Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Kit Lens

[ashishgarg]

<p>So I plan to upgrade to EOS 6D from T2i (I will still keep this camera as backup) and was wondering whether to keep the kit lens. There seems to be $550 price difference and I think this is a pretty good deal for the lens.<br>

My question is more about whether I should sell the kit lens (around $700-750) or to keep it. I currently do not have a zoom lens in that FL (have 15-30, 50 1.8 and 70-200 2.8 II L) and was wondering if there is a better price/value in selling the kit lens and getting another lens. My main focus is kids portraits and landscapes. How is the bokeh on this lens?<br>

If you have recommendations on another lens with similar price (upto $800) as an alternative, please let me know. I have heard good things about Canon non-L 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 lenses as well.<br>

Thanks!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>The 24-105 is an enormously useful walk-around lens for full frame. It is inexpensive because of economy of scale and is one of the high performance "bargain" lenses Canon engineered for us. I'd keep it. At least try it out for a while and see whether you like it. I'm sure there's not much difference in ebay value between never used (but not technically "new") and gently used.</p>

<p>Oh, the bokeh is what I would call "neutral" -- neither harsh nor creamy. Most better lenses nowadays have a "neutral" bokeh. This is also true of the 85/1.8 (which I don't own) and the 100/2 (which I do own). To get a creamy bokeh, the design has to introduce spherical aberration, which diminishes sharpness and contrast. Most people place more importance in sharpness and contrast than in bokeh, so they take higher priority in the design of a lens. A lens optimized for sharpness and contrast will have a neutral bokeh.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Frankly? The EF 24-105mm f4L is an okay to good lens, but not a great lens. Does that matter? Depends on how critical

you are. If you really want to see what your camera is capable of this isn't the lens for you. On the other hand as a

general purpose lens it fills the bill. A good compleat to it is the 17-40mm f4L

[John Crowe]

<p>The 6D/24-105 package gets you the 24-105 for closer to $600 + tax. Everyone sells the 24-105 hoping they will make money, and I suppose you could make about $150 minus any taxes you paid to get it. Is it worth the hassle, if indeed you decide to sell it? That is up to you.</p>

<p>The 24-105 is actually an over-inflated value. It is normal glass with a ridiculous price added for the IS. This is why Canon can let them go for half price when sold as a body/lens combo. The open market price of $750 is much closer to it's real value, not the $1100-1200 Canon charges for the lens itself.</p>

<p>With the 85/1.8 and 100/2 you are not paying anything for IS, all the value of the lens goes into good optics.</p>

<p>While the 24-105 may make a convenient walk around lens, one of the primes would make a superb portrait lens with smoother bokeh achieved in the f1.8 to f3.5 range that the zoom cannot achieve. I have not researched the specific details of the bokeh in all these lenses but it is generally accepted that the bokeh of highly corrected glass, like the 50/1.2 L and 85/1.2 L, for instance, is harsher than that of less corrected glass like the 85/1.8 and 100/2. The f1.2 lenses do, however, provide further ability to isolate the subject from the foreground/background.</p>

<p>For portraits/landscapes I suggest one of the primes over the zoom. It is my understanding that in general 85/1.8 lens design is weighted towards portraiture (ie better at close focus), and 100/2 lens design is weighted towards landscapes (ie, better at infinity). Whether one can really tell the difference, I do not know.</p>

<p> </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I do know whether there is a difference or not and on a 5D Mark III, 1Ds Mark III, and 1D X you cannot.

 

For portraits I prefer the EF 85mm f/1.8 for portraits but that has almost nothing to do with optical quality and almost everything to do with working distance for a "head and shoulders" and other common portrait distances. That's not about perspective or how the lens

renders tip of nose to earlobes perspective and almost everything to do with personal space psychology and verbal

and non-verbal communication. I want to be close but not too close. The 85mm focal length on a full frame DSLR puts me right at the inner edge of the fight or flight range: the subject has to make the subconscious decision to trust me. Longer focal lengths allow them to put off that decision - leaving room for fear if they don't already know me.

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The 24-105 is a very good lens for walking about in good light. I found it to be mediocre in lower light, and its bokeh is among the worst I've seen with any lens (and I've used many).</p>

<p>The new 24-70/2.8 L is, on the other hand, a very different story...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Canon thought enough of the EF 24-105 to market it as an L lens.<br /> Its deficiencies are no worse than other similar range zoom lenses, and its virtues are that it is a very decent wide angle to usable short telephoto on a 35mm-sensor body. Other lenses are shorter range, hardly more than "normal" at the top end, if that, or otherwise less useful on their own.<br>

Moreover, its unavoidable optical contradictions are easily corrected in virtually any post process, including Canon's own software.</p>

<p>A wonderful duo of lenses covering the gamut that I use is the 24-105mm and the 100-400mm L lenses. I have other lenses to use where appropriate, but if I have to go off and want to travel relatively "light" these two will do very well.</p>

<p>Sure, primes will be optically superior -- but, of course, only at their one focal length, if that works out for you.</p>

<p>Also, these days why get any telephotos, at least, that are not image stabilized?</p>

[peza]

<p>Not that great around 24mm, pretty OK from 35mm onwards. IS too loud for video with built-in microphone in most environments.<br>

It saved me quite few swap for 70-200 or even carrying one compared to 24-70 as walk around lens. In long-end bokeh is pretty nice.<br>

Use it for a while, you can always sell later. Experience with it and getting your own opinion about it is worth the minor loss of value selling it used as opposed to new.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>You should probably get it, and keep it. It's a versatile lens - with respect to it's focal length, and unless you've got a stable full of glass covering similar ranges, you are likely to find it extremely useful for a variety of 'GP' uses.</p>

<p>That said, I couldn't <em>stand</em> it for <em>any</em> kind of portraiture. The 24-70/2.8L was a vastly better performer for that (the mk1), and the 85/1.8 even better than the 24-70/2.8.</p>

[sekhar_ravinutala]

<p>I got the 6D/24-105 package as well and am really happy. Not sure what wide lenses you have, but with the full frame on 6D the lens will let you go quite wide. The IS is excellent and lets me shoot at 1/30s easily and even 1/15s or slower in a pinch. It's also very versatile as others have pointed out. Overall, it is fantastic value, and I'd strongly suggest you keep it...you will not be able to replace it with any other lens for the discounted price you're getting.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>As you can see from the responses the opinons on this lens are all over the place. We like our copy of it, and it does get used a lot if you aren't sure what lens to carry around. The IS is good, and I'm not unhappy at all with it wide-open. So I'd say buy it, and use it.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>While Distortion. vignetting and bokeh is not the best. Sharpness and IS is very good and the 24-105 is so useful I'd not be without it. If you are doing serious portraiture or architecture then you will need something else for that; but as a travel and general purpose lens its fine.<br>

As you allready have the 70-200 F2.8 you will still be needing it as you will find that far better at the long end.</p>

 

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Lots of 24-105mm bashing in this thread. Quite unfair in my opinion. Let's look at the facts:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Build quality - excellent</li>

<li>Image quality - not the best, but just as sharp wide open as it is stopped down. Certainly better performance than any other standard zoom lens at this price.</li>

<li>Weather sealed when using a filter</li>

<li>Very good IS performance</li>

<li>Compact design and very useful focal length range</li>

</ul>

<p>If anyone can recommend a better new lens with similar focal length range at this price I will eat my own hair.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>Of course it depends on how critical you need your image quality to be, but I say that the 24-105L is arguably the most useful wide to tele L zoom lens available today. Nothing beats it as a general purpose zoom, and the quality it can produce is actually very good.<br>

If you need to print poster size, sure you need a better lens, but then you need to cough up the money. I have very nice A3+ sized prints made from this lens. It is a wonderful lens for landscapes, shot from a tripod at f/11. It has two drawbacks though: noticeable barrel distorition at 24mm and some chromatic aberration. These I easily fix with two clicks in LR.<br>

On a 6D, this lens is no brainer to get.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is a classic, high quality lens that doesn't deserve the bashing it's gotten in this thread. During your Raw conversion, use the Digital Lens Optimization ("DLO") program that comes as part of Digital Photo Professional that ships with the camera and your results will be outstanding. DLO corrects for geometric errors, vignetting, chromatic aberration, softness, etc. at every focal length and every aperture, with every body combination. Other software, such as Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro have similar DLO modes.</p>

<p>I use three lenses with my 5D MkIII, the 24-105mm, the 70-200mm f/4L IS and my EF 500mm f/4L IS. My 500mm is most used, because I focus on birds and wildlife, but the 24-105mm is my next most used lens. It's the go-to lens for travel, family, landscapes and just about everything else.</p>

<p>Don't miss this chance to get a truly great lens at a bargain price.</p>

<p>This is a typical result at the wide end:</p>

<p><a title="IMG_3542_DxO by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6236/6338317613_176ee61e20_z.jpg" alt="IMG_3542_DxO" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>

[ljwest]

<p>Is there some stigma associated with a lens just because Canon chooses to bundle it with a body as a "kit"? I know Canon hasn't bundled their best lenses with many bodies, particularly in the Rebel range, but it would seem to me, in this case, that they are bundling a lens that is worthy of the body. I doubt they would choose to bundle the 28-135 with a 6D or a 5DIII.</p>

<p>I find it very interesting that a lens that is one of the most recommended Canon L lenses is being bashed around, and seemingly only because it has been referred to as a "kit" lens...</p>

[dcstep]

<p>As mentioned already, this is an L-series lens and has all the features that L-series indicates. There should be no stigma to using this wonderful zoom.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>All lenses have strengths and limitations. I don't see how it constitutes "bashing" to point them out.</p>

<p>By the way, great shot, David.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>The funny thing about this lens is that Canon photogs blow hot and cold about it. I recall when it first came out, we couldn't praise the lens enough. Back then, I recall it even had superb bokeh. However, it's been around long enough (which is not really very long) that it has fallen from grace, as we have our multiple orgasms over the latest releases.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Mark said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All lenses have strengths and limitations. I don't see how it constitutes "bashing" to point them out.<br>

By the way, great shot, David.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Mark.</p>

<p>Here are just a few quotes that I consider untrue and "bashing."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...over-inflated value...<br>

...ridiculous price...<br>

...mediocre in lower light...<br>

...bokeh is amongst the worst...<br>

...not that great around 24mm...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder of the people making these comments have even tried using the DLO function in the DPP software that shipped with the camera.</p>

<p>The 6D can do even better than this, but here's a shot taken with the 24-105mm on my old 5D MkII:</p>

<p><a title="Napoleon House by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4126/5190792217_4cbf57cc44_z.jpg" alt="Napoleon House" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>David, I do have to agree with the last item -- not too great at 24mm. There's a lot of distortion at that fl, as well as vignetting when opened up (still at 24mm); however, it's really no biggie to fix either problem in post. These flaws in no way diminish my appreciation of the lens. The lens' strengths, IMO, are that it is relatively compact, solid, and intuitive. It's very well controlled for CA and yields very consistent images across aperture and focal length (as Jamie noted).</p>

<p>Although many people groan at any lens that is a "kit" lens, I feel such lenses are very carefully engineered to be very good and very economical, and they benefit from economy of scale. The 24-105 is the only L kit lens (finest of the kits, I suppose), and the other notables are the consumer full frame 28-135 (a mechanically crude lens, but sharp and contrasty, and once on the cutting edge of IS) and the consumer crop 18-55 (cheap, cheap, cheap, but still quite sharp, and with an admirably good, albeit rather simplified, IS -- with minor lateral CA issues that are easily corrected). The nifty fifty (50/1.8) also falls into this category, although it's not really offered as a kit lens. People seem to think that "kit" lenses should be avoided because they are common, but common can be very good. "Common" is where the manufacturer invests R&D funding and its best engineers.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Sarah, I'm not trying to be a smart elic, but have you tried applying the DLO module in DPP to your 24mm shots taken with the 24-105mm? I've found the difference to be very dramatic. I use DxO Optics Pro 8.0 as my main Raw converter, but I tried DPP's DLO module when it first came out last year and was very pleased with it.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>Here are just a few quotes that I consider untrue and "bashing."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...over-inflated value...<br />...ridiculous price...<br />...mediocre in lower light...<br />...bokeh is amongst the worst...<br />...not that great around 24mm...</p>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>Chilax! :-) <em>All</em> of those comments are<em> opinions</em>, so why get upset about them? It seems likely that you are non-rationally attached to your 24-105/4 if you get so upset about these comments. <em> All</em> of them have some rational basis, and some are certainly <em>well known</em> (and widely accepted -especially by users) faults and or weaknesses of the lens. If you like yours, that's cool, it's a decent lens, and like all decent lenses is capable of making great imagery in the right hands.</p>

<p>To me, it was a lens I really <em>wanted</em> to like, but in the end just found myself wanting<em> more</em> from a key lens in my lineup. That focal range is soooo important, that having a less-than-mindblowing performer in it's spot is only of limited appeal. The imagery was not as good as the 24-70/2.8L and only moderately better than the 28-135. ...which is <em>exactly</em> as one would expect given the price and specs.</p>

<p>Bottom line? it's one of the cheapest L's, and it shoots and feels like it. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it isn't a<em> bad</em> lens, just <em>not as good</em> as others...</p>

<p>As far as the 'kit' lens nomenclature? sheesh, talk about something that has zero to do w/ the lenses <em>actual</em> performance. ...Though perhaps it explains why people think it's MSRP is overblown... afterall, if Canon is making money selling it for, in essence, $5-600 (meaning they cost Canon less than $500 a unit to manufacture, so should be able to sell (w/ a reasonable markup) for <em>well</em> under $1000.) Why the heck could they not charge $750 for it new (by itself) and sell a whole crapload <em>more</em> of them? I get why people complain about that, even though it's a non-issue to me...</p>

[pmind]

<p>I find the 24-105 to be a very versatile walking around lens. Since there really isn't anything equivalent to the 24-105 in terms of the focal lengths covered (in FF), it would be difficult for me to name a better lens to replace it with in my kit. Although I must agree that the bokeh isn't the best (I certainly wouldn't choose the 24-105 as a portrait lens), I've managed to coax some very good results from it. I would keep the lens for a bit and get a feel for it. And as has been suggested, give DLO a try.</p>

[ashishgarg]

<p>I would like to thank you all for really useful comments. What I see in most of the responses that are against the lens (or at least do not think it is the best option), there are no real alternatives provided for the price range and focal length for my use cases. I would like to refer back to my original question on recommendations for another lens for the price (between $550 - $800, the former is what I will end up paying with kit and latter that I may get if I decide to sell it for) in case this is not the best lens for my use case. Also, considering my main two use cases of kids portraits and landscapes, only former is satisfied by either a 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2.<br>

I would welcome any recommendations beyond those, although at this point it sounds more and more like keeping the kit lens makes a lot of sense and I should start saving up or sell this lens later if I decide that it is not providing the performance I would like.</p>