I recently purchased the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 IS L lens. I picked this lens for several reasons:
- Although I currently use a 1.6 crop factor sensor dSLR, I plan to eventually move to a full frame sensor body. On FF this lens will cover a very useful range (for me) from fairly wide to slightly long.
- The lens has a reputation for being quite sharp and for good contrast.
- For its range the lens is relatively compact. This is important to me since I frequently hike or backpack with photo gear.
- The f/4 maximum aperture is generally sufficient for the kinds of photography I do.
- The image stabilization (IS) feature is helpful for handheld photography and somewhat compensates for the f/4 maximum aperture.
Since I have now had a chance to use the lens for better than a month (including a 4 day photo trip to Death Valley) it seems like a good time to record some of my experiences and reactions.
The 24-105 is living up to its reputation as a sharp lens, at least on my 1.6 crop factor camera. I would rate it as noticably sharper than my good Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L, but a bit less sharp than my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.
The lens is reported to exhibit significant vignetting (correctable in Photoshop) at the 24mm lens on full-frame cameras, but I have not noticed this on my 1.6 crop factor body.
The dimensions of the lens are similar to, but slightly larger than, the 17-40mm lens. However, the 24-105 is noticably heavier, though not enough so to compromise its use as a walk-around lens. Speaking of which, it is regarded by many as a nearly perfect lens for this role on full-frame bodies. Part of my plan in making this purchase is that it will be used that way when I eventually purchase a Canon 5D or similar replacement for my current camera body.
On my 350 XT 1.6 crop factor body it is less useful as a single lens solution, since 24mm is not all that wide on this camera. (It is roughly equivalent to a 38mm lens of a full frame body which is only moderately wide.) In practice, I find that I tend to switch back and forth between the 24-105 and the 17-40. When I need wide I attach the 17-40 and then continue shooting with it until I run into a shot that requires something longer. I switch to the 24-105 and then use that until I run into a shot for which 24mm isn’t wide enough.
This isn’t a bad situation at all: basically the 24-105 covers everything from “slightly wide to somewhat long” (105mm on 1.6 crop factor bodies is roughly equivalent to 170mm on full frame) and the 17-40 covers everything from “wide to slightly long.”
I tend to select the 24-105 when I’m shooting handheld since the IS really helps out. For this reason, I have discovered that I’m a bit more likely to use this lens when I’m working without a tripod – even at the expense of giving up a bit of the wide end.
I suspect that I could get along quite nicely on pack trips with just the 24-105 in combination with the 17-40… though I’ll probably still pack my Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L for the times when I need a slightly longer sharp lens. When I finally move to the full frame body I won’t be surprised if the 24-105 and the 70-200 form the core of my lens arsenal for hiking and backpacking.
One downside of this lens is the cost, currently a few hundred more than $1000. Given the prices of other Canon L zooms with IS though this is not unexpected, and I think the quality and versatility of the lens make it a good value.
Bottom line: I’m quite happy with the EF 24-105 f/4 IS L lens. Color and contrast are great and it is very sharp for a zoom. The zoom range is excellent on a full frame body and quite useful even on a 1.6 crop factor camera. While heavier than the similar size 17-40, it it still handles well. (These two lenses complement one another nicely for my uses.)
If my write-up helped you with your decision, you can purchase this product from B&H Photo via this link and help support this web site – thanks!
G Dan Mitchell :: May.07.2006 ::
Equipment ::
Comments Off
