about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
520 908409 Sep 12, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
85% of reviewers $1,512.56
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.47
8.03
9.0
24-105lisusm

Specifications:
This easy-to-use standard zoom lens can cover a large zoom area ranging from 24mm wide-angle to 105mm portrait-length telephoto, and its Image Stabilizer Technology steadies camera shake up to three stops. Constructed with one Super-UD glass element and three aspherical lenses, this lens minimizes chromatic aberration and distortion. The result is excellent picture quality, even at wide apertures. Canon's ring-type USM gives silent but quick AF, along with full-time manual focus. Moreover, with dust- and moisture-resistant construction, this is a durable yet sophisticated lens that meets the demands of advanced amateur photographers and professional photographers alike.

Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 24-105mm f/4

Lens Construction: 18 elements in 13 groups

Diagonal Angle of View: 84° - 23° 20' (with full-frame camera)

Focus Adjustment: Inner focusing system with focusing cam

Closest Focusing Distance: 1.48 ft./0.45m

Zoom System: 5-group helical zoom (front group moves: 32.5mm)

Filter Size: 77mm

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.3 in. x 4.2 in., 23.6 oz. / 83.5mm x 107mm, 670g (lens only)



 


Page:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20>  next
          
pumbaa
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 18, 2007
Location: France
Posts: 30
Review Date: Jul 13, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Super useful range, good color, sharpness, construction.
Cons:
Not as sharp as 70-200 2.8L non IS but really sharp.

I bought this lens in the 5D kit. The range is very useful to be a walk around lense or for travel purpose.

Its an L lense so very robust build, great colour rendition and its contrast level is superb. The range from 70mm 105mm is my life saver for many times.

IS is a must for this lense since it is not really fast at F4, and it works efficiently in low light situation, all my photo taken with 1/6s are just perfect, no blur at all.

If i have to have only one lens, this lens is my choice. Buy it and you will nerver look back.

Some photos:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1157/579457382_118118a774_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1297/664013693_f21d7b2b21_b.jpg
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3779/img0499resizete0.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pumbaa/


Jul 13, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add pumbaa to your Buddy List  
mbphotography
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jul 13, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,059.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Good coverage, seems sturdy, Love L glass
Cons:
I must have one of the "bad" copies. Mine seems to be really soft. I have a 17-18is that is much sharper?

I just dont get it? I always have bad luck when it comes to lenses. I picked up this 24-105L thinking I would have a pretty sharp lens. I have several lenses in my arsenal including the 70-200L 2.8is, 17-40L 4.0, and my original kit lens that I haven't gotten rid of because it is so sharp, the 17-85is. To make a long story short, the 24-105L is the softest lens out of all of them. I sent it to Canon 2 wks ago, and its still being serviced. The only lens that I havent sent back is the plastic 17-85is?? I read hundreds of reviews about the 24-105L and was skeptical about buying it. I love the coverage on the lens, but I hate having to use tons of unsharp mask on every picture.

I am praying that the lens will come back sharp. I hope, becasue I really like it (despite the sharpness), but we all know that sharpness is very important.

I will repost when it returns.

P.S. Canon service operators at the Irvine, CA location are rude, she asked me why did I buy the lens if I knew there could be problems with it?? Now thats good marketing huh??


Jul 13, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mbphotography to your Buddy List  
Heechee
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 19, 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 383
Review Date: Jun 25, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: A great all-around lens for 5D. Image stabilizer works great. Very usable already at f4.
Cons:
Vignettes a lot at f4. Distortion is pretty bad at 24mm.

I bought 24-105L IS and 5D as a kit, which IMHO was a great buy, kit pricing and Canon cashback on both items (Europe)..

Having 24-105L on 5D is a much more usable solution than the combination of 20D, 17-40L, 50 1.4, and 100 2.0 I previously used. Those lenses still have their uses, but I use them less often now.

As to the seemingly all-important question on sharpness.. It's good enough, but the actual sharpness depends on how much sharpening you apply in developing from RAW. 50mm 1.4 and 100 2.0 at same apertures are slightly sharper.

17-40L is better at around 24mm than 24-105L, except it doesn't have IS. No surprise there.

F4 gives usually a short enough DOF on 5D, and I have those faster lenses if I need them.


Jun 25, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Heechee to your Buddy List  
Christopher-J
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 320
Review Date: Jun 20, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $950.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Super Sharp! Has 3-stop IS! One of Canon's newest L lens designs! Works great on a 1.6 crop and 1D series cameras.
Cons:
Others saying it is soft for a L. Not sure what others are talking about because this lens is super sharp. NEGATIVE: Price, gotta pay like $500 for that Image Stabilizer why?

I have never owned a finer lens then the 24-105 f4 IS L lens. I have owned a Canon 28-80 f2.8-4 L and a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L. I have owned a Canon 17-40 f4 L and also a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG EX as well. I have searched for a lens like this for many years and now that I have found it. It is never leaving myside!

I did extensive testing between the 24-70 f2.8 L and this lens, because I had both for awhile to see which I liked best. Well to my amazement this "slow" f4 24-105 lens did better in all my tests over the 24-70L. And I had a good copy of the 24-70L! In fact the only thing I can think of that makes the f2.8 24-70L desireable is the f2.8, I think that in every other way the 24-105 f4 IS L is a better lens. That is if you can live with a f4. I can and I am loving it.


Jun 20, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Christopher-J to your Buddy List  
duckieNL
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 30, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
Review Date: Jun 17, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $999.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: IS and range
Cons:
IS sucks the light out of your batteries

A good reporter like lens. Not to havy en sharp. IS to control my unwanted movements. Good range even on a Cropcamera. I have a EOS 10D and 2 300Dīs with batterygrips. 24mm is still good enough to get people within the frame without loosing eyecontact ;-)

The Image Stabilizer though is a minor part of this lens, not for picture quality but for battery consumption.

Last weekend i Shot 1000 pictures with one recharge of both batteries in the grip, with a EF 17/35 F2.8. This weekend i shot again 1000 pictures an had to recharge 3 to four times, both the battries. I know i have a slow starter 10D-300D, so i leave the camera at least 8 minutes on before going to sleepmodus, but extra chargers and batteries are a must. But these should already have been on a shortlist or in your photo kit.


Jun 17, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add duckieNL to your Buddy List  
Aaron Hogsed
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 10, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: good zoom range acceptable sharpness, great IS, light weight
Cons:
not 2.8. pricey for what it is , not as sharp as other L lenses

I enjoyed the focal length and the great IS for weddings and portraits. The BOKEH at 105 f4 is same as 70mm @2.8 due to telephoto compression. The AF was usually perfect.

My copy, which was very sharp around f8, was not spectacular at 4-5.6. The slow f4 was aggravating in low light and so I went with 24-70 2.8.

I miss the lightweight feel of the 24-105 and the IS but the 24-70 is sharper and of course faster.

I hope Canon will came out with a 24-105 2.8 L that is a true "L" lens. Until then I am sticking with the 24-70.


Jun 10, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Aaron Hogsed to your Buddy List  
LenS
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 162
Review Date: Jun 5, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,058.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Compact, relatively lightweight, easy to use, IS
Cons:
NOT a smaller version of the 24-70mm even though it is an "L" lens

I was hoping that I could get a replacement for my superb 24-70mm L lens that would be lighter, have more reach, and provide IS.
The 24-105 L IS sounded like that perfect replacement.
I'll preface my review by saying that I am not a pro, but I have many, many blue ribbons for my work. As such, I won't give a detailed technical critique, just my observations:
My lens arrived from Amazon (GREAT return policy) and I immediately shot some exposures to compare both lenses using the same 5D camera settings.
Let's remember that the 24-105 L IS has the advantage of IS - I shot my comparison shots at 400 / f11 (with IS on).
There was NO "focusing problem" with the 24-105 L IS that seems to have plagued some buyers. The IS was a real pleasure to use (albeit the IS has a perceptable but not bothersome lag).
SO, the problem was NOT sharpness. Instead, upon comparison
on my Apple calibrated 23" display, the 24-105 L IS exhibited less
"texture" than it's big brother as well as less 3-dimensionality (for lack of a better word). The question I asked myself is: "Which image looks more natural and more detailed ... which looks more "real""?
It was the old 24-70 L which has given me so many great images.
To be fair, I'm comparing the 24-105 L IS to perhaps the best zoom lens that Canon makes. Against most other lenses the 24-105 L IS would probably shine. But not against the "gold standard" 24-70 L.
The 24-105 L IS is no 24-70 L, as much as I would like it to be.
Maybe I could persuade myself that the lighter weight, the IS, the added reach is worth the trade off for slightly inferior image quality. NOT.
The 24-105 L IS is on its way back to Amazon


Jun 5, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add LenS to your Buddy List  
Andrea1975
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 26, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 29, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Zoom range on full frame, sharpness, color, contrast, AF, IS, build quality
Cons:
No zoom ring lock, it extends when carrying it upside down, vignetting at 24mm

If I have to choose only one lens (for general photography) to carry on a 5D, this will be the one. It's very sharp already at f4.0 so you don't really have to stop down for getting quality out of it. This will come very useful for shooting enviromental portraits, or even in a studio session. Definately a better compromise than other 3.5 / 4.5 or 3.5 / 5.6 zooms available. IS is very reliable and it gives from 3 to 4 stops advantage. This lens is a dream to use when shooting static subjects, but for freezing action a f2.8 zoom will be a better compromise for many. At least we got very good high ISO performances on digital camera nowdays to compensate a bit the lack of speed.
Considering the zoom range, it's optically amazing. Since this lens will be mostly used for shooting daylight outdoor, it's very positive not having to deal with CA, which is extremely well controlled on this lens. Both color and contrast are also top quality.
Unfortunately, it will extend easily to the longest zoom setting when carrying it outside a camera bag. This is probably due to the weight of the internal components and a slightly loose zoom ring. A kind of lock device would have been very appreciated.
If you can live with that, I think this lens can be used for professional work all the time without being worried about lack of performance.


May 29, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Andrea1975 to your Buddy List  
mg98
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 25, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,039.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Smaller, lighter, extra 35mm reach compared to 24-70 (which I'm finding is essential on a full-frame sensor)
Cons:
not as sharp as my 24-70 f/2.8L even with IS; slower than f/2.8 (of course); lens hood pretty insubstantial

I tested this on my 5D against my 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L, and 80-200 f/2.8L (yes, I know it's old). First, it's clear my 70-200 f/4L still needs some calibration (even though I just sent it to Canon Factory Service...!) because it was the "dog" of the bunch due to back-focusing (or front-focusing...one of the two). I compared them all at 70mm & f/4.0 (except for the 80-200, which I used at 80mm & f/4.0). The 80-200 (aka the "magic drainpipe") was the winner in terms of the amount of detail resolved right out of the camera; the 24-70 f/2.8L was close behind. The detail in the 24-105 f/4.0L images was a bit soft, but sharpened well in Photoshop. It wasn't far off from the 24-70, but there was a noticeable difference...even with the advantage of IS and lighter hand-held weight. (Yes, I did these hand-held, because most of my use of these lenses is for shooting weddings. This should put the 80-200 at the greatest disadvantage--since it had the greatest weight, length, and no IS--but it still won.) I really need the extra 35mm on my 5D (probably because I got used to the 1.6 cropping factor using my 24-70 on my 20D), so it'll be the main lens on my 5D for my next couple of weddings and portrait sessions, but I'd like to see if some Canon factory calibration can improve it a bit. I would probably give it a rating overall rating of 8.75 at this point. Factory servicing significantly improved my 17-40 f/4L, so I might try it on the 24-105 f/4L too, even though I just bought it...:o.

May 25, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add mg98 to your Buddy List  
JetwashImages
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 40
Review Date: May 9, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Great build, well balanced, very sharp (NOW THAT ITS BEEN SERVICED!) Awesome range. 3rd Generation IS.
Cons:
To much hassle to get the lens to perform the way it was designed to.

Well. In a few days it will be 1 year since I bought this lens. What a year its been. I was able to get some decent photos with this lens, but, most were very soft/blurry. My 28-105mm F/3.5-4.5 got sharper images! Luckily I live near Canon - Irvine and took this lens to be checked out. In December 06, I took it in for service...

"SERVICE DETAILS:
Adjusted best focus point. Projection test, cleaned elements. CK/ADJ/LUB. All functions to factory specs."

Yea, ok, right!...

So I took it back to Canon a couple of weeks ago...

"SERVICE DETAILS:
We have examined the product according to your request and, it was found that the lens assembly was out of place causing rear focus. Electrical adjustments were carried out on the lens assembly. Other electrical adjustments and inspection and cleaning carried out."


Its SUPER SHARP now. For those of you thinking about buying this lens but are freaking over the negative reviews, (rightfully so) don't be discouraged. Get it, if its not performing, send it in. If you have one and think it might be off, have Canon check it out. If its not right, make them get it right. Simple as that.

Now, its a very fun lens to use!



May 9, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add JetwashImages to your Buddy List  
roberto1979
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1373
Review Date: May 5, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: L lens, IS, great range on a 5D, very sharp at f/4.
Cons:
vignetting at f/4, but i rarely shoot that wide.

found a store that was selling the 5D and 24-105 for only 3399, so i decided to try this lens knowing i could easily sell it for more than i paid. i previously was using the tamron 24-135. that lens is absolutely incredible image quality wise, and it's only $400. so now that i've added IS, USM, and a constant aperture for only $200 bucks i feel like i'm ahead. i do wish it went to 135mm, but i have other lenses that cover that range, so it's not a huge deal. this is my first L lens, and i'm definitely impressed so far.

May 5, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add roberto1979 to your Buddy List  
mark petri
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1006
Review Date: May 2, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,050.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: sharpness, size, focal length coverage.
Cons:
none.

The equal of the 24-70's IQ, but less size and weight. Equates to a superb lens, perhaps the perfect walkaround companion for your body.

I don't consider the f4 a negative when comparative shopping as you gain IS (vs. the 24-70) and weigh the pros and cons prior to buying, not afterward.

I owned and liked the 24-70 quite a bit, but sold it soon after I got to try out the 24-105 and haven't looked back once. Highly recommended for a zoom.


May 2, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mark petri to your Buddy List  
Stunnaz
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 10, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1192
Review Date: Apr 22, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp images, very useful focal range for general purposes, "L" quality build.
Cons:
None.

I've been using this lens for the past 4 months. The image quality is excellent... very sharp... many of my friends have told me my pictures look very "professional" after I started using this lens. The build quality is "L" standard, and because this is one of the newer models that Canon introduced, it is weather and dust proof (not all L lenses are).

This is the lens that I take when I travel with only one lens. It is very versatile, and its size (670g) is much smaller/lighter than the 24-70mm 2.8L (950g). The focal range of this lens (38-168mm) is very similar to a typical point-and-shoot camera when used on a 1.6 cropped DSLR such as the Rebel XTi. If you're a new DSLR user, switching to this lens from a point-and-shoot should be an easy transition (if you can afford the price).

I recently took this lens to Disneyland, and it performed wonderfully. Both day and night shots came out sharp, and it wasn't too much of a hassle to lug around. On rides like the Space Mountain, I kept the camera in my backpack and placed it under my legs, it was not a problem at all.

The image-stabilization inside this lens is one of the newer generations and provides 3-stops of compensation. This is a major improvement over the 1st generation IS found on the consumer grade 28-135mm lens. Also, the dust-proof build quality makes this lens a better long-term investment than the 28-135mm, as the 28-135mm is famous for sucking in dust.

I can't say enough good things about this lens. If you are tired of your "kit" lens and don't mind spending a little more on lens, this is an excellent choice. Don't go for a mediocre zoom lens knowing you will upgrade in a year or two. Get the lens you want now and have "professional looking" pictures with no regrets. Some people say that "noobies" shouldn't shoot with L lenses because it's a waste, but trust me, I was a newbie 4 months ago and saw a huge difference in the quality of my images after switching to this lens. Now that I've learned more about DSLR photography I appreciate this lens even more. This is a lens I can see myself using for many years and through many generations of DSLR body upgrades. I'm glad I decided to spend more on glass and save on body. Lenses, especially "L" lenses, hold their value very well but camera bodies depreciate in value quickly.


Apr 22, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Stunnaz to your Buddy List  
haraldis
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 9, 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 9, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Image quality, colors, contrast, IS, solid construction.
Cons:
Weight, chromatic abborations at at 24-40 mm at the image border at wide open aperture.

I have also Tamron 28-75, but feel it too short and not so wide to fill the gap between my 10-22 and 70-300 IS. This is perfect add, I think.
Not expected so high CAs at the wide-end. OK, little more raw working.


Apr 9, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add haraldis to your Buddy List  
Richard Bate
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 26, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 8, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Excellent "general purpose" zoom range, fantastically sharp between 35-85mm, corner sharpness, compatibility with 580EX flashgun (ETTL II covers 24-105mm), contrast, superb image stabilisation, constant aperture, reasonably lightweight and certainly portable, comes with a nice little lens-bag and hood. Seems well-sealed.
Cons:
I can't criticise this product, but there is vignetting on full-frame DSLRs at F4 at 24mm, noticeable barrel distortion below 30mm and softness above 100mm at F5.6 and below. F4 with IS is probably not as good as F2.8 but we have to get real here - this lens is portable.

I used to shoot on a 10D with a 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM and when I upgraded to a 5D I was somewhat disappointed with the way the lens performed. The colour rendition remained excellent but you can crop further with more pixels and what I remembered as being sharp was now looking fuzzy. It was also looking very soft towards the edges. Not bad generally but when I needed the detail it wasn't there.

I decided that I would buy my first "L" lens as the 5D is notorious for exposing the limitations of a lot of lenses, especially zooms. (The same could be said of my experiences with the 1D and 1DS cameras).

I had the choice of a 24-70mm F2.8L or this lens and after comparing the sizes (the 24-70mm is big) and taking a few test-shots with both, decided that this lens was marginally better for what I was going to use it for. I made that decision just over six months ago and I think I made the right one.

Outdoors, this lens is a revelation. For town, architechture and landscape photography I rarely use anything else. With the image stabilisation it is possible to take photographs on reasonably dull winter days and if you bump the ISO up (arrogant 5D user - "Noise? What is that?") you can shoot at dusk or even brightly lit streets at night.

It is also possible to do fairly decent medium telephoto and macro work due to the fact that the image can be cropped a lot due to the sharpness.

This lens is not suited for indoor photography without flash, unless shooting in very brightly lit areas or with inanimate subjects. However, it is excellent when used with a 580EX flash at weddings and parties.

In short, this lens is the best compromise for most commonly-encountered situations. For about 35% of my work I'd choose this lens first and foremost, for 25% of it I can get away with using it (and travelling lighter!) - unsurprisingly I have it attached to my 5D more often than not. If you were to purchase this lens I think you'd probably find you did the same thing.


Apr 8, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Richard Bate to your Buddy List  
riversen
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
Review Date: Apr 2, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,060.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Wow and very usable for many family and requested scenarios. I really enjoy this lens, as it is crystal clear and a solid performer.
Cons:
Sticks out a bit (not a biggie), not weather resistent (would like it for the price), on 3 stop IS (would like the new 4 stop one... if possible)

I use it a lot and it works wonderfully. Crystal clear shots at all lengths. IS works wonderfully and allows for nice low light shots (of course, it is not as fast as the 24-70, but I normally shot slow moving performers in those lighting conditions).

Apr 2, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add riversen to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
520 908409 Sep 12, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
85% of reviewers $1,512.56
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.47
8.03
9.0
24-105lisusm


Page:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20>  next