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

My 24-105L ver 1 was an excellent copy and was plenty sharp for me at f/4.0 but, it was 9-10 years old so having a new improved ver II lens, with new warranty was my major motivation for upgrading. The 4 stop IS and 10 blade rounded aperture, along with improvements to the optics are all just bonuses. I shoot primes mostly so I do not need prime quality sharpness in my zooms. I will be plenty happy if the new ver II is as sharp as my ver 1. I have already sold my ver 1 so I am kind of committed to the ver II now that there is a void in my 3 compadre's f/4.0 IS zooms.

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

It seems there are engineering problems in manufacturing a 24-105 f/2.8 IS or even a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS. An IBIS on camera would be imho the best solution to overcome the lens issue...what is Canon doing here?

fplstudio wrote in post #18185528
It seems there are engineering problems in manufacturing a 24-105 f/2.8 IS or even a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS. An IBIS on camera would be imho the best solution to overcome the lens issue...what is Canon doing here?

24-105 2.8 ya I get it... thats probably very hard.

But Nikon already has a 24-70 2.8 IS so what gives??? you KNOW canon will do this... they are just waiting for a slow so they can release the latest and greatest to boost sales again. They know their marketing well.... and major product releases are only so often to fuel their profits.

Talley wrote in post #18185541
24-105 2.8 ya I get it... thats probably very hard.

But Nikon already has a 24-70 2.8 IS so what gives??? you KNOW canon will do this... they are just waiting for a slow so they can release the latest and greatest to boost sales again. They know their marketing well.... and major product releases are only so often to fuel their profits.

if they wait too long sigma will come out with an f2.8 OS...and then they'll have to re-do theirs to make sure it's better to justify triple the price...

Maybe you guys who think it has bad sharpness don't know what you're talking about, here is a direct comparison as far as sharpness goes between this new lens and the 100-400 II at the same focal length.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18185648

hqqns wrote in post #18185651
Maybe you guys who think it has bad sharpness don't know what you're talking about, here is a direct comparison as far as sharpness goes between this new lens and the 100-400 II at the same focal length.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18185648

Those look like 400% crops so it's hard to tell. try to get it close to 100% and even with your samples the 24-105 is lacking.

I dunno, they look pretty close to me. I can hardly see any difference that matters.

I think the colour is better on the 24-105. Did something change in between shots? maybe a could came over or something?

hqqns wrote in post #18185651
Maybe you guys who think it has bad sharpness don't know what you're talking about, here is a direct comparison as far as sharpness goes between this new lens and the 100-400 II at the same focal length.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18185648

How are you liking that 100-400II?

Amazingly good lens IMO.

George Zip wrote in post #18185685
I dunno, they look pretty close to me. I can hardly see any difference that matters.

I think the colour is better on the 24-105. Did something change in between shots? maybe a could came over or something?

whenever you shoot two lenses to compare in manual mode with all the same exposure settings there can still be exposure differences due to the T stop rating of the lenses. This is why you think the color is better because it's properly exposed.

100-400 transmission: https://www.dxomark.co​m …DS-R---Measurements__1009

24-105 transmission: not known yet

Until we do I cannot confirm this is the case.

Talley wrote in post #18185701
whenever you shoot two lenses to compare in manual mode with all the same exposure settings there can still be exposure differences due to the T stop rating of the lenses. This is why you think the color is better because it's properly exposed.

100-400 transmission: https://www.dxomark.co​m …DS-R---Measurements__1009

24-105 transmission: not known yet

Until we do I cannot confirm this is the case.

Fair enough.... I do not even know what a T Stop is.

I also do not know how to read those charts as I have never bothered to learn what the numbers mean.

I'll see myself out

hqqns wrote in post #18185651
Maybe you guys who think it has bad sharpness don't know what you're talking about, here is a direct comparison as far as sharpness goes between this new lens and the 100-400 II at the same focal length.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18185648

Not really the best sharpness test... ISO 2000, f/4.5, close focus, and ruler. Nevertheless, the 100-400 looks sensibly better, and like we discussed, it should not come as a surprise.

The Digital Picture's full review is up and it does show a reasonable improvement in distortion.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …Distortion.aspx​?Lens=1072

After Canon's recent super successful upgrades, this one may not be as good.
I'm at the point where upgrades are less important as most of the Canon glass I already own is excellent. I doubt I would purchase a new lens without selling the one it is replacing as I don't think I would add to the range I already own.
I would be motivated however by a substantial decrease in size/weight without losing image quality.

.

umphotography wrote in post #18180805
If im being honest, I dont see a ton of improvement over my 8 yr old 24-105 at F/4

. . . . . I am at Whats the point of upgrading just to have lastest and greatest if they are about the same in IQ.

So far, what I have seen on the net, nothing there i cant do with my current 24-105 and a quick pr-set in LR

What about the new 4 stop I.S.? That certainly enables one to do things with the new lens that one can't do with the old 24-105.

For me - the stuff I shoot and the way I shoot it - the main reason to upgrade would be for the gain in Image Stabilization - 4 stops compared to the 1 1/2 stop I.S. in the old version. When I blow a shot with my 24-105, it is usually because of camera movement when shooting at very slow shutter speeds in situations where hand-holding without any support is the only option. Certainly, the new 24-105 would be a huge improvement over the old 24-105 in such situations, wouldn't it?

I have found I.S. to be extremely useful at short focal lengths - it's not just a telephoto thing.

.

I had the 24-105 II on pre-order, but I found an excellent condition used v1 and bought it. It's working well for my needs.