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

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.

Distortion at the wide-end is indeed the major issue with the previous lens.
Distortion correction comes at a price: you lose quite a bit of corner resolution, and what's worse is that you lose arguably 1mm of FOV due to the corrected image being noticeably cropped (unless the lens is actually wider than 24mm).

CheshireCat wrote in post #18175534
Distortion at the wide-end is indeed the major issue with the previous lens.
Distortion correction comes at a price: you lose quite a bit of corner resolution, and what's worse is that you lose arguably 1mm of FOV due to the corrected image being noticeably cropped (unless the lens is actually wider than 24mm).

I have learned to work around this by giving myself plenty of room when capturing. You are 100% correct. There is significant cropping with LR.

But may be nature on the lens. Most of us use it because the 24-70 just doesnt have enough reach. 24-105 is a nice range

umphotography wrote in post #18175589
I have learned to work around this by giving myself plenty of room when capturing. You are 100% correct. There is significant cropping with LR.

But may be nature on the lens. Most of us use it because the 24-70 just doesnt have enough reach. 24-105 is a nice range

The reach and the IS makes it more useful to me than the 24-70 would be for what I typically do. It's definitely a lot of lens for the money, here's to hoping the II is more!

Colorblinded wrote in post #18175591
The reach and the IS makes it more useful to me than the 24-70 would be for what I typically do. It's definitely a lot of lens for the money, here's to hoping the II is more!

somewhat true if it's your only lens.

in the past the 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4 had many on both isles, it's a never ending struggle to choose

I owned both at the same time, however, the 2.8 would slightly edge out despite the heavier and larger lens. Now, both lenses are the same weight roughly, and even less of a reason for the f4, but still a compelling choice for cost and FL.

I've got much faster primes which better meet my other needs than a 2.8 zoom could. You're right though, either way they each have their place.

Canon has made two other 4 to 1 zooms that many consider very good. (70-300 & 100-400II)
I hope the new version is good enough to tempt me.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18175534
Distortion at the wide-end is indeed the major issue with the previous lens.
Distortion correction comes at a price: you lose quite a bit of corner resolution, and what's worse is that you lose arguably 1mm of FOV due to the corrected image being noticeably cropped (unless the lens is actually wider than 24mm).

Here are some pictures of a brick wall at (an indicated) 24 mm,50 mm and 105 mm @F/4 - see below for raw file links.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NQEx​TU

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NriC​pw

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NTU7​8i

Poor distortion

Fail.... pass.

I just enable lens correction on import into lightroom and it's all good in the hood.

But corner to corner sharpness is not my thing

hqqns wrote in post #18175925
Here are some pictures of a brick wall at (an indicated) 24 mm,50 mm and 105 mm @F/4 - see below for raw file links.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NQEx​TU 20161105-0A1A5532.jpg by Subby, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NriC​pw 20161105-0A1A5533.jpg by Subby, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NTU7​8i 20161105-0A1A5534.jpg by Subby, on Flickr

Raw files: 24 mm ,50 mm 105 mm in order:

http://www.mediafire.c​om …8339einc9pw1/0A​1A5532.CR2
http://www.mediafire.c​om …b7kfsdu2hlpt/0A​1A5533.CR2
http://www.mediafire.c​om …i0csebc4uwhx/0A​1A5534.CR2

Wowzers...cant tell from this but if im being honest, its not a whole lot sharper than my current 25-105F/4 version.....This is disappointing to see

This is the current 25-105 Version 1 at F/5.0 @ 1/60 straight off the camera capture from yesterdays wedding

Im not seeing a lot better sharpness or improvements over my current lens. I must have a sharp copy. If the new glass is not MUCH better than what I have, I dont see a need to buy. Gonna have to do some side by sides. Not seeing a reason to change at all

Yeah. Most of Canon's recent updates feature better corner sharpness, better CA and addressed the inherent weaknesses in the previous version. Taking the 100-400 ii as an example they really improved sharpness at the long end. I would really hope that sharpness is improved on the 24-105 @ f/4 because for my use that's where the weakness of the lies. I resist opening it up past f/8 if I can and rarely if ever go wider than f/5.6. Still keeping my fingers crossed on this one.

umphotography wrote in post #18176508
This is the current 25-105 Version 1 at F/5.0 @ 1/60 straight off the camera capture from yesterdays wedding

Im not seeing a lot better sharpness or improvements over my current lens. I must have a sharp copy. If the new glass is not MUCH better than what I have, I dont see a need to buy. Gonna have to do some side by sides. Not seeing a reason to change at all

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=181​76508&i=i49640513
forum: Canon Lenses

Lets see your edit

Talley wrote in post #18176007
Poor distortion

Fail.... pass.

on second note that 2nd shot at 50mm makes me dizzy... that is alot of pincushion distortion

hqqns wrote in post #18175925
Here are some pictures of a brick wall at (an indicated) 24 mm,50 mm and 105 mm @F/4 - see below for raw file links.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NQEx​TU 20161105-0A1A5532.jpg by Subby, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NriC​pw 20161105-0A1A5533.jpg by Subby, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NTU7​8i 20161105-0A1A5534.jpg by Subby, on Flickr

Raw files: 24 mm ,50 mm 105 mm in order:

http://www.mediafire.c​om …8339einc9pw1/0A​1A5532.CR2
http://www.mediafire.c​om …b7kfsdu2hlpt/0A​1A5533.CR2
http://www.mediafire.c​om …i0csebc4uwhx/0A​1A5534.CR2

those actually look worse, 50mm in particular, than the Mk I.

Tempted to go kind of replicate your tests with my Mk I.

edit: alright, Mk I, 24 and 50mm.

look at that mustache on 24! Terrible, I forgot just how bad that was because it was the reason I bought my Tokina 16-28 which is perfect at 24 and i'm not sure i've shot the 24-105 that wide since.