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

I'll contribute and I hope you will like my work.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/45938553@N08/8​499093484/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/45938553@N08/8​436090798/

Porky1000 wrote in post #15663693
Does anybody have a headshot to half body photo with this lens taken at 105mm, mfd, wide open? I've always shunned away from this lens because of the "F4" and heard that it doesnt get sharp until F8.

thanks in advance

All f4 105 mm. Not quite mfd...

Good news, my IS is now fixed. Canon said it was a faulty circuit board, replaced it under warranty, and the problem is now gone.

Thank you all for the sample images!! Very crisp and sharp. Strongly leaning towards this lens over the 24-70 F4 now. I could use the extra length (thats what she said) and save some cash.

Nice portraits btw

I was in Omaha last week and tried out the Sigma 85 f/1.5, Canon 50 f/1.4 and the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS USM. Out of the three the 24-105 took the pics I was happiest with. I am and always will lean towards primes, but this zoom will really work quite well in my basement studio for taking pics of the kids and grandkids.

A test shot of my daughter taken with the 5D/24-105 f/4

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

^Nice portrait. I find the 24-105 makes a great studio lens.

jrscls wrote in post #15667712
^Nice portrait. I find the 24-105 makes a great studio lens.

Thanks for the compliment. I've noticed lots of pro child photographers using this lens in their training videos so I knew it was pretty special already.

On from a wedding to day, very fun couple!

rogertb wrote in post #15657377
What a great resource this site is ... I've been trawling the net (excuse pun) for info on the lenses and Sharad Medhavi and Jeff come up with the goodies in the most perfect and succinct way ... thank you both. Those beach shots sharad.medhavi sum up what I'm after ... something wider than my 24-105 and Jeff, thanks for the heads up re. the 16-35 MKII but way out of my league at the moment ... I'll start looking out for a reasonably priced 17-40 ... best Roger

My pleasure, Roger. The 24-105 is great for portraits at 80mm+ whereas the 17-40 is too wide and will produde quite a lot of distortion.

Take care when buying the 17-40 because I understand there's a lot of tolerance between the lenses. My copy was pretty sharp and my friend had one which was very soft.

We exchanged lenses to test them and the difference was incredible. If you read the 17-40 forums, you'll see the range of different comments on this lens. A good copy is great and a bad copy is dreadful.

When buying, I suggest you ask for images taken with the specific lens and look for the softness; particularly at the edges. Although mine was a good copy, I rarely used it below f/14 because the sharpness and IQ dropped off significantly. My friends copy was not sharp on any aperture setting.

For those who are interested, my 16-35 MKII is razor sharp throughout the entire range and well worth the extra if you have the money.

Good luck Roger

Thanks again Jeff especially the tip re. variations between copies ... means ebay's probably a no-no !

Roger

rogertb wrote in post #15670749
Thanks again Jeff especially the tip re. variations between copies ... means ebay's probably a no-no !

Roger

Yes, that's why I gave you the heads up - Unless you get actual pics from the lens itself, you won't know for sure.

rogertb wrote in post #15670749
Thanks again Jeff especially the tip re. variations between copies ... means ebay's probably a no-no !

Roger

Just a thought...as you're on a crop sensor, have you considered the EFS 10-22mm? OK, it's not L glass, but it will give you the super wide angle of view that the 16-35 gives on full frame.

Jef96 wrote in post #15670786
Just a thought...as you're on a crop sensor, have you considered the EFS 10-22mm? OK, it's not L glass, but it will give you the super wide angle of view that the 16-35 gives on full frame.

Agreed - if you're looking to complement the 24-105 with a wide angle, the 10-22 is a great option. I have the Canon version and while it's definitely light and a little plastic-y, the image quality is amazing. Sigma and (I think) Tokina make ultra-wides in a similar focal length that can be had for a slightly lower cost, although I believe you'll want to keep an eye out for a "good" copy on those brands.