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

George Zip wrote in post #18184394
I am missing something.... where is it saying they did not change the optics?

Kind of what I am seeing as well From the files I have downloaded.

NOT IMPRESSED AT ALL

Cmon Canon...your new what ever glass and calling it brand new is not going to Cut It !!!!

Likely will keep my 8 yr old copy...disappointed so far

I wanna try one on my camera . I'll know if it is what I want when I see the images.

Agreed. I really wanted a great 24-105 so I can have a general zoom for birthdays w/ bounceflash and video. The Tamron isn't working out for me anymore... I guess my option now is the 24-70 F4 IS.

I just want a general zoom w/ IS for this task... the rest I want primes.

Hate to say it...because i dont think its a great focal legnth.... and I much prefer the 24-105 focal legnth...but I may break down and buy a 24-70 F/2.8

umphotography wrote in post #18184628
Hate to say it...because i dont think its a great focal legnth.... and I much prefer the 24-105 focal legnth...but I may break down and buy a 24-70 F/2.8

Canon needs to get off their butts and release a 24-70 2.8 IS I would own one even if it was 2500

Talley wrote in post #18184630
Canon needs to get off their butts and release a 24-70 2.8 IS I would own one even if it was 2500

I like your optimism Talley, I really do but if they released one, I doubt it would be a penny less thank 3K, hey I am just going by their recent pricing schedules for top shelf products.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18184653
I like your optimism Talley, I really do but if they released one, I doubt it would be a penny less thank 3K, hey I am just going by their recent pricing schedules for top shelf products.

Current II lens is 1900 retail. Nikon 2.8 VR version is 2400. Canon will be the same... then be available shortly after for some 2200 and used market will be 2k shortly after.

Either way it needs to happen. Tamron and Nikon now have this... don't others?

Talley wrote in post #18184664
Current II lens is 1900 retail. Nikon 2.8 VR version is 2400. Canon will be the same... then be available shortly after for some 2200 and used market will be 2k shortly after.

Either way it needs to happen. Tamron and Nikon now have this... don't others?

How old is that lens now?

The internet would be in a frenzy if they announced a IS version of that lens

George Zip wrote in post #18184675
How old is that lens now?

The internet would be in a frenzy if they announced a IS version of that lens

Nikon's? about a year now I think was announced this time last year. You can already find that lens under 2K.

Canon is waiting for strategic time frame. They just anounced this V2 of the 24-105 so now they'll let it gloat on sales for 8 months before they will release anything else. Canon definitely honors new product releases and gives them their time to shine.

The 24-105 I has had many mixed reviews, I believe due to copy to copy variation. I have been happy with mine and love the focal length range.

I have long been a believer of skipping a generation with bodies and now wonder if I should do the same with lenses.

Tapeman wrote in post #18184729
The 24-105 I has had many mixed reviews, I believe due to copy to copy variation. I have been happy with mine and love the focal length range.

I have long been a believer of skipping a generation with bodies and now wonder if I should do the same with lenses.

naw, this looks to be the exception, not the rule

Tapeman wrote in post #18184729
The 24-105 I has had many mixed reviews, I believe due to copy to copy variation. I have been happy with mine and love the focal length range.

I have long been a believer of skipping a generation with bodies and now wonder if I should do the same with lenses.

agreed Big time

Charlie wrote in post #18184747
naw, this looks to be the exception, not the rule

I Disagree

My 17-35 which is 12 yrs old is still very sharp and still gets great images. Its 3 updates behind.

My 70-200 F/2.8 L is not that d=far off the current 70-200. I tested both side by side. Definitely nothing i could not make up with LR. In fact I have a LR preset that I apply when i use my 70-200...looks identical to the new lens on side by side testing. Did not cost me a dime.

Same for the 24-70 F/2.8. Varies with copies. But similar results however, the new 24-70 is sharper at F/2.8 and had better corner sharpness. But my opinion, a mute point. If im shooting at F/2.8, most of the time its for effect v/s need to shoot at F/2.8 to get a shot.

Primes are a different story and everyone needs to decide if those improvements are worth the update to them. Example 35L V/1 v/s V/2- V2 it much better at F/1.4-1.8.....At 2.0 they catch up pretty quickly. Im not going to update this lens. Im rarely at F/1.4 with it

So I think photographers need to resist GAS syndrome and really examine WHY they need to update.......All we do by caving into GAS syndrome is fuel Canons desires and needs to jack up the prices. Most of the lens are not that much better when you put them side by side and factor post processing into the end result......But Im sure Canon appreciates the support and markets accordingly to newer photographers.

Im very selective now to what Im going to buy. My version 1 lens are great.

umphotography wrote in post #18185032
I Disagree

My 17-35 which is 12 yrs old is still very sharp and still gets great images. Its 3 updates behind.

My 70-200 F/2.8 L is not that d=far off the current 70-200. I tested both side by side. Definitely nothing i could not make up with LR. In fact I have a LR preset that I apply when i use my 70-200...looks identical to the new lens on side by side testing. Did not cost me a dime.

Same for the 24-70 F/2.8. Varies with copies. But similar results however, the new 24-70 is sharper at F/2.8 and had better corner sharpness. But my opinion, a mute point. If im shooting at F/2.8, most of the time its for effect v/s need to shoot at F/2.8 to get a shot.

Primes are a different story and everyone needs to decide if those improvements are worth the update to them. Example 35L V/1 v/s V/2- V2 it much better at F/1.4-1.8.....At 2.0 they catch up pretty quickly. Im not going to update this lens. Im rarely at F/1.4 with it

So I think photographers need to resist GAS syndrome and really examine WHY they need to update.......All we do by caving into GAS syndrome is fuel Canons desires and needs to jack up the prices. Most of the lens are not that much better when you put them side by side and factor post processing into the end result......But Im sure Canon appreciates the support and markets accordingly to newer photographers.

Im very selective now to what Im going to buy. My version 1 lens are great.

pretty much any recent canon lens has been an optical hit. This is like the only lens that has been ho hum.

70-200 was a massive upgrade
24-70 was a massive upgrade
100-400 was a massive upgrade
35 was a massive upgrade

has nothing to do with GAS, and the prices have stabilized for most of that stuff. The idea that these new canon releases have little improvement is totally false. Canon looks to have dropped the ball on the latest lens or maybe the lens a dud

Charlie wrote in post #18185038
pretty much any recent canon lens has been an optical hit. This is like the only lens that has been ho hum.

70-200 was a massive upgrade
24-70 was a massive upgrade
100-400 was a massive upgrade
35 was a massive upgrade

has nothing to do with GAS, and the prices have stabilized for most of that stuff. The idea that these new canon releases have little improvement is totally false. Canon looks to have dropped the ball on the latest lens or maybe the lens a dud

I agree they were. IMO the jury is still out on the 24-105 II, especially if you have an excellent copy of the old one.