Canon EF 24-105 F4 IS L II = $1099

105

Man that looks pretty bad^^

Hi,

Long time lurker first time poster

I have the 24 105 v1 and it's Ok for travel just not my favorite lens. I decided to get the 24 70 2.8 II and so far I am very happy. I just wish it took the 77 mm filters.

Beachguy wrote in post #18177696
Hi,

Long time lurker first time poster

I have the 24 105 v1 and it's Ok for travel just not my favorite lens. I decided to get the 24 70 2.8 II and so far I am very happy. I just wish it took the 77 mm filters.

Welcome to POTN!

Beachguy wrote in post #18177696
Hi,

Long time lurker first time poster

I have the 24 105 v1 and it's Ok for travel just not my favorite lens. I decided to get the 24 70 2.8 II and so far I am very happy. I just wish it took the 77 mm filters.

Yes, welcome

How are you finding the image quality compared to the old one??

Hi

I just got the lens yesterday so I haven't had a lot of time with it. But in my limited testing its much sharper and the boken is really nice. Doesn't appear to need any micro adjustment but will test it with Focal Pro next. My v1 24 105 is around 2 years old and did need to be adjusted. Still not very sharp at F4 but decent for outside shots.

I also have the sigma 35 and 50 art which really nice too but needed a zoom for low light events. I was thinking of getting the v2 24 105 but got a good deal on the lens and did need a faster lens so I decided to pull the trigger.

The biggest issue now is hiding the box so my wife doesn't find out.

Beachguy wrote in post #18177728
Hi

I just got the lens yesterday so I haven't had a lot of time with it. But in my limited testing its much sharper and the boken is really nice. Doesn't appear to need any micro adjustment but will test it with Focal Pro next. My v1 24 105 is around 2 years old and did need to be adjusted. Still not very sharp at F4 but decent for outside shots.

I also have the sigma 35 and 50 art which really nice too but needed a zoom for low light events. I was thinking of getting the v2 24 105 but got a good deal on the lens and did need a faster lens so I decided to pull the trigger.

The biggest issue now is hiding the box so my wife doesn't find out.

Hosted photo: posted by Beachguy in
./showthread.php?p=181​77728&i=i7674330
forum: Canon Lenses

Please report when you get a chance to, how it compares in sharpness to say your Sigma.

I imagine it would not be as sharp, but if it's close I think I will get one.

Edit: I see you got the 24-70 2.8II instead. Sorry I thought you had gotten the new 24-105
You better shred that box.

Thought this might be of interest:
https://www.martinbail​eyphotography.com …-lens-review-podcast-548/
I am getting mixed reviews.

morninghes wrote in post #18178025
Thought this might be of interest:
https://www.martinbail​eyphotography.com …-lens-review-podcast-548/
I am getting mixed reviews.

I'm not feeling it. If your going to compare do it right... he doesn't even have the camera squared up to the test chart and the crops aren't the same either.

Just read that review from that Martin Bailey. He said:

"Let’s take a look now at the sharpness of the two lenses, but these two lenses are so similar, we won’t go into a lot of detail on this. Looking at all of the images I shot for the distortion tests, it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens. I compared both the center of the photos and the corners, and although the corners are a little bit softer, as expected, and both lenses degrade at about the same rate.

I’ve always been totally happy with the sharpness of my 24-70mm, so with what seems like a slight improvement over an already excellent lens, I’m very happy with the sharpness of the new 24-105mm lens. "

So aside from distortion , it looks like a good thing. Distortion has never bothered me much. I just correct it on import into lightroom.

George Zip wrote in post #18178474
Just read that review from that Martin Bailey. He said:

"Let’s take a look now at the sharpness of the two lenses, but these two lenses are so similar, we won’t go into a lot of detail on this. Looking at all of the images I shot for the distortion tests, it looks to me as though the new 24-105mm is marginally sharper than the 24-70mm lens. I compared both the center of the photos and the corners, and although the corners are a little bit softer, as expected, and both lenses degrade at about the same rate.

I’ve always been totally happy with the sharpness of my 24-70mm, so with what seems like a slight improvement over an already excellent lens, I’m very happy with the sharpness of the new 24-105mm lens. "

So aside from distortion , it looks like a good thing. Distortion has never bothered me much. I just correct it on import into lightroom.

After using the 24-105 and then owning the 24L II I gained alot of respect for minimal distortion out of a lens. The V1 had horrible distortion and it cost a mm or so fixing it...the 24L was wider and the Sigma is a stellar copy as well.

This is why I lean more toward primes. Less vignetting and less distortion... sure it's minimal stuff but the less you have to manipulate the original image the better IQ you will retain. Mostly vignetting though... which again most will say no big deal but if you are correcting 2-3 stops in the corners and then your pushing shadows on top of that you will run into limitations where shooting a F1.4 prime at 2.8 there is no vignetting at all.

Good post

George Zip wrote in post #18178601
Good post

The 16-35III is really the most remarkable zoom that has wowed me thus far but even still when comparing all: distortion, vignetting and sharpness the primes still come out ahead in some of those cases but that darn III lens is simple jaw dropping.

Talley wrote in post #18178610
The 16-35III is really the most remarkable zoom that has wowed me thus far but even still when comparing all: distortion, vignetting and sharpness the primes still come out ahead in some of those cases but that darn III lens is simple jaw dropping.

Yup, also the price is jaw dropping

Just getting impatient for the new 24-105L mkII to become available here in U.K.
I keep getting excuses/reasons Canon is not delivering.

What can we deduce from the comments so far -
Heavier than the original 24-105L. (I'm not too pleased about that.)
A bit sharper than the 24-70L mkII. (Nice to hear that - but how does the sharpness compare with the 24-105 mkI?)
A bit of distortion. (I'm not bothered about that. I think as I never had a problem with the mkI I can tollerate this.)
Can I afford it? I suppose I'll have to. I have decided I want it. In anticipation I've traded in the old 100-400L mk1 for a good price since I got the amazing new 100-400LmkII.
Just hoping the new 24-105LmkII performs as well as the new 100-400LmkII.
Some more real pictures will be interesting.
Now just wondering, if apart from it's f2.8 aperture, do I need my 70-200 f2.8LmkII?