# Canon 24-105 F/4L



## MagnumJoe (Mar 26, 2013)

I currently have a T3i with the kit lens, a Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM that I'm selling. I will be buying the Canon 6D with the 24-105 f/4L In your opinion will I be able to get low light shots with the 24-105 f/4L on the 6D, as I have with the Sigma f/2.8 on my T3i?


----------



## rizenphoenix (Mar 26, 2013)

MagnumJoe said:


> I currently have a T3i with the kit lens, a Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM that I'm selling. I will be buying the Canon 6D with the 24-105 f/4L In your opinion will I be able to get low light shots with the 24-105 f/4L on the 6D, as I have with the Sigma f/2.8 on my T3i?



Yes, all you will need to do is shoot at one stop higher iso. IE, if you are shooting f2.8 on the t3i/sigma combo at iso400 you can get the same shot with f4 on the 6D/24-105L combo at iso800. The DOF will be will be pretty close as well. The big plus being the 6D will have a lot less noise even shooting at one stop higher ISO then the t3i.


----------



## rpt (Mar 26, 2013)

rizenphoenix said:


> MagnumJoe said:
> 
> 
> > I currently have a T3i with the kit lens, a Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM that I'm selling. I will be buying the Canon 6D with the 24-105 f/4L In your opinion will I be able to get low light shots with the 24-105 f/4L on the 6D, as I have with the Sigma f/2.8 on my T3i?
> ...


+1

You should be able to shoot up to 6400 ISO without a problem. I have a 5D3 - not a 6D but I am sure you can get good shots at that ISO too. I have got reasonable shots in poor light at 12800 and 25600 too.


----------



## rogrwo (Mar 26, 2013)

I have a t2i with the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and a 5Dmark3 with the 24-105 f4.

I find that the 5D with kit lens combo much better at low light even with the loss in aperture. You can go really high in ISO. Plus you can further push the exposure in Lightroom much better with the 5D files.

I also find it much easier to achieve bokeh with the 5D combo as well.


----------



## MagnumJoe (Mar 26, 2013)

rpt said:


> rizenphoenix said:
> 
> 
> > MagnumJoe said:
> ...



I love this forum, friendly people and quick response. Would either of you have any low light shots available? Again thank you for your replies.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 26, 2013)

By now you'd think I'd remember who it is who regularly makes the point...neuro, maybe?...but, anyway, the 24-105 on full frame is better in every single specification than any f/2.8 standard zoom on APS-C. It's wider and longer, for starters, and you can get a shallower depth of field with it, and you even get less noise with the same exposure (meaning a higher ISO to compensate for the "loss" of a stop) to boot.

If you like your f/2.8 standard zoom on APS-C, you'll love the 24-105 on 135 format.

I'm not big on standard zooms, myself...but I keep thinking from time to time that maybe one of the alternatives might be worth considering, and very quickly come right back to concluding that the 24-105 is the best for me. The Tamron has IS, sure, and an extra stop, but it doesn't have 70-105. And the Canon 24-70 II doesn't have IS _or_ the extra range, even if its image quality is better...and it's stupidly expensive. The 24-105 isn't at all a slouch in the IQ department; quite the contrary -- it's better than the original 24-70, just not as fast.

In short, it's the most versatile standard zoom there is, with great image quality. Each of the others beats it in one metric, sure, but it beats them in two or three other metrics.

Which is why it'll remain my standard zoom for the foreseeable future. Like, say...until Canon releases the TS-E 12-1200 f/1.0L DO AF for $999.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Etienne (Mar 26, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> By now you'd think I'd remember who it is who regularly makes the point...neuro, maybe?...but, anyway, the 24-105 on full frame is better in every single specification than any f/2.8 standard zoom on APS-C. It's wider and longer, for starters, and you can get a shallower depth of field with it, and you even get less noise with the same exposure (meaning a higher ISO to compensate for the "loss" of a stop) to boot.
> 
> If you like your f/2.8 standard zoom on APS-C, you'll love the 24-105 on 135 format.
> 
> ...



I owned the canon 17-55 2.8 IS before upgrading to FF.
That lens was awesome on my 40D.
Fast focus, great IS, Sharp and contrasty
Best normal lens for Crop


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2013)

@ TrumpetPower - yes, me. 

Low light shot with an f/4 lens:






EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II, 1/160 s, f/4, *ISO 10000*


----------



## Kit. (Mar 26, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Like, say...until Canon releases the TS-E 12-1200 f/1.0L DO AF


Yep, because tilting a 1.2m-wide front lens for a 12mm shot is such fun :


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ TrumpetPower - yes, me.
> 
> Low light shot with an f/4 lens:
> 
> EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II, 1/160 s, f/4, *ISO 10000*



Nice shot!

And, the specs...the thought of hand-holding a 600mm lens at 1/160 second is insane, as is ISO 10K. I'd call you a liar...except that, just playing around, I've gotten motion-free shots with the 400 f2.8 in the tenth of a second range, and I don't worry much about taking the 5DIII to ISO 12,800....

What an amazing photographic world we live in!



Kit. said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Like, say...until Canon releases the TS-E 12-1200 f/1.0L DO AF
> ...



Oh, but that's what the pony is for!

But seriously, though...this lens doesn't just extend and contract lengthwise when zooming, but its girth also expands and shrinks. At 12mm and when it's in your bag, it's no bigger than the Shorty McForty. Sure, fully zoomed, the front objective is almost as big as the Perkins Telescope at Lowell Observatory -- but, even then, it still only weighs four pounds -- barely more than a gripped 5DIII -- so it's not at all a problem to handhold.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## rpt (Mar 26, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> But seriously, though...this lens doesn't just extend and contract lengthwise when zooming, but its girth also expands and shrinks. At 12mm and when it's in your bag, it's no bigger than the Shorty McForty. Sure, fully zoomed, the front objective is almost as big as the Perkins Telescope at Lowell Observatory -- but, even then, it still only weighs four pounds -- barely more than a gripped 5DIII -- so it's not at all a problem to handhold.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> b&


You are posting on the wrong thread! You should be posting on the one that talked about the future of photography in 20 or 30 years


----------



## PhotographerJim (Mar 26, 2013)

MagnumJoe said:


> I currently have a T3i with the kit lens, a Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM that I'm selling. I will be buying the Canon 6D with the 24-105 f/4L In your opinion will I be able to get low light shots with the 24-105 f/4L on the 6D, as I have with the Sigma f/2.8 on my T3i?



I bought the 6D with the 24-105L, fantastic kit! Works quite well in low light, I've been able to get some great shots.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ TrumpetPower - yes, me.
> 
> Low light shot with an f/4 lens:
> 
> ...





That's remarkable; and there are those howling that Canon are behind the curve ..... :


----------



## MagnumJoe (Mar 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ TrumpetPower - yes, me.
> 
> Low light shot with an f/4 lens:
> 
> ...



Thanks you all for your help, your replies and comments. A special thanks to TrumpetPower and Neuroanatomist for their inputs and awesome photo. 

I wanted to update you on my post/status, I've was able to sell my Sigma 17-50mm today for 515.00, I really liked that lens on my T3i. However, I'm very excited about upgrading to a Canon 6d and the 24-105 f/4 and the lenses I already own the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 without OS. 

However, after reading your inputs, seeing the photo and knowing what a full frame can do at f/4. I'm now considering selling the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and replacing it with a Canon 70-200mm f/4 with IS. 

Your thoughts?
Would you sell the Sigma f/2.8 to purchase a Canon f/4 with IS?


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 27, 2013)

as i've said before if you are happy with the 18MP crop sensor image quality at 1600 iso then you will be fine with a 5Dmk3 at 16,000 iso would imagine the 6D would be pretty similar


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 27, 2013)

MagnumJoe said:


> However, after reading your inputs, seeing the photo and knowing what a full frame can do at f/4. I'm now considering selling the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and replacing it with a Canon 70-200mm f/4 with IS.
> 
> Your thoughts?
> Would you sell the Sigma f/2.8 to purchase a Canon f/4 with IS?



What do you use the 70-200 for?

If landscapes, the Canon f/4 non-IS is perhaps the best choice, with the IS model being a good alternative if you tend to eschew tripods.

If sports, all you care about is speed, so f/4 anything is generally a poor choice.

If weddings, IS isn't going to stop people from moving at slow shutter speeds, so you again want as much speed as you can get in addition to IS.

Horses for courses and all that....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RGF (Mar 27, 2013)

rizenphoenix said:


> MagnumJoe said:
> 
> 
> > I currently have a T3i with the kit lens, a Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM that I'm selling. I will be buying the Canon 6D with the 24-105 f/4L In your opinion will I be able to get low light shots with the 24-105 f/4L on the 6D, as I have with the Sigma f/2.8 on my T3i?
> ...



Not familar with the sigma, is it IS? If not, another advantage to the 24-105. My favorite walk around lens.


----------



## MagnumJoe (Mar 28, 2013)

I wanted to thank everyone again for their inputs, I'm happy to share with you, that I've place the order and I should have the 6d with the 24-104 f/4L lens Friday.


----------



## RichM (Mar 28, 2013)

MagnumJoe said:


> I wanted to thank everyone again for their inputs, I'm happy to share with you, that I've place the order and I should have the 6d with the 24-104 f/4L lens Friday.



Congrats! you won't be disappointed. I'm on my second 24-105, not because there was any problem, but rather that I sold the first one for more than the difference between a 5d3 body and a 5d3 kit.


----------



## gary (Mar 29, 2013)

I acquired the 24-105 as the kit lens with the 5d3, I didn't really want it but I needed the camera for a wedding. I loved that lens right up until my wife stole if from me for her camera. Its a remarkable lens, take it you won't regret it.


----------



## RGF (Mar 29, 2013)

MagnumJoe said:


> I wanted to thank everyone again for their inputs, I'm happy to share with you, that I've place the order and I should have the 6d with the 24-104 f/4L lens Friday.



Enjoy the lens. I have been using it for years and it is my favorite walk around lens.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 29, 2013)

RichM said:


> I'm on my second 24-105, not because there was any problem, but rather that I sold the first one for more than the difference between a 5d3 body and a 5d3 kit.



Geez, I wish I had thought of doing that when I bought my 5D3 in December. I've had my 24-105 for 7+ years, and even though it still takes great shots, it suffers from zoom creep, which I haven't been able to remedy.


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 29, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> RichM said:
> 
> 
> > I'm on my second 24-105, not because there was any problem, but rather that I sold the first one for more than the difference between a 5d3 body and a 5d3 kit.
> ...



Black insulation tape, round the extending barrel part. Put it at the end of the barrel that will keep the barrel in its retracted position, when you retract it.

Mine's been working just great like this for a while now.

Naysayers and doomcasters will warn you that this remedy will kill the lens, murder your wife, and be rude to your aunties.

Rubbish. It's a simple, easy, common-sense fix, and carefully-done, looks just fine too.


----------



## TexinAfrica (Mar 30, 2013)

Which is why it'll remain my standard zoom for the foreseeable future. Like, say...until Canon releases the TS-E 12-1200 f/1.0L DO AF for $999.

12-1200 f/1 is a great idea. Perhaps they could get it to the $999 price by just sending us all the parts and we assemble it ourselves.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 30, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> as i've said before if you are happy with the 18MP crop sensor image quality at 1600 iso then you will be fine with a 5Dmk3 at 16,000 iso would imagine the 6D would be pretty similar


+1


----------



## extremeinstability (Mar 30, 2013)

Just added the 6D and 24-105 2 days ago and first shot with it yesterday. I keep trying to talk myself into selling the lens but I can't come up with a better alternative. I'll have the 21 Zeiss on the 6D and this lens will be on the 5D II at the same time(figure it'd be best to run two bodies for the rare times a tornado is passing close by and no time to switch lenses lol). The wide shot will be happy with the Zeiss, like a lot happy as it is amazing. I'm having a fit in my head if I need the zoom or not for the second body and not just a 50 or 85 prime. The thing is, at 50mm the 24-105 at F4 is dam similar to a Sigma 50 at F4. But yeah not at F2 : . The good thing is 24mm is clearly its weak end but by quite a lot. Need to see just where that gets better between there and 50mm. 35-90mm might be really damn "happy" with that lens and that would be great.

I'm a little shocked just how bad the color fringing is though. Sure it can easily be removed but it sure isn't helping things. Vignetting wouldn't be as annoying if it wasn't such a sharp change and was spread out a bit more. For sure that would be a very damn fine lens on a crop body. And even full it seems pretty darn happy inside 24mm and to a lesser degree also inside 105mm. Edges are a billion times better than the 17-40 ever was anyway so there's that lol. 

I've gotten rather picky over the last few years(even when I already know it doesn't matter for the image and old original rebel kit lens images will still be selling over everything else, making the point all the more lol). Anyway, as anal as I've gotten, even on full frame the 24-105 is trying its ass off to get me to keep it and use it. 24-70 F4 sounds like its weakness is in the middle. Screw that then. 24-70 F2.8 I may as well just go 50mm since there will be a 21mm on another body anyway. 

I hope you got a good deal on it. It was $2330 or something like that from Amazon, which if one then wants to sell the 24-105 anyway, for like $800, then the body was only $1500. I think Canon's rebate deal ends today on things.


----------



## daniemare (Mar 30, 2013)

MagnumJoe said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @ TrumpetPower - yes, me.
> ...



I had your exact situation (well almost). I had a T1i and the 17-50 Sigma. Loved that combo. I was also worried about going from f2.8 to the F4 of the 24-105 that would come with the new 6D. Well I am pleased to report that the only thing I miss from the Sigma is the lens lock. From a versatility point and exposure point the 24-105 is just better on the 6D.


----------



## Mort (Jul 9, 2013)

I know it's been a while, but I thought I'd drop a line anyways.

I've played with the 24-105 just on my T2i and compared it to my 28-135 and the difference was noticeably significant. I'm also buying the 6d with the 24-105 cause I don't have the funds for the 5d and I need a good lens to go along with the camera. 

Oh and just as a side note, for lens creep, I use just a regular silicone rubber band. I actually use a school one and everyone who isn't a photo geek asks me if I work for the school photo department


----------



## Upsman6 (Jul 11, 2013)

Hello....new to forum and can't stop reading...just wondering if this lens works on a 3ti ? Thanks


----------



## Upsman6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Maybe I should rephrase my question. Is the 24-105 going to work on a 3ti or is it made for a ff canon ? Finally retired and would like to shoot with better lens than the kit lens camera came with...Any help would be appreciated !


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 12, 2013)

Upsman6 said:


> Maybe I should rephrase my question. Is the 24-105 going to work on a 3ti or is it made for a ff canon ? Finally retired and would like to shoot with better lens than the kit lens camera came with...Any help would be appreciated !



What kit lens did your camera come with?

All Canon full-frame lenses work fine with crop-body cameras. Of course, its field of view won't be nearly as wide on a crop body as on a full frame, so depending on how much you shoot wide angle shots, you might be find yourself preferring its crop-body equivalent, the EF-S 15-85. Alternatively, you might consider pairing the 24-105L with an EF-S 10-22 for when you want to shoot wide.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 12, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Upsman6 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I should rephrase my question. Is the 24-105 going to work on a 3ti or is it made for a ff canon ? Finally retired and would like to shoot with better lens than the kit lens camera came with...Any help would be appreciated !
> ...



+1

The 24-105 is a great lens, but I found it to not be wide enough as a general purpose zoom on my 7D (equivalent full frame focal length = 38mm to 168mm). The EF-S 15-85mm is similar in image quality to the 24-105 and gives a more useful focal length range for a crop body (like your T3i).

In my experience, the EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 and EF-S 17-55 f2.8 are the best general purpose lenses for crop body cameras. The 17-55 being preferred if you need a faster lens for low light photography. The 15-85 has better focal range, but a smaller aperture - great for landscape and outdoor photography, but its requires flash for low light or indoor use.


----------



## Upsman6 (Jul 13, 2013)

Thanks for the helpful replies.....I see I have some researching to do....like both choices....the lens kit came with the EF-S 18-55 IS. Have an older 28-135 lens friend gave me...use camera for vacations, beach, mostly outdoors...just starting out and can't wait to discover what camera is capable of...thanks again


----------



## mwh1964 (Jul 13, 2013)

The L lens will perform better than what you have already. For what you will use it for, I think it's a very capable lens that will satisfy your expectations. Good luck


----------



## t.light (Jul 13, 2013)

Besides the better focal range on Crop the image stabilizer of the 15-85 outperforms the 24-105L IS.


----------

