Anyone have the Canon 24-105mm f/4 lens? If so, do you like it?

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Another – slightly qualified – vote for the 24~105 as a valuable lens both on FF, for which it offers just about the ideal walk-around specification, and on 1.6-factor, where when used with the 10~22 it provides a large focal length range from just two lenses, but with a changeover point that is less than ideal for some types of use. I don't have a problem with the peripheral illumination issue because that is severe only at 24/4 on FF and in any case is completely correctable in DPP with nothing worse than a theoretical impact on dynamic range in peripheral parts of the image – no pixel re-mapping is needed. I would like less distortion at the wide end. Again, it is completely correctable in DPP, but this does require pixel re-mapping, and the amount of correction needed does have a slight impact on sharpness. This is visible if you go in for pixel-peeping or heavy cropping, but has little impact in most circumstances. The 24~70 has measurably better distortion figures at 24mm, and of course is a stop faster, but it is significantly bigger, heavier, and more expensive, has a shorter zoom range, and lacks IS, so these are really two very different lenses designed with different patterns of usage in mind. Like other posters on this thread, I use f/4 zooms (I also have the 17~40 and the excellent 70~200/4IS) for walk-around use and fast primes when I need them.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>This site has a good review of the 24-10 where he compares it to the 24-70:<br>

<a href="http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Canon_24-105L_IS.html">http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Canon_24-105L_IS.html</a><br>

His conclusions match the comments above: optical quality vs utility. Bearing in mind that he likes to attach Leica/Contax lenses to his Canon 1D/5D the fact he has bought the lens I think gives it great credit.<br>

As you say, decisions decisions .</p>

[2008.]

<p>A lovely lens you will be very happy with it,walk about lens perfect,i use it on a 5d which is better as far as the wide angle concerned as there is no cropping factor !better for the cropping factor camera on the high end ! gain on one and lose on the other ! Get it.cheers. </p>

[noli_tan]

<p>good lens-very versatile and the images are sharp enough. One of my fave focal range. The IS is a big plus under low light conditions.</p>

[vincent_armato]

<p>I too have this lens on a 5DII. It is a great lens. Before this lens I was always purchasing f2.8 lenses and felt the f4 wouldn't carry the situations I needed. With the ISO handling ability of the 5DII I find it is more than enough for most situations. At f4 it's sharp.<br>

I also have the 35mmf/1.4. Also a very good lens on the 5D. Together they make a good all around combination. You will miss the longer zoom capabilities but other than that most situations should have good coverage.</p>

[adamphoto]

Had one, traded it for a 17-55mm f2.8 IS. It was a great (if somewhat expensive) walkaround lens, but on a crop camera it was never wide enough, and I needed the extra stop. I would certainly buy one again though should my wallet permit it, especially for use with a 5D. Nice IQ, solid build, quick AF and IS.

[john_remington2]

<p>Depends on what you already have. I'd have the 24-70 2.8 L and the 70-200 2.8 L in the bag over the fine but lesser 24-105. That said, the 24-105 is a good everyday keep-it-on-the-5D lens. Consider the inexpensive and light but excellent (and mostly forgotten) 85mm 1.8 prime (~$350) for portrait photography.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>It's a great lens. PM me if you want one or check the classifieds on this forum. I am not shooting Canon now so I sold everything and have a mint 24-105 left.<br>

The lens is really a great range especially for a full frame body. Having sharpness and IS is a great feature of this lens. I used it for wedding receptions until I got a 24-70 2.8 but f4 is still a functional stop for most situations. For non-wedding use, I know lots of folks who favor the 24-105 for portrait work. <br>

Lou</p>

 

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I also own the lens and I would like to add that it is an execptional performer wide open at f4. I avoid using some lenses wide open (even my 70-200 f2.8L) but the 24-105 f4 is superb. On a FF camera it is the best matched everyday zoom available with the 24-70 a close second for me.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I bought the 24 - 70 over the 24-105. While it is a heavier lens it is still not too bad (I do lug around a GX680 sometimes which weight 10+ lbs!). I use the lens on film and FF digital and found the 24-70 was a much better quality lens than the 24-105. I do not miss the loss of IS as the extra stop partially compensates and I find that it is not camera shake that is a limiting factor for me but getting a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion. Here the F2.8 lens outperforms the F4 lens.</p>

[scott bean]

<p>I absolutely love this lens. I'm using it on a 40D and probably take about 80% of my shots with it. IS works. Great hiking lens.</p>

[rice1]

<p>i agree with scott (above), i have it, love it, and it is hard to beat for a versatile walk around lens.<br>

i also love the 85mm f1.8.....very light and cheap.</p>

[ben_obryan]

<p>Had it (as the kit lens to the 5D), didn't like it very much, and sold it. Very convenient in terms of focal lengths and the IS but I found pretty average IQ. IQ certainly worse than cheap old primes and not appreciably better (in my eyes) to, say, the 24-85 which is much cheaper and lighter. I'd just get a non-L from eBay if I was ever in the market for a mid-range zoom again.</p>

<p>I didn't derive any pleasure from using it which is sort of the point when photography is a hobby rather than a profession. That said if you are often shooting moving targets and don't like changing lenses then there is not a great deal of choice, particularly for those who <em>must</em> have L lenses (the 24-70 is a monster with not much "zoom" at all).</p>

[dana_jill]

<p>Thank you ALL so much, I continue to be amazed at the wonderful answers I always get on this forum. </p>

[adriano_carbone]

<p>I don't like 24-105 flare and distorsion. I think also that stabilizer is useful when you're shaking hands but for portrait is more important small open to blur background.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>I would like less distortion at the wide end. Again, it is completely correctable in DPP, but this does require pixel re-mapping, and the amount of correction needed does have a slight impact on sharpness. This is visible if you go in for pixel-peeping or heavy cropping, but has little impact in most circumstances.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe not.</p>

<p>I don't have a sample with the 24-105, though I use that lens a lot and have no qualms about post-process correction in Photoshop. Here, however, is a sample made with a 50mm f/1.4 lens. The left and right halves of the image are two copies of the same far corner of the shot, here at 100% magnification. Which one half is corrected and which half is not corrected?</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6425079-lg.jpg" alt="" width="972" height="484" /></p>

<p><a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/09/16/a-test-correcting-lens-distortion-in-post-processing">My full post is here</a> .</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Dave, I wasn't happy with it on my crop because the equivalent 38mm wide end just isn't wide enough for my shooting style.<br>

I love the range on a FF, it's a very useful zoom for me personally. I barely used it on the 20D.</p>

[wayne_inouye2]

<p>I like mine. Smaller and lighter than the 24-70 (important for my type of shooting - much more so than 1 stop) and a good focal range for a FF (I use mine on a 5D). I would not recommend it or the 24-70 as the sole lens for an APS-C sensor. </p>

<p> </p>

[Funtak]

<p>It's a realy great walk-around lens, better on FF, so I have in my bag 17-40 and 70-300 and 24-105 on 40D as a rule. For taking portraits I use 50mm plastic-fantastic or 70-200 f4 IS.</p>

[peter_cheng3]

<p>I use 24-105 for my 40D. Quite sharp wide open @f4, even at low light for my kids. Really enjoy it.</p>

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>I have owned both 24-70L and 24-105L. I kept the 105L and it stays on my 5d. It's an awesome walk around lens. I will say that if I were using it for "mostly" portraits, I would rather have the 24-70L 2.8, but I normally use a 70-200L 2.8 or 50 1.4 for portraits so I don't really need the 24-70L. I know there are quite a few photographers that would prefer the 70 for wedding, but I prefer the 105. I have never had any complaints (from my customers) with the IQ in images using the 24-105L. Go for it!<br>

See ya,</p>

<p>Scott</p>

 

[james_cox3]

<p>I like mine, ALOT, my copy is quite sharp an 4, and very very sharp stopped down a bit. I use it mainly for weddings, I really like the extra range over the 24-70, and with the good iso performance these days I don't miss that 1 stop, especially since it has IS, which in most situations where people are still and reasonably motionless, it's better than a 1 stop advantage, ( thats my opinion anyway for what it's worth). Like mr M. Scott Clay just above me, I've never had any problems or complaints with the IQ of this beauty.</p>

[herb_cunningham]

<p>It is ok, not wonderful. I have t he 24mm f1.4, and it does a much better job at wide shots than the 24-105-<br>

not exactly apples to apples comparison. Not a big fan of zooms.</p>

[kel_madics]

<p>I shoot with 24-105 most of the time except now that i have 70-200 IS :)))))) Anyway, it not a portrait lens because its hard to get shallow depth of field if you dont position your subject right and you WILL use high ISO with it especially if you take photos of people.<br>

my general rule with this lens is i get a chance of a sharper image w/o using flash if i shoot a shutter speed not lower than 1/13-15 on 50mm, 1/20 on 70mm and at least 1/30 on 70-105mm. I usually go from 800-1600 ISO on a 40d with mine at indoor locations w/o flash to reach those shutter speeds so be prepared to deal with noise on XXd cameras. my saying is if this lens gets it sharp it definitely sharp.<br>

but ohh I WISH I WISH canon would make the 24-70 an IS or the 24-105 a f/2.8. i would buy any of those without hesitation. :))))<br>

anyway here is my gallery of pics taken by the 24-105mm f4/L.<br>

<a href="http://photos.rankemup.com/">http://photos.rankemup.com/</a></p>