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 915722 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
      
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  
samdiesel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 36
Review Date: Apr 30, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Color, Sharpness, Range, Weight, Size, Balance, Build. It's an L, what else do I need to say?
Cons:
None.

I wanted an L lens that I could leave on my Digital Rebel XT for most shots.

I narrowed my search down to the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L. I read the reviews and decided that the quality would be even between the two lenses. I tried both lenses on my camera and chose the 25-105 f/4L for the following reasons:

Its much lighter and feels balanced on the Rebel, the 24-70 is a brick. If I had the 20d/30d, I might have chosen differently.

My uses. I planned to take mostly outdoor shots of stationary subjects with this lens. Landscapes, Architecture, etc. For this, IS is way more useful than an extra stop in aperture. f/2.8 is one stop faster than f/4, allowing you to shoot with one stop faster shutter. IS allows you to shoot with 3 stops faster shutter. Unless your subjects are moving, and mine generally aren't, I want IS. BTW, the IS is dead silent. Amazing.

In general, the pictures have unbelievable color, I am sold on L lenses now, despite the cost. The sharpness is amazing. No complaints. I shoot in RAW, and convert with Digital Photo Professional that comes with the Rebel. Set Quality to 10 and Sharpness to 5, and this lens will only be limited by your abilities.

Great lenses will outlast the best camera. If you consdier yourself serious about photography, or aspire to be, invest in the best. Worth every penny!


Apr 30, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add samdiesel to your Buddy List  
jwcn
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 19, 2005
Location: China
Posts: 83
Review Date: Apr 30, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Range as Walk-Around Lens, built-quality, IS
Cons:
Vignetting wide open on 5D, not as sharp as 16-35mm

I thought I had acquired a perfect walk-around lens for my travel photo needs when I got it together with 5D, well... it seems things are not that simple. Of course, the range, the built-quality and especially IS all speak in its favour. I'm particularly amazed by the difference IS makes to low-light situations. In my case, image can be still quite sharp when hand-held as 1/10s. But the biggest let-down is the vignetting problem at 24mm, especially when I wanted to stitch photos. I now turn to my old and trusted 16-35mm when quality wide angle shots are what I am after. But for the extra range, I would definitely go for the 24-70mm instead.

Apr 30, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jwcn to your Buddy List  
gainsbourre
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent cailloux
Cons:
no comments

For me it is a 10 rating, better lens I ever had. I never had this piture quality with my 17-85 is usm using a 20d

Apr 27, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add gainsbourre to your Buddy List  
Psilonaught
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 3, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 17
Review Date: Apr 23, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Clarify, Sharpness and good zoom range (especially on 1.6 DSRL). Almost the perfect walk-around lens
Cons:
Weight. Serious landscapers not using a FF dSLR will require a wider lens in the kit bag to compensate for the 24mm low end

Having used a 17-85mm IS USM for 6 months I was starting to wonder if I would ever see sharp images on my 350D

Having spend an eternity deciding what to replace it with I finally decided to cough up the $$$ and buy the 24-105. It also has IS which was something I wasn't prepared to lose, and works exceptionally well

For me the longer bottom end compared to the 17-85 is more than compensated by the sharp, sharp and detailed images. The long end is quite decent too.

Add a decent ultra wide angle and you have a very very good walk-around kit bag with only 2 lenses.


Apr 23, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Psilonaught to your Buddy List  
henris
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 23
Review Date: Apr 22, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent range, IS is great, solid build, nice colors and contrast
Cons:
cost

Excellent lens! Replaced my kit lens when I purchased an XT and sold my 300D Kit. Love it!

Apr 22, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add henris to your Buddy List  
allanyue
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 29, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 38
Review Date: Apr 22, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: L-Series quality, very sharp pics at all focal lengths, weight, great walk around lens.
Cons:
A little soft at F4 but thats being very picky, its F4 but thats what i paid for.

I had the 28-135 IS for many years and retired it for this new L series lens. I've been doing alot of work with this lens for the past few months and i must say that this lens is one hell of a performer. Super sharp pics on my 1dsmk2n and my 20D. Weight is a blessing and IS is helpful during low light work.

A very versitile lens, highly recommended.

Cheers Smile


Apr 22, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add allanyue to your Buddy List  
fluxomatic
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 21, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

Pros: Build, IS
Cons:
CA, i stopped testing further after seeing it..

I thought a long time what would be my first L. Looking trough my shorts of the last years I decided on the 24-105 to fit best for my purposes.

After reading the occasional bad reviews in aspect of CA, this was the first thing I tried to test. My experience is shurely not high, but I know how to cause CA to show and it showed. I compared what I shot directly with my Sigma 18-200 with equivalent exposure settings and must say that the Sigma compared better in regard of CA. This was when both where "wide" open in the tele-range.

I dont know If I did anything wrong or can't expect everything from an L lens, but I stopped testing and will return this lense intermediatly since there wasn't any other optical "wow", too. For me, it is simply to much money for what I got and I hope this was only a bad copy. I'm still amazed what my crappy 50 1:1.8 does optically in comparision to my Sigma, but this one didn't surprise me other than the excellent Build and the IS.


Apr 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add fluxomatic to your Buddy List  
msavin
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

Registered: Dec 3, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 580
Review Date: Apr 19, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: just an outstanding lens. overall better opticaly than the 24-70 f2.8 excellent build quality.
Cons:
slightly more distortion at both extreme focal lenghts compared to the 24-70.

works perfectly on my 1dsmk11 which says a lot about its optical quality.

Apr 19, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add msavin to your Buddy List  
njw1224
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 18, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 6 

Pros: Build quality. Comes with hood.
Cons:
Low contrast, soft edges, chromatic aberration, sharpness not up to L standards.

I was very disappointed with this lens. When I first tested it I thought the images were somewhat soft (tested on a 30D). So I did some comparisons with my 17-85 Canon non-L lens at 24, 60, and 85mm. I also tested the tele end of the lens against my Canon 70-200 L-IS at 70 and 105mm. All tests were done on a tripod at f8. The 17-85 and 70-200 both blew away this lens in terms of overall sharpness, contrast, edge detail & vignetting, and CA. I know some of you will say that the 17-85 isn't a good comparison because it's specifically made for the APS sensor size, but L-series optics should still match or exceed it for the price you pay. Plus, with full-frame lenses like the 24-105, I'm only using the center of the lens image, so I should be getting the best the lens can offer. I sent the lens back for an exchange. I'm hoping I just got a bad copy. I have other L lenses, so I know what to expect from them - and this lens didn't deliver.

Apr 18, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add njw1224 to your Buddy List  
yanka
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Location: Latvia
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 15, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: 24-105, sharp, IS,
Cons:
Weight small (disbalance Canon 5D), F4, Soft in 105mm, price

I would recommend this lens as the KIT with 5D, in this case the price is good, otherwise I chose 24-70 F2.8L -is better quality.

Apr 15, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add yanka to your Buddy List  
streetshooter
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 15
Review Date: Apr 13, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,079.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: This lens focuses very fast and accurate even in low light. I have not noticed any CA that wasn't anticipated. The lens is very sharp and stopped down to 8 or 11 it's as good as it gets. The color transmits very natural and the contrast is excellent. It's light and relatively small considering the focal lengths it covers. I have been using L series lens including the 35 and 24 on the streets. Now, with this lens, I have more freedom with my chosen perspective.
Cons:
The lens hood fits good but can turn and fall off easily. I lost it last weekend on a shoot in Atlantic City. I ordered a new one from Amazon for $60.00 and it arrived yesterday...it too fits good but turns easy....otherwise, no complaints....don

Great all around carry lens. Covers the range and does the job it cracks up to do. It's a real winner....you can't go wrong for the money...don

Apr 13, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add streetshooter to your Buddy List  
ktomkins
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 10, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: nice zoom range
Cons:
Severe distortion, vignetting, and Chromatic aberration

I was really disappointed with this lens. It was quite sharp throughout the range, but there was also a lot of barrel distortion and CA throughout the entire range. The CA was no better than the $400 28-300 Tamron that I also have. It also had a lot of vignetting at 24mm. I ended up sending it back.

Apr 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add ktomkins to your Buddy List  




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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
524 915722 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