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 908554 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:  20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30>  next
          
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
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3798
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: 2584
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  
gwhitegeog
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
Review Date: May 5, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: Excellent build quality, focussing, IS, FTM, USM, very sharp and contrasty when stopped down at mid to long focal lengths
Cons:
Vignettes at F4 even though Canon says it doesn't; lots of distortion and CA at the wide end; soft at f4

This is a follow-up to my earlier review. Posts from other reviewers shows that wherever you are in the world, it is impossible to get a straight or helpful answer from Canon over this lens. There is a deafening silence. I have never known such controversy about a Canon SLR / lens product and Canon need to come clean.

I bought this lens as soon as it was available in the UK, to go with my 'first off the boat' EOS 5D body that I bought in September 2005.

Luckily, I had one of the 'improved versions' (with a red dot on the Canon UK box and a UT number of over 1000), as I had waited until January to buy it as I had read so many mixed comments elsewhere.

Anyway, I didn't have any of the flare problems of the early models (that Canon acknowedged - see the Canon UK website notice) but I do have reservations. I used the lens for it first job taking travel stock shots in Berlin in February. The IS was excellent and build quality is superb, along with focussing, zooming, NR filter, FTM, etc. Optically, however, I feel that it is not up to the usual 'L' series standards (I have 8 others). Canon says it doesn't vignette at the wide end on FF cameras. It does - wide open and up to two stops below too. At mid and long focal lengths, optical quality is very good at mid apertures but at the wide end there is a lot of edge distortion and CA on a FF camera (5D, IDs). I find the lens perfectly usable from 35-105 range but this is hardly the point. It's quite soft at f4.0. On film cameras, CA is not a problem at the wide end but distortion is. As a professional series 'walk around' lens it has limitations, which considering its price it shouldn't have. And one copy seems to vary from the next. There are undoubtedly many challenges in making a 24-105 zoom (the wide end particularly). Maybe Canon tried to make it at too cheap a price point (seriously)?

I would like to know about the experiences of others with this lens. This was really a first for Canon - an L series lens that they heavily marketed as a 'kit' with a pro body. Apparently, Canon US sold more of these lenses than all other L series lenses combined, which might explain lens supply problems at the moment (see my separate post). Did they over-extend themselves with quality control issues? I have used Canon cameras and bodies for over 25 years, 20 if those as a professional. I used their bodies and lenses when other people were all using Nikon. I stuck through them thick and thin and have always loved their products. I am not minded to change at all and shall continue to invest in Canon EF stuff. I just wish sometimes there was a bit more honesty from them - maybe it a Japanese corporate thing. Canon says there isn't a problem with the lens and that it does what it is supposed to do. Mmmm.....

Though I have no doubt that I have one of the better examples of the lens, I full statement from Canon (apart from the early flare issues) would be really appreciated. Still, I suppose that would acknowledge that there was a problem...but they can't keep saying 'it does what it says on the box', 'cos it doesn't. Every user of this lens should contact Canon to force them to make a statement

OK, people now use Photoshop and look at everything at 400% magnification. But I'll show anyone a shot taken on the 24-105 L compared with a 24-85mm non-L cheapy. It's quite embarrassing really....


May 5, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add gwhitegeog to your Buddy List  
silmaril
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 5, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 18
Review Date: May 5, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Substantial improvement in sharpness, colour rendering and CA over the Canon EF-S 17-85.
Cons:
Minor CA in some photos (still being verified). I would sacrifice some focal length on long for f2.8 but nothing is perfect.

My previous lense for EF-S 17-85 IS which is a fantastic focal length for the 20D. This new L lense matched with 5D is almost identical in terms of focal length, and makes a perfect SLR + lense combo. My initial plan was to buy the L lense to use on a 20D, but with the 1.6 crop makes the lense not very useful for travels. (which subsequently meant a second mortgage in order to buy the 5D)

It was a hard decision between this and the 24-70, but the latter weights a tonne and lacks IS which is pretty important as I use this camera for travels (normal sightseeing, churches and museums). 24-70 is reputed to be better optically and obviously f2.8 so the choice between the 2 is dependent on your needs.

The lense is a substantial improvement to 17-85. I notice improvement across most levels (sharpness, colour and CA), with the exception of vignetting which I don't think improved at all. Grant you, this L lense cost 1.8x more, so it should be better. I thought my cheap 50 f1.8 prime is sharper, but the L lense had better colour.

I must admit I was slightly disappointed at the poor vignetting at f4 wide (only in some instances), but this is nothing that can't be fixed in CS.

I did notice some minor CA in some of my photos. To be honest, I didn't know what to expect as this is my first L lense, but I did expect higher level of performance from a L lense, as CA is almost impossible to fixed. Don't get me wrong. The CA is still substantially better than 17-85, and you can really only notice it if you are pixel hunting, or blow up the photo for printing.

To compare sharpness level, have a look at the photo below which compare the 17-85 to the 24-105. The top is the former, and bottom is the 24-105. They are both shot using a 20D at 50mm at f5.6. Its like day and night.

<a href="http://users.bigpond.net.au/silmaril/CanonLenseCompare.jpg" target="_blank">http://users.bigpond.net.au/silmaril/CanonLenseCompare.jpg</a>


May 5, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add silmaril to your Buddy List  
mediluz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 5, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: easy to use solid, all purpose lens; IS; istortion acceptable
Cons:
Not only vignetting is remarkable, but an overall underexposure is well evident at f 4 especially at extreme lenghts and in subdued light.

I recently bought a 24-105 L for use on a 5D FF and I've been immediately struck by a relevant degree of underexposure at f 4. I can now confirm that , any other conditions being equal, pictures appear darker at f 4, as compared to exactly the same shot got at 5.6 with doubling time exposure. This is not just vignetting, the full picture is affected until down to the center, although the effect is more relevant at the borders and corners. A beige wall at f8 becomes light brown at f 4, where an azure sky becomes blue. This is particularly appreciable at extreme focal lenghts and in subdued light, but still evident in several different light conditions. Such a peculiarity becomes much less evident - if at all -going from 5.6 to 8. Although I was not expecting prime lenses performances from a 4.3x zoom, I think this is the major drawback of a lens with more than honest walk around features, far however from what one could expect from L. I've been wondering whether such features were typical of the lens project and meet production standards, or affected just my own sample. I applied to my country's Canon assistance, having no satisfactory answer on the phone. I then wrote to the customers care office in Italy and at Canon Europe, getting no answer at all! I think that 28-70 is by far too heavy and I will keep the combo until I get tired of it and the way Canon deals with me...

May 5, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mediluz to your Buddy List  
footnoteblog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 42
Review Date: May 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, beautiful renditions. Excellent quality build (naturally), extremely versatile with some macro capability, even on a 1.6 "crop" camera. Solid, fast focusing, and Image Stabilizer is extremely handy.
Cons:
Negligibly soft at long lens. Not internal focusing (tube extends as you zoom in); not necessarily a major negative.

This is the perfect walkaround lens, and should be a stable in every camera bag. Its 77mm outer thread means you can share its hood and filters with other sibling lenses. You can get pretty close to subjects, or virtually step in with the 105 extension. It's pretty sharp all across the range, and even wide open. I highly recommend this lens for walking during the day. It pushes just fine in the evening too!

Dell specials have come and gone, but if you can get in on some of the deals, they are a bargain. You may wait a few weeks, and like some, maybe even a month. If this lens isn't critical to your business, it's worth the wait for the price.


May 1, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add footnoteblog to your Buddy List  

   



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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
520 908554 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:  20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30>  next