Author Topic: Is the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens a sharp lens? (Read 8323 times)

Click Images · « **on:** May 20, 2015, 12:45 »

Hi all,

I'm thinking about getting the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens. My main goal for this lens is to use as a "walkaround" lens first and stock second. I've been told that it's not a very sharp lens despite the fact that it's an "L series" lens.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Jean

noodle · « **Reply #1 on:** May 20, 2015, 13:00 »

It is a very good walk around lens

Probably my most used lens

Its versatile and a nice range for all purpose lens, i use it on a 5d m2

Like almost all zooms they are weaker technically at the ends i.e. 24 and 100 mm just because of the nature of the construction of any zoom, but it is a fine lens one that i wouldnt hesitate to recommend

Yay Images Billionaire · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2015, 00:47 »

I've had mine since I upgraded to FF a few months ago. I think that my old Canon 17-55 was a better lens. Overall I find the 24-105 to have some limitations, but overall it's a great lens.

There doesn't seem to be any problems with sharpness. My gripes with it is mainly the barrel distortion.

FWIW, a few days ago I was looking through DT's camera/lens browser and the 24-105 was the most commonly used lens (By thousands).

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2015, 04:05 »

Mine got sharper around 28mm but 35mm was the best. I was happy with it at 28mm until I moved from the 5D to the 5DMKII and the softness was more apparent. Then the aperture jammed and I didn't bother getting it fixed as I was never really happy with it. Might be fine on a crop sensor but I don't see the point of using a big lens on a crop sensor camera other than in the studio.

ravens · « **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2015, 11:06 »

It's a great lens and an excellent walk around lens. Never had any problems with sharpness with it... that lens not being very sharp must be an urban myth

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2015, 12:16 »

I had one and like many lenses the quality control probably varies. Some people love it and say it's sharp but I think mine was a lemon. It was fairly sharp between 24-50 and 90-105. Between 50-90 it was soft-ish and I got to the point where I tried to stay away from 50-90 and eventually sold it. It also had severe fringing that in couldn't be corrected in Lightroom and I ended having to Photoshop quite a bit because it was so bad. Lightroom would remove the fringing color but leave behind a big white blowout space like on the side of a building on a sunny day. Distortion was bad but easily corrected in Lightroom. I wouldn't recommend this lens and would either go with the 24-70mm or a third party 28-300.

tickstock · « **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2015, 12:59 »

It's good enough but the 24-70mm is much sharper.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2015, 13:31 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 21, 2015, 12:59

It's good enough but the 24-70mm is much sharper.

I have the 24-70 f2.8 and it is the sharpest for sure. But still I mostly have my two 24-105 f4s on my main camera bodies. They are quite sharp enough, and the light weight and extra range makes them the most useful lenses to me.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2015, 20:00 »

Convenient. Reasonably sharp at f8.

Not going to blow you away by any stretch but it is still a very useful 'all-rounder'

Epsilonth · « **Reply #9 on:** May 24, 2015, 02:55 »

I wouldn't call it a sharp lens but it is sharp enough for stock photography.

Tror · « **Reply #10 on:** May 24, 2015, 10:16 »

Nope. Edges are too blurry, unsharp depending on focal length, etc. generally not a good choice. There are better ones for the same or less money out there.

alexa_adrian2001 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 24, 2015, 11:05 »

Quote from: Tror on May 24, 2015, 10:16

Nope. Edges are too blurry, unsharp depending on focal length, etc. generally not a good choice. There are better ones for the same or less money out there.

Could you please enumerate them? I am looking also to buy this lens just because I've heard that is sharp. Or if this lens is sharp then which range?

noodle · « **Reply #12 on:** May 24, 2015, 11:30 »

Quote from: alexa_adrian2001 on May 24, 2015, 11:05

Quote from: Tror on May 24, 2015, 10:16
Nope. Edges are too blurry, unsharp depending on focal length, etc. generally not a good choice. There are better ones for the same or less money out there.
Could you please enumerate them? I am looking also to buy this lens just because I've heard that is sharp. Or if this lens is sharp then which range?

Quite a good lens
If people are dissatisfied, they either have a bad copy of the lens or are Nikonians lol
You can always rent a lens and see for yourself

The praise versus discontent with this lens is heavily weighted on the praise side of the scale
People say this and that, best to see for yourself as stated.

Tror · « **Reply #13 on:** May 24, 2015, 11:39 »

Quote from: alexa_adrian2001 on May 24, 2015, 11:05

Quote from: Tror on May 24, 2015, 10:16
Nope. Edges are too blurry, unsharp depending on focal length, etc. generally not a good choice. There are better ones for the same or less money out there.
Could you please enumerate them? I am looking also to buy this lens just because I've heard that is sharp. Or if this lens is sharp then which range?

Everything above 60, 70mm got a blurry look (and no, a tripod did not make any difference nor did a Shutter speed of 800 or studio shots). Edges had been mostly bad. Many images looked too "soft". I sent it back once, they said that everything was alright. Then my second photographer tried some micro adjustments, but no solution. Finally I removed it from the production lenses.

There is always the possibility that I got a "bad" lens or a "monday morning version" - as someone else said - so it might not be representative. However, I doubt that it had to do with my technique since various people produced images in the same quality and I do not encounter that problem with any other lens faster than f 4.

Some People here said that they are happy, other said they had problems with it, so I would investigate further....as Noodle said, why not rent the lens and check?

Have you had a look into the Tamron or Sigma alternatives?

Epsilonth · « **Reply #14 on:** May 24, 2015, 13:17 »

Quote from: Tror on May 24, 2015, 11:39

Quote from: alexa_adrian2001 on May 24, 2015, 11:05
Quote from: Tror on May 24, 2015, 10:16
Nope. Edges are too blurry, unsharp depending on focal length, etc. generally not a good choice. There are better ones for the same or less money out there.

Could you please enumerate them? I am looking also to buy this lens just because I've heard that is sharp. Or if this lens is sharp then which range?

Everything above 60, 70mm got a blurry look (and no, a tripod did not make any difference nor did a Shutter speed of 800 or studio shots). Edges had been mostly bad. Many images looked too "soft". I sent it back once, they said that everything was alright. Then my second photographer tried some micro adjustments, but no solution. Finally I removed it from the production lenses.

There is always the possibility that I got a "bad" lens or a "monday morning version" - as someone else said - so it might not be representative. However, I doubt that it had to do with my technique since various people produced images in the same quality and I do not encounter that problem with any other lens faster than f 4.

Some People here said that they are happy, other said they had problems with it, so I would investigate further....as Noodle said, why not rent the lens and check?

Have you had a look into the Tamron or Sigma alternatives?

After AFMA the lens worked a bit better. I've considered sigma's version too. Try this.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=918&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

hatman12 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 24, 2015, 18:16 »

My wife has this Canon 24-105L and her copy is super sharp and a real pleasure to use. She uses it on her 5Dii.

I got fed up carrying my 24-70L F2.8 so I thought I'd also get a 24-105. Bought one and it was very soft all over. I took it back to the shop and changed it for a different one. That one was also soft. Went back to my very sharp 24-70L, and bought a 70-300L F4 instead (and very pleased with it).

So: there are some very excellent copies of the 24-105 available, and if you get a good copy it's an excellent lens. However production quality appears to be variable and it is quite possible to get a very soft lens. If you want one you'll have to be prepared for disappointment, and buy at a good shop that will let you change.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens a sharp lens? (Read 8323 times)

Click Images

noodle

Yay Images Billionaire

sharpshot

ravens

PaulieWalnuts

tickstock

PixelBytes

Copidosoma

Epsilonth

Tror

alexa_adrian2001

noodle

Tror

Epsilonth

hatman12

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors