Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens quality?
- Thread starter aztec
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,548
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- No
I have recently acquired this lens but the jury is still out on its quality. From direct comparisons of 100% crops, it is only marginally better than my EF-S 15-85 on a crop body.
Colour rendition is excellent but some basic focus checks have left me a little unsure as the focus point seems to wander very slightly on each button press. I'm not condemning it immediately as I am yet to try out the lens thoroughly in the field. One thing I have learned is that when using the lens in a tripod, the IS must be turned off.
Colour rendition is excellent but some basic focus checks have left me a little unsure as the focus point seems to wander very slightly on each button press. I'm not condemning it immediately as I am yet to try out the lens thoroughly in the field. One thing I have learned is that when using the lens in a tripod, the IS must be turned off.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 836
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There are loads of "what lens shall I buy" threads comparing the 24-105 f/4 to the 24-70 f/2.8... the consensus seems to be that the 24-70 has the edge on IQ, but there's very little in it. The 24-105 and a 5D mk II in particular makes a very nice combo.
As with all lenses, there will be some slight variation between copies.
Have a browse through the 24-105 f/4 group on Flickr and decide if you like what you see..
A.
As with all lenses, there will be some slight variation between copies.
Have a browse through the 24-105 f/4 group on Flickr and decide if you like what you see..
A.
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yup. Don't know why people who only have crop cameras insist on buying more expensive lenses that you'll only tell apart when pixel peeping and then it'll be marginal (assuming you use the lens correction features as the 15-85 vignettes more than the 24-105).
I have a 7D, 5D2, 15-85 and a 24-105. The only time the 24-105 has been on the 7D is to test it....
- Messages
- 1,548
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for the observation. Currently I have "only a crop camera" but as I have every intention of acquiring a 5D it doesn't make sense to continue to buy EF-S lenses. Does that make my post less valid?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd disagree with that actually. Good quality EF-S lenses will hold their value especially if you buy them second hand. I'm sure you could buy any of the decent 17-xx lenses (or the 15-85) second hand and lose next to nothing when/if you sell them. If you end up with 2 bodies - one crop, the other full frame - then you're probably going to want to keep a good quality EF-S lens anyway to get the most bang for buck. If you're not, buy second hand and sell on.
Certainly, I can't imagine owning two EF lenses to keep on the two cameras for walkabout. I'd end up with a 24-70 and a 24-105 so that one would be on the 7D when the other is on the 5D2. That would be expensive on one hand and on the other, I'd need a 10-22 (ish) for the 7D as 24mm wouldn't be wide enough for me on crop. Yet another EF-S lens to buy as the 17-40 would just be too frustrating on crop (not very wide, not very long)...
No. Does yours make mine any less valid?Does that make my post less valid?
When it was released the 24-105 had quite severe flare issues that canon sorted out maybe thats what they were refering to (mentioned in the review here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
The optical quality difference between the 24-105 and 15-85 is negligeable i think most will agree. The extra couple of hundred quid for the L goes on better build quality (metals not plastics) and weather sealing.
The optical quality difference between the 24-105 and 15-85 is negligeable i think most will agree. The extra couple of hundred quid for the L goes on better build quality (metals not plastics) and weather sealing.
- Messages
- 1,548
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not trying to create an argument. We all have our reasons for buying any particular lens. Those reasons may or may not make sense to anyone else. Ultimately individuals who spend their own money have the final say.
- Messages
- 1,548
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- No
I fully agree. And as an engineer I appreciate build quality and non-wobbling front elements!
- Messages
- 3,914
- Name
- Stuart or just Stoo!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've had this lens about a week now, brought together with a 5D2. As I've been ill I've not used it much yet, but the first test pics seem to be sharp enough. Not had it on my 7D yet and dont know when I will do as thats normally got my 100-400 L on it.
The only other lens I've tried on the 5D2 so far is my 50 1.8 to do some DOF tests. Haven't got the photos on the PC yet so I cant say what the final outcome will be, but they look good enough on the cameras screen when I got back.
The only other lens I've tried on the 5D2 so far is my 50 1.8 to do some DOF tests. Haven't got the photos on the PC yet so I cant say what the final outcome will be, but they look good enough on the cameras screen when I got back.
- Messages
- 834
- Name
- doh!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't get people who say the Canon 24-105 isn't any good for the 7D, to me it is the perfect partner, a weather sealed body with a weather sealed lens. If in the future Canon decide to make a weather sealed ef-s lens then maybe I'll change my opinion.
- Messages
- 4,016
- Name
- Duncan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My favourite photo of the last 12 months was taken on my 24-105.
It's not my normal lens, that's a 24 TSE II; and I'm fully qualified in the pixel peeping stakes because I do...
In summary...
The 24-105 isn't stellar (see 24 TSE II for definition of 'stellar'), but it's actually pretty blooming good when only printing 'normal' print sizes.
I class the 24-105 as my 'social' lens because it's far easier to get good results when photographing with other photographers; sometimes being able to zoom is an absolute necessity.
I wouldn't get rid of either my 24 TSE II or my 24-105, they both have their place.
It's not my normal lens, that's a 24 TSE II; and I'm fully qualified in the pixel peeping stakes because I do...
In summary...
The 24-105 isn't stellar (see 24 TSE II for definition of 'stellar'), but it's actually pretty blooming good when only printing 'normal' print sizes.
I class the 24-105 as my 'social' lens because it's far easier to get good results when photographing with other photographers; sometimes being able to zoom is an absolute necessity.
I wouldn't get rid of either my 24 TSE II or my 24-105, they both have their place.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
24-105L is a fanatsic lens on full frame (though I would never use it on a cropper when they are better EF-S choices).
You will not want for sharpness and I've been amazed by its resistance to flare, though it does vingette a bit and is prone to distortion at the wide end (aren't they all) but both these things are fixed with a mouse click in software (Lightroom, Canon DPP etc).
Best of all though, it is a wonderfully versatile lens. I use it for about 70% of everything I shoot.
Very early samples had a production problem and were recalled by Canon.
You will not want for sharpness and I've been amazed by its resistance to flare, though it does vingette a bit and is prone to distortion at the wide end (aren't they all) but both these things are fixed with a mouse click in software (Lightroom, Canon DPP etc).
Best of all though, it is a wonderfully versatile lens. I use it for about 70% of everything I shoot.
Very early samples had a production problem and were recalled by Canon.
- Messages
- 3,726
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
I use mine as a walkabout on a 1Ds Mkii and love it, sharp, lightweight, good IS and weather sealed.
- Messages
- 1,902
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- No
People don't tend to put the point across that well, but what they mean is that for most people's purposes (usually looking for a "walk-about" lens), the 24-105 focal range isn't as suited to a crop body as something like the 15-85 that is designed to have that sort of range in FoV equivalent on the 1.6x crop.
While in general that's true more often than not there are obviously still plenty of people who don't need the wide end but like you want the improved build and weather sealing.
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Perhaps some people actually buy lenses with focal length ranges that are useful for what they want to do, rather than listening to the mindless repition of the mantra "24-105 is not a good range on a crop camera".
- Messages
- 2,245
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've owned 4 x 24-105L's over the years and used them on everything from a 1DSMK3 to a 20D and it's a cracking lens.IMO the newer ones do perform better than the older ones.I can't give you anything scientific to back that up,it's just an observation.Surely new techniques/materials come along over the years to make the building of anything better.
My favourite camera to use with the lens was the 40D and I would take one over the Canon 17-55 any day of the week.The 17-55 has to be the worst feeling lens in proportion to cost that Canon has made.The 15-85 kicks it's butt in the build quality stakes.
The 15-85 is actually a cracking lens that is every bit as sharp as the 24-105L(vignettes like a b****r with the hood on and wide open though).
Gary
My favourite camera to use with the lens was the 40D and I would take one over the Canon 17-55 any day of the week.The 17-55 has to be the worst feeling lens in proportion to cost that Canon has made.The 15-85 kicks it's butt in the build quality stakes.
The 15-85 is actually a cracking lens that is every bit as sharp as the 24-105L(vignettes like a b****r with the hood on and wide open though).
Gary
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, that's fine. But don't then justify it with "I'm going to move to full frame one day"
. If 24-105 on crop is what you want/need, then fine, but for most people in most cases a good quality EF-S lens will be both cheaper and have a more useful focal range.And if you actually read what I said, you'd have understood that
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
If it is a mantra, it's rather a good one and far from mindless. There are very good reasons why EF-S lenses are better for crop format users. That's why all manufacturers make something similar, specifically designed to optimise the smaller image circle that has some major upsides.
Many people on here think that because the 24-105L has a red ring, it must be better. Same goes for the 17-40L. Or if they're honest about it, they just want a red ring
- Messages
- 1,548
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- No
I think if a poster wishes to justify the purchase of any lens on any grounds whatsoever then that is his/her prerogative. Being judgemental on another's choice is neither constructive nor IMHO good manners.
Bear in mind that the OP asked merely about the quality of the 24-105.
Bear in mind that the OP asked merely about the quality of the 24-105.
I really like my 24-105mm f4L I use it mainly on the 5d mark II, I did have the 15-85mm and used it on the 7d, the difference in image quality isn't massive, however the build quality is nicer, the constant F4 aperture comes in handy.
I have used the 24-105mm on the 7d and it performs very well, however I find the focal length makes it a perfect 'walk around' lens on the 5d mark II. Image and build quality wise I have no complaints using it on either body
I have used the 24-105mm on the 7d and it performs very well, however I find the focal length makes it a perfect 'walk around' lens on the 5d mark II. Image and build quality wise I have no complaints using it on either body
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
That's very judgemental
Sure, folks can buy what they want for whatever reason they like, so long as it's based on a full understanding of the benefits.
And as you say, the OP only asked about the 24-105L and uses full frame, which is why he got my recommendation.
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Point of order... he didn't
Anyway, to answer the OPs question....No proof of any changes I've found other than the original flare issues as mentioned by milspec78
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
these people are idiots lol
the only thing that has changed is the back of the lens due to it being really susecptable to flare when it was initially released but that was years ago.
the only thing that has changed is the back of the lens due to it being really susecptable to flare when it was initially released but that was years ago.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,312
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Or if they're honest about it, they just want a red ring
You can get one of those by eating at a takeaway I know.
Sorry...
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
HoppyUK said:If it is a mantra, it's rather a good one and far from mindless. There are very good reasons why EF-S lenses are better for crop format users. That's why all manufacturers make something similar, specifically designed to optimise the smaller image circle that has some major upsides.
Many people on here think that because the 24-105L has a red ring, it must be better. Same goes for the 17-40L. Or if they're honest about it, they just want a red ring
Nope. I actually looked at where I was shooting most when I used the 18-55 kit lens and my 70-200. Most fell within the range of the 24-105, hence why it replaced my kit lens when I came to upgrade. Of course it helps I have the 10-22 in addition should I require wider. That's a brilliant combination on a crop.
Those that say its only good enough for a small print, well I won a commended at a national competition and saw my shot printed at 6 foot x 4 foot, but also on a 7 storey high advertising hoarding outside.
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No