 |
|
|
pupsikus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
good range, full frame, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
quality control problems
|
|
|
still seeking for the best "allways on" lens for a 20D, I tried a 24-70 and this 24-105.
Receiving 2 times 24-70 and one 24-105, all of them showed poor calibration, hence unsharp fotos.
Correctly manually focussed, I saw the 24-70 being superior in sharpness for some cases. However for the majority of situations, this difference is hardly noticeable (for me).
I decided to go with the 24-105 and send this for calibration. After the second calibration, the lens is really sharp and fulfills my expectations.
I also own a 17-85 and compared to this, the 24-105 has slightly nicer color and better sharpness on the borders. Center sharpness is similar. I was astonished, how close the 17-85 is. Obviously I have a very very good one of those.
Hence upgrade from a 17-85 for picture quality reasons? No.
I see the 24-105 as a step towards full frame and may trade my 17-85 for a wide angle (10-22?).
Once full-frame is affordable, I would trade the wide angle probably for a 17-40 or whatever is available then.
Go for a 24-70 instead? Well, that depends. It is a tradeoff on weight, reach, expected light conditions, habits ... .
For me, I thought weight is not that an issue. But holding both in my hands, I quickly recognized it is. As amateur photographer, I want to be flexible and 24-105 gives me most of that. And the 24-70 did not fit into my photo bag. Hence the decision was easy. 2.8 is really nice (especially also for the viewfinder image). However if I really need it, I take a prime.
The 24-105 now is my outdoor walkaround (weather sealing could be an advantage, is it with the 20D?). The 17-85 currently is my indoor walkaround especially in combination with a flash.
I am very satisfied with this solution. Hope this helps someone.
|
|
 Dec 22, 2006
|
|
qosaimi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 20, 2006
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,085.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The Focal length is a in good range. A 24mm on the 30D, with the 1.6X crop factor, is just wide enough where I can travel with one single lens.
Image Stablization.sharp vibrant images.Solid construction
|
|
Cons:
|
Noticed distortion at 24mm.Price
|
|
|
I purchased this lens two weeks ago with my new 30D. I can say this is my favorite Canon lens of all time.The 24-105mm f/4L IS has the solid, well built look and feel as all of Canons L series lenses. The autofocus is seemingly instantaneous and silent.
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2006
|
|
unsharpmask
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 149
|
|
Review Date: Dec 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide range, good construction, IS and quick focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Could be sharper at wide-angle in the corners with full-frame camera.
|
|
|
I bought this lens for my 5d. A solid lens but I wish it was sharper on the wide end, the 5d is a very demanding camera on lenses. I've used the bigger 28-70mm 2.8 lenses and hated them because of their size and construction. I need the extra length of the 105mm and this is a perfect lens for environmental portraits with lighting where I don't have to change lenses. For available light, I put on either the 16-35 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 or 70-200 2.8 lenses.
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2006
|
|
juberisk2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 380
|
|
Review Date: Dec 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $970.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp - even wide open, versatile
|
|
Cons:
|
extending front element
|
|
|
finally had to add this one to my collection, and I'm very glad that I did.
i guess the 17-40 has spoiled me, but I don't like the front element extending when zooming in, so that takes some getting used to, especially if you're largely a prime lens user. but i can't mark it down for that, as I knew it did that when I bought it, and I've always found it curious when reviewers say things like, "it's only f4." the product is the product, and you should review it for what it is...there's a big difference between design limitation and design defect.
Anyhoo, i used my 100mm macro to test the sharpness of the 24-105 at the long end, and I was floored by the results, which clearly demonstrated the 24-105 was sharper (with better color/contrast too) until f/8! As for the wide end, I have to admit that the 24-105 just inched out my beloved 17-40 in sharpness and contrast. I suppose I'm surprised with the results because of some of the reviews I've read about this lens, but I'm a true believer now. It'll get a lot of use for travel and weddings, so even the price seems fair to me.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2006
|
|
jchin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2660
|
|
Review Date: Dec 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $970.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
focal lengh range is perfect for an "all-in-one" everyday lens, image quality is awesome, and IS (image stablizer)
|
|
Cons:
|
none ... except maybe cost ... but well worth it after a few "nicer" photos
|
|
|
Finally ... my first L-lens. I was debating between this (24-105L) and the famous (24-70L). I went with the 24-105L because of two things. It is the longer reach (something I wanted upgrading from the 17-85 IS USM lens) and it has IS (image stablizer). The final factor was that the 24-105L is not as "big" as the 24-70L. The trade-off is that I lose the f/2.8 opening of the 24-70L. Now if they only had a 24-105L that was f/2.8 and not weigh a ton ... that would be the ultimate!
The first few comparison photos I took ... it basically blew my 17-85 IS USM lens away. The sharpness and bohek is so much better. I was comparing at f/5.6 just to be fair.
Taking photos of a family babyshower in a restaurant, I had to go back to my 17-85mm to get the group picture, I still need something wider than 24mm (given on my 20D it is like a 38mm).
Otherwise ... the f/4 opening at 105mm is awesome for those across the room candid shots.
Great lens!
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2006
|
|
iplayazi
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 30, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 396
|
|
Review Date: Dec 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $969.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Contrasty, Excellent range even on a 1.6 fov
|
|
Cons:
|
Man a whole lotta notta
|
|
|
Fantastic lens and range. I would recommend this lens to anybody. Just wide enough for most situations at 24mm with my 1.6 fov. Perfect for full frame.
Todd
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2006
|
|
Nick Leonard
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 16, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 16, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Looks well built - good range, smooth operation
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 is restrictive, Soft focus and flares badly worst of all both copies I tried had dreadful CA on the edge
|
|
|
I have tried two lenses both with severe edge CA with a 400d.
Neither was lens was sharp, you keep trying to make yourself believe it is sharp - I compared 105 with 100 on the 100-400L and they don't compare.
Also the lens flare can be quite alarming.
I have written letter to Canon about this lens - which I doubt they will even respond to - Just had a full refund on the second lens after giving up on ever getting a good one - you waste too much time !
I will rethink my lens strategy without L lenses - if this is the quality they are not worth it.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2006
|
|
evisione
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,150.00
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, color, focal range
|
|
Cons:
|
price, a bit weighty
|
|
|
THis is my favorite walking around lens. Every picture I take with it is sharp and the color is superb.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2006
|
|
blairware
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 10, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
quiet, nice range on a full-frame body, focuses relatively closely, fast focussing, better than the kit lens but not 10X better
|
|
Cons:
|
not very sharp, IS doesn't work all that well, useless case, not sealed as well as other L lenses
|
|
|
Just purchased a 70-200mm F/4 L IS and it blows this lens out of the water (much sharper, higher contrast, and the IS works amazingly well). By comparison, the 24-105mm is a substandard lens. Maybe my copy is a dud.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2006
|
|
stringbean11
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,048.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Wow. Finally bought my first "L" glass and all I can say is "WOW". Didn't know what I was missing until this lense. Just bought yesterday with x-mas bonus and Couldn't be happier. Was torn between the 24-105 and the new 70-200 F4/ IS, but will wait on the F/4 until I can afford a 70-200 F/2.8.
Highly recommend this lense as excellent walking around Lense.
|
|
Cons:
|
None......
|
|
|
"L" all the way....
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2006
|
|
ryan aguas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: Philippines
Posts: 42
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp starting at f4, excellent colors and contrast, good focal length range, bokeh is very pleasing, light yet well built, image stabilizer, quick AF
|
|
Cons:
|
prone to flare - creates unusual light halos, hood is not very effective
extending front barrel with plastic material, severe barrel distortion, light fall-off on edges w FF camera
|
|
|
I find this lens very useful, specially for weddings and social events coverage because of the focal length range and IS capability.
Although many consider this as a GP standard lens, I think it is not suited for any other purposes other than weddings and social events for the following reasons:
1. severe barrel distortion and light fall-off makes it unsuitable for landscape and travel photography
2. unusual halos and light spots appear when used for night photography or when taking pictures with bright light sources in the frame such as sunsets and streetlamps(I'm using it with a 5D)
3. using the IS on while on tripod causes image blur ( i think the tripod-sensing IS thing isn't working)
4. weather sealing is dubious since the front element extends during zooming (i don't want to risk it)
5. quite softish at 105 (but still ok)
6. F/4 is not enough for action-stopping indoor shots, although IS is useful, subject motion blur is a problem
Having said the above reasons, I conclude that this lens is more of a specialist zoom lens designed for the purposes of shooting handheld photos of events. If you are doing social photography as a business or a photojournalist, this lens is a must-have. Otherwise you might be disappointed when used for other purposes. Results are good, sharp, and tacky --typical of L series lenses but then, Canon's attempt to make the package light and affordable has caused some major drawbacks in its performance. I'm waiting for an improved version of this lens. A wide angle L-series f/2.8 zoom with IS would be a nice replacement, for a start...
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2006
|
|
Hans im Glueck
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Impressing quality fore a zoom lens. perfect walkaround lens on a 5D.
IS very usefull in low light.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This is my most used lense while travelling. Its sharp, versatile and solid built. With the zoomrange 24-105 it covers most of my needs while travelling. Especially with the 5D it is a perfect tool.
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2006
|
|
Rudy Kouw
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 3, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness up to 70 mm, fast focus, low weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft borders from 70 mm and longer, no panning with active image stabilisation.
|
|
|
I choose this lens, as a companion of the Tokina 12-24 mm F/4, for the combination of good optical performence, at least on a APS-C size sensor, and relatively low weight. The image stabilisation comes as a partial compensation - moving subjects don't care about IS - in low-light photography.
This is a versatile lens, offering, up to 70 mm, very sharp images at full aperture, also at the borders. At 100 mm, which I use frequently for portraits, the performence is also very good, although for sharp borders one needs to stop down to F/8 or even F/11. The weight is favourable compared to any fast lens, say F/2,8, in the same focal range and compensates for the low-mass 350D. Using the 350D, the AF is very fast, also in low-light conditions. On a 30D body the AF appears to be even faster. The image stabilisation works very well, giving the opportunity to take low-light pictures or shooting with small apertures at 100 ISO to gain depth of field.
The only draw backs are the need to change lenses for wide-angle photography, at the risk of polluting the sensor. Further, one has to take care of an extra knob (for turning IS on or off). As only full IS mode is offered, panning is not possible.
Having this lens for more than four months, I was never tempted to use the kit lens.
|
|
|
Dec 5, 2006
|
|
mikesutherland
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 25, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor sharpness at 24-35mm
|
|
|
I was disappointed with this lense. I use it with both a 5D and 20D and it is very soft at 24-35mm (it is essential for me to be able to use this range). I also have a 24-70 L and it is far superior, I had been hoping that the 24-105 would be a good, compact travel lense but it is too soft. I have had my bodies calibrated by canon.
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2006
|
|
dsundberg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 300
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,075.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
A well built lens with excellent IS and fast focus even in low light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Sharpness from 24mm to 35mm is poor to marginal, but comparable to my 17-40L in the same range. Canon really needs to work on short focal length zoom lens sharpness!
|
|
|
After much reading of others' evaluations here and published test reports, I finally decided to buy the lens hoping I would get a really sharp copy. Well I didn't get a copy that was sharp at short focal lengths. From 24 to 35mm, it is marginal at best. I tested it extensively on newsprint and found that until I got to f8, it was quite soft with my 20D. It is comparable to my 17-40L in the same focal range with the 17-40 being a little better at 35mm at f5.6. From 50mm to 105mm, it performed well in the sharpness testing. For scenics and landscape work using short focal lengeths, I will have to shoot at f8 to f11 when planning to make enlargements over 8 by 10".
In everyday shooting, the lens focusses fast and the IS is better than my older IS lenses. It appears to be well built and, hopefully, it will last a long time as my 'workhorse' lens. I hope when I buy a full frame body, I will still be happy with it.
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2006
|
|
evisione
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, color, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
weight, price
|
|
|
My second favorite lens. Always dependable - w/ sharp colorful photos.
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
509
|
861172
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
