Advice/Reviews please! Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens

[redsnapper]

Hello all - I've been hungrily eyeing the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for a while now and would love to hear from anyone currently using it. Is it worth the spend?

[flake]

Yes - and No !
You really do need to specify the camera you are intending to use this lens on because it's been designed for use on full frame and 24mm is not really wide enough for crop sensors, you might be better looking at the 17 - 55mm f/2.8 or the 17 -85mm IS

If you are on FF then the choice is less clear, the 24 - 105mm has IS and is lightweight with a great 4.4X zoom but at f/4 it's not particularly fast and exhibits some strong distortion at the wide end. The alternative is the 24 - 70 f/2.8 L which is heavier doesn't have the zoom range nor the IS but does produce superior image quality. The debate between these two lenses is endless and there is no right and wrong. I'm fortunate enough to have both of them, and use the 24 - 70mm when ever light allows, but if there's a question mark over light levels such as late Autumn / Winter then the 24 - 105mm gets used. You should be aware that f/2.8 is the minimum aperture needed for the more sensitive centre focus point, and the f/4 lens cannot use this feature.

In conclusion - 24 - 105mm IS L lenses hold their value incredibly well a new one will cost £750 on ebay they fetch up to nearly £700 if they're in good condition.

[redsnapper]

Thanks Flake - good to know. I'm currently using a 400D, but am thinking of upgrading to a 50D. In fact, that was going to be my next question! Whether to upgrade my lens (was thinking of the 24-105) or just upgrade the body and stick with my current lenses (Sigma 28-300mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 50mm EF 1.8 II, Canon 18-55 kit lens), or splash out and upgrade lens and body.

I love my 400D, but would really value the better picture quality and higher ISO capabilities of the 50D.

Imagining money is no object for a moment...what would you do?

[flake]

If it was me I think I'd go for the 40D which has superior image quality to the 50D. If money were no object I'd probably buy Leica S2, but in the real world the 5D MkII is very hard to beat providing you put L quality lenses on it.
Sticking in the real world, it's better to invest money into lenses than bodies as they aren't replaced as often and hold their value better. It also makes more sense to take a collection of good lenses to a new upgraded body than to buy a great body and then try to build a collection of lenses.

I think looking at the kit you have I'd look to sell the 28 - 300mm as they just aren't capable of good image quality, keep the kit lens as it's easier to sell a 400D with a lens than without, but replace it with a standard zoom - you might look at the Sigma 17 - 70mm, the 18 - 50mm f/2.8, or the Canon 17 - 85mm IS. You should also look to a 70 - 200mm f/2.8 or the 50 - 150mm f/2.8 Sigma will be most affordable, and don't be afraid to look at the second hand market. Keep the 10 - 20mm wide angle as a crop sensor needs this kind of focal length to compare with Full Format.

You don't mention a flash gun, so consider one either Canon or someone like Nissin.

Think that's about it lol! but don't be afraid to ask if you need to know!

[redsnapper]

Great advice - thanks again Flake.

[lifecapture]

I would buy the lens and shoot raw, maybe buy some noise reduction plugins for whatever software you are using, i think that would lead to a greater improvement than a body upgrade.

[redsnapper]

Thanks for all the input. Where should I go (online or on-street) for second hand lenses/equipment?

[anglefire]

I don't understand Flakes assertion that this lens is designed for full frame - that is true for every L lens and every other EF lens Canon make!

I agree its not overly wide on a crop - but who cares - you know that so can deal with it if its an issue.
Its also not overly fast - but for landscapes who cares. It does make a good portrait lens - and yes thin DOF is nice for arty shots or for when there is little light - but 2.8 is only 1 stop - you really need to be at f1.8 or faster when the going gets tuff!

Distortion? Yep got some of that - I don't worry about it overly much, in the real world its only obvious when you have straight lines - most of which can be dealt with in post.

[flake]

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand my comment that the 24 - 105mm or indeed most of the L series is designed for full frame, as it's a commonly held belief. Here for instance is Photozones comment:

On APS-C DSLRs its field-of-view resembles a classic 39-168mm lens on full-frame cameras so by
most standards things aren't quite as interesting here as on a full frame DSLR/SLR.

Most photographers find that a decent wide angle is a must on a standard zoom, the alternative means lugging two lenses around and having to change them possible quite often. For a crop sensor the 17 - 40mm L or the 16 - 35mm L would be a better choice, but neither is as long as the EF-s 17 - 55mm f/2.8 which is specifically designed for crop frame cameras - anything which isn't designed for crop frame has been designed for FF, that's not to say it won't work indeed sometimes it will produce better results, while thats a great bonus at the long end it's a handicap at the short.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is indeed only one stop, but that is to simplify the difference too much. The fact that an f/2.8 lens can make use of the more sensitive centre focus spot means that it will focus in around 1/4 the light level of the f/4 model. I got bitten by this when I had the f/4 on with flash and the autofocus gave up way before I was expecting it to, the f/2.8 would have autofocussed the shot, however moving on to the next job the IS made lowish light shots possible where the f/2.8 wouldn't have.

I tried to give a fair overview of a lens I own, plus a couple of alternatives, I don't think I've said anything controversial, my personal preference is for the f/2.8 lens as I think it returns better image quality, but at this time of year it just can't compete with the IS of the 24-105mm

[steveayres]

Hi,

Not too much to add really. I've never using the 24-70, but currently own the 24-105 and have also owned and used the 17-55 quite extensively.

If I were in your position I think it would be a fairly clear-cut choice; if I have FF aspirations then I would get the 24-105. If I was sticking with APC then I'd go for the 17-55. You do lose the zoom range with the latter, but it really is and excellent lens for APC. As Flake says the 24-70 is also an option, but I suspect it would be less of the all rounder that your probably after.

Cheers,
Steve

ImageArcade - Photography by Steve Ayres