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

I was really thinking of getting this lens but have changed my mind and just ordered the 100mm 2.8L macro instead... My 24-105 mk1 was pretty poor unless stopped down a bit and Im not risking wasting my money on another lens like that..

George Zip wrote in post #18184438
Are you referring mainly to distortion tallster?

from all the stuff I've been seeing the distortion hasn't changed and now according to TDP test results the sharpness hasn't either... I think you'll have less CA and less vignetting and less flare. Better body albeit heavier and improved locking hood and better IS.

It's a good upgrade but unfortunately TDP wants to test more copies before review gets put up to see if he had an "off" first lens. If that tells you anything.

Talley wrote in post #18184433
I know they did but the result is unchanged.

I have seen very little distortion problems and none of my pics have been adjusted for it. The ones with the bricks were easy to fix and shows no funny distortion only a little pincushion or the other. All in this zooms will show that. For me is perfect travel lens 24 to 105 and 100-400.

It's a zoom, stop pixel peeping!

hqqns wrote in post #18184454
It's a zoom, stop pixel peeping!

You can pixel peep images from the 70-200 2.8 II and the 100-400 II.......why should buyers expect less from the new 24-105 ??

don1163 wrote in post #18184462
You can pixel peep images from the 70-200 2.8 II and the 100-400 II.......why should buyers expect less fro the new 24-105 ??

Because a tele to tele is a different beast to a wide to tele!

hqqns wrote in post #18184463
Because a tele to tele is a different beast to a wide to tele!

24-70 2.8L ?? thats nice and sharp..........70mm is wider than 50mm so technically a tele

I had version 1 for ten years, served me adequately. Not my best lens, but due to its attributes, my most used lens.

I've had version 2 for just a few days. It seems to be all together better than version 1, fast and precise AF, IS 'n such, general IQ good, sharpness I can't say yet, but does sharpen up well in LR and DPP. My impression is it will be a well performing middle of the road, all in all.

I don't need this aggravation, unsubscribed.

All I'm saying is Canon has given us draw dropping improvements with all the II lenses and now the III 16-35 too.

But this one is eh. Thats all... not saying it's bad... just not a dramatic noticeable difference.

Talley wrote in post #18184483
All I'm saying is Canon has given us draw dropping improvements with all the II lenses and now the III 16-35 too.

But this one is eh. Thats all... not saying it's bad... just not a dramatic noticeable difference.

Now I feel like a fool. In another thread where someone was complaining about the "boringness" of the 24-70mm type zooms, I suggested the new 24-105mm might be a better acquisition because of the extra portrait length range of the 24-105mm. Now I read here it is not optically improved, just mechanically improved. What a shame. I've ignored this lens for years (well, as long as I shot Canon DSLR's) and it sounds like I will continue to ignore it,

hqqns wrote in post #18184476
I don't need this aggravation, unsubscribed.

That escalated quickly...

Talley wrote in post #18184396
they didn't... but the results speaks enough that whatever they did change didn't mean results.

optics definitely different, the new one looks better at 105 by a noticeable amount.... that said, I'll wait till DXO comes out with their tests, TDP is really amateur stuff in comparison.

Charlie wrote in post #18184509
optics definitely different, the new one looks better at 105 by a noticeable amount....

... but on TDP's tests it looks worse at 24 by a noticeable amount (maybe he got a lemon ?).
However, focusing at chart distance is not the typical use case of the 24mm FL, so I am waiting for a comparison on real subjects (landscapes).

I agree that v1 of the 24-105 looks better with the 5DsR body. But if you choose the 7D2 for both v1 and v2, v2 looks better to me.