As the 24-105 F4L is my most used lens I traded up from the Mk 1 when the mark 2 was released. However, I would agree with most of your conclusions and I notice very little difference between the two lenses. One feature I do like on the new lens is the zoom lock, and the IS is a little better but other than that the results I can achieve are no better than they were with the old version.The attractive thing about this lens is its zoom range, and I am happy to sacrifice an F stop in order to have the extra 35mm reach. So I don't regret my decision and I will continue to use this lens frequently.
This lens was my first L series lens and I guess compared to the other lenses I was using, it’s definitely worth it, for me at least. Maybe a seasoned L series user would feel underwhelmed but since this came in a package with my Canon 6D I find it to be amazing for everyday use. Next lens on my list is the 85 1.4
As with the first 24-105, there appears to be large variation between copies...which is truly sad, but expected with a "kit lens". I have owned 3 24-105 lenses. Two of the original, and one of the new ones. The first 24-105 I had was an optical disaster...I was not happy with its performance at all, but the focal range was great for travel and it came with my 6D as the kit lens. After I sold it, I picked up a white box version of the lens and it was stellar! Much better at controlling fringe and seemed to be sharper, however I'm shooting with a 5D4 now and not a 5D3/6D. I recently picked up the new 24-105 and it has been really a great lens. I am not noticing any sort of the optical fringing issues you had in the center of the frame after carefully looking over around 800-1000 vacation images. The corners are still a little meh...but a lot of the landscape shots I took at f/8-f/11 look extremely sharp corner-to-corner. So that is good enough for me. Overall, I especially don't like the increase in weight (795 g (1.75 lb) up from 670 g (1.48 lb) on the original) and length...it's actually longer and about as heavy as my 24-70 f/2.8L II (805 g (1.77 lb)), and that makes ZERO sense to me. It's a good lens. It doesn't make any big leaps in any department, but walking around with a zoom lock and better IS makes this lens worth it for my use. Plus I needed to ditch the original before they dropped in value too much and mine was still in mint condition.
Side-by-side (just boxed it up and sent out Monday), the new 24-105 has a really good feeling to the IS - it's more solid. While the old model has a smooth floating feel to it. Worth the upgrade? Not at all...Sony's $1400 24-105 will likely embarrass it, but so does its price. It's just a good lens but not great, just like you said.
I have the original 24-105 and had decided to upgrade to the Tamron 24-70 G2, but I had also wondered whether I should at some point trade out the older 24-105 for the new one for crop sensor use. I'm definitely going to hold onto the older one for a while. I really appreciate this review in particular, thanks!
Not sure I agree that the Tamron 24-70 is the correct comparison - I think you're comparing apples with oranges in this instance. I have the Mk 1 EF 24-105L because of the focal length range, and looking at my pictures over the years, I do shoot quite a lot of images above 70mm. Back in film days I had an EF 28-105 f3.5-f4.5, and again I was using that throughout its range. So I don't think I'd ever choose a 24-70 instead of the 24-105. I think the most interesting comparisons are firstly with the 24-105 STM - not as good a lens by all accounts as the Mk 2 L, but would the better value for money compensate for that? - and secondly with the Sigma 24-105. (Incidentally, I dug out the old 28-105 lens out the other week and put it on my 6D for an afternoon. You cans some results in this dpreview gallery: www.dpreview.com/galleries/5215160469/albums/bakewell-28-105 )
Optically the 24-105 STM is pretty close. I used a comparison point that a lot of my viewers are familiar with as I just compared it to a lot of other lenses. It is also close in price. Definitely not an apples to apples comparison, but I personally think it is an alternative.
Thanks for this reply, Dustin, and thanks also for the video (and all the others, of course). I'm not surprised that the Tamron was the better lens, but I was surprised by the degree to which it was. Listening to your comments during the review I couldn't help wondering if you'd got a bad example of the 24-105. We all hope that there's no sample variation but equally we all know there is - and Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals has demonstrated this. Of course, I recognise that you can only test (and report on) the lens you've actually got. Roger @ LensRental is probably in a unique position!
What do you think about the choice of EF 24-70 F4 IS and EF 24-105 F4 IS II? Also, do you think the two of them have better picture quality? Thank you！
Dustin, thank you for another very helpful video. I did have the new Canon 24-105 and I have to say it was not as good as the MKI version, it was very soft. There was also an issue with focusing with a number of copies which Canon would repair for free. As my lens was in the list of serial numbers I returned it for a store credit. Having watched all your videos on the 24-70 lenses, when I can justify it I will get the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 Di VC USD G2.
It's too bad they didn't do a little better job with this lens. A lot of people value the 24-105L because of its excellent focal range and useful image quality.
@@DustinAbbottTWI They did a better job than what you're giving them credit for. My experience has been different than yours. You'd be better off stressing that this review is based on your own experience and may be at odds with a more general consensus (which happens to be the case).
Thanks for this review. Saved me from a costly mistake. I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 and love it, but needed a lens in that 24-100 range. Looks like I’m sticking with Tamron.
Hello Dustin. Thank you for producing another great video. Have you tried the Sigma 24-105mm f4 Art lens? I can whole-heartedly recommend it - it is a great performer that's consistently delivered for me and is my go-to zoom lens. All the very best and keep up your excellent work.
I haven't. I may consider bringing it in as a benchmark against the new Sony 24-105 f/4 G when I do that review.
6 лет назад+1
Thanks for a yet another great review. Dxomarks measures shows quite an improvement in transmission, compared to it's predecessor. Is that something you did notice?
Just got the lens, having had the cheaper STM version which I must say was excellent, I was hesitant at first as it seemed to have a lot of negative response from some users, I'm glad I ignored the reviews, my 24-105 is sharp wide open and beats my STM version which was excellent. Cannot compare to third party junk lens, as Tamron and Sigma have let me down in the past, I will stick with canon.
It's weird how one person on the internet gives an opinion, and then many people repeat that until it becomes accepted as fact. I didn't love this lens, myself, but I'm glad you were courageous enough to make your own choice
Your review seems to follow what other have said. I'm ready to buy a f/f canon and I already have a good 24-70mm that I used on my 70D. Part of me wants to get the 24-105mm for a good what around lens that would give me the same approx. focal range as the crop.
Maybe there is a practical limit to how good these lenses can be (and still stay compact). I'm scheduled to review the new Sony 24-105 G lens with the A7R3 and am interested to see if Sony has managed something improved.
I own a Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 and a very old Canon 24-105L. In my view two different zooms. The Canon is a nice travel zoom with a significant larger reach, smaller and lighter. The mark II has a lock mechanism and that is nice because my mark I creeps like mad. Canon L for you! I put some thin tape on the lens and that helps. It is not the sharpest lens, but in a way my 12 years old lens I have used a lot and in some short trips I still do.
Another good review of a inferior "replacement" for the original. This is an embarrassment to the L designation. Canon dumbed this one down and removed the one and only super UD element of the original and replaced it with a increased price and reduced optical performance. At the same time Sigma is stuffing theirs with exotic glass at superior performance save for the weather sealing.
I may have a deal on a 400 EUR for the original 24-105 & I'm tempted, but after seeing this vid the Tamron looks amazing as well, do you reckon the original is (roughly) closer to the 24-70 in terms of sharpness/crispness etc?
Excellent, thoughtful review as usual, though I might quibble about comparing it to a 24-70. In my youth, I owned a 28-70 Tokina for my Nikon FG and found the 70mm end to be no man’s land focal length, rendering the lens not particularly useful. When I had more money, I bought the 35MM-105MM Nikkor, which I liked. Optically, I do not think it was any better than the Tokina, but the longer focal length allowed me to get better candid portraits. Therefore, despite its flaws, I find the Canon 24-105 to be the most useful of my Canon L lenses. As you indicate, the Canon 16MM-35MM f4 to be sharper with less distortion, but when you are walking around not knowing what you are going to shoot, there is nothing like the 24-105 IMO. Most people are not going to notice its flaws in a final image. However, your video confirms my decision not to upgrade to the Version 2. As long as one’s original 24-105 is still working, I see no reason to upgrade.
Fair enough. There's no question that the 24-105mm focal length (on full frame) is incredibly useful. That being said, I went from the original 24-105L to a 24-70 f/2.8 and didn't miss the longer FL.
I was wondering .. Would the same 24-105mm lens on a 5D Mark IV vs 5D Mark II look better? Would we see the difference on a computer monitor if it was a better full frame camera with the exact same lens?
I tested it on a 5D Mark IV. It's actually somewhat hard to predict how a lens will respond to being put on a higher resolution body. Sometimes they look better at a pixel level; sometimes worse. I wouldn't predict a big change from what you saw in my review, however.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks. What about things like a better metering system, better ISO performance etc that might compensate for f/4 on a better body? Or is this not really a big deal?
Thanks so much for this review. I am looking for another lens for my Canon 90D. I need something in the range of 20-70 to 20-105. I will not be purchasing the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II. Do you like the Tamron lenses? Appreciate the time you took in making this video.
Hi Dustin, thank you for this very profound review! I wonder if at the Canon lens there are sample variations in play. I have one and I‘m quiet very satisfied with its image quality. Have a great day! Best wishes, Ralf from nearby Stuttgart
Hi Ralf, the reality is that people have different criteria. I'm coming from the perspective of having evaluated hundreds of lenses, so what I consider weak performance may be just fine for many people with a different perspective.
Dustin Abbott Yes, I agree. I used to photograph on APS-C and from that perspective it’s a huge step considering resolution and image quality even if there are lenses, which on fullframe perform significantly better.
Dear Dustin, I am planning to buy the tamron 24 70 g2. I saw a lot of reviewers saying there would be focus issues. Did you face any? What is your view?
Well done, Dustin! These sorts of lenses are not so well suited to my own type of photography. I would really, really appreciate seeing such a solid comparison review of the Canon EF 24mm/2.8 IS USM and either this G2 Tamron or the current f.2.8 Canon L-glass FL range equivalent at 24mm. Useful, direct comparisons between the often overlooked compact Canon IS primes (which I favor in cross use for my Sony FF body and which also suit my M3, and now M5 mirrorless system) vs. the weighty, commercially spotlighted zoom$ seem to be very rare, to say the least. Thank you!
The three IS primes are all excellent - but unfortunately none of them have really been a big sales success, so we haven't see any more of them. It's a shame.
Excellent review! Confirmation that my used (Lens Authority) Sigma 24-105 Art was a wise choice to replace my old Canon 24-105. I also have the original Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 that I use for low light and astrophotography and have found it to be better than the old Canon 24-105.
The Dude, Interesting. I have found my Sigma 24-105 f/4.0 to have slightly less vignetting than my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. Easily removed with either lens in post.
Dustin Abbott Alright thank you for always answering me. I just got in the mail yesterday the tamron 45mm 1.8 I am very excited to finally have a high end prime lens again! I am going to use it tonight for the Halloween parade in NYC.
Aw, Dustin....I thought you were photography-educated enough to avoid a common misconception perpetuated throughout the net: A 24-70 is not comparable to a 24-105, because those extra 35mm you so casually mention are what "makes" the 24-105 range. A 24-105 is a true "walkaround" lens on FF, whereas a 24-70 is an events-portraits-documentary one. This said I completely agree with your evaluation of the 24-105 II, which I also tested. Not having a superlative true-walkaround tool is the only thing that I regret about my Canon EF system. It helps a bit that my copy of the version I is a very, very good one.
I'm speaking from my personal experience. I went from the 24-105L (Mark 1) to the first generation Tamron 24-70 VC. I thought at first I would keep them both for the reason you said, but I stopped reaching for the Canon and eventually sold it.
Yes, personal experiences are important and not all photographers use a zoom lens in the same way. If I check my LR library, for instance, I find that my most used FL on the 24-105 is 24mm but the second most used is 105mm and over 30% of all shots have been made in that 35mm range from 70 to 105mm. Those are shots that could not have been made with a 24-70 or that would have required a lens change. But, irrespectively, of personal experience, lenses are tools and tools cater for specific requirements. I always find it odd when users that would never dream of saying "the 12-24 f/4 from brand X is quite poor but that's not an issue because their 16-35 f/2.8 is stellar" have no problem making a similar parallelism between a 24-105 and a 24-70.
I didn't find this lens to be a major improvement. I like a lens like the Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 G2 a lot better optically. The Sigma 24-105mm F4 OS is considered one of the better lenses with that focal length.
Hi Dustin. I find this comparison a little bit weird. For me these are two totally different lenses. The canon has almost the double of the focal length of the tamron. The sigma art 24-104 should have been the lens to compare.
There's no question that the Sigma would have been the more natural comparison, but I didn't have it on hand. The Tamron, however, I did, and they are within the same price bracket.
3:29 That is an insane assumption you're making between an oem 24-105 f4 and a third-party 24-70 2.8, based on what -- the price point? Well the 35mm 1.4L is probably the same price point on the used market, so why not compare it with that? I'll tell you why, because to do so would be stupid. Similarly, a 24-70 and a 24-105 are very different beasts. The former offers a completely different look, and is better suited to professional work in a contained setting (like a wedding) where the extra stop matters for subject isolation and low light, whereas the 24-105 is a swiss-army knife better suited for non-professional use (like a vacation). Different lens, different application, different feature set, different market. And here you are, comparing the two like it's the most natural thing in the world. Why in the hell are u not comparing it to the sigma 24-105? Also, what is your opinion of the Tamron's performance on my c200? (Save yourself the embarrassment of trying to answer.)
John - insane assumption? Really? You don't think anyone has ever cross-shopped 24-70 and 24-105 lenses before? I've had dozens if not hundreds of people specifically ask me questions about choosing between two such lenses. I've traveled around the world with a 24-70 as my primary lens. I completely understand if YOU don't think that's a fair comparison, but making such broad generalizations is a little short-sighted.
This 2nd version of the canon, must be the worst lens they've ever made. They had the opportunity to actually improve. They didn't. mostly slapped a newer focus motor inside and called it the day.
Canon 24-105 f4L II is just worse even than mk I! I have used mk I and this lens is much better optical quality (checked on A7R II with 42mpx sensor). The best from the lot is Sigma 24-105 f4 Art BUT it's also biggest and heaviest (+200 grams). So to be honest I have no idea what Canon did with this lens because first version was very good (and still is if you compare reviews for example on amazon I vs II)
A bad comparision. An 24-105 is in the 'real world' an other lens than an 24-70. I use an 24-105 many years because of the focal range. Of course is a 24-70 a little better, but I love my 24-105. The extra 35 mm is a great difference in daily use! The new 24-105 is a great lens with correction profiles. The real world is not a flat wall....... Ab van Dalen Imaging
No, the world is not a flat wall, but what I saw on the flat wall I also saw in real world use. I do agree that a 24-105mm lens is definitely incredibly useful (I've owned multiple copies of the original), but that doesn't mean that this was a great upgrade.
If you don't need sharpness, go ahead and buy the Canon 24-105 f4 IS. My goodness, it is just not crispy sharp.. Canon, what is your problem?? PS, nice chair bro.
i understand it is not feasible to arrange or procure all 3 lenses together simultaneously, and spare time out of your busy schedule to make another review, after you've already tested it here at length, and you have many other lenses waiting in queue as well. Thanks.
Great pixel peeping .........and I do appreciate your pixel peeping.... ...BUT...... In the real world of photographing PEOPLE......not one of these microscoped differences are in any way relevant .......and the differences in the real world would not only be invisible, but totally irrelevant ............if I need the lower light abilities, definitely the Tamron......but if I needed the extra 35mm......Canon would be the obvious choice .
I don't agree. I could see the color fringing even on a global level...and that is relevant, as it cannot be fixed without some loss of contrast and crisp edges.
I guess maybe. Here in the UK there's a £300 price difference ( in favour of the Canon ) and also the range is different along with the max aperture. I suppose it's a choice. Personally, I'm deciding between the Sigma 24-104 and the Canon. The Sigma is currently winning ( though I'm not 100% trusting of the brand - but that's me ) but the weight is slightly off-putting. I was really hoping the Canon would come out better in your review but I'm grateful for the reality check. BTW I really do enjoy your reviews and am very grateful for them. Just not convinced about the apples to apples thing in this case :)
I don't know. You're using adjectives like "Shabby" and "Not Great", but I'm thinking that maybe you're nit-picking in ways that I wonder if anyone would in the real world. I've shot photos with an 8 mega pixel camera , blown them up to 36 by 18 and sold them for hundreds of dollars. I'm absolutely certain they wouldn't pass your inspection. but in the real world the ordinary customer isn't using a microscope to inspect a photo they like. When viewing a photo that is 36x18 the viewer is standing 4 to 5 feet away at least. Now of course you always want to create the best image that you can. But I think you owe it to people viewing your reviews to keep it in mind that in many cases the difference between lenses is slight and they should simple get the best they can afford and not loose sleep over it if they can't afford the best that science has to offer.
I shoot events and often have to crop down and every bit of resolutions matters to me and my clients. Being able to capture a photo quickly while it is happening is the most important so primes are out of the questions. Your review and pixle peeping is very useful to me because otherwise I would just buy the cheapest modern lens because without zooming in they all perform decent. Also, it is surprising that this lens didn't perform better since every other recent lens releases from canon are super clear corner to corner.
As the 24-105 F4L is my most used lens I traded up from the Mk 1 when the mark 2 was released. However, I would agree with most of your conclusions and I notice very little difference between the two lenses. One feature I do like on the new lens is the zoom lock, and the IS is a little better but other than that the results I can achieve are no better than they were with the old version.The attractive thing about this lens is its zoom range, and I am happy to sacrifice an F stop in order to have the extra 35mm reach. So I don't regret my decision and I will continue to use this lens frequently.
Enjoy it!
This lens was my first L series lens and I guess compared to the other lenses I was using, it’s definitely worth it, for me at least.
Maybe a seasoned L series user would feel underwhelmed but since this came in a package with my Canon 6D I find it to be amazing for everyday use.
Next lens on my list is the 85 1.4
It's a good lens - just a little underwhelming as an upgrade.
One of ver few review channel in RUclips I take seriously.... thank u
That's high praise. Thanks
As with the first 24-105, there appears to be large variation between copies...which is truly sad, but expected with a "kit lens". I have owned 3 24-105 lenses. Two of the original, and one of the new ones. The first 24-105 I had was an optical disaster...I was not happy with its performance at all, but the focal range was great for travel and it came with my 6D as the kit lens. After I sold it, I picked up a white box version of the lens and it was stellar! Much better at controlling fringe and seemed to be sharper, however I'm shooting with a 5D4 now and not a 5D3/6D. I recently picked up the new 24-105 and it has been really a great lens. I am not noticing any sort of the optical fringing issues you had in the center of the frame after carefully looking over around 800-1000 vacation images. The corners are still a little meh...but a lot of the landscape shots I took at f/8-f/11 look extremely sharp corner-to-corner. So that is good enough for me. Overall, I especially don't like the increase in weight (795 g (1.75 lb) up from 670 g (1.48 lb) on the original) and length...it's actually longer and about as heavy as my 24-70 f/2.8L II (805 g (1.77 lb)), and that makes ZERO sense to me.
It's a good lens. It doesn't make any big leaps in any department, but walking around with a zoom lock and better IS makes this lens worth it for my use. Plus I needed to ditch the original before they dropped in value too much and mine was still in mint condition.
Solid arguments, and I do think that there is real improvements in the IS and even the focus (particularly on DPAF rather than Phase Detect AF).
Side-by-side (just boxed it up and sent out Monday), the new 24-105 has a really good feeling to the IS - it's more solid. While the old model has a smooth floating feel to it. Worth the upgrade? Not at all...Sony's $1400 24-105 will likely embarrass it, but so does its price. It's just a good lens but not great, just like you said.
I have the original 24-105 and had decided to upgrade to the Tamron 24-70 G2, but I had also wondered whether I should at some point trade out the older 24-105 for the new one for crop sensor use. I'm definitely going to hold onto the older one for a while. I really appreciate this review in particular, thanks!
I wish this lens was better, as the usefulness of the FL cannot be denied.
Not sure I agree that the Tamron 24-70 is the correct comparison - I think you're comparing apples with oranges in this instance.
I have the Mk 1 EF 24-105L because of the focal length range, and looking at my pictures over the years, I do shoot quite a lot of images above 70mm. Back in film days I had an EF 28-105 f3.5-f4.5, and again I was using that throughout its range. So I don't think I'd ever choose a 24-70 instead of the 24-105. I think the most interesting comparisons are firstly with the 24-105 STM - not as good a lens by all accounts as the Mk 2 L, but would the better value for money compensate for that? - and secondly with the Sigma 24-105.
(Incidentally, I dug out the old 28-105 lens out the other week and put it on my 6D for an afternoon. You cans some results in this dpreview gallery:
www.dpreview.com/galleries/5215160469/albums/bakewell-28-105 )
Optically the 24-105 STM is pretty close. I used a comparison point that a lot of my viewers are familiar with as I just compared it to a lot of other lenses. It is also close in price. Definitely not an apples to apples comparison, but I personally think it is an alternative.
Thanks for this reply, Dustin, and thanks also for the video (and all the others, of course).
I'm not surprised that the Tamron was the better lens, but I was surprised by the degree to which it was. Listening to your comments during the review I couldn't help wondering if you'd got a bad example of the 24-105. We all hope that there's no sample variation but equally we all know there is - and Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals has demonstrated this.
Of course, I recognise that you can only test (and report on) the lens you've actually got. Roger @ LensRental is probably in a unique position!
Very professional review, love your channel) 👌🏼
Thank you!
Excellent video you said it in a few words the competition has got a lot better, enough said.
What do you think about the choice of EF 24-70 F4 IS and EF 24-105 F4 IS II? Also, do you think the two of them have better picture quality? Thank you！
The 24-70 is slightly better of the two.
Dustin, thank you for another very helpful video. I did have the new Canon 24-105 and I have to say it was not as good as the MKI version, it was very soft. There was also an issue with focusing with a number of copies which Canon would repair for free. As my lens was in the list of serial numbers I returned it for a store credit. Having watched all your videos on the 24-70 lenses, when I can justify it I will get the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 Di VC USD G2.
It's too bad they didn't do a little better job with this lens. A lot of people value the 24-105L because of its excellent focal range and useful image quality.
@@DustinAbbottTWI They did a better job than what you're giving them credit for. My experience has been different than yours. You'd be better off stressing that this review is based on your own experience and may be at odds with a more general consensus (which happens to be the case).
Thanks for this review. Saved me from a costly mistake. I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 and love it, but needed a lens in that 24-100 range. Looks like I’m sticking with Tamron.
Enjoy
best comparison methodology. awesome job.
Thank you
Thank you sir.
You're welcome.
Another great video!
Thank you!
Hit the nail on the head really with this review, the Tamron is certainly the better choice and holds up well against other well known lenses too
Unless someone needs the extra 35mm more than the wider aperture, I see little reason to buy this lens over the Tamron.
It's "certainly the better choice" for YOU, perhaps. Better to not generalize.
Hello Dustin. Thank you for producing another great video. Have you tried the Sigma 24-105mm f4 Art lens? I can whole-heartedly recommend it - it is a great performer that's consistently delivered for me and is my go-to zoom lens. All the very best and keep up your excellent work.
I haven't. I may consider bringing it in as a benchmark against the new Sony 24-105 f/4 G when I do that review.
Thanks for a yet another great review. Dxomarks measures shows quite an improvement in transmission, compared to it's predecessor. Is that something you did notice?
I would only notice that if I had them side by side. I haven't used the original 24-105 for probably five years.
Indeed the mark I was a T5.1 and the mark 2 was a T4.5.
Seems like the 24-105 F4L is still a competitive option to the mk ii even though it's kind of showing its age.
In a lot of ways it is, as is the 24-105 STM
Just got the lens, having had the cheaper STM version which I must say was excellent, I was hesitant at first as it seemed to have a lot of negative response from some users, I'm glad I ignored the reviews, my 24-105 is sharp wide open and beats my STM version which was excellent. Cannot compare to third party junk lens, as Tamron and Sigma have let me down in the past, I will stick with canon.
It's weird how one person on the internet gives an opinion, and then many people repeat that until it becomes accepted as fact. I didn't love this lens, myself, but I'm glad you were courageous enough to make your own choice
@@DustinAbbottTWI You must have had a lemon then.
Your review seems to follow what other have said. I'm ready to buy a f/f canon and I already have a good 24-70mm that I used on my 70D. Part of me wants to get the 24-105mm for a good what around lens that would give me the same approx. focal range as the crop.
Maybe there is a practical limit to how good these lenses can be (and still stay compact). I'm scheduled to review the new Sony 24-105 G lens with the A7R3 and am interested to see if Sony has managed something improved.
I own a Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 and a very old Canon 24-105L. In my view two different zooms. The Canon is a nice travel zoom with a significant larger reach, smaller and lighter. The mark II has a lock mechanism and that is nice because my mark I creeps like mad. Canon L for you! I put some thin tape on the lens and that helps. It is not the sharpest lens, but in a way my 12 years old lens I have used a lot and in some short trips I still do.
It's a hugely useful focal length - no doubt - but with the weight up on the new one its not any different than your Tamron.
Great video Dustin. Could you review the canon 11 - 24 f4?
If I ever get a slow patch, I'll consider it, but there is so much new gear coming out that I'm having a hard time keeping up.
Another good review of a inferior "replacement" for the original. This is an embarrassment to the L designation. Canon dumbed this one down and removed the one and only super UD element of the original and replaced it with a increased price and reduced optical performance. At the same time Sigma is stuffing theirs with exotic glass at superior performance save for the weather sealing.
This one definitely left me underwhelmed.
I may have a deal on a 400 EUR for the original 24-105 & I'm tempted, but after seeing this vid the Tamron looks amazing as well, do you reckon the original is (roughly) closer to the 24-70 in terms of sharpness/crispness etc?
Excellent, thoughtful review as usual, though I might quibble about comparing it to a 24-70. In my youth, I owned a 28-70 Tokina for my Nikon FG and found the 70mm end to be no man’s land focal length, rendering the lens not particularly useful. When I had more money, I bought the 35MM-105MM Nikkor, which I liked. Optically, I do not think it was any better than the Tokina, but the longer focal length allowed me to get better candid portraits.
Therefore, despite its flaws, I find the Canon 24-105 to be the most useful of my Canon L lenses. As you indicate, the Canon 16MM-35MM f4 to be sharper with less distortion, but when you are walking around not knowing what you are going to shoot, there is nothing like the 24-105 IMO. Most people are not going to notice its flaws in a final image.
However, your video confirms my decision not to upgrade to the Version 2. As long as one’s original 24-105 is still working, I see no reason to upgrade.
Fair enough. There's no question that the 24-105mm focal length (on full frame) is incredibly useful. That being said, I went from the original 24-105L to a 24-70 f/2.8 and didn't miss the longer FL.
Canon: Tamron's eating your lunch!
I'd be interested in sales figures and how much market Tamron and Sigma have actually gained. I do think it is significant.
I was wondering .. Would the same 24-105mm lens on a 5D Mark IV vs 5D Mark II look better? Would we see the difference on a computer monitor if it was a better full frame camera with the exact same lens?
I tested it on a 5D Mark IV. It's actually somewhat hard to predict how a lens will respond to being put on a higher resolution body. Sometimes they look better at a pixel level; sometimes worse. I wouldn't predict a big change from what you saw in my review, however.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks. What about things like a better metering system, better ISO performance etc that might compensate for f/4 on a better body? Or is this not really a big deal?
Thanks so much for this review. I am looking for another lens for my Canon 90D. I need something in the range of 20-70 to 20-105. I will not be purchasing the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II. Do you like the Tamron lenses? Appreciate the time you took in making this video.
Probably the most recent 18-135mm from Canon is your best bet.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks. A friend just recommended the Tamron’s 24-70 G2. I just watched your review. Do you still like this lens?
Firstly thank you for this video
Welcome!
Hi Dustin, thank you for this very profound review! I wonder if at the Canon lens there are sample variations in play. I have one and I‘m quiet very satisfied with its image quality. Have a great day! Best wishes, Ralf from nearby Stuttgart
Hi Ralf, the reality is that people have different criteria. I'm coming from the perspective of having evaluated hundreds of lenses, so what I consider weak performance may be just fine for many people with a different perspective.
Dustin Abbott Yes, I agree. I used to photograph on APS-C and from that perspective it’s a huge step considering resolution and image quality even if there are lenses, which on fullframe perform significantly better.
Dear Dustin, I am planning to buy the tamron 24 70 g2. I saw a lot of reviewers saying there would be focus issues. Did you face any? What is your view?
I got good focus results, but the best focus results will be with the more expensive Canon 24-70L II.
As focusing is a very important area. What would you recommend Canon 24 105 ii or tamron g2. I primarily do street and travel. Thank you so much.
Canon 5d iv is the camera I have decided
As always, I really enjoyed your input. I feel as though you have the best and most balanced reviews available without getting too technical.
Thank you very much!
Wonder full analysis but Ii wished you compared the lens to the mk I.
Hi Wesley, my audience would love for me to always compare with every possible combination, but that takes time and money.
Well done, Dustin! These sorts of lenses are not so well suited to my own type of photography. I would really, really appreciate seeing such a solid comparison review of the Canon EF 24mm/2.8 IS USM and either this G2 Tamron or the current f.2.8 Canon L-glass FL range equivalent at 24mm.
Useful, direct comparisons between the often overlooked compact Canon IS primes (which I favor in cross use for my Sony FF body and which also suit my M3, and now M5 mirrorless system) vs. the weighty, commercially spotlighted zoom$ seem to be very rare, to say the least. Thank you!
The three IS primes are all excellent - but unfortunately none of them have really been a big sales success, so we haven't see any more of them. It's a shame.
Thanks Dustin ! Really helpful!
One question , How can I get the new Tamron's lens correction profile in LR??
If you have the current version of Lightroom, I suspect that will be dealt with in an upcoming update automatically.
How would the speed of the Tamron compare in focusing, while shooting video on a canon 80 D
Which Tamron - the 24-70 G2? If so, the video performance is pretty close.
@@DustinAbbottTWI
Yes, thank you for your quick response and great review!
Is it right that the video presenting not really in focus
The video is perfectly in focus. You must have a streaming issue.
Can I use this lens on my canon t6i?
You definitely can.
Excellent review!
Confirmation that my used (Lens Authority) Sigma 24-105 Art was a wise choice to replace my old Canon 24-105.
I also have the original Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 that I use for low light and astrophotography and have found it to be better than the old Canon 24-105.
I'm glad it is working out for you.
William Maxey The sigma has too much vignetting for me.
The Dude, Interesting. I have found my Sigma 24-105 f/4.0 to have slightly less vignetting than my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8.
Easily removed with either lens in post.
Hahahah sitting on the couch like a boss! How do you compare it to the Sigma 24-105
I actually haven't used the Sigma. I might bring it in when I review the new Sony 24-105 G, though.
Dustin Abbott Alright thank you for always answering me. I just got in the mail yesterday the tamron 45mm 1.8 I am very excited to finally have a high end prime lens again! I am going to use it tonight for the Halloween parade in NYC.
Aw, Dustin....I thought you were photography-educated enough to avoid a common misconception perpetuated throughout the net: A 24-70 is not comparable to a 24-105, because those extra 35mm you so casually mention are what "makes" the 24-105 range. A 24-105 is a true "walkaround" lens on FF, whereas a 24-70 is an events-portraits-documentary one. This said I completely agree with your evaluation of the 24-105 II, which I also tested. Not having a superlative true-walkaround tool is the only thing that I regret about my Canon EF system. It helps a bit that my copy of the version I is a very, very good one.
I'm speaking from my personal experience. I went from the 24-105L (Mark 1) to the first generation Tamron 24-70 VC. I thought at first I would keep them both for the reason you said, but I stopped reaching for the Canon and eventually sold it.
Yes, personal experiences are important and not all photographers use a zoom lens in the same way.
If I check my LR library, for instance, I find that my most used FL on the 24-105 is 24mm but the second most used is 105mm and over 30% of all shots have been made in that 35mm range from 70 to 105mm. Those are shots that could not have been made with a 24-70 or that would have required a lens change.
But, irrespectively, of personal experience, lenses are tools and tools cater for specific requirements.
I always find it odd when users that would never dream of saying "the 12-24 f/4 from brand X is quite poor but that's not an issue because their 16-35 f/2.8 is stellar" have no problem making a similar parallelism between a 24-105 and a 24-70.
Were these pictures taken with canon 6d mk2?
Yes they were.
Could you recommend a 24 to 105 for Canon EOS 6d mk2
I didn't find this lens to be a major improvement. I like a lens like the Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 G2 a lot better optically. The Sigma 24-105mm F4 OS is considered one of the better lenses with that focal length.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I have the Sigma Art 24 to 105 the end to end performance is not impressive the barrel + vignette is notable
If you want upgraded IQ, go for the Tamron, then.
Thank you
Hi Dustin. I find this comparison a little bit weird.
For me these are two totally different lenses. The canon has almost the double of the focal length of the tamron.
The sigma art 24-104 should have been the lens to compare.
There's no question that the Sigma would have been the more natural comparison, but I didn't have it on hand. The Tamron, however, I did, and they are within the same price bracket.
3:29 That is an insane assumption you're making between an oem 24-105 f4 and a third-party 24-70 2.8, based on what -- the price point? Well the 35mm 1.4L is probably the same price point on the used market, so why not compare it with that? I'll tell you why, because to do so would be stupid. Similarly, a 24-70 and a 24-105 are very different beasts. The former offers a completely different look, and is better suited to professional work in a contained setting (like a wedding) where the extra stop matters for subject isolation and low light, whereas the 24-105 is a swiss-army knife better suited for non-professional use (like a vacation). Different lens, different application, different feature set, different market. And here you are, comparing the two like it's the most natural thing in the world. Why in the hell are u not comparing it to the sigma 24-105? Also, what is your opinion of the Tamron's performance on my c200? (Save yourself the embarrassment of trying to answer.)
John - insane assumption? Really? You don't think anyone has ever cross-shopped 24-70 and 24-105 lenses before? I've had dozens if not hundreds of people specifically ask me questions about choosing between two such lenses. I've traveled around the world with a 24-70 as my primary lens. I completely understand if YOU don't think that's a fair comparison, but making such broad generalizations is a little short-sighted.
Wow that was totally un-called for.
nice
This 2nd version of the canon, must be the worst lens they've ever made. They had the opportunity to actually improve. They didn't. mostly slapped a newer focus motor inside and called it the day.
Canon 24-105 f4L II is just worse even than mk I! I have used mk I and this lens is much better optical quality (checked on A7R II with 42mpx sensor).
The best from the lot is Sigma 24-105 f4 Art BUT it's also biggest and heaviest (+200 grams). So to be honest I have no idea what Canon did with this lens because first version was very good (and still is if you compare reviews for example on amazon I vs II)
I think which lens is better may be copy specific, but there's no question that this lens was not a big leap forward.
A bad comparision. An 24-105 is in the 'real world' an other lens than an 24-70. I use an 24-105 many years because of the focal range. Of course is a 24-70 a little better, but I love my 24-105. The extra 35 mm is a great difference in daily use!
The new 24-105 is a great lens with correction profiles. The real world is not a flat wall....... Ab van Dalen Imaging
No, the world is not a flat wall, but what I saw on the flat wall I also saw in real world use. I do agree that a 24-105mm lens is definitely incredibly useful (I've owned multiple copies of the original), but that doesn't mean that this was a great upgrade.
Which is better between Canon 24-70mm f4L IS and 24--105mm f4L IS II vesrion?
Dustin Which one u choose between these two lens in this price?
Vs the Tamron 24-70? I would choose the Tamron. Better optically, and I value the larger aperture over the extra reach. YMMV
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for your valuable opinion..
W.O.W.
:)
If you don't need sharpness, go ahead and buy the Canon 24-105 f4 IS. My goodness, it is just not crispy sharp.. Canon, what is your problem??
PS, nice chair bro.
LOL. Fortunately the RF version was definitely better.
it would be great to compare it to the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 ART and Sony 24-105mm f/4G (when it is out on sale/rent)
Perhaps, but I probably won't do that comparison due to none of those lenses save the Sony being new (I do have that scheduled in for review).
i understand it is not feasible to arrange or procure all 3 lenses together simultaneously, and spare time out of your busy schedule to make another review, after you've already tested it here at length, and you have many other lenses waiting in queue as well. Thanks.
YOU HAVE 29,999 SUBS ! with my subs its going to be 30,000 !
Well that is pretty cool!
Great pixel peeping .........and I do appreciate your pixel peeping.... ...BUT...... In the real world of photographing PEOPLE......not one of these microscoped differences are in any way relevant .......and the differences in the real world would not only be invisible, but totally irrelevant ............if I need the lower light abilities, definitely the Tamron......but if I needed the extra 35mm......Canon would be the obvious choice .
I don't agree. I could see the color fringing even on a global level...and that is relevant, as it cannot be fixed without some loss of contrast and crisp edges.
Poor lens. I'm really baffled by the comparison though
Really? Similar price, focal length overlap, and the choice between f/2.8 or a larger focal range. It seems like a choice a lot of people make.
I guess maybe. Here in the UK there's a £300 price difference ( in favour of the Canon ) and also the range is different along with the max aperture. I suppose it's a choice. Personally, I'm deciding between the Sigma 24-104 and the Canon. The Sigma is currently winning ( though I'm not 100% trusting of the brand - but that's me ) but the weight is slightly off-putting. I was really hoping the Canon would come out better in your review but I'm grateful for the reality check. BTW I really do enjoy your reviews and am very grateful for them. Just not convinced about the apples to apples thing in this case :)
I don't know. You're using adjectives like "Shabby" and "Not Great", but I'm thinking that maybe you're nit-picking in ways that I wonder if anyone would in the real world. I've shot photos with an 8 mega pixel camera , blown them up to 36 by 18 and sold them for hundreds of dollars. I'm absolutely certain they wouldn't pass your inspection. but in the real world the ordinary customer isn't using a microscope to inspect a photo they like. When viewing a photo that is 36x18 the viewer is standing 4 to 5 feet away at least. Now of course you always want to create the best image that you can. But I think you owe it to people viewing your reviews to keep it in mind that in many cases the difference between lenses is slight and they should simple get the best they can afford and not loose sleep over it if they can't afford the best that science has to offer.
I don't disagree, which is why I compared it to a lens that costs essentially the same but, I feel, offers better performance to the customer.
I shoot events and often have to crop down and every bit of resolutions matters to me and my clients. Being able to capture a photo quickly while it is happening is the most important so primes are out of the questions. Your review and pixle peeping is very useful to me because otherwise I would just buy the cheapest modern lens because without zooming in they all perform decent.
Also, it is surprising that this lens didn't perform better since every other recent lens releases from canon are super clear corner to corner.