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 926391 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:  30 · 31 · 32 · 33  next
          
jph1
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Jun 2, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1068
Review Date: Dec 23, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,275.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: My copy is sharper than my old 24-70. Build quality. IS.
Cons:
Distortion at 24mm. Cost. Some vignetting. Not as sharp at the 105 end.

I think I will be getting a lot of use out of this lens. When I first got it and did some quick tests, I was amazed how good it was at 24mm. Also, the wide open performance was better than I expected.
Vignetting and distortion are problems but workable. Different scenes/subjects will make these issues more prominent, but I find that about 10% really need fixing in PS. This is my first IS lens and I just finished looking at a tack sharp 100% crop at 1/6th of a second exposure. Incredible.

Jim


Dec 23, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jph1 to your Buddy List  
knoxman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2
Review Date: Dec 23, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,300.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: color, relatively decent sharpness, size, weight
Cons:
SPEED, price...

I've so far enjoyed this lens... I am by no means a "Pro" (though I spend like one), and really couldn't tell you it's as good as the 70-200L IS USM (it’s not), because I do find f/4 a bit slow and aggravating, but I've lived with it on the 17-85, and was pleased with that lens (given the size and weight and IS).

This lens has beautiful color. The images look well-saturated fir off the card -- I don't do much photoshopping to the results (unless I take a bad shot, which is my fault). The IS is a must for this lens.

I've posted a few shots that I've taken with this lens of friends -- for a walk-around lens, and in decent lighting conditions, I quite like it. Just wish it was an f/1.0 and not f/4!! : ) But then again, the 24-70 is too heavy at f/2.8 (not to mention the Byzantine reverse-zoom and lens hood).

http://www.pbase.com/knoxman/visit_john_and_eli

I would recommend this lens, yes, but with the caveat that it was only f/4. The circular aperture blades help, but it’s still not f/2.8 bokeh… The 24-70 may well be a “better lens”, but I have used it and didn’t like it (I need IS, period).

Good luck…


Dec 23, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add knoxman to your Buddy List  
painterdood
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 25, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 4
Review Date: Dec 21, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros:
Cons:

I would like to amend my posts somewhat on this lense. My findings were so "off" that I searched carefully through the testing we had done. I found a basic error.
I went back to the store got another copy and retested it against my kit lense. The 24-105 managed to match the kit lense sharpness this go around, but just.
The 24-105 is a good general walk about lense however and I will wait a bit and see if the lense gets better as time goes along and prices drop. Then I will check it again. Right now it doesn't have the value for the cost IMHO. I bought an 70-200 F2.8 instead. I am going to let my kit lense handle the wide stuff for now.
(The 70-200f2.8 by the way, is one exceptional piece of glass!!!)

My new rating on the 24-105... 7.5


Dec 21, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add painterdood to your Buddy List  
rslee
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 57
Review Date: Dec 20, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,199.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Handy IS, Relatively Sharp, Light Weight, Fast AF, and Excellent Build Quality.
Cons:
Price

I have been reading the entire reviews on this lens not just from FM but from all over the web. Needless to say, there were many confusing opinions on this product. I decided to see for myself and pick up the lens last week from a local shop.

After using this lens for a week, I am compelled to express my opinion.

As many have indicated, it is purely personal preference. I think this is an excellent lens for what it is designed for. It does what it supposed to do very well with certain limitations.

After comparing against Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (my favorite), Canon 17-40L, 70-200 f/4 and 50 f/1.4 on a sturdy tripod, I came up with same conclusion as many have expressed.
It has its weaknesses despite the attractive features. Yes, the sharpness could be better but acceptable.

Over all, I am happy with the lens and this will be the main general purpose lens. For those who are still wondering about this lens, I suggest that you should try for yourself.


Dec 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rslee to your Buddy List  
temalibero
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
Review Date: Dec 19, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: $965.00

 
Pros: Ottimizzato per f4 su tutta la lunghezza focale, contrasto, colore e dettaglio sono perfetti.
Cons:
Solo il costo, ma allineato alle ottiche professionali.

Possiedo questo zoom da un mese e lo uso su una 20D e ora posso dire che sfiora la perfezione. A tutte le aperture rende immagini che portano al limite le prestazioni del CMOS della 20D. Non ho più bisogno di maschere di contrasto in PS. Con il flash 430EX il sistema E-TTL II controlla a prerfezione la distanza del soggetto e le esposizioni sono sempre precise da 24 a 105. Ricordate che non tutti gli obiettivi abilitano l'E-TTL II, solo quelli che comunicano la scala di distanza. Certamente a f4 è richiesta abilità anche da parte del fotografo, altrimenti le immagini risultano ''soft'' come dice qualcuno, ma sono solamente fuori fuoco! I piccoli compromessi sulla distorsione a 24 sono a favore della qualità dell'immagine su tutti gli altri fronti. La distorsione si corregge facilmente le abberrazioni cromatiche, il basso contrasto e dettaglio negli angoli eccetera, no.

Il mio voto rimane 10.
Altamente consigliato, non userete più le altre ottiche comprese nel suo range.


Dec 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add temalibero to your Buddy List  
AviB
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 34
Review Date: Dec 19, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: IS is superb, sharp pictures, but not sharper than my other non L lenses (EF-S 60mm, and EF-S 10mm-22MM), solid build.
Cons:
Soft at 105mm, expensive

After sitting on the fence and reading all these reviews I just wanted to know for myself whether this lens is worth the money. For my objectives of a travel lens it is well built, good range, and the IS is incredible- Not sure if I'll need my tripod since I got great results even at 1/10.

Now that I've spent thousands on my camera and lenses I am slowly approaching the quality of my older Sony F717 5mp with the Zeiss lens Smile All kidding aside I do like my system because of the control and flexibility but I can bet you that a picture taken with a Sony at say f8 ISO 200 at macro-200mm will beat or be the same as a Canon L.

So all the comments from the reviewers below are correct- it's a personal qualitative measure for the most part. If you need a lens in this range- you'll enjoy it.


Dec 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add AviB to your Buddy List  
JORDI350D
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 7, 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 34
Review Date: Dec 19, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very sharp. Very fast AF. Quality product. Incredible IS. Not heavy as other Canon lenses.
Cons:
Distorsion at 24 mm.

This is the lense that I use more in my 350d.
It has the most useful focal ranges that everybody use in the 70% of the time. The quality and feeling of this lense is incredibly and it rembember you that you are using an L lense.
For me the only negative aspect is the great distorsion at 24 mm but I think that the people that buy this lens do not use for architecture motives; for these subjects I think that there are better lenses as 17-40 or 10-22 or 16-35.....
I think that it is perfect for nature walks where I think that distorsions are not important if not the PT lens correct very well them.

I think that it is a very sharp lens, and you can use it also as a portrait lense at 105mm F4 with a very nice boken.

As a macro lens you can put a 20 mm tube extension and you have a 1/0.66 ampliation factor with a IS macro lense. I am surprised about the performance in this area. I have better lenses for macro but you can resolve very well some subjects if you put an small extension tube in your pocket.
All in all, I think that is a all terrain lense with a high performance in all the situations, but you must think that it is not a fix L lense in all the focal ranges that it not exist for the moment.


Dec 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add JORDI350D to your Buddy List  
jl323
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 181
Review Date: Dec 19, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharpness, Colors, Saturation, Contrast, small size (as compared to 24-70), Image Stabilizer, Good Bokeh!, weather/dust sealing, built like a tank
Cons:
A bit pricey

A week with this lens and I already have made a couple of magazine sales! This is now my main lens on the 1d mkii (the 20d gets the 16-35). I've owned the 24-70 and still own a 17-85 IS so I can compare this lens with them. This is pretty much the perfect walk around lens.

Compared to 24-70:
I've owned two 24-70 lenses and they both backfocused. Even if I can get it to focus right (MF) the sharpness was slightly less than the 24-105 at almost all focal lengths. Color and contrast very similar. Bokeh on the 24-70 is just a bit better, but the 24-105 has very nice diffused bokeh as well. I don't miss the F2.8 indoors because I use a flash. Image Stabilizer helps out more than F2.8 for landscape-type shots. 24-70 is heavier and the body itself is just bigger... they both use 77mm filters but for some reason 24-70 seems to me just so much heavier and bigger in actual use.

Compared to 17-85 IS:
No comparison here. I love my 17-85 IS but fact is this lens is sharper. But what is really much nicer about it is the color and contrast. 17-85 doesn't not have the contrast and the color saturation of the 24-105. I do miss the 17mm-23mm though. The IS performance is similar. 17-85 sucks in dust like there's no tomorrow. If you're a pro, to me this is worth the upgrade in itself (+ Weather sealing)




Dec 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jl323 to your Buddy List  
painterdood
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 25, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 4
Review Date: Dec 18, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros:
Cons:

last comment and I am history here. After returning the 24-105 I have been playing with a new Sony R1. Its lense sharpness is flat out incredible. A whole other dimension compared to my 24-105 experience.To bad its on a on an oddly shaped lousey handling digicam bod.


Dec 18, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add painterdood to your Buddy List  
painterdood
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 25, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 4
Review Date: Dec 17, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: has an L rating ????? Is heavy ?? Looks cool?? Could be used as a paper wieght ? You can pretend you have a pro lense ?
Cons:
sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooft

Went back to dealer to see if he had any more "sharp" copies. Mine was soft. A pro was in the shop along with a wedding photog of some 20 years. They helped me check through the 4 other copies in the shop ..Guess what ..my kit lense 18-55- beat every other copy for sharpness on my 20D. I bet most people have this lense and think its awesome but its may be a false L lense security they are flyin on. This lense was L for looser in that shop. The saleman could believe what he was seeing, He was shocked and I am not over stating this. He had believed ( as I ) there was no way the kit lense would beat the 24-104. But alas ..it did ..and in some copies of the 24-105 ..hugely so.
I would wager if you check yours carefully against your kit lense at 35 mm- shoot a price tag or some item with lettering on it from 8 or so feet ( no flash) focus on the tag then crop it 100% - you will see the kit lense drop kicks this lense. Only one other 24-105 came close ..but a 24-70 2.8 L we tested bested the kit lense at that setting.
Sure that range is the sweet spot for the kit lense ..but give me a break ..a 1200 dollar lense should be able perform better than it for basic sharpness. Canon has quality control problems ..or this lense is just a huge lame duck. ..a econo grade lense sporting an L tag. Maybe Canon is hoping people will not notice ..maybe I just hit a batch of lenses that were ALL sub-standard ?? who knows ..but I am looking elsewhere now.


Dec 17, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add painterdood to your Buddy List  
erlingmm
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 10
Review Date: Dec 15, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Good walk-around range for daylight shooting, fast AF, sharp
Cons:
A bit pricey

There seems to be som variation in quality of this lens. I had the 1st (flare) generation, and returned it, mainly because I found it soft. My new copy is very sharp.

Dec 15, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add erlingmm to your Buddy List  
joepapa
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Dec 15, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,199.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Image stabalization works amazing. Lens is very sharp even wide open and the extra reach makes this lens perfect for my work (weddings and dance comps). I find the lens to have less distortion at 24mm than my 24-70L, even on my Mark II at 1.3 crop. Very nice lens.
Cons:
None

This lens exceeds my expectations. Being that there are some reviews that are a bit negative, I was hesitant to purchase this lens. I do not regret it at all. I like this lens much more than my 24-70L and the extra reach is awesome. Paired up with my 70-200 2.8L, I feel covered for all my shooting situations. Distortion at 24mm always bothered me on the 24-70 but this lens doesn't bow straight lines IMHO as much. Image stabalization is nearly silent. Much better than my Nikon 70-200VR lens I sold 3 years ago. Build quality is amazing and the zoom and focus rings are as smooth as silk. I also like it that Canon finally recessed the AF and IS buttons so you don't accidentally bump them off. I highly recommend this lens.

Dec 15, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add joepapa to your Buddy List  
painterdood
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 25, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 4
Review Date: Dec 15, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros:
Cons:

small update.
In reviewing my shots I see that the 24-105 does show good sharpness colour and contrast, in good light. There it outpulls the kit lense somewhat.
I didn't notice this because the majority of my test shots were in less than optimal light. (gloomy days) What I do see however is in lower light things degrade for the 24-105 and the advantage over the plasteeeek econo lense seems to evaporate.
hummm is the diff worth the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...I am revuink da situvation ..


Dec 15, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add painterdood to your Buddy List  
painterdood
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 25, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 4
Review Date: Dec 15, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: well built, super fast, almost completely silent focus. Good walk around range and nice wieght. Looks great-like it could actually take great pictures
Cons:
not sharp sharp -colour and contrast and "pop" less than expected from an L series.

Just got this lense and have shot about a hundred plus shots through it against the 18-55 $100 kit lense doing a shot to shot comparision on a tripod plus walking around in varied lighting etc.
I was shocked to find the 24-105 not only did not trouce that punny plastic offering I was trying hard to upgrade from, it was extrodinarily hard to declare an overall winner!!! YIKES!!
The 24-105, like the kit lense, is -"sharp enough" -but 100% and 200% crops showed that its sharpness was limited..just like the kit lenses. Good enough for small prints but unacceptable (to my eye given the price) if you want to venture beyond that. Its colour was marginally better though perhaps too warm.
Now I admit I am super critical. The lense may be functioning just fine in most people's eyes. I am often declare blaring imperfections where others would say none exist. Be that as it may ..in my eyes this lense is functioning at an econo lense standard..not an L series standard.
Maybe this experience is telling me I am a primes guy ..maybe my expectations are way high for a zoom and this is as good as it gets. I will exchange it and see.
I would add this one final word.
Photographs are truly not so much about the lense or camera as the one taking the picture ..BUT fine tools make for better pictures. I thought the 24 -105 would be such a tool..It looks and feels the part ..but alas ..it aint.


Dec 15, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add painterdood to your Buddy List  
molson
Online
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Oct 29, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 11818
Review Date: Dec 12, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Nice size and weight - makes a great travel lens
Cons:
Sharpness is only so-so, vignetting is bad at all focal lengths, noticeable CA, distortion

Overpriced, considering the slow f/stop and mediocre optical qualities. It should be priced more in line with Canon's 17-40 f4L and 70-200 f4L lenses.

Dec 12, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add molson to your Buddy List  
ernst_b
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
Review Date: Dec 11, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Outstanding Zoom range, Excellent IS, Fast and silent AF
Cons:
4.0, Image quality is not excellent (worse than my Tamron 28-75), bad focus at low light

I don't have a clear opinion about this lens. On one side it was the lense I waited for about 5 months because of the specifications. On the other side, I wanted to replace my very sharp tamron 28-75 and the image quality of the 24-105 is worse.

Dec 11, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add ernst_b to your Buddy List  

   



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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
526 926391 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:  30 · 31 · 32 · 33  next