EF 24-105 II slips to December

[Enigma]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

So far it certainly doesn't appear to be the significant improvement which was expected. I was expecting the choice to almost be a no-brainier but it's definitely not at the moment.

Sticking to Canon, it makes the Mk I and also the various 24-70 versions options to consider. Going non-Canon also stays an option.

In the closing minutes of Cyber Monday I ordered a Mk II from WEX to get a 5% discount. I thought very hard about both 24-70 options but eventually chose the Mk II for the extra reach and the claimed IS (which is possibly of more value to me with shaky hands than others with steady hands).

Definitely looking like Mk I owners might be much better pushing the £1K towards other kit rather than simply switching to the Mk II.

Will be interesting to see if Canon continues the Mk I to provide a lower price point or ceases production and forces the Mk II.

[Tigger]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

I'm not buying the Mk II very unimpressed

[LesC2009]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

So far it certainly doesn't appear to be the significant improvement which was expected. I was expecting the choice to almost be a no-brainier but it's definitely not at the moment.

Sticking to Canon, it makes the Mk I and also the various 24-70 versions options to consider. Going non-Canon also stays an option.

In the closing minutes of Cyber Monday I ordered a Mk II from WEX to get a 5% discount. I thought very hard about both 24-70 options but eventually chose the Mk II for the extra reach and the claimed IS (which is possibly of more value to me with shaky hands than others with steady hands).

Definitely looking like Mk I owners might be much better pushing the £1K towards other kit rather than simply switching to the Mk II.

Will be interesting to see if Canon continues the Mk I to provide a lower price point or ceases production and forces the Mk II.

How are you finding it so far? I see WEX has today reduced the price to £1065 and 5% off so bringing it it to £1011, but it does seem to have sold out today too;)

[Richard W]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

Another new review by my favourites Photozone.de, very unimpressed. (Apologies if this review has already been mentioned)

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/995-canon24105f4ismk2

Interestingly they also say : "Let's be honest - the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS (mk I) was not the greatest lens Canon ever produced" while many users swear by it ................

[Tigger]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

thats the think I find annoying the 24-105 Mk I is a good lens and my walkabout thats produced to great shots, the MKII on the other hand is looking like its not worth the investment and I can see most that are looking for this focal length will just buy the MKI

[LesC2009]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

Don't know if it's just me, but I thought it seems a little strange, that Photozone review; the text suggests the lens is pretty poor on 50MP & only slightly improved on 21MP. However looking at the sample images, they don't look to bad at all - especially as all on the 50MP 5DSR. If it's better at lower MP too?

I think if you've currently got the MKI, there's no incentive to get the MKII (I hesitate to say 'upgrade to'). If you don't, then the MKII may be the better choice - slightly improved IS and allegedly better build quality (I believe the ribbon cable in the MKI was prone to failure), although we don't know if the MKII will be more reliable.

I have the 24-70F2.8L MKII which is supposedly the best of the Canon zooms but I've never been overawed by it's performance. The funny thing is that with larger & larger MP cameras & bigger & sharper computer monitors I like many others I suspect probably do too much pixel peeping! The large majority of my shots end up online - Flickr/500px etc at no larger than say 1400 pixels at the most so I doubt at that size the difference between say the 24-105 MKI or II or my 24-70F2.8 makes that much difference, if any.

I guess we all like to think we're getting the best quality, just in case. I reckon two of my sharpest shots that I have blown up to 30" wide & hanging on my wall were both taken with the 17-40F4 L on an EOS 40D & 100D. Not sure I've surpassed either with my 6D + 24-70 F2.8L yet.

Having said all that, I still fancy the 24-105 for the IS and extra bit of reach...

The 24-105MKII seems to have dropped a little already - WEX have it at £1065 & with 5% off L lenses, bringing it to £1011. I suspect after Xmas the price may drop further & we'll see deals of 10% of L lenses thus bringing the price to around the £950 mark? Think I'll hold out & see what happens.

[collywobbles]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

I was expecting something spectacular due to the rather large price increase. Seems like the only real advantage is the extra IS capability. Rather happily, I'll be sticking with my Mk. 1 version☺

[Richard W]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

I wonder if lens designers have reached about as far as they can go with this type of lens? I've read reviews of the comparable Sigma and Nikon lenses, and they seem to give pretty much the same performance. The three companies must have some of the world's best designers and so I'm sure they'd do better if they could. As I understand it, lenses that cover from wide to (even short) telephoto are some of the most difficult to design, particularly where the maximum focal length is more than three times greater than the minimum, in this case it's over 4 times as great. So 24 - 70 and 70 - 200 are much easier than 24 - 105. Plus the 24 - 105 has to cover the FF sensor and maintain a constant aperture.

[Enigma]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

I wonder if lens designers have reached about as far as they can go with this type of lens? I've read reviews of the comparable Sigma and Nikon lenses, and they seem to give pretty much the same performance. The three companies must have some of the world's best designers and so I'm sure they'd do better if they could. As I understand it, lenses that cover from wide to (even short) telephoto are some of the most difficult to design, particularly where the maximum focal length is more than three times greater than the minimum, in this case it's over 4 times as great. So 24 - 70 and 70 - 200 are much easier than 24 - 105. Plus the 24 - 105 has to cover the FF sensor and maintain a constant aperture.

Agreed. I have the Mk II but haven't had an opportunity to do anything with it yet due to work or weather. No disrespect to the Mk I but I did not include it on my short list. I thought hard about the various 24-70 options but eventually settled on the Mk II for the IS performance.

[Nathaniel]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

I have also received comments from friends in the States that the mk2 is NOT as good as the Mk1. I never thought of the mk2 when my mk1 is performing so well. This is just like the 50mm f1.8 mk1 & mkii. My advice is to hang on to the mk1 like gold!

[Lepus]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

If you don`t have a wide to short telephoto lens , would this be the one to go for though ? Easier decision if your just thinking of an upgrade . It is £4/500 cheaper than the 24 -70 2.8 and does have a touch more reach .

[Richard W]

Re: EF 24-105 II slips to December

But the 24 - 70 F 2.8 is ................... F2.8! The 24 - 105 is F4. There's always a big premium for larger aperture lenses.
The 24 - 70 F4 is presently going for £769, but also with £160 cashback = £609. Unless you really need F2.8 and the higher cost and weight, then all reports are that the F4 is optically essentially as good.
I guess these are only of real interest to FF users, still a small minority overall, though not so much on this forum. Hence there is less saving for Canon in terms of large scale production.
People talk a lot about extra reach, but many already have a 70 - 200 or similar which will give better resolution at the 70 - 105 range as well as even longer reach, not too weighty either.