Your Experience with the Canon 24-105?

[AmberAtLoveAndInk]

Investing in my first L lens. The reviews on the 24-105 look awesome and seems the zoom range would cover a lot of ground for me in most photo settings, but I wanted to get some input from "real" people. I'll be using this lens with a 60D.
Pros & Cons?

 

[bratkinson]

When I moved up from a 30D and kit glass to a 60D, I discovered I needed faster glass for indoor no-flash photography. My first L lens was the 24-105. While f4 was not terribly fast, I did manage to get some decent indoor no-flash shots at slower shutter speeds after discarding the 19 of 20 or so subject- or camera- motion blurred shots. I also discovered it sometimes wasn't "wide enough" on the cropped sensor 60D at the 24mm end with a FOV of a theoretical not-very-wide 38mm lens on a full frame body. So, I supplanted the 24-105 with a 16-35 f2.8L ii. THAT was sufficient for my small group shots in tight quarters. That 8mm wide difference making it effectively 25mm FOV on the 60D was what I needed! The sharpness of the 16-35 f2.8L ii is incredibly good and on the 60D, and there's little apparent wide-angle distortion such as 'noses' too big, etc.

I'm thinking you should first decide on what lens(es) you want to buy based on what you have now, first. If, for example, you have the Canon 18-55, getting a 16-35 first would be a waste of money because of the focal length overlap. On the other hand, the 24-105 gives a nice 'reach' to your camera and is especially useful as an 'out and about', general purpose lens. On my 60D, and now my 5D mark iii, the 24-105 is what's on the camera 60-70% of the time.

Also, there's no need to buy brand new. Retailers with used equipment such as B&H, Adorama, KEH, and even Lens Rentals thoroughly check and rate each used lens they have. Ebay is more 'buyer beware', but I've bought 2 used Ls in pristine condition on Ebay, so, I can't complain. Craigs List is another possibility for getting a good deal, but again, it's buyer beware.

 

[ronlane]

Amber, I rented one for three days when I had just been shooting for about 6 months and I really liked it. Honestly, it is on my list of lenses to get, I want to replace my 28-135mm with it for a walk around/photowalk lens.

The only con that I can honestly say is that the 24mm on a crop sensor is at times, just not wide enough for me.

I would agree with bratkinson and suggest finding a used one. B&H had a few this week that were for a good price and it is savings.

 

[FocusTester]

I think it's an awesome lens and it supports a reasonable level of macro shooting as a bonus. Before anybody posts about it's shoddy optical quality compared to a prime or one of Canon's high quality f/2.8 L lenses, consider that this is only true when both lenses are mounted on a very steady tripod. If you are using image stabilization and hand holding, it's no different at a particular focal length than any of Canon's highest quality lenses within its aperture setting limits and using a reasonable shutter speed.

Here is a specific case in point. When hand-held it's hard to tell it apart from the 100/2.8L IS at f/5.6, despite the fact that the 100/2.8L IS is a very VERY sharp lens. Yes, I have both lenses and have compared images from both while hand holding them and using image stabilization. Now, if I use a sturdy tripod and look at pixel-peeper levels, yes the 100/2.8L IS has slightly more contrast and sharpness as well as fewer chromatic aberations around high contrast elements. However, having said that, I can correct and sharpen a RAW image from the 24-105/4L IS using PS to look much MUCH sharper and more contrasty than what the RAW from the 100/2.8 gives me prior to any correction beyond default ACR settings. The bottom line is that a better lens may give you a slightly better starting point for correction, but post correction images taken at the same settings using both lenses in many cases can be practically indistinguishable, even at pixel peeper levels.

Note: Camera body used for all of the above tests was the 6d at ISO 100.

 

[kathyt]

Cons: It's an f4.0
*disclaimer-I am a lover of prime lenses.

 

[pgriz]

On my T1i, I started off with a EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, then moved to a EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, then to the EF-24-105mm f/4L IS. It's certainly sharper than the EF-S lenses, while not quite as sharp as the 70-200mm f/4L that I have. I don't shoot low-light, or very fast action, so for my purposes it has been an excellent lens, and is the one that takes 80-90% of the images I take. It's not as heavy as the EF 24-70mm f/4 or the even heavier EF24-80mm f/2.8. The IS function works well, and I've been able to get decent hand-held shots down to 1/4 sec. (but using all the tricks like bracing, slow breath exhale, multiple shots per shutter squeeze, etc.) at the 24mm end and maybe 1/10sec at the 105mm side. For "normal" shooting, I use the rule that the shutter speed should not be less than the focal length. On a crop body the 24mm focal length isn't really very "wide-angle" and for those purposes I use the EF-S 10-22mm lens. Obviously, it's not as sharp as a good prime, but for my purposes, it's plenty fine.

 

[JerryVenz]

Amber,

The 24-105 f4.0 lens is an essential lens for GROUP portraiture. My FIRST choice for ALL portraiture is the fabulous 70-200 f2.8 stabilized lens--it's simply the BEST portrait lens you can buy--I use it for GROUP portraits on down to seniors and kids and babies!!

The 24-105 lens is only necessary when I don't have the space to back-up in order to use the 70-200 lens. Of course the 24-105 is also a very necessary lens for our wedding work, along with a Macro lens and my Fisheye for some wild images!!

These are just some of the basic "paint brushes" we use to set us apart from the faux-pros that think they can do everything with a 50mm prime.

 

[Gavjenks]

The lens is perfect in every respect in my experience, except for being F/4.0, which is of course a little slower than you might like for some things. But that's written right on the lens, of course, not a surprise.

Within its operating range, though, it is pretty much razor sharp at all settings, good autofocus, etc.

 

[grafxman]

I guess everyone here likes it but me. I was used to using my Sigma 18-250mm on my 7D. When I went to a 6D, mainly for its low light/high ISO ability, I had to get something and the Canon 24-105 is what I wound up with for lack of a better choice. It lacks the zoom range I'm used to having and mine is not particularly sharp. I used it extensively last summer to photograph several museums. When I first started using it I would occasionally get an out of focus shot. I finally concluded that the focusing and stabilization wasn't as quick or as effective as Sigma's. I just had to slow down a bit with my shooting. FWIW I bought a Tamron 28-300mm in the hope that it would provide me with the focal range I was accustomed to having only to discover that it wouldn't focus in low light. It was however quite sharp.

It depends greatly on what type of photography you engage in. I shoot all kinds of stuff indoors, outdoors, close by and far away so I need as versatile a lens as possible. Changing lenses in the field is a real pain. I've never felt the need for a fast lens. I think they're highly overrated and overpriced. I shoot in low light situations all the time and it's just a matter of slowing your shutter speed a bit, tucking your elbows hard against your ribs, taking a breath, partially exhaling and snapping the photo. In my Henry Plant Museum set you'll find photos taken at 1/50, 1/15, etc. The Sigma 18-250mm macro has never let me down on my 7D.

 

[EIngerson]

Amber, as a couple others have said here. The 24mm will soon become annoying on a crop sensor. I recommend the 17-55 F2.8 for a crop sensor like the 60D.

That said, If you ever plan to move up to a full frame. You can NOT go wrong with this lens. I would definitely recommend it for anyone.

 

[HelenOster]

....Also, there's no need to buy brand new. Retailers with used equipment such as B&H, Adorama, KEH, and even Lens Rentals thoroughly check and rate each used lens they have. Ebay is more 'buyer beware'....

You are also more likely to get some kind of warranty you can rely upon.....I can't speak for any other retailer, but the Adorama used department offers as much as 6 months warranty on the higher graded items, which includes a 30-day returns period)

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
[email protected]

 

[AmberAtLoveAndInk]

Thank you everyone for the great feedback. I am still finding my niche in the photography world and shoot a wide variety of subjects. I do many indoor shoots with infants and maternity clients (with lighting equipment) in the close quarters of their homes and outdoor shoots for most of my other clients (seniors, couples, families, children, some maternity and headshots) I will be shooting my first wedding for a friend this summer and wanted to upgrade to a versatile lens that would last and could work for many of my shoots. My budget for gear consists of the number of shoots I book and as you all know, it's very hard to find a great lens within a small budget. I am using an EFS 18-55 mainly and an EF 50. I also have an EF 75-300 that rarely gets used. They are all kit lenses and I've pushed them as far as they can go. My images aren't sharp enough and I am spending far too long in PS trying to fix that.
I am leaning towards paying the extra and buying it new just so I will have a full warranty and peace of mind that I know I bought new and I didn't buy a refurbished lens that went through a traumatic experience. Though I have been given many recommendations of credible refurbished canon dealers, so I may have to look into that. I found a great lens rental service but I'd much rather save the extra money towards purchasing this lens which is why I am asking for your reviews.

 

[runnah]

DO NOT buy a new one. This is a very common kit lens. People buy the kit and sell the lens all the time. You'll be able to find many example for up to $400 less than the new price.

 

[ronlane]

Thank you everyone for the great feedback. I am still finding my niche in the photography world and shoot a wide variety of subjects. I do many indoor shoots with infants and maternity clients (with lighting equipment) in the close quarters of their homes and outdoor shoots for most of my other clients (seniors, couples, families, children, some maternity and headshots) I will be shooting my first wedding for a friend this summer and wanted to upgrade to a versatile lens that would last and could work for many of my shoots. My budget for gear consists of the number of shoots I book and as you all know, it's very hard to find a great lens within a small budget. I am using an EFS 18-55 mainly and an EF 50. I also have an EF 75-300 that rarely gets used. They are all kit lenses and I've pushed them as far as they can go. My images aren't sharp enough and I am spending far too long in PS trying to fix that.
I am leaning towards paying the extra and buying it new just so I will have a full warranty and peace of mind that I know I bought new and I didn't buy a refurbished lens that went through a traumatic experience. Though I have been given many recommendations of credible refurbished canon dealers, so I may have to look into that. I found a great lens rental service but I'd much rather save the extra money towards purchasing this lens which is why I am asking for your reviews.

Up should spend some time working with that 75-300 for portraits. Try it at 85, 100, 135, 200 and see how you like it. (I say this because, there seem to be lots of big names that use the 70-200mm as their portrait "go-to" lens).

 

[AmberAtLoveAndInk]

Up should spend some time working with that 75-300 for portraits. Try it at 85, 100, 135, 200 and see how you like it. (I say this because, there seem to be lots of big names that use the 70-200mm as their portrait "go-to" lens).

I hate having to back way up when I want a full body shot and it has no image stabilization. With me working in such tight quarters most of the time, it's collecting dust.
I did use it to shoot a graduation ceremony and it did well. Just isn't being used, I'll probably hawk it and put that money towards the 24-105. Then set my sights on saving up for the 70-200 f/4L.