[Brightcolours]

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.martinbaileyphotography.com/...dcast-548/

[Klaus]

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


http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-...ec/mtf.png


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

[Klaus]

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

[Klaus]

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

[Rover]

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

Then TDP also had a defective unit?

[Klaus]

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.

[Brightcolours]

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/c...le_images/

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon...otos-29777

[Klaus]

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

[Klaus]

<div>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 ...).
</div>

<div> 
</div>

<div>Will get a new sample tomorrow.
</div>

[Rover]

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...