about | support
home
 

Search Used

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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
526 927800 May 20, 2015
Recommended By Average Price
85% of reviewers $1,504.28
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.44
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
          
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  
kandoro
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,095.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Size, weight, focal length, IS and constant aperture...Superior sharpness at all apertures and focal lengths...Perfect lens for everyday use on a full frame camera...
Cons:
Some vignetting at 24-28mm up to f/6 and the need to explore multiple copies to get a stellar one...

I must start by saying my first copy was a total dud but I will not downgrade because of this aberation...The 24-105 is a stellar lens which is sharp at all focal lengths and apertures...I do not find any softening at 70-105mm as some have reported...

I do feel it's best used with a full frame camera to take full advantage of it's focal length and superior resolving power...When used with both my 5D and the 20D I can clearly see the detailed resolution difference in favor of the 5D/24-105...It also clearly outresolves the 20D/17-85 IS combo...I do not own a 24/28-70 to compare...

I feel that Canon does have some QA/QC issues with this lens above the flare issue which was fixed...I will not downgrade the lens on this because a stellar copy shows no serious faults...Others feel differently as evidenced by their evaluations...

I would not hesitate to recommend this lens to anyone using a 5D or 1ds...While very useable on 1.6x camera I feel other options may be more appropriate if one needs the wide end more...If not the 24-105 will out resolve any other non "L" zoom option out there in this range and aperture...

It remains on my 5D at least 95% of the time...


Feb 6, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add kandoro to your Buddy List  
boBQuincy
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: IS works very well. Color saturation is very good. Sharpness seems good (2nd time)
Cons:
Expensive. Large and heavy. Very poor quality control.

My first 24-105 was delivered the evening before I was going on a trip. I usually test things before taking them away but it is an "L" series and I expected it to be just great (like my 70-200 f4 L is).

The photos seemed ok but when I got home from my trip I looked at the images closely and they appeared just a bit soft. Testing confirmed the 24-105 was not as sharp as my 24-85. I even had a photo of the same subject from a previous trip that I had now from the 24-105 and it confirmed the results.

I sent the lens back and ordered another. The 2nd one is much sharper. Judging from the number of not so good lenses (and even discounting the standard forum rate of 50% user error) Wink it appears Canon does not have a handle on their quality control.

I wrote Canon about the first lens and their reply was if the lens continues to exhibit this problem that I should send it back. If it continues...!? Does it become broken in and get better? Not. I wrote Canon to say this looked like a form answer and this level of customer service was unacceptable for a problem with a new $1200 lens.

My recommendation: if you get a good one, they are good! The question is how many do you have to go through and what kind of support will you get from Canon?
Until Canon show consistent quality with this lens I would not recommend buying one unless you have a lot of patience and can return the not so good ones.


boB


Feb 6, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add boBQuincy to your Buddy List  
DUTCH van ATL
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 59
Review Date: Feb 4, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,250.00

 
Pros: Sadly, I haven't found anything yet.
Cons:
Bad chromatic aberration, not at all sharp.

I purchased this lens along with the EF 70-200 F/2.8 L IS USM and a 1.4x II Extender for use on a 20D; and this lens has the misfortune of being compared side by side to the 70-200 with the 1.4x extender attached. There quite simply is no comparison.

The long lens with the extender is tack sharp and has no chromatic aberration that I can find. The 24-105 has horrible chromatic aberration and is not at all sharp - especially in comparison to the other.

These two lenses are my first foray into the Canon "L" lenses. I can see the added value in the 70-200. Obviously not in this one.

Granted, I probably (hopefully) have a bad one; but it is newer than the published cutoff number for the bad production lot. I've contacted Canon to see what can be done. Hopefully, this can be ameliorated.


Feb 4, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add DUTCH van ATL to your Buddy List  
gwhitegeog
Offline
Image Upload: Off



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

 
Pros:
Cons:

Overall, I think the conclusion is that Canon have a real problem with this lens. Possibly, it's an original design flaw compounded by poor quality control. Designing lenses is an expensive process so I am not sure what happened to the 'recalled models'. It's difficult to believe that a single problem (e.g. poor manufacturing on one element) could lead to all the problems reported. Now they are possibly clutching at straws. Certainly, a 24-105 lens is a challenge to make (which is why there are so few designs around) but it should be better than this. I think things have been made worse by most new buyers using it on a FF camera.

Expect a quick 'mark 2' version from Canon at the end of 2006, though they may not tell us or market it as such.

I don’t think you can predict how the lenses will perform irrespctive of the UT number, if you buy one. It seems to be hit and miss, which is outrageous.


Feb 4, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add gwhitegeog to your Buddy List  
jmogl
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: IS, Range, sharp from 24-50, very good build quality
Cons:
Sharpness drops off after 50mm. Softer then 24-70 2.8L at same focal length, Price.

I have a 20D and wanted to replace my Sigma 24-70 2.8 with something better. I thought that the 24-105 with IS would fit the bill. The first 24-150 was very soft at 70mm and above, which was noticable without zooming in using photoshop.

I returned the lens and got a second copy. It was better at all focal lengths, but the performance still dropped off above 50 mm. I rented a 24-70 2.8L, and it beat the 24-105 at all focal lengths except 24mm which was about the same. At f4, the 24-70 clearly won which was surprising based on a review at Luminous Landscapes.

I returned the second copy and now I have a 24-70 2.8L on order. Hopefully it will be as good as the copy I rented....

If you decide that this lens may work for you, make sure you test it across all focal lengths. I may have just received two bad copies.

Optical quality is more important to me then IS.


Feb 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jmogl to your Buddy List  
xmattkx
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5016
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Size, build quality, images are spectacularly sharp and contrast. USM is fast and silent and this new generation IS is invaluable!
Cons:
None- price maybe, but you get what you pay for and I thought this was worth it!

Picked this up at a great price, and just love it! Paired with a 10-22 on a 20D, you have a perfect lightweight walkaround setup. Really a spectacular lens!

Feb 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add xmattkx to your Buddy List  
dmanthree
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Range, build qualty, optical quality, handling.
Cons:
Size and weight, price, vignetting at certain combinations of focal length and aperture.

Previous posters have mentioned that this lens vignettes when used on a 5D, and they are correct--when used at wide angles and large apertures, it can get bad. However, even under the worst cases, it is easily fixable in PS with about 30 seconds of work. Also, it disappears pretty quickly when stopped down or zoomed out. For me this drawback is easily outweighed by the optical performance at other focal lengths and apertures; this is a very nice lens with a great range. After a few hundred shots, the vignetting actually got visible in one shot. So in real life, it's not a problem (for me). While optical quality and build quality are simply wonderful, size and weight and price aren't. This is a big lens, and pretty heavy, too. The supplied hood isn't much good, either. Designed to prevent cutoff at 24mm, it doesn't offer much shading at other focal lengths, so I usually leave it at home. On a 5D, the lens balances very nicely, the zoom ring is in the right spot, and it makes a real nice package. And then there's the price; I'd rate it higher if it cost a little less.

Feb 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add dmanthree to your Buddy List  
steelflowers
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6
Review Date: Feb 2, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,190.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Great IS, sharp, color & contrast first rate, excellent control of chromatic abrasion (better than the 24-70), nice focal range.
Cons:
Distortion, and flare issues.

I was very excited about this lens as the ultimate travel walk about lens for my 1DmkII. I waited for the reworked lenses to fix the flare issue. Purchased from B&H last week a batch #UT1004. For me it turns out the joy went to frustation quickly. The lens distorts heavily on the wide end. PS2 can fix it easily, but its an extra step for every shot I want to work with. But the real deal breaker for me is the flare issues with this glass. Living on the coast, and when I travel, I like to involve sunsets and sunrises in many of my photos (its the souce of natural lights beauty, right). At 24mm Flares like CRAZY! even stopped down to f/16 on overcast days. So, I sent in the lens to Canon complete with a printed sample picture of this vile flare. They were very professional and simply stated it was with in the lens specs. I now have a RMA to send it back to B&H. Perhaps we are all expecting to much from this lens, then again at $1200.00 perhaps not. I just think for now I will stick with lenses that make me happy. Damn, I really wanted to like this glass more than I do. But, if you dont mind a little extra PS2 distortion work, and not shooting into the sun... then truly by all means this lens is really hard to beat.

Feb 2, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add steelflowers to your Buddy List  
Jay Michael
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 1, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: Very sharp images
Cons:
Flare issues with ut 1004

I purchased two 24 - 105 mm L lenses from B & H. One for me and one for my wife.

I have noticed bad lens flare shooting in daylight and night photography @ 24 mm. Flare I would have never imagined...please read on so you don't make the same misstake!!!

When I bought the lenses in November Canon claimed they resolved the issues for production line UT 999 or less. Well the prodution number on my lenses are UT 1004 and they both function the same.

I always leave my hood cover on and this is not the issue.

Sunset shots with large flare.

I had taken some night shots that look like alien space ships taking off. "Cool" HELL NO! UFO's

I will be calling Canon in the morning regarding this issue.


Feb 1, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jay Michael to your Buddy List  
borderlight
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1753
Review Date: Jan 31, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Good focal length, well-made, IS works fine.
Cons:
Flare

I heard about the flare problem so I waited about 6 weeks until B&H restocked the recalled lenses. Since I am shooting with a 20D vignetting was not a factor. The only thing that I wanted to be sure of was that my 24-105L wouldn't have any problem with shooting into the sun. For this lens the answer was NO - it produced heavy flare with a milky white, contrast killing smear across the entire image. When pointed down, or used with different focal lengths the problem still was apparent. I switched to the 17-40L and shot the same scene which produced only one speck of green flare - easily removed in PS.

At one time I owned a 24-85 f3.5-4.5 which turned out to be a very sharp lens with good contrast, especially in the studio. I would say the $285 24-85 is comparable to the $1250 24-105L minus the IS. There may be better 24-105L copies out there since it is obvious that a lot of photographers love this lens, but I didn't get one of them. I returned it to B&H and will continue using my present (3) lenses.



Jan 31, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add borderlight to your Buddy List  
brimo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 80
Review Date: Jan 30, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: BRILLIANT WALKABOUT lens, very natural colours, nice contrast and sharpness.
Cons:
none really apart from maybe the price, but then who likes parting with money!

My copy of this lens is off a new canon batch from Wharehouse Express UK (very good high volume retailer with an excellent service reputation).
I got this as an upgrade for a 28-135 IS, and that is exactly what it is, better contrast, better more natural colours and overall considerably sharper and no zoom creep when walking.

The images 'out of the box' are very natural and give a good reproduction of 'what i am seeing through the lens' without hardly any processing in raw shooter or CS2, they often look better without any default sharpening applied.
In other words the lens is doing it's job.

A word of note here i am using a 20D so maybe some of the problems reported are specific to full frame SLR'S

Overall so far after 150 test shots i am very happy with this lens to remain on my camera 90% of the time.


Jan 30, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add brimo to your Buddy List  
dave chilvers
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 11, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1691
Review Date: Jan 28, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: The second copy is like chalk and cheese
Cons:

After thinking about what I paid for this lens I spoke to my dealer who advised me to send it in to them for evaluation. I`ve purchased most of my expensive gear from them inc all of my 1 series bodies so maybe they realised that I`m a serious semi pro who knows a bit so they sent me a replacement by return. My thinking was that if the second copy was similar to the first i would send it in to Canon and hopefully they would sort it before i decided to sell it at a loss.
Anyway, in fairness I think I needed to do this second post to clarify my findings. This time I took a few images around the garden and noticed how much better it seemed so I set off to a well photographed section of coast nearby, I shot with the 20D,5d and the ultimate test the 1dsmk2. This copy is so much better than the first( I knew there were better copies out in the shops because I had previously borrowed a friends copy) Vigging wide open is not a problem with this new lens even with a b&W pro UV in place and distortion no worse than the usual stuff at 24MM(it`s mainly down to the angle you shoot IMHO) I have a very good 17-40 than can really resolve fine detail at times so I put it up against the 24-105 at 24 and 40 mm on all three cameras. Near to mid distance I can`t split them, far distant detail( buildings at around 3 miles) and I think the 24-105 might just have the edge(just) I was shooting handheld so that might put the 17-40 right on par. There seems to be slightly more contrast from the 17-40 and just slightly better true to life colours but nothing you would be bothered about. The feel of this new lens is better, the zoom ring is slightly stiffer than the 1st copy but at least it stays where you leave it and if anything it will loosen in time also It was around freezing point during my test so this might make things feel tight. The lens is more consistent than the 1st copy. On the 20D it really is a cracking lens and will compliment my 10-22 nicely and on the FF it will compliment the 17-40(although there is quite an overlap, sometimes it is better to overlap a fair bit and prevent having to change lenses quite so often.) I would like a touch more reach at the long end so glad i went for the 24-105 over the 24-70(I used my friends 24-70 2.8 and the brightness was great but IMHO this 24-105 with the IS is very close to the 24-70 and is more compact and the IS allows a couple of stops in low light.) It still is not a prime but I`m convinced by my testing that the IS helps to bridge the gap with my 85 and 135(although for narrow DOF shots the primes rule) Thanks to AJ Purdy and Co for a fast replacement which enabled me to re-evaluate what is now a solid keeper.Against lenses in general I would give this lens 8, against zoom lenses it would be nearer 9 where the 70-200IS is a 10. Hope it helps with your choices.


Jan 28, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add dave chilvers to your Buddy List  
Michael-M
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Apr 21, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2698
Review Date: Jan 28, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,149.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: very light and very sharp wide open. IS works perfect. hood size is perfect, built like an L should be, and AF is extremely fast.
Cons:
still looking for some.

had one of the first copies delivered, but was (along with the 5D) sold to someone who just had to have it, so i never compared to current lens for anything but sharpness, which i'm glad to say is perfect. this lens even wide open is fantastic.
the 24-70f/2.8L is a must have, but this one is a definate must have for those considering the 5D. the term "general walkaround lens" is an understatement for this zoom. it is without a doubt sharp from wide to long, and stopping down does nothing but deepen the DOF.
those who own it or are buying it will appreciate the lighter weight of this lens compared to the 24-70.
i was expecting the zoom and focus ring, along with the barrel movement to be somewhat loose, but such is not the case.
it is tight in fact, but not so that you struggle with it, but you feel like you got what you paid for.
test shots with and without IS have proven to me that Canon's IS system is state of the art.
i've taken pictures with the lens at 105mm at 1/15th and the results are sharp.
in summary........."beautiful piece of glass!"


Jan 28, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Michael-M to your Buddy List  
WAvdHFotografi
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 3, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jan 25, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Great portability, fast af
Cons:
Canon customservice really ******* how can it be that you cannot use your gear because it takes at least 3 weeks to change the lens for a good one.

This lens does not what the advertisement believes you to.
IS is great if it would really make a difference, i can't tell the difference between switched on or off. This lens is not as sharp as the 24-70 L, not even stopped down, and the use of the I.S.
I told Canon about this and they said: "we don't produce unsharp lenses". Also making a bad production, and make the customer wait for at least 3 weeks to get a new lens is not very proffesional thinking. I cannot afford a lot of lenses, as a starting photographer. (meaning the business, not the pics).
Bottomline, it is a great lens to use, fast AF, nice weight, but for the sharpness or the I.S., better save your money.
I get a new lens next week, but i will sell it right away.


Jan 25, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add WAvdHFotografi to your Buddy List  

   



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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
526 927800 May 20, 2015
Recommended By Average Price
85% of reviewers $1,504.28
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.44
8.03
9.0
24-105lisusm


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