Very disappointed with IQ from 24-105L

I must say that being on forums can be very dangerous.

On some forums I attend, the worst lens everyone knows is the 24-70/2.8 as it's prone to back focus. And if you ask a question about it on this forum, there's never a problem.

So I think it's not only just a forum thing, but also a "shooting style" thing. And how you use the lens, in what circumstances it fails or not.

To me, the 24-105L IS is a workhorse, my most used lens for the "almost wide to semi tele range". For my wide angle, I use nothing but the 16-35L, for my tele I use nothing but my 70-200/2.8L IS.

And.... also.... like the gentleman who's working at a newspaper attested. Most of the time you don't go online to praise a lens, you go online to complain. So those who's satisfied might not even care to open a thread like this, and say they are happy with it. Most people calling Canon to complain have a problem... most people who's happy don't call and complain. Right?

So... it might *seem* the the lens have more problems than it has in real life. As well as the 24-70 might seem to have a lot of problems, as you read about it on forums. But it's usually just those who's not happy the voice their opinion, so you get a slanted view on reality.


Make sense?

CyberPet wrote in post #10931919
I must say that being on forums can be very dangerous.

On some forums I attend, the worst lens everyone knows is the 24-70/2.8 as it's prone to back focus. And if you ask a question about it on this forum, there's never a problem.

So I think it's not only just a forum thing, but also a "shooting style" thing. And how you use the lens, in what circumstances it fails or not.

To me, the 24-105L IS is a workhorse, my most used lens for the "almost wide to semi tele range". For my wide angle, I use nothing but the 16-35L, for my tele I use nothing but my 70-200/2.8L IS.

And.... also.... like the gentleman who's working at a newspaper attested. Most of the time you don't go online to praise a lens, you go online to complain. So those who's satisfied might not even care to open a thread like this, and say they are happy with it. Most people calling Canon to complain have a problem... most people who's happy don't call and complain. Right?

So... it might *seem* the the lens have more problems than it has in real life. As well as the 24-70 might seem to have a lot of problems, as you read about it on forums. But it's usually just those who's not happy the voice their opinion, so you get a slanted view on reality.


Make sense?

Absolutely! and that is the case with not only lenses, but also hotels, airlines, food, services etc. You can't please everyone and it is always the bad experiences that get highlighted. Just watch the news and you'll see what I mean.

Moving on though, the one other thing that I forgot to mention with my 24-105 is I would frequently get "Error #3" on the screen on the 40D and I would have to shut off the camera, remove the lens, put it back on, and turn the camera back on before it would take a photo. I should have stated this earlier but I neglected to... which may have allowed more people to see this thread in my favor rather than chalking it up to poor technique with taking the pictures.

The Error would always occur when auto focusing, I would never get a confirmation of the auto focus and then when I pressed the shutter release all the way it would click, but it would lock up the mirror and display the error. When I would turn the camera off then the mirror would unlock. And if I attempted to turn the camera on again it would say "lens communication error" or something. The contacts on my 40D body were not the issue and it was definitely not the issue on the lens either being that it was only a couple days old the first time this happened.

Just wanted to throw that out there. Now maybe someone may begin to believe me that there was something wrong with my lens. But only time will tell. The shipment was received at the canon repair facility, however I was told that they are working on a 3-4 day delay with actually getting the lens out for testing after received... so it is a waiting game now. I'm actually quite anxious to hear the verdict on this. Either I will be vindicated, or I will be hanging my head in shame and admitting that it was simply user error.

Chris wrote in post #10931874
Off topic a bit, but I have to say, you have written a very well worded response here. I wish I was so adept at the keyboard. Here's hoping the lens comes back to you sharp as a tack and you become a raving fan of the 24-105.

Thank you Chris. I appreciate that. I am a well educated person with 2 bachelor's degrees, one in Computer Information Systems and one in Nursing. I am also a former club/Rave DJ, music producer (definitely not famous), artist, tattoo flash designer, and aspiring photographer. I do a lot of things to keep me busy. Photography just happens to be one of my many hobbies... but probably the one I take most seriously. My grand father was a professional photographer in the 70's but none of his cameras were 35mm. He was all medium format Hasselblad and Nikons and Minoltas. Anyways... thanks again for the comment and support

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10931970
Moving on though, the one other thing that I forgot to mention with my 24-105 is I would frequently get "Error #3" on the screen on the 40D and I would have to shut off the camera, remove the lens, put it back on, and turn the camera back on before it would take a photo. I should have stated this earlier but I neglected to... which may have allowed more people to see this thread in my favor rather than chalking it up to poor technique with taking the pictures.

Oh, this IS useful info.... that could very well be a huge indicator that something is not right with the lens. Especially if you have never experienced anything similar with your other lenses.


And to be a bit cheeky.... Why didn't you say so in the first place!

CyberPet wrote in post #10932290
Oh, this IS useful info.... that could very well be a huge indicator that something is not right with the lens. Especially if you have never experienced anything similar with your other lenses.


And to be a bit cheeky.... Why didn't you say so in the first place!

Cyber, you hit the nail right on the head. When you go to a doctor, you usually tell them a range of symptoms, not "I don't feel good." More like "I have a fever and a headache".

Noting much later in the thread about the error message leaves out a major detail and apparent mechanical/electrical problem. This clears up the issue of "user error".

What can you say

Frostbyte - I can't recall if this was brought up in the prior threads, but in conjunction with that error code did you check and/or clean the contacts between the body and lens? Please ignore if this was already mentioned. - Stu

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10931970
...The contacts on my 40D body were not the issue and it was definitely not the issue on the lens either being that it was only a couple days old the first time this happened.

sapearl wrote in post #10932957
Frostbyte - I can't recall if this was brought up in the prior threads, but in conjunction with that error code did you check and/or clean the contacts between the body and lens? Please ignore if this was already mentioned. - Stu

Yeah, i believe I covered that. Thanks. =o) Well here is my take on that. The camera works fine with all 7 of my other lenses... and has an error with the 24-105. The 24-105 is brand new, so the contacts should be perfectly clean. So I am lead to believe that the issue is not at all with the camera body, or the contacts in general, but more in the electronics in the lens. Dang, I really should have mentioned the errors before. But hey, this thread would not nearly have been as interesting if I had.

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10933569
Yeah, i believe I covered that. Thanks. =o) Well here is my take on that. The camera works fine with all 7 of my other lenses... and has an error with the 24-105. The 24-105 is brand new, so the contacts should be perfectly clean. So I am lead to believe that the issue is not at all with the camera body, or the contacts in general, but more in the electronics in the lens. Dang, I really should have mentioned the errors before. But hey, this thread would not nearly have been as interesting if I had.

My bad - I missed it in the 200+ posts .... thanks for bringing me up to speed. You are being logical though from a troubleshooting standpoint, so based on this new bit of info, the finger seems to be pointing at the 24-105.

sapearl wrote in post #10933690
My bad - I missed it in the 200+ posts .... thanks for bringing me up to speed. You are being logical though from a troubleshooting standpoint, so based on this new bit of info, the finger seems to be pointing at the 24-105.

I do appreciate the thought though, because had the body been new along with the lens it could very well have been the body or something related to the contacts. Still waiting on the email from canon saying that it has been unboxed and it has been assigned to a technician. Then I will start getting updates as to what is going on with it

I haven't read through all the 15 pages but just want to post a small comment to this...

My current workhorses are the 24-105L and 100-400L, but I believe strongly that expensive L lenses does not necessarily mean better picture quality. If you google for the 70-210 you have, the first hit coming up is www.kenrockwell.com/ca​non/lenses/70-210mm.htm (sorry folks, blame google!) but other articles also talk highly about that lens (so that article is actually credible). It might be 20 years old but that would presumably be "old" in terms of electronics and not optics...

Another dirt cheap lens in the same range is the EF-S 55-250 IS which I think totally rocks for the £150 I paid (new off eBay!), and which I bought for my daughter. I might actually take it for walkabouts myself on sunny days... Oh the difference in feel is totally obvious (cheap plastic vs. heavy metal) but would I be able to spot differences in picture quality between the 24-105L and the 55-250 (over the same range) ? I haven't bothered trying but if I do I probably will have to look very hard.

Where the L lenses really shine is build quality. Here is a picture of my daughter's Sigma 17-70mm (taken with my iPhone to send to Sigma!) after a fat a*se sat down on it in a plane seat:

ohansen wrote in post #10941351
I haven't read through all the 15 pages but just want to post a small comment to this...

My current workhorses are the 24-105L and 100-400L, but I believe strongly that expensive L lenses does not necessarily mean better picture quality. If you google for the 70-210 you have, the first hit coming up is www.kenrockwell.com/ca​non/lenses/70-210mm.htm (sorry folks, blame google!) but other articles also talk highly about that lens (so that article is actually credible). It might be 20 years old but that would presumably be "old" in terms of electronics and not optics...

Another dirt cheap lens in the same range is the EF-S 55-250 IS which I think totally rocks for the £150 I paid (new off eBay!), and which I bought for my daughter. I might actually take it for walkabouts myself on sunny days... Oh the difference in feel is totally obvious (cheap plastic vs. heavy metal) but would I be able to spot differences in picture quality between the 24-105L and the 55-250 (over the same range) ? I haven't bothered trying but if I do I probably will have to look very hard.

Where the L lenses really shine is build quality. Here is a picture of my daughter's Sigma 17-70mm (taken with my iPhone to send to Sigma!) after a fat a*se sat down on it in a plane seat:

My 24-105mm probably would have been completely unharmed, although I have no intention testing my theory... And my 7D and 24-105mm have seen lots of Scottish drizzle, which I wouldn't have dared subject my daughter's 400D and SIgma to...

Indeed, I hear your thoughts. And I understand exactly what you're saying. My feelings on L lenses are immature being that I have only had the 24-105L for about a month before I decided it was a strongly disappointing lens. But, like I said, my opinions don't really count being that the 24-105 is my first and only L lens. I think maybe a good portion of my mixed feelings on the lens stem from the fact that I had my self so hyped up about owning my first L lens and was expecting a "night and day" difference between the L lens and every other lens I had ever used. I do believe now that I was strongly mistaken, and like someone else said, the image quality isn't going to be That much better, but a better lens will allow a photographer to get better IQ in situations, and lighting that cheaper lenses would not perform well in. BUT moving on to the real issue with the lens, was NOT sharpness as I had originally thought, but actually a focusing issue that was causing me to see a lack of sharpness. And also the lens error that was occurring which you can read about a few posts up ^^^^

But I do appreciate your opinion. I got my confirmation from Canon service today. I will keep you all posted as to what they find is wrong.

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10943896
But I do appreciate your opinion. I got my confirmation from Canon service today. I will keep you all posted as to what they find is wrong.

I think you would have saved yourself a lot of grief if you had mentioned the Error #3 messages in the OP, but hopefully it will all work out. I've found that not all L's are created equal. Manufacturing tolerances are very real and not always compatible between one specific camera and one specific lens. That's why they have microadjustment built into some of the newer bodies.

Which reminds me... did they have you send the camera, too, or just the lens?

ohansen wrote in post #10941351
I haven't read through all the 15 pages but just want to post a small comment to this...

My current workhorses are the 24-105L and 100-400L, but I believe strongly that expensive L lenses does not necessarily mean better picture quality. If you google for the 70-210 you have, the first hit coming up is www.kenrockwell.com/ca​non/lenses/70-210mm.htm (sorry folks, blame google!) but other articles also talk highly about that lens (so that article is actually credible). It might be 20 years old but that would presumably be "old" in terms of electronics and not optics...

Another dirt cheap lens in the same range is the EF-S 55-250 IS which I think totally rocks for the £150 I paid (new off eBay!), and which I bought for my daughter. I might actually take it for walkabouts myself on sunny days... Oh the difference in feel is totally obvious (cheap plastic vs. heavy metal) but would I be able to spot differences in picture quality between the 24-105L and the 55-250 (over the same range) ? I haven't bothered trying but if I do I probably will have to look very hard.

Where the L lenses really shine is build quality. Here is a picture of my daughter's Sigma 17-70mm (taken with my iPhone to send to Sigma!) after a fat a*se sat down on it in a plane seat:


My 24-105mm probably would have been completely unharmed, although I have no intention testing my theory... And my 7D and 24-105mm have seen lots of Scottish drizzle, which I wouldn't have dared subject my daughter's 400D and SIgma to...

Holy cow! Just how fat was this person?? I'm a hefty gent myself, and I'm not sure I could do that. I imagine it was on THEIR seat, and you therefore couldn't get them to pay for anything?

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10943896
Indeed, I hear your thoughts. And I understand exactly what you're saying. My feelings on L lenses are immature being that I have only had the 24-105L for about a month before I decided it was a strongly disappointing lens. But, like I said, my opinions don't really count being that the 24-105 is my first and only L lens. I think maybe a good portion of my mixed feelings on the lens stem from the fact that I had my self so hyped up about owning my first L lens and was expecting a "night and day" difference between the L lens and every other lens I had ever used. I do believe now that I was strongly mistaken, and like someone else said, the image quality isn't going to be That much better, but a better lens will allow a photographer to get better IQ in situations, and lighting that cheaper lenses would not perform well in. BUT moving on to the real issue with the lens, was NOT sharpness as I had originally thought, but actually a focusing issue that was causing me to see a lack of sharpness. And also the lens error that was occurring which you can read about a few posts up ^^^^

But I do appreciate your opinion. I got my confirmation from Canon service today. I will keep you all posted as to what they find is wrong.

I'm surprised the person sitting on this lens didn't charge you for converting it to a tilt-and-shift!

richardfox wrote in post #10945928
I'm surprised the person sitting on this lens didn't charge you for converting it to a tilt-and-shift!

Well - better a modified Tilt-And-Shift than a surprise suppository.....