Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 21 Nov 2016 (Monday) 13:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,323 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1641
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Jan 14, 2017 07:26 |  #136

https://www.dxomark.co​m …review-Updating-a-classic (external link)

DXO says better corner sharpness with diminished center sharpness. Seems like more evidence that upgrading from Mk I is probably not a great idea.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mangfeldt.ma
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
18 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Sep 2016
Location: Norway
Post edited over 1 year ago by Mangfeldt.ma with reason 'Typos'.
     
Jan 14, 2017 09:39 |  #137

I spoke with a Canon rep here in Norway a couple of weeks ago and asked him straight up why I should spend double the money for a mkII, when there is plenty of affordable mkIs on the market.

He couldn't give me one good reason except that Canon could guarantee service for many years to come for the mkII. He also said that there should be less difference in sharpness from copy to copy


Canon EOS 40D EOS 1D X | Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 404
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
Post edited over 1 year ago by CheshireCat.
     
Jan 14, 2017 10:40 as a reply to  @ Mangfeldt.ma's post |  #138

If you buy two copies of the v1, you can keep the other as a spare in case the main one fails. And when/if this happens, you'll get it "repaired" in no time and for free ;)


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Emmett
Member
201 posts
Likes: 10
Joined May 2012
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
     
Jan 14, 2017 15:35 |  #139

CheshireCat wrote in post #18244146 (external link)
If you buy two copies of the v1, you can keep the other as a spare in case the main one fails. And when/if this happens, you'll get it "repaired" in no time and for free ;)

I would that Canon has come up with new version of failing internal ribbon cable. I don't own this lens, but from time to time did consider it. But, reading about the failures on this forum, and others made me drop my consideration. I ended up buying a 24-70mm Tamron, with VC, and carrying my 70-200mm f4L IS with me most of the time. I just can't justify the failure while in the field.

B


New Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, Canon EOS 7D Mark II, Canon EOS 50D, Canon 7D Classic, Canon 6D, Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM with IS, Canon 40mm pancake, Canon EF 50mm 1.8, Canon EF-S 10-22mm wide angle, Canon EF-S 18-135 IS STM, Canon EF 100mm 2.8L USM Macro, Tamron 18-270mm Dii VC, Tamron SP 150-600mm VC, Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC USM, Canon EF 16-35 f2.8L II USM, Tamron 2X Tele-Extender, 1.4 Tele-extender

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,016 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1740
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
Post edited over 1 year ago by umphotography.
     
Jan 17, 2017 08:43 |  #140

I have since got my hands on a couple more copies at different camera stores and another photographer who got one with his 5D4

My version 1 is so close that its not even funny. In Fact, its really really sad what canon did with this update. I was hoping for so much more. Total DUD for an update when you compare what they did with the 24-70 F/4 is and 16-35 F/4 is.....Ridiculous what they did if you compare.

My suggestion...Buy a good V1 from some of these Gearheads that are selling them off for $400.00

If You dont have a 24-105 then maybe get it with a kit but I would NOT pay retail for this new V2 24-105

A very disappointed canon user thats for sure. This was the one lens I had High hopes for. Not remotely in any league from the previous F/4 is releases......not even partially close


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
5,765 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 2699
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Jan 17, 2017 09:15 |  #141

Should have made this a 24-135L. ߘ


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - 18-55 - 23/35/50 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 404
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
Post edited over 1 year ago by CheshireCat.
     
Jan 17, 2017 11:03 |  #142

umphotography wrote in post #18247076 (external link)
Ridiculous what they did if you compare.

Actually what they did is quite smart: take the old lens, make it cheaper to produce and sell it at twice the price.

The only ridiculous fact is people falling into the marketing trap.

My bottom line is:
Anyone who wants a real new 24-105 should boycott this lens.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
791 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 234
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Jan 17, 2017 11:38 |  #143

Well, after several failed attempts at trying to figure out the hype on the 24-105L I, I'd say anyone who wants a real new 24-105 go out and buy the 24-70 II.

:lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2064
Joined Aug 2012
     
Jan 17, 2017 13:53 |  #144

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18247104 (external link)
Should have made this a 24-135L. ߘ

That is a very good point. If Canon knew they were unable to reasonably improve the IQ due to *technical* reasons, they should have made the zoom range longer to increase its usefulness. Personally, I would even settle for 28-135 F4L IS (mediocre the heck IQ) ;-)a


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,016 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1740
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
Post edited over 1 year ago by umphotography.
     
Jan 18, 2017 07:18 |  #145

Im not buying that they could not make it better because of the focal ratios....they did it with the 100-400....its better.....much better in terms of improvements when you compare those two v/s the two 24-105's......Now IQ and sharpness is a bit better on the 100-400V2..you can see it......If its enough to upgrade then thats up to the buyer......but there is something there....not so with the 24-105

as for the IS argument

It applies very well with the 100-400 due to the length of the lens. IS is a huge factor for upgrade in my opinion. Ask the guys that have it how they are getting better images because of the new IS system.....400MM with this new system... you betcha...big reason to upgrade

the 24-105. the current IS system lets you flash and hand hold at 1/30 all day long...not sure where the new IS would be of benefit. Im sure it wouldnt hurt.

Again..a major disappointment for me on this update


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Armando ­ LaO ­ Sr
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
12 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Jan 2017
Location: Sacramento, California
     
Jan 22, 2017 17:32 as a reply to  @ umphotography's post |  #146

I guess I won't know the difference between the V1 and V2 because i'm a newbie with this brand :-). 24-105 V2 is my walk around lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,016 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1740
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jan 23, 2017 08:37 |  #147

Armando LaO Sr wrote in post #18252695 (external link)
I guess I won't know the difference between the V1 and V2 because i'm a newbie with this brand :-). 24-105 V2 is my walk around lens.


If you dont have a current 24-105 then yeah, its probably a smart purchase. If you have one, its not worth the costs to upgrade in my opinion


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2064
Joined Aug 2012
     
Jan 25, 2017 17:00 |  #148

umphotography wrote in post #18248126 (external link)
Im not buying that they could not make it better because of the focal ratios....they did it with the 100-400....its better.....much better in terms of improvements when you compare those two v/s the two 24-105's......Now IQ and sharpness is a bit better on the 100-400V2..you can see it......If its enough to upgrade then thats up to the buyer......but there is something there....not so with the 24-105

as for the IS argument

It applies very well with the 100-400 due to the length of the lens. IS is a huge factor for upgrade in my opinion. Ask the guys that have it how they are getting better images because of the new IS system.....400MM with this new system... you betcha...big reason to upgrade

the 24-105. the current IS system lets you flash and hand hold at 1/30 all day long...not sure where the new IS would be of benefit. Im sure it wouldnt hurt.

Again..a major disappointment for me on this update

I do understand what you are saying, however it is not fair to compare 100-400 to 24-105. The former only zooms in the telephoto range unlike the latter which doing from WA to medium Tele. A very diverse and useful range.

I don't think anyone is claiming for the 24-105 to be a performance champ, however it still remains a useful tool.

What I find more disappointing is that it offers little to no improvement in most areas and costs way more than it should (perhaps simply because of its L designation).


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MrAnderson
Member
34 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Dec 2016
     
Jan 27, 2017 21:20 |  #149

Wow. I'm really surprised the V2 is so similar to V1. Of course I'm just reading your reviews but there aren't many "must have" reviews. I guess I'll continue using the V1 of the 24-105L and 24-70L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,604 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jan 27, 2017 22:47 |  #150

dochollidayda wrote in post #18255400 (external link)
I do understand what you are saying, however it is not fair to compare 100-400 to 24-105. The former only zooms in the telephoto range unlike the latter which doing from WA to medium Tele. A very diverse and useful range. ...

This analogy/comparison makes no sense. We define wide-angle and telephoto with our own eyes as a reference point. There is no physical (optical) reason to make this distinction. If our eyes were similar to a 200mm lens' angle/field of view, we'd be calling 150mm wide, and 50mm UWA. Telephoto would not kick in until what, 300mm? 400mm?

Look at the glass in camera like the G15. 10mm is normal. 6.1mm is only moderately wide. 30mm is bordering on moderate to long telephoto.

Claiming it is harder to make a 4X zoom just because it happens to cross some arbitrary line between wide angle and telephoto is a bit silly. Canon was not limited by physics/optics to release a mediocre 24-105II. Marketing and/or R&D had much more influence on that process than physics.


Tom

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

23,080 views & 90 likes for this thread
Well here is the bottom line on the new 24-105L IS Version 2
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Csyama1
839 guests, 364 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.