Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM?

Sorry if this has been covered or in the wrong placeI just ordered this for a walk around lens. $634. Seemed to be a god price I realize t he new version is coming out at the end of the month. Which I am guessing is why this was reduced. Everywhere else it was listed at $1k or more. Good deal? New not White box....

https://www.amazon.com …_825000_1142129​90_TE_n_id

Very good price. Will the new version be better, probably. But at $1100 or so. I have the old one. Very happy with it. No reason for me to upgrade at this time. Enjoy your new lens and don't look back

24-105 STM?

The Swiss army knife of lenses. Mine is a workhorse.

Bassat wrote in post #18159340
24-105 STM?

The link leads to 24-105 L

runninmann wrote in post #18159518
The link leads to 24-105 L

Made no reference to the link. Simply suggesting a better piece of glass that goes for less money. The only downside is aperture at the long end. In every other respect, the STM is a better lens.

Bassat wrote in post #18159534
Made no reference to the link. Simply suggesting a better piece of glass that goes for less money. The only downside is aperture at the long end. In every other respect, the STM is a better lens.

The 24-105 STM is a consumer grade lens. The difference in build quality is noticeably inferior to the L. Lots more plastic by comparison. It also lacks weather sealing.

nqjudo wrote in post #18159543
The 24-105 STM is a consumer grade lens. The difference is build quality is very noticeable. It also lacks weather sealing.

OP seems interested in cost. If cost is a factor, the STM lens is a viable answer, at least for some folks. It works fine for me. $350, used. No lens is the right answer for everyone.

Bassat wrote in post #18159558
OP seems interested in cost. If cost is a factor, the STM lens is a viable answer, at least for some folks. It works fine for me. $350, used. No lens is the right answer for everyone.

Of course but I was speaking to your statement that aside from being slower in the long end the STM version is a better lens in every other respect which it definitely is not. Making a cost/benefit analysis is one thing. Hyperbolizing the attributes of one thing vs another doesn't make a fair comparison.

Thanks, cost is always a factor but I'll always take the L lens when I can afford it.

nqjudo wrote in post #18159570
Of course but I was speaking to your statement that aside from being slower in the long end the STM version is a better lens in every other respect which it definitely is not. Making a cost/benefit analysis is one thing. Hyperbolizing the attributes of one thing vs another doesn't make a fair comparison.

True, certainly. I agree with you. I overstated my case. I left out weather-sealing completely, and likely focus speed. The lens does work for me, hence I thought it a was valid suggestion.

OP states above that "L" is the choice when he can afford it. I wouldn't trade any of my Ls for cheaper options. Sometimes there are no options. I'm happy with my $300 85 1.8, but there is no non-L equivalent to the 135L, or 70-200 f/4.