Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens

[calilove27]

I own a Canon EOS Rebel T3i with the kit lens 18-55mm as well as the the ultra wide angle 10-22mm lens, but I'm looking to find a better zoom lens. I usually take landscape, portrait, cityscape, and sports photos. So I'm thinking about getting the 24-105mm L lens maybe? I'm not sure if it'll work correctly, noting that the L lens are more meant for full frame bodies, but I have a crop frame body. Would it still work fine or do you have any other zoom lens suggestions for my t3i?

 

[Gavjenks]

Yes full frame lenses work just fine on crop frame bodies. It's just that you aren't using all of the glass / it is heavier or more expensive than it would otherwise need to be to cover your smaller sensor.
That said, Canon doesn't happen to make any crop-frame lenses that have their top of the line professional grade optics in them. So while in theory you could have the best of the best glass in both full and crop format versions for efficient weight and money, and while that would be great, as it so happens, all of Canon's best lenses are actually full frame ones. And in fact, they make very few full frame lenses that are of questionably quality at all. So generally, full frame lenses tend to be upgrades.

Regarding the 24-105 f/4L, it is a fantastic lens, with near perfect optics and good autofocus and build quality. However, I just recently sold mine and replaced it with a 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 (also full frame, not "L") lens. So far I am happy with my decision.
1) The 28-135 costs 3x less. I sold my 24-105 used for $630, and got the other one used for $220.
2) The optics are nearly as good, and the aperature on average nearly the same (faster wide, slower tele, same mid)
3) I take more walkaround photos at the tele end than the wide end, and 28-135 has more useful reach.
4) It weighs about 20% less which makes me slightly happier to walk around with it.

Mainly the cost, though. With those extra $400 I can buy other lenses. In my case I bought two lenses:
* An 80mm 1.4 for portraits
* a pentacon six medium format lens + a pentacon six to canon tilt adapter = cheap legitimate quality sharp tilt lens, for portraits, still life/product, landscape, artsy fartsy stuff.




AND that was with me getting it cheap as a kit lens with the 6D. If you were to buy it new, you would be getting an outrageously overpriced lens for what it does compared to the alternative cheaper option, IMO. Used price is still high I think as discussed above, but if you care more about perfect image quality and uber sharpness than you do lots of options, then the 24-105 might be the better choice for YOU.

Depends where your priorities lie. Or if you just have a lot of money then by all means get the 24-105 as well as whatever else you want.

 

[jaomul]

I agree the 24-105 is great. It will pair nicely with your 10-22. It was my favourite Canon lens.

As for the 28-135, I also had this and thought it was very poor. Maybe I had a bad one. I would recommend the L Lens way over the cheaper one. The f4 will allow you more flexibility. I would think that the difference between these lenses may not be so crucial if you own a 6d like Gavjenks where you can elevate the iso with less image quality penalty

 

[Gavjenks]

It's totally a flimsy cheap feeling piece of junk in build by comparison, and it wobbles. But the pictures are perfectly fine, and I honestly cannot tell much difference even at 100% crop of the exact same scenes. Maybe you did have a bad copy. OKr maybe I have an awesome copy of the 28-135, *shrug*

DxO Mark comparison puts them at being quite similar:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/EF28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-700D-versus-EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-700D-versus-Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-F35-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-700D___167_870_164_870_967_870
I included also a solid crop frame option for a walkaround focal length range, the 18-135 IS STM, if you don't plan on actually getting a full frame camera anytime soon. Also, these test results are all on a crop frame T5i similar to yours. It performs even closer to the 24-105, basically just as well, and is also vastly cheaper. And has a stepper focus motor which is even nicer than USM. AND a much wider focal range. This is all possible due to cost savings from the smaller sensor coverage.

Edit: Also, the 28-135 is better wide in a lot of things, but worse tele. Consistency by comparison, even if the average quality comes out about the same, is a virtue, though, since it's easier to remember what your lens is going to offer you if it's always close to the same thing. That is one meaningful advantage of the 24-105.

 

[jaomul]

Possibly mine was poor. What's worse is when I bought it the price secondhand was about 350 Euro which is about 450 ish dollars. They have dropped in price since

 

[grafxman]

I've taken thousands of photos with the Sigma 18-250mm macro on my Canon 7. I find it to be an excellent all around general purpose lens. I have the Canon 24-105mm for my 6D and I'm not particularly impressed with it. I find it's zoom range lacking since it's less than half what I'm used to using. Mine doesn't seem to be tack sharp as I expected from an L lens although most other people love their Canon 24-105mm. You asked for suggestions and that's my suggestion, the Sigma 18-250mm macro. You won't be disappointed.

 

[zmh4life]

I love my 24-105 f/4L

That being said, wide open at 24mm, there is some softening on the edges (probably outer 1/4th of image). Never really had an issue with it, and if you're shooting a crop camera, that's not going to show up (or won't show up very much)