Is the Canon EF 24-105/4L a professional lens?

I have seen hundreds of photos posted on Flickr taken with the 24-105/4L. While there are some nice photos, I noticed that almost none of them reaches the level of great photo I have seen with other lenses. Most of them are also photos taken by tourists that carry their canon and this lens everywhere. Is it my perception, or this is not the BEST Canon lens? Where can I see really nice photos taken with this lens? Sorry, I am new to Canon crossing over from Pentax. I am afraid the grass is not that green over here.
I need support please!!

There are much better lenses than the 24-105L. It's mostly a favorite for walk-around because of the range and IS. It's an L, but I don't consider it top tier.

I believe there are people that have made money off of their 24-105, by many peoples definition that would make it a professional lens. It is an L lens, many describe L lenses as professional. I guess it depends on how you define professional. I'm sure many (most) will say it is not Canons BEST lens, but there is probably many who will say it is their best and most used lens.

Pepe Guitarra wrote in post #14765279
I have seen hundreds of photos posted on Flickr taken with the 24-105/4L. While there are some nice photos, I noticed that almost none of them reaches the level of great photo I have seen with other lenses. Most of them are also photos taken by tourists that carry their canon and this lens everywhere. Is it my perception, or this is not the BEST Canon lens? Where can I see really nice photos taken with this lens? Sorry, I am new to Canon crossing over from Pentax. I am afraid the grass is not that green over here.
I need support please!!

There are many professionals that use the 24-105L as part of their arsenal because of of it's focal range and flexibility. L lenses are not just about IQ. Some non L lenses like the 17-55mm come very close. L lenses are professional because of a combination of IQ, build quality, including super smooth operation, robustness, weather resistance, speed, and the inclusion of expensive elements and design. The 24-105L is a very good lens, if not the best L in the lineup It mostly comes down to the photographer. I've seen spectacular shots taken with a Rebel and a kit lens, and I've seen mediocre shots takes with a 5D Mark II and the expensive f1.2 50mm L or the 24-70mm f2.8 II L.

It's a great lens, and nothing about it makes it "non professional". But it is best suited on a full frame camera as 24mm won't be wide enough on a crop body. I prefer it's image quality to the 24-70L.

As long as you don't need a faster aperture than f4, it's one of the very best lenses out there in that focal length.

One of the reasons it's sells cheap used is because people buy it as a kit with the 5D 2/3.

a good photographer can take a very good photograph with a pinhole camera. the 24-105 is a very versatile lens, it's quite good.

No lens makes a photo professsional, it's the photographer.

rick_reno wrote in post #14765780
a good photographer can take a very good photograph with a pinhole camera. the 24-105 is a very versatile lens, it's quite good.

kin2son wrote in post #14765792
No lens makes a photo professsional, it's the photographer.

True statements!

Pepe Guitarra wrote in post #14765279
I have seen hundreds of photos posted on Flickr taken with the 24-105/4L. While there are some nice photos, I noticed that almost none of them reaches the level of great photo I have seen with other lenses. Most of them are also photos taken by tourists that carry their canon and this lens everywhere. Is it my perception, or this is not the BEST Canon lens? Where can I see really nice photos taken with this lens? Sorry, I am new to Canon crossing over from Pentax. I am afraid the grass is not that green over here.
I need support please!!

I think the reason you see this is that the lens is so readily available and cheap, that a lot of poor shooters have access to the lens. I know of a poor shooter with the lens, and the results are atrocious... that can definitely sway the way you see things. More expensive gear like the 85L or 70-200mk2, you will likely see shots from seasoned pro's rather than amateurs.

Consider this, I use a 24-105 and I'm the best photographer in my house.

I use it to make money. Is that professional enough?

It sounds like you believe glass/body is everything. A great photographer can take nice images with much less. I've seen great work taken with a Rebel/Kit lens. Hell, I've seen award winning images taken with an iPhone.

Well, my 24-105 tends to show up to my shoots on time, and generally doesn't complain when I go over hours (except when it's a sunset shoot on the beach — it hates the sea spray).

But in all seriousness, seriously? If you're asking if the 24-105 is able to meet the requirements of a professional, absolutely. It is perfect for landscapes, being lightweight, equipped with IS, and great sharpness. Its focal length offers great versatility, allowing me to jump from framing a wide landscape to shooting a telephoto composition. No other Canon lens can do this better.

Its uses go beyond landscape. For video, it's a fantastic lens for the same reasons. Great versatility, constant aperture, IS, and light weight. It works well for events (admittedly not as well as the 24-70 in most situations), but more than enough for a good professional shooter to use to create fantastic imagery.

TL;DR: "Professional" has many standards, but the 24-105 certainly doesn't fall short and is a highly capable lens. At this level, its performance is infinitely less relevant than the photographer's skill.

100% center crop, sharpened for printing:

Is the lens professional.........Y​ou should be asking if its of high quality. Yes it is.

Pro?.....that depends in who is using it.

Have we settled on a good definition of a 'professional' lens yet?