about | support
home
 

Search Used

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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
524 919757 Jan 21, 2015
Recommended By Average Price
85% of reviewers $1,508.02
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.46
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:  20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30>  next
          
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: 1392
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  
sumocomputers
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 18, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,219.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Range, IS
Cons:
f4, not what I expect from an "L"

I have a Canon 30D and new to photography (at least with an DSLR), so my review is not a professional one but just my impressions.

I have bought and returned many lenses for this camera in an effort to see what I really need and like. I have finally ended up with a 70-200L f2.8 IS, a 10-22 EF-S, and the 24-70L f2.8. That being said...

One little test is my cat indoors with natural light as well as with artificial light and my 580 flash to get an idea of how each lens behaves. I also take it outdoors for some general shots.

Outdoors, this lens is nice. For all the reasons stated before, it seems like an obvious choice for a walkaround lens (and perhaps over the 24-70 even). I agree with this.

Indoors however, I had some problems. It was not as sharp as I expected, and the outlines of subject had a weird red/blue haze. I pulled out the 70-200 as a sanity check, and at 85mm on both lenses, the 70-200 blew it away. I now bought the 24-70 which is also awesome.

I was sure that extra reach of this lens would be worth the trade-off, but for me it wasn't. I am just now using the 24-70 with excellent results.

Maybe we can hope for a 24-135L f2.8 with IS someday.


May 18, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add sumocomputers to your Buddy List  
execom99
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 23, 2005
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 173
Review Date: May 18, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,150.00

 
Pros: It is one of my sharpest lenses build like tank. It has bueatiful contrast and colors and IS works great. It allowed me to shoot niagara falls at night from hands with combination of Canon's high ISO sensitivity and very low noise. It is very handy lens on the 20D body
Cons:
nothing

In combination with Canon 10-22 it is perfect combo for all arround traveling.

May 18, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add execom99 to your Buddy List  
candlewood
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: May 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,150.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Silent IS
Cons:
Price

I was debating between this lens and the 24-70/2.8L. I read some reviews and understand the limitation of this lens and in the same time, many professionals choose this lens over the 24-70/2.8L because of the weight issue and the advantage of IS. I think I'd get this one and when I need to take nice portraits, I can always augment it with a fast prime.

Last week, I used it in my niece's graduation ceremony. It was held in a large indoor stadium. It doesn't have the reach to the other side of the arena. In fact, it's so big and had so many people that I didn't even know where she was. So I took some pictures at the maximum zoom. After we got home, I found her in one of the pictures when I zoomed in 100%. The faces of the people are amazing clear. It matches the resolution of 100/2.8 macro which I unwillingly sold. I had to increase the ISO to 400 and shoot at 1/60 sec, but motion blur was not a serious issue for that types of events. I also used it to take the pictures of the running athletes in the track game held next door. The pictures are very nice.

I personally don't mind the distortion at 24mm because I have a nice efs 10-22 lens for wide angle on 20D.


May 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add candlewood to your Buddy List  
veroman
Online
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3855
Review Date: May 12, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: $1,149.00

 
Pros: • Excellent build • Good balance on FF cameras • Useful range • IS comes in handy
Cons:
• Excessive barrel distortion at wide angle • CA and other artifacts are very noticeable • Somewhat "flat," 2-dimensional imagery

This is an update to my earlier, initial review of the 24-205L f/4, in which I rated it a "10." Now that I've used it for a time, I'm no longer quite as enthusiastic as I was (the honeymoon is over!) and, in fact, I find myself rather disappointed in this lens on several levels.

In nearly every instance where I've photographed people against a solid, light color or even medium-tone background (and I'm referring to commercial work, not snapshots), a quite visible but hairline-width gray to black line appears around the heads and along the body line of those wearing light-colored clothing....sort of an outline of the figure. I do not see this with any of my other lenses, so I must necessesarily assume it has something to do with this particular lens' design. Additionally, the colors rarely turn out quite as richly saturated as with my other Canon lenses, including primes. The colors are not at all washed out nor are they faded, and contrast is not diminished with this lens. It's just that, after shooting sessions with this lens, I find myself increasing color saturation in PS much more often and to more of a degree than I do with my other Canon lenses.

What has bothered me more than anything, though, is the lack of depth when shooting with this lens. Many times I get results that look more like cardboard cutouts of the real thing as opposed to the life-like, almost 3-dimensional photo of the real thing that I'm used to and expect regardless of which lens I've used. I know my cameras are capable of that (1Ds and 10D), but the 24-105L doesn't ever seem to achieve it. This is a very noticeable shortcoming to me.

All in all, the 24-105 f/4L has to be considered is a good lens, but I don't think it's the "great" lens that so many reviewers have characterized it as; and in quite a few respects I don't think it's the equal of many of my other lenses, some of which cost considerably less. I actually find myself enjoying my 28-105 "consumer-grade" lens than I do the 24-105 f/4L.

Now....before you jump to the conclusion that I managed to get a "bad copy," be aware that I sent the lens back to Canon for examination and adjustment where needed and if necessary. It was returned as being ok and within specs. I was surprised. On the other hand, I'm beginning to see that this is a controversial lens and that others are having issues with it as well.

Yes, it's a sharp lens, and it picks up a lot of detail. Aside from the slightly undersaturated colors, it's relatively color faithful, and skin tones are very good. I think f/4 is an over-estimated aperture compromise for a constant aperture lens. I decided that when I bought my 70-200 f/4L. I constantly found myself wishing it were an f/2.8. I would say the same about the 24-105L, IS and all. Sometimes I don't want to use IS because I'm concerned about battery drain. At a time like that, and at other times, f/4 is just barely large enough. I also prefer to shoot at low ISOs whenever possible, in much the same way that I preferred to shoot ASA 25 & 64 transparencies during my film days.

Anyway, at this point, overall, I'd rate the 24-105 f/4L an 8....and an expensive 8 at that.


May 12, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add veroman to your Buddy List  
susi
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2588
Review Date: May 10, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,179.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, Fast focus, contrast, color, weight, size and Hey Great pictures!
Cons:
Price was a tough one..

I got this lens a few days ago and it was raining so I got to test it in low light Smile I was surpised how well it did in the dim light inside with it being a f/4... I took it out today and took pictures of everything and became more and more impressed with it. I am amazed how I can crop a picture and zoom in and still see wonderful detail..first lens I have ever been able to do this with ..but this is my first L glass. The money was a tough one for me being a single Mom, but I think this glass will earn its keep at the next wedding I shoot, so this is a keeper for me! I highly recommend this lens for any subject matter!

May 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add susi to your Buddy List  
TimesUP
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 650
Review Date: May 10, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: $1,125.00

 
Pros: Great all around lens, sharpness is what I expected, color rendention is great, "L" glass is awesome
Cons:
Not really a negative but f/4.0 is a tad slow for low light weddings, only other issue is that lens does seem to tend to under expose by a stop or more.


Just a quick follow-up to a post a few weeks back. If you are shooting weddings with this lens you will struggle in low-light conditions. If anyone out there has mastered it feel free to drop me a line. Having said that, and even though I have a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 I can tell you from my experience there is comparison in picture quality. Better color, sharpness, and details the "L" blows it away and yes; its worth the $700 difference! I did read in a post back in Dec that the 24-105 seemed to be a little dark (maybe off by a stop or so). I also found this to be true. While the Sigma does not deliver on many points it always seemed to registure a higher shutter speed (100 to 150 higher than the CANON) at the same aperture (f/4.0) and always seemed to be a shade brighter on a side by side review. Not sure why the difference but the Sigma will be on ebay soon....


May 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add TimesUP to your Buddy List  
kendallkoning
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 90
Review Date: May 10, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: IS can make otherwise impossible shots happen, Good Range, Reasonably sharp already at F/4, Build, Focus Speed
Cons:
Strong Vignette at 24mm, $200 too expensive.

Used mainly for landscapes, museums, and occations where light conditions are varied or unknown. It's what's on the camera unless there's a specific reason for another lens.

May 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add kendallkoning to your Buddy List  
Netgarden
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2547
Review Date: May 6, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: If you are tired of lugging alot of lenses around the 24-105 is the one to get. The optical quality is outstanding.
Cons:
Takes some getting used to in low light. But after you get to know the lens, its pretty consistent in quality photos.

My first L lens, so I don't have much to compare it to. I do now have the 300mm f4 L and both are top quality in color and clarity, and equal in worth.

I can say after using the 24-105 for 6 months that it is now always on my camera. A perfect walk around, I'd say its best qualities are landscape and outdoors. If you want a portrait lens you might want a f2.0 of sort to compliment the 24-105.

The IS is excellent, fast focus and useful down to 1/8 sec photos. If anyone wants to see a few pics just email me.

I had a few issues like a few low light pictures that disappointed, but what can one expect from a f4? I think people have picked this lens apart, but overall, after you get used to this lens you won't put it away. Some photos are so sharp, no processing is needed. Consistent, quality photos.





May 6, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Netgarden to your Buddy List  
fintax
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 3, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 122
Review Date: May 6, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: L-lens all the way! Great color, contrast, sharpness. Build quality is top-notch, and the weight on a 350/XT is just fine. A superb walk-around lens with excellent range.
Cons:
None.

This amazing lens, along with my 70-300 USM IS lens, will soon be complemented by the 10-22 WA for what I think is a great travel combo. And I always bring my tiny 35f/2 for low light.

If you have the $$$, it's unbeatable as a "light-weight" do-it-all lens for my 350/XT.


May 6, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add fintax to your Buddy List  

   



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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
524 919757 Jan 21, 2015
Recommended By Average Price
85% of reviewers $1,508.02
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.46
8.03
9.0
24-105lisusm


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