Canon 24-105mm - is it that good?

JohnN

JohnN

Messages
6,359
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm confused, I've seen people out with the 24-105mm and see it often recommended, but on another site with a large lens archive I'm flicking through the images the images just don;t look as sharp as some of the other L lens images I'm seeing.

Am I missing something or is old age catching up on my eyes ;)

I guess I'm still considering it as an alternative (if one were needed) for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS, but thats pretty damn sharp anyway and I'd never want to step backward.
 
Last edited:
The first thing that occurs to me when musing about a lens like this is that it's designed for a full frame camera. If you use it on APS-C you're therefore paying for glass that you can't use and the only service it provides is to make the lens bigger and heavier than it need be, plus the starting point of 24mm isn't fantastic if you are a fan or wide angles and of course it's an f4 lens when sexy, smaller and lighter f2.8's are available and are yummy yummy.

All in all I doubt I'll ever buy a f4 zoom designed for a full frame camera and use it extensively on an APS-C camera.
 
It's a great focal range on full frame and a good aperture/weight compromise. Loved it when I had my 5D2.

I don't really see the point of getting it on an APS-C camera. Get the 17-55 f2.8IS. No brainer.
 
If you shoot crop body and shoot a lot of wide angle, there are better alternatives out there 38mm (effective on a crop body) isnt very wide.

I mainly shoot portraits and I glady sacrifice the wide end to have up to 105 on long end (effectively 168mm on a crop remember)

My copy is very sharp from f4-8, my most used apertures and the 3 stop stabiliser is far more value to me than a 2.8 aperture would be. And we havent even talked about the build quality and the fact it focuses fast and is weather sealed against dust and moisture to an extent.

Using the 'sweet spot' in the centre of the lens can void certain properties of the lens i.e. minimise vignetting and minimise the effect of poor corner sharpness performance. so sometimes a full-frame lens can appear to perform better on a crop body!
 
On my 5D2, I've not found a better lens for sharpness and image quality. If you're really wanting to pixel peep, you can zoom in at ridiculous levels and reveal incredible levels of detail recorded, across the image. It'd have been a bit long on a cropper for my usage, but if that's not an issue for you, it's a suberb lens.
 
Shine On said:
On my 5D2, I've not found a better lens for sharpness and image quality......
Click to expand...

It's amazing how opinions vary Paul. I've got the lens but would only class it as mediocre at best when comparing it to most of the others I own. Granted, it has a very useful range to have on a full frame body but I've never been enthused by its colour rendition and it certainly lacks the ability to make images "pop" like some of the primes do.
It's a fair bet that our tastes in women are different too.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
It's amazing how opinions vary Paul. I've got the lens but would only class it as mediocre at best when comparing it to most of the others I own.

Bob
Click to expand...

I owned this Lens and agree with everything Bob has said.. I was never happy with it so sold it and now have the 24-70mm which I absolutely love, but others complain about it so I guess try for your self and see what you think
personally I would never buy 24-105 again
 
I have both the 24-70 and the 24-105 and am loath to part with either. The 24-105 gets most use, but there are times when the 24-70 is needed for the extra stop.
I wonder if Canon Bobs copy was a bad one, as to my (aged) eyes there is little difference, though I do agree that the 24-70 is better.
I think that in time the 24-70 will go to allow me the funds to try out the 135mm f2.
I may even put some of any spare cash towards trying some different women ( I do like mine to be between 24-70 rather than 105...!)
 
JohnN said:
I'm confused, I've seen people out with the 24-105mm and see it often recommended, but on another site with a large lens archive I'm flicking through the images the images just don;t look as sharp as some of the other L lens images I'm seeing.
Click to expand...
How big are those images you're looking at online? 1 megapixel, maybe 2 megapixels tops? It's IMPOSSIBLE to judge lens sharpness from images that size. What you're seeing is more a product of the way the photographer processed the image, the JPEG compression ratio chosen, any other compression that the site's server does on the sly, and that sort of thing.
 
1) Most of the time images are not sharp at 100% is due to poor technique, not the lens.
3) Test wide open at f4. Diffraction kills quality when pixel peeping.
2) Some 24-105 focal lengths are sharper than others; know your lens.
3) Not all 25-105 copies are as sharp as each other (same is true of most lens models). Soft copies do exist, if you are unhappy then you need to do a carefully controlled back-to-back comparison with another lens. If you find a noticeable difference, then Canon will almost certainly be able to sort it out.

The SLRGear review I linked to above describes the 24-105 as "While this is an exceptional lens on sub-frame cameras it falls to merely "very, very good" on full-frame bodies.".
I used mine for two years on APS-C before going full frame and was very happy with the results. When I upgraded to full frame, I found it much harder to get top quality images.
 
StewartR said:
How big are those images you're looking at online? 1 megapixel, maybe 2 megapixels tops? It's IMPOSSIBLE to judge lens sharpness from images that size. What you're seeing is more a product of the way the photographer processed the image, the JPEG compression ratio chosen, any other compression that the site's server does on the sly, and that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

The thing is, I've also been considering the 24-105 and user images I've seen are also mediocre. On the same site I can look at examples for other lenses and see some amazing examples. All the owners who post examples of their 24-105 on that site cannot be that "average" surely?! :shrug:

I actually like the user lens samples as it gives a good idea of the work people are generating with a given lens. :)
 
Im very happy with mine, its on my 5d mark II a lot of the time. I have used it on the 7d once or twice and it performed very well on that body too.:)
 
Shine On said:
On my 5D2, I've not found a better lens for sharpness and image quality.
Click to expand...

Canon Bob said:
It's amazing how opinions vary Paul. I've got the lens but would only class it as mediocre at best when comparing it to most of the others I own. .....
Bob
Click to expand...

stevewestern said:
I wonder if Canon Bobs copy was a bad one, as to my (aged) eyes there is little difference, though I do agree that the 24-70 is better.
Click to expand...

It may be Steve but it performs exactly as I would expect a 4x zoom to perform. It was Paul's statement that he hadn't found a better lens for sharpness and image quality that surprised me.
I'm looking at the other lenses I own that are covered by the 24-105's range and I don't see any that would come a poor second to it and certainly none of them if they're used at f/4.
For the record they are; 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 50/2.5, 85/1.2, 100/2.8, 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS II, 70-200/4 IS, TS-E24/3.5II, TS-E24/3.5I, TS-E45 and TS-E90

Bob
 
I swapped my 15-85mm in towards a 2nd hand 24-105mm and, hand on heart, it was one of the best decisions I've made. It's sharper (as sharp as my 70-200 F4 IS) and the colours are superb. the main reason I changed though was for the weather sealing as I use my camera in the rain, in the dirt and on beaches.

There are times I do wish I had a wider lens still and I will probably pick up something like the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 at some point, but overall I'm glad I made the change.
 
There's much more of a difference between the 15-85 and the 24-105 than there is between the 70-200mm and the 24-105.
 
This is an interesting read, to be honest I'd expected a solid defence of the 24-105, but am seeing a mixed bag, looks like this may b on L lens I'll be very wary of.

By the way, they;re right the nifty is an "L" gateway drug! Started there, next thing I know I've a 400L, 100L - it only seems a matter of time before I find a 600 L (yeah right!!)
 
For me the 24-105 is an excellent walkabout lens. Good range and excellent quality. Sure, you're going to get better from primes or more expensive options e.g 24-70 f2.8 but for what it is it's the best there is. However, you're not me (and I bet you're glad about that). My 24-105 is on a 5DmkII whereas as because you're using a 1.6 crop body I'd look very carefully at the EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS instead. It may not have a red "L" ring round it but it's a superb lens and unless you're likely to change to FF any time soon that's what I'd be looking at. Easiest way to find out though is to go out and have a play.
 
I agree with everything Mondo74 has said.

My primes are definitely now my sharpest glass, but in general if I'm out and about it is the 24-105 fitted to my 5D2. It's a good general walkabout lens.

When I was using a crop sensor I mostly had the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 on the camera. It doesn't have the same build quality of the L lenses (there aren't any EF-S L lenses), but it produced the sharpest images of any zoom I've ever used.
 
I have own this lens and used a couple of other copies over the years and never been too impressed by it - I far prefer my old 28-70 f2.8 it sharper throughout the range and give much better colours. For me the 24-105 was a lazy lens, it did the job well all the time however when I worked harder and pushed it it didn't work any better (unlnke the 28-70 which give stunning results when used well).
 
Ive also owned a couple of copies of this lens over the past 5-6 years, and during that time owned a 17-55IS. The 24-105 is a nice lens and well made etc but for sharpness and general pop neither could beat my 17-55IS.

Ive never dropped or got my gear wet so build difference has always been a non issue, although i do feel my 15-85IS to be better made than the 17-55IS.

When i got my 17-55IS i more or less stopped using my primes.
 
Going to go against the grain here - I use a 24-105 as a walkabout lens on a crop.

I never feel the need for anything wider, when I was using the 18-55 kit lens on my 450D I often wanted more reach.

I'm quite happy with sharpness.
Referring to posts above, yes primes will be sharper and at £1800 I'd certainly expect the 70-200 II to be sharper !
 
The 24-105L is the best walkabout lens for Canon FF, but it is bettered for IQ by the 17-55mm IS F/2.8 on a crop body. I owned and used both on my 40D and 7D, but the 17-55 IS ended up being the keeper because it was brighter, sharper wide open, and had slighltly better IS. The only thing that lets the 17-55 down is build quality that is not anywhere close to the 24-105.

If you plan on dropping your lens or giving it a hard life, get the 24-105, otherwse the 17-55 IS is better. If only Canon stuck the 17-55 internals inside an L exterior....
 
Last edited:
I love my 24-105 and it's my favourite walkabout lens on the 7D. I've never thought of it as not being sharp, it's certainly sharp enough! I have a 15-85 which is ok sometimes but prefer to use my 10-22 for the wider stuff.
 
It's a very useful 'walkabout' range and IS is handy, but I think I'm going to get rid of mine. It's certainly sharp enough but I just don't like the images from it as much as other lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top