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 919506 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
          
John Daniel
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 6, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1351
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  
homerdog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp from f5.6, fantastic autofocus and IS, solid feel.
Cons:
A bit soft at f4.

I bought this to replace the 17-85IS used on my 20D. It is much sharper than that lens and if, like me, most of your shots are taken in this zoom range, it makes sense.

The autofocus is incredibly fast and almost silent, while the IS is the best I have experienced.

I was a little bit disappointed with sharpness wide open, but when stopped down to f5.6 it is very good.

To the reviewer who suggested buying a 28-135IS or 17-85IS instead, I would say fine if you don't want the sharpness, but why wouldn't you? I've owned both these lenses and the 24-105 is much better - as you might expect, given the price.

Only the performance at f4 stops me giving it a 10.



Feb 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add homerdog to your Buddy List  
Xenedis
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 11, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Review Date: Feb 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Practical focal range, sharpness, good build quality, size/weight and IS.
Cons:
Not f/2.8, and could be a little less expensive.

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 20D a good 90% of the time. Of course, it's not the lens for everyone, but it suits my purposes well.

J.


Feb 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Xenedis to your Buddy List  
jmraso
Online
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 25, 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 2901
Review Date: Feb 12, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Very sharp and focals at a time. Color rendition IS
Cons:
F4 is my only regret.

Very proffessional walk-around lens when there is light.

Very happy clients when see the prints.

"L" glass is "L" glass anyway.

Jaime
www.jmraso.com


Feb 12, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jmraso to your Buddy List  
allan m.
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 273
Review Date: Feb 12, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,099.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: sharp, actually quite sharp, IS is simply superb, weight is not bad (i am used to it already), built like a tank, weatherproofed, fast AF, width & reach, hmmm, did i mention sharp?
Cons:
[tank] price, price, price

This is the best lens i have ever owned... even better than my old Nikkor 105mm 2.5. I have owned 10 Nikkors and this is zoom. I got the lens last week so i have got a good copy- glad i waited. The sharpness, color accuracy, and silent USM is spectacular. I was leary was leary at first and decided to wait till ther were more positive ones on other sites. DigitalGrin.com's review did it for me- wit working examples- albiet with a 5D. i have have it hooked up to my Mark2N since day one. I got mine at Allenscamera.com which hasn't had a bad copy from the 2nd batch yet. I will do some extensive shooting with it in a week or so and really be able to see if it will live up to the '10' rating on a consistent basis. I just wish for other people's sake Canon didn't rush this [to conicide w/ the release of the 5D] and gave every peson a chance to have a good copy. If you can afford it and just want one lens for 90% of your work [street photog/fine art] then this is your lens baby! [no pun int'd]


Feb 12, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add allan m. to your Buddy List  
IraGraham
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 622
Review Date: Feb 12, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Noticeably Sharper then the 17-40 4.0L. And the 17-40 is a great lens. The autofocus is the fastest and most accurate of all of my "L" series lenses. Build quality is excellent. It has no zoom creep. This lens is even better then I had anticipated. It is truly a must have lens. It should be everyones first "L" series lens.
Cons:
The cost is a little high. But now days with everyone thinking they are a photographer, I would almost prefer for it to be high so I don't have to worry about a wedding guest pulling it out. It does have a little light fall off at 4.0 and 24mm. It clears up by 5.6 however. In general it is not a big deal. It is easily fixed in CS2.

This is trulely a great lens. If you have to have one lens, this is it. You can build from here. If you buy this lens and the 70-200 2.8 L IS you will be set for 90% of your needs. Make sure you buy one that it is one that is one made after they corrected the flair problem. This is the perfect lens to have on your camera most of the time. It delivers very sharp images of the highest quality. Buy this lens today, you will not regret it.

Feb 12, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add IraGraham to your Buddy List  
coppertop
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1469
Review Date: Feb 11, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: This is a nice lens. Very sharp, fast focusing, well built. Image quality is typical "L" lens quality.
Cons:
The price.

At $1250 this is way too pricey for what your getting. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good lens but not worth $1250.

This may be comparing apples to oranges but I have a Canon 70-200 f4L in my bag with a Canon EF 1.4x TC. This lens and TC produce just as good image as the 24-105. My lens and TC combo costs $400 less than the 24-105. I shoot with a 10D. I could have replaced the 10D with a 20D for the cost of this lens, sold the 10D and bought a 17-85mm IS and have money left over.

Sure... there are just as pricey lenses out there but I could see paying $1200 for a 100-400 IS or a 300 f4 IS.

I would price this lens at around $800-900 in value and for the cost, I would expect a 17-105, 17-135 or if the zoom was internal without changing the overall size of the lens.

I recommend this lens only if $1250 is a drop in the bucket for you OR if your collecting "L" lenses and this is the only one left.

Alternatives: Canon's 28-135mm IS or even the 24-85mm USM. If you can handle EF-S mounts, the 17-85mm IS.


Feb 11, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add coppertop to your Buddy List  
rslee
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 57
Review Date: Feb 10, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: Much better after an adjustment from Canon USA
Cons:
Fact that I had to had it serviced

This is my second review. As much as I was satisfied with the lens initially. there were some things not quiet right about this lens when compare to my other L lenses mainly the issues discussed in the reviews below though not as drastic as some have described.

I was taking in my 50mm f/1.4 to Canon USA for CA issue two weeks ago (I live 20min away from Canon USA), and decided to bring my 24-105 anyways. They were very nice and professional. They said they would check everything out just to make sure.

Last week (7 days after) I got both lenses back and I am very pleased. The Service Details says "Adjusted Best Focus Point, Cleaned Elements, Projection Test, CK/ADJ/LUB/ All Functions to Factory Specs."

Now, I have a hard time choosing between this and my 24-70L on many situations. Picture quality is almost identical to my 24-70L even at f/4 in all focal length (24-70mm). Added bonus IS, extra 35mm reach, and light weight certainly helps.

This lens stays in my travel bag and 24-70L stays in my full gear bag.

My suggestions to those who have the same feeling as I did is to send it to Canon for a check up. My experience with Canon USA has been very pleasant & satisfying and I will continue to remain a devoted Canon customer for a long time.


Feb 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rslee to your Buddy List  
davidmorgans
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 10, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 10, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Build quality, Image Stabilization, Focal range, Sharpness
Cons:
None

I have a 20D and have (obviously) not noticed the vignetting problems others have observed. Agreed its not at its sharpest at 105mm - but that's surely to be expected when you've got that range of focal lenths. Below this its really sharp, BUT the best part of this lens is the IS. This feature means I've been able to capture shots hand-held that would not have been possible without a tripod - and when you are walking around a tripod is a bit of a pain.
The focal length is not ideal for the 20D crop factor but supplemented by the 17-40L its really is worth while having.


Feb 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add davidmorgans to your Buddy List  
frasergjb
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 12, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6
Review Date: Feb 10, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: Well built, quick focussing, very useful zoom range, good close focus, E-TTL II compatible.
Cons:
Optical performance (in my early example)

Bought this with the Canon 5D after switching from a Contax SLR system. Also got the 50mm f1.8 lens and 85mm 1.8 so I am comparing performance with these primes. My 24-105 was an early model, subject to recall in the US (but not in the UK where mine was bought). I was expecting more of this lens which showed the flare problem of early versions of this lens, but more seriously also had problems resolving detail. I hope this was just a bad example and that later copies have improved. For the moment I've mounted my Contax Zeiss 35-70 via an adapter and this is a whole lot better optically, but far less convenient.



Feb 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add frasergjb to your Buddy List  
stewarda
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 19, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 72
Review Date: Feb 9, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Excellent focal length. Much lighter and more managable than my 24-70 L. If you get a good one, it is a great lens.
Cons:
Apparent QC issues with this lens--ie. vignetting and softeness, so take care in purchasing.

I know that QC has left something to be desired for this lense, apparently; however, that being said, I have purchased what appears to be a superior copy of this lens. No vignetting problem, no softness problem. I have been shooting on it for a month now, and it has been spectacular. My recommendation is to test this lens in the store so that you can acquire a good one. I have had nothing but good experiences with this lens shooting in a variety of conditions, from the volcanoes of hawaii from both the ground and helicopter to the kids birthday party I did last week.

Feb 9, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add stewarda to your Buddy List  
doudou
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 8, 2005
Location: China
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 9, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,256.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: sharp, quick focus, useful IS, good range for 1.3x camera
Cons:
a bit expensive for f4

I have tried this one on 350D as well as 1D MK II. For 350D, the range is a bit long compared to my 17-85 IS. but the image is just "L", very sharp.
The range is very useful now when I upgraded to 1D MK II.

I am pretty sure that this lens will be on my camera over 80% of time as normal walk around lens even at extreme weather.


Feb 9, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add doudou to your Buddy List  
badplumbing
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 7, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: Very useful focal length range on a full frame body, light and user friendly
Cons:
Vignetting up to about 35mm is pretty horrible. Not as sharp as other 'L' lenses.

Dear potential victims, heed my prophecy of doom ...

For I too have become a statistic. I was seduced by the photographer's Eden apple - the fixed aperture mid-range zoom for all seasons - and blindly parted with 1000 or so hard earned denarii only to fall into the eternal pit were there is vignetting, and gnashing of teeth

After an embarrassing accident on far away foreign shores which resulted in a deceased lens, I bought an 'emergency' Sigma EX DG f2.8 24-70mm. The Sigma is far better than my Canon 24 - 105L. It's much sharper and doesn't have the horrible vignetting problems displyed by 'that' L lens. This make me and my bank manager really sad.

And yes I know I can correct it in Photoshop - but that's like saying telling a man whose just had his leg amputated that 'they' can do wonders with prosthetic limbs these days.



Feb 7, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add badplumbing to your Buddy List  

   



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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
524 919506 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