C300: New Canon 24-105 F/4 IS II

Eric Coughlin

Eric Coughlin

Veteran
So who among C-series users is thinking to get the new Canon 24-105 F/4 IS II?

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/08/...ted-24-105mm-f4l-is-and-16-35mm-f2-8l-lenses/


I use the current Canon 24-105 a whole lot for doc and event work, but I'm also planning on getting the Canon 18-80 T/4.4 once it's out. So, once I have that, I'm not sure how much I'd use a 24-105 anymore. I'd still plan to keep my current one, but I'm just not sure if it'd be worth the upgrade, so I'll have to see how much I still end up using the 24-105.

The new one is supposed to be sharper. I haven't heard yet if the light transmission when zooming in is improved. IS is supposed to be better.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
I'm also planning on getting the Canon 18-80 T/4 once it's out.
Click to expand...

Correction: T/4.4

I note that because, like most, I am disappointed in the speed of the lens. T/4 is bad enough. It's actually a T/4.4 which is even worse.

As for the updated 24-105mm, when I saw the headline "Updated Canon 24-105mm announced." I was naive enough to have the hope that it was going to be updated to a f/2.8. I was hoping that it had been re-engineered.

You could always use the Canon 24-105mm with a speed booster and it then becomes a much faster - oh wait, you're on a "C-series" and not on an Fs7. Well that sucks for you. :tongue:

Ribbing aside, I don't see where there is much point in your acquiring the updated 24-105mm if you know you are going to purchase the 18-80mm and you already own the series I 24-105mm. It isn't as if the updated 24-105mm is par focal or faster overall. Seems the improvements are minimal and not enough to warrant an upgrade in addition to acquisition of the 18-80mm. My hunch is that once you have the 18-80mm the 25-105mm, first version or second version, will never come out of the bag. You'll fall in love with having a servo and with having a par focal lens. Either of the 24-105mm's will be painful to use after being on the 18-80mm Cine servo.
 
JPNola said:
Correction: T/4.4

I note that because, like most, I am disappointed in the speed of the lens. T/4 is bad enough. It's actually a T/4.4 which is even worse.
Click to expand...
Right. Edited and fixed in original post.

T/4.4, f/4. Compared to the current Canon 24-105 f/4 which is a T/5.1 according to DXOmark, and zoomed in it looses around a stop of light, which I'd guess makes it around T/6.7, so considerably worse than the 18-80 T/4.4 which stays a T/4.4 when zoomed in. Yet, the 24-105 T/5.1-6.7 is still fast enough to be useful a lot for the way I shoot. I own a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II as well and don't use it nearly as often.

I also own a Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8 (f/2.5) lens, and for run n gun work I'd much rather have a T/4.4 lens if T/4.4 means the lens is a lot smaller and lighter, and doesn't require lens support, as is the case with the 18-80.


C-series cams are generally regarded as better in low light than the FS7/Fs-5, so I'd guess that balances out not having the Speedbooster in terms of low light, plus additional lens mounts is one more point of failure, need for support, etc. In terms of depth of field, f/4-5.6 is what I generally shoot at for doc work when I have enough light even if I'm using an f/2.8 lens.

The C100 Mark II is pretty clean up to 4000 ISO (shooting Wide DR), which at f/4 (or even T/6.7) is enough to get proper exposure for most trade shows, interiors of houses, corporate buildings, etc. For particularly dark times such as outside at night, or a wedding reception when the lights are dimmed down (assuming I don't want to use my own lighting for whatever reason), then I pull out the faster lenses, but that's the minority of general shooting.
 
Last edited:
I will agree with post #2. f/4 at any "standard" focal length doesn't allow me to do the best work I can which is, 90% indoors and under task lighting, 12k ISO. New kit lens? Not interested.
 
I hope its a lot better than the older 24-105 because the current lens is a dog IMHO. One of my clients has one with their camera and when I shoot with their camera or use it on multi-camera shoots, I am forced to use that lens. Too slow for much of my work, it is not that sharp, even on video, much less stills and it has horrible barrel distortion at the wider end. Yuck. I like my 18-135 STM IS much better even though it is a little slower. I am going in the opposite direction, my new working pair of lenses will be the 17-55 2.8 paired with the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I am going to be shooting BTS for a new/old TV series that is coming back and it will be a lot of BTS on indoor sets. 2.8 will be a must if I don't want to run my cameras over ISO 1600, which I dont.

The 18-80 almost has me sold but when I look at the money it will take, my two lens set will perform better for me. 80mm is not long enough focal length for a lot of my work (I am supposed to a fly in the wall and often get my most compelling BTS shots at 150-200mm) and T4.4 is going to be to slow for this upcoming project. It will largely be available light, sometimes which is lit sets where it would shine, but it is often off set near video village where it is usually pretty dark. My two lens package will cost less than half of the 18-80. It's a tough choice but I have to be logical and it's not worth it for more than twice the money to only gain servo and perhaps a bit better quality but losing everything above 80mm in focal length and losing F2.8 speed. if I were going back to Africa to shoot exteriors, the 18-80 would the workhorse for day to day coverage but I would still have to strap on the 70-200 quite often. If I were shooting a reality or docum reality show, I think the 18-80 would be killer. But for what I shoot mostly, need faster and longer focal length.
 
Last edited:
control4userguy said:
I will agree with post #2. f/4 at any "standard" focal length doesn't allow me to do the best work I can which is, 90% indoors and under task lighting, 12k ISO. New kit lens? Not interested.
Click to expand...

The Canon 18-80mm would have been a huge game-changer had it been a f/2.8 lens.

I have no doubt that it is a better lens than the Sony 28-135 f/4. But at over twice the price that is a big jump in cost to still be limited to a f/4. ( or T/4.4 ) If I purchased one it would be primarily for the 18mm wide end.

I think we can all agree that neither the Sony 28-135mm or the Canon Cine 18-80mm is THE s35mm zoom lens that everyone is waiting for. Granted, the Canon Cine 18-80mm does bring us closer. Even were one able to afford its $26k price tag, the Canon Cine 17-120mm is a large lens. Too large for me. ( the new Fuji 20-120mm is massive as well ). I think many of us would gladly sacrifice the 100-120mm portion of that lens were it smaller in size. A Canon 17-100mm f/2.95 servo that is shorter in physical length, that is around the size of the Sony 28-135mm, would have done just fine.
 
I'm interested in the new 24-105, but not for the C-series.

On my FS700 (and whatever FS cam I upgrade to when I decide to) with Speedbooster it makes a handy 2.8 zoom with a very respectable wide angle coverage. The things I'd like to see fixed are the barrel distortion at wide end, and the darkening and contrast loss at the long end. Extra sharpness would be good too, though not essential. The zoom lock will be a handy feature too, but I'll wait to see the reviews before I rush out and get one.
 
JPNola said:
Correction: T/4.4

You could always use the Canon 24-105mm with a speed booster and it then becomes a much faster - oh wait, you're on a "C-series" and not on an Fs7. Well that sucks for you. :tongue:
Click to expand...

Wait, why can't we use a speedbooster on the C-series? Would be great if we could.
 
I use my 24-105 solely for outdoor daytime shoots, and it does a solid job. It's my go-to in those situations, but the few times I've been forced to use it for indoor work, I've always been disappointed. I stick with a 2.8 or faster now for such shoots.

I've never had a huge problem with the 24-105 that many ops seem to complain about, other than it losing some light when you go in tight. Even that is just a minor annoyance. Love the images it produces in daylight. Great lens.
 
I'm really hoping that the new 24-105 is vastly improved. My main problems with it was the early generation IS, the light loss while zooming at reduced apertures, and the noticeably bad distortion at wide angles. The IQ was adequate for my needs. Once I realized the joys of using the 18-135 STM, it complete replaced my 24-105L for it's regular use as a run & gun event lens. I've been meaning to try out the new 18-135 USM with the rocker zoom attachment. There is so little information about that lens.
 
cpreston said:
...the joys of using the 18-135 STM...
Click to expand...

True, the 18-135 is a great kit lens for those on the run. It's sharper than a few of my L lenses at any given stop. I'm glad I chose that over the 1G 24-105 that did come bundled with the C100/2. The PZ-E1 equipped 18-135 reminds me of a Canon lens I had in the 80s- FD 35-70 SST autofocus. Consumer junk...
 
I'm also looking at the new 24-105 as this lens is my main lens for use on the FS7. Not sure it's worth to upgrade as very little has been shown so far about the performance.
 
I absolutely hate my 24-105 vI, mainly because of the transmission loss. Never is tack sharp. I plan to get the 17-55 after having read the BTS article of the DP on Cartel Land, he did the whole shoot on that one lens. All the beauty shots and high end b-roll were done by another DP, Matt Porwoll.
 
I am looking into that one as my wide/runnin around lens if/when I get a C100. Supposed to be very nice for a non-L lens. They're like $500 on ebay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top