Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

My first post with this lens, a little guy who was on my bed last night. He was rather resistant to moving, so he became a model. Sadly, when I went to evict him in earnest, I found he had long since passed.

This was shot on a 5D2 with a Kenko 2x TC at minimum focus distance (manual focus with focus-confirmation. I used an Alien Bees ABR800 ring light to get the brightness for the shot:

i love using this lens for macro

I don't see the big debate between f4.0 and f2.8. There really isn't that much difference, and as high-ISO capabilities of cameras keep rising that difference becomes moot. There's virtually nothing I can do with my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 that I can't also do as well with my 24-105 f4.0. And when it comes to just sticking a camera through a hole in a tent, that's very hit and miss. I've taken shots (a bit) like that in the past with my Minox 35ML, as well as many shots in tombs etc, always without flash. It usually comes down to technique.

I recently bought the 28-75 for a particular project, but to be honest it's more useful for its restricted depth of field than for its light-gathering properties. My walk-around lens on my FF camera will continue to be my 24-105, just as the walk-around lens on my crop camera will remain the 15-85. Even though that lens isn't particularly fast, AND has a variable f-number. I find it very easy to get good shots with it even in low light, just as I do with the 24-105.

The Shaheen wrote in post #12407158
Maybe, i am saying this, because i am still undecided and confused...

My 24-105mm f/4L came with my 5D Mark II. Initially, I hardly ever used the lens and contemplated selling it to fund a 24-70mm f/2.8L. Recently, however, I have used the 24-105 frequently and am warming up to it. I no longer plan to sell it. I'm still up in the air on whether or not I should add the 24-70mm f/2.8L to my collection.

I have recently discovered the 24-105 is my favorite lens for video on my 7D. I only shoot short clips of the kids, but the IS and range are invaluable, and you can turn the shutter speed down for video and use it in a wider range of lighting conditions. I also like the 24-105 for shooting stills of the kids playing in the yard. The 70-200 is a bit long for my yard but it's nice to have a zoom. I'm still very happy to have this lens in my bag.

I primarily use my 24-105 on my FF body, but recently I've started using it on my crop body and I really like it. It has no wide end of course, but at the long end it gives FFE 168 which is very useful.

Thats such a amazing place you live!!!

No, this is Ricardo222's backyard , I'm from Australia

x_tan wrote in post #12412982
No, this is Ricardo222's backyard , I'm from Australia

Oh. Well Australia is also a amazing place.

Okay, I will admit, I was REALLY skeptical about having IS in a 24mm focal length, but here's an image I took yesterday with a 1 second (!!!) exposure, handheld. I was sitting on a rock with my elbows braced against my knees, but still, there's NO way I could have gotten this without IS or a tripod. The second is a 50% crop. I thought 100% was asking a bit much, but this should print up very well at 8x10, and probably look decent at 17x12 if I wanted to:

Full Image:

Katalyst wrote in post #12407207
I have the 24-70 2.8 and I love it, my works wonders but... I thought about this the other night, it isn't a very sensible decision between this one and the 24-105!? Unless you're a gear snob or just a idiot (like me) you're going for the 2.8 because hell, it's 2.8... That's awesome! But on the other hand the 24-105 gives you more reach, IS and be honest, constant aperture of f/4 still isn't bad!? I can't help myself but if I were able to think clear the 24-105 would be the obvious choice!

[QUOTE=mitsu13gman;124​14385]Okay, I will admit, I was REALLY skeptical about having IS in a 24mm focal length, but here's an image I took yesterday with a 1 second (!!!) exposure, handheld. I was sitting on a rock with my elbows braced against my knees, but still, there's NO way I could have gotten this without IS or a tripod. The second is a 50% crop. I thought 100% was asking a bit much, but this should print up very well at 8x10, and probably look decent at 17x12 if I wanted to:


Congrats to the IS and the photographer... Great picture..

Checked it at 300%, can't see any obvious shake..

Careful there's some vignetting coming in from the top left and right corners..

Strange, as i presuming you shot this with an FF camera, looking at your gear..

You could also improve it a lot with some PP work, levels, contrast and some popping colours..

It was shot at f/13, I can hardly imagine there will be any vignetting unless something is blocking the view?