 |
|
|
barryhalifax
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 8, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast & accurate focus, reasonably compact, good performer with 5D and 20D
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
I was a bit hesitant about getting this lens for my 5D rather than the 24-70L having seen one or two rather negative reviews here. In the end I got a good deal on the lens from Jessops and have not been disappointed. I can't understand folks who buy a 24-105 then say they wish it was 150! You bought it knowing what it was so it's your fault, not the lens's.
Overall I was delighted with the performance of the lens.
Sharpness wide open at 24mm not quite up to my 70-200L f4 but, hey, you expect that for a wide optic zoom and it was still acceptably sharp & retained it's contrast at f4.
At 70mm and 100mm you can't tell the difference between the 2 lenses at any aperture, even on A3 prints. IS means more keepers, though, and I regularly shoot 1/25th or thereabouts at 105mm (which I couldn't do with the 70-200L where I'd be looking at at least 1/100th. or faster)
As a very subjective test I shot a scene at 50mm, f5.6 and ISO 100, and the same scene with Contax 35mm (Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.8) on ISO 100 film, again at f5.6. I had the film professionally scanned at high resolution (no, by a pro lab - not by a one-hour high street photo outlet!) and printed both at A4 (Epson R800 and Qimage) - absolutely no difference in sharpness, detail, contrast or smoothness of image that I (or any of my friends) could see. Some preferred the Zeiss/film colours, others the digital but I could have made them identical in DPP, DxO or PS had it been important. The bokeh was better with the Zeiss but I'm splitting hairs.
I have since revisited locations I shot in B&W with a Rollei 6004 (80mm Planar) and tried to replicate with 5D and 24-105 at 80mm.
It's pretty darn close but there's a subjective "niceness" about the Rollei images that are nothing to do with sharpness or detail.
I'm very happy with the lens but might get a 50mm 1.4 for carry-around.
|
|
 Jan 28, 2008
|
|
Etienne Otero
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 535
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $960.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
every one of its characteristics
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Most previous reviews prety much say it all. I'm givin this lens a 10 as it is perfect for my needs. Combined with a 5D, a 14mm and a 100-400mm, I feel I don't need any of my primes (50mm, 100mm). The macro is esquisite and very sharp, just what I would expect. I guess I got a good copy. This lens is hooked to my camera 95% of the time now, unless condotions require the large zoom or are really, really, really dark where my primes shine.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2008
|
|
David Collomb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 110
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide zoom range, colours, IS, quick AF, built quality, sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit unbalanced on a 400d but that's the camera's fault not the lens'
|
|
|
I am new to photography as I bought my first SLR (a 400d) 10 months ago. I knew nothing about depth-of-field, aperture, composition, etc…
With the 18-55 of the pack I discovered all the basis of how to use the camera (background blur, composition rules, exposition, bracketing, etc…) .
I photograph landscapes, animals by the Thames (birds), family meetings, but my main subject is my very young daughter. That’s why I was feeling the need of a longer focal length (~85mm) for portraits.
What was the rationale for choosing the lens?
A prime lens was first considered for portrait but I realised that one lens to cover the majority of my shots was the goal.
I considered sigma 17-70 and canon 17-85 IS, the fact that they are specific to crop sensors was a hurdle for the future.
I looked back at the hundreds of pictures I took during the 5 first months and very few were shot with a focal length below 24mm. It was surprise to realise that.
So I looked at 24-** lens and finally I was left with the classical choice between 24-70 and 24-105. Note that the sigma 24-70 was a good option but as I was still making my mind, my budget was growing so I looked directly at L lenses.
The classical 24-70 and 24-105 choice?
What made the difference for me was the additional 35mm, for my portraits and the wild-(but used to be fed with bread)-life purpose. F/2.8 from 24-70 was important because quite a lot of pictures were taken indoor and because a baby is rarely steady. On the other hand IS allows you more creativity. So the 24-105 won.
What do I do with the 24-105 L IS now?
My needs for portraits are fulfilled; I can take pictures from further and less disturb my subject.
Close up are nice too, not exactly macro but still useful.
Landscape, the loss of wide angle has never bothered me so far but the colours depiction has always pleased me.
Sharpness and contrast are amazing; I have shot some swans and sea gulls and it is indeed nice to appreciate the detail of their plumages, the results again are very rewarding.
IS is really effective and allows more creativity.
So I hope my review will answer some of your questions. If your profile is similar to mine, you can’t be disappointed by this lens.
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2008
|
|
tmhuertas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
|
Hi
I bought my first canon camera, it was the canon 5D with the 24-105L
I've been reading about the performance of the lense.
I've tried it for a bit only and it looks pretty cool to me, but looks like it distorts a bit when zooming especially when shooting people at close range.
my question is.
Is this lens good enough for weddings? or is there a better one for the same price range that I could go for?
I appreciate your advice in advance.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008
|
|
tomoshi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 9, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, good range, fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
f/4
|
|
|
I got this lens with my 5D, and since 5D was my first canon dlsr, this lens was also the first canon lens i ever owned. I did try the 24-70 f/2.8 a couple of times, but I prefer the wider range of focal lenghts. The IS works very well on the lens and the build quality is pretty good too.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2008
|
|
three60
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Exceptionally flexible, good size/balance, IS works well, good image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit pricey, f/4 a bit slow at times, distortion at 24mm
|
|
|
I purchased this lens with the 5D about 6 months ago. Like many other people, it was a toss up between the 24-105 f/4L and 24-70 f.2.8L. A number of years ago, I used to shoot a fair amount of sports and back then, f/2.8 was absolutely critical. Nowadays, I shoot more travel, portraits, candids and landscapes and stopping action is a bit less critical. I also wanted something a bit smaller and lighter for travel.
I decided to give the 24-105 a shot knowing the IS would give me a 2-3 extra stops to compensate for the lack of f/2.8. It's also a bit more compact than the 2.8. I have to say, it's the most versatile lens I've ever used. On its first outing, I took it to shoot a naval shipyard, using a variety of focal lengths, lighting conditions inside and out, white balance, you name it. I was quite impressed with the quality of images I got, from ISO 100-3200.
From a sharpness perspective, it's up there. I'd say a hair below the best of Canon's primes, but for a zoom it's good. The zooming action is smooth and it focuses very quickly and quietly under most conditions.
At 24mm, there is noticeable distortion and a bit of vignetting. That is to be expected and I don't necessarily blame the lens. Zooms have some trade-offs and these are two I'm willing to live with for the flexibility. They are also both easily correctable in post-processing.
If I were shooting sports or weddings, I would probably opt for the 24-70, but the 24-105 complements my style of shooting very well. Two thumbs up.
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2008
|
|
Daniel Gushue
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $979.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Very useful zoom range on a full frame camera, IS works great, weather sealing, useful lens hood, great lens for the price
|
|
Cons:
|
A little heavy, mine has serious vignette at wide angles
|
|
|
I originally purchased this lens for use on a 1.6 crop sensor Canon Digital Rebel XT. The lens was a great performer in every way – sharp wide open at 24mm, fast focusing, good zoom range, and spectacular image stabilization. Now that I own a Canon 5D, I have noticed the lens has very significant vignette, which is especially apparent at wide angles. I haven’t noticed many other comments about vignette with this lens, so I wonder if I have a bad copy.
The build quality otherwise is great, as all Canon L lenses seem to be. Good weather sealing, fast focusing, excellent IS system, and a convenient 77mm filter size are all important features to me. The lens hood is a good design and works well.
Aside from the vignette issue, I would strongly recommend this lens. On a full frame camera this lens has a very usable zoom range, but on a crop camera the vignette is not an issue. Trade offs?
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2008
|
|
peterchan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,196.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light weight, and sturdy build quality, nice lens hood.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, zoom range is a little bit short. They should make this zoom range up to 24-150mm.
|
|
|
Excellent lens to have. Don't have to switch lens and have tons of dusts in your camera. Image stabilizer worked up to 1/15th, I tried with 2 copies and that is as far as they go. Don't believe people telling you, it can go up to 1 second. It is impossible to achieved.
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2008
|
|
peterchan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lighter weight than 24-70. Very sharp way shaper than 24-70 that I own. Can hand held up to 1/15th with stabilizer. I like the flower shape hood, very nice looking compared to 24-70. Good contrast and color, and very good iQ. It is black and not white in color. It has the red seals, very pro like.
|
|
Cons:
|
People say you can use image stabilizer up to 1/3", I tested out two exact same lens, and maximum it can go is 1/15th. 24-105 is a little bit short of a range, I preferred it to be a bit longer like the 28-135mm. Image stabilizer is noisy.
|
|
|
This lens is superb in term of sharpness, color and contrast. It is a bit short for a zoom lens. I preferred to have a little longer reach. Not very cheap lens when it first comes out, now this lens has come down in price. The build quality is really good, it comes with a nice hood. This truly is a general walk around lens, with a little bit short of reach or else it would be perfect. I hate switching lens around because of the dusts and I always misses shots. This lens hadn't disappointed me so far.
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2008
|
|
John Mangan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,024.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
That big decision: The 24-70 ("The Brick") or the newer 24-105 IS. I have researched for months and purchased both. The 24-105 is equal or better in everyway except moving objects in low light. The 10oz savings alone won me over. Purchase the 24-105 and then RENT the 24-70. You then will confirm you made the right choice. "........ optical quality of the Canon L-Series Lenses and a widely used range of focal lengths, the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is one of the best and most popular Canon general purpose lenses made. The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens quickly became one of my favorites. If I had only one lens, this would be the one." The-Digital-Picture-Review.com
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2008
|
|
adamo99
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 491
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
good range, good AF performance in ample light outdoors, IS a bonus at long end.
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality not up to par (compared to 24-70L and 70-200 2.8L), horrid(!) AF performance in low light
|
|
|
I brought this lens along on a recent trip instead of my 24-70L (mounted on a 1DmkII), as I didn't want to bring an entire bag full of lenses. While the lighter weight is nice, the build quality feels almost flimsy in comparison to the 24-70.
Outdoors in daylight, the lens is great! The range is fantastic, and the image quality is excellent. When the sun goes down, and you have to shoot in lighting conditions that are less than ideal, this lens really disappoints. It hunted constantly for focus, even during a stage show lit up by more than a dozen stage lights.
I far prefer the build quality, and low-light AF performance of the 24-70L.
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2008
|
|
albertino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $110,000.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
dotato di ampia escursione focale e stabilizzazione. In termini di nitidezza non lo classifico eccellente
|
|
Cons:
|
Soffre di vignettatura e distorsione non indifferente a 24mm -affetto da aberrazione cromatica-
|
|
|
Non merita la classificazione di un obiettivo L
decisamente inferiore al 24-70 2,8 -ha il vantaggio della stabilizzazione e maggiore escursione focale ma la nitidezza non la puoi nè inventare nè elaborare
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007
|
|
Ludwigia
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1609
|
|
Review Date: Dec 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $920.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Reasonable weight, sharp, IS work well
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I am very happy with this lens. I find a great walk around lens and the IS is a real benefit. I have quite a few lenses and this is the one I reach for most often.
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2007
|
|
Povilas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 23, 2007
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range! Small, light, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
A pain in the neck to focus in low light! CA visible in particular situations, a bit soft at f4
|
|
|
I have rented this lens to photograph my cousins wedding. It is perfect on a sunny day. However...
When it became darker the lens started to refuse to focus. Under the clouds the CA was visible. Actually, the bride's white wedding dress even looked a little bit blueish. I have switched to Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II for couple of shots and it did not show any blueish whatever... F4 was a usual condition and the pictures are not very sharp. At least when compared to me 50mm.
The focus problem might be related to my entry-level D350. However, the color distortion was a bit strange.
My verdict: choose the right product for the occasion. If you want a good walkaround lens for your vacation - this one should be one of your best choices.
For indoor shooting and important events like wedding - choose something faster (f2.8 at least) and with better optical quality.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2007
|
|
Andro Lesaca
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 26, 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A good walkaround lens. IS works really well.
|
|
Cons:
|
f4 is tad bit too slow for some of my needs.
|
|
|
I was choosing between this lens and the 24-70 f2.8 (the "brick"). I chose this one for its extra reach and the IS. If the 24-70 had IS i would have gone that way. the EFS 18-55 f2.8 IS was also very attractive, what stopped me was the fact that it was an EFS. (I'm hoping to go full frame in the near future.) And also all the reviews I've read about it being a dust-sucker.
I'm not a pro, but I enjoy shooting events and weddings for friends. Most weddings take place indoors, and I really feel the limitation of f4. Often wish that I had gotten the f2.8, as I like to shoot in available light as much as I can. On second thought, available light shooting is still best done with a large apreture-d prime. So, a good two camera set up would be this lens on one body with a flash and a bright prime lens on the other body. Which is what I do. That brings my "brick"-envy to close to zero.
Don't get me wrong though, this lens is a beaut! Especially for outdoor photography in daylight. I've taken it on long drives to the countryside and the output I get is nothing less than spectacular. My walkaround used to be the 17-85 IS. I was satisfied with that lens for a long time, until I started using this one. Now my 17-85 IS hardly sees the light of day.
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2007
|
|
troutmask
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 22, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
large range, light and cheap (ish)
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF, f4, not very sharp,
|
|
|
I recently borrowed one of these to use for a few days as I required the extra range from my usual 28mm - 70mm and also thought it would be interesting to see what the IS was like. It was the worse L lens I have ever used. I ended up using a 100mm macro and swapping with my usual zoom. The IS is pretty pointless on a lens like this and the extra stop of light is really missed. I can see why this sort of lens would be popular on consumer cameras but giving it the L rating implies it is a pro lens, f4 is just not good enough on a 100mm lens.
Several of the pictures did not appear as sharp as I would expect and the AF was considerably slowed by the loss of light. In fact it was a lot slower AF than the 300mm f4..so it isn't just the loss of the stop.
Now this may have been a bad copy, but I would strong urge anyone considering this lens to think again. The 24mm - 70mm f2.8 is around the same price. If you need something longer then get a decent prime or save for the 70mm - 200mm f2.8 IS is very usful, but not as important as having a decent bit of glass that actually has a usable aperture.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
529
|
987865
|
Oct 3, 2022
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
85% of reviewers
|
$1,500.96
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.44
|
8.05
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
