Canon 24-105

[Don Libby]

Any comments on the 24-105? Just did a little research and it looks positive. I've ordered this lens for a mate to my 1DsII which will be soon converted to IR.

I'll be interested in hearing from owners of the lens.

Cheers

Don

ps Didn't this lens just come out with the new 5D II?

 

[Bob]

Don,
I have used this lens for the last three months.
1) It is a great "swiss army knife" all-purpose lens
2) I have not tried it with IR, so I have no idea of how it performs
3) Like all wide-range zooms, watch out for the ends (especially the wide) for distortion. Better than some zooms, but it makes me itch for more primes other than the 35/1.4L I have.
4) Sharp pretty much across the range, but the corners soften up at 24 unless it is stopped down to about f/8
-bob

 

[Don Libby]

Bob,

"Swiss-army knife/lens" is exactually what I was looking for.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Don

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I own it and use it for shooting weddings after giving up on the 24-70L due to 3 bad copies.

My first copy was horrible. This present copy is very good. Extremely sharp, perfect focus, strong, even harsh contrast (not great for people, good for everything else).

The 24-105L is known for it's bad distortion and vignetting at the wide end and questionable bokeh throughout. The vignetting actually works for me with wedding work and isn't a problem for my stitching. Not that hard to fix anyway. I use PTLens for the distortion and primes for when I need decent Bokeh!

What it is however is a very sharp walkaround lens with a aperture faster than anything else with the same range, a 4 stop IS (though no mode 2, allow it to settle if you focus recompose and switch off on a tripod!), weatherproof, etc, etc.

I was using primes for my stitching work but came to the conclusion that the zoom was more convenient when I had more resolution than I could print anyway and the results really are very sharp. These two pics were shot with the 24-105L, both stitched, both razor sharp.

_

Just to reiterate, there are incredible copies of this lens but I'd say that at least 50% are not so great so make sure you can test the heck out of it first. It should be almost prime sharp!

 

[Jack]

Don,

It is my main lens kept on the camera at all times. It does a lot of things extremely well but is not a replacement for perfectly rectilinear 24 wide or an f2 portrait tele prime.

 

[Don Libby]

Don,

It is my main lens kept on the camera at all times. It does a lot of things extremely well but is not a replacement for perfectly rectilinear 24 wide or an f2 portrait tele prime.

Thanks Jack

I kinda got into this lens by accident. Sandy has a great 24-70 for her Mk III and I had thought of getting one for the II then did a little research and found for what ever the reason the 24-70 is on inter-galactic backorder so the next lens was the 24-105 which I've gotten a great deal on (thanks Chris). My main landscape kit is and will continue to be the WRS however I want to dive into the IR side as well and since my 1Ds II was sitting collecting dust I figure why not; the next hurdle was to find an all purpose lens which lead me to the 24-105. I figure this will give me the reach I think I might need in Yosemite while also providing the width in the Redwoods. We'll see.

I've got to wait several weeks for the lens which isn't any big deal however I doubt I'll have it and the camera converted before the MV trip in August so that leave Yosemite as the first big outing in October.

Okay I'm running off at the mouth here however I figured I'd give an explanation why a MFDB shooter is asking for the 35mm lens...

Cheers

Don

 

[johnastovall]

If you get a used one make sure it's had the early production fix for flare.

 

[Ralph Eisenberg]

"Swiss army knife" is an apt qualification of this very serviceable, light-weight lens. The IS is worthwhile and, unlike the 24-70/2,8 which I also have, the lens is reportedly optimized for digital. Also, the bokeh imo is not as bad as some say, and I have found that it can be quite appealing in street-shooting portraiture.

 

[JohnW]

Just to reiterate, there are incredible copies of this lens but I'd say that at least 50% are not so great so make sure you can test the heck out of it first. It should be almost prime sharp!

Interesting observation. I used my 24-105 a lot and was pretty satisfied until I compared it on a tripod with my 50 1.4. Not really very scientific or rigorous testing, but everything about the 50 -- sharpness, color, contrast -- was way nicer to my eye. Now I'm kind of soured on the zoom.

John

 

[Don Libby]

Just returned from the South Rim, Grand Canyon shooting near IR with the 24-70 and am now looking forward to the 24-105 for that extra amount of reach. BTW it appears I should have the lens next week in time for a trip to Monument Valley but not enough time to have the camera converted to IR so that process will have to wait till I return.

My thoughts on zooms vs primes are primes are always better. It's just the nature of the beast.

Thanks to all for their comments.

Don

 

[Double Negative]

Isn't it a little late to ask about the lens after you've ordered it?

The 24-105mm has been out for many years now. It's a good lens, but there is the distortion and vignetting... Which are pretty mild, really.

I prefer bright glass and don't really need IS on wider lenses. I went with the venerable "Brick" a.k.a. 24-70mm. A truly solid lens (in many ways, heh). It's my default, or "go to" lens when I'm not shooting primes. I've had it in every conceivable weather condition even. It has never let me down!

 

[Professional]

I love this lens, it became my all-the-time or walk-around lens for the last year and this year maybe, the problem is that it is swapping between 2 or 3 bodies [2FF and 1 crop].

 

[Don Libby]

Isn't it a little late to ask about the lens after you've ordered it?

Not a bit. Just looking for comments not endorsements.

Thanks for asking

Don

 

[tom in mpls]

My take on this lens is that it's wicked fast focusing, fairly compact package, and the pics are sharp...yet this lens leaves me wanting more. Although it could well be my own shortcomings in using camera and lens, I think there's something lifeless about the images. It's hard to beat for a "reasonably" priced mid range all purpose zoom, though.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

That's the want for primes then...

 

[Jack]

My take on this lens is that it's wicked fast focusing, fairly compact package, and the pics are sharp...yet this lens leaves me wanting more.

I think the above response is accurate probably because most of us stick that lens on f8 and leave it there. Even wide open, you just cannot get isolating DoF on wideangle zooms, you need bigger apertures. And as Ben said, that's the want for primes...

 

[DonWeston]

I use this 24-105mm L when I need to have maximum convenience, else a 24mm EF, 50mm USM or macro, and 100mm USM macro cover the same range sharper, closer focusing and not too much heavier. YMMV...This after having 3 copies over 3+ yrs. Guess I was a hard learner....

 

[Don Libby]

I've had the 24-105 now for a couple weeks now and will be using it this week in Monument Valley. What little I've used the lens I like it for what it is. Remember the sole reason for this lens is IR photography as my main landscape kit is still the Cambo WRS. Totally agree about primes being much better.

Cheers

Don

 

[tashley]

Don,

It is my main lens kept on the camera at all times. It does a lot of things extremely well but is not a replacement for perfectly rectilinear 24 wide or an f2 portrait tele prime.

+1 exactly.

 

[mark1958]

I have a 24-205 but now use a contax 24-85 more often. Lest distortion and equally sharp. I usually carry the 24-85 and 70-200/4 IS as my limited travel kit. I found that I was carrying around the 70-200/4 IS with my 24-105 anyway. The reason is that at least my copy the 70-200 was much sharper between 70 and 105 than than the 24-105. These two lenses together give great general coverage. They do not replace some of the described needs for the mentioned primes.