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

IanE wrote in post #14766584
Have we settled on a good definition of a 'professional' lens yet?

I guess all the copies of the 24-105 over at lensrentals.com are 'professional' lenses. They do it for a living!

Here is my take on it. I love my 24-105 but not for all things its a great walk around, parties, events where you need the convenience of a zoom, however when I am doing portraits, I always use my prime because the quality is better. With that being said I do use my 24-105 for portraits in one occasion and that's at the beach, I don't change lens at the beach so my telephoto stays on the camera through the whole shoot.

Here are a few photos from the lens.

This is absurd, IMO. A tool does not make the professional and the image sample galleries/flickr are not a good representation of what it can do - it is a representation of the abilities of those who care to contribute. It is very sharp for a zoom, built well, has IS and focuses quickly? Why wouldnt a professional be able to use this?

I think the comment on the lens being more accessible was right on. It is priced within reach of many amateurs whereas the "L" primes and 70-200 II are just outside the realm of justifiable for the same people. But, if you gave those same amateurs who are butchering images with a 24-105 a more expensive lens, the results would be just as horrid. You still see a handfull of atrocious images with really fine lenses that are taken by folks with more money than sense, but for the most part, this group is not using these lenses due to price.

MNUplander wrote in post #14766885
This is absurd, IMO. A tool does not make the professional and the image sample galleries/flickr are not a good representation of what it can do - it is a representation of the abilities of those who care to contribute. It is very sharp for a zoom, built well, has IS and focuses quickly? Why wouldnt a professional be able to use this?

I think the comment on the lens being more accessible was right on. It is priced within reach of many amateurs whereas the "L" primes and 70-200 II are just outside the realm of justifiable for the same people. But, if you gave those same amateurs who are butchering images with a 24-105 a more expensive lens, the results would be just as horrid. You still see a handfull of atrocious images with really fine lenses that are taken by folks with more money than sense, but for the most part, this group is not using these lenses due to price.

I agree, its the user behind the lens not the lens itself, I have seen great images from even cheaper lens.

My 24-105 is extremely good. I have no problems making excellent photos with it.

Is photography is the only discipline that people actually ask questions like this. I never hear; "Is a Black and Decker drill a professional tool for carpenters?", or "Are you able to cook a gourmet meal on an electric stove?", or "Is ice a real medium for an artist?"

The 24-105 is a perfectly capable tool for professional photography. Sure, there are more capable lens for specific photography types like low light portraiture or indoor sports, but a pro knows his tools limitations and works around or with them. There are also photography disciplines where the 24-105 is one of the top in the line up. If you are a strobist and never shoot below f6, this lens provides you with a lot more versatility without much sacrifice in IQ vs primes.

Now... All that said... Sometimes a lens is a marketing tool as well. If you are trying to get clients and show up with a pinhole camera instead of a lens with a red line on it, you might not be putting your best foot forward, but still - bottom line - don't confuse "tools" for "talent".

This is a terrible lens, it's slow, it's boring, it's dull.

I would never use it for wedding/events photography if I had a choice

However, at the same time, it's also very versatile for situations where it's too risky or you can't change lenses. It's zoom range is amazing

For example, I was at a recent waterfall shoot and I could use the one lens the whole day without having to fudge around with changing lenses whilst standing in water

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Nice shots

there was a survey that was posted either here, FM or Flickr that I read couple of months ago but basically quite a few portrait photographers shoot with the 24-105 f4L IS

here's some portrait shots I've taken with it and IMO like the 24-70 it works great on a studio environment since you will probably be shooting at small aperture

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I love the lens. It is very versatile. I am no professional, but I think that any professional would be very pleased with this lens. I use mine on a 40D.

This picture is a good example to show depth of field, bokeh, and in some spots sharpness. It is not the most detailed photo, but never-the-less I think it demonstrates some of what the lens is capable. As has been repeated here and in many other threads, the quality of the image is more a reflection of the user than of the lens. I know a girl who is an awesome professional photographer who does a lot of wedding and portraits, and has equipment that many would categorize as inferior to mine. Heck, she even told me that she would love to have my stuff, including my 24-105. It's not only about having the right tool for the job, but also about knowing how to use the tool to it's best advantage - regardless if it's a Black and Decker or a Milwaikee.

The EF 24-105L is a fantastic lens, and affordable.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/a_roadbiker/5​892036578/

Other than not being sure what qualifies something as a professional lens, I will say that it gets used a lot in photo studios where its focal range and sharpness are useful. It gets outshined by some other lenses because its only F4, but shooting with a background that hardly matters.

Sure 24-105L is a pro lens.. I'm sure there are galleries of pros using it. I've often seen it mentioned being used in some nice shots that i've seen in photography magazines.

Roroco wrote in post #14766952
Is photography is the only discipline that people actually ask questions like this. I never hear; "Is a Black and Decker drill a professional tool for carpenters?", or "Are you able to cook a gourmet meal on an electric stove?", or "Is ice a real medium for an artist?" ...

Not really, I have worked on wood for many years and I have heard many similar questions. For example, CRAFTSMAN used to be Sears's brand. I have tools from the 1970's bought a Sears that are much better than the ones made nowdays by other brands, mainly because they have lowered their standards and prices to compete. In fact, some of my "best" lenses (for amateur or professionals) are Sears lenses that I use most of the time with the Pentax brand cameras, and soon expect to use with the Canon EOS. I asked the question because I still do not have the lens (it is in the mail), and it is my first Canon lens. After reading for several days this forum, I have learned about other lenses and seen some great work. I have also noticed a difference between the feelings and patience of some members of the forum (as opposed to the willingness to teach and coach I am used at the Pentax cult). I have always heard that there are no stupid questions, only bad answers. In any case, AF (especially superfast AF) is something new for me and look forward to enjoying it.
Continuing on with the quote, I cook too, but I am not a cheff. So, my question about cooking ware are addressed only to my wife, an expert cook. I am also a fine art painter and the question about a medium being real for an artist came up a lot when I was at school. However, seen Picasso, we realized that the medium that he used for his sculptures was usually coming from a pile of trash.
I am thankful for the number of answers and look forward to learning more about the Canon shooter. Back in the Pentax Cult we used to refer to the other shooters as the Canikons. Good and happy to be in.

MNUplander wrote in post #14766885
This is absurd, IMO. A tool does not make the professional and the image sample galleries/flickr are not a good representation of what it can do - it is a representation of the abilities of those who care to contribute. It is very sharp for a zoom, built well, has IS and focuses quickly? Why wouldnt a professional be able to use this?

I think the comment on the lens being more accessible was right on. It is priced within reach of many amateurs whereas the "L" primes and 70-200 II are just outside the realm of justifiable for the same people. But, if you gave those same amateurs who are butchering images with a 24-105 a more expensive lens, the results would be just as horrid. You still see a handfull of atrocious images with really fine lenses that are taken by folks with more money than sense, but for the most part, this group is not using these lenses due to price.

I have to agree. I have a colleague who does contemporary art (involves several media at the same time) and he has been using his IPhone to do absolutely wonderful photograhic work. His limitation is the printing size, but even that he uses at his advantage to create some great backgrounds and collages.

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

I have to agree, one of the best answers.