CanonEF 24-105mm f/4 L is USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras

Despite all the technical metrics, the real measure of a lens boils down to the subjective question: does it take good photos? The EF 24-105L not only takes good photos, it takes beautiful ones, notably nicer than several other well-regarded lenses in the same price range.As an avid amateur, I don't make a living from my camera, but the results matter a great deal to me. After reading every review I could find, I bought three well-regarded lenses to try on my Canon Rebel T1i. This EF24-105L, the new Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM UD, and the very-well reviewed Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Both of the EF-S lenses are newer models than the EF 24-105L and are designed for cropped-sensor cameras.The short: The 24-105 turned out warmer, more beautiful photos in both indoor and outdoor usage, capturing vibrant, accurate colors. The IS works well and is much quieter than the newer IS in the Canon EF-S 17-55mm. While some sort of external stabilization is necessary, it works reasonably well for low-light photography. And the colors...grasses are green, skin tones look healthy, my cat's fur gleams, and every color pops. The best results of any lens I've tried on my Canon DSLR so far.On my cropped-sensor camera, there's very little visible fall-off in sharpness at max aperture of f/4 (although there is some softness); never enough that I found myself dialing down the aperture for that reason.As for the other lenses, I really wanted to like the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, but it seemed to take unusually few "keepers" in similar shooting situations to the EF24-105L. The captured colors were a little cooler, and the IS comparatively very loud (audible without putting your ear to the lens). All of this was enough to offset the wider-angle and the bigger aperture, so back it went (at the thousand-buck mark, I want my glass to impress me!).The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM UD was solid all-around but without the oomph I'd expect for 80% of the price of the EF24-105L. It's lighter-weight and has a wider angle, and the IS is a newer generation, but pictures were less rich and didn't pop the way the 24-105L's do. A great walk-around lens if I didn't have the direct comparison to the 24-105L, but only worthwhile if the price difference (or few ounces weight-difference) is make-or-break. I kept this one as a backup (or for travel), but find I never want to swap it in place of the 24-105L.I also considered the well-reviewed Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, but its lack of IS and much greater weight turned me away since much of my usage is handheld.And since the EF24-105 is an L series, Canon includes a lens-hood and a structured storage bag, both nice quality.The cons are what you'd expect: it's a large, heavy, expensive lens, with only a maximum aperture of f/4. It's big enough to draw comments when you take it out in casual settings. But, it's much lighter than other L lenses, and only few ounces heavier than EF-S lenses I tried. The aperture is a limiting factor in low-light photography (tripod or flash or other method required, even with the IS), but the results are consistently very good when properly stabilized. I've used it in a number of bars and other low-light situations.The EF 24-105L has pretty constantly stayed on my camera since I've had it, turning into my walk-around lens, my portrait lens, my landscape lens.Very well worth its price. Highly recommended.

When I bought this lens two years ago, I agonized over the non-IS 24-70mm/2.8 and the digital only 17-55mm.The 17-55mm almost had me, with its wide angle, light weight, and amazing image quality. However, I couldn't get past the dust issues that users were reporting with it - not at its price point. Furthermore, the lens is digital only, which seemed a major limitation if I ever went full frame. (Of course, the FF dream seems rather out of reach in hindsight.)I even tried the amazingly priced Tamron 17-50mm/2.8, but the build and image quality compromises were too much for me.The real challenge therefore came down to the 24-70/2.8. Judging by my informal survey of lenses used by photographers on Popular Photography, the 24-70 was a clear choice. However, two things worked against it for me. It was much heavier than I thought I would be able to handle for a full day, and the extra speed would very likely be offset by this weight compounded by a lack of IS. I'd be sacrificing sharpness due to camera shake, especially when hand-holding this lens without the assistance of IS.The 24-105mm/f4 seemed the best compromise. I was told by my professional photographer friends that I'd not even notice the trade off of image quality and that I'd come to appreciate the versatility of this lens. Thankfully they were right.I absolutely love this lens. Even with the 1.6x crop factor, this lens is wide enough for indoor shots, and the IS has been undeniably helpful. The images are sharp, with awesome colors. They have an almost 3-D like quality about them! Throw in my Speedlite 580, and the f4 is no longer as limiting as it would seem. I've never complained about its weight even after carrying it around for days. Its build quality is simply amazing - it is literally built like a tank and its zoom and focus rings are smoother than ever.If you're starting out in digital photography, I'd strongly recommend that you ditch the kit lens as soon as you can, and start off with the 50mm/1.8 prime (the nifty fifty), this 24-105mm/f4, and a Speedlite 580. This combination not only provides the best bang for the buck but also provides the best all-round kit.Side note: I am of the camp that believes that the lens is more important than the camera. I'd rather get an average camera and spend extra on the optics than the other way around. This lens actually made me a better photographer, and I'm grateful to it.Happy Clicking!