EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

[jeffreyh]

I am looking at buying the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens. I plan to do

some low light shooting, thus the IS lens. Would this lens be a good one? From

what I have heard, IS compensates for about 2 stops of light, making this lens

an f/2 equivalent. For example, I can shoot something at 1/30 sec at f/4, and

it would be the same as 1/125 sec at f/4 if IS is turned on. Is this incorrect?

 

Does this sound like a good lens? I need an "L" lens, and much prefer the IS

features.

 

I was looking at reviews and a few people are saying that this lens is soft. I

am guessing that having the lens calibrated would fix that. Has someone who has

the lens and is soft had the lens calibrated and still have sharpness issues?

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=reviews&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&si=rev&rb=10

[sattler123]

The 24-105 is anything but soft - it is razor sharp. You will always find some people who have something bad to say about any lens. I own this lens and it almost glued to my 5D - I use it probably 85% of the time. It is a wonderful lens. I am always shocked how great pics look with this lens - sharp, contrasty and great color. The IS is great and given a choice, I will always buy a lens that offers IS - it makes a huge difference in sharpness and keepers when handholding a camera. Get it, you won't regret it!

[beauh44]

Hi Jeff, I own the 24-105mm and despite its having IS, I wouldn't characterize it as a good "low-light" lens. I also may need to have mine calibrated as it seems a bit soft when compared to all my other "L" glass; although I've admittedly not properly tested its autofocus for front-or-back focusing problems yet. (I've seen some *very* sharp shots taken with one though which is why I wonder if mine might not need a wee bit of adjusting) I bought it for a walk-around lens to replace my 28-135mm IS - not because it's a good choice for low-light shooting.

 

The thing is, f/4 - even with Image Stabilization - just isn't a very wide aperture. Now if you could manage to scrape up just a wee bit more dough, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is *excellent*.

 

Another thought is simply skip the IS and zooms and buy a few truly fast prime lenses. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of IS and it can work near miracles, but you might be pleasantly surprised at what a couple of fast primes can do. You just "zoom with your feet". Good luck!

[gary dickinson]

Here is one piece of GREAT advise.....buy the 24-105 without thinking any more...it is great in low light, without the ridiculously narrow dof associated with faster lenses , and the IS is fabulous. I have taken handheld down to 1/4 sec, and still clear as a bell. I tried the 24-70 2.8 first, and found [ like others] no benefit, but several drawbacks includind lack of is and the fact that 70 is just too short. I would buy a prime instead of the 24-70. The 24-105 is incredibly sharp, and on a FF camera the DOF is much narrower than on a crop camera. I am extremely happy with this lens and couldn't recommend it any more than I have.

[gdanmitchell]

My 24-105 is very sharp - it is my most-used lens.

 

IS will allow you to shoot at 2-3 stops slower without blur caused by camera shake. It will not

stop the motion of your subject any better.

 

Of course, there is much more to think about that IS and sharpness when selecting an

expensive lens like this. I'll assume that you have considered whether or not this zoom range

is right for you as well...

[leopoldstotch]

<p><i>"For example, I can shoot something at 1/30 sec at f/4, and it would be the same as 1/125 sec at f/4 if IS is turned on. Is this incorrect?"</i></p>

<p> Yes, it is incorrect. IS does not make it equivalent to f2, and it does not allow you to shoot at a faster shutter speed. All it does is compensate for camera movement, thus allowing you to obtain equal results at SLOWER shutter speeds. For example, if you can get decent results with 1/30th of a second without IS, then you can get the same results by shooting at 1/5 or 1/10s with IS on. IS is NOT a substitute for a larger aperture. Good luck with your decision.

[mark u]

The simple way to think of IS is as an alternative to a tripod (at least so long as you don't need to shoot really long exposures).

[PuppyDigs]

My EF 24-105 4L is the sharpest zoom I have ever owned. It bests my EF 17-40 4L, 70-200

4L and 50 1.4 USM at F4 and the same focal length. It's also more flare resistant than most

zooms. I suppose there are a few lemons out there but I doubt it's a common problem.

 

I've owned a couple dozen Canon EF lenses. Only one, a 2001 EF 70-200 4L USM, needed to

be calibrated. The rest were spot on in terms of focus.

[glenn nk]

I have this lens; in fact it is my only lens to date. The only thing I'm missing is some shorter focal lengths on my 30D. In time I will add a wide angle zoom.

 

IS works extremely well as I shoot primarily stills. If you shoot action something faster might help.

 

However, I often hear this f/4 lens compared to f/2.8 lenses as though f/2.8 was vastly superior. As far as I know, this is only one stop. When I shot film, one stop was the standard bracket on important shots.

 

If you shoot action, and need one more stop, upping the ISO is a solution, particularly with our Canons which perform relatively well at higher ISO values.

 

This lens is one of Canon's best weather-sealed L series lenses. A fellow on another forum showed us New Year's Eve pictures with this lens on a sealed body - in bubbles. The battery compartment was dripping wet, the CF card was soaking wet, but the innards of the lens and camera were fine. With a few hours drying out, and with a new CF card, the cam kept shooting. This lens is sealed.

 

Mine has been in the rain (I protected the camera body as it's not sealed). The biggest problem in the rain was raindrops blowing onto the filter!

 

However if you do a lot of action, then the f/2.8 solution may be better, but for versatility and IQ, this is one tough cookie to beat.

[gdanmitchell]

There are often a lot of confusing answers to this type of question, and I think I see a bit

of that here.

 

If you are photographing subjects that are not moving much and would otherwise need to

use a shutter speed that is so slow that camera shake would blur the picture, IS may help

you. For example, in a situation where you might use a normal lens without a tripod down

to, say, 1/100 second an IS lens that compensates for three stops of camera shake would

let you hand hold the camera at 1/12 second without seeing blur from camera shake.

Remember that you need to half-depress the shutter and wait about a half second for the

IS to kick in.

 

While IS compensates for camera shake, it cannot compensate for a moving subject. If you

needed a 1/100 second shutter speed to stop your moving subject you would still need to

shoot at 1/100 second with an IS lens.

 

In short, IS compensates for camera shake but not subject motion.

[lester_wareham]

I have done some tests for sharpness an IS performance with my 24-105mm.

 

It is an extremely sharp lens. However, at 24mm I find the IS only gives limited help where the sharpness approaches the lens optical capability.

 

In practice the 24-105 @ f4 handheld with IS on gave about the same image sharpness as the 28/1.8 @ 1.8 hand held in the same light.

 

The advantage for the IS lens is better depth of field.

 

For the fast prime, although it had limited DOF it will stop the motion of the subject better if there is any due to the higher shutter speed.

 

So which is best depends on the subject.

 

Some links.

 

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/EF_24_105mm_f4L_IS/index.htm

[5d_user]

Jeff,

 

I love my 24-105. I have used it and the 24-70 2.8 and I like the reach with the 105 over the 70. It is very sharp and exremely versatile. I have used it twice at weddings and it is all that I need it to be. The IS is just great as it really helps with shake. We handheld shots at 1/8s, unbelievable.

 

Just buy it, you will not regret it one bit, especially when you have a chance to use a 24-70 2.8, you wont miss much.

 

Myron

[mark_mathews1]

I recently got mine and found it to be very sharp. Haven't missed the extra stop that the

24-70 2.8 has, just up the ISO to 200.

[myung_yun]

If you're planning purhcase from B&H, you can save $100 by purchasing with "psjan" deal. I'm planning to purchase either 24-70 or 24-105. It's so hard to decide which one to get.

[ian_sedgwick]

Do any film users have comments about this lens? I can't help but feel that f4 won't allow me to play with DOF as I would like...

[lester_wareham]

"Do any film users have comments about this lens? I can't help but feel that f4 won't allow me to play with DOF as I would like..."

 

f2.8 is only a stop faster. If you want to have maximum control over DOF use fast primes. 85/1.8 would do what you want at lower cost, 85/1.2 if you want to spend money. Even the 50/1.4 will give you more control.

 

This is why I don't bother with 'fast' zooms. They are just not that fast; 1 stop pwahh!.