 |
|
|
three60
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Exceptionally flexible, good size/balance, IS works well, good image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit pricey, f/4 a bit slow at times, distortion at 24mm
|
|
|
I purchased this lens with the 5D about 6 months ago. Like many other people, it was a toss up between the 24-105 f/4L and 24-70 f.2.8L. A number of years ago, I used to shoot a fair amount of sports and back then, f/2.8 was absolutely critical. Nowadays, I shoot more travel, portraits, candids and landscapes and stopping action is a bit less critical. I also wanted something a bit smaller and lighter for travel.
I decided to give the 24-105 a shot knowing the IS would give me a 2-3 extra stops to compensate for the lack of f/2.8. It's also a bit more compact than the 2.8. I have to say, it's the most versatile lens I've ever used. On its first outing, I took it to shoot a naval shipyard, using a variety of focal lengths, lighting conditions inside and out, white balance, you name it. I was quite impressed with the quality of images I got, from ISO 100-3200.
From a sharpness perspective, it's up there. I'd say a hair below the best of Canon's primes, but for a zoom it's good. The zooming action is smooth and it focuses very quickly and quietly under most conditions.
At 24mm, there is noticeable distortion and a bit of vignetting. That is to be expected and I don't necessarily blame the lens. Zooms have some trade-offs and these are two I'm willing to live with for the flexibility. They are also both easily correctable in post-processing.
If I were shooting sports or weddings, I would probably opt for the 24-70, but the 24-105 complements my style of shooting very well. Two thumbs up.
|
|
 Jan 5, 2008
|
|
Daniel Gushue
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $979.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Very useful zoom range on a full frame camera, IS works great, weather sealing, useful lens hood, great lens for the price
|
|
Cons:
|
A little heavy, mine has serious vignette at wide angles
|
|
|
I originally purchased this lens for use on a 1.6 crop sensor Canon Digital Rebel XT. The lens was a great performer in every way – sharp wide open at 24mm, fast focusing, good zoom range, and spectacular image stabilization. Now that I own a Canon 5D, I have noticed the lens has very significant vignette, which is especially apparent at wide angles. I haven’t noticed many other comments about vignette with this lens, so I wonder if I have a bad copy.
The build quality otherwise is great, as all Canon L lenses seem to be. Good weather sealing, fast focusing, excellent IS system, and a convenient 77mm filter size are all important features to me. The lens hood is a good design and works well.
Aside from the vignette issue, I would strongly recommend this lens. On a full frame camera this lens has a very usable zoom range, but on a crop camera the vignette is not an issue. Trade offs?
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2008
|
|
peterchan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,196.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light weight, and sturdy build quality, nice lens hood.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, zoom range is a little bit short. They should make this zoom range up to 24-150mm.
|
|
|
Excellent lens to have. Don't have to switch lens and have tons of dusts in your camera. Image stabilizer worked up to 1/15th, I tried with 2 copies and that is as far as they go. Don't believe people telling you, it can go up to 1 second. It is impossible to achieved.
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2008
|
|
peterchan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lighter weight than 24-70. Very sharp way shaper than 24-70 that I own. Can hand held up to 1/15th with stabilizer. I like the flower shape hood, very nice looking compared to 24-70. Good contrast and color, and very good iQ. It is black and not white in color. It has the red seals, very pro like.
|
|
Cons:
|
People say you can use image stabilizer up to 1/3", I tested out two exact same lens, and maximum it can go is 1/15th. 24-105 is a little bit short of a range, I preferred it to be a bit longer like the 28-135mm. Image stabilizer is noisy.
|
|
|
This lens is superb in term of sharpness, color and contrast. It is a bit short for a zoom lens. I preferred to have a little longer reach. Not very cheap lens when it first comes out, now this lens has come down in price. The build quality is really good, it comes with a nice hood. This truly is a general walk around lens, with a little bit short of reach or else it would be perfect. I hate switching lens around because of the dusts and I always misses shots. This lens hadn't disappointed me so far.
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2008
|
|
John Mangan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,024.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
That big decision: The 24-70 ("The Brick") or the newer 24-105 IS. I have researched for months and purchased both. The 24-105 is equal or better in everyway except moving objects in low light. The 10oz savings alone won me over. Purchase the 24-105 and then RENT the 24-70. You then will confirm you made the right choice. "........ optical quality of the Canon L-Series Lenses and a widely used range of focal lengths, the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is one of the best and most popular Canon general purpose lenses made. The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens quickly became one of my favorites. If I had only one lens, this would be the one." The-Digital-Picture-Review.com
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2008
|
|
adamo99
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 370
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
good range, good AF performance in ample light outdoors, IS a bonus at long end.
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality not up to par (compared to 24-70L and 70-200 2.8L), horrid(!) AF performance in low light
|
|
|
I brought this lens along on a recent trip instead of my 24-70L (mounted on a 1DmkII), as I didn't want to bring an entire bag full of lenses. While the lighter weight is nice, the build quality feels almost flimsy in comparison to the 24-70.
Outdoors in daylight, the lens is great! The range is fantastic, and the image quality is excellent. When the sun goes down, and you have to shoot in lighting conditions that are less than ideal, this lens really disappoints. It hunted constantly for focus, even during a stage show lit up by more than a dozen stage lights.
I far prefer the build quality, and low-light AF performance of the 24-70L.
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2008
|
|
albertino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 23, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $110,000.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
dotato di ampia escursione focale e stabilizzazione. In termini di nitidezza non lo classifico eccellente
|
|
Cons:
|
Soffre di vignettatura e distorsione non indifferente a 24mm -affetto da aberrazione cromatica-
|
|
|
Non merita la classificazione di un obiettivo L
decisamente inferiore al 24-70 2,8 -ha il vantaggio della stabilizzazione e maggiore escursione focale ma la nitidezza non la puoi nč inventare nč elaborare
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2007
|
|
Ludwigia
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1609
|
|
Review Date: Dec 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $920.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Reasonable weight, sharp, IS work well
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I am very happy with this lens. I find a great walk around lens and the IS is a real benefit. I have quite a few lenses and this is the one I reach for most often.
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2007
|
|
Povilas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 23, 2007
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range! Small, light, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
A pain in the neck to focus in low light! CA visible in particular situations, a bit soft at f4
|
|
|
I have rented this lens to photograph my cousins wedding. It is perfect on a sunny day. However...
When it became darker the lens started to refuse to focus. Under the clouds the CA was visible. Actually, the bride's white wedding dress even looked a little bit blueish. I have switched to Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II for couple of shots and it did not show any blueish whatever... F4 was a usual condition and the pictures are not very sharp. At least when compared to me 50mm.
The focus problem might be related to my entry-level D350. However, the color distortion was a bit strange.
My verdict: choose the right product for the occasion. If you want a good walkaround lens for your vacation - this one should be one of your best choices.
For indoor shooting and important events like wedding - choose something faster (f2.8 at least) and with better optical quality.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2007
|
|
Andro Lesaca
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 26, 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A good walkaround lens. IS works really well.
|
|
Cons:
|
f4 is tad bit too slow for some of my needs.
|
|
|
I was choosing between this lens and the 24-70 f2.8 (the "brick"). I chose this one for its extra reach and the IS. If the 24-70 had IS i would have gone that way. the EFS 18-55 f2.8 IS was also very attractive, what stopped me was the fact that it was an EFS. (I'm hoping to go full frame in the near future.) And also all the reviews I've read about it being a dust-sucker.
I'm not a pro, but I enjoy shooting events and weddings for friends. Most weddings take place indoors, and I really feel the limitation of f4. Often wish that I had gotten the f2.8, as I like to shoot in available light as much as I can. On second thought, available light shooting is still best done with a large apreture-d prime. So, a good two camera set up would be this lens on one body with a flash and a bright prime lens on the other body. Which is what I do. That brings my "brick"-envy to close to zero.
Don't get me wrong though, this lens is a beaut! Especially for outdoor photography in daylight. I've taken it on long drives to the countryside and the output I get is nothing less than spectacular. My walkaround used to be the 17-85 IS. I was satisfied with that lens for a long time, until I started using this one. Now my 17-85 IS hardly sees the light of day.
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2007
|
|
troutmask
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 22, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
large range, light and cheap (ish)
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF, f4, not very sharp,
|
|
|
I recently borrowed one of these to use for a few days as I required the extra range from my usual 28mm - 70mm and also thought it would be interesting to see what the IS was like. It was the worse L lens I have ever used. I ended up using a 100mm macro and swapping with my usual zoom. The IS is pretty pointless on a lens like this and the extra stop of light is really missed. I can see why this sort of lens would be popular on consumer cameras but giving it the L rating implies it is a pro lens, f4 is just not good enough on a 100mm lens.
Several of the pictures did not appear as sharp as I would expect and the AF was considerably slowed by the loss of light. In fact it was a lot slower AF than the 300mm f4..so it isn't just the loss of the stop.
Now this may have been a bad copy, but I would strong urge anyone considering this lens to think again. The 24mm - 70mm f2.8 is around the same price. If you need something longer then get a decent prime or save for the 70mm - 200mm f2.8 IS is very usful, but not as important as having a decent bit of glass that actually has a usable aperture.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2007
|
|
bill savitz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 59
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $954.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very useful range. Excellent build quality. Colors. Contrast. Sharp. IS
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far.
|
|
|
I struggled for months and months over whether to buy this lens or the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 or the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. In the end I felt the 24-105 had a more useful range for me than either of the other two, and that was more important to me than the wider aperture. I also felt the 24-105 had a much better build quality than the 17-55.
I don't regret my decision at all. I'm very pleased with the results I get with this lens on my 30D. When I first got it I took it into the city for the day and got lots of good street and candid shots. It works well for landscapes too. I think this is the most versatile lens you can buy for a Canon body. This and a fast prime make the ideal light weight travel kit, in my opinion, which is what I was looking for.
I also wanted a lens that could be used on a FF camera, should I ever get one. With the 5D replacement just around the corner, that could happen sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2007
|
|
woodburyb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, color, contrast, range, better IS, and fast, accurate focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Initially soft, I sent it to Canon who indicated there was a lens element out of alignment.
|
|
|
I bought this to replace my very good copy of the 28-135mm IS, and was initially unhappy the 24-105mm wasn't as sharp. After the fix all was right. I'm happy with the range at the wide end (my complaint with the 24-135) and it's sufficient at the long end for my needs. This coupled with my 10-22mm covers nearly all my normal shooting needs--and I have a 100-300mm for additional, and rarely used, reach.
I also like the heft and build quality, and am very happy with resulting images from this lens, I have less PS work to do. Other than landscape shooting, this lens is on my camera 90% of the time and overall I am very happy with this lens.
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2007
|
|
jeffschabowski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,059.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Good weight/IS/well made.
|
|
Cons:
|
Way too soft focus for a grand/AF hunts terribly in low light/F4 just too slow.
|
|
|
I bought this lens from B&H and spent the last two weeks shooting it against the 17-85EFS which it was to replace. It had better contrast and color, but the low light AF hunting and lack of tack-sharp wasn't 500.oo better than the 17-85EFS ( I must have the only 17-85 worth its salt).
B&H is changing it out for the 24-70 2.8 as I write this. We'll see how that one shoots out.
I have to admitt that I'm peeved about the hit or miss quality of the modern lens. It makes it hard to buy one. Do I spend the extra cash and buy locally, where I can test and reject on site, or take my chances and buy snailmail (shipping it back and forth for weeks) or forget the whole thing altogether and use what I have. I thought that manufs would have this lens building thing down pat by now! They're just glass,electronics and machined parts!
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2007
|
|
Jonno Walmsley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 21, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
great in so many ways
|
|
Cons:
|
f2.8 woud be nice, but hey, it has IS so that'll do i guess.
|
|
|
Great lens. Like everyone i tossed up between the 24-70 and this one. Eventually range won the debate for me.
Gets a little soft around the edges when it's wide open, but i can't really critisize it other than that. It's light, fast enough (for me) and all in all quite sharp in 99% of the things i use it for.
I would definitely recommend this lens, but the 24-70 f2.8 is worth considering also. Just figure out exactly which features you need and what you want to use it for and you should be able to choose between them....or buy both...
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2007
|
|
Maury
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 126
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Please delete any more reviews of this lens to my e-mai
Thanks
|
|
Cons:
|
Please delete any more reviews of this lens to my e-mai
Thanks
|
|
|
Please delete any more reviews of this lens to my e-mai
Thanks
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
509
|
861002
|
May 10, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
86% of reviewers
|
$1,518.30
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.49
|
8.02
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
