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 906124 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
          
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  
Steve Y
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2
Review Date: Feb 26, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: IS is truely incredible, For wedding work no longer need to use a tripod for long exposures in the church. I have found this lens to be very sharp. built solid
Cons:
have not had any of the problems with flare that others have mentioned nothing negative about this lens at all!



Feb 26, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Steve Y to your Buddy List  
veroman
Online
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3771
Review Date: Feb 25, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros:
Cons:

This is my third "L" series lens, and my first Image Stabilized lens. It replaces (maybe supplements is a better word) my trusty 28-105mm, which is actually a very good lens and a bargain at the price.

The new 24-105mm f/4 IS is very, very sharp; it's probably my sharpest lens. It's capable of rendering an amazing amount of detail. In fact, I didn't think my EOS 10D was capable of that much detail (which once again tells us just how important the glass is).

The 24-105 f/4L IS is quick, silent, contrasty (but not exaggerated contrast) and very easy to use. The AF is much faster than any of my other lenses, including my 70-200 f/4L. IS works better than I expected. I took some initial indoor shots at 1/25 and they were just as sharp as could be...and nicely exposed, too; perfect right out of the camera. This lens is heavier than I thought, but I got used to that pretty quickly. Still...be prepared for the fact that it isn't really a "compact" lens in the same way as the 28-105mm f3.5 or similar lenses in that category. The 24-105mm f/4L IS is more like a 17-40mm f/4L in terms of heft and feel.

I've found myself underexposing by half a stop in many brightly lit situations, particularly when there's a white highlight or two or serious reflection from a white surface. The lens seems more prone to blowing out highlights than I'm used to. The minor amount of underexposing seems to help. (I should add that I have not yet used the lens with its supplied petal hood.)

What is most impressive about this lens is its color faithfulness. The color is dead-on accurate; better than any of my other lenses in this regard, and by a wide margin. I was really taken back by this color accuracy when I opened my first files of shots.

All in all, this lens is a pleasure to own and use and so far has lived up to the positive reviews and accolades. It's a great walkabout, though the range on a 1.5 to 1.6 crop-factor camera — adequate for most shooting sessions — can seem limited at both ends under certain circumstances.


Feb 25, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add veroman to your Buddy List  
Bigpikle
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 19, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 107
Review Date: Feb 23, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: IS, zoom range, build quality, sharpness
Cons:
size, weight, IS has no panning mode

This is a great walkabout lens for the 5D. It is a little big and heavy for carrying for long periods but the zoom range and IS make it a very versatile lens.

I can honestly say the benefit of IS and being able to stop down and still handhold effectively, outweigh the fact that this is only a f4 lens - for me in my general shooting. The IS is great although I wish it had a panning mode as well.

Highly recommended.


Feb 23, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Bigpikle to your Buddy List  
LeeG
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 220
Review Date: Feb 22, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: sharp, light.IS,quality build.
Cons:
none

worth every penny. this lens and the 10-22 make a great combo!

Feb 22, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add LeeG to your Buddy List  
twistedlim
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3127
Review Date: Feb 22, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Nice range, sharp, colorful, IS, did I mention sharp.
Cons:
None within the limits of the lens.

Purchased to replace a 17-40 on my 1D and it is pretty much everyting I could have hoped for. The lens is very sharp at all apertures. Contrast is excellent. Focus is spot on an really has yet to miss its target. It really makes things almost too easy. I do miss the creative aspects of a faster lens but for landscape or general shooting I don't think you can top this lens.

Feb 22, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add twistedlim to your Buddy List  
pfuller
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 6, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 32
Review Date: Feb 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,050.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, IS, Range
Cons:
None

I worried about buying this lens because of some of the reviews. Since buying the lens I am extremely pleased. Sharp throughout the range. Minimum F4 and my 20D's ability to ratchet up the ISO when needed is plenty for low light for me. IS for non-motion shots works great. One of the really nice features of this lens is the size of this lens, nice and compact for a 24-105 range. Great walk around lens.

Feb 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add pfuller to your Buddy List  
photosponge
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Feb 18, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: I LOVE it! The wide angle is subperb. Very fast response. Actually bought the lens BEFORE I bought the EOS 5d, and used it with my EOS Rebel. Such an improvement in photos with the IS! And I don't notice any vignetting that others have talked about. Have taken wonderful sunsets, with a still fairly bright sun at the sunset and don't get any flare. I don't put any filters on the lens and shoot in RAW.
Cons:
Just wish it went to 300mm's! Maybe the next one.... Yes, and maybe if it had a max. aperature of 2.8 instead of 4. But nothing I can't live with.

What more can I say: It's a Canon! Their quality really shines through here. Captures beautiful images with the EOS 5D. I personally think the lens is a little heavy, but I like that solid feel. My husband has a Canon 75-300mm lens that I borrow, and it's lighter than my Canon EF 24-105mm L.

I just wish it had a longer telephoto, say up to 200mm. I guess that will be my next one! I don't think you will be disappointed with this lens. I bought it from RitzCamera.com. I do a lot of business with them.


Feb 18, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add photosponge to your Buddy List  
John Daniel
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 6, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1337
Review Date: Feb 18, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Clear pictures, fast focus, light (compared to 24-70), IS
Cons:
a bit of vignetting at 24mm that is dissapeared at 25mm

Just sold my 24-70 f/2.8L but had time to do a shooting comparison. My conclusion are:
1: the 24-105 matches the 24-70 at all focals and sometimes surpasses it. It offers a longer range and best of all, Image Stabalization.

It would bee a 10 all the waay, but I had to remove 1 point for price.(but hey, it's an L )

John


Feb 18, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add John Daniel to your Buddy List  
Aerospace
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 8, 2006
Location: France
Posts: 233
Review Date: Feb 18, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Focal range, sharpness, good build quality,IS
Cons:
Enormous distortion at 24 mm for a "L".Too expensive

I am using a 20D .
I am very happy with this lens .
If you are looking for a good all-around lens in this range, get it! You won΄t be disappointed. (Well, you might if you mainly use it to shoot brick walls to test for vignetting and distortions...)


Feb 18, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Aerospace to your Buddy List  
Xenedis
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 11, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Review Date: Feb 15, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: Versatile focal range, L-series quality, IS, build quality, constant f/4 and sharpish results.
Cons:
Not f/2.8, and the price could be a little lower.

There seem to be a lot of people who aren't too happy with the 24-105/4L IS.

However, I'm sitting on the other side of the fence, for I am content with mine.

I was a very early adopter, having purchased mine within a day or two of its release. It was arguably a gamble, as the lens was brand new, and had no history. However, I wasn't particularly worried about that.

What prompted the purchase was the dreadful, frustrating experience I had with a former lens. Its replacement was to be either the 24-70/2.8L or the 24-105/4L IS, which at the time hadn't been released.

I came extremely close to buying the former, but eventually chose the latter after much deliberation, as the extra reach, IS, smaller size, much less obnoxiously-sized hood and significantly lower price made it a far more attractive package. The only selling point the former had was an extra stop worth of light, which I didn't consider as important, as I am predominantly an outdoor scape shooter.

I am happy with this lens. Whilst mine is a very early, flare-prone copy (which I have not had "fixed"), I have not yet experienced the flare. Granted, I haven't tried to produce it, and I probably haven't shot in such a manner as to accidentally produce it.

I haven't performed any extensive testing by taking photos of brick walls and the like, but from my real-world experience shooting with it, it's a good, quality lens which can produce some nice results. I've certainly taken some very nice photos with it.

Below is a link to one of my albums, whose shots were all taken with the 24-105/4L IS. Naturally, I have applied unsharp masking and adjusted the contrast and levels, but in my experience, this is necessary for all shots.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenedis/sets/72057594052064839/

The lens does at times exhibit a small amount of CA/PF in high contrast areas (trees against skies, etc.), but in my opinion it's well controlled, not "in your face" (unlike that which I experienced on my previous walkaround lens) and certainly isn't a showstopper.

The 24-105/4L IS is my walkaround lens, and lives on my camera a good 90% of the time.

I recommend this lens, and it suits my purposes well, but of course, it's not the lens for everyone.

J.


Feb 15, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Xenedis to your Buddy List  
sochigetto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 93
Review Date: Feb 15, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros:
Cons:

So how do you tell it's second batch or third batch?????

Feb 15, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add sochigetto to your Buddy List  

   



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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
520 906124 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