L V2 is the worst updated lens that Canon has ever put out.......BY A MILE

Shame on Canon for this one...they know better

All this will do is drive loyal canon customers to Sigma Arts

Like I have been saying for the past 7 months.......IF SIGMA comes out with a decent 24-70 OS in an ART series.....Canon is screwed

Mike,

Remember the Sigma 24-105? No better than the Canon. Sigma quit making it in less than a year. I'm not an optical engineer, but my guess is that a decent 4x+ zoom, that goes from wide to tele, is difficult to make. Nobody makes one that compares to 3X- (24-70) zooms, and lots of people make the 3X zooms.

My 24-105 STM is adequate for what I do, and at $350, it was priced right. I started this thread as a poke in the eye to Canon, dedicated 24-105L users, and gear-heads who buy new toys just because they are new. All in good fun. Nobody should be taking this too seriously.

Some have touted the 24-70LII. I have no use for f/2.8 zooms. I tried a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. I'd rather have an f/4 I'll use than a f/2.8 I leave at home. If I need aperture, I use primes. (Some of them are BETTER than the 24-70II & 70-200II at some settings. poke-poke )

The variable aperture is a big negative for the STM. I've been pleasantly surprised by the 24-70 F4 IS.

Tommydigi wrote in post #18217573
The variable aperture is a big negative for the STM. I've been pleasantly surprised by the 24-70 F4 IS.

Oh, c'mon! I can see that being an issue, IF one is constantly zooming and shooting manual. All of my bodies have several choices of auto-exposure modes. If I dial in f/5.6 the STM is a constant aperture lens!

For $350 it sounds like a good lens and I guess having 5.6 at 105 is better than only going to 70 :-}

Tommydigi wrote in post #18217581
For $350 it sounds like a good lens and I guess having 5.6 at 105 is better than only going to 70 :-}

That's the spirit. Fun thread. No bickering, please.

agv8or wrote in post #18216764
It's bad enough giving up one stop to have the extra reach of the 24-105L f/4 as compared to when I had the 24-70 f/2.8 but the f/5.6 of the STM is just two too much. I am glad all of you think the 24-105L II is such a disappointment, maybe if I wait long enough poor sales will drive the price down a little.

it worked for the 24-70f4IS...

Many of the STM lenses look like good values, I never really looked at the 24-105 but if your shooting crop the 10-18 and 50 1.8 look really good for the money. I see a really cheap bundle available for the 2.

Tommydigi wrote in post #18217683
Many of the STM lenses look like good values, I never really looked at the 24-105 but if your shooting crop the 10-18 and 50 1.8 look really good for the money. I see a really cheap bundle available for the 2.

The 50 STM looks pretty good on full frame and aps-h, too.

I have to say, I think the 24-105L gets a bad rap for what it can do, and how much better it is than say a 28-135.

Do I use it at f4.0? - only when I have to. But slightly stopped down it is winner for me.

umphotography wrote in post #18217560
Canon went CHEAP and put out nothing new, a bit better IS performance,with a new box and something for the gear heads to think they need

24-105L V2 is the worst updated lens that Canon has ever put out.......BY A MILE

IF SIGMA comes out with a decent 24-70 OS in an ART series.....Canon is screwed

Quite an assumption considering you've never used the new 24-105L II. You've derived your conclusion with regards to only one contributing factor; sharpness, which is based mainly on images of test charts.

As I have stated numerous times, the original 24-105L was plenty sharp for my use but the list of improvements Canon did make to the new vII, is above and beyond the expectations of what I was hoping for. I am sure I will be more than happy with the new version but I hate to make that assumption without first using the lens.

Most people using the 24-105L are not in the market for a 24-70. I sold my 24-70 f/2.8 (which was sharper than the 24-105L) after I bought the 24-105L because I always hated the limited focal range of the 24-70. So, I am not and I am sure there are others who are not, in the market for another lens in the limited focal range of 24-70, even if it had f/2.8, OS and was sharper.

Why is it that Sigma did not improve upon 24-105L with their version? It would be really interesting to see sales comparisons between the 24-105L and the 24-105 art. So the 24-105L II will continue to be a very popular kit lens and a very big seller for Canon just as the v1 was. I doubt anything Sigma does will change that.

Gotta agree with you about the f/2.8 zooms. I don't get the attraction. Tried two of them, sold them both.