about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: Dr Strangelove  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Dr Strangelove to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

24-105lisusm
Review Date: Jul 27, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: $1,250.00

 
Pros:
Cons:

I perservered at the shop and tried two more copies on the brick wall; I found two that didn't vignette at 24. I went with the 24-105 that had a more gradual low end barrel distortion and brought it home yesterday after the 28-105 met with gravity plus carpal tunnel syndrome. So far I'm pleased with low light indoor shots with an ISO push. The colors are vivid. It's sharpness is between the 17-40 and the 70-200. The IS is great. For build I give it a 9.5. For images a 9.2.

 
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

24-105lisusm
Review Date: Jul 15, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: In concept the 24-105 should be the best regular use lens around, but I feel that this lens was more designed for crpped cameras like the 20D rather than FF cameras. The size and weight were great. The IS is super. The AF is fast.
Cons:
I went into the shop today with a budget for two L lenses and a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 and the 100mm macro at home. I shot the 70-200 f2.8 IS, the 24-105 f4 IS, and the 17-40 f4 with full intent on going home with the 70-200 and 24-105. I went outside with each lens and snapped the brick wall at wide open and f16 at top and bottom zoom ranges; 4 shots per lens. I downloaded onto the 30" screen with PS2 and was shocked at the level of spherical/barrel distortion at 24 on the 24-105. It totally skewed the groutlines on the wall in a ring pattern fully within the field. The vignetting was as bad or worse as my 28-105. For my 5D, I want the best. The 24-105 was also lacking sharpness compared to the 70-200 even at f16. I found 70% lesser distortion with minimal vignetting on the 24-70 wide open , and no problems on the 17-40. The 24-70 is too big for walkaround, so I decided to keep my 28-105 non L until something better comes along. I may have a hard look at Sigma's offerings for mid ranges. I went home with the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 17-40 F4. My final thought is an agreement with prior opinions that in concept, the 24-105 should be the best walkaround lens around, but I feel that this lens was more designed for crpped cameras like the 20D rather than FF cameras due to the unacceptable distortion and vignetting at open aperatures.

This is my first post here and I'm sorry it has to be a pan.

I went into the shop today with a budget for two L lenses for my 5D. I have 28-105 f3.5-4.5 and the 100mm macro at home.

I looked at the 70-200L f2.8 IS, 24-105L f4 IS, 24-70L f2.8, and the 17-40L f4 with full intent on going home with the 70-200L and 24-105L. The size and weight of the 24-105L is great. The IS is quiet. The AF is fast. I went outside with each lens and snapped the brick wall wide open and at f16 at top and bottom zoom ranges; 4 shots per lens. I downloaded onto a 30" screen with PS2

I was shocked at the level of spherical/barrel distortion at 24mm on the 24-105L. It totally skewed the groutlines on the wall in a ring pattern fully within the field. The vignetting was as bad or worse without a UV filter as my 28-105 is with one. The 24-105L was lacking sharpness compared to the 70-200L even at f16, and about even with the 24-70. I found 70% lesser barrel distortion with minimal vignetting on the 24-70L wide open, and no problems on the 17-40L. The 24-70L is too big and heavy for walkaround, so I decided to keep my 28-105L non L until something better and portable comes along. I may have a hard look at Sigma's offerings for mid ranges.

I went home with the 70-200L f2.8 IS and the 17-40L F4.

My final thought is an agreement with prior opinions that in concept, the 24-105L should be the best walkaround lens around, but I feel that this lens was more designed for cropped cameras like the 20D rather than FF cameras due to the unacceptable distortion and vignetting at open aperatures.