 |
|
|
violetblue
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 59
|
|
Review Date: Jul 21, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,249.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Build , Very Sharp, Color contrast is fantastic, Fast AF and the IS
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
This is the first time on the forum, so Hello to all,
I upgraded from the EF-S 17-85, a lens I enjoyed. But I find the 24-105 L an all around better performer. I used it on my around the world trip and took some of my first shots with it and went to a photo shop where I could print some of the photos to see how they came and without any adjustments I couldn’t believe the results. Colors were vivid and objects were very sharp, almost looked 3D. Even in low light the IS really helped out and I got some spectacular shots of floral arrangements in the hotels. Everyone is complementing me on the sharpness and color contrast of the photos. If you buy on I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
|
|
 Jul 21, 2006
|
|
violetblue
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 59
|
|
Review Date: Jul 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Ultra sharp, Size and weight, IS and color/contrast saturation
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I upgraded from the EF-S 17-85, a lens I enjoyed. But I find the 24-105 L an all around better performer. I used it on my around the world trip and took some of my first shots with it and went to a photo shop where I could print some of the photos to see how they came and without any adjustments I couldn’t believe the results. Colors were vivid and objects were very sharp, almost looked 3D. Even in low light the IS really helped out and I got some spectacular shots of floral arrangements in the hotels. Everyone is complementing me on the sharpness and color contrast of the photos. If you buy one I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2006
|
|
cathpah
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 746
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
great range as a walkaround lens. covers a lot of focal lengths on a crop camera and is a perfect walkaround on the 5d
|
|
Cons:
|
could be a bit faster but the IS does help.
only thing negative about this lens aside from that is that there are some bad reviews out there that made me doubtful about the purchase...until i got my copy.
|
|
|
you will find reviewers who don't like this lens and maybe they got a bad copy or it just can't fit their needs, but for me this lens is great. covers a lot of focal length on a crop camera...all you really need is a good ultra-wide with you and you can do almost all of your walkaround stuff pretty easily. on a 5d it makes this the nicest point and shoot in the world. lol. it is just a perfect walkaround lens on a 5d. the IS is nice but don't expect it to work miracles. there are certainly instances where I need a faster lens (indoor sports, moving subject, etc) but that's why god made primes...cheaper, lighter, and brighter.
this makes just a great travel lens.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2006
|
|
Rusty1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 799
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid L quality build, very sharp, fast focus, wieght & size , standard 77mm filter size, recessed AF and IS butons, ideal zoom range on FF.
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive and F4. But you know this up front. For me placement of focus and zoom rings should be swaped.
|
|
|
I'm using a 20D, but bought this with FF in mind for the near future.
Has the color/contrast you expect and get from L lens. Only F4 but its not 3lbs either. The IS is state of the art and for me camera shake is more often a problem than movement blur.
Shot from tripod using timed release the results surprised me. At 24mm F4 it was sharper than my 17-40L. At 50mm F4 it matched my 50mm F1.8 and was only very slighly softer at 100mm F4 than my 70-200F4.
Ideal for FF and works well for me when combined with the surprising 10-22.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2006
|
|
paul.kzk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 16, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 249
|
|
Review Date: Jul 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Anyone thinks that canon will come out with some thing like 24-105/24-70 or whatever focal lenght like this in a f/2.8L with IS??
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2006
|
|
jamach
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6104
|
|
Review Date: Jul 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
easy to work with
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Stunning sharpness, quick focus, 3 stop stabilizer, neutral color, and now I have many more keepers to process after every outing with this lens. Simply outstanding performance that will take your breath away, even for a zoom. It does people portraits, general photography, and flower shots with equal aplomb. The bokeh can be increased to butter smoothness with addition of the Canon 12mm extension tube. The minimum focusing distance of 1.5 feet is great, and the 500D is a nice addition for super closeups. The performance begins at F4. With 105mm available, sporting events such as rodeos, indoor, and close magnification are all possible with stabilization! The 24mm is not a limiter for me since I do not do ultra wide angle pictures, but does provide a nice perspective that is wide with less distortion. Get this lens because it does most jobs superbly with image stabilization and L quality.
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2006
|
|
Dr Strangelove
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jul 16, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
In concept the 24-105 should be the best regular use lens around, but I feel that this lens was more designed for crpped cameras like the 20D rather than FF cameras. The size and weight were great. The IS is super. The AF is fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
I went into the shop today with a budget for two L lenses and a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 and the 100mm macro at home. I shot the 70-200 f2.8 IS, the 24-105 f4 IS, and the 17-40 f4 with full intent on going home with the 70-200 and 24-105. I went outside with each lens and snapped the brick wall at wide open and f16 at top and bottom zoom ranges; 4 shots per lens. I downloaded onto the 30" screen with PS2 and was shocked at the level of spherical/barrel distortion at 24 on the 24-105. It totally skewed the groutlines on the wall in a ring pattern fully within the field. The vignetting was as bad or worse as my 28-105. For my 5D, I want the best. The 24-105 was also lacking sharpness compared to the 70-200 even at f16. I found 70% lesser distortion with minimal vignetting on the 24-70 wide open , and no problems on the 17-40. The 24-70 is too big for walkaround, so I decided to keep my 28-105 non L until something better comes along. I may have a hard look at Sigma's offerings for mid ranges.
I went home with the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 17-40 F4.
My final thought is an agreement with prior opinions that in concept, the 24-105 should be the best walkaround lens around, but I feel that this lens was more designed for crpped cameras like the 20D rather than FF cameras due to the unacceptable distortion and vignetting at open aperatures.
|
|
|
This is my first post here and I'm sorry it has to be a pan.
I went into the shop today with a budget for two L lenses for my 5D. I have 28-105 f3.5-4.5 and the 100mm macro at home.
I looked at the 70-200L f2.8 IS, 24-105L f4 IS, 24-70L f2.8, and the 17-40L f4 with full intent on going home with the 70-200L and 24-105L. The size and weight of the 24-105L is great. The IS is quiet. The AF is fast. I went outside with each lens and snapped the brick wall wide open and at f16 at top and bottom zoom ranges; 4 shots per lens. I downloaded onto a 30" screen with PS2
I was shocked at the level of spherical/barrel distortion at 24mm on the 24-105L. It totally skewed the groutlines on the wall in a ring pattern fully within the field. The vignetting was as bad or worse without a UV filter as my 28-105 is with one. The 24-105L was lacking sharpness compared to the 70-200L even at f16, and about even with the 24-70. I found 70% lesser barrel distortion with minimal vignetting on the 24-70L wide open, and no problems on the 17-40L. The 24-70L is too big and heavy for walkaround, so I decided to keep my 28-105L non L until something better and portable comes along. I may have a hard look at Sigma's offerings for mid ranges.
I went home with the 70-200L f2.8 IS and the 17-40L F4.
My final thought is an agreement with prior opinions that in concept, the 24-105L should be the best walkaround lens around, but I feel that this lens was more designed for cropped cameras like the 20D rather than FF cameras due to the unacceptable distortion and vignetting at open aperatures.
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2006
|
|
HairsOnMyChest
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 384
|
|
Review Date: Jul 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
color, sharpness, weight, just about everything
|
|
Cons:
|
not a darn thing (would be amazing if it was f2.8)
|
|
|
i have a sharp copy and it is amazing. people complain about it being expensive and a tad slow (f/4) but those specs are right on the box when you buy it, so it is not a huge surprize.
i have both the 24-70L and this lens, and i have to tell you guys that my 24-70L doesn't get used very much now.
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2006
|
|
Lani Kai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 782
|
|
Review Date: Jul 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, range, build, image quality... Pretty much everything
|
|
Cons:
|
A tad pricey
|
|
|
Some say 24mm is not wide enough on a 1.6x, but considering many point-and-shoot cameras have a 35mm equivalent focal length of 38mm at the wide end, I didn't find this to be too much of a problem. In fact it complements my 10-22 very well; a reason why I chose the 24-105mm f/4L IS over the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. And it comes with a hood and case.
The IS mechanism is impressive and much has been improved over previous IS lenses. I get plenty of usable shots with 1-second exposures at 24mm (38.4mm equiv)
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2006
|
|
AT30D
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,195.95
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, excellent images, build quality, IS, great all around zoom.
|
|
Cons:
|
F/4.0, slight edge distortion at 24mm (perhaps typical for any wide angle lens)
|
|
|
This is a great all around lens. I purchased this lens along with a Canon EOS 30D. I am very happy with the combination, and so far this is the only lens always on my camera. It would have been nicer if the lens was f/2.8. Those who are new to D-SLR photography may need some practice to get the indoor lighting right in the Creative Zone Modes of the camera.
The slight edge distortion at 24mm is perhaps typical for a zoom lens.
Although I learned the following painstakingly, I hope it might help some of the readers. A few nights ago, I was taking pictures of the full moon. Each picture I took (with the moon in a different location in the viewfinder) had one small dark greenish tone circle at some varying distance away from the moon. I knew it was not a dust spot. Plus, the spot would not go away at different f-stop setting.
I was very frustrated and disappointed with the lens after paying such a high price. I took the lens to the local Canon Service Center and was told that the spot was generated by lens flare. There was nothing they could do about it. My lens was also not one of the early batch lenses with flare problem. The next night, I researched on the internet and learned that some pro photographers -- at times -- don't like to use lens filters. I was using a UV filter on my lens. I took the lens filter out and took more pictures of the moon. Bingo! The spot was not there. It was the filter causing the flare issue.
As part of lessons learned, those who have had flare issues taking nighttime photos (with a protective UV filter on the lens) may be able to eliminate the flare by removing the lens filter.
Overall, this is a great lens and I highly recommend it. No flare issues with this lens.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2006
|
|
Cedric_g
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 14, 2004
Location: France
Posts: 263
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, AF, built quality, IS, range
|
|
Cons:
|
vignetting and distorsion at 24mm
|
|
Bought this lens for "all usages". I hesitated a long time with 24-70/2.8 L USM but the range and the optical stabilization convinced me 
The sharpness is awesome (on EOS 5D), AF speed and precision are fabulous, IS is magic (I took sharp photos at 1/8s !!!), construction is "L"ike a rock !
On the other hand, vignetting at full aperture (especially at 24mm) is "kolossal" but can be corrected in the most part on computer... Distorsion at 24mm is also a little problem, but I think that this lense isn't really the best solution for architecture photos :D
In reportage it is fabulous !
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2006
|
|
Mark Schapper
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Sep 14, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 6147
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, zoom range on FF, great travel lens
|
|
Cons:
|
distortion, CA - both readily correctable with DxO raw conversion
|
|
|
I bought this as the only lens I would take on a trip to UK - for the 1DsII. It performed extremely well, and I have some images shot at 1/5 sec at 24mm, and 1/20 sec at 105mm which stand scrutiny as Super A3+ prints. Definitely a 'must-have' travel lens for FF.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2006
|
|
vin14
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 233
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, Focal length range on FF, IS, Weight, Build, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion at 24mm
|
|
|
I bought the 24-105L as a general purpose lens. The image qualty is excellent. The zoom range is excellent for events, as is the IS. It more than makes up for it being an f4 lens. I also tried the 24-70L, but it's 500 euro more expensive in Ireland and I find 70mm a little short for shooting events. I also prefer the lighter weight and smaller hood of the 24-105. The only negetive I have with this lens is the distortion at 24mm.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2006
|
|
Steiner88
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,120.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very nice range for 30D (normal to zoom), compact, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far...
|
|
|
I got this lens to complement my EF-S 10-22mm and the zoom range is all you need for just about anything except sports. It's a little long sometimes in tight spaces, but that's what the 10-22 is for. I imagine that it is perfect for a FF camera.
I have been thinking for a week to either pick this one or the 24-70mm. I made my decision based on the IS and the longer range. The one full stop of the 24-70 sure is nice, but 30D has a very nice ISO setting that can balance it a little bit. I rarely do low light shooting scenes and the 580EX will take care of everything else.
No complain about this lens at all, you got what you pay for
|
|
|
Jul 9, 2006
|
|
Fighter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Jul 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, IS, quality, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
price
|
|
|
Very light weight, flawless IS, great images, no need for photoshop.
|
|
|
Jul 7, 2006
|
|
AHAB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 1, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 361
|
|
Review Date: Jul 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp images right out of the camera.
Excellent on 5D and Mark 2DS.
|
|
Cons:
|
not f2.8
|
|
|
If your images are not sharp, do not blame the lens!
Excellent walking around lens.
Light weight.
Blows away the 28-135 IS.
Hopefully Canon will produce a f2.8 IS L in this general MM range for low light wedding photographers. I know the price and weight will be higher, but that is part and parcel for excellent quality and I would be more than willing to pay for it.
Does work well in many wedding situations.
AHAB
|
|
|
Jul 4, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
509
|
860359
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
