To "L" and back - Ploddy's review of the Canon 24-105 L

[Ploddy]

Well, as promised, here is my take on this bit of kit. It's a bit of a deal for me, finally getting L glass after many years of unashamed, abject coveting. My thanks go to Canon, B&H and my exhausted bank balance, without whom none of this would be possible.

Also, a disclaimer: All photos presented in this post are unedited, straight from RAW to Lightroom to JPEG to your screen. The only exception is a couple of crops to examine detail. I have also kept them pretty big so you can see the detail. So dont expect works of art, just 'reference shots'. For really good shots, click HERE (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=49050).

So, the lens arrived on Friday, after a bit of a customs hiccup (more of which you can read in my other thread HERE (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=51763)). I duly unpacked the box in my office at work, attached it to the front of my 350D and made use of my lunch break.

I headed for Civic Park in Newcastle, for 2 reasons: a) I wanted to particuarly test it out in low light conditions and there is a lovely little grove of big old trees there, and b) I needed somewhere close to work, because I was on a lunch break ;).

Anyhoo - the first test was a plaque in full shade on an overcast day to test the sharpness and effect of the IS.

Both shots are:
- Handheld
- f/4
- ISO100
- 105mm

1. Full frame
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/4421412749_66aeeabda4_o.jpg

2. 100% crop of image with IS off (1/60sec)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4422178884_f408342f86_o.jpg

3. 100% crop of image with IS on (1/50sec)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2759/4422195206_9e39e03c96_o.jpg

So, straight away you can see the benefit of IS. At that focal length and shutter speed, it produces a razor sharp image.


Next, a closeup of a tree to check detail and sharpness.

4. IS on, 105mm, f/4, 1/80sec, ISO100, handheld
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2758/4421413207_b8fb47fb41_o.jpg

The JPeg compression doesnt do this justice, but take my word for it this is pretty damn sharp, particularly in the middle where I focused. No evidence of front or back focusing, yay. Note though, the edges blur slightly with the curvature of the lens and the narrow focal plane.


Over to you, bokeh...

Righto, the standard bokeh test - get nice and close to your subject on full extension (105mm), aperture wide open, with the background a fair way in the back.

5. IS on, 105mm, f/4, 1/100sec, ISO100, handheld
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4421413359_b1f39736d8_o.jpg

So, not the most pleasing of look, actually quite rough, but then I am spoilt by my 2 primes that give off a silky smooth look. Cant beat primes at bokeh. Funnily enough the sharpness of the lens may work against it here?


Next, Colour.

This is the one and only flower I could find, but bird of prey's are pretty hard to beat anyway. Remember, no pp here, this is the real deal straight out of the lens.

6. IS on, 85mm, f/8, 1/30sec, ISO100, handheld
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2760/4421413533_b90c137fc7_o.jpg

Wrap it up, I'll take it :cool:


OK, now we look at the wide end. This shot isnt much to look at, but it demonstrates the distortion and contrast gradation fairly well. Note sharpness right to the edges, but some barrel distortion, eg a slight curvature to the light pole. I also like that it picks up detail in the light and shadow with no problems or noise. In fact, let's face it. There's zero noise.

7. IS on, 24mm, f/8, 1/100sec, ISO100, handheld
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4421413805_23c2d1bda7_o.jpg


Last but not least for the Friday shoot, a shot in full light of a pale subject to check sharpness and detail. Again, the jpeg compression doesnt do it justice, but I am pretty happy that it gets the detail right across the spectrum.

8. IS on, 35mm, f/6.3, 1/80sec, ISO 100, handheld
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2782/4421414035_6061b4e7c2_o.jpg

For the record, I can zoom right in on this shot and see sharpness and detail throughout. It has blown out a bit above the archway on the walls, but that could be the crappy metering of the 350d? Not sure.




OK, now for one of the main reasons I got the lens. I do a fair bit of work with a local theatre company, shooting their productions and staged shots for promo material etc. If anyone has done theatre work, you'll know just how challenging it is. HUGE variations in lighting in the one shot, very hard to get a decent shutter speed yet people are moving all the time.

I am forced to use a high ISO (1600) to pull a shutter speed I need even with the lens wide open the whole time - on my old Sigma 17-70 I was getting horrible noise on most shots - yes there is Noise Ninja but that softens the shot dreadfully. And here's a picture from that lens's days...

9. Sigma 17-70, no IS (obviously), 17mm, f/3.2, 1/40sec, ISO1600, handheld
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/4422178522_b07b7b2c93_o.jpg

Notice the noise in the top and bottom left corners - this was a chronic problem. Also, notice the loss of detail in the faces. It really was a problem that no amount of pp could fix. Maybe on a better body, but that's another story...




So I was hoping that an IS L lens would reduce the noise and at least get me shots at ISO800 - it wont stop motion blur but I could hopefully work with that by timing my shots well.

Here's a couple of shots that tell the tale.

10. IS on, 105mm, f/4, 1/100sec, ISO800, handheld
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2744/4421414181_583f5e3e87_o.jpg

Now we're talking! Noise is at least halved if not more, given the lens picks up less anyway. Really crisp detail in the clothing and the face. Much better.




But she was standing pretty still. What about if they are moving?

11. IS on, 35mm, f/4, 1/40sec, ISO800, handheld
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4422180296_4478707fc0_o.jpg

OK here is the perfect example of the limitaiton of IS, and what you really need to be aware of. Left and right people are still and sharp, even at 1/40sec. But middle person is on the move, hence the blur. So it's not a fix-all, but still much better.




But when you do catch them all standing still...

12. IS on, 65mm, f/4, 1/160sec, ISO800, handheld
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/4421414539_a8f3ace695_o.jpg

Super crisp and sharp. Yay me. I also like that the noise level is respectable and there is detail in the light and dark areas.




So there you have it. My little review is nearly complete. Just some passing comments for you:
1) Weight. I know a lot of people comment that L glass is heavy, but I honestly didnt notice any issues there. Maybe its because the 350d is so light - add the weight of a 1ds and I may think differently.
2) Build quality. Well, it's an L, so... great. Really solid, metallic feel - not the plastic feel of pretty much all my other lenses.
3) USM. Really quick focusing. Really quick.
4) Zoom. THE most annoying feature. It is right up at the back of the lens, so much so your hand catches on the underside of the popup flash unit that overhangs the 350d. That is going to take some getting used to.


All in all, a worthy purchase and one I highly recommend. Thanks for sticking with me and reading the whole thing. Now get off your behind and go buy one for yourself :)

[Pinheadion]

Thanks for a really thorough and objective review of the 24-105L. You'd find most people would just be blindingly happy with it simply because they paid the cash, but you're able to see through that and point out a couple of it's very small but none the less 'flaws' (for lack of a better word).

On the whole it looks like an awesome piece of glass. Perfect example of not needing the latest bodies to get beautiful results. Look forward to more shots ;)

Nicely done. Thanks again.

[jasnat]

Cheers thanks for the review. I have a 17-70 also and I cant wait to get a 24-105 which is on my list

[PerfectPicture]

Great Review .. and looks like you are just as excited l was ... when l received my 24-105L IS Lens as well :D

Great lens .. and welcome to the L Series Club :D :food04:

Cheers

[rwg717]

I like the review, the lens is a great buy, I was actually quite dissapointed with mine when I bought it a couple of years ago but wouldn't give it up for anything now!!!
They are all a bit heavy...but then the camera bodys are "brick heavy" too, if you want performance you don't have much option (Nikon is just as bad), after all, at the $$$ you pay for them they aren't toys???:D
Richard

[David]

Thanks for the very good review: I got this lens on the say so of people who are experienced togs and have not regretted the investment for one second: this is an A class, versatile and very reliable lens.

[B D H]

Thanks for the great review

I've just bought 1 of these a day ago & have hardly had a chance to try it
after reading this I feel confident about my purchase

Cheers

[Helen S]

It's also worth noting, especially to newcomers of DSLR photography, that this lens on a crop-factor body is equivalent to the field of view of a 38-168mm lens on a full frame camera.

For mine, when I used it on the 40D, it wasn't wide enough at the 24mm end, but since using it on the 5DII, I've found it harder and harder to take off the camera. No wonder that Canon sell this as a (albeit very good) "kit" lens with the 5D Mark II. :D

[Ploddy]

That's a really good point Helen,

You can see in my one landscape shot the field of view at 'full wide' ie 24mm on a crop sensor camera - it's not that wide at all. For this reason I will still be carrying my Sigma 17-70 (and not selling it) because it actually performs very well as a wide angel landscape lens.

And here's a picture so you can see the difference...
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1264/827999628_abe94c7c4a_o.jpg

[bartt_06]

thanks for the review ploddy! i am really hopeing to get one of these not too far down the track, and its great to know what to expect. this matched to my 7d i hope will be good for almost all occasions that i intend to use it. (especially as my only other lens right now is a 10-22!)

Great review and its interesting to note that you achieved less noise with this lens then your previous ones? is that just because of the quality of glass? i thought the sensor would effect that more?

thanks for taking the time to review, and i cant wait to get hold of one!

[Ploddy]

Yeah, its interesting about the noise issue. Right from the get-go with the 17-70 I noticed a bit of noise in all my shots (you can see it a bit in the top l&r of the jetty shot above, at the edge of the vignetting). I read somewhere that it can be a bit of a trick with cheaper lenses to achieve the look of sharpness. Then, when you bump up the ISO and hold it in your hand the problem really emerges.

I shouldn't be too critical tho - I was able to get stunning results from that lens for a lot of years and it is well worth the money. It's just this new lens is on another planet altogether...

[ameerat42]

Ploddy. I was looking into this lens just today. But how much was it? Am...

[Analog6]

I love mine, I would never part with it. Best general carry round lens I have ever had.

[msenior]

Great review mate. I wanted something wide when i bought my 7D that i was looking at the 24-105 L but ended up with going something shorter and got the 17-55 2.8. Pretty much an L but an EF-S

Cheers for the review mate. Pretty sure i will get teh 24-105 L or the 24-70 2.8 L when i upgrade to the 5D MK III or IV in the next 4 years or so haha.

Mike

[kevinj]

nice job on the review,the 24-105mmL is a great lens,I love mine and will never regret buying it.Enjoy yours.

[Bax]

Good review, I still don't see how a lens can affect noise though? The only difference I'm seeing is that the shutter speed would be changing with and without IS between your lenses.

As far as I'm aware the only circuitry the lens has is for the AF system and to share information about focal length and aperture etc.

Noise is purely a sensor issue. So more information there would be great.

[adilucca]

Thanks for the review. My first L lens was the 24-105mm but I sold it as I had the opportunity to get a cheap 24-70mm 2.8L. I must admit it was not an easy decision. I really liked that lens.

Maybe in a few years they'll come out with an f/2.8 version. That would be nice.


Cheers
Alan

[rwg717]

It's also worth noting, especially to newcomers of DSLR photography, that this lens on a crop-factor body is equivalent to the field of view of a 38-168mm lens on a full frame camera.

For mine, when I used it on the 40D, it wasn't wide enough at the 24mm end, but since using it on the 5DII, I've found it harder and harder to take off the camera. No wonder that Canon sell this as a (albeit very good) "kit" lens with the 5D Mark II. :D

Could not agree more with these comments:D
Richard

[ScottyQ]

Thanks Chris, great review mate. I've been considering the 24-105 with a 50D.. Maybe I'll stretch the budget to a 5D.. Oh the pain....
Cheers,
Scotty

[ravescar]

All these review makes me want to get an 24-105L even more. just waiting for a good deal to come up on ebay for an 2nd hand copy.

So general concensius is it is THE best walk around len Canon makes?

[darylcheshire]

So general concensius is it is THE best walk around len Canon makes?

Depends on what you do.

I use a 24-70 f/2.8L and it's a good carry around lens. Others use the 28-300L and I looked at one and considered it too heavy for a walk around lens but others swear by it. It would be good if you want one lens when travelling.

I don't think there's such a thing as a universal lens, the 28-300 comes close (haha) but some people say it's too soft at one end or another and there are a lot of trade-offs.

On my 24-70, I find myself zooming to 50mm anyway, so sometimes I just take my 50mm if I don't have any real plans.

I read about some famous photographer who taught students to start with the 50mm and run back and forth.

The 24-105 is a pretty good compromise.

So, whatever floats your boat.

Daryl

[electricmic]

Sorry to revive a thread, but I was directed here from the other thread on lens.

Just wanted to say cheers Ploddy, great post

[etherial]

Don't be sorry for reviving a good relevant thread.

I'll add my 2c worth, I love my 24-105, I find it to be very versatile and very sharp. It spends the most time on my camera by far! Highly recommend it. :th3:

[AdamR]

Great review, I love that you actually shot real things outside for lens tests! I think its a cracking lens. Its too narrow on crop for me, but then I shoot very wide mostly.

Adam

[William]

Any ideas how this lens (24-105 L) would perform as an all rounder for a Wedding shoot, Out side around a Pool , I'm just wondering if it will be wide enough, For most of the shots during the Ceremony , There is 6 in the Wedding Party, Would be good to here from someone that has used it in this Situation, BTW I'll be shooting with the 30D and 350D So I know about the crop factor :)

[rhanesworth]

Thanks great review. Most everything I've heard about the 24-105 has been good. I'm not a professional photographer but enjoy great photos with great sharpness. I think this lens will be a winner.

[rhanesworth]

With all the new in camera editing is it still good advice to shoot raw and edit in the computer??

[perla]

Thanks for taking time to write the review. I have my eyes on this lens but still can't decide whether I should get this or the 24-70...

[ElectricImages]

Thanks for taking time to write the review. I have my eyes on this lens but still can't decide whether I should get this or the 24-70...

I had to make this decision some time ago, and it depends to some extent on the kind of photography you do. If you do action photography in poor light (where the subject is moving, but you are relatively still/shooting on a tripod), the extra speed of the f/2.8 lens may be more useful than the IS of the f/4, particularly when shooting wide when both have reasonable depth of field wide open. However, if you anticipate that *you* will be moving while shooting, the IS of the f/4 lens may compensate for the extra speed of the f/2.8; and in addition you get extra focal length range and (I think) better optical performance over the 24-70mm.

If they correct the focal plane curvature in the f/2.8, and give it IS in the next version... then THAT might be a seriously good lens. :) However, in my particular case, I went with the 24-105mm and I don't regret it - it's a terrific lens. :) Here's one of my images taken at f/4 @ 105mm (i.e. at the limits of this lens) 1/125s with bounced speedlite; no editing/Photoshop, just a little exposure adjustment in Lightroom:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4854915059_4b872fbacf_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/leonardlow/4854915059/)

[bobt]

Thanks for that, if only because I bought one too and it's always nice to have someone else agree with your choices in life - especially lenses !!!! :D

[Ploddy]

Wow, nice to see the ol' thread brought back to life again...

Many months on and I am still very happy with my purchase. I have it as my permanent attachment to my now 7D and am just loving its versatility. It is cramped when wide, but I swap lenses so much anyways it doesn't phase me too much. I just now need to replace my Siggy 17-70 with a dedicated wide, like the 10-22...

[davearnold]

I got one of these the other day 2nd hand the other day, too good a deal to say "no" to, limited opportunities to use it, but impressive results so far.

[Nicholas Brennan]

The 24-105 rocks! I have the 24-70 f/2.8 and my goto lens is the 24-105 unless I am going to be doing something in low light. The 24-105 is lighter also which I am quite fond of. I purchased this as a result of a commercial photographer recommending it to me and glad I took the advice.

[ibe1st]

i love my 24-105 (on a 550d)

great all round lens and the quality of my pics have improved.... im my humble opinion anyway :D

[groperofeuropa]

Great review! I finally forked out for one of these last week and plan on throwing my 18-55 kit lens into the nearest river.

[William]

Yep , On My 30D , This lens (24-105 f4 L) Image quality is excellent , Blows me away compared to the Kit lenses , Mind you my Siggy 10-20 is pretty good also , Cant wait to use it on my next Cam , A Full frame :D

[Jack LC]

I have been considering this lens for a long time now but with my 40D with crop factor I just cannot quite accept the narrow wide-angle end of it. Maybe when I eventually convince my better half that I need to upgrade to a full frame camera it will be more acceptable.

[Perfectoarts]

Great review and I am glad you enjoy this lens.
I gave mine to hubby and slowly going back to prime lenses.
My favourite lens is of course 70-200 F2.8L IS II model. Oh and the 24-70 F2.8L. Then of course the nifty fifty that everyone should have in their bag :)

[Kerry]

I've been considering this lens for some time now and happened upon this thread..Great review and feedback..Think it will team up nicely with the 10-20 and 70-200 on my 50D..Just gotta get organised and sell a couple of my lenses to help finance my new purchase!

[JM Tran]

I just got the 24 - 105 and Im a little disappointed with the results for an L series lens. But then again maybe my expectations are a little high. My other L series is the 100mm macro and its an amazing lens.

well Greg you are comparing a zoom lens to a PRIME lens, the latter will always win for sharpness and IQ - 95% of the time generally speaking.

the 24-105 is not one of the high end performing L lens either, but it does its job very well - which is providing a good usable zoom range combined with very good IS with decent IQ, was never intended for professional usage in terms of optical quality.

I use it a lot back then for my travel work and stories overseas. Would I use it for commercial shoots or weddings? Definitely not.

[KeeFy]

Quick question, have you considered using a prime?