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

i-G12 wrote in post #18179385
Sounds like a really nice lens but am I missing something?

For us who are using a 1.6 crop camera the range seems kind of useless -- effectively 38.4 - 168.

On the wide end to me it's not very useful.

hqqns wrote in post #18179388
Agreed, makes no sense on cropped sensor camera.

My 24-105 is most useful to me on my 1.6 crop body, the 50D.

It is somewhat useful on my 1.3 crop body, the 1D mark 4.

It is not very useful at all on my full frame body - the 5D.

When it is paired with my full frame body, the 24mm - 40mm part of the range often goes unused; for what I shoot, there is almost no reason to ever shoot anything that wide. And on the full frame I am frequently zooming it all the way in to 105mm and wishing that it had about another 40 or 50mm of focal length.

On the 1.6 crop, I use the entire range of the lens, and rarely find myself needing it to go much longer than the effective 168mm field of view. And never, ever, have I wanted it to go any wider than the 38mm field of view at the wide end when used with my 50D.

Blanket statements are often rife with inaccuracies. If something makes no sense FOR YOUR way of shooting, then say so - but to just say that it is useless in a blanket way infers that it is useless to everybody all of the time.......which is simply not true.

.

if someone is only shooting with a crop, then an 18-135STM makes more sense

I'm running into a situation where I really need the 24-105 range w/ IS. Particularly I can stick to primes for stills but I really need a zoom for video and I keep looking toward a 24-105. Now I need to decide which lens.

I want to be able to do video with the 5D4 and have sitiations where I want 1080P and/or I want 4K and with 4K the crop would be perfect using this lens making it a 40mm-170mm equal and having the ability to do 4K frame grab under those scenarios it works perfect for me.

Choices choices....

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18207462
.
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.
.

I thought the v1 version had a 3-stop stabilizer.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18207650
I thought the v1 version had a 3-stop stabilizer.

It does have 3 stop.

Talley wrote in post #18207662
It does have 3 stop.

Yup.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18207650
I thought the v1 version had a 3-stop stabilizer.

Talley wrote in post #18207662
It does have 3 stop.

Well, then the new version won't be as much as an improvement as I had hoped for. Bummer. Maybe someday years and years from now they'll finally come up with 15 or 20 stop I.S., and then camera stability will never be an issue again.

.

I also like my 24-105 v1 on the crop body. I do not like to use it on the FF, the distortion at the edges is just crazy and I would crop those parts anyway. If I want a really wide angle on the FF the 16-35 is a better choice.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18207712
Well, then the new version won't be as much as an improvement as I had hoped for. Bummer. Maybe someday years and years from now they'll finally come up with 15 or 20 stop I.S., and then camera stability will never be an issue again.

.

v.1 had the old IS and somewhere I read it was around 2.5 stops of IS. I had mine for ten years and while it was good to have IS on the v.1, it doesn't even compare to the nominal 4 stops of the new v.2 I have had for about a month now. v.2 IS is simply instantly effective, as is AF. The lens is my all around lens and I find that the v.2 is all around marked better than the v.1. The color rendition, coatings and optics I find noticeably better, though, lets say, not on the scale of how the 100-400 v.2 was to the v.1.

Hi Guys and Gals

So much BS on this thread that I thought I'd post an actual picture from the 24-105 f4 L MkII IS.

Tilbury Power Station Essex - now defunc. River Thames.

Taken from approx. 2 miles (3km to them what likes metric in everyday life - as opposed to scientific life).
Not sharpened. Slight crop. Poor lighting. Poor editing - before you say it.

IMHO the MkII is better - noticeably - than the original MkI.

But it seems we are all so taken by the new 100-400 L MkII IS that the 24-105 MkII comes as an expensive anti-climax.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #18212064
So much BS on this thread....

Well that's not a very nice thing to say. When people post to a thread such as this one, they write about the things that are of importance to them, with respect to a new lens. To call other people's thoughts and concerns B____ S____ is really rather inconsiderate.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #18212064
I thought I'd post an actual picture from the 24-105 f4 L MkII IS.

Yeah, others have already posted actual pictures taken with the new lens here on this thread.

Concerning the photo that you posted, what do you think about the way that your new 24-105 performed, compared to the way that the old 24-105 would have performed for this shot? Is there a reason why you chose this particular photo to post? Does this photo exhibit some characteristic of the new lens that differs from the corresponding characteristic of the old version?

To me, it seems like the photo isn't really one that would readily show the differences between lenses, because the subject matter, the conditions, and the P.O.V. aren't really the types of challenging situations that exploit a lens' weaknesses (such as pincushion distortion or barrel distortion or bokeh qualities or resolution of fine detail).

What differences between lenses were you trying to show twith this particular image? What, specifically, does your new 24-105 do better than your old 24-105?

.

OK Tom - Point taken - more said in jest than with intent to offend. I'll retract the BS statement with the appropriate apologies - how about that?

Well, No claim to it being a good picture - but as there are not many pics posted taken at a distance I thought I'd post one.

I cannot repeat the shot with the MkI as I have sold it, but I do know from experience with the MkI at that distance it would not have captured the detail - as seen in the chimneys.

Regards

Ray.Petri wrote in post #18212177
OK Tom - Point taken - more said in jest than with intent to offend. I'll retract the BS statement with the appropriate apologies - how about that?

Well, No claim to it being a good picture - but as there are not many pics posted taken at a distance I thought I'd post one.

I cannot repeat the shot with the MkI as I have sold it, but I do know from experience with the MkI at that distance it would not have captured the detail - as seen in the chimneys.

Regards

There are plenty of people who own this lens by now and there are a lot of good reviews from trusted resources that show both versions to be nearly identically in optical terms. I had the lens for a while and decided to return it in favour of the V1 and the extra $$$ to put toward a better upgrade. It seems apparent enough that Canon maintained the status quo with the V2 as it is bundled as a kit and they likely did not want to push up the kit price or cannibalize sales of the alternatives people usually upgrade to like the 24-70. It is quite understandable that people make hyperbolic statements when defending their gear so I can only respond that if your V1 could not capture the detail in those smoke stacks you may have been in possession of a defective unit. Of course, without the V1 for comparison your statement is anecdotal at best.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #18212177
I cannot repeat the shot with the MkI as I have sold it, but I do know from experience with the MkI at that distance it would not have captured the detail - as seen in the chimneys.

Hey Ray, thanks for the example. I agree with Tom, and will add that shots at "web forum resolution" cannot be used to assess the sharpness of a lens.
What about a 1:1 crop ?

Ray.Petri wrote in post #18212064
Hi Guys and Gals

So much BS on this thread that I thought I'd post an actual picture from the 24-105 f4 L MkII IS.

Tilbury Power Station Essex - now defunc. River Thames.

Taken from approx. 2 miles (3km to them what likes metric in everyday life - as opposed to scientific life).
Not sharpened. Slight crop. Poor lighting. Poor editing - before you say it.

IMHO the MkII is better - noticeably - than the original MkI.

But it seems we are all so taken by the new 100-400 L MkII IS that the 24-105 MkII comes as an expensive anti-climax.

Hosted photo: posted by Ray.Petri in
./showthread.php?p=182​12064&i=i27717939
forum: Canon Lenses

Looks like a Pink Floyd Album Cover