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

[dcstep]

<p>Ashish, as an extremely versatile, multi-purpose lens, it doesn't do badly as a low light portrait lens:</p>

<p><a title="Michelle checks for text message... by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7170/6582141799_dc9f11e821_z.jpg" alt="Michelle checks for text message..." width="640" height="426" /></a><br>

If you plan to try to sell portraits, then consider an 85/f1.8 or 100/f2; however, if you're going to travel, take landscapes, take pix of the kids in a wide variety of situations, including an occasional portrait, then take advantage of the incredible offer on the 24-105mm, L-series lens, as a "kit." If you don't end up enjoying the 24-105mm, then you can recover your investment easily at a "take-off."</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>1. You have the 24-105 and should keep it.<br>

You say</p>

<blockquote>

<p>have 15-30, 50 1.8 and 70-200 2.8 II L</p>

</blockquote>

<p>2. This is a great line up, and I don't see that you really <em>need</em> to get anything else.<br>

3. The suggestion about the 85mm f/1.8 is a good one from what I read and see. This is a lens I don't have (I actually use a Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 now for this sort of function), but it's one that I will get someday if I don't go overboard for a f/1.2 version of it.</p>

<p>You should consider keeping (or getting) an APS-C body for use with the telezoom. I thought about getting a 7D and nearly did so, but then decided that the older 50D was great for what I needed.</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>David, no argument from me! I like DPP and its DLO, and yes, it does a very good with the 24-105. Some lens shortcomings are extremely difficult to correct, and some are quite trivial. Vignetting and distortion at 24mm fall under the category of "trivial," so they don't really bother me.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks, Marcus. I didn't think my subjective opinions of the 24-105 were controversial, either.</p>

<p>Permit me to elucidate what I was saying about the relative merits of lenses by commenting on the 24-70 II:</p>

<p><em>It's a very good lens for portraiture and other uses where one needs high resolution and a relatively large aperture, but it's zoom range is rather limiting, and it lacks IS.</em></p>

[dan_south]

<p>The 24-105 f/4L IS is a very useful and practical lens. Its only major flaw is distortion, but if you process raw files in Photoshop, Lightroom, DxO, or a similar raw converter, you can correct this easily. My portfolio is full of shots take with this lens, and I'm extremely satisfied with the quality of those images when properly processed.</p>

<p>That said, if you plan to use JPEG files out of camera, or if you plan to shoot video, the distortion could cause problems for you.</p>

[sekhar_ravinutala]

<p>Actually if you use 6D (which you said you're getting), you can correct for some lens aberrations (peripheral illumination, chromatic aberration) inside the camera so the image comes out already corrected as if the lens didn't have the issues. The camera has built-in data for some lenses, and you can download more. E.g., my 6D recognized my 24-105/4L and 70-200/4L out of the box.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I'll add one anecdote. One sunny day I set out to test the sharpness of my Canon lenses at 24mm. </p>

<p>24-105 f/4L IS<br>

16-35 f/2.8L II<br>

TS-E24 f/3.5L II</p>

<p>I set my 5DII to f/5.6 and mounted it onto a very solid Gitzo tripod/RRS head combination. The camera was locked into the head securely with a RRS L-plate. I used mirror lockup and a two-second shutter delay. I used manual focus with Live View (10x magnification) throughout the exercise.</p>

<p>I mounted each lens in sequence, set the focal length to 24mm (where applicable), and shot a side-lit wooden wall with lots of detail. MF and IS switches were turned off where applicable.</p>

<p>I was certain that the 24-105 would be the weakest performer of the three by far - until I reviewed the results. Yes, the 24-105 had clearly visible distortion, but sharpness was very similar between the three lenses.</p>

<p>I was pleasantly surprised. The 24-105 turned out not to be the so-so performer that I was expecting. This lens can yield high quality images when used with proper technique. The IS works well, and the focal length range is extremely useful on a full frame body.</p>

<p>I have heard that quality can vary with this lens, so perhaps I'm one of the lucky ones who happened upon a sharp copy.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I have the 24-105 and the new 24-70, so I think I have a decent baseline for evaluating the 24-105.</p>

<p>Indeed, the 24-105 bashing often seems very over-the-top to me. Like all lenses, it has its issues, but overall it is a fine performer that can produce excellent image quality. Unless one has a damaged or out of adjustment lens, the idea that its image quality is poor doesn't add up. (To anyone who truly has a 24-105 that isn't sharp, if you have ruled out user issues send it in for adjustment.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[ashishgarg]

<p>People who are praising this lens or have had the privilege to compare this lens with another of similar caliber, could you please identify the camera body that you used to determine it?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I've used mine with the 7D (only occasionally), 5D MkII and 5D MkIII. The GC picture shown above was taken with a 5D MkII and the portrait of a granddaughter was taken with the 7D at ISO 6400. Other lenses used include, the 40/f2.8 pancake, the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the discontinued, but excellent 15/f2.8 fisheye.</p>

<p>Uncorrected (no DLO) the 70-200mm is the sharpest of my arsenal, if you forget about my 500/f4-IS, which is way outside the bounds of this discussion. DLO pulls the 70-200mm and 24-105mm very close together. If I'm going to shoot portraits, then I'll grab the 70-200mm because I prefer its bokeh slightly.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I got the EF 24-10mm with my Canon 5D, also use it occasionally on APS-C (20D, 50D), and now on my Canon 5D mk ii.<br>

If I had to get rid of every lens for my 5D cameras but one, the 24-105 is one one I'd keep.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well I'll be darned...</p>

<p>With all this talk of terrible bokeh (I presume in the background), I had a look at some images on Flickr, some of which did seem to have terrible bokeh, with a harsh, bright ring around specular highlights. These were all taken at 105mm.</p>

<p>Then I took a few test images with my own camera (5D, btw) and found that the bokeh was fine until I exceeded 70mm. While my 105mm background bokeh was not nearly so bad as what I saw on Flickr, the bright ring was still there. I suppose I had never noticed because it's not *that* bad (at least on my lens), I tend not to take blurry background shots wide open, and beyond 70mm I tend to use my 70-200/4IS anyway. Nevertheless, the "bad bokeh" is indeed there at 105mm.</p>

<p>I suppose the good news for this lens is that it becomes a creamy foreground bokeh lens at 105mm, which is a very useful portrait length. (Sometimes, albeit not extremely often, the blur is in the foreground, not the background.) Note here: bad foreground bokeh means good background bokeh; good foreground bokeh means bad background bokeh; and neutral foreground bokeh means neutral background bokeh.</p>

<p>Also worth noting, this lens' bokeh at 105mm is far superior to a 24-70mm's bokeh at 105mm, and its bokeh at 70mm and wider is quite neutral. Perhaps the lesson here is that the 24-105 should not be used at wide aperture beyond 70mm if you have a longer lens of good quality in your bag.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Bokeh is not great on this lens, especially at the long end. I your <em>main</em> thing is bokeh, you might want a different lens or else augment it with a large aperture prime or two in that focal length range. (Surprisingly, it has great bokeh if you use it for close up work with an extension tube.)</p>

<p>Sarah points out a significant advantage of the 24-105, among a number of them, in that it goes to 105mm. Often when I use the 24-70 I distinctly miss the longer focal length range of the 24-105, and I sometimes choose it instead of the f/2.8 zoom for that and several other reasons. And, yes, I can produce sharp photographs with either.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I looked through about 1,200 images that I've taken with this lens and posted to Flickr, looking for bokeh. I had surprisingly few, perhaps because I use my 500mm or my 70-200mm when I'm specifically seeking bokeh. I found a few where I'd taken pictures of Christmas tree ornaments. Here's one at f/4 and 102mm taken with the 24-105mm on my 5D MkII:</p>

<p><a title="Ornament by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2802/4216648421_0a37d07aaa_z.jpg" alt="Ornament" width="427" height="640" /></a></p>

<p>Others might not like that bokeh, but it looks fine to me.</p>

[mattb1]

I wanted to not like the 24-105 L kit lens. But, I still have it. It is the lens I use the most, and it can make good images. I

really like it for video, the IS is great for video and so is the focal range.

 

I doubt that most people sell it after using it a while. Are there better? Definitely.

[rui_wang3]

<p>Keep the kit lens. It is a great lens with IS. When you start taking vidoes, IS is a big help. 24-105mm is reasonably sharp. Distortion can be easily corrected in Lightroom. Bring with you a 50/1.8 II for low light situations, and you are good to go!<br />Don't buy 17-40mm L4. Buy 16-35/F2.8 II. You need a fast zoom lens for indoor situations. F4 is totally useless in doors. Primes are less useful indoors because it is difficult to zoom with your feet. (Walls, furniture, etc.)</p>

[rui_wang3]

<p>I own many of the lenses mentioned so here are my 2 cents. For portraiture, your 70-200 2.8L is very good. I have both 70-200mm 4L and 70-200 2.8II L. They are every bit as sharp and contrasty, if not sharper, than my 85mm 1.8. In field condition they will kick the @ss of 85/1.8 with their image stabilization. (The IM on 70-200/2.8 II is AWESOME!)<br>

My 85mm 1.8 sucks after 8 years of use. The autofocus is almost never accurate. I had to manually adjust (I have EG-S focusing screen and an optic magnifier). However, for indoor low-light portraiture, 85mm 1.8 does a great job. So strongly recommend!<br>

My favorite combos:<br>

1. 24-105/4 + 50/1.8II.<br>

2. 16-35/2.8 II + 50/1.8 II + Tamrom 90/2.8 II.<br>

Now I am considering getting a Nikon 135/2.8 Ai-s for its light weight and extra reach, to replace the Tamron, which is the sharpest among all the lenses I own.<br>

Light lenses (24-105/4, 50/1.8 II, 90/2.8 II) = fun; Heavy lenses (24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 II) = pain in the a$$ and neck. I used to take a lot of stuff, now I have lost my tripod, battery grip, flash... just 2-3 light lenses and my camera.<br>

With Lightroom, distortion can be easily corrected. Slight differences in sharpness does not matter. Unless you are a pro, go for the light lenses and lenses with IS.</p>

 

[Andy Collins]

<p>I used to own the 24-70/2.8 a few years ago but I sold it because I felt the focal range was too limiting. I now have the 24-105/4 and love it. I must have a sharp copy as I find the results from mine to be great, and the focal range is very useful as a walk-around lens or just for general photography when I only want to use one lens on my 7D.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>One other important point about the 24-105 that has not been covered in this thread is its low light AF performance. For a lens with a relatively unexciting f/4 max aperture it is exceptional at locking focus in low light.</p>

[alan_bessler1]

<p>I have one on my 6D and it is excellent I don't consider it a mere kit lens.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>It seems that people are more inclined to lavish unqualified praise on the 24-105 than to point out its relative strengths and weaknesses.</p>

<p>It must be the perfect lens, indeed!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Mark said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It must be the perfect lens, indeed!</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yes indeed. It's as close to perfection as you can get in a Canon mount 24-105mm f/4 lens. ;-)</p>