# Looking for EF 24-105 f4L aftermarket replacement...



## Richard8971 (Jun 7, 2012)

I have several lenses in my collection but no medium wide angle zooms. I own crop sensor cameras as well as FF so I want to stay away from EF-s lenses. My lens of choice would be the EF 24-105 f4L IS but it's a little pricy for the little amount of times I would need a wide angle zoom. I also want a better quality (build and image-wise) than the EF 28-135 IS USM lens.

Any aftermarket alternatives that would be affordable and would produce good image quality? IS is welcome but I could overlook it if the image quality was worth not having IS for the same price.

Thanks.

D


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 7, 2012)

Well, on an APS-C, the 24-105 & 28-135 won't exactly be wide.

For a normal Zoom, it'll generally be the 24-105 or 28-135 or 24-70. I'd go for the 24-105 if I were you.


----------



## pwp (Jun 7, 2012)

How about a pre-owned 24-105? Their L build quality means that most examples will be as good as gold.

PW


----------



## RunAndGun (Jun 7, 2012)

You can probably find a 24-105L for a good price right now since a lot of people(myself included) bought 5DMKIII kits (since the body alone was so hard to get initially), but already have an existing 24-105.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jun 8, 2012)

LOL ???

So... there are no Tamron lenses (in the range I specified) or other manufacturers that make lenses that are very good in the price range of $400.00 ~ $600.00? Better than a "kit" lens but not exactly "L" class either?

I know I can get a used 24-105 for about $900.00 but that's not what I am looking for.

And I also know 24-105 is not all that "wide" on a APS-C camera BUT I also own FF. (sigh)

Any ideas from someone who owns a non-Canon medium wide angle zoom lens?

D


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 8, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> LOL ???
> 
> So... there are no Tamron lenses (in the range I specified) or other manufacturers that make lenses that are very good in the price range of $400.00 ~ $600.00? Better than a "kit" lens but not exactly "L" class either?
> 
> ...



there is an old tamron 28-105 f2.8 but from all accounts its so soft wide open you may as well tape a marshmallow over a kit lens as that would be less soft 
http://www.photopurity.com/2010/08/18/tamron-28-105-f2-8-lens-review/

i'm not a fan of tamron gear

900 is steep for a used 24-105 they ususally go for 800 sometimes less


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 8, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> I have several lenses in my collection but no medium wide angle zooms. I own crop sensor cameras as well as FF so I want to stay away from EF-s lenses. My lens of choice would be the EF 24-105 f4L IS but it's a little pricy for the little amount of times I would need a wide angle zoom. I also want a better quality (build and image-wise) than the EF 28-135 IS USM lens.
> 
> Any aftermarket alternatives that would be affordable and would produce good image quality? IS is welcome but I could overlook it if the image quality was worth not having IS for the same price


 
The now discontinued Tamron 24-135mm lens can be had on ebay for a low price. It might be a tad better than the 28-135mm IS, but IS can save a image if there is camera motion and light is low.

Its really tough to beat the 24-105mm L for the price, used ones are found for under $800.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 8, 2012)

I've read a bit that the Tamron 24-70 is getting some good buzz. Haven't really gone looking for any real reviews, just a few people have posted here on the forums. Don't know what the price is though.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

17-40 + 85 f/1.8 might be another way to approach it


----------



## iaind (Jun 11, 2012)

If price is an issue there are white box lenses(split from kit) out there.


----------



## MK5GTI (Jun 12, 2012)

i am on the same boat, want a walk around lens, used to own the 28-135 IS, but can't afford the 24-105L.

and always hope either Tamron or Sigma will produce a 24-105/ 24-120 F4 for various mounts.

I am sure there is a market for this kind of lens, Nikon release their 24-120 F4 last year or so, but its heavier than the Canon, Sony and Pentax user can also benefit if either Tamron/Sigma make one. aim it ~$600USD street price


----------



## SteenerMe (Jun 13, 2012)

The old adage applys here. You cant get champagne on a beer budget. Simply put you get what you pay for. If 800 for an L lena ia too much then either save up or be disappointed in a cheap wannabe lens. The 24-105 is simply great. I shoot with it way more than the pricier 24-70. If i dont need 2.8 ill use it everytime over the 24-70.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 13, 2012)

SteenerMe said:


> The old adage applys here. You cant get champagne on a beer budget. Simply put you get what you pay for. If 800 for an L lena ia too much then either save up or be disappointed in a cheap wannabe lens. The 24-105 is simply great. I shoot with it way more than the pricier 24-70. If i dont need 2.8 ill use it everytime over the 24-70.



Totally agree.

My first Ls were the 24-105 and 135 and I still use them most weeks. They will be in my bag this morning for a modelling session. I bought them both used, making them not much more than aftermarket alternatives new.

4 years of use and counting for about $1k for thousands of great pictures. Dread to think of the number of weddings and the like they have done.


----------



## Fr00ky (Jun 14, 2012)

If I were you I would stick to 18-135 and 28-135 and save up tell I can buy the 24-105


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 14, 2012)

Sure you can pick up a siggy or tamron or such... but you have sample to sample variations and in the end, really for lenses in this range, save up even if it takes more than anticipated and get the 24-105... you really cant go wrong there but you CAN go wrong going cheap with other lenses tho.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 14, 2012)

While I don't think anything else compares to L glass, in terms of both optics and construction, you might consider Canon non-L lenses from the recent past. 
While my experience, too, found the 28-135 IS a little wanting (with use, I noticed too much play in the barrel, especially when zoomed out to the long end, so the lens was never sharp). 
But, a couple other lenses that cover close to the range of 24-105 gave me better results. Both the 24-85 and 28-105 are capable performers, especially considering their price on the used market (though I would want to test to make sure you have a good copy). While they don't offer IS, and their maximum aperture drops from f:3.5 to 4.5 at the long end, I've had more than adequate results. 
No, they don't quite measure up to the build and optical performance of the 24-105 L, but, at a small fraction of the price, might work well for your use.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 14, 2012)

Just for the sake of curiosity, I browsed around for good CURRENT 3rd party lenses for Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma... Sigma had a 24-70 2.8 listed on adorama for 824. However looking at the MTF it is CLOSE but falls slightly short of the 24-105, AND, people on the reviews saying some were sharp, some had to send to sigma multiple times to be calibrated, one even going as far as saying it's a paperweight. For an extra few hundred, the 24-105 smells like a rose... Plus the sigma likely doesn't have the same construction and such... Then you have Tamroms version of the 24-70... on adorama it's listed for more money than the 24-105 at $1299... The 24-105 is listed at 1150 new... There's one published review so far, 3 others that are unpublished or so it seems. There are older lenses and other 3rd party lenses but reliability, warranty, and finding a good one could be even harder.... Those are your options... you get what you pay for. 

Tokina, whom I think typically construction wise best rival L lenses, dont have a general purpose lens that zooms beyond 50 and all lenses are optimized for aps-c cameras.


----------



## jasonsim (Jun 14, 2012)

I would save yourself lots of time and pain sending a Sigma or Tamron in for adjustments or sending it back for refunds etc. I've been there and done that. I ended up with a 24-105mm L that I found used and like new for around 800. You can find one at that price these days. 

You have not mentioned what other lenses you do have. Perhaps you would be better suited with a Canon 50mm f/1.4, if you already have a super wide and a telephoto zoom such as a 70-200mm. 

If you need a zoom and cannot swing for the 24-105 L, I would recommend getting a 28-135mm used fir around $250 and the get Nik Software's Sharpener plugin. That might hold you over.


----------



## dstppy (Jun 14, 2012)

I'm with everyone else in that there's no real 'cheap 24-105'.

Honestly, I think this lens would retail for $1400+ if it came out today and didn't have the benefit of being a high-volume kit lens.

Look at the good non-L zoom lenses, they're basically the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM -- neither have a low price tag, and those are EF-S (you mentioned wanting FF as well).

Look at the desirable non-Canon zooms, you have the ultra-wides, which are both non-ef AND not that cheap, and then there's that new Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD, which looks awesome, but we're back at high price.

Honestly, for the range you're not going to find a better deal.

Now, people have mentioned primes, which I'm more and more warming up to as I get better at photography, better images at around half the price. Do you have access to a possibly loaner 24-105 that you can narrow down what FOV you would favor?


----------



## SpareImp (Jun 14, 2012)

I had a EF 24-105mm f/4L on my 5D Mark II, but wasn't happy with the image quality. I had to stop it down to about f/8 in order to get decent sharpness. Wide open, it was pretty soft. I bought it second hand, and may have gotten a bad copy, but it's a story worth telling(?). Sold it (without any complaints) and bought a new Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8. Stopped down to f/4, it's as sharp as my copy of the EF 24-105mm at f/8, but at one third of the price. However, it does have a bit slower AF. I would try it out in a store.


----------



## dstppy (Jun 14, 2012)

SpareImp said:


> I had a EF 24-105mm f/4L on my 5D Mark II, but wasn't happy with the image quality. I had to stop it down to about f/8 in order to get decent sharpness. Wide open, it was pretty soft. I bought it second hand, and may have gotten a bad copy, but it's a story worth telling(?). Sold it (without any complaints) and bought a new Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8. Stopped down to f/4, it's as sharp as my copy of the EF 24-105mm at f/8, but at one third of the price. However, it does have a bit slower AF. I would try it out in a store.



I can't help but wonder if it could have benefited from MFA. I've been meaning to run FoCal over my existing lenses, but so far I've lucked out and had no real issues with my lenses. Still, I wonder if the 5DmkII would be even more amazing with adjustment.


----------



## brianleighty (Jun 14, 2012)

SpareImp said:


> I had a EF 24-105mm f/4L on my 5D Mark II, but wasn't happy with the image quality. I had to stop it down to about f/8 in order to get decent sharpness. Wide open, it was pretty soft. I bought it second hand, and may have gotten a bad copy, but it's a story worth telling(?). Sold it (without any complaints) and bought a new Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8. Stopped down to f/4, it's as sharp as my copy of the EF 24-105mm at f/8, but at one third of the price. However, it does have a bit slower AF. I would try it out in a store.


I was going to say the same thing regarding the 28 - 70. That's about the only one I know that's full frame in the range he's looking at. I've never tried it before. I know Roger over at Lensrentals always says it's a great bang for the buck but looking at the charts on The Digital Picture isn't very encouraging. I actually got my 24-105 when I got my 5D Mark II kit. Over all I really like it. Sure I wish I had a wider aperture but I can see why people like it so much. I still have my Canon 28 135 as well. Still not sure what to do with it. It's obviously not as good but at such a low price that I could sell it at I'm still trying to decide whether to sell it or just hold onto it.


----------



## SpareImp (Jun 14, 2012)

Yeah, my impression is that the 24-105mm is a great lens, based on what I’ve read. But again: the copy I had didn’t convince me. It possibly could’ve benefited from MFA, but after I was aware of the problem I did some tests with manual focus, aided by LiveView, and it was still pretty soft wide open. I really want to try a new copy now, to see if I was just a bit unlucky. After all, the build quality was excellent and I do miss the weather sealing.

Regarding the Tamron 28-75mm, you are depending on getting a good copy. I did, and was also able to buy a wider prime for landscape-photography for more or less the money I saved/made from the purchase and selling of the 24-105mm. I would definitely try the Tamron out before I buy it. They do make some great lenses, but are often overlooked because of a lower re-sale value, inconsistent quality control and not-as-great build quality. I’ve read online about photographers doing blind-tests with the Tamron 28-75mm and the Canon EF 24-70mm, without being able to find a clear winner. These specific photographers skill levels are unknown, however.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 14, 2012)

SpareImp said:


> Yeah, my impression is that the 24-105mm is a great lens, based on what I’ve read. But again: the copy I had didn’t convince me. It possibly could’ve benefited from MFA, but after I was aware of the problem I did some tests with manual focus, aided by LiveView, and it was still pretty soft wide open. I really want to try a new copy now, to see if I was just a bit unlucky. After all, the build quality was excellent and I do miss the weather sealing.
> 
> Regarding the Tamron 28-75mm, you are depending on getting a good copy. I did, and was also able to buy a wider prime for landscape-photography for more or less the money I saved/made from the purchase and selling of the 24-105mm. I would definitely try the Tamron out before I buy it. They do make some great lenses, but are often overlooked because of a lower re-sale value, inconsistent quality control and not-as-great build quality. I’ve read online about photographers doing blind-tests with the Tamron 28-75mm and the Canon EF 24-70mm, without being able to find a clear winner. These specific photographers skill levels are unknown, however.



I wonder off hand maybe there was some fungus or maybe the lens was dropped by the original owner and moved an element or two? That's one of my pet peeves... The last lens, way back when I bought used on ebay, the lens stunk of cigarette smoke (an old tokina)... It took literally a month for the smell to fully go away after cleaning it over and over... It operated just fine but for the first few shoots it was obnoxious. Couldn't be happier with my copy of the 24-105 for what I use it for...


----------

