Bryan says in the comment section that the real world results were not encouraging either, and a friend of his was underwhelmed by his copy. He will test a second copy and maybe a third.
I had a bad feeling to begin with when the price was so low.
I was hoping for a $1500+ II lens since the 24-105 STM is available for the low grade market.
Uhh, even the Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is sharper. The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM is better at f/4 than the 24-105 F4 L IS II at f/8. It must be a bad copy.
At f/8 it is the softest (center) Canon lens tested on the 5DS R, at most focal lengths.
"Bad copy" is the last thing I hope for to explain this. If such copy variations exist, this is what you can expect to get with just a little bad luck.
More hoping for "broken".
I suspect the delay has something to do with this. Maybe there is a production problem, and the 5D IV kit lenses that slipped out should have been recalled.
I have it, but am a bit confused. IQ, color and overall performance are good, but sharpness seems to be a bit of an optical illusion, now it is, now it ain't. I suspect body (5D4), DPP and LR are playing a role, may be not quite sorted out yet, but I don't have much good light to play in either, except flash maybe, which looks good.
I hope this gets sorted out. I foolishly sold my ver I, which was very sharp, before availability date of the ver II. Don't usually do that with new lens releases. I'll be passing if copy variation is not the answer.
I wonder if they found an issue with the unit and halted production until they could straighten it out. In which case the few that have shipped in kit form may have that issue.
Time will tell. There are about a million of the previous version floating around out there so if push comes to shove and I absolutely crave that focal length, I could buy yet another copy of it. (sold my last one, which in hindsight, might have been premature).
Certainly doesn't seem to be on a par with the recent Canon lenses which have generally been excellent, although the original 24-105L sample used in the test is miles better than mine
That is a bit disappointing. It's a great focal range and size lens and I was hopeful the version II would be optically as good as some of the other version II updates. From what I see other than new IS and maybe some AF improvements there is not much going on. With the original creeping down near $500 on the used market I don't feel the need for this lens for now.
This isn't very helpful...I sold my 24-105 and 24-70 MkII....trying to decide between 24-70f/4IS and this new 24-105II. Leaning heavily towards the smaller, semi-macro 24-70 f/4...was waiting to be blown away by the new 24-105iI and then maybe go that route....now I have to wait longer for more reviews to either confirm or deny this one. Hopefully Brian can get another copy soon and see....
Canon has had such a stellar track record over the past few years...24-70f.2.8II, 11-24, 16-35f/4, 16-35f/2.8III, 100-400II, 400DOII....I expected this lens to follow that trend but maybe it won't. I've read Sigmas 24-105 Art is very sharp so maybe that would be another option...
Not encouraging, but we probably should be a bit cautious about accepting the first negative report as being the most accurate. Time for some watching and waiting, I suppose.
Dan
(Who is not in the market for this lens at the current time.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Not encouraging, but we probably should be a bit cautious about accepting the first negative report as being the most accurate. Time for some watching and waiting, I suppose.
Dan
(Who is not in the market for this lens at the current time.)
Yeah, I've got the lens here in my hands. I haven't had the opportunity yet to give it a thorough range of applications, but I'd say my experience so far is a bit better than is laid out in this review:
