24mm-105mm L

Does any one have the 24mm-105mm L and how do you like it? pros and cons please

It is being called Canons best ever all purpose walk around lens for a full frame camera. What camera are you using?

 

There are numerous postings here about the 24-105mm as well as tests and reviews. Have you done a google search for that?

 

Tell you though, I sold my 20D and 17-40mm to help pay for a 5D and 24-105mm ... no regrets here.

 

Good luck

I got a rebel Xt and I am in the process of up grading lens i wqant the 24-105 L and the 17-40 L I just sold my 70mm-300mm DO usm Is lens and I am going to sell my ef 18-55mm and my 28-135mm usm is

Wade, for the XT, it would be better to get the Canon 16-35L which has the similar reach of a 24-70L on a full frame. Since your camera has the 1.6 crop factor, the 16-35L would be more useful, not to mention one stop more of light then the 24-105L.

 

If you ever get a full-frame, then you'll need the 24-70L as it will be more useful then the 16-35L, which you'll still need but not as much.

 

The 24-105L is a great lens, but it is F4...slow for available light.

 

EBay the 17-40L, as it is too slow, even as it is a fantastic lens in regard to sharpness, color, and contrast.

 

Go for speed.

Hi Wade,

 

Friend of mine just bought the same pair!

(had to go back though sine the 17-40 package for some reason had the EF-S17-55f2.8 inside...yes some people are honest).

 

Has a 10d though.

 

Bought this setup just in case his next body would be a FF.

 

He also analysed all the exif data and 80% of the shots where taken around a certain group of mm and those fall well in the range of the 24-105 (even on the wide end). Still bought that 17-40 for the occasional inside pictures he takes.

Just curious, have you searched?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

PS did not take a lot of shots so far. So can't comment on the lens.

But he was already mentioning that he can really feel the diference in weight between his previous setup and those pair he has now.

 

...not that it is an issue.

Wade, if in a few months you plan to move to FF, then you don't want to buy EF-S lenses, but if you plan to stick with the XT or some other 1.6-factor camera for a couple of years or more, then you should certainly consider some of the EF-S options. You are very unlikely to have a problem selling high-end EF-S lenses later if you need to, and there are now three such lenses: the 10~22, 17~55/2.8, and 60 macro.

 

I bought the 24~105 for my 20D when it was released, and although I never had any problem with it I was happy for Canon to replace it with a later copy with the "heavenly light" flare problem fixed. Both copies have been absolutely excellent optically, and on the 1.6-factor body the vignetting reported at 24mm f/4 on FF is absent. Performance is best in the middle of the range, but much better at 105mm than some comments would lead you to suppose. There is a bit of CA and distortion at 24mm, but it is easily fixed in post-processing if it shows up as a problem. The lens handles beautifully - it is just on the limit of what I am comfortable with as a walk around lens (the 24~70 is beyond that limit). The EW-83J hood (standard for the 17~55/2.8) is better on 1.6-factor than the standard EW-83H hood designed for FF use.

 

As you realise, the wide end of the 24~105 is not very wide on 1.6-factor. You could gain a bit by buying the 17~40. I have one, bought originally for film use, and my experience is that it is slightly better than the 24~105 at the wide end of the latter. I can't see much point in buying the 16~35 for 1.6-factor now that the 17~55 is available - the zoom range of the 16~35 is very limited indeed as a standard zoom on 1.6-factor, equivalent to 26~56 and nothing like that of the 24~70 on FF. Only if you have a need for uninterrupted zoom from 17mm up to something beyond standard focal length would it be sensible to buy the 17~40 or 17~55 as a companion to the 24~105. The choice that works well for me is the excellent 10~22. If you don't mind changing lenses across the FF equivalent of about 35mm, then this makes an outstanding two-lens kit covering a zoom range of 10:1 to a very high standard.

 

When I think I'm going to need something faster, I take a seriously fast prime, but Canon now provides lenses to meet most styles of working, and f/2.8 zooms are one of the options. They may or may not be what you need.

<i>Just curious, have you searched?<br><br>

Happy shooting, Yakim.</i><br><br> <img src="http://www.wolverineenterprises.com/istock/rolleyes.gif">

IMHO, the image stabilization is adequate compensation for the F4 aperture in most situations. Of course, it depends on what you're shooting; it's no help for action shots, even being detrimental if you forget to turn it off before you take panning shots.

 

The sucker sure is heavy, though. By itself, it is about as heavy as my 300D with a 50/F1.8 attached. That can make a difference if you're planning to carry it around all day. Nonetheless, I still had it mounted for a full day walking around Mannheim, Germany recently.

Hell I carry around the 100mm-400mm all day plus a pack-pac with about 25lbs So my arms gets sore no big deal..:D

No I have not Did a searched. yet. :D

I've owned the 24-105L for a few months and I love it. Hand held shots after dark are now possible, without a tripod.

 

Here's a shot made with the 24-105 but a tripod was used and IS turned off (see technical details):

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4689186&size=lg

My most used lenses are my 17-40mm f/4 L and my 24-105mm f/4 IS L. They make a great

pair.

It's my standard lens on 5D for walk-around shots, and has replaced my previous 24-70L. Only on a handful of occasions, I miss the f/2.8. The extra range and image stabilization more than make up for it.

 

Be prepared to correct distortions using a plug-in such as PTLens.

I am sure this has not been asked before.

>> No I have not Did a searched. yet. :D

 

 

Then may I recommend that in the future - before asking such a general question - you will? I am not trying to be sarcastic or cynic. It's just that PN has a wealth of info and a significant amount of the general questions have already been asked and answered.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Yes, I've got that lens. I like it lots.

 

Pros; small and light, IS, great images, can be used in low light settings. Fabulous walk around lens.

 

Cons; f2.8 would give a better background for portraiture and even better low light capability.

 

The 24-105 is an excellent lens, well worth getting.

 

P

I use 5D and 24-105L. This is one of the best best zoom lens I have eveer used. It is

basically not heavy, very sharp and fast focused. Most important of all, it suits over 90% of

my use due to its range. In fact, 24-70L is seldom used now.

 

The only weakness about this lens is shooting at 105 at close appeared not sharp. I have

tried to use this lens to take pic a a small flower but the result is not nice (even it is within

the focusing distance). In the end, I have to use macro lens on this.

 

But other than this, I have no complaint on this lens at all.

"f2.8 would give a better background for portraiture"

 

if you're comparing it to the 24-70 f2.8, recall than focal length weighs heavier in DOF than aperture. 85mm f4 already has shorter DOF than 70mm f2.8, and 105mm f4 has much shorter DOF for more-blurred backgrounds (in addition to being probably better all-around focal lengths for portraiture than 70mm). However the 24-70 has very neutral bokeh, whereas the 24-105 has very slightly poor bokeh so it's all a compromise.

 

I find my 24-105 to be astoundingly sharp at all apertures, the weight is acceptable for a do-everything lens (5D/24-105 is my mountaineering and climbing rig, it's 3lbs too heavy but I don't see a better option anywhere).

Being new to Canon digital EOS, I lucked into buying a 24-105 as my first Canon lens. I

continue to astound friends and family with what it can help me accomplish.

*Just* got one, Wade. Just a few seat-of-pants comparisons to my current 24-70, both on my current 20D:

 

1. The 24-70 get's much closer for macros, oh well.

 

2. Not a massive difference, but the lighter, shorter 24-105 feels more balanced and comfortable.

 

3. The 24-105 is a little more flare prone.

 

4. The 24-105 is fast focussing and the IS is performing as advertised.

 

5. Purely emotionally, the 24-70 seems "sexier". Silky smooth zoom, solid. The 24-105 feels more utilitarian, the zoom travel a little more "mechanical".

 

6. I like the way the 24-70 was longest at it's wide end, allowing a deeper hood, mounted behind the travelling part. Though I hardly ever used the monster ;D. The 24-105 more typically is longest at telephoto end. With the compact hood, maybe I'll get more in the habit of using it. It's a lot shorter, less in the way, anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure the 24-105 is going to grow on me. It's intended home is my new 5D, which is still sitting across town while customs get's sorted. My 2 big motivations for matching it to that body:

 

1. Virtually the same reach as 70mm on the 20D.

 

2. IS

 

(The size/weight reduction is a nice bonus)

 

Still, think I'll be hanging on to my 24-70...

Oh, there's a 50mm f1.4 in that same hung-up shipment with the 5D. Now there's a balanced combo I'm really looking forward to.

I started shooting weddings, Bar mitzvah's, and other indoor types of events. I shoot with a 20D and I just got the 24mm-70mm 2.8L to take on a 2 week trip to Italy, where I will be shooting a relative's wedding.

 

I'm thinking of exchanging at the store for the 24-105mm F4 L...Is the IS and longer focal length worth more than the F2.8?

 

I'm banging my head on the wall trying to figure this out....help me!

 

Thanks :)

 

Tal