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

https://www.dxomark.co​m …review-Updating-a-classic

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

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

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

CheshireCat wrote in post #18244146
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

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

Should have made this a 24-135L. ߘ

umphotography wrote in post #18247076
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.

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.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18247104
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)

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 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.

Armando LaO Sr wrote in post #18252695
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

umphotography wrote in post #18248126
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).

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.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18255400
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.