Canon 24-105 f4 L - Anyone got one? Alternatives?
Discussion
Now I've got my 7D, I'm letting my daughter get started with my 450D. In most cases, I'll just let her use my lenses, but it would be handy to have two walkabout zoom lenses, so I'm contemplating the 24-105 L. Does anyone have one?
I currently have a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di which is fairly decent, and less than half the price of the 24-105. Would I feel the loss of the 2.8 aperture? Does the IS compensate for that? I've got 28mm & 50mm f1.8 primes, so I'm not too bothered about losing the ability to blur the background.
Alternatively, what else would people recommend I look at? The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS looks almost suspiciously cheap (£475) for a stabilized 2.8 lens. Is this an unfair criticism?
In the ideal world, I'd like the Canon 24-70 L, but that's just absurd money!
I currently have a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di which is fairly decent, and less than half the price of the 24-105. Would I feel the loss of the 2.8 aperture? Does the IS compensate for that? I've got 28mm & 50mm f1.8 primes, so I'm not too bothered about losing the ability to blur the background.
Alternatively, what else would people recommend I look at? The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS looks almost suspiciously cheap (£475) for a stabilized 2.8 lens. Is this an unfair criticism?
In the ideal world, I'd like the Canon 24-70 L, but that's just absurd money!
I have the 24-105mm and it is a brilliant lens, very sharp and a handy zoom range on my 5d mk2.
Cant really comment on how well the IS performs as I just use it for landscapes so it's sat on my
tripod and always in Manual focus.
heres an obligatory collection of images ive taken with it.
Tree by ScottAMurray, on Flickr
Upper Loch Torridon by ScottAMurray, on Flickr
Burnt by ScottAMurray, on Flickr
Reeds on Loch Ba by ScottAMurray, on Flickr
Cant really comment on how well the IS performs as I just use it for landscapes so it's sat on my
tripod and always in Manual focus.
heres an obligatory collection of images ive taken with it.
Tree by ScottAMurray, on Flickr
Upper Loch Torridon by ScottAMurray, on Flickr
Burnt by ScottAMurray, on Flickr
Reeds on Loch Ba by ScottAMurray, on Flickr
Borrowed one a few years ago to put it head to head with my 28-135 IS. Result - I kept my 28-135 and have had no wish to buy the 24-105.
I found the 28-135 performed basically identically and was actually slightly less susceptible to flare. The two major differences other than the slight variation in zoom range appear to be in quality of construction (28-135 feels 'cheap' in comparison) and... price.
I found the 28-135 performed basically identically and was actually slightly less susceptible to flare. The two major differences other than the slight variation in zoom range appear to be in quality of construction (28-135 feels 'cheap' in comparison) and... price.
I have a 24-105L. Great lens as an allrounder.
Mine came via eBay and was originally part of a 5DmkII kit, apparently. The owner said he had hardly used the camera and had changed to a Micro 4/3 system. He had sold the body to someone who already had the same lens.
The lens looked unused and came with filter fitted for around £500 iirc.
It works well for my purposes as a walkabout lens. DoF cut-off is not extreme but you can use the lens wide open at f4 with no qualms and a in focus subject will be nicely separated from nearby foreground and background on a crop body.
Mine came via eBay and was originally part of a 5DmkII kit, apparently. The owner said he had hardly used the camera and had changed to a Micro 4/3 system. He had sold the body to someone who already had the same lens.
The lens looked unused and came with filter fitted for around £500 iirc.
It works well for my purposes as a walkabout lens. DoF cut-off is not extreme but you can use the lens wide open at f4 with no qualms and a in focus subject will be nicely separated from nearby foreground and background on a crop body.
RobDickinson said:
For a crop I would buy the 17-55f2.8 IS.
I find 24 or 28 too narrow , and the f2.8 comes in handy for shallow dof and portrait when you only have the 1 lens.
24-105l is a great lens (in some ways better) but not on a crop.
How does the build quality compare?I find 24 or 28 too narrow , and the f2.8 comes in handy for shallow dof and portrait when you only have the 1 lens.
24-105l is a great lens (in some ways better) but not on a crop.
I seem to remember someone writing that the only reason it wasn't an L lens was because Canon wouldn't use the L label on an EF-S lens, but I don't know if that is true, or just an owner trying to make himself feel better.
I love my 17-55mm IS, its pretty heavy (has nearly doubled the weight of my 550D), but have never used a L lens for comparison. Given even my cheap plastic kit lens survived for 2 years on numerous holidays I think the 17-55mm IS will last for long time 
Even wide open at F 2.8 the images look great!!
I bought my sister in law the Sigma 17-50 2.8 IS, it isn't as heavy as the Canon but she is getting some good shots, and consider the price difference quite a bargain!!
If I could afford a FF camera it would probably have to be a L lens though...still its strange Canon don't do a f2.8 standard zoom lens for FF camera?
Even wide open at F 2.8 the images look great!!
I bought my sister in law the Sigma 17-50 2.8 IS, it isn't as heavy as the Canon but she is getting some good shots, and consider the price difference quite a bargain!!
If I could afford a FF camera it would probably have to be a L lens though...still its strange Canon don't do a f2.8 standard zoom lens for FF camera?
markmullen said:
Mine is my go to lens if I want to take just one, travelling for example.
It is light, sharp, good range and IS.
I am on full frame though so on a crop sensor you might find 24 isn't wide enough.
I've also got a Sigma 10-20, so I'm not overly worried by lack of width. The smallest camera bag I've got is big enough to take a couple of extra lenses, so the minimal extra weight of the Sigma doesn't matter.It is light, sharp, good range and IS.
I am on full frame though so on a crop sensor you might find 24 isn't wide enough.
Just had mine back from being serviced and also to replace the diaphragm assembly. Turns out that it is a very common, almost inevitable, failure on this lens.
Worth bearing in mind if buying second hand.
I am very happy with mine and use it all the time. Image quality is very good but have not yet had anything that matches the first 17-40L that I bought (and sold to fund this). It was scarily sharp but after two further examples, never found one as sharp.
Overall, the 24-105L is an excellent 'all rounder'
Worth bearing in mind if buying second hand.
I am very happy with mine and use it all the time. Image quality is very good but have not yet had anything that matches the first 17-40L that I bought (and sold to fund this). It was scarily sharp but after two further examples, never found one as sharp.
Overall, the 24-105L is an excellent 'all rounder'
I use one on a crop (450D and now 7D). Wouldn't be without it really. Many will say its not wide enough for a crop, but I've never found it a problem. If you already have a UWA its a good fit.
Probably not applicable right now but keep in mind the 17-55 is an EF-S if you ever have thoughts on going full frame in the future.
Alternatives ? 24-70 is f2.8 but is even heavier (I think its over a kilo?)
Probably not applicable right now but keep in mind the 17-55 is an EF-S if you ever have thoughts on going full frame in the future.
Alternatives ? 24-70 is f2.8 but is even heavier (I think its over a kilo?)
...Mole... said:
RobDickinson said:
^ that has major filter issues.
I'd imagine you'd have to use those rather expensive 150mm square filter kits.Great. yet they weld on a fixed petal lens hood preventing use of square filter systems. Has to be the craziest decision I've ever seen from a lens manufacturer.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff