Canon 24‑105mm f4.0 L IS USM

That is a pretty decent price.

The 24-105L is a bit of a compromise the F4 aperture allows for the longer range and also a much more light weight and compact form factor compared the the 24-70mm f2.8L it also has the additional benefit of IS which is nice to have on a walk about lens.

It might be the lens for you it might not, I really like mine and while I do miss the f2.8 of my old Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 I value the extra length width and IS more and always have a 35mm f2 in the bag if required.
 
Last edited:
It can be had from http://*******.com for £470 (via BACS) with a 3 yr warranty. Or they crop up on TP forums a lot for circa £400 - £450 in various conditions, there's a brand new one on for £450 at the moment.
 
If that was an f/2.8 instead of a f/4.0, it would likely be over £1k in price.

Sigma do the 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC APO OS HSM, which is designed for crop sensor bodies, the cheapest that retails for is £719, so you can imagine what a Canon f/2.8 24-105L would be!

Do you really need the overlap between the lenses? Would a Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM do? That's the cheapest of the 70-200L's that Canon does, since it doesn't have IS. It currently retails at £499 according to Camera Price Buster - it gives you a longer reach to 200mm, it is a very good lens, it's cheaper than the 24-105mm you're considering and as I said, are you really going to miss the 50mm to 70mm focal length?
 
Last edited:
Admiral Huddy said:
Thanks

I currently have a tamron 17-50 f2.8 and whilst its not telephoto, I can see this being a useful addition to my kit :)
Click to expand...

Seems pretty pointless if you ask me. As above, get one of the 70-200mm lenses if you want so ething longer. Don't see you would ever use a 24-105mm f/4 if you have a 17-50mm f/2.8.
 
you can also buy them cheaper from someone that bought a kit (camera + lens) and is selling off the lens

great lens, work horse i use most of the time.

but agree with the above, if you have a 2.8 17-50, not sure you one unless you want the extra reach the 105 gives.
 
D.P. said:
Seems pretty pointless if you ask me. As above, get one of the 70-200mm lenses if you want so ething longer. Don't see you would ever use a 24-105mm f/4 if you have a 17-50mm f/2.8.
Click to expand...



I have a tamron 70mm - 300.

Just thought the 24-105 walk be a good lens for general walking around with.

thanks for advice :)
 
Admiral Huddy said:
I have a tamron 70mm - 300.

Just thought the 24-105 walk be a good lens for general walking around with.

thanks for advice :)
Click to expand...

Except it starts at 24mm and is only f/4.0 cf your current lens. You already have a 17-50mm f/2.8 which is a much better walkabout lens for a crop camera, more usable focal range and a stop faster. I don't see you would ever want to use a 24-105 when you have a 17-50 that has twice the aperture?

The difference between 50mm and 105mm is pretty meaningless (typically easy to get closer, or you can simply crop), the difference between 17mm and 24mm is huge: often you can't walk further away (either backed against a wall or you would need to walk several miles backwards) and you certainly can't crop wider, let alone the fact that the field of view difference between 17mm and 24mm is huge, while 50-105mm makes much less impact on a photo. Furthermore the Tamron is letting in twice the light or will give a much shallower DoF for portraits. I just see absolutely no logic here.

If you want something longer than the 17-50mm have you thought about just getting the 85mm f/1.8 prime lens? You get a nice fast prime, 2 & 1/3rd stops faster than the 24-105mm. Otherwise if you are looking for a walkabout lens the Canon 15-85mm would be much more versatile on crop body and would compliment the 17-50mm well (choose the 17-50 when you need speed, the 15-85 when you want wider and longer in good light)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice D.P. I understand exactly what you are saying. Sometimes i find the limit 50mm but restrictive. I know it's not a lot having a lens without much swapping seems ideal.

I need to think about my next year, when my course concentrates more on portraits. I've been told that 85-105 is the sweet-spot for such genre.
 
Admiral Huddy said:
Thanks for the advice D.P. I understand exactly what you are saying. Sometimes i find the limit 50mm but restrictive. I know it's not a lot having a lens without much swapping seems ideal.

I need to think about my next year, when my course concentrates more on portraits. I've been told that 85-105 is the sweet-spot for such genre.
Click to expand...

Depending on what you shoot the 24-105 would be too long for many things.
If you are walking around a city taking photos of the architecture or cityscape then 24mm wont be wide enough. You don't need to go super wide but 24mm will be the FF equivalent of 38.4mm used on a canon crop body which is actually really a "normal" prime (normal refers to similar field of view to the human eye which has a central high resolution area of around 42mm FF equivalent so 24mm is very close to that used on crop).


If you are going to be shooting portraits then the 24-105 is really not going to be the best tool. yep, 85-105mm is the sweet spot, but that is in FF focal length so on a crop you want lenses in the 50-65mm range. You also want a faster aperture than f/4.0. So you basically already have that with the Tamron used at the long end, an 80mm f/2.8 FF equivalent lens.

If you are looking for a dedicated portrait lens then look at the 50mm prime lenses (canon or sigma f/1.8 or f/1.4), the Tamron 60mm f/2.0 macro (nice because you get a perfect focal length and a great macro lens in one) or an 85mm f/1.8 prime - but the 85mm prime will be too long except for a head and should shot.

Anyway, the 24-105mm is not really what you want for a portrait lens.
 
These are on auction sites for £439 brand new (separated from 6D/5D kits). If you already have 17-50 on a crop sensor though it doesn't seem necessary to get this. But I do love the red ring :p

Huddy - 85mm f1.8 is meant to be lovely (as DP said) so could work for your course needs :)
 
The classical, as in the standard shoulder to head portraits are done around 85 to 135mm. You can of course do portraits as wide as 50, 35, 24mm or even wider but of course with that comes with distortion and that's where the art comes in.

What I find really useful is get a copy of vogue and flick through it and look at the adverts for clothes. They are normally done by photographers at the top of their game. It will give you ideas on poses, composition, lighting and if you can spot it, the focal length that was used.

I can't say I have ever found the urge need to get out a 100mm lens in order to do a headshot portrait if I had a 85mm in my hand. The 85mm is where I like it to be. In fact, I quite like the effect on 35 and 50mm too. But it really ought to depend what you want to do.

This is the key here, if you can help it, get the tools that do what you want to do, not let your tools limit what you can do.

The latter is a important skill to have when you are pushed into a corner, sometimes it can work to your advantage and get shots out of the box but generally speaking, the former is where you want to be.

I personally never understood the need for the 24-105/4.0. To me it is almost a glorified kit lens, it has kit lens aperture and it's not as sharp as the 24-70/2.8. People say it has IS but for that focal length, IS is not a must have, it's merely a nice to have feature. I'd take a stop of light every time too. The only only time I would thinking of getting one is if I am outside all day long shooting nothing but architectual shots on the street with the odd street shot in between. But to be honest, if I were doing that, I'd pick the 17 or 24mm TS/E over that too (if price is not a consideration) for the architecture and then something like a 50/1.8 even for the street. Although F/4 is bright enough in daylight, I just don't think it gives enough subject to background separation to make a photo really pop.

DP is right with regard to the difference between 17-24 and 50-105. And most of the time you can always move forward, stepping back is often much harder.

Given the choice, I'd get a 17-50/2.8 and a 85/1.8 for about £500 over a 24-105/f/4 all day long.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice guys. My initial gut feeling was that tthe f4 was a bit ideal and indeed as you say a gloried kit lens. I guess I was taken by the fact this is an L type lens for the price so thanks for saving.

I'll certainly look at the 85 1.8
 
re it not being wide, depends on your body .. on a full frame 24 is quite wide

aperture depends on what you want. i have primes with 1.4/ 1.8 for when i need that

the 85 1.8 is a great lens

but i still love my 24-105 for a day to day workhorse
 
Last edited:
What are you going to use your lenses for ? What kind of images do you take ? What images do you take 80% of the time ? Answer those and you'll know which lens you want.
I'm an All round Photog. Own a Canon 7D + 400mm f5.6 (for birding) a Sigma 150mm for Macro. A 17-70mm for Everything else. A 70-200 "L" for Red Kites. Worked Great. I bought a Canon 5DmkIII for xmas & a 24-105mm f4 after xmas. That 24-105 is a SHARP lens. Don't under estimate it. No need for an 85mm for portraits. Loads of Portrait photogs use the 24-105 set to 80mm and they use the 70-200 as well. I'm after the 17-40mm f4 for Wide Angle Landscapes. The 24-105 will stay on 5D3 95% of time..
So the 24-105mm is a Very Good All round lens even if it is f4..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom