How good is the 24-105 f4 L IS USM?

Go for it Pixels. I owned the 17-85 lens and was reasonably happy with it. It was a little soft when I bought it until I had it calibrated by Canon and its now tack sharp. However, I find the 17-85 to be slow on the long end and was pretty unusable in low light. Bought the 24-105 and I absolutely adore it. Its a great walkabout lens and the colours.... oh the colours.

On a 5D it is a great range. I think ona 350D I would struggle at the wide end, but it is the best lens I have ever owned, would never sell it or trade it. It is sharp over the entire frame (on a 5D!) and only vignettes a little at 24mm with low appertures (on a 350D this will not be a problem).

It's a great walkaround lens, sharp and sweet, although can vignette at 24mm @ f4 on a FF camera.

Thanks all - very positive feedback, no dissenters - a trip to the camera shop getting nearer......

Definitely produces some great looking shots from everything I have seen. The 24-105 is near the top of my list for gear to get.

Since you already have an ultra wide I think it'd be the PERFECT walkaround lens and I adore most that I've seen produced with it. Go for it!

Ive gone through a few lens's and each time it was because i was putting off getting the 24-105L.
now i have it its on my 350D all the time.
I wouldnt say its the sharpest lens i have ever owned (its the only L though)but its the most useful and i dont begrudge the cost of it.
As for how useful the IS is.
I took this on the way home from getting it. hand held at 1/4 second. not the sharpest shots but im well impressed with how slow i can go now. no real PP apart form C1

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

An expensive lens for sure primarily because of the IS feature.
I would not pay that much money for an f/4 Canon medium FL range lens where the utility of IS is questionable.
I'd get a 17-40 lens for a 1.6 body instead...that's good quality at a reasonable cost.
For an FF or 1.3 camera, if I wanna splurge, I'd get an EF 24-70 f/2.8.

In a nutshell, IS is great and almost a neccessity for FL= 200 mm and up. Definitely worth the money in my mind. But not for those medium FL lenses.
I think people find that those low light shots at 1/2 sec eventually start to wear thin on them, besides, they only really work on static scenes/objects.

Go for it. The IS is well worth it. It's not just for low-light shots... it stabilizes the picture everytime you take a handheld shot... low light or not, at any zoom setting!

And IS is just the icing on this lens. The colors, saturation and contrast are really nice. Of course, it's an "L" lens. That's why it's expensive. But only a few bucks more compared to the 24-70L.

It's the "default" lens on my camera. Only if I need to go super wide or need more reach or macro does this lens get swapped out.

PeaPicker wrote:
Love mine.
Stays on the camera most of the time.

Same.

Mine too. I've bought and sold several lenses but the only reason I could EVER imagine parting with this is if they came out with an f/2.8. It's my favorite lens and it produces fantastic results.

Another vote for the 24-105.....the best general purpose lens there is (excellent on a crop body, perfect on a FF body)

I have it and it delivery excellent results, but I can't help thinking that the 24-70 would be better.

The grass is always greener.

Graham

I dont think the main cost is the IS. after all the 28-135IS has IS.
dont forget this is an L lens and as such is better built with better optics.
I dont make a habit of taking 1/2 sec shots but its there if i need it and only because the lens has IS
105mm is a good reach for me on my 350D. if i went FF i would loose that range so the 350D + 24-105L is ideal fo me.
A lot of people go on about lens's not being wide enough on a crop camera and how better it is on a FF but what about the long end? you then loose a good range IMO
The slower the shutter speed the more prone to camera shake you get. i have taken shots where the speed was good enough for the subject but i still shook the camera. i agree its more usefull on the longer lens's but its still usfull on the shorter ones. the canon 17-55IS is a top seller at the moment.
And lots of people take shots of static objects.

I had the 24-70 (just sold it) and didn't think the extra fstop made up for the lack of range. Especially with the IS on the 24-105L adding an extra stop to the lens...when I want to carry around just 1 lens, this one has the range (for my 5D) that is perfect for me. BUT, having said that...tons of people prefer the faster/shorter 24-70.