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

I really have a feeling that whenever someone does get a solid review up, I'll just be disappointed.

Eh to me it's worth having a zoom lock and the new hood style.

I'm not so sure. Canon has been doing some great things with new lenses recently. I was pretty shocked by the improvement in the 100-400. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

umphotography wrote in post #18174272
I read his comments so I will be very curious to Read what Bryon thinks at digital picture. He says its sharp in center but soft in the corners. Thats no good for me. Says it has barell issues at F/4 if i read that right.

My original 24-105 is 7-8 yrs old, its pretty sharp and I dont have some of the issues other complained about. So waiting to see bryons review before i buy. It was a lens on my list of considerations along with the 16-35 F/4 IS

But if its not a marked improvement over the current 24-105 then I will hold on to what I have. Hoping Canon didnt put the lens coat on the glass and call it a day. It should have the updated IS on it but I have had stellar results with the current 24-105...My most used zoom. This IS on the current lens is pretty darned good

The improvements on all the lenses in the last couple of years have all been outstanding.

I am guessing it will be a worthwhile upgrade, and a must have for someone like me. I do not have a walkaround zoom with IS. Just the old 24-70 2.8, nice lens but I think I'll happily sacrifice that 1 stop for IS that will give 3-4 stops for low light shooting.

I think the improvement in high ISO on the 5D4 pretty much overcomes shooting lowlight action and the requirement for fast glass..... If you are making comparisons from a few years ago that is. (I hope that makes sense)

It's not much a problem of f-stops. An ultrawide-to-tele lens is going to have optical compromises, so don't expect magic.

A lens as good as the 24-70/2.8 v2, at half the price plus tele-range and the IS cherry on top ?
That's delusional in 2016.

umphotography wrote in post #18174273
too soon to tell

Well, you did say that it looks sharp. Which is it?

Talley wrote in post #18174288
Eh to me it's worth having a zoom lock and the new hood style.

600 bucks for a zoom lock and new hood? Baller.

I kind of agree it is too early, but I certainly don't have my hopes up after seeing what has been posted so far.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18174337
It's not much a problem of f-stops. An ultrawide-to-tele lens is going to have optical compromises, so don't expect magic.

A lens as good as the 24-70/2.8 v2, at half the price plus tele-range and the IS cherry on top ?
That's delusional in 2016.

The F Stops were an issue for me shooting the 5dII. I actually needed to be at 2.8 to get the shuuter speed quick enough for the particualr shooting I was doing. The reality was though, I would have preferred to be at 4 or higher.

Anyway...happily those days are behind me.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18174337
A lens as good as the 24-70/2.8 v2, at half the price plus tele-range and the IS cherry on top ?
That's delusional in 2016.

or it's the tamron without the tele-range 4 years ago...

umphotography wrote in post #18174114
They look very sharp

here is F/4 @ 105mm Im Impressed


https://www.cyberphoto​.se …l/ef24105mk2/4R​5A9003.JPG

Its not blowing me away. I know its only one shot but it doesn't look any sharper than my Mk1. The shutter speed is too slow which might not help (look at the motion blur on the leg of the lady at the centre).

There will be other sample images published soon but at the moment, it looks like I'll be saving myself £1200.

Talley wrote in post #18174122
I'll probably pick this up to be my only zoom lens. I need IS and f4 not a big deal anymore with the 5d4. I have the primes for everything else.

Just waiting for the 900 range before I do and see what the reviews is like

I've been secretly using an F4 zoom as well, might let go of the canon 24-70ii.... been using it mostly for group shots and the results I'm getting are "good enough" I'de say. Formerly fast primes + fast zoom to fast primes + slow zoom. I'll give it a year or so, but I'm always compelled to 2.8 zooms for as long as I've been shooting, cant seem to get away from them regardless of how good high iso is.... Worst comes to worst, I dont mind owning both.

I'm still about distortion improvements. Sharpness is OK as is, and I have no major issues at f8. The distortion just won't go away though.

Colorblinded wrote in post #18174806
I'm still about distortion improvements. Sharpness is OK as is, and I have no major issues at f8. The distortion just won't go away though.

I don't use mine much (24-105 version 1), but when I have, Lightroom seems to take care of the distortion pretty well.

That could just be because I'm less fussy with the subjects for which I use it. I'm much more hmmmmm critical when it comes to my wildlife photos. The 24-105 is used for walk around shooting. For landscapes, I use my 16-35 f/4 IS.

I'm sort of jumping around here.... I'm at work so I'm sort of typing in between other things. I've also considered buying version 2 because I was hoping it would be similar to the jump between the 100-400L and the 100-400L ll. But if it's isn't that much better, I might just continue to be satisfied with the original with the Lightroom distortion corrections.

My first impression is that it's not that sharp, but i'm comparing it to my razor sharp tamron 90mm macro lens. Probably not a good comparison?

hqqns wrote in post #18175106
My first impression is that it's not that sharp, but i'm comparing it to my razor sharp tamron 90mm macro lens. Probably not a good comparison?

Macro lens versus zoom is usually not a fair contest when it comes to sharpness, no

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18134156
Curious, why?

I don't think they can improve it much without adding exotic glass and sending the price through the stratosphere. It's sharp as hell the way it is.