 |
|
|
george malamis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 776
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $959.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Relatively light, nice focal length coverage for a general purpose zoom, nice color, contrast and very sharp, very useful IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
You could only make it better if it was a 2.8
|
|
|
|
|
 Oct 19, 2007
|
|
Maury
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 126
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
No longer interested in reviews of this product.
Thanks
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2007
|
|
Erwandy Ikram
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 6, 2007
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $970.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp!, Built Like a Tank, IS That Works, Sharp Wide Open!
|
|
Cons:
|
f4 Limitation. Canon Quality Control - 24-105 copies suffered from sharpness variance
|
|
|
Finally I can give this lovely piece of glass a 10.
This is my second copy. The first one I purchased (brand new) was a total dissapointment. Sharpness was below my 1.8L 50mm f4 standard. So I traded that one off to finance a replacement.
I was about to pull the trigger on a 24-70 f2.8L but somehow managed to get myself enticed enough for a second look at 24-105mm. This time it's a used unit from ShutterBlade (eBay dealer).
True enough my faith has been rewarded. This copy is super sharp even wide open at f4. So sharp that I could hardly tell the difference when shot at f5.6 and f8 (of course f4 will be used when I need bokeh and f8 for wider DOF).
I was content enough that I didn't regret selling off my f1.8 50mm II because I do not see any need to keep it now that my 24-105 offers even sharper images.
(With my 40D, the 24-105 + Standard Picture Style (no enhancement with sharpness) is sharper than my 50mm + Sharpness Set at 6)
This copy is a keeper for sure.
PS:
I am still not happy with Canon Quality Control. They should have paid more attention when releasing lens copies to the market. Perhaps a re-calibration would help but it is still a major hassle for most users to send them back for that
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2007
|
|
dan727
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 714
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $979.00
|
|
Pros:
|
nice build quality, sharpness (expected of an L lense), color/saturationis excellent. Weighs just a tad bit more than the Tamron 28-75 I replaced.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not f/2.8... and for a $1000 lens I would expect something a little nicer that a pouch to store the lens in. I've bought $200 sigma lenses that have nice padded cases!
|
|
|
As yo will notice when you buy this lens... there is a struggle to decide between this and the 24-70L. Sorry I cannot help with that struggle, although I was in the same boat.
I don't do weddings but do a lot of outdoor portraits. So this lens made sense for me because of the range. The IS is handy but that is not what sold me on this lens. I like it because it is also a little smaller and lighter than the 24-70L.
After using it over the weekend and taking quite a few pictures for the local cheerleading squads... I think I made the right choice. Excellent color and saturation and very sharp pictures. This lens has definitely reduced the number of photos I need to post process.
So far I am really liking this lens. As usual with me I regretted ordering this lens over the 24-70L once I pushed the button. But not so much now I have it in my hands.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2007
|
|
dan727
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 714
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $985.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazed at the sharpness and color/saturation. Build quality excellent. Not much heavier than my old Tamron 28-75.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not f/2.8. This is a $1000 lens... I paid $149 for a Sigma 70-300 that came with a very nice padded case. Instead you get a pouch.
|
|
|
I was torn between this lens and the slightly more expensive 24-70L. I finally decided I wanted the extra 35mm and IS (not to mention the slightly smaller size and lighter weight). So far I have not needed the f/2.8 but have taken advantage of the IS.
Check out google and you will see how many people cannot decide which is better for thier needs. I may end up buying a 24-70L F/2.8 as well!
I bought this lens for outdoor portraits. I don't do weddings so any indoor shooting I do would be with lights. From the shots I have taken, I can only say the colors and quality are amazing. I had a sharp copy of the tamron 28-75... but still that lens required a lot more post processing. I shot maybe 100 cheerleader photos this last weekend and I only had to touch about 3 or 4 photos.
I wish I could help you decide the 24-70L versus 28-105 conundrum. As you will google it comes down to f/2.8 versus f/4.0 and IS (plus the extra 35mm).
I am very pleased with this lens.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2007
|
|
Chubbs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing sharpness and contrast/saturation and build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Would love it to be 2.8
|
|
|
This is my first day with this lens. Viewing the pics. in lightroom I am struck by the sharpness and contrast. This lens is outstanding. The pictures just jump out at you. This is my second L series lens my first being the 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS). The IS is brilliant, I take a lot of pics. of my kids indoors and really appreciate it.
BTW many thanks to the reviewers/posters here for the advice
kind regards
Chubbs
|
|
|
Oct 9, 2007
|
|
carlsbadbum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1961
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Well build, IS, zoom ring is nice & tight, it doesn't creep like other cheap zoom.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft wide open, any focal length... and it's pricey for an F4.
|
|
|
Finally I got a zoom added to my collection, it's an upgrade from 28-135IS I use to own. Since I've been shooting with 35L and 135L, this one just can't match the sharpness. I guess I'm asking too much, but overall I'm ok with the results. This lens is worth about $750-$850 on my book, I'm glad I waited and didn't paid $1250 when it first release in 2005.
|
|
|
Oct 1, 2007
|
|
mondas42
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 30, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Sep 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic Quality, Good Range, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I Have just bought this lens to complete my line up of Lenses. This is a great lens to use on a everyday level. It has a great build quality, and produces some fantastically sharp images. I use it on a crop body, so not as wide as I would like, but it does mean that if/when I upgrade to a FF body, I do not need to change my lenses. The IS really works well and I do not find it to draining on my batteries. I complement to lens with my 17-40 L lens and find the 2 cover just about all my needs. Highly recommened
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2007
|
|
Mark Kinsman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sep 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,059.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VERY sharp, excellent color and contrast, fast Autofocus. IS is sweet!
|
|
Cons:
|
Pricey, but worth it!
|
|
|
In the 3 short weeks I have had this lens it has become my primary lens. I am continuously amazed at the RAW image files quality. Unprocessed sharpness is stunning. Currentlyusing it on my XTi and older film 620. The zoom range is great for both full frame and 1.6. This is my second L lens and it has confirmed every good thing I have read about using L glass. It is worth the expense. IS has proven to be the asset reveiw claim, although you do have to remember to disable it when using a tripod (unlike the current 70-200 4L IS). If you've been debating the lens, you owe it to yourself to go try one.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2007
|
|
Nick Reiter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Lovely colour and contrast, excellent range, IS, quiet operation
|
|
Cons:
|
Disastrous Quality Control; both copies I tried were unusably soft.
|
|
|
Well I suppose it has all been said before. Got one copy, hopelessly soft (the otherwise cruddy kit lens on my 30D was sharper), exchanged for another copy, same problem. Other lenses on my 30D are fine so it was not the camera at fault. What a shame because everything else about the lens seemed great.
So if you have the time and persistence to try and try and try again, or to send off a brand new lens to Canon in the hope that calibration will maybe solve the issue, then this lens could well be worth the hassle...but sorry, I don't have the time or inclination to go through all that. I feel justified to rate it low based on what I saw, not on what a "good copy" of this lens might be capable of. Maybe the "L" in Canon lenses stands for "Lottery". I didn't win.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2007
|
|
Roberto Cruz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2007
Location: Mexico
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Focal length, Sharpness, Contrast, Suberb Color, Size, Weight and image Stabilization.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
I use this lens on a crop body. The very first thing I noticed was the superb color, contrast, and sharpness at the first photo session.
It works very well for portraits in bright natural lighting.
I have not used this lens with my 580 EX flash but I have no doubt it will work well.
This lens sometimes gets reviews about poor sharpness, I believe this is the result of some users not being aware that Image Stabilization is wonderful for static objects but not for moving ones. This lens is the sharpest lens I own and it is the third "L" lens that I own as well as two prime lenses. I use this lens wide open and it is very sharp.
I am more than happy with this lens and it stays on my camera 95% of the time.
The only issue to be careful of, is watching your shutter speed for moving subjects. It is a F/4 lens not a F/2 or F/2.8.
This is the zoom lens I always wanted.
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2007
|
|
reiwolf
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 25, 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 85
|
|
Review Date: Sep 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp and IS, good colours
|
|
Cons:
|
Not 2.8, but 4 is ok
|
|
|
It is not as sharp as my tamron 17-50 2.8, but the 24-105 is the lens I use 80% of the time. The tammy is sharper and wider, but do not have IS and the canon gives me longer reach on the 350 and 30D. I love it!
|
|
|
Sep 4, 2007
|
|
jmh2545
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Sep 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, sharpness, lighter in weight than a f/2.8, zoom from 24-105
|
|
Cons:
|
i miss f/2.8, but not that much for most of what i photograph, expensive but it's an L lens
|
|
|
i bought the 24-105 f/4L IS as an alternative to my 24-70 f/2.8 and now find that it is definitely my walk-around lens. it is lighter than the 2.8 and has more flexibility with its zoom range. i thought that i would miss the f/2.8 DOF (sometimes i do), but most of the time i don't. i probably use this lens 70% of the time. it is quite sharp and the pictures are excellent. it takes really good pictures in low light at relatively slow shutter speeds with the IS on. i use it with a canon 30d. i can easily recommend this lens to anyone with the bucks to spend. i seldom use my 24-70 anymore.
|
|
|
Sep 4, 2007
|
|
toma7
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2007
Location: Austria
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, Contrast, Color, fast USM, Weight, good all around lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting & Distortion 24 - 28mm, not f/2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2007
|
|
jcmedeiros
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 744
|
|
Review Date: Aug 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light compared with 24-70L, IS, very nice range which matches 550EX TTL perfectly, reasonable price for an L
|
|
Cons:
|
not a 2.8
|
|
|
This lens was of great interest to me having read so many positive reviews comparing it to the renowned EF 24-70 f/2.8L. I own a 24-70 and it is a very fine lens. It is also very heavy, has no IS and obviously doesn't have the same reach as the 24-105.
I recently bought a used 24-105L from an FM member and I am just thrilled with its performance. It is very sharp/contrasty and the colors are on par with the 24-70. Since I typically use a flash in close portrait shots, I don't really see the f/4 as being a great handicap. I think the IS more than makes up for its relative lack of peed.
You'd always like to have the fastest lens available but the versatility of this lens combined with IS make it tough to beat. I think my 24-70 will be spending a whole lot more time in the bag.
|
|
|
Aug 8, 2007
|
|
Robert Roy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great contrast, IS works great, not very heavy.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing
|
|
|
I use this lens on my 30D and I have to say that I love the range. This lens is as very sharp and has a great color and contrast. The only sharper lens that I had a chance to use is my 70-200L 2.8.
This lens is a superb addition to anyones gear collection.
|
|
|
Aug 7, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
509
|
860360
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
