 |
|
|
buddyRoland
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 195
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,219.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Clear, crisp photos. Decent performance in areas with little light. IS enhances the f4.0 medium aperture.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really.
|
|
|
I had this lens on back order through the military / post exchange (PX, I am retired Army). After waiting over 3 weeks I started changing my mind after reading about the superior performance of the 24-70 2.8. I sent an email to cancel this lens and ordered my 24-70 from another vendor. The 24-70 arrived and was above and beyond what I expected. The 24-70 gave me excellent photos. I called about my 24-105 and asked about the cancellation but they said it had been sent anyway. After waiting another week to receive it, it arrived via USPS.
Let me say I considered refusing the lens and letting it go back but now, after trying it out, it's staying. This lens produce some stunning photos. It's also lighter than the 24-70. With the versatility, I will keep both. This will be my walk around lens, rotating with my 17-40, but occupying the main spot. I am glad I have it. Now if I could just get the 70-200 2.8. My experience with this lens shows me you can't believe everything you read.
|
|
 Sep 25, 2009
|
|
nickjohnson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1856
|
|
Review Date: Sep 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
good walk around / single lens solution, fine build, good IQ for range. IS is a real benefit.
|
|
Cons:
|
bit heavy with front heavy balance, complex distortion at some FL's, some IQ inconsistency
|
|
|
Common to all reports
This is my attempt to give something back to the forum members who have provided this wonderful resource. I found much here that helped with my lens selection. So over the last 1 to 2 years here is what I used – all on a pair of 5D bodies. (My comments will be subjective and personal. I will try to avoid saying anything that cannot be read in the spec sheets).
17-40 L
24-105 L IS
70-200 f4 L IS
180 L Macro
400 f5.6 L
50 f1.8 mkII
Sigma 50 f2.8 Macro EX
24-105 L IS
Comment
Overall a very well judged set of compromises. The IS is a real aid to getting sharp pictures. For some this may be all the lens they will ever need. Over half my keepers are taken with this lens.
Used hand held for walk around, gardens, and most everything really Typically used at f8 to f16.
IQ is good overall and about all one can reasonably expect. A3 prints no problem – A2 with a little extra pp work. Some CA - ease to correct. Occasional purple fringe has to be painted out !
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2009
|
|
jankson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 4, 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
24-90 is it very good on my 5DMKII
|
|
Cons:
|
Only f4.0 and not so sharp at 95-105
|
|
|
I get my with the camera in a kit,and i love it.
It become less than half price on it than(In Sweden okt 2009 (1700$) Kit 5DMKII + EF24-105 in okt 2008 (4485$) and okt 2009 (5197$)
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009
|
|
Haring
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
slow
|
|
Cons:
|
good range
|
|
The 24-105 I mostly used it for wedding photography on a 5D. Then I decide to sell because the f/4 is slow. I bought a 24 70mm L instead. If you want to see samples: www.haringphotography.com Look for the interior pictures.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2009
|
|
ashley
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Sep 6, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, image stabilisation, focal range, fast precise focus, superb quality between 35-85mm at all apertures. Incredible anti flare capabilities.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight distortion at 24mm and not at its sharpest there either. 105mm not brilliant until stopped down a bit. A tendency towards chromatic aberration that is not seen in my prime lenses, but easy enough to fix during processing. Although it's a great lens, it's still rather expensive.
|
|
I purchased this lens a few months back as a replacement for my Tamron 28-75mm and I have been extremely happy. I have posted a full review on my blog at:
http://www.nudephotopro.com/blog/2009/08/canon-24-105l/
|
|
|
Sep 6, 2009
|
|
terrett101
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 12, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $910.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build quality, very sharp, nice if not outstanding bokah at f4.0. Really good focal length range, this is the lens I keep on the camera body most of the time.
I previously had a Tamron consumer lens with a long focal range 28-300. That could produce some really nice shots, but you had to carefully watch the f stop, as it was capable of disappointing softness fully open.
The Canon lens is everything I was looking for, and never mind the narrower focal range - these are the focal lengths you will want to use most. And the final bonus - I bought it on eBay, just a year old in absolutely perfect condition.
|
|
Cons:
|
It's a bit heavy, and on a Rebel body the camera is front loaded, but this is not a big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009
|
|
JRKO
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Aug 10, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Standard zoom that sets the standard!
|
|
Cons:
|
people complaining about what it can't do......
|
|
24-105 on a full frame camera with IS and a constant F4
Who cares if it has some distortion or is not an f2.8 - once you know how to get the best out of it you don't care.
My first L lens and still the one I leave on my camera when packing it away - ready for the next time
Here are a couple of shots:
St Paul's at 1/13th, F4, ISO 1250 at 58mm hand held on a 5D at 02:49am!!
http://jrko.zenfolio.com/p763044313/h51a1f6d#h51a1f6d
Pole Pole stage on the last night of the Ghent Jazz Festival at 1/13th, F8, ISO 1250 at 24mm taken hand held on a 5D
http://jrko.zenfolio.com/p256811306/h23176412#h23176412
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2009
|
|
bradc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Aug 10, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, sharpness, lightweight (for L lens), close focus capability
|
|
Cons:
|
Purple fringing
|
|
|
This is a lens I went back and forth on for a long time. I have the 17-55 EF-S lens, and a 70-200mm f/4 that I use on a crop body. I love the 17-55, but wanted something tougher for travel and more telephoto. I've seen mixed reviews both really positive and not. When these started getting sold separately from the new 5D at a price discount I decided it was time to go for it. It has turned out to match my needs perfectly. While the 17-55 is excellent AND faster, it isn't as tough and is a little short for my purposes (portraits/family). When indoors I tend to make use of flash or switch to a prime so the f/4 tradeoff was worth it (versus say the 24-70 f/2.8).
I like the quality, the weight is just right, and the lens delivers in sharpness. My only complaint would be some fringing when wide open with high contrast areas. Pretty common in lenses at the wide end, but I'd hoped the f/4 max aperture would do better. In practice it doesn't come up much, as I tend avoid washed out skies anyways, but it can be dealt with in post processing if needed. Some say this focal length range isn't good on a crop body, but it suits me fine. It spends so much time on the camera I hardly need another lens.
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2009
|
|
Canon ball
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 419
|
|
Review Date: Jul 28, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Focal range, F4, build quality, versatility, image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
F4!
|
|
|
This lens is a top quality 'does it all' lens. I shoot people (family), landscape and occasionally sport, and have got great results with this lens with all three. The pictures are rich and contrasty with satisfactory bokeh.
It is more than acceptably sharp for it's uses.
F4 being constant is great, but it is a rather slow lens indoors, when high ISO is going to negate that great image quality. With good indoor lighting or bounce flash, it performs well.
Build quality is superb, it feels very solid and balances the camera very well.
A superb general purpose zoom.
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2009
|
|
nadeeda
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 2, 2007
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 25, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight, center sharpness, fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
CA, CA, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2009
|
|
franzoi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 30, 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Very light, perfect for travel, tropicalizzed.
|
|
Cons:
|
No ring block.
|
|
Look my photo in Nepal With this fantastic lens.
This perfect for me. For my travel in the world.
http://www.franzoi.eu/index.php/foto/asia/nepal/
|
|
|
Jun 8, 2009
|
|
stephenmak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Stabilization, Range, Build Quality, Reasonably Sharp, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, Distortion, F4.0.
|
|
|
It's a great walkabout lens on a 1D Mk II, but it distorts a bit too much on the wide angle making it problematic if you're shooting anything with straight lines at the edges of the image. It's IS is great, and it's built like a tank. At what I paid for it (used) it was reasonable value given the tank like toughness.
The downside is that it's not as awe inspiring as I would like. My previous lens from which I upgraded to this, was the Canon 28-105 f 3.5 II (the better one, not the cheap one) and I find that the IQ coming out of this lens isn't a whole lot better, and on some days, it's worse. I suspect it has something to do with the IS. Part of it is that the consumer 28-105 was a pretty good lens. I recently was out with the person I gave my old lens to, and had it on my camera for a few moments, and took a couple of shots with it. Not a big difference for my substantial amount of new money.
We're asking a lot of this lens. A 4x zoom range, a constant aperture (albeit a slow one), and Image Stabilization - all for about $1,000.00. If you had postulated you could get one of these twenty years ago, you would have been laughed out of the bar.
So if you're a pro, have lots of money, like the red ring and the build quality -- get one.
If you're an amateur, don't have lots of money, don't care about the red ring nor build quality, the aforementioned 28-105 f 3.5 II is a pretty good deal at about 1/3 of the price, leaving mucho dineros for other glass.
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2009
|
|
Rollo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 26, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic image quality (eventually), great construction, genuinely useful range
|
|
Cons:
|
theres a good chance youll get a dud which will need a trip or two to the repair shop to realise its full potential
|
|
|
This is a great all round lens - the image quality is absolutely superb and the IS works extremely well - I have a lot of success getting good, stable pics of my kids, flowers & general day to day stuff handheld at 1/15.
Quality of construction is excellent throughout and everything feels beautifully solid - you can feel the quality!
Autofocus is very quick and usually pretty accurate but it does hunt occasionally if there isnt a great deal of contrast but then thats par for the course.
Sharpness is outstanding too throughout the range...but it isnt all a bed of roses.
I was totally underwhelmed when it first arrived - it was as soft as hell and the AF just wasnt accurate.
This was fixed by a drop into Lehmann's (Stoke on Trent if youre in the UK), who turned it round in 10 days and have completely transfomed it into what I paid £800 for.
If youre prepared to faff about like this youll get your rewards but as others have said about this lens it might take a couple of trips to the repair shop first!
|
|
|
May 26, 2009
|
|
znapper
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 22, 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatile, sharp, flare resistant, good IS and environmentally sealed, rugged build. Price is fair.
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting wide open (especially at 24mm), distortion at 24mm.
|
|
|
I use this lens in my studio all the time. Usually I shoot at around F8 and at that aperture, this lens is very sharp and a dream to use.
I've also used it wide open, and at 100-105 mine is actually surprisingly sharp and fully usable, I cannot speak for the wider end, as I usually use it stopped down (for landscape and city).
I've used it on travel as well, and the range this lens offers, specially on full frame, makes it a jack of (most?) trades and work very well as a "pick one" travel lens.
I've found the distortion and vignetting wide open at 24mm to be a little annoying, although correctable. Because it is a F4 lens and that the lens suffer from distortion and vignetting in the wide end, it is not a lens I would bring to ie a church.
I am a sucker for fast lenses, so when I have a choice, I'd rather carry my 24L, 50 1.4 and my 135L and change lenses if I am going on shorter trips.
Anyway, this tool can be used for a lot of things, on full frame, it can serve very well as a studio lens, as well as a travel lens. The weather sealing is a nice feature, especially for travel.
All in all, I am pleased with my copy, bought mine in Tokyo 2 years ago.
|
|
|
May 18, 2009
|
|
Xavier Rival
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2004
Location: France
Posts: 4123
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good standard lens on a 5D; decent image quality in all points of view except for distortion at the wide end; very effective IS; great build quality; sound price.
|
|
Cons:
|
No big negative point, when one is aware of the compromise this lens achieves (IQ is always decent but never perfect).
|
|
|
I have bought this lens one year ago, to use mainly with my 5D. It is a great standard lens for a full frame camera. When I do not want to take too many lenses, I usually take this and either my 17-40L or my Sigma 150 f/2.8, or both (I found this three lens team a wonderful kit for various trips including a trekking in the Himalaya).
I found image quality to be decent in all points of view, even if the distortion in the wide end can be a bit disturbing. Even at 24mm, the 24-105 does a good job though, since sharpness and contrast are still there. I would never rate the image quality of this lens as excellent (only primes or shorter range zoom can actually get "excellent" results), but it is always good enough to make rather large prints (I regularly do 13"x19", with some cropping). It is just not a lens for pixel-peepers; except for this, it is fine. Given the range this lens provides, I do not think one should complain (this lens is a bit like the 100-400: not perfect but it works quite well for so many different things that it is extremely useful overall).
F/4 is NOT a large aperture, but this lens has a very good, very useful IS. It and allows to do some low light photography except when the subject moves of course. I found the IS of that lens very effective : when the shutter speed is higher than 1/10s, I get mostly sharp pictures, whatever the focal length. Leaning against a wall allows to get even better results (sharp pictures, with close to 1s shutter speed).
Build quality is excellent, in line with the recent L lenses.
Overall, I can only highly recommend this lens. It is very good at what it is designed for (standard lens for FF cameras, backbone of a travel kit).
|
|
|
May 3, 2009
|
|
stelin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice range IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Horrible barrel distortion at the wide end
|
|
|
I have had the 24-70 f2.8L for a few years. I love it for its sharpness, clarity and relative lack of distortion. However it is bulky and heavy so I wanted a more "walkabout" lens particularly for when on holiday. Thus I bought the 24-105. At first sight it is good. Familiar L build quality and weather seal, lighter, IS (lacking on the 24-70) compensating for the slower speed, and a longer reach. Then I started using it.
It is sharp, not as sharp as my 24-70, but still more than sharp enough, the colours are good, but the barrel distortion at the wide end is far more than I expected and makes any architectural photography (and buildings feature heavily in holiday snaps), or indeed anything where you expect a straight line, rather a waste of time. I certainly wouldn't dream of using it for anything more serious at the wide end.
It has a place if accompanied by a 16-35 or 17-40 and you train yourself to change lenses at around 35mm (unless just shooting a pretty scene), but for me it isn't a 24-105, It really is effectively a 35 or 40-105, and whilst I got a very good sale deal on it and therefore probably won't sell mine, I wouldn't buy it again.
In fairness I use mine on a 5D2 (which it is often paired with) and a 1D3. The former really shows the distortion, but if paired with a 1.6c crop , I guess it would be reduced somewhat.
|
|
|
May 1, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
529
|
987866
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
