Canon EF 24-105/4L IS USM Lens Review

I am going to replace my EF 28-135 soon and this is a real choice along with the EF24-70/2.8. However, in my experience the IS is not that much help with short focal lenghts as with long ones. I would not buy a 200 mm or longer lense without IS today. But under about 50..70 mm I really find very little if any help from IS. Three stops is pretty theoretical. The EF 70-200 is said to have a three stop IS, but in reality the first generation IS of the EF75-300 was more dramatic than the second generation EF70-200, may be be cause the lense was optically not that good as the L-series superpower zoom. Therefore I am pretty sceptical about three stops with a shorter lense. I believe - based on my experience - it is about two stops in practise.

Let's take an example. An experienced shooter would use 1/60 with 70 mm - when to be sure. F/4 with IS would make it effectively a 1/15. The gain comes from longer times, but very often the time is limited by the object motion. To shoot with 1/15 at f/4 (EF24-105) equals light-amount-wise 1/60 at f/1.8. Against shooting with 1/60 at f/2.8 (EF24-70) the IS may bring a one stop gain, but if you shot someone moving - no good. The true aperture power (short exp. time) is then more important. Also the portrait blur is stronger with f/2.8.

Having said this, the new lense is really interesting and I now have a dilemma. If it only was a bit cheaper than the EF24-70 then it would be easier. The problem with the EF24-70 is that you have no overlap with EF70-200. The overlap is pretty important when shooting media work - or you got to have two bodies and that extra weight.

This lens will be somewhat less expensive than the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM once the "new and shiny" premium has worn off. Not hugely less expensive; the slower maximum aperture makes it less expensive, but that's probably pretty much cancelled by the extended zoom range, and IS adds a fair bit to the price. But once it's been on the market a while, the price will fall below that of the 24-70.

I, too, am planning to replace my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM with the 24-105 (but not until the price falls). I found IS very useful on the 28-135 on a film body, particularly at the long end, but also sometimes at wider focal lengths. Now that I'm on a 1.6-crop body, the lens becomes more of a telephoto and IS becomes even more useful. I'm sure IS would be very useful for me on the 24-105.

Steve's remark on price is corroborated by past pricing history. I remember that when the 70-200/4 was introduced, its price was about 3/4 of the f2.8 version. Now it is, as one would normally expect, 1/2 of that price.

As for the usefulness of IS at, let say 50mm, it is not so much in letting you shoot at 1/8s (although this could be useful with subjects such as people seated) than to let you shoot at 1/30s and get an optimally sharp image comparable to what you'd get if you had the camera on tripod.

Terra Galleria photography

I agree with Quang-Tuan: I use my VR lens mostly at speeds which one would consider just hand-holdable without VR: for example 1/200 s on a 200 mm lens - I gain depth of field and close to tripod-like sharpness. Normally I would hand-hold a 200 mm at 1/500 s to 1/800 s.

A normal range IS lens with a reasonable f/4 aperture is a nice complement to one of the IS telezooms.

Interesting. That an IS would increase sharpness even with faster times... Does anyone know the frequency response range of the Canon IS system. My guess is that it is about 0.5 - 50 Hz, but I can have it wrong. There is no reason to filter faster "natural" frequncies that you can find from human body. Most likely the IS and VR both work with a closed analog wiring loop with low- and hipass-limits. On the EF 75-300 I used to get resonances from very loud 5000 - 7000 rpm american cross crank V8-racing engines.

I've never thought that IS would enhance sharpness even with faster times. Does anyone know the actual frequency response range of the Canon IS-systems? It would be nice to know rather than to believe.

Post script to previous:

Did some research. The Canon camcorders have an IS frequency response about 1-20 Hz. But of course, even with this slow response, with faster exp. times, the hand shake can be considered as a single one directional movement and can be cancelleed with an IS. You are right, IS should work with faster times too. Obviously the gain is the lesser the faster the exp.time.

A reason why IS may become less effective at wider focal lengths may be that at some point the drift in the servo system could be more than the shake to due handholding (if you have steady hands).

At 24mm, you should theoretically be able to handhold at 1/25s. If you add three stops to this for 3rd generation IS, you get to a shutter speed of 1/3s. Over a time of 1/3s it's possible that servo drift starts to contribute to image blurring.

Anyway, IS is a good feature.

Does anyone know where there would be sample images of the EF 24-105 to see in the net? At www.dpreview.com there are some, but none with full length. The short ones look really good.

Damn, this is going to be a difficult choice. It would be easier if the price tag was under the EF 24-70.

Such a shame, what would have been wrong with a 24-70/4L non-IS? That would probably really be half the price of the 2.8 version and be the perfect compliment to the 70-200/4L. Who needs IS for these focal lengths anyway?

Sure, a 24-105 is a better "walk around" lens, but I am not about to drop that kind of money on such a lens.

A 24-70/4L (non IS) would have a pretty significant overlap with the 17-40/4L. Few would own both. In that regard the 24-105/4L is a little better since it gives you the extra 40-105 range rather than 40-70.

DPReview have some sample 5D pictures most of which are taken with the new 24-105mm

Bob, I think few people would still have a use for the 17-40 on a full-frame DSLR anyway. Some might still use theirs and a few hardcore wide angle lovers will still buy it new, but most people will just want something that starts at 24 and meets up nicely with their telephoto zoom. They won't care about perceived overlap with a lens they don't own. I would say many will be annoyed instead at paying for the overlap with their 70-200 lens instead.

Don't get me wrong, this is no doubt I fine lens I would like to work as much as the next guy, but the price point is an issue and bringing out this one makes me think there won't ever be a really affordable (ie: 70-200/4L price range) quality standard zoom.

And that is a real shame.

How long did the 70-200mm f/4 take to come down in price? When I saw the initial announcement I really thought I would be buying this lens- but not until it is significantly below $1000 would I even think about it...

The 70-200/4L was introduced in late 1999 at $900 (US warranty version). It came down by $150 to around $750 after about 18 months.

I'd guess you might be able to get a 24-105/4LIS USM for $1000 in 2007 or 2008.

If you want the lens, is it worth the wait?

I'm thinking of replacing my 28-135mm IS lens with this baby, assuming it's sharper (which I gather it is). However the fact that half the web seems to have the same plan is slightly scary as I bet this will greatly reduce the resale value of the older lens and mean the availability of the 24-105 won't be too good for a long period of time.

Thinking aloud - after the upgrade, my main lens arsenal will consist of the 17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4 IS and 100-400 IS. All all full frame and reasonably sharp, the only downside being limited in the aperture. The price leap to the f/2.8 versions is huge and I can't justify the cost to even myself, let alone my wife. :) However, I know the lenses I have are very good, especially considering I'm not a pro, and hence I can relax and stop surfing for lens upgrade options. Also this configuration would have one huge advantage - all three lenses have the 77mm filter thread size which makes investing in filters so much easier.

My current camera body is still the 10D as I saw no reason to upgrade to 20D. Given that the lenses are "future proof", the next thing would be to start saving for a body upgrade from Canon's more expensive price range. If Canon launches a 20D upgrade while I'm still collecting money and it's big enough of an upgrade from the 10D, I guess I'd opt for that body. I'm really tempted at the 5D due to the larger viewfinder and exchangeable focus screen - I'm very happy with 10D's image quality but improving the viewfinder ergonomics would be excellent.

I have just one question about the lens though - when zooming, how much does the lens extend? I still haven't seen a single image of the lens with the zoom extended to the 105mm. Someone was claiming that the "inner focus mechanism" means the lens doesn't extend but as far as I know, the comment is incorrect and only means the front element of the lens doesn't rotate when zoomed.

Sulka, the good thing is that after initial hype you realize that the EF 28-135 is actually a very good lense. Not the best, sure, but still quite good. The photos will not improve massively with a lense change anyway. So, no hurry to change. Let's see how the price develops. I've decided to hold my horses for the time being.

I am particularly interested to see how this lense behaves in low light vs. the 28-135. The 28-135 is my current favorite lense for quick aquisition of a subject and a candit snap, but has serious autofocus difficulties in low light -- even with the IR assist from an EX flash. I will happily give up 30mm of focal length on the telephoto side for better low-light autofocus response. The 28-135 is also probably the softest lense I use, too, so an upgrade in clarity would be a great added benefit. A quick comparison of the MTF charts on Canon's site suggests that the clarity (especially in the wider end) should be remarkably better!

RE: Bas Scheffer's comments, "Bob, I think few people would still have a use for the 17-40 on a full-frame DSLR anyway"

I guess I am one of those few people that would still want to use a 17-40mm lens on a full frame camera...and I don't think I am alone.

The 24mm focal length is a nice wide angle lens that offers minimal distortion yet a wider field of view. However, anyone who has ever used a wider lens (even my 12-24 on my 20D, which works out to be 19mm with the conversion factor)will absolutely fall in love with what you can do. You can get some really fantastic shots with the extra wide lenses. I will never be happy with just a 24mm again.

With that said, I do not see a problem with the overlap between the 24-105 and the 17-40. I would use the 17-40 to shoot wide, and the 24-105 as a walk around (assuming I had a full frame camera).

Tate, I also checked the Canon MTF-charts and I can see 10% improvement over the EF28-135 in MTF approximately beyond halfway the frame diagonal. In reality - it's a difference but not a huge difference. I also have my doubts about the Canon MTF-charts. I remember the EF28-90 - the worst ever and the Canon MTF said it was ok - a total disaster lense. It's a shame that www.photodo.com does no longer have MTF-charts available. The next best thing is to wait for the MTF-charts published by the German Color Foto -mag.

Nevertheless, I am sure the EF24-105/4 L IS USM is a very sharp lense.

Reports are that the EF 24-105/4L IS USM extends when zoomed by about 4cm or so. It's internal focus but not internal zoom.

Apparantly a few have already been seen (and sold!) in a few stores, so it looks like they are starting to trickle in, though in small numbers so far.

Bob, What are your comments, now , about the 28-135 IS USM. I purchased the Magic Lantern book on the EOS 3 of which I own 2 bodies and purchased this lens , in large part based on your recommmendation ( in fairness no doubt made some time ago) that the lens had replaced your L series 28-70L 2.8? It was , then, your everday lens. Some of the posts in this issue have raised questions as to the quality of its shots ( one referred to them as being "soft"). Has 28-135 IS USM time now passed; this new lens is a pretty expensive alternative, Be interested in your thoughts, Robert Cudlipp Melbourne Australia

Robert, basically softness is not an opinion matter. It can be measured (MTF-graphs). The MTF-graphs for all Canon lenses can be found from here. The Swedish site www.photodo.com used to have very reliable independent MTF-graphs for a lot of lenses, but now only have overall grades left to save server space. A very good site for user reviews is www.photozone.de.

In my experience the EF 28-135 is a very good lense. I, for one, certainly am going to hold on it for a while still before swapping over to something else.

I never owned a 28-70/2.8L, so I didn't replace it with the 28-135 IS. I did once own the old 28-70/3.5-4.5 II which was a good lens with excellent optics but with limited zoom range and somewhat suspect mechanics.

The 28-135 IS is still a very good lens, but the 24-105 IS is wider, faster and (I'd presume) optically better when used wide open. It's a matter of relative cost. If they cost the same, I'd probably go for the 24-105, but given that it's 3x more expensive I'm not going to be rushing out to "upgrade"!

In principle MTF graphs can tell you quite a bit about sharpness, though measuring MTF needs care and experience to do accurately. Also, unless you test mutiple lenses, you never quite know if the results you get are truely representative of the typical lens you're likely to get. I've seen tests done on the same model lens by different (and fairly reputable) sources that didn't show a great deal of correlation. As far as I know nobody does tests on a random sample of lenses. They all test just one.

The EF 24-105 does extend. There are side by side picture comparisons of the 17-40, 24-70 and 24-105 at http://www.the-digital-picture.com. This article shows the lenses in extended and un-extened views. A picture still does speak a thousand words. Bob wrote a really great article and I am thankful for that. I find having several different perspectives helps me in making choices. The money is always a difficult matter. I like to buy on the back of the price curve. Being a first adapter isn't important to me. Having the right tool to do the job is. A good value is also important. I usually buy used from folks who needed the lens only once or those who found that a new lens didn't improve their photographic vision.

I'm at an age where dragging two bodies with a super telephoto and another with a wide angle is just too much. I decided to do an all day session at a recent robotics competition with just my new 24-105 and let cropping take up where the super telephoto would have been useful.

Using a Canon EOS 1Ds at it full image size, 11.0+, the lens worked well; crisp images and the Image Stabilization helped reduce the shutter speed while handholding.

Can anyone post an image showing the background blur achieved with this lens at f4 on a 20D. I'm wondering how much subject separation I'll get on this setup versus the full frame 5D. If someone has two sample images for this lens at f4 on both 20D and a 5D that show off the best background blur, that would be great as well. Thanks.

I replaced a 28-105 with this lens about 6 or so months ago when I moved from an EOS3 to the 30D.

Test-drove it on holiday in the Italian lakes and have done some semi-macro work with extension tubes (spiders mating). So far I'm very impressed - even on a 1.6x crop body it makes a useable all-rounder providing you don't have a serious leaning towards wide-angle. Tho even with all the narrow streets around Lake Garda (Italy trip) I found this lens a great companion.

While I've carted an old 70/200 2.8 (non-IS) around on many trips, I've found with the crop that I've been using it less "in the wild" - it mainly sits on a tripod for portraiture. Instead, the 24/105 plus a couple of speedy primes and extension tubes has fulfilled my needs.

For the spider pics, see http://picasaweb.google.com/skrayling.

(Don't bother with the Japan Gallery yet - just 1 pic I took years ago wit a 4MP P&S - keep meaning to rebuild it)

I've tried the 24-105mm f/4L on a 1Ds mark 2 on two different occassions (not sure if the lenses are the same , they were rented from a large store catering to professsional photographers tha thas alrge rental stock). I saw some softness in the corners at the 105mm setting, other wise it looked to be a fine lens. Wouldn't hesitate to recommend it for the 1D mark 2 and the 20d, 30D Xti cameras.

I am using a Canon20D; the user's manual states: the EOS 20D will execute high-precision AF with lenses whose maximum apeture is f/2.8 or larger.

Has anyone noticed a difference in AF capability when comparing the 24-105 f/4 to the 24-70 f/2.8?

Secondly, when doing portraits not walk-around candids; which one works better?

Thanks, Steve

Luminous Landscape has a couple of reviews on the Canon EF 24-105 F/4 Is USM lens. one of which is a comparison with the Canon 24-70 mm f2.8 L this is the link http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml and the other is a comparison withthe Canon 28~135 IS lens this is the link http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml

I bought the 24-105 to replace a damaged 28-105. What a difference! I know the 28-105 was just a consumer lens.

I was amazed at the improvement in sharpness, color saturation and most of all contrast, with the 24-105.

I shoot lots of night/late evening pictures when available light is limited. The 24-105 IS allows hand-held shots down to 1/4 second and slower!...with the right technique. This limits the need for lugging a tripod for my twilight images. I highly recommend this lens if you have the cake!

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5420277

I bought a 24-105 when I bought my 5D and I use a 100/400 on the 5D much more and It is a great lens Ive found for action shots etc, the 24 -105 really is a wonderful lens for landscapes after reading this thread I think I will use it more ,Id like to do some airplane photography , glad I have a good lens for it . Hand holding the 24-105 works well too.

good morning

problem of blur or unsharp images when i am using 30 d with 17 -40 f 4 lens please help me on this problem........?

17-40 f 4 lens

Most of my photos are taken with the 24-105. All hand shot, needs decent shutter speed. I tend to shoot 4 to 5.6 f range and happy with the results. The 24-100 is heavy but with the 1.6 cropping brilliant for walking around and getting that 'portrait' shot while out on the street. Looking to get 70-200 F2.8 next.

Very good general purpose lens. sharpness, color, contrast are all excellent, flare is well contolled. Purchased this lens along with my 5D for a walk around lens. As a prime-o-holic this is the only zoom I currently own. it is slightly softer than my primes, as expected, but entirely usable at all but the very largest print sizes. Some veinetting at F4 but not 'that' bad unless you are shooting a large amount of blank sky, a flat wall or the like and stopping down to 5.6 or more there is little trace left.

It's just about the perfect size/weight to balance a 5D for me, definately not a featherweight but compared to a 24, 35, 50, 85, and 100 primes it is a lightweight walk around with the added feature of IS. The IS works wonders at dusk/dawn or walking through a market when there is low light and something catches your eye and the tripod is in the house/car/motel whatnot.

I have had the lens for a couple of months, and as I am interested in landscapes. I have been disappointed in the distortion at 24mm. As a result, when I want to shoot at 24mm I have found that I am better off going back to my older 16-35mm 2.8 lens.

The slow "hand-held" shutter speeds, which the Canon 24-105 IS facilitates, are astounding, in my opinion. I went for a bicycle ride up the highway where I live, long after sunset. No tripod. Just the 24-105 on my 10D.

All of the shots in the slide show linked to below were made hand-held, with the 24-105, at ISO 400. In many cases the lens was zoomed quite a bit. Some of the images are cropped and a couple are not super sharp but I feel they show a good example of the advantages of IS.

The exif data under each image shows the shutter speed.

Canon 24-105 IS night photos, all hand held, and standing, without leaning against anything.

Everybody talks about how great this lens is... I recently compared it to 85/1.8 lens at the same focal length an apreture 5.6. The photographs from 85 lens have more depth, better color, contrast, sharpness and look better and cleaner. IMHO it is not worth its price. Some reviewers always state that expensive lenses are so good, but they probably get commision from dealers as they have links on their web sites to the on-line stores.

We tested the lens for a while but didn't really like it. Rolf Hicker Rolf Hicker Travel Photography

Look at the horizon

I have a Canon 24-105mm F4L IS USM lens which I use on my 5D. The curvature of field at 24mm is horrific. Don't photograph anything which shows the horizon with this lens.

Very useful on 1ds or full frame cameras, it complements the 17-40 f4 and 70-200 f2.8/f4 very well, providing some overlap on both sides, this will prevent too much lens switching or a need for a backup camera.

I used this lens in combination with the 17-40 and the 70-200 in Japan for 3 weeks, and it proved its usefulness indeed. Only for the highest pagodas or the need for very wide angle or for effect, a switch down to the 17-40 was needed. At 105, I was able to photograph details of temples and shrines. If the details wanted was too far away, the 70-200 would take over, but for the most part, the 24-105 was the lens responsible for the most photos taken.

Also, during the trip, I had a portrait session where the IS of the 24-105 proved to be useful, the images were also very very sharp and contrasty at f4 and f5.6. For other types of shots, like street photography, I usually used my 70-200 (hey I am a peeping coward :) ), but the 24-105 was again the master in its class when i shot people, food, shops and other tings in narrow, classic, Japanese shopping streets.

The only irritating thing for me, is that the lens is not f2.8, I love the background blurring effects and subject isolation at wider apertures. Offcourse, if the lens had been f2.8, it would probaly weigh twice as much and cost atleast the double amount of money. I was pondering wheter to get the 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-105 f4, but price, IS and general usefulness tipped the scale in favor of the latter and I am very pleased with it.

So far, the pictures do look good, they are sharp, contrasty, they "pop" and don't require much post processing in terms of sharpening or curves adjustment. The IS sucks power, I usually turn it off when I have normal day light, but it is a VERY handy thing to have available when you stand there without a tripod and the scene before you demands a photo.

> a 50/1.4 lens, the shutter speed could have been a motion-stopping > 1/250th of a second.

Wouldn't the depth of field be too small at f/1.4?

A great lens. Faster, sharper, better build than my old 28-135 IS. It is now my favorite walking around lens. This lens plus my 10-22 cover almost all of my casual needs. They are a bit slower than my L glass, but for general use I am willing to trade the speed and slight optical differences for the lighter weight. I carried these on a recent trek in Peru (on a 20D body)and seldom missed a longer, faster, or sharper lens.

I've been using the 24-105L for many months now as my walk-around lens, mounted on a 5D. It's sturdy, fast and precise - for a zoom. It is indeed a very good zoom.

It should be noted that there is an important barreling effect. This distortion is reasonably easy to correct almost automatically in Photoshop. If you do not like distortion, then you have to correct. :There is also a vignetting effect at full aperture on a full-frame sensor. Once again, easy to correct, but then it's there, and should be much less visible on a 20D for example.

I now shoot as much as possible with prime lenses because of this.

- RogerG

This lens was a pormotion with the 5D camera which I bought during my photographic trip to the United Arab Emarites from the Dirah city centre.

The first test I nade on the canon 5d and this 24-105MM F4L lens was in the hotel room with very much sort of light and hand held, the result was very impressive and the image was very sharp.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6537717

I paid around 4200 us dollars for both the lens and the camera with a camera bag and a spare battery of a different brand than canon, this different brand battery also worked for me with just one charge for 10 days with a lot of shooting.

Any way I am very much satisfy with this lens and its autofocus fast speed and performance, specially the color rendetion and sharpness.

I think this lens made me seriously go for the canon this time as I been a Nikon user for a long time, I also just ordered 2 days back from Adorama, the canon 135MM F2.8 soft focus auto focus lens to go with my 5D system along with a Sigma 150MM Macro lens, which I bught from the same shop in Dubai, cabel release and another 5 batteries.

I am sure any one will use this 24-105MM F4L lens from canon will enjoy photograph to the maximum.

All of the best

I have a 24-70 F2.8 and realy love it,but walking around it's somewhat heavy ,so i got tempted to buy the 24-105 F4 IS as an all pupose lens. I tryed it for almost 2 weeks ,refusing to belive the poor quality of it. Not only it's much less sharp that the 24-70 F2.8,but also has much less detail,even when it looks sharp (and that is seldom).I dont think it's worth the money for what it is. I bought an 85mm F2.8 for less then a third of the money and i fell in love with it .It's light and very sharp and fast too.

For Steve Shriver I wouldnt even mention the 2 lenses on the same day. The 24-70 F2.8 ,is the shapest lens for anything stationary that i ever used .I did some portrait with both and they looked like different people for the lack of detail in the 24-105 F4 ,when compaired to the 24-70 F2.8

I am a beginner shooter with a 20D I bought a couple years ago. I had an entry level 24-85 type lens that came with the camera. Over the last year, pictures were getting increasingly soft. Everybody I talked to said lens, lens, lens. Thus I paid the big bucks and bought this lens (or at least for me). I typically take pics of family, birds in the yard, hikes, some action shots of surfing and horse jumping. Well, there was a little improvement, however, the pictures still seems very soft and non sharp for such a good lens. I sent my 20D back to canon 2x times for repairs. Each time they stated some generic repair description. ?Cleaned and electrical AF was calibrated?. However, pictures are still soft. Shooting in P mode, at ISO 400 for in house shots. I even have a little sony sure shot that almost takes better pics than my 20D / 24-105 lens set up. Is it the lens or camera? Should I just get a 40D and keep this lens? I put my older lens back on ($200 lens) and the shots are similar quality, a little less sharp. Sammy said I should use center dot verses the group dots for AF? Tried both ways, with little improvement. I know this is a professional photo page, but before I spend $ for a 40D, want to know if I should just get a new lens first. Typical shots are of family, hiking, some shots of my wife riding horse at close range. Thanks for tips?

In my opinion the new Canon 24-70mm f2.8L series lens is the best wide angle to mid telephoto zoom lens made by Canon so far. You will spend nearly half as much for a aftermarket Tokina-Sigma or Tamron plastic toy lens and eventualy you will get rid of it and buy Canon. You already bought the best camera now it's not a time to cheap out on the lenses.Specialy with APC sensor reaching incredible 12+MP and full frame sensors needinng what ever they can get in corner sharpness. Buy the 24-70mm and never look back.

Bob's 2005 prediction regarding the future price of this lens was right to the penny. I've had mine since just before Thanksgiving last year and I'm perfectly happy with it. It's hard to take a bad picture. I never compared the 24-105 and the 24-70 side by side, but I did extensively study all the online reviews, tests, and comparisons, and for my purposes the IS compensates for its relative slowness. While many reviwers seem to find the 2.8 produces sharper images, none of the professional tests prove this conclusively, and some find a better image from the 24-105. It should be remembered that different specimens of the same model Canon lenses can vary in quality; this is just a sad fact of Canon life in the digital age. But this lens is light, sturdy, and takes great shots. I also have the 17-40 and the 70-200 f/4 non-IS, and the 50 f/1.4, which I probably use the most of all, oddly enough.

I purchased this lens just over a month ago, and have to say I have not been impressed with it! I got it home whacked it on my 5D and took a shots around the backyard at different apertures to get an idea of what was a good middle of the road setting for it, the results were far worse than I could have imagined, purple fringing was worse than the EFS18-55mm kit lens I got with my 400D and there was a big grey line through all the shots. I took the lens off and held it under a halogen desk lamp, there inside buried around 3 lenses deep from the rear was a long white hair floating about in mid air! A week later Canon supplied me with a new replacement this was much better and I haven't noticed the level of purple fringing evident with my original but it is still very soft compared to my 17-40F4L. I wouldn't recommend this lense to anyone other than those I don't like, it seems that Canon's quality control department on this socalled "L lense" has been on a extended lunch break since this lense was introduced, I think my AU$2,000 would have been better spent on a 24-70F2.8L but I guess that's life!

Got mine just yesterday and have been busy putting it thru the paces. I bought it to replace my old trusty 28-70mm because I need the extended zoom range for my subjects (toddlers and young children). I figured the extra zoom would allow me to get better coverage for when I can't run over fast enough to get a shot. Anyway, obviously the image quality isn't as great as the 28-70mm, but from a purely visual stance (no loupes or light tables), there's really nothing to complain about. Some people complain that this is not as sharp as the 17-40mm, but with such a huge zoom range, what do you expect? It's like saying the 28-300 is not sharper than the 70-200. I agree that the IS is kind of useless since you can't stop motion and any night scenes should be taken with a tripod anyway. Contrast is nice, focus is fast and silent. For those not enamored with the IS, there's always the non-L version of this lens (28-105, f3.5-4.5), but expect a drop off in quality.

I apologize for an error in my comment above. The alternative to this lens would be the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5. Much cheaper, but image quality-wise, you get what you pay for. ;)

I would like to mention an observation I've just made about the 24-105 F4 L IS lens just to see if anyone else has encountered it.

I drove down to Providence Canyon to take some close-ups of some rusted cars at the state park. I shot real tight, at 105mm F22, on a sturdy tripod with a shutter release cable. I was pretty confident I had gotten some nice shots, but when I reviewed them in Adobe Bridge, not 1 in 158 images was sharp. To confirm this, I printed a selection of the photos. They weren't sharp. Alarmed, and fearing that my lens was soft, I set out to test it against another lens I knew to be tack sharp. I took 2 shots, one at 105mm F16 and another at 105mm F22, before removing my UV filter and repeating those shots. Then I switched lenses, and took 3 more shots at F16, F22, and F32.

I downloaded the images and compared the first two shots (those taken while the UV filter was still on). To my chagrin, the first image (shot at F16) was tack sharp, while the second (F22) was obviously not. I compared the next 2 images; same result. Wondering if my 24-105 F4 lens was soft at F22, I looked at the last 3 photos, taken with a Tamron lens. The first photo (taken at F16) was sharp, the second (F22) was slightly off, but probably passable if sharpened in Photoshop and not printed larger than 8x10. The third shot (F32) however, was noticeably less sharp, not at all a shot I would waste ink on to print.

I took my results to a friend and also to my professor (I'm a photography student). My friend had experienced something similar, noticing that when he shot at F22 the image quality was less than when he shot at F16. He did some research and found an article saying that digital SLRs produced images with "digital deterioration" when captured at an f-stop of 22. Neither my professor nor myself have heard anything like this, but I'm looking at the photos I took and I can't explain it any other way. It would explain the sharpness issue I've encountered and quite a few other students' problems as well.

Has anyone heard about this, or experienced it themselves? I'd be very interested to hear about any results if someone decides to test this for themself.

PS. I shot a flat, but textured surface for my test shots.

Sarah, See: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

I think this lens is been a great addition the the canon hardware and in conjuction with my 5D camera, I have got a really cross sampler of pictures. The range of this lense is one of the better ones that I have ever seen because it has from a basic patoramic apperture to a decent zoom size... I'm very plese with it.

This is an appaling lens for one simple reason - significant vignetting at 24mm even at f8. I had one last year for a week and sent it back. Lucky escape.

I purchased this lens with with a 40D and 580EXII flash 2 weeks ago. I converted from Pentax to Canon. I am completely impressed with this combination. I have about 500 shots on the camera now and still can't believe how fast, quiet and accurately this combination focuses. I have not done any serious portraiture yet (tomorrow night is the 1st senior shots I will do with Canon) and I can't wait to "use" this lens for more than just snapshots. So far I love everything about this lens!

Having owned the Canon 24-105 for over a year I'd like to add that I love the lens. Contrast and color are fantastic compared to the lens I upgraded from (28-105 USM.) The image stabilization makes hand-held night shots possible at shutter speeds as slow as 1/4 second.

I've created my own mini Canon 24-105 L IS lens review.

I too love this lens for its versatility. The 24-70 2.8 is a wonderful lens by its own but they're both for totally different purposes.

I wrote a couple of reviews of the two lens @ my site: http://reviews.davidleetong.com

I've been reading all the comments about this lens and would appreciate comments/views on the following - I've recently upgraded from a 350D to a 450D and am thinking of upgrading my lens, does anyone have personal experience on how this lens performs on the 450D?

At present I'm using the 17 - 85 IS USM which has given me sterling service but at times appears a bit soft. Would the 24 - 105 show much or any difference? I have no great problem with my present lens apart from wanting more length and hopefully a sharper photo. I take mostly landscape and buildings shots and find it a great walkabout lens.

I also add that I am by no means a pro photgrapher, just someone who enjoys taking photos but who wants to improve the quality of the shots I take.

Cheers, George Brock.

Another voice vouching for this sterling performer. Like J Harrington, I also upgraded from a 28-105 whihc was great and still serves as a backup, but this lens simply blows that one away! Excellent build, very fast AF and superb optics. It sees most use on my film SLR and occasionally on my 400D. 24 vs 28mm at the wide end is very noticeable. When I get my 5D2, this is sure to be my go-to lens. I can hardly wait :)

Hello, I am curious to know how canon 24-105 L will work on EOS 3? thanks

NOT

I tested my 28-135 against this lens. The actual, factual, VISIBLE differences were quite minor - certainly not worth the cubic $ involved.

Put your cam on a tripod. Use 2 cf cards. Take exact equivalent (set the numbers the same) test shots. Don't be fooled by the "L" or the hype...

I did say how good this lens was but there was one thing i forgot to say is that when i first got the lens i was not happy with the sharpess at all , i got in touch with the UK firm where i got it and they said send the 5D plus the lens back to them for which i did, after a few weeks they sent the camera back to me and the lens back to the Canon dealer,when i got the the lens back from canon lens it was superb !i know other people have had a problem,so if you are not happy with the lens sharpness you could have the same problem i had ,i am very happy with this lens since it came back from Canon.

Hi all! I'd like to share my feelings with Hugh and say that below f/8 the sharpness is not satisfactory. Has anyone tried the 24-70 as well to compare them? I only got this lens because of the stupid IS. I feel robbed...

I must say while I love photo.net and have been part of it for years, the idea that this was a "review" could more aptly be named a "conversation starter". Only a tiny amount of details for this lens' usability and performance were included.

But it no doubt got the conversation started, and to that end I'll add that my unit is an absolute gem & workhorse. It sat on my 1Ds Mk II 90% of the time, compared to my other lenses, and now sits on my Mk III a bit more. Even wide open it's terrific. The IS is a godsend, even at 24mm, as it's allowed reasonably sharp, hand-held twilight shots at 1/4 second that just would not have been possible without a tripod.

Sure, there's a bit of vignetting. I've seen complaints above where the merit rested in this one drawback - if that's the measure for a lens' utility, well then okay. I guess we all have our foundational metrics for gauging what we'll spend our money on, but for my money; the IS, "L", great range, sharp pictures and fast focusing (plus it's terrifically rugged, esp. coupled with the 1Ds) means it pays for itself by not having to buy/sell a bunch of other lenses. While I have a D-SLR, naturally, ultimately I just want to create pictures without worrying about changing too many lenses. This gem allows me to be lazier on that note. :)

To those who may have a bad copy, I hope you're able to exchange it rather than simply send it back for evaluation. A good copy (the majority) will definitely reveal this baby's true character.

Choice between 24-70 2.8 L and EF 24-105 F/4 L IS USM.

I rented both lenses before making a decision and used them to shoot at two weddings. I use a Canon 5D with grip handle/battery pack. In the end I found the 24-105 acceptably sharp. Using the 24-70 F/ 2.8 L had me exhausted long before the wedding had run its full 4 hours. (950 grams) The 24-105 weighs in at 670 grams -- the difference is only .62 pounds but that is more than enough to hurt. I went for the 24 -105 when I purchased

I've used this lens on Canon 5D for the last few years - great lens very sharp overall - rugged contruction, I speak from experience I've just had my camera go over on a tripod in Canada I had one leg of the tripod on ice and....yes the leg went through the ice the lens hit the ice / stones first... the Lee filter holder took mose of the impact I have a damages filter holder but the lens not a mark. If I had to nit pick the lens set on 105mm at f4 soft

hmmm, this is a damn good general purpose lens. I have got lot of good shots ranging from wide angle to teleshots. It has been there on my Canon 5d M2 body ever since I bought it. I would say this is the best range for those into travel photography.

Hmm now, the bad part, I find there is a little bit of distortion at 24mm to 27mm, above that distortion is not evident. But still at time this distortion can be used creatively. But overall this is a fantastic walk around lens.

to see some of the shots with this lens click the link below

www.adambacker.com

I'll currently planning on getting the 5D MarkII. Having problem in deciding on getting f2.8 24-70 or f4.0 24-105. I currently own the f2.8 17-55, great lens! The one stop in choice is giving me a headache!

Tony, with the 5D Mk II you may want the extra 35 mm on the longer end for any HD videos you may make. I've seen people use that exact setup and the extra zoom range helps.

Even given the idea of a 24-70 2.8 IS, I'd still opt to keep my 24-105. The IS is unbelievably useful and the range (sharpness, contrast, color fidelity, etc!) makes this lens such a workhorse. And in times where I didn't opt to bring my entire bag of tricks, such as rock-climbing or a mountaineering trips (where every once feels like an extra pound), this lens' terrific range meant I needed only to bring my camera body and this one lens.

Either lens will be great, alas. But the increased range afforded to high quality lenses these days means the 24-70 is fading away a bit in terms of its overall usefulness.

This is a great discussion site! I am also having a hard time choosing between this lens and the 24-70, but after reading this thread I'm gonna go for this lens.

Had a look on ebay and I could get a 5D2 with 24-105 lens for $3750AUD... that's not bad... hmmm.

Several months ago I purchased the 5DII kit with 24-105 f/4L IS lens. Though I have the 16-35 f/2.8IIL and 70-200 f/2.8L IS as well, the 24-105 has been the most frequent flier on the 5DII body. Its combination of range, weight and quality of images have satisfied me. While I'm not a professional by any means, I've been an avid photographer for quite some time. My previous digital SLR photographs were taken with a 20D body with standard EF-S lenses...the differences in color saturation, detail, sharpness and ability to crop and enlarge are simply immense. It is evident from perusing many reviews, website forums and blogs that there are occasional bad copies of Canon lenses...makes it all the more critical to choose a reputable dealer/store to purchase from just in case you're unlucky enough to get a "soft" copy and require an exchange for a "good" or normal copy.

i'm looking for opinions. I'm between buying the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG macro lens which i can get for 500 euro.  On the other hand, i can get the canon 24-105 f/4 L for 720 euro (with UV filter) secondhand (in good condition).  Do you think the canon at this price is the obvious choice above the sigma?  I'm looking for a walkaround lens which will give me good sharpness and image quality on the fly and to complement my canon ef-s 10-22 mm.  i'm a little concerned the loss in small DOF with the f/4 but am being drawn by the "L" designation at a low price adn extra bit at the telephoto end.   What would you do?   

I Just purchased this lens in canada: $940 Cash
I also just purchased a 95% functional 5D FF

FF + 24-105 is an excellent combination for the following reasons:

15-65mm F4 +IS Equivalent on an APS-C Sensor
24-105 F4 outperforms the 15-85mm IS APS-C Lens
24-105 is very sharp, effectively with the longer 35mm reach @ F4 (vs 24-70), it may be possible get similar bokeh @ 105mm vs (24-70 F2.8 @ 70mm) due to the longer focal and distance captured.

24-105 F4 IS vs. F2.8 w/o IS: I prefer the F4 w/ is:
24-105 F4 on Fullframe has a VERY shallow Depth of field.

I rarely use F2.8 Wide; wide open F2.8 may produce lower MTF values than F4.0 Apertures.

24-105mmL  has a larger zoom range with highly similar performance.  The only difference occurs is if your shooting with a 5D2, upscale image to 22" x 34" and then print, you may or may not see a small difference between the two lenses.

maximizing the performance of this lens will produce highly satisfactory results; particularly when studio or bright light is used.  Optical coatings are optimized for various lumen intensities and light transmission control.

Excellent Product:

24-105mm F4.0 L, comes at a lower price, weight, size etc.  I will be using this lens for a very long time.   It was canons intention to bring a comparable, in this case an extremely comparable sister product to the existing 24-70 F2.8L Lens.

Can. is currently performing research, prototyping & testing new 28-135mm F4 L IS; less wide angle and more telephoto. Engineering says it would require 2 extra LD glass elements; shifting price to an additional $800 CAD of the original 28-135mm MSRP.  such a lens would cost and estimated $1549 MSRP. It is also Canons next generation Image Stabilization will be released;  called "IS2", where the two additional long magnets are present, where larger float distance of separation between groups; yielding up to now 5 stops of effective stabilization; both in longitudinal and lateral vibrations will be dampened.  IS2 will consume approximately 20% battery power.

Mount: EF
Focal length 28 - 135 mm IS2 II
Maximum aperture  F4.0 w/ IS
Minimum aperture  F22
Lens construction 21 elements in 14 groups 
Diaphragm blades  8
Image stabilizer  4-stops tested
AF actuator  Ring USM (full-time manual focus built-in) 
Filter diameter 82 mm 
Dimensions (dia x len)  88.5 x 112 mm 
Weight 730g EST.

Another interesting rumor is there will be two new lenses: a 200-500mm F4 Do IS, this will be a step up in DO optics in a telephoto range.  200mm F4 Do is also due for release in 2014.  IS / IS2 modules are not speculated to be included in these lenses yet.  However, not due for release until 2014 and is currently in engineering review.  Lastly the aging 28-300L superzoom will no longer be available.  Rather the 28-300L will be replaced with a 24-200L F4.0-F5.6 IS2. There will be two (2) versions of this lens:

~$1750  24-200L F4.0-F5.6 w/o IS
~$2900  24-200L F4.0-F5.6 w/  IS2 + 2 UD Elements.

Speculated Lenses:
Can 200-500mm F4 Do
Can 200mm F4 Do

Can 24-200mm L IS
Can 24-200mm L IS2

 **all of the above statements are mearly speculation and rumors.

WAH!  WAH!  Boo-hoo it's expensive.  I used to shoot a Hasselblad H2 and sold it when the 5DMKII came down in price because the quality is just as good and the lenses are much cheaper and lighter.  You think the 2.8 zoom lens is heavy, trying lugging around 7.5 pounds of camera and lens at a cost of $10,000.  $1400 is nothing to pay for a good lens especially if you are a pro and plan to sell the images or get paid for your work.  If you're not a pro then you don't need the equipment anyway and shouldn't be whining.  Canon is a fraction of the money I paid for my old H2 system: with the money I got from selling my Hasselblad equipment I upgraded to a 27" Imac, bought an Epson 2880 printer, acquired my 5DMKII and a 50mm 1.4 lens and a 24mm tilt shift lens.  If you want to play, you have to pay.  Otherwise find a sandbox for the point and shoot crowd and stay there.

This thread is extremely old, and gaurentee Canon has made more professional lenses that exceed this one now.  Obviously not very many people are posting on this thread anymore, but even for my camera, I have owned older lenses and they don't compare to the optical superiority of today's lenses.  There just is no comparison! I'd even spend another 2,000 on replacing my old lenses, heck I have!

Best Regards,

Stefan Hofer

You can "guarantee" anything you want.  It doesn't mean you have any idea what you're talking about.

I bought the 24-105L when it came on the market, i already had the 24-70L. Not the weight bothers me, the size does. I sold the 24-70L and the 24-105 is a much better walk-around zoom. After a couple off years the zoom began to creep, not nice for a walk-around zoom. You can let it fix, but they told me that the creeping will come back. It is a minor complaint, the IQ is good for a zoom. Very nice indoors, where I use 1/6 of a second and still get good pictures.

But I miss the big beast a little and now I am going to buy a second-hand 24-70L. I will keep my 24-105L, I know I am a little crazy, but hey, I like nice lenses...