about | support
home
 

Search Used

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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
515 895408 Mar 11, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
86% of reviewers $1,515.98
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.48
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
          
rwelliott
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5
Review Date: Mar 20, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,245.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Just got the 24-105. Sharp as a tack at 4.0 24-30mm. No noticable flare. At 105mm lost some sharpness and saturation at 4PM on the beach during overcase conditions. IS is excellent. A great walk-around lens.
Cons:
Pricey

I plan to use this lens this week during an AVP (Volleyball) shoot. We will see. Still may need a 2.8 for blur.

Mar 20, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rwelliott to your Buddy List  
hijkim
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 85
Review Date: Mar 17, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: IS, Sharp, Fast AF and Range. Good bulld quality.
Cons:
F/4, but for L lens with IS at this price, I can't complaint.

I now have two Canon L lenses this and 17-40 and they both are supurb lenses. I got this lens as a christmas gift and I opened it before the christmas and took it out and started to test out the lens. The IS is just amazing, I was kind of dizzy at first, my hands were shaking but the view finder was showing something different and I could not get use to it at first. The 99% of the pictures were all sharp which I could not say with 17-40L and colors were about the same as 17-40L. I don't know if it is just me but both of my L lenses have little warm tone to it especially when taking photos of people the skin tone comes out softer and warmer than my other lenses, but then it could be just my computer monitor settings.

This lens is on my camera 90% of the time. For me it is a normal to telephoto lens on my 350D. I could not say it is a wide lens on 1.6 crop. It is perfect for portraits, I would not use it for taking wide angle photos unless it is on a 5D or 1D. I'm saving up for 5D at the moment so that I don't have to buy the digital only 10-?mm lenses but this summer I might have to get 10-20 unless I get a bonus from work.

Anyway, I'm really happy that I have 24-105L and if you can afford it I can recommnad this lens. Even though it was a gift, basically it was out of my pocket. I need permissions form 'the other one' to buy anything.


Mar 17, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add hijkim to your Buddy List  
dimisp
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 1, 2005
Location: Greece
Posts: 3
Review Date: Mar 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very sturdy yet light enough, very sharp, extemely fast focusing, IS.
Cons:
A bit pricey.

This is an extremely well made lens. I was also considering the 24-70/2.8 but after testing both lenses for an hour or so, it seemed that for my needs, this was the better suited lens.

All in all:
Built quality is excellent (as expected from all "L" series lens and actual price)
Focusing speed is ultra fast and USM seems a lot more quiet than my 85/1.8. I can hardly hear it.
IS delivers as promised: 2-3 stops depending on circumstances and individual ability to remain still. Actually makes a difference in several situations where I would normally need to pump up the iso. This is my first IS lens so I cannot compare to earlier versions, however the noise it makes is very low, barely noticeable clicks.
CA is very well handled, something that the aforementioned 85/1.8 fails to do.
I got one of the newer copies so I cannot commend on the flare issue of earlier copies.

Canon certainly did well on this one. Highly recommended.


Mar 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add dimisp to your Buddy List  
dlm32067
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6
Review Date: Mar 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,149.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Nice focal range. L Color saturation and contrast. Sharp!
Cons:
Exposure?

I just received my copy and so far, I'm very pleased. After reading some of the reviews here of this lens, I decided to do some testing. I compared this lens with three other lenses; the EF 70-200 f/4L, the EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, and the EF 50 f/1.8. I compared this lens to each of the above lenses at the same focal length.

The results;
At 28, 35, & 50 the 24-105 killed the 28-105.
At 50 the 50 f/1.8 surpased the 24-105 f/4L (no real surprise).
At 70 & 105 the 24 -105 and the 28 - 105 were dead even!
At 70 & 105 the 70 - 200 was only marginally sharper.

The above test was made using the same subject at the same distance on a tripod. Resolution was determined by the nik Sharpener pro "Real Resolution" Test.

With that out of the way, I'd have to day the lens is excellent, although, not knock your socks off. The Color and Contrast are what I've come to expect from L glass.

My only concern is with exposure. I'm not quite sure how it does it, but when I shoot raw and expose for the highlights, I have to add +1 EV (I usually only requre +1/3 EV). This I don't understand, but I accept for great Images.


Mar 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add dlm32067 to your Buddy List  
Lawless
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Review Date: Mar 13, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, colour saturation, excellent range and the IS works great.
Cons:
Price

I guess I got lucky because I have what seems to be, an extremely sharp copy of this lens on my first try. I tested it against my 17-40 f4 and my 70-200 f4 and it is on the same level as these very sharp lenses. It actually surpasses the 17-40 @ f4 slightly. The color saturation is excellent, and the IS lives up to the hype. Perfect compliment to my lens line up.
The 24mm end isn't that wide on my 20D, but a lot of my photos are taken at this length, so it works out nicely.
Get a sharp one, and you won’t be disappointed.


Mar 13, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Lawless to your Buddy List  
JohnJ80
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5647
Review Date: Mar 13, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,095.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Nice portable size, 24 is 'somewhat' wide on a 1.6X crop camera, very sharp, great contrast
Cons:
none

I have none of the flare issues that have been reported on early models. My copy is very sharp, has that great L color and saturation.

I like its size, relatively compact for its range.

J.


Mar 13, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add JohnJ80 to your Buddy List  
carstenw
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 25, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 14905
Review Date: Mar 13, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $900.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: sharp, fast AF, good balance with 5D, awesome IS.
Cons:
no reasonable complaints.

i bought this lens in a kit with a 5D, so the price is an estimate.

i love this lens! i have taken so many shots with this and the 5D which i could not have gotten with another lens like the 24-70 (i don't do sports) or a 1Ds, with its less good high ISO. in a dark museum, i have taken sharp pictures at speeds as low as 1 second, by leaning on things, holding my breath and relying on the IS.

it is sharp (within reason), has great balance and a solid feel, and everything about it works well. my one less positive experience was focusing trouble in a dark zoo with a polarizer on, but these are pretty tough conditions, and i got the pictures anyway, so i didn't deduct any points for that.

this lens is the perfect walk-about lens for the 5D. the only reason i didn't want to give it 10s is that somewhere out there is a better Leica lens... then again, that leica lens will cost triple, won't have IS, and will be 35-70, so this lens deserves the 10 overall. for what it is, i don't think it could be significantly better. just make sure you got a sharp copy. test test test, tripod, MLU, high shutter speeds, until you know it is sharp. then enjoy.


Mar 13, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add carstenw to your Buddy List  
Tario
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 256
Review Date: Mar 12, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,035.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp, light weight, good contrast, teh range is superb and comes to make this lens very versatile.
Cons:
f/4 a fast lens in this range would be optimal-or even f/3.5.

A very versatile lens, ccan be a carry on lens. It's weight and size is very friendly. I am happy with it's performance. I can't get into a detailed explanation on actual scientific fundamentals on this lens but I can say coming from a Canon 17-85 EF-S..the 24-105L is a great plus.

Mar 12, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Tario to your Buddy List  
pprht
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 11, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 11, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Zoom range, IS, versality
Cons:
Some soft copy's, some with lens flares and such. Someone shuld seriously tell canon they need to test these better

I only have 2 lenses currently, and using them both on my EOS 20d, though im buying a EOS 1d whenever I see a cheap one.

With 2 cams, the EOS 1d and EOS 20d I will have everything from 20-168mm covered with my two lenses, this and the EF 16-35 f2.8L.. For my use thats just incredibly convinient.


Mar 11, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add pprht to your Buddy List  
parsons
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 29, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5336
Review Date: Mar 10, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $699.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: sharp, light, good colour response.
Cons:
possibly little pricey, very small amount of CA, but only at extreme dark/light areas. but generally none.

bought at park cameras. tried three copies to see any differnces. all looked exacly the same on my friends laptop.
had for a week, taken loads of shots. very impressed with sharpness & clour. well worth the money.
superb all through the range. sharp @ both ends.
ive got 1dmk2 and obviously not sotfening or vingetting at the edges.

try before you buy:-)

ive got a gooden


Mar 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add parsons to your Buddy List  
clocksley
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 7, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 547
Review Date: Mar 9, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: IS - best yet. Weight and size - balance is perfect. Image quality razor sharp.
Cons:
Bit pricey - but I even forgot that when I was using it, worth paying for this quality!

Wow - a word I used 10 times in the first minute of using this lens.

To put it into perspective - I have a 24-70 f/2.8 which is razor sharp and being f/2.8 it was the best I was going to get in low light, correct? WRONG! The IS on this 24-105 is amazing, and not just compensates for f/4 instead of f/2.8 but I can take better, sharper and stable images at 1/20th at f/4 than any speed the f/2.8 could be cut down to.
The colours seem more vivid on my 20D than before, and it has inspired me to use the camera more than I did before as it is such a pleasure to use.

I get this overwhelming sense that I am cheating by using it!

If you are in any doubt about which lens to get to cover this range then don't be! Save up, sell the wife, re-mortgage, whatever you need to do - provided you get a sharp copy (and you should always do that whichever lens you buy!) you will have no regrets at all.


Mar 9, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add clocksley to your Buddy List  
shermansd
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 9, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.50 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Nice build, sharp at f4, great color & contrast
Cons:
Price, weight

I orginally purchased the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM pro-consumer lens, but I found that the picture quality was hit or miss when at the wide open position. The 28-135 lens only seemed to be sharp at f8 or f11, so the f3.5 at 28mm really doesn't get you much, except for macro shots.

This lens so far is spot on for image quality and sharpness at any aperture setting below f11. The build quality is excellent, as it should be for a L series lens. The 28-135 lens was kinda of loose and sloppy when extended out to 135mm. When comparing color and contrast (using a 20D) the shots with the 24-105 blow away the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. I bought the 28-135 via Costco and was a no brainer to return, the 24-105 I bought from B&H as they have/had the best price plus no tax!



Mar 9, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add shermansd to your Buddy List  
martincb13
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 12, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12
Review Date: Mar 5, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: IS / Weight and Build Quality.
Cons:
Soft image quality.

This is my view of this lens!
It was my first "L" lens and i had high hopes,the box arrived and i was pleased with the finish and quality of the lens.
The IS worked a treat (1/4 sec) at 105mm with no camera shake!.
However when i compared photo results with my current "consumer Lens" a 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 USM II (£180), i found the 24-105 soft in all corners and only the same in the centre.
My tests were done on a tripod with MLU and IS off (105mm for both lenses),Auto and Manual focus so no Mistakes on my part or auto focus fault.

I had an odd response from Canon which i could hardly read due to bad grammer and spelling mistakes!.
The date code on this lens was January 06.
I waited until i read good reports for this lens before buying one but due to the lack of sharpness i had no option but to return it for a refund. This Good copy/Bad copy is just to much for me so will stick with superior 28-105 USM.


Mar 5, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add martincb13 to your Buddy List  
GAPR
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 3, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 4, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, fast focus, F4
Cons:
price

I have been waiting for a lens like this for some time. I tested out a Tamron 28-70 F2.8 and Canon 24-70 F2.8. The tamron was great for size, but did not have enough wide angle and long distance coverage. It was sharp, but the Canon was a little sharper. The Canon was a heavy big lens for walk around, and not as sharp as I would have liked at 24.

Then came the 24-105. Best of all four worlds - size, sharpness, zoom range, and IS. I love the sharpness of this lens. Even the first one which I had to return because of stabilization problems, was tack sharp throughtout the range, and yes even at F4. My current 24-105L lens, along with my 17-40 F4L and 70-200 IS F2.8L make an outstanding trio for all kinds of work with tack sharp results.

I don't even think about sharpness at any range or fstop when using the 24-105 lens. It is nice to just shoot at any point and know the images will be tack sharp with excellent color reproduction.

Yes, the lens is a little on the pricey side. All lenses with type of glass are. I must say though, like the other 2 I own, this lens is insperational when photographing. I highly recommend it.


Mar 4, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add GAPR to your Buddy List  
Andrei T
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 19, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,280.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Build quality! IS is superb. Overall look and feed is excellent. Range. Compact and reasonably weighted.
Cons:
Soft at F/4 throughout the entire range (image quality improves stopping down and peaks at about F/9 – with IS ON). Low-light photography is disappointing to say the least.

For starters: I have done through 2 copies. Result – I sold the lens and bought 70-200 L F/2.8

Why sell? Softness was killing me. While this is an excellent build / look lens, the images produced on 20D and XT were just OK. OK is not a definition of the ‘L’ standard. Now, I might have gotten two bad copies – sure, but we are talking about the highly priced ‘L’ optics here and bad copies are not acceptable. I will no rate this lens at a ‘2’ or a ‘5’ – this is just no fair, but it’s not (not for me anyway) a ‘9’ or ‘10’ in my case. Taking pictures with IS ON gave me decent pictures AFTER the ‘unsharp’ masking in PS – this is unacceptable (for me). The F/4 is slow, but by all means is not the disadvantage of the lens. You know what you are buying – why mark is as a con? Yes it’s slow, but would it be sharper – I’d keep this lens without thinking. Having taken a few dozens shots with 70-200 L F/2.8 (non-IS version) at 70mm F/4 (through to 105mm) and compared it with 24-105 F/4 (same: 70mm – 105mm at F/4 with IS ON) served me as a confirmation that the 24-105mm F4 L lens is indeed soft. Yes – stopping down does make the image more acceptable, but you are loosing the F stops and the low light shooting becomes a huge challenge even with IS ON. I know now that F/4 is just not my cup of tea and F/2.8 is indeed a solution for the type of photography. I might consider buying this lens again (for vacations) in the future, but only after the Canon QC deals with all the issues AND when the price drops (as I think the lens is overpriced).

I would still recommend the lens to someone, who would like to own only one lens that would do it all (providing you have the time for going through copies till you get the good one). The lens is very well constructed and has an incredibly useful rage. If you are looking for a walk around glass and not too picky on fine details – this might be a winner in your books.


Mar 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Andrei T to your Buddy List  
rrobr
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Feb 28, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros:
Cons:

Before buying this lens I read this and other forums and knew going in of the controversy raised by using the Canon 24-105 L on a full frame sensor camera such as my 5D. I was also coming from a year of using the 20D and a 17-85mm zoom, a combination with which I was very happy.

My first exposure to this lens was borrowing one for a weekend. I went out and shot a few hundred frames of landscapes and came back to the studio to study and print half a dozen of the best I could winnow the pile down to. I wasn't happy with any of them at 13x20, however, if I squinted, stood back a ways and tried not to think about how much money this combo cost me, I could agree that my 20D could not do better. The resolution just wasn't there. The more I looked, the more it appeared that it wasn't focusing where I thought it was. The edge resolution, particularly at 24mm, was poor, too. We all know about the chromatic abberation wide open-no surprises there.

The next weekend I borrowed a second version of the lens. I couldn't duplicate my shots frame for frame, but I shot similar subject matter under similar lighting. The results were much more to my liking. I printed a lot of 16x24s and was happy again.

So I went out and bought my own 24-105L and spent another weekend shooting...and more days trying to like what I got. No dice. Back to square one. Now, Kirk, who had kindly lent me the first lens, had returned his to Canon for a recalibration. When he showed me the results of his born again lens, I was encouraged and packed mine off to Mother Canon. It came back yesterday and inbetween rainstorms and work, I've fire off a dozen or two frames, ran a couple through DxO Pro and Adobe Camera RAW and have begun printing them. Success! It seems to be performing just fine.

Beyond the resolution increase of the 5D over the 20D, there is better dynamic range and even smoother tonality that is readily apparent in the images, irregardless of the quality of the lens, but now that I seem to have the lens I wanted for this camera, I can't wait to get out and do some shooting.

The moral is-if this lens fits your needs, do try it and be prepared to send it to Canon for a week. Why Canon has dropped the ball on quality control here is a mystery, but it is imminently correctable and it's a shame many owners of full frame sensor cameras have been put off by the justifiably negative reviews many examples of this lens have produced.


Feb 28, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add rrobr to your Buddy List  

   



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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
515 895408 Mar 11, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
86% of reviewers $1,515.98
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.48
8.03
9.0
24-105lisusm


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