Canon 24-105L F/4 distortion

I am thinking of getting the canon 6d with the 24-105L F/4 kit lens. I have been reading the reviews of the 24-105 and all reviews mention the 'bad' distortion at 24mm, and one review even said that it is so bad it can't be fixed in Photoshop and you will need to get Dxo, Yet most reviewers say this lens is well worth getting, it is sharp at all FL etc. What do most people think of this lens? And is the distortion correctable in Photoshop elements which I use in conjunction with the latest ACR. I currently use a 15-85 on a T4i and I use the 15mm focal length a lot which is equivalent to 24mm.
Thanks in advance.

Flick us a link to these reviews.

yogestee wrote in post #16776936
Flick us a link to these reviews.

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/lenses/24-105mm.htm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://slrgear.com …owproduct.php/p​roduct/145 (click on full frame results)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/28-105.shtml

And my point for asking was real world use. Is everyone basically satisfied with this lens. Oh, I shoot RAW 100% of the time.

I don't shoot that much at 24mm with that lens, but it works in a pinch. It's a really nice all are lens. Maybe consider the 17-40 teamed with the 100L? More money, but you get a faster lens and IS at the long end. Get a fast prime of 50 or 85 later. The other option is 24-105 and 24mk1. Let me know I've got a 24mk1 I'd conider selling, seeing as I've got the TS-E24mk2, 24-105, 16-35, and 24-70mk2. I shoot people, so my 35L is as short as normally would go for that.

I have both the 24-105 and the 24-70 f/2.9 MKII and they both distort at 24mm. You can do some software correcting which distorts the pixels but then you lose resolution. That's why many users use prime lenses.

I try to avoid using both at 24mm and often opt for my trusty old 20-35 in which the whole range is pretty flat. The 17-40 is another lens with bad distortion at 17mm.

I shoot at 24mm all the time. And the 24-105mm drove me completely nuts with its terrible distortion at the wide end, I have never seen a lens with so much distortion. It is a big reason why I got the 24-70mm II. Which still has distortion, but far far less.
If you're worried about the distortion, consider the 24-70mm f4. IS, sharper, lowest distortion. The 24-105mm is a bad option if you are the type who regularly shoots wide.

At 24mm the 24-105L has 4.3% barrel distortion. That's a lot. For comparison, the 24L II has just 1.4% and the 24-70 II has 2.8%.

DIstortion can be corrected, a program like Lightroom can completely eliminate it. Just note that correction of barrel distortion will clip off some of the edges, so your 24mm shot will become a bit more like 25mm or 26mm by the time you fix the image.

The 24-105L also has very heavy vignette wider than 28mm, especially wide open.

That is not to say it's a bad lens. I have one and I love the combination of the zoom range and the generally very good optical performance. But it is good to know the limitations of this lens on the wide end. If you shoot landscapes, especially landscapes with straight lines in the scene, then there are better lens choices.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16777237
At 24mm the 24-105L has 4.3% barrel distortion. That's a lot. For comparison, the 24L II has just 1.4% and the 24-70 II has 2.8%.

Of note is the 24-70mm f4 produces just 2.4%.
Avoid the Tamron 24-70mm, it produces a quite heavy 3.8%.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16777237
At 24mm the 24-105L has 4.3% barrel distortion. That's a lot. For comparison, the 24L II has just 1.4% and the 24-70 II has 2.8%.

DIstortion can be corrected, a program like Lightroom can completely eliminate it. Just note that correction of barrel distortion will clip off some of the edges, so your 24mm shot will become a bit more like 25mm or 26mm by the time you fix the image.

The 24-105L also has very heavy vignette wider than 28mm, especially wide open.

That is not to say it's a bad lens. I have one and I love the combination of the zoom range and the generally very good optical performance. But it is good to know the limitations of this lens on the wide end. If you shoot landscapes, especially landscapes with straight lines in the scene, then there are better lens choices.

Well I really want a 6d, and keep my t4i. and at B&H they have a 6d with the 24-105 for 1999.00. That's like a no brainer, the 6d body alone is like 1799.00, give or take. So for the extra money I might as well spend the 1999.00 and the 6d with the 24-105. I do have a 28 2.8 prime, 50 1.8 and an 85 1.8. I can shoot the 24-105 at 24mm and correct it in Elements and or shoot at around the 28mm range. But I gather other than the distortion at the wide end, most people take some nice pics with this lens and like the lens.

I don't think the distortion is bad at all... And it can easily be fixed in software. Here's a recent comparison I did between the 24-105 (top) and 24-70II (bottom) showing original image (left) and corrected image (right). Note the roof line of the building...

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

marcheseg wrote in post #16776927
I am thinking of getting the canon 6d with the 24-105L F/4 kit lens. I have been reading the reviews of the 24-105 and all reviews mention the 'bad' distortion at 24mm, and one review even said that it is so bad it can't be fixed in Photoshop and you will need to get Dxo, Yet most reviewers say this lens is well worth getting, it is sharp at all FL etc. What do most people think of this lens? And is the distortion correctable in Photoshop elements which I use in conjunction with the latest ACR. I currently use a 15-85 on a T4i and I use the 15mm focal length a lot which is equivalent to 24mm.
Thanks in advance.

How about looking at pictures from a Canon 24-105mm L lens that was set at 24mm?

Well I never liked mine on a FF @24 and I owned one for 6 years. Even after correction people in group shots never looked right on the outsides. My 24-70II has some but less as Jeffery indicated. The price you pay for WA zooms but still a difference to me. Also sharper in the corners.

I do know this. I'm kinda lucky because my shooting partner buys most of my used gear. A few years ago he borrowed my 24-105 and returned it after a few days and never asked for it again. He did not say much which meant he was not too impressed. He just returned from a vacation last week and took my 24-70II with him. He a was blown away and said it was as sharp as his 70-200 V2. Now he's thinking about getting one.

However hard to pass up with that deal going on. Virtual got lucky with a very good copy. It was very good lens with acceptable sharpness for me (and I'm picky) and I miss it for a few reasons. If I had the cash I'd buy that deal and sell the body to try and get some some money back. It was a great walk around lens and I worked around it by trying to avoid 24mm for shots I felt critical. It was great on my crop body which it lived on for quite a while before I added full frame.

I should add that the 24-105 is one of the best lenses Canon makes IMHO. It's incredibly flexible, sharp at all focal lengths, able to get shots in low light many other lenses can't thanks to IS and is relatively compact and light. It's a great lens at twice the price.

Virtual got very lucky. This is with my old 40D, f11 @24mm. I know I'm encroaching on diffraction but I was experimenting with DOF.

Full image

digital paradise wrote in post #16777777
Virtual got very lucky.

Not sure if I'm lucky or you're not . But either way, one thing I've come to realize lately is that the variation in sharpness between different samples of the same lens can be fairly substantial. It's worrying with the increase in buying lenses sight unseen online. It's just not economically smart to buy every lens at your local brick and mortar camera shop when you can get it online for hundreds less... But then you're at the mercy of the copy lottery.