about | support
home
 

Search Used

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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
517 902717 Jul 19, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
86% of reviewers $1,515.98
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.48
8.04
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:  20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30>  next
      
Scho
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 29, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 60
Review Date: Jun 16, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,099.00 | Rating: 4 

Pros: Good construction.
Cons:
Not sharp

I bought this lens to use for general walk around shooting. I have not been pleased at all with image quality. Mediocre sharpness, barrel and pincushion distortion, and terrible bokeh. This one is going back and I'll stick with my primes (20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 135mm f2/L).

Jun 16, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Scho to your Buddy List  
photo1a
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

Registered: Feb 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 475
Review Date: Jun 15, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Good build quality.
Cons:
Not as sharp focusing as I expected it to be.

Update 1-16-2014: I sent the lens for cleaning and recalibration several month ago, and am very pleased with the lens. It is tack sharp and needs little sharpening in post processing. I am using the lens with a Canon 5DIII.

I got his for a general purpose lens. As an L lens,I expected it to be very sharp. However, it is nowhere as sharp as my 70-300 or 70-200 on the long end, and o better than my 17-85 on the short end. I sent it to the factory for calibration twice, but it still disappoints me. It focuses about like my 28-135.


Jun 15, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add photo1a to your Buddy List  
neilcuk05
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 14, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Great build quality, not too heavy, fast and silent USM, sharp (enough) wide open, and sharp (enough) from 70-105, an ideal walkaround with a 10-xx on a 1.6x camera
Cons:
Bit pricey, but it's the only option in its range

I love this lens... the USM is great, and i'm particularly impressed with the accuracy of the focus at wide angle. For example, with a lot of lenses i've used in the past, taking advantage of the parfocal nature of the lens to zoom in, focus, then zoom out again often gets better results

However with the 24-105, focusing @ 24mm then zooming in to 105mm and re-focusing more often than not results in NO adjustment to the focus. I guess it's small things like that that make a lens an 'L'

The zoom ring is a bit stiff but that'll loosen up over time. Rather stiff than loose !

The lens is simply a joy to use.

Some may argue F/4 isn't fast enough - but there is no faster alternative with the range, which suggests to me that, given the weight of Canon's 24-70 F/2.8, a 24-105 F/2.8 would be impractical to use as a walkaround lens

It's an ideal compliment to my Sigma 10-20, which covers the wide angle nicely. 24mm on a crop camera is wide enough of my usage, and I don't find myself wanting to swap lenses every five minutes. Also, i found that 18/17mm isn't wide enough for me in many situations - so having an extra lens to cover the ultra wide was ideal

Highly recommended - you get what you pay for, the only lens in its range, and some serious quality for it too



Jun 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add neilcuk05 to your Buddy List  
YYClickit
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 13, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: SHARP, IS, build quality is excellent.
Cons:
Could be wider on a 1.6x crop, but I knew this before buying.

This is a fantastic lens. From what I can tell, the resolution exceeds that of my 8.0MP XT sensor. No noticable sharpness drop at f/4, either.

The IS is a great bonus and lets me take a lot of pictures that otherwise would not be possible without a tripod.

Highly recommended - I certainly didn't want to fork out the cash for this lens, but in this case, you get what you pay for!


Jun 13, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add YYClickit to your Buddy List  
JanPhoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 27, 2006
Location: Ethiopia
Posts: 32
Review Date: Jun 12, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: I am pretty demanding customer and in my book this lens for my line of Canon digital SLR's is a "swiss knife" tool. Sharp, excellent color reproduction, fast focus, silent, relatively small .....
Cons:
... do not recall any at this moment ...

I am using this lens as on "all time" on camera "glass" for it's connivance ... in some instances even in studio for still-life shooting since quality of focusing and it's sharpens in my opinion is so good. Recently I have purchased 30D and found that on this body this lens is superior too. Well I can sing on and on about this lens how ever for those of you thinking to purchase this glass well do not wait any longer, for this one money are well spend ....

Jun 12, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add JanPhoto to your Buddy List  
python2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 885
Review Date: Jun 8, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,219.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Awesome!!! Great IQ, build quality, range. Everything I was hoping for and more.
Cons:
That I didn't get it earlier.

I'm an avid amateur who uses an XT. I shoot mostly for family members and myself. This lens is near perfect for what it does. You knew it was 24 to 105, you knew it was f/4, and you knew it was $1200 all before you bought it. But what you may not know is how nice the pictures are, how quickly the lens focuses, how it feels on your camera, and how nice a big range is on one lens.

I used to have the 17-85 and really loved having 17mm, but was willing to give it up. I contemplated getting the 17-55 but wasn't sure I would appreciate a shorter range. I don't like changing lenses and I really like the ability to get the normal to zoom. (I also have the 10-22 so am not worried about losing the wide end.)

I have no regrets about buying this lens. As much as I love my 70-200 f/4 I hope that Canon comes out with a 100-300 f/4 IS that is smaller and better IQ than the 100-400.


Jun 8, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add python2000 to your Buddy List  
silmaril
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 5, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 18
Review Date: Jun 7, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Brilliantly sharp with great colour rendition
Cons:
Vignetting and very small CA.

This is my second review after using this lens more extensively.

This is a significant improvement to the EF-S 17-85MM. Incredibly sharp with great colours. The only thing I am not happy about is vignetting which is evident even after stopping down. This isn't a major issue as it can be fixed in CS but annoying all the same as it is a L lense and issues like this should be non-existent.

Ideally if it is f2.8, it would be the ultimate walkaround lens with a FF camera/ I won't deduct any points as I know that it was an f4 when buying it since it was advertised as f4!!

I am not sure if it is my imagination, but some of my pictures feel very 2D. Maybe it is "too sharp"??? Seems a little weird.


Jun 7, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add silmaril to your Buddy List  
jimdavies
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1557
Review Date: Jun 7, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, IS, Weight, Build Quality, Range
Cons:
None

Much of my review is said below. The lens is sharp (even wide open) and has a very useful range (even on a 20D).

The IS really is superb opening up some very creative opportunities.

It's the standard lens on my 20D and only the 70-200 f2.8L IS can prize it off for any legth of time.

I love it :-)



Jun 7, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jimdavies to your Buddy List  

Offline
Review Date: Jun 4, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent built quality, sharp, IS, size
Cons:
Price

I love this lens. Its on my camera most of the time. Excellent walk around. I cannot think of any other lens to have all the time.


Jun 4, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add  to your Buddy List  
TechnoPhil
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 3, 2006
Location: San Marino
Posts: 2
Review Date: May 29, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: $1,000.00

Pros: Contruction, Focal Range, Optical Quality
Cons:
price...

Very intresting standard zoom only for full frame camers!excelent sharpness and details!
good wide angle!
ideal if you want to travel with few weight/short lens!!


May 29, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add TechnoPhil to your Buddy List  
Remford
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Aug 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1391
Review Date: May 29, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: The finest "walkaround" lens available. Vivid, sharp, and rock-steady with its 3rd Generation IS. Incredibly useful focal length range for all EF mount types and crop factors.
Cons:
None.

My only reason for rating the 24-105 L a 9, despite having no obvious vices and being an absolutely tremendous investment, is that I believe there are other L-Series lenses that, unto themselves, are the epitome of optical science. I only wish a 9.9 rating was available for the 24-105.

The 24-105 f/4 IS should be the cornerstone of every handheld photographer's lens line-up. Period.

It is tremendously sharp and vivid with superbly rich colors and very nice bokeh characteristics (considering its f/4 maximum aperture).

Its 24-105 range makes it very possible to enjoy a day of outdoor shooting without a lens change or feeling that keeping the 24-105 on the camera would be short-changing the outcome.

Being stabilized, it affords an additional degree of sharpness for handheld shooting above and beyond many primes within the same range. This is a traveler's dream.

Light fall-off is negligible throughout, and sharpness is ubiquitous from edge to edge, without regard for aperture or focal length.

Some might view the f/4 maximum aperture as a weakness, favoring a wider f/2.8. While this would make for a better "creative" or "artistic" lens due to narrower DOF potential, and it would permit faster shutter speeds to stop action, this is not what the 24-105 was designed to do. It thrives outdoors; and even though f/2.8 would certainly be nice to have, its wide-open sharpness makes it useful for quality that most f/2.8 lenses only realize when stopped down to f/4, making the practical difference much less than it might seem at first.

I would not, however, choose the 24-105 for indoor available light shooting or broad portraiture. Such shooting requires a wide aperture and low-light capability. I see this as more a matter of choosing the right tool for the job than something the 24-105 may be inherently lacking.

As such, and while the 24-105 is, by far, the most-used of my 20 professional-grade optics, I also own the 24-70 f/2.8 L; and together they make an almost-perfect pair. While I own (and love) the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, to have a stabilized option with the best of all aperture/stabilization combinations, I am really waiting for Canon to offer an equivalent for the EF mount. If, and when, this happens, it will have to be superb for me to shift from my 24-105 altogether without feeling like I am compromising something. While I will certainly welcome a stabilized available light standard zoom lens for handheld shooting, I fear that at f/2.8, it would be very heavy for convenient and comfortable "walkaround" or travel use, which is where the 24-105 absolutely shines, and for which a stabilized f/4 option is more than adequate.

It's cost is high compared to other stabilized standard zooms like the 28-135 or 17-85 (for the EF-S mount), but its image output is absolutely unrivaled, and its 24-105 range makes it beautiful for realtively narrow European streets and long enough for most casual shooting.

I'll close as I began by stating that the 24-105 should be the cornerstone of each and every photographer's lens lineup. Period. I know of no greater praise to offer, and have rarely felt I've spent $1,250 so well. Thank you Canon.


May 29, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Remford to your Buddy List  
pauljm
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 3, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Review Date: May 28, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent focal length, image quality and IS
Cons:
None really

Excellent day to day lens. I have a great collection of Canon lenses, but have not really had an 'allrounder' since the demise of my push pull 35-105 bought in 1990.

The image quality of this lens is excellent. Despite the negative comments from earlier posters I find the IS very useful indeed. Great low light capability for an f4 lens. Light enough to carry all day.

I am generally a prime shooter, and bought this for a trip to Europe. I am very happy.


May 28, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add pauljm to your Buddy List  
kicker
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 24, 2006
Location: Turkey
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 6 

Pros: Sharp, crystal clear photos, especially wonderful macros, lovely colors, also fast and accurate focus, good bokeh, good construction quality.
Cons:
Price... In USA, many of reviewers tells that it's expensive. In my country, it has 2X price of USA. And damn slow! f:4 is not enough for indoor or low light conditions.

This is my first L lens. I often take indoor event shots without flash, and before buying this lens, I didn't expect that it will be too fast, but its worse than my expectations. Ok, that is my fault, perhaps I had to be start with an f:2.8 lens. But Canon doesn't have an f:2.8L lens in this zoom spectrum. I have to buy a 16-35 or 20-70 instead of 24-105 ! Why don't they have a 24-105 or 24-135/f:2.8 L IS USM ? Why do I have to pass this range with 2 or more lens?
Talking about lens, it's construction quality is good and it takes crystal clear photos has beautiful color. USM is speedy and silent, and the IS is pretty good at 105 mm range. I like outdoor photos and macros very much.
Eventually it's a good quality lens of course, but not a consumer friend one.
If you don't expect to buy a fast lens but looking for a better alternative for kit lens, and if you have a lot of money of course, you may be happy with this lens. But be sure, this is not FIRST L series IS-USM lens to buy.


May 27, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add kicker to your Buddy List  
Tony Bonanno
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 287
Review Date: May 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, focal length range, IS, build quality
Cons:
Nothing significant... maybe price, but its on par with other L lenses

I'm a pro and my 24-70 2.8 L is the workhorse of my lenses. I'm usually shooting on a Full Frame (FF) 1DsII or 1.3x 1DII. The 24-70 has never, NOT once, let me down and it get lots of heavy use (just came off an assignment in Mexico where I shot over 3000 frames). But I'm really getting tired of the weight, especially when combined with the series 1 bodies, flash unit, and flash battery pack attached to camera (CP-E3). My six decades old arm and wrist struggles after a few hours. The other issue I have with the 24-70 is that I'm often wanting a little more reach when using the FF 1DsMKII. With the kind of work I do, I often have to pull out the 70-200 2.8 L to get that extra reach. I've often thought if the 24-70 had a little more reach, I wouldn't need to swap lenses nearly as much.

SOoo, I decided to get the 24-105 4.0 L to "lighten the load" and to give me more reach on the FF camera bodies. My main concern was image quality. I did not want to compromise the quality that I was use to with my trusty 24-70.

I just completed some side by side tests using a stable tripod, various focal lengths and aperture settings. Nothing scientific, but a reasonably accurate comparison of the 24-105 vs 24-70.

I'm very pleased ! The sample of the 24-105 I have appears to be every bit as sharp as my 24-70. At 24mm, wide open at f/4, the 24-105 actually appears to be a hair sharper in the corners than the 24-70 at f/4. I do not find vignetting to be a real issue.. What little there is can be dealt with easily enough in CS2. Distortion does not seem to be significant either. The 24-105 is every bit as contrasty as the 24-70 and I didn't notice any difference in color accuracy.

Regarding the comment of other users that the 24-105 underexposes at f/4 compared to other aperture settings, there is some validity to that observation. However, in my sample the amount of "under" is not more than 1/3 stop and is really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. AND, in case anyone is interested, the 24-70 exhibits the SAME behavior at f/2.8 compared to its other apertures. There appears to be something in the design of these two lenses that causes a slight light drop off wide open. Once again, a non issue in my opinion.

Build quality appears excellent. Focuing and Zoom rings are snug, smooth, and consistent.

I can live with f/4 just fine for most purposes. I have decided to keep the 24-70 2.8 for certain available low light applications and as a backup lens, but I doubt that it will see much (if any) use now that I've got the 24-105.

Overall, I highly recommend this lens.


May 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Tony Bonanno to your Buddy List  
cpuran
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4
Review Date: May 21, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: Build Quality. IS.
Cons:
Price to Performance Ratio.

I've had my 20D for over a year now and have been using my Tamron 24-135 with it the entire time. I bought that lens about 4 years ago (coupled with the Elan 7e) since I was on a budget and was looking for the best "bang for the buck."

While I've been very happy with the Tamron, I was now looking to replace that lens with something better, assuming that a Canon L lens would fit the bill. After reading all the reviews, I bought the 24-105 on a good deal from Dell.

The look and feel of the lens is very nice and it's a pleasure to shoot with, but how about the performance?? After shooting back to back against my Tamron for days, I was VERY surprised to find that I actually preferred the Tamron for outdoor shooting. The Tamron was sharper and clearer across equal focal ranges and apertures. The difference was usually very slight and only noticeable at 100% crop comparisons . . . but my findings were consistent. That being the case, why pay $1100 to replace a lens that it can't beat??

The Canon, of course, has the edge in indoor and low light situations since it has IS, but this alone was not enough for me to keep the lens. I returned it and am delighted to keep my Tamron as my outdoor walk-around lens. I will be using the mone saved to buy an UWA or telephoto zoom to complement the Tamron's 24-135 focal range.

If low light situations are few and far between for you, do youself a favor: buy the Tamron 24-135 and have fun shopping for something else with the extra $800 in your wallet.


May 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add cpuran to your Buddy List  
bakerwi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 106
Review Date: May 20, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,128.90 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Image Stabilzation, Range, Build Quality, Sharpness, Focus Speed, Color, Contrast and Weight.
Cons:
None so far!

I purchased this lens April 2006 (build date UU0310) at a super price net of the Canon rebate. Based on the specifications I knew the potential short comings of this lens, but they were acceptable. When I read other reviewers posting that the price is a "cons" I laugh. The price is only a "con" if you borrowed the lens; loved it, but couldn't afford it. If you purchased this lens then price was evidently not a "con". Also, the complaints about "low light" situations or that it should be f/2.8. Get over it and review the specs again. The lens is f/4. If f/2.8 was important to you then you should have purchased the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM (an awesome lens). I borrowed one from a friend and I hope to purchase one in the future. This lens is a great walk around lens and not so great for other situations. I'm rating this lens based on the specifications and not on what I want it to be. For those of us who talk about Vignetting, CA and Distortion your probably correct based on your subject matter and I've noticed a little in certain situations, but at the end of the day it is still a solid lens for me. This lens can't be everything for everybody.

May 20, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add bakerwi to your Buddy List  




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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
517 902717 Jul 19, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
86% of reviewers $1,515.98
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.48
8.04
9.0
24-105lisusm


Page:  20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30>  next