Do I need a Canon 24-105mm f/4L?

SnapshotRN wrote in post #16181330
I am probably alone in my thinking, but the 24-105mm f/4 should NOT be marketed as an "L" class lens.

For its focal range, it is too slow to be anything special, and the secondary market used prices, show its TRUE value among photographers.

Is the focal range useful for everyday shooting?... Yes, of course, but there are many lenses with useful focal ranges.

Does the IS make it sharper than otherwise normal?... Yes... but many kit lenses have IS.

In my humble opinion, the 24-105 is BELOW "L" level expected quality, and above cheap kit lens quality.

You are better off buying the 5dmkiii body only, and the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 + Stabilization.
Then, in 2014, get a Sigma 24-70 f2.0 + OS.

It has L built and weather sealing, silent, fast and accurate USM focusing, constant aperture. what does f4 have to do with it? canon has a trio of f4 L zoom lenses. and two L tele zooms that I can think of which are f4/4.5-f 5.6.
I have gone through 4 copies of tamron 24-70 VR lens, and have done exhaustive testing on all of them, and none of them have the even performance of 24-105. all have had some degree of decentering issue, some terrible, some mild. I would use the 24-105 happily over the tamron, anytime f4 is fast enough.
As for the price of the 24-105, it sold extremely well when they were charging 1000 bucks for it, and a few years ago, I sold a used copy for 850, which is about the usualy drop in price in used equipment. the reason that used prices have dropped so much is entirely b/c Canon is giving them away so cheaply as a bundle. Why? price pressure from Nikon. the deal of 6d with 24-105 and printer for 2000 after rebate from adorama was a smoking deal that I go on. the lens has been an ace in canon's corner, and a reason that many people on the fence between the d600 and 6D kit have chosen the 6D and 24-105. It also makes 5d3 a lot less absurd in its pricing. Of course that has led to a flood of market with these lenses, as many people who have this lens already, are buying the kit, to end up with a cheaper camera, and of course those that no interest in having this lens. That is what has driven the price down, law of supply and demand.

I have the 24-105, and I did not simply get it as a "kit lens" - I bought it separately out of dire need.

The 24-105 is a 4.4x zoom - there are few L series zoom lenses that have a generous range like that.

I take many images with this lens at the wide end of the range. And I take many images with this lens at 105mm. Often times, images taken at around 30mm and images taken at 105mm are created within just a few seconds of each other. At these times I am working with wildlife subjects that do not cooperate - there is simply no time to change lenses, or to get a 2nd body into action. If I can't zoom from twenty-something millimeters to over 100 millimeters in just a few seconds, I miss out on images - important images that I need to create.

For those who view the 24-105 as only a "kit lens", or who bash it for one reason or another, I ask, "What other L series lens allows you to make images within such a wide range?" Other than the 28-300mm, I can't think of a single one.

A 24-70mm may indeed be a fine lens, but then one would have to constantly be changing lenses on the fly - and it is darn near impossible to swap lenses within two or three seconds. For what I shoot, take 5 or 6 seconds to swap lenses, and I've completely missed the shot I wanted to take. What good is a 24-70 then?

jimewall wrote in post #16180475
I wonder how many have bought it at the new price, rather than in a kit or used. The deal with kits and as many are floating around used from kits, paying full price seems kind of high.

Yeah these days at $1000 it's a total rip-off, the market is flooooded with them. Kits being split are sometimes sold essentially new for $650 these days if you look hard enough and for years they have been easy to find split like that for $850. And the much better 24-70 f/4 IS can be had as low as $1025 new if you look hard.

I never though the IQ from it was ever worth $1000 from it anyway, it was always a premium for general convenience and a bit of a gouge for the fairly mediocre (for an L that is) image quality. So I'd never call it a great buy at $1000, not even close these and not even in the past.

But at $600 it's a good deal. It does a lot and for that price there isn't much else around. 28-135 exists and it costs even less but it's a lot worse again. tamron 28-75 is around and does offer f/2.8 and sharper edges on the wide side on FF but no IS, much slower AF, less range on the long end and perhaps more importantly less on the wide side, now that the price is similar the tamron isn't an easy call for everyone, some might get more out of the 24-105L depending.

the 24-105 f4 is a very overlooked len IMHO
the tag "GIVEN AWAY as a kit lens" i supose has'nt done it any favours over the years! ... i've seen many a stunning image taken with it

I love reading how the 28-135 is "a lot worse" and the 24-105 is so-so. Put any of these lenses in talented hands and the pics they produce will blow your mind. And will be better than I know I can take with almost any other lens. Measurbating , pixel peeping, come on. How many times have you looked at a beautiful landscape shot and said, oh my, look at the barrel distortion? Or pincushion distortion? Yeah, it's easy to see in tests and charts but not in real world pics.

Buy it, it will fit nicely between your 16-35 and your 100-400. I love mine.

wombat, you either have had an absolute stellar copy of 28-75, with a terrible copy of 24-105, or has measurement errors. the tamy 28-75 is knows for its weak corners on full frame.
later today I will post images at 24, 35, 50, 70. and 105, at f8, of a detailed but very boring subject. you be the judge.

very very good focal length, and it does produce L quality shots. I dont agree with it being below L level, it's L level, just not very fast.

MDJAK wrote in post #16182553
I love reading how the 28-135 is "a lot worse" and the 24-105 is so-so. Put any of these lenses in talented hands and the pics they produce will blow your mind. And will be better than I know I can take with almost any other lens. Measurbating , pixel peeping, come on. How many times have you looked at a beautiful landscape shot and said, oh my, look at the barrel distortion? Or pincushion distortion? Yeah, it's easy to see in tests and charts but not in real world pics.

well the 24-105 has been touted as "THE" walk around lens, my only issue is that once you walk around indoors, you're handicapped with the f4....

Charlie wrote in post #16182874
well the 24-105 has been touted as "THE" walk around lens, my only issue is that once you walk around indoors, you're handicapped with the f4....

that's why you have to pay another £1200 ($1850) for the 24-70 II ....
horses 4 courses .. you get what u pay for

you honestly cant go wrong with the 24-105L. i find when im out and about not on assignment with my camera its the lens that gets the most use. sure you could get something thats sharper and has a wider aperture but that will also cost you 2-3x more and will not have the same range, IS, weather sealing ect. its just a good all around lens that makes some compromises but seems like it hit the sweet spot. id go as far as to say its the best general walk around lens in the world

go for it

SnapshotRN wrote in post #16181330
I am probably alone in my thinking, but the 24-105mm f/4 should NOT be marketed as an "L" class lens.

For its focal range, it is too slow to be anything special, and the secondary market used prices, show its TRUE value among photographers.

Is the focal range useful for everyday shooting?... Yes, of course, but there are many lenses with useful focal ranges.

Does the IS make it sharper than otherwise normal?... Yes... but many kit lenses have IS.

In my humble opinion, the 24-105 is BELOW "L" level expected quality, and above cheap kit lens quality.

You are better off buying the 5dmkiii body only, and the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 + Stabilization.
Then, in 2014, get a Sigma 24-70 f2.0 + OS.

Who cares about L designation?

What exactly do you define as an "L" lens anyway? The 24-105 has the same build as most of the other black L's, has weather sealing, has the same AF motor, has the same glass, and has constant aperture. These are the features that make it such a good lens, not the red ring, not absolute sharpness, not the range, but everything combined. It doesn't matter if it is an L or not, since I would hope people buying lenses buy them according to how useful they are, and not a red ring.

Also, IS has nothing to do with sharpness.

Finally, since f4 is too slow to make it "special", I suppose the 600/4, 800/5.6, 70-200/4 etc... are all nothing special to you either? And there are also many non-L lenses which have an aperture faster than f4. Should they be "upgraded" with a red ring?

All my opinion as well, of course. Except for the IS bit.

24-105 is a great lens. You will have more keepers with that lens than a 50 1.8
That's the most important thing... When I was in Hawaii, I used the 24-105 95% of the time, with my distagon 28 2.8 5% of the time.

Charlie wrote in post #16182874
well the 24-105 has been touted as "THE" walk around lens, my only issue is that once you walk around indoors, you're handicapped with the f4....

You are right for moving subjects, but for static subjects, the 24-105 is pretty good due to it's IS.

The 24mm-xx focal length is no doubt the most useful on a full frame sensor. It's not the most creative range because it's not very wide and not very tele, but it's a great do-it-all range.

I work full-time with editorial magazines and newspapers, and fill my weekends with weddings. I owned the 24-70 f/2.8L and ended up selling it to fund a used 24-105mm f/4L IS for several reasons:
1. Much of my editorial work is shot in the f/4-f/7.1 range, so the f/2.8 wasn't being used and the extra weight was unnecessary.
2. f/2.8 is marginally acceptable for low light wedding work without flash. My wedding coverage heavily relies on prime lenses for the look and low light capabilities.
3. The 24-105 offers a greater range than the 24-70, making it more useful for portraiture (headshots/head and shoulders) and field sports (football end zones, soccer, baseball dugouts).
4. The Image Stabilization has opened me up to new frames I wasn't able to get (without a tripod) by dragging the shutter or getting crisper pans.
5. Some of my editorial assignments require me to grab video b-roll or interviews. Image Stabilizer has been a huge help.

For what it's worth, the 24-105 is a much better bang-for-your buck lens. My go-to setup is the 16-35, 50, and 70-200 for it's versatility, but the 24-105 definitely is a nice lens to have and use.