Canon 24-105 F4L owners/users. Few questions.

kwik · Aug 28, 2011

So I have a chance to pick up a Canon 24-105mm F4L for a decent price. I have read lots of reviews online and it seems like a pretty decent lens. Only thing I'm concerned about is the aperture wide open is only 4. I'd like something in the 2.8 range but a deals a deal and sometimes it's best not to pass them up. Owners/users do you enjoy the lense? What do you mainly use it for? Can you post some shots that you've taken with the lense? I really am trying to save up for the 70-200 f2.8 but again the price is right and I think the focal range of the 24-105 would be pretty nice too.

Anyway thanks for the words.

Derek

Overread · Aug 28, 2011

I've had my eye on the 24-105mm f4 IS L for some time and in my view its a lens well suited to being a "walk around" lens for general shooting. Granted f4 isn't that fast an aperture, but for shooting outside or inside with flash support it's a good working aperture, whilst being a lighter lens than the 24-70mm f2.8.
If you want pic ideas head over to flickr and search on the lenses name and you'll get loads of photos to give an idea of what it can produce and what kinds of situations its used in.

clanthar · Aug 28, 2011

I have one and as Overread suggests it's an ideal walk around lens. As such it's the lens I keep on the camera.

Overall I'm satisfied with it. It's pretty much what I expected. It's a zoom lens and so you have to expect it has some weaknesses. It's a 4x zoom that was designed to cover full frame and begin at 24mm. That's a tall order and you've got to again understand there will be some compromise if you also want that to cost less than say $5000.00. I took a long time deciding between this lens and the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8. All the tests I looked at told me the Zeiss was better. But it was also $600.00 more and only 3x. I don't need the f/2.8 -- not going to try and bokeh the background at 24mm and for me the 24mm was the non-negotiable feature.

Friend of mine also has this lens and he thinks it's a much better lens than I do. He's shooting it on a crop sensor. I'm shooting it on a 5D. I get to see all the bad stuff on the frame edges.

So: Fair amount of barrel distortion.
Expected CA.
Edges and corners soft until at lest f/8.
Build quality is excellent.
IS is a real plus.

I've owned better glass in my day, but not more convenient glass and the fact is that with modern software support some of the faults that in the past were show stoppers can now be adequately managed. All in all I'd rate it a plus for quality/price.

I tried to pick a photo that would give you a good look. This one is shot at 1/125 hand held and f/8 where the lens cleans up fairly well. This is straight from the camera through DPP with only standard correction for CA. No other editing -- no sharpening at all. Shot with a 5D mkII so it's a big JPEG:

http://photojoes.org/24_105L.jpg

Joe

kwik · Aug 28, 2011

Thanks to both of you for replying. As I just got back from a shoot. Lighting became a bit of an issue outside. I stuck with my 50mm 1.8 towards the end of it. Now I'm wondering if the 24-70 f2.8 may be a bit better suited. I'll tell you that I'm generally shooting people and still objects for now.

I went over to flickr and yeah there are tons of shots with that lens. All of which seem to have bit touched up a bit. Which is fine by me I kind of expected it. As far as a simple walk around lens that would be nice. I could actually enjoy that.

Now again I'm wondering if the 24-70 may be better for me at this time. Might be a nice lens to have and would seem to have a good focal length too, along with a bit faster.

Joe you said expect some barrel distortion. Now is that all the way through the lens or does it stop at a certain point?

Also I am shooting with a crop sensor so at this point it won't get me too much however I will be upgrading next summer so I will have to keep that in mind.

Thanks again.

clanthar · Aug 29, 2011

The barrel distortion is predominately at the wide end and it diminishes as you zoom out. This is typical behavior for wide to short tele zooms. You won't find one that doesn't have it.

If you're shooting a crop sensor most of the faults of this lens aren't going to show. You'll be like my friend who thinks it's a great lens. Then if you upgrade to a full-frame sensor you'll get bit for a while until you learn to adapt to the lens's weaknesses. For what it's worth you can't expect much better performance from another lens with similar specs. Canon has done well given the design parameters. If you want significantly improved performance you're going to have to alter some of those parameters.

Joe

pgriz · Aug 29, 2011

I've got that lens and the IS works pretty well, giving me two stops of light pretty easily and sometimes up to 4 if I'm very careful. So the fact that the maximum aperture is f/4 hasn't really been an issue for my style of photography, but then, most of my subjects are either static, or almost static. If you are shooting moving subjects and you need the faster shutter speeds, then f/4 may be limiting. Another thing to keep in mind is the size and weight of the lens - faster lenses usually have more glass and are heavier. That can be an issue if you're carrying it around a lot. As for the optical quality, the 24-70 is slightly better than the 24-105, but in my own experience the limiting factor in the "sharpness" is more influenced by the shooter (hand-shake, focus issues, subject motion), than the lens resolution.

kwik · Aug 29, 2011

clanthar thanks for the reply awesome :thumbup:

pgriz thank you too. do you have any shots that you've taken? Oh and do you generally shoot with the hood or without? Do you find it makes a difference?

bikeboynate · Aug 29, 2011

I just bought the 24-105 over the 24-70. I shoot more landscaped and I cannot say how much more useful the IS has been to me. I can drop down SS to 1/15 and still get nice crisp hand held shots. This is the most prominent advantage in my opinion. Have I had the 70 in some of the situations i would not have been able to shoot as many photos past sunset. In addition to the IS, the lighter 105 has really been noticeable to me because I like to hike to various vantage points. I would also have to agree that this is more suited as a walk around lens as I'm constantly switching back to my 17-40 whenever I'm hiking or on landscape shoots. On the other hand with the 2.8 the 70 has a clear advantage when doing fashion, weddings, and similar events. So it really all depends on what you're leaning more toward, 24-105 is more for landscape, while the 24-70 is more geared toward people photography. Hope this helps!

pgriz · Aug 29, 2011

I'll see what I have that I can share... most of my shots are either family or work. Not much in an "artistic" style. But I will have a look-see.

As for the hood, I rarely shoot with it on. If it's sunny, I usually have a CPL filter on and the hood makes it difficult to orient. And if it's not sunny, there's not that much glare to cut down with the hood. On the other hand, if I'm just walking about the hood is on as lens protection. I used to use "UV" filters as protection, until I figured out they were causing more problems than they solved.

chaosrealm93 · Aug 29, 2011

it should be pretty good for outdoors. you might need a fill flash for indoors though.

kwik · Aug 29, 2011

bikeboynate said:
I just bought the 24-105 over the 24-70. I shoot more landscaped and I cannot say how much more useful the IS has been to me. I can drop down SS to 1/15 and still get nice crisp hand held shots. This is the most prominent advantage in my opinion. Have I had the 70 in some of the situations i would not have been able to shoot as many photos past sunset. In addition to the IS, the lighter 105 has really been noticeable to me because I like to hike to various vantage points. I would also have to agree that this is more suited as a walk around lens as I'm constantly switching back to my 17-40 whenever I'm hiking or on landscape shoots. On the other hand with the 2.8 the 70 has a clear advantage when doing fashion, weddings, and similar events. So it really all depends on what you're leaning more toward, 24-105 is more for landscape, while the 24-70 is more geared toward people photography. Hope this helps!

See and that's what I'm more geared towards is people/fashion photography. New to it, but it's what I'd like to shoot more of. The IS is really an attractive option. I did a shoot yesterday and I noticed my shots were a bit shaky and blurry because of my hands. So the IS would be nice. But as you said the 24-70 may be a bit more geared towards people. And really. That's what I love to shoot.

bikeboynate · Aug 29, 2011

kwik said:
bikeboynate said:

I just bought the 24-105 over the 24-70. I shoot more landscaped and I cannot say how much more useful the IS has been to me. I can drop down SS to 1/15 and still get nice crisp hand held shots. This is the most prominent advantage in my opinion. Have I had the 70 in some of the situations i would not have been able to shoot as many photos past sunset. In addition to the IS, the lighter 105 has really been noticeable to me because I like to hike to various vantage points. I would also have to agree that this is more suited as a walk around lens as I'm constantly switching back to my 17-40 whenever I'm hiking or on landscape shoots. On the other hand with the 2.8 the 70 has a clear advantage when doing fashion, weddings, and similar events. So it really all depends on what you're leaning more toward, 24-105 is more for landscape, while the 24-70 is more geared toward people photography. Hope this helps!

Click to expand...

See and that's what I'm more geared towards is people/fashion photography. New to it, but it's what I'd like to shoot more of. The IS is really an attractive option. I did a shoot yesterday and I noticed my shots were a bit shaky and blurry because of my hands. So the IS would be nice. But as you said the 24-70 may be a bit more geared towards people. And really. That's what I love to shoot.

Then for you, I would definitely say get the 24-70 2.8 because the ability for the 2.8 aperture to blow out the background is much much greater than the 24-105 4. In addition, since you're probably not going to be hiking up hills like I do, you probably wont notice the difference in weight between the two models as much. Hope this has helped!

kwik · Aug 29, 2011

Thanks!!

clanthar · Aug 29, 2011

bikeboynate said:
Then for you, I would definitely say get the 24-70 2.8 because the ability for the 2.8 aperture to blow out the background is much much greater than the 24-105 4. In addition, since you're probably not going to be hiking up hills like I do, you probably wont notice the difference in weight between the two models as much. Hope this has helped!

I think you're tending to exaggerate a wee bit here. Let's do a for instance.

You're shooting a head and shoulders with the 24-70 and you've got it at the 70mm end using a camera like my 5D. That would put you about 8 feet back from your subject. You take the shot at f/2.8 for minimum DOF to blow out the background. OK. Now switch to the 24-105 and set it to the same 70mm FL and take the shot at f/4. Woah! you're going to get a huge 2.1 inches of extra DOF in the background for that! I'm sitting here right now and looking at my hands. I always wanted to play the piano but unfortunately my stubby fingers are just too short. Still my forefinger is over 3 inches long. You're extra f/stop is giving you less back DOF than the length of my finger -- not going to call that "much much greater." But wait! I can back up with the 24-105 at least 3 extra feet to frame the same shot by taking advantage of the extra 105 FL, and now with the 24-105 at f/4....wait for it...... alas I still have more DOF at f/4 than the 24-70 would produce at f/2.8! Curses! I've got a whopping 3/4 of an inch more back DOF from the 24-105. Damn! If only the tips of my fingers were that much longer I'd be a concert pianist instead of a photographer!

Joe