• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS II review coming ...


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#21 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 21 November 2016 - 02:33 PM

I wonder what the improvements over the version one are? Or is it one of those "Silver ring added for a touch of luuuxury!" updates? :)

https://www.martinba...ew-podcast-548/



#22 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 22 November 2016 - 08:14 AM

Well, the original Canon MTFs are already soso at 24mm.

http://cweb.canon.jp...mg/spec/mtf.png

I reckon we'll now see Photozone MTFs are are a bit closer to what Canon is providing.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#23 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 22 November 2016 - 11:11 PM

Focus shift ... isn't helping ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#24 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 November 2016 - 10:42 AM

I'm beginning to suspect that the lens is defective.
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#25 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 23 November 2016 - 11:16 AM

I'm beginning to suspect that the lens is defective.

Then TDP also had a defective unit?



#26 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 November 2016 - 11:58 AM

I've a hard time to believe that the lens is that bad.

I can see a certain centering issue specifically at 105mm but it's not too bad by normal standards.

The outer field is worse than on the mk 1 there.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#27 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 23 November 2016 - 01:53 PM

http://www.photograp.../sample_images/

https://www.ephotozi...le-photos-29777



#28 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 November 2016 - 11:29 PM

So at photographyblog the results are as bad (interpolated from their 5D IV results).


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#29 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 November 2016 - 12:11 AM

Ok, I'm rolling back the review of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS II. Centering defect - although I think there's more to it (IS group ? I hate image stabilizers ...).
 
Will get a new sample tomorrow.

Chief Editor
photozone.de

#30 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 24 November 2016 - 07:13 AM

Between this and DPReview's *ahem* less than enthusiastic review of the Sigma 12-24 Art, looks like the testing business has not been all roses and candy lately...



#31 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 24 November 2016 - 07:46 AM

Manufacturers need to keep the testers awake and kicking. Bad headlines are better than no headlines. With bad headlines the *cough* fanboys are willing to defend their decisions which always gives a view, that not all is crap from a certain manufacturer.  :D



#32 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 November 2016 - 08:18 AM

Will get a new sample tomorrow
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#33 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 November 2016 - 02:45 AM

2nd sample .... massive back-focusing ...

 

Took  a quick shot this morning. The focus indicator was way beyond infinity ...

Not that it overly matters for the formal lab test. 


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#34 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 301 posts

Posted 25 November 2016 - 09:19 AM

Would the minimum focus distance affected as well from that?



#35 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 November 2016 - 09:26 AM

Well, I will try to compensate that via AF micro-adjust tonight. Let's see how it goes ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#36 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 25 November 2016 - 12:19 PM

I believe Canon does not use hard stops at infinity for USM lenses.  They claim that focus is reached when you over shoot the focus then back off.  Even most MF lenses go beyond infinity.  A hard stop at infinity is very nice to have though.  My EF 50/1.8 Mark I hard stops at infinity.  It is not USM.  Neither is the EF 50/1.4 (although it does say ultrasonic on it).  I wonder if it has the infinity hard stop?



#37 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 November 2016 - 02:20 PM

Focusing beyond infinity makes sense due to thermal effects on the glass.

But not that much.

 

The 2nd sample isn't really better ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#38 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 November 2016 - 03:38 PM

Get a Sigma...

 

:D



#39 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 25 November 2016 - 06:14 PM

So can we safely say the new lens is a turd?

Get a Sigma...

 

:D

The Sigma has already been tested in both Nikon and Canon mounts (though obviously not on the 5DSR).



#40 Reinier

Reinier

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • LocationThe village of Monster in Westland

Posted 27 November 2016 - 03:44 PM

How much % of new lenses suffer from this centering defect? You hear it quite often, I myself had the same problem years ago with the 70-200mm F/4.0 L (non-IS). I send it to the Canon repair centre, here in the Netherlands and they said it was fine. Which is was most definitely not.

 

So, how come the experts at Canon just don't see it?

 

 

Kind regards,

Reinier






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de