Electronics : Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens

Rating: - Stunning walkaround lens
I bought this lens in a pack with the canon 5d body and what a pair they make!

This lens was designed for the 5d and was released at the same time. With the 5d being full frame you get the full 24mm at the wide end which is great and it goes all the way to 105mm with no croping/zoom factor typical of crop sensors...If you're using it on a 1.6 crop body you'll get say 39 - 168mm, not exactly wide but it has a handy zoom.

The lens is very well built and all the control rings are very smooth. Both rings sport rubber grips that are comfortable and easy to hold. There's a switch to turn off the IS and also one for the AF system. There's a window on the lens barrel giving distance information. The lens feels substantial and is quite chunky - I like it, it feels solid.

As a walkaround lens you really couldn't ask for much more. You have real wide angle at the botom end (24mm) and every usable focal length in between right up to 105mm. As a portrait lens it's superb giving you 50mm, 85mm and 105mm all in one. Now I know certain fixed focals will be better but for versatility and image quality this lens is excellent value. Colours are crisp and sharpness is really excellent. Detail again is really superb. Things can be sharpened up at the extremes a touch by stopping down a bit but the images are great either way. The lens produces a beautiful background blur too, very, very smooth - again excellent for portraits. The lens does extend about 1/3 of its length when zooming - this may factor into it for some folks making a choice.

Anyone taking a serious look at this lens knows a zoom lens is always a compromise but with this you won't necessarily feel compromised - it really delivers the goods across the range and it saves changing lenses.

A lot of folks looking at this lens are probably looking at the 24-70 L because it has a faster max aperture of f2.8. The 24-105 does however have image stabilisation which will help you get shots in low light you otherwise couldn't with a lens of f4 max aperture like the 24-105. The choice is this - take the faster 2.8 with no IS and less overall range on the zoom OR take this with it's slower max aperture, IS and extra 35mm zoom range. It really is swings and roundabouts especially if you own a 70-200 as well because you won't miss the 35mm extra. I've never owned the 24-70 but a lot of folks online seem to think it has the edge on image quality over the 24-105, but that's all it'll be - the slightest edge that mere mortals such as you and me will probably not notice unless a picture is enlarged to 8 foot square. I can't honestly see anyone being disappointed with this very versatile lens.

Being an L lens it comes with a soft carry pouch and a hood. It takes 77mm filters.

Highly recommended.

---

Rating: - Top notch
I got this to go with a 400D, and I've got no regrets. It's sharp, solidly built and provides great images. It is quite heavy, but not so much that I've considered to an effort to carry, and it has (as I'd hoped) become my default 'walking around' lens.

I did consider using the 24-70 F2.8, but decided (eventually) that the extra money, weight and reduced focal range outweighed the benefits of F2.8 and I've no regrets with that decision.

There were problems with early models of this lens not providing sharp images under some circumstances, but those have been fixed, and new lenses shouldn't be affected. Check the Canon WEB site for more information on the problem.

---

Rating: - This one... or the 24-70?
...and that is the point, I guess.
It's cheaper (slightly), lighter (quite) and with IS, whereas you stop at f4 instead of f2.8.

I've tried both lenses and, in the end, bought the 24-70 2.8. Why? Let's see... With the 24-105 f4:
PROS: at 24-105 you get slightly more versatility with the lens, a fact I waived because I've got the 70-200, (the "cheap" f4) and don't mind changing the lenses. And it's lighter, and cheaper, etc, etc...
And there is the IS, which is handy... on unmoving objects.

CONS: It's not 2.8. And the image quality is... well, I won't go there, because of all the reviews I've read, it can go both ways. But I was more convinced with the 2.8. And it's heftier, feels more rugged (stupid, really, becuase both of them are L grade lenses, but there it is), and it's 2.8 (did I mention that already?) so...

Perhaps it's not right to review one lens comparing it -and recommending- another. ut I feel that when you want to buy a lens like this one, you have to consider the two contenders.

It IS a great lens. I just went the other way.