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 906165 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:  30 · 31 · 32 · 33  next
          
evangellydonut
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 16
Review Date: Dec 2, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: quieter, faster AF than 17-85 it replaced, excellent build quality
Cons:
slight corner softness at wide-open even on APS-C sensor

For those complaining about price, considering IS lens generally cost $500 more than none-IS version, the price is not THAT bad.

As for the lens extension, hey, it's still shorter than 24-70 at 24mm, and lighter too.

However, even on APS-C senor at 24mm (x1.6) and F4.0, I notice some corner softness, which makes me think that it's not going to be pretty on a FF... maybe 1.3 crop would be best.

I'm glad to have upgraded from 17-85, and if I really need the F2.8, there's always the option of going through multiple copies of the Tameron 28-75 F2.8 for ~$400 until I find a good copy :-)


Dec 2, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add evangellydonut to your Buddy List  
temalibero
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
Review Date: Dec 2, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Colore, risoluzione e contrasto incredibili! Lunghezza focale perfetta per 20D (IMHO)
Cons:
Costo (ma compri quello che paghi)

Questo zoom rende immagini eccezionali anche nelle situazioni più sfavorevoli. La qualità della luce che trasporta rende ai soggetti un volume ''3D'' pari obiettivi principali di elevata qualità. Il colore ed il contrasto sono quasi eccessivi. La risoluzione è ai massimi livelli, ora il limite sono gli 8,2 milioni di pixel della mia 20D. IS perfetta.
Ho riscontrato poco CA, anche nei test più estremi. Forse la mia copia di questo zoom e particolarmente fortunata o forse Canon nella seconda release di questo obiettivo, ha sistemato qualcosa di più che i problemi di flare?
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11924

Altamente suggerito anche agli amanti delle obiettivi principali.

PS con la 20D suggerisco l'uso del paraluce (lens hood) del 24L f1.4 se lo possedete.


Dec 2, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add temalibero to your Buddy List  
craigster
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5
Review Date: Dec 1, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,187.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Crisp pictures, IS a big plus, love the 24-105 range. This has become my walk-around lens.
Cons:
A bit heavy; don't like the significant extension in lens length for longer zoom.

I think Canon has a hit with this L quality lens. While I use it on my digital Rebel so the range is longer than marked, I find it to cover the vast majority of shooting situations I am normally in. Good bokeh as well. Over-all I find that the qulity of pictures is similar to my 70-200mm L lens - all of which adds up to a lot of lens for a lot of money...but worth it.

Dec 1, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add craigster to your Buddy List  
donutley
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 419
Review Date: Nov 29, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very well made, substantial but light compared to 24-70L. Sharp, good contrast. The IS works just as advertised--maybe better; it is very quiet and just seems to work invisibly. The focus is particularly fast and silent.
Cons:
Early price seems a bit high.

I am using this lens as my all-in-one travel lens with a 20D. I have previously owned copies of Canon mid-range zoom Ls (28-80L, 24-70L) and suspected that the 24-105L would be a bit of a step backward (given the f/4 limitation) in image quality sacrificed in the name of IS and a wider, useful range. But I have been very happy with the image quality. That L "wow factor" is very much a part of the joy of this lens. It has quickly become my workhorse. I love it.

Nov 29, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add donutley to your Buddy List  
jhsymington
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 17, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 28, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Very useful zoom range, lightweight, IS invaluable occasionally, well built.
Cons:
Not as sharp as I could have hoped for - even stopped down.

I sold my 24-70m f2.8 L to buy this as the zoom range is much more useful to me and the weight and bulk of the f2.8 L was unacceptable for my purposes (hiking + landscape photography).

From an image quality perspective my view is that you do pay a price with this new lens versus the 24-70mm. I don't think it is quite as sharp (marginal), it vignettes more (indisputable) and produces a more distorted image (also indisputable).

As most of my photography is produced at f8 at the very widest the vignetting issue is irrelevant to me. By f8 it is minimal and at f22, where 80% of my shots are taken, it is gone. The wide end distortion is fairly pronounced and care must be exercised in how far off horizontal you use this lens for the sake of straight horizons. Correctable in PS of course but I'd rather not have to.

On balance I am pleased with this lens but it is not by any means an overwhelming improvement on the 24-70mm. I will keep it and continue to use it simply because of its longer zoom range and lighter weight. It is simply a jack-of-all-trades. If pure image quality is your overriding consideration then the 24-70mm may still be the way to go.


Nov 28, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jhsymington to your Buddy List  
Sheila
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 28, 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 5456
Review Date: Nov 27, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Nice range, fairly contrasty and sharp.
Cons:
Real issues with CA

I really want to like this lens! The focal length is just what I was looking for (having sold my 70-200 f/4L) and the IS was the main attraction. I have no problems with flare and have tested this lens many times shooting into the sun but to date no flare is present. But my main concern is the CA (chromatic aberration). It is inconsistent and just when I feel I should send this back to Canon, the next load of images contain no CA. I know this can be fixed in PS but for a lens of this price, I don't think I should have to do this. I have not come across CA in my 17-40 in any image that I am aware of. I do occasionly get a tad with my 135 f/2 but not noticeably so.
Sheila


Nov 27, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Sheila to your Buddy List  
Sumosan
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 25, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
Review Date: Nov 27, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Build quality, IS, sharpness, results
Cons:
Not cheap

Compliments the 5D perfectly - the combination has excellent balance and covers a really useful range of focal lengths. Build quality is very good and results are excellent - sharp, good contrast, nicely saturated colours. Focus is quick and accurate, IS works a treat, easily gives the published plus 3 stops and often more. Overall, a pleasure to use and throughly recommended, providing you have an understanding bank manager!

Nov 27, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Sumosan to your Buddy List  
Greg Dillard
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 38
Review Date: Nov 26, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,249.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: focal length range, IS, build, very quiet USM
Cons:
distortion at 24mm, too soft above 70mm.

I sold my Canon 24-70 2.8L before getting this lens. What a mistake! The 24-70L beats the 24-105L hands down. The distortion at 24mm is unacceptable for a 24mm focal length.
The softness I am seeing at 105mm is due to front focusing. At the price paid and the slow F4 aperture this is inexcusable from Canon. This lens is being used on a 1DMKII CPS calibrated body. I will definitely have this lens calibrated.
I like the zoom range, the Canon color quality and build. The focus doesn't hunt. I must express overall disappointment with this lens at the price paid.


Nov 26, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Greg Dillard to your Buddy List  
thenomad
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 24, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: solid, range, set F-stop from 24mm to 105mm, image stabilizer, nice feel
Cons:
not noticeably sharper than the 17-85mm at half the price, not consistent in focus, not sharp at F4.0, price considering quality of lens.

I received this lens yesterday after a 50 day back order wait.
My hope was that it would be as sharp as my Canon 50m 1.4 at the same 50mm setting and same F-stop. (It’s not prime lens, but it is supposed to be an L lens.) It’s not very sharp full open (but then neither is the 50mm below F2.8). I took a series of pictures during a light cloudy day at 400 ASA with my D20 without a tripod comparing the Canon 50mm 1.4, Canon 17-85mm and this lens. (I chose to shoot without a tripod because most of my work is without a tripod.) I photographed text and flowers all at the 50mm range from full open to F 8.0. I viewed each image side by side with the same F-stop at full resolution with a high quality computer monitor. While non of the lenses was completely consistent in its ability to focus on each flower I found that the 50mm lens performed the best and that the 17-85mm actually focused a bit better than the 24-105. The sharpness of both lenses was about the same.

Note that I didn’t not compare color or contrast in these tests, simply sharpness. In conclusion, I need to do some more tests (low light, moving objects, etc…), but so far I’m not that impressed with this lens. It feels a lot more solid than the 17 to 85mm and I appreciate the consistent 4.0 F-stop, but unless it grows on me (or I upgrade to the Canon D5), I’ll probably return it soon.


Nov 24, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add thenomad to your Buddy List  
Gil H
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 20, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: $1,250.00

 
Pros: The Best all around Canon Lens specifications, Great Image stabilizer, L lens, great range 24-104, weighs a lot less and shorter than the bulky 24-70.
Cons:
Even though I have a post recall copy (past UT1000 as stated by Canon recall) I get significantly more flaring than my 24-70, disapointing pictures.

After spending the whole day shooting with this lens and comparing the results with my 24-70 Canon lens I can say the following.
1) It is a lot lighter than the 24-70, but still very heavy.
2) The added range is very welcome, but if it had a wider than 24 angle it would be great on the 20D, since the 1.6 factor makes it a 38.4 equivalent which is barely wide angle.
3) it focuses very fast and quietly
4) very strong solid construction
5) not fast as the 24-70 for indoor photography without use of a flash
6)out of the 300 pictures I took a very high % of them was slightly out of focus, I updated the camera firmware to 2.03, reset all the camera settings to factory default and still many pictures were not knife sharp, tried using f8 and higher to get a greater depth of field and still regular portraits were not sharp as I expected them to be when using my 24-70
7) Pictures came unusually grainy even though I usually used ISO 100, when I used a flash I used mostly my 580 Canon flash with fresh batteries
8) contrast on the pictures was unusually high

needless to say I am very disappointed, and if I could rerate this article I would give it a 7

I want to make one thing clear, the results were not terrible, but were unacceptable for an L lens that cost $1250

I want to love this lens, I fell in love withe the specifications, but I did not see the results. and my lens is a post recall lens
with control number higher than UT1000.

check
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11924

I will call Canon and ask for possible explanation.

Perhaps someone here has a good explanation? am I doing something wrong?




Nov 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Gil H to your Buddy List  
Gil H
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 20, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Great Image Stabilizer, great range 24-105, much lighter and smaller than my bulky 24-70. this IS the all around lens we have all been waiting for
Cons:
F4, for the price tag they could have made it an f2.8 and replace the 24-70, or at the very least I wish it had 17-105 to

I ordered this lens about 2 weeks ago and I was told that it is recalled
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11924

I was shocked to see the FedEx guy deliver it 2 days ago, so I imediately checked my control number that it was less than UT1000. I had UT1004.....
I also called Canon and they told me that U stands for the plant name, T stands for 2005, 10 means October, and 04 means something Canon will not tell me.

So far I shot about 100 pictures and the image stabilizer allowed me to have perfect still images at 1/8 which is amazing (at 105 focal length)
I have a 20D camera and I usually get amazing pictures withit, however I was very disappointed with the picture quality,especially with my 70-200 f4 lens, the pictures I took with the 24-105 seem very grainy at ISO 100 and with my other lenses I never had this problem, I will take some more pictures today and I will have a better test, most of the shots I took were indoor with a 580 flash.
I did test my copy for the advertised flare problem and did not see any flare, so I know that I have a good copy.
I hope that Canon did not put a different glass to fix the problem, and degrade the lens to a non L lens.
I am giving Canon the benefit of the doubt and I hope that when I take more outdoor pictures I will change my mind, on paper this is the perfect lens





Nov 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Gil H to your Buddy List  
musicjohn
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 14, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 16, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Great lens. Very sharp, even at f/4
Cons:
None

I've owned this lens now for a month, and I have never seen such sharp pictures come rolling out of my memorycards.

The Image Stabiliser is a great feature when lighting conditions are far from optimal.

The lens isn't cheap, but definately worth every penny. Works very well on my EOS 350D

For sample pictures you can look at my homepage:

www.johnenarie.com

and click on the button "Foto's" or Fotoshows" on the left hand side menu.

I could definately recommend this lens to anyone who seeks a great, sharp, contrasty and true-color lens.


Nov 16, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add musicjohn to your Buddy List  
fotografz
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 11, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 218
Review Date: Oct 30, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $985.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: The one to have if you're only having one. Smaller size is worth the penalty of f/4, but IS helps make up for even that. Close focusing ability.
Cons:
Distortion, but I've come to expect that from any Canon wide. A bit dimmer viewfinder due to f/4 max aperture. Still don't like the lens extending out of it's main body as you zoom.

I got this lens primarily for general wedding photography. Combined with the 5D, it cuts down on the weight I have to carry for 7 to 10 hours at a crack. The zoom range is almost perfect, with a longer focal length the only supplemental lens needed ( or faster aperture lenses for shallower DOF ). However, I've been mildly impressed with the DOF of this lens at 105 because you can get in pretty tight on the subject.

I'm not a fan of zooms in general, but I am of this one for the practical applications listed above.


Oct 30, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add fotografz to your Buddy List  
paymenow
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Oct 29, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: great lens that handles well, it's sharp, and has true image color.
Cons:
none yet

people say, you get what you pay for..... and this is no exception. Yes, I paid a lot for this lens, but it is worth every cent. I have read many articles stating how this lens preforms in certain test(good and bad), but the bottom line......canon made a dam good lens.

If you are thinking about buying this len, go for it..... or buy a cheaper lens and correct the image in photoshop.


Oct 29, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add paymenow to your Buddy List  
jan zlin
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 23, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Review Date: Oct 23, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Professional lens for all-around use in many situations. I LOVE the sharpens and color rendition on my images produced by this lens. Very pleased to have it on my new 5D body all the time.
Cons:
Any.



Oct 23, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jan zlin to your Buddy List  
frenchy2
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 21, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 3
Review Date: Oct 21, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,220.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Exceptionally sharp, very good IS, nice color.
Cons:
Price, f/4, little soft at 105mm, did i mention price ?

Great for the 1.6x sensor. My new walkaround lens !

Oct 21, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add frenchy2 to your Buddy List  

   



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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
520 906165 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:  30 · 31 · 32 · 33  next