Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic Review

According provided by Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic thanks to Roman Tomchenko.

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

The Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic (abbreviated as Canon 24-105 / 4 L) is a good professional all-round zoom lens for Canon EOS full format cameras. Canon was the first to present a lens with such parameters to the public. After 5 years, Nikon pulled up and released its Nikon N AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm 1: 4G ED VR SWM IF Aspherical Nano Crystal Coat.

In general, Canon has a fairly extensive lineup of professional 'L'-series lenses with a constant maximum aperture of F / 4 (list in order of publication):

  1. Canon EF 70-200mm 1: 4L USM, 1999
  2. Canon EF 17-40mm 1: 4L USM, 2003
  3. Canon EF 24-105mm 1: 4L IS USM, 2005
  4. Canon EF 70-200mm 1: 4L IS USM, 2006
  5. Canon EF 8-15mm 1: 4L Fisheye USM, 2011
  6. Canon EF 24-70mm 1: 4L IS USM, 2012
  7. Canon EF 200-400mm 1: 4L IS USM Extender 1.4x, 2013
  8. Canon EF 16-35mm 1: 4L IS USM, 2014
  9. Canon EF 11-24mm 1: 4L USM, 2015
  10. Canon EF 24-105mm 1: 4L IS II USM, 2016

The Canon 24-105 / 4 L often goes as a base (i.e., whale) lens to some Canon cameras in the upper price range. In such a kit, its cost is much lower than the cost of a separate purchase. Over time, the Canon 24-105 / 4 L was loved not only by photographers, but also by videographers and became a fairly popular and successful lens.

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

Key Features:

The full name of the instance from the review Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic Ø77mm Macro 0.45m / 1.5ft Image Stabilizer Canon Lens Made in Japan 4461761 UA0627
Basic properties
  • Dust and moisture protection
  • Canon SSC (Super Sspectrum Coating) - special super spectral coating of optics
  • EF (Electronic Focus) - built-in electronic focusing system, also these letters designate lenses for use on full-frame cameras of the Canon EOS system
  • L (Luxury) - premium lens
  • FTM (Full Time Manual Focusing) - constant manual focusing
  • USM (UltraSonic Motor) - ultrasonic motor
  • aspherical- aspherical elements in the optical scheme
  • Super UD (Super Ultra Low Dispersion) - the presence of extra-low dispersion elements in the optical scheme
  • IS (Istomach Stabilizer) - image stabilizer
  • IF (Iinternal Focusing) - internal focus
Front Filter Diameter 77 mm, plastic thread for filters
Focal length 24-105 mm EGF for Canon APS-C 1.6x cameras is 38.4-168 mm, EGF for Canon APS-H 1.3x cameras is 31.2-136.5 mm
Zoom ratio 4.375 X (usually they say simply - 4.4)
Designed by for digital cameras
Number of aperture blades 8 rounded petals that form a fairly even hole
Tags focusing distance in meters and feet, focal lengths for 24, 28 (indicated by a dot), 35, 50, 70, 105 mm, bayonet mount tags and hood mounts. There are also tags for working in the infrared spectrum for 24, 28 (indicated by a dot), 50, 70 mm
Diaphragm from f / 4 over the entire range of focal lengths to f / 22
MDF 0.45 m, maximum magnification ratio 1: 4.3
The weight 670 g
Optical design 18 elements in 13 groups, 3 aspherical elements (in the optical scheme, the aspherical elements are shown in green, one element is made of molded glass, the other two are copies made using augmentation plastics glass-based) and 1 Super UD Element (shown on the optical diagram in blue, the image is clickable)canon-zoom-lens-ef-24-105-mm-4-l-is-usm-ultrasonic-lens-review-optical-scheme
Lens hood Canon EW-83H
Manufacturer country MADE IN JAPAN
Period Since August 2005, in August 1016 has been updated to version Canon EF 24-105mm f / 4L IS II USM
3D view View ->
Prices in modern online stores

Finding accurate information about how long-lasting hybrid aspherical elements made using plastic extensions is very difficult. Personally, I don’t make much difference what is in the middle, if only it worked well and for a long time.

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic


The lens is well assembled and has dust and moisture protection, as befits all professional lenses. The focus and zoom ring are rubberized. The body is made of plastic on the outside, with a metal bayonet, but most likely with metal internals. The extending part of the case frame consists of only one part. It is pleasant and weighty to the touch, its weight is 670 grams, Canon 24-105 / 4 L uses large professional filters with a diameter of 77 mm. In the hands, according to the tactile sensations of the build quality, this Canon 24-105 / 4 L loses a little to the old monster Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-70mm 1: 2.8 L USM.

The copy that I had on the review has one unpleasant feature - spontaneous change in focal length under its own weight... When you carry the camera on a shoulder strap, the frame of the body lengthens spontaneously, and when you shoot birds over your head, the lens trunk shortens spontaneously. In addition, the lens does not have a focal length lock. For a professional lens, this behavior of a retractable barrel frame, I consider a mortal sin! At the same time, when the focal length is changed, the spontaneous departure of the lens trunk works as a 'hydraulic amplifier' and sometimes you 'fly over' the focal length that you wanted to install.

When changing the focal length, the rear lens moves in the middle of the lens body like a pump - it draws in and pushes out air. This behavior of the rear lens is called 'effect' of a vacuum cleanerwhich can increase the amount of dust that accumulates in the camera. The frame of the case from the side of the rear lens is made in the form of a 'movie' hood.

When working with the lens, I was very annoyed by the plastic switches on the lens, which change their position tightly, and switching them is unpleasant. And another unpleasant feature that I encountered was that the zoom ring is too close to the camera mount. When changing the focal length, the lens is inconvenient to support with the left hand, and the fingers of the left hand are pinched under the protrusion of the built-in flash when used on Canon 550D.

Some users complain that the zoom ring travel is very small in the wide-angle range (24 to 50 mm), which makes it difficult to comfortably set the desired focal length. But personally, I did not feel any discomfort from this.

There is a bayonet mount mark and a mark on the case for quick installation of the hood. The lens uses a plastic hood Canon EW-83H, which is fixed in special grooves located near the front lens of the lens and when zooming moves with the retractable frame of the housing. The hood can be installed in the opposite direction for transportation. Unfortunately, I got a Canon 24-105 / 4 L review without a lens hood, who has a similar lens, please unsubscribe in the comments on how much it is in demand in the work.

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic


The lens has a built-in image stabilizer IS (Istomach Stabilizer). Stated that the stabilizer can compensate up to 3 stops by shutter speed (You can shoot at shutter speeds 8 times shorter). In fact, the stabilizer works well, stationary objects without any problems can take off at shutter speeds up to 1/15 of a second. I used a lens on a cropped camera, with heavy full-format cameras threshold excerpt should still increase.

There is a 'Stabilizer ON / OFF' switch on the case. A slight clicking sound is heard when the stabilizer is turned on - this is normal behavior for this lens.

During sight through JVI with the stabilized 105 mm focal length on, the picture 'freezes' pleasantly and does not twitch.

The stabilizer itself works quite quietly, but when shooting video with the image stabilizer turned on, the camera’s built-in microphone records noise from the stabilizer and can be heard during playback.

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic


Canon 24-105 / 4 L uses Canon USM (Ultrasonic) focusing motor and focuses quickly (I would even say very fast). Focusing is quiet enough. On camera Canon 550D Often there is re-refocusing, but most likely this is due to the simple focusing system of the camera itself (details here).

The Canon 24-105 / 4 L is not a parfocal lens - it does not maintain focus during focal length changes. To check this, it is enough to focus on the 50 mm focal length in manual focus mode and change the focal length to 70 or 105 mm, while focusing on focus will be lost.

During focusing, the front and rear lenses remain stationary, as the lens uses internal focus. The front lens also does not rotate during zooming. It is possible to use any filters without problems.

The minimum focusing distance is only 45 cm, while you can shoot Macro with 1: 4.3 magnification... By and large, the inscription 'Macro 0.45m / 1.5ft 'on the lens just talks about MDF, and not about the true macro opportunity. Canon 24-105 / 4 L has a window with a scale of distances in meters and feet. There is no IPIG scale, but there are labels for working in the infrared spectrum. In manual focus mode, the ring rotates 120 degrees, when it reaches the extreme positions it does not rest, but continues to slide, without affecting the focus.

There is only one switch on the lens barrel, which is responsible for the focusing mode - 'AF / MF' (automatic / manual focusing). Canon maintains continuous manual focus control in auto focus mode 'AF' FTM (Full Time Manual Focusing), which implies that you can rotate the focus ring at any time. But, in fact, according to the instructions manual focus is available after focusing on the subject in single-frame autofocus (ONE SHOT AF).

A little bit about FTM in real conditions:

Example: the lens is set to focus mode 'AF', using the FTM feature, I focus manually, but as soon as I press the shutter button, half-pressing the same button makes the camera refocus as it wants. If you continue manual focus / focus correction with the shutter release button half-pressed, then there is a 'fight' for focus control. It turns out that with your hands you rotate the focusing ring in one direction, and the camera moves the focus to the other. This is especially noticeable in the 'AI Servo' focus mode. In the 'One shot' and 'AI Focus' modes, the conflict is present only until the moment when the camera itself does not focus as it wants, after which the focus ring becomes obedient only to the photographer. The focusing speed of Canon 24-105 / 4 L is very high and the automatic very quickly knocks down the manual focusing on which the photographer could work for several minutes. This is very annoying and you have to switch the lens to 'M' mode, thereby destroying any benefit from FTM mode. On the other hand, manual focus control is always present and, as it were, the very name 'FTM' promises nothing more.

In comparison, Nikon lenses that have a similar feature called M / A (manual focus priority), turn off the auto focus when starting the rotation of the focus ring. Automatic focusing becomes priority again only after pressing the focus activation button again and only if the focus ring no longer rotates manually. There are no fights for focus control between the camera and the photographer. This is very convenient, and when you switch to Canon, you immediately feel the inconvenience of the FTM.

It is possible to make the FTM work as I would like to do if the focus activation function is removed from the shutter button and assigned to another button, and do not press this button during manual focus / focus correction. In this case, you can focus manually at any time, and when you press the shutter button, there will be no conflict between the camera and the photographer for access to focus control. Usually the activation of auto focus is programmed with the 'AF-ON' button (for those cameras on which it is), or the '*' button.

Maybe I'm just picking on FTM just because a similar function with Nikon lenses works more logically. It is also surprising that no one describes such conflict situations. Anyway, work FTM does not contradict the data from the instructions.

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic


The lens diaphragm consists of 8 rounded blades. On closed diaphragms, the circles in the blur zone turn out to be fairly even, but still the faces of the polygons can be seen (example on f / 8.0) 8 aperture blades are also available in the old Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-70mm 1: 2.8 L USMbut the new Canon 24-70 / 2.8L II and Canon 24-70 / 4L already have 9 aperture blades.

Maximum f / 4 aperture is available over the entire range of focal lengths. F / 4 is exactly 1 stop (2 times) less than F / 2.8. Aperture closes to F / 22.

Image quality

I used the lens only on a cropped camera Canon 550D, therefore, I could not fully see the possibilities of the lens. However, the lens is sharp enough at f / 4 throughout the focal length range and in the center and even around the edges of the image (considering the cropped camera). “Sufficiently” sharp means that the sharpness is not too pretentious given this super zoom with moderate aperture... If you close the aperture, the sharpness increases and does not cause any complaints at all. But what catches the eye is a rather strong distortion at 24 mm focal length.

Canon 24-105 / 4 L tolerates side and back light well. In backlight, it creates very little glare and "bunnies". The contrast is also at a good level, which is not surprising for not particularly fast lenses. Chromatic aberrations in the zone of sharpness, they are well compensated, but in the zone of blur, violet and green glows are strongly visible near contrasting details. The lens has a mediocre design and is poorly suited for some kind of creative expression. In general, as for such a zoom lens, the image quality is at a good level.

Here link to the archive with the originals - 1.4 GB, 60 photos in .CR2 format (RAW) from the camera Canon EOS 550D. During shooting was used safety filter Kenko Pro1D Protector (W) 77mm Made In Japan. All photos in the gallery are reduced on-camera JPEG.

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

Canon Red Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic Red Ring

My experience

To be extremely honest, the Canon 24-105 / 4 L is weakly "pulling" the 17.9 MP matrix Canon 550D at F / 4 (in terms of a full frame, this will be 46 MP). At closed apertures, this is a very good lens. At the same time, the Canon 24-105 / 4 L is practically devoid of what photographers call “drawing”. Ultimately, the Canon 24-105 / 4 L is a technically well-balanced lens for those who don't want or can't mess with the heavy “older” 24-70 / 2.8 models.

According to their characteristics, the closest to Canon 24-105 / 4 L are Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105 1: 3.5-5.6 IS STM, Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-135mm f 3.5-5.6 USM IS и Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-70 1: 4 L IS USM.

On a crop, the Canon 24-105 / 4 L is inconvenient, since 24 mm is no longer wide enough. There is no such alternative for Canon APS-C 1.6x.

I was asked to compare this Canon 24-105 / 4 L with Nikon's analog - Nikon N AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm 1: 4G ED VR SWM IF Aspherical Nano Crystal Coat... In short, the lenses are very similar and both are good enough. Due to the fact that the Nikkor has no problems with the trunk (at least a copy from the review), a little longer in focal length and has a convenient zoom ring, it seemed to me more pleasant to work with. In any case, these two lenses are the workhorses of many photographers and are quite successful in their respective market segments.

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic prices

Lens prices in popular stores can look at this link, or in the price block below:

Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment.

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic

Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic on Camera Canon 550D


In general, the Canon 24-105 / 4 L is a good professional lens with fast focusing, normal image quality, image stabilizer and maximum aperture F / 4 over the entire focal length range. It can be a great versatile everyday lens for many photo tasks.

August 25, 2016 Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic updated to version Canon EF 24-105mm f / 4L IS II USM

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Please, if this material was useful to you, help my project. And don't forget that everyone can write your review for one or another photographic equipment.

Add a comment:



Comments: 173, on the subject: Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic review

  • Jinn113

    Five years ago, I really wanted to buy 24-105 for 550. I came to the store, put it on the carcass, twisted the focus ring, removed the lens and bought 15-85. A cool lens is convenient and quick, but focal ones are not always enough.

    • Antosha

      why unscrew 24-105? what confused?

  • Igor

    I took used ones. Appearance 9 out of 10. Even the trunk came out only after a good shaking upside down. After 200 shots, error 01 got out. I replaced the diaphragm control unit in the SC in Moscow for “only” 8500 rubles. And so good, even on all focal glass.

    • Oleg

      I had the same problem on a used one after a year and a half of use. An unpleasant thing is an arbitrary zoom under its own weight, which apparently causes the trains to wear out.

      • Denis

        so it turns out that it’s undesirable to change the focal length so that the cables do not wear out?

  • Alexey

    this is junk. rather unsuccessful glass. significantly worse than nikon 24-120 / 4.
    mechanical problems despite the red ring. mediocre optical.
    strong loss of light, in reality it is darker by a stop than competitors, i.e. not 4 but 5-5.2.
    scales instead of bowls. soap after 70mm.
    in whales it is for $ 500, for the money a good travel darksum.
    Kenon released a revised version, where he removed most of the problems and cut off the soap on the body.
    got a good 24-70 / 4

    Lynx, Anonymous and Alexander now probably break the template :)))))

    • Lynx

      well no.
      your garbage-fanboy style of writing comments allows you to understand from the very first words who the author is and how much this opinion is worth.

      • Alexey

        Lynx, nice that you do not forget about me! )))
        and your knowledge of kenon lenses just amazes me. your academic style, your theoretical experience with technology is as limitless as the universe! ))))
        You already managed to get me a bunch of shortcuts. I just began to miss your attention)))
        oh well, you are a master troll. nobody argues. and I will not)))

        so what do you have on the topic?
        have you worked with this lens? )))))
        or as usual, troll about anything?

        • Lynx

          Well, you can learn from me, I do not mind.

      • Alexey

        21.10.2015/22/48 at XNUMX:XNUMX Reply
        well no.
        your garbage-fanboy style of writing comments allows you to understand from the very first words who the author is and how much this opinion is worth. "
        Topic - Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105mm 1: 4 L IS USM Ultrasonic Review
        and someone else talks about garbage comments)))))))))))))))))))

        • Yarkiya

          Alexey, I also used this lens and I did not like it because of its optical qualities combined with dimensions, weight and the presence of a red band.
          Above, I have already unsubscribed about this and I will not repeat myself, but I want to note that although I am a Nikonist, I still don’t allow myself epithets like junk, shit, rubbish, etc. etc. even to the “hostile” camp.
          Is it worth it to be surprised by negative comments, aggression breeds aggression.

    • Pastor

      Well, in spite of all its jambs, the 24-105 4lis is one of the most popular lenses, and not only because of the price, but also because of the scope of the focal, dust and moisture protection and stub. This lens is used to shoot weddings, YouTube videos, and reportage. And all the minor flaws such as not very beautiful bakeshki and soap are for those who are engaged in photographic equipment, not photography. Well, let there be a very thin layer of photographers for whom the quality of photos is really important. For example, some fashion, advertising photography. But a wedding photo is quite possible with the proper skill to shoot at 18-55, not to mention 24-105. The reportage is intended to convey the meaning of the event to the viewer and does not require technical excellence. The same 24-105 at 1dx quite copes with the near report almost everywhere, an extra stop at 24-70 2.8 is replaced by a stub and additional millimeters at the long end. Then again, 24-105 sales speak for themselves. There are many other glasses in different price categories, which, for a number of reasons, have generally become a failure, and 24-105 has been a hit for 10 years and so far there is no worthy replacement in this price category.

  • Pastor

    I finally bought myself this lens, before that, only short tests and touching off :) I can say with confidence - the lens is cool! The stab is excellent. Sharpness at 24mm is very decent, at 105, too, at f4. On the segment 35-50 it is somehow not super sharp, but again, if we compare it with fixes. For zoom, sharpness is excellent. For my purposes, f4 is always working.
    I compare it with the first 24-70 2.8 - the weight is radically different. After 24-70 24-105 is like a feather, like some kind of fantastic plastic. But in reality it is not so - assembled no worse than 24-70. Thanks to God, my trunk does not move out of both glasses under its own weight. Although both bought second-hand. The 24-105 has a little dust under the front lens (barely noticeable), the 24-70 has no dust at all. For me, the stub is much more useful than the aperture, so 24-105 will work.
    As for the hood, in comparison with the 24-70 in the 24-105 the hood has nothing to do with it :) Well, it is the same on the new 24-70 2.8 2. When the hood of the zoom is attached to the trunk, it will be worse a priori, because it works only 24 mm. Whereas in the first 24-70 2.8 the hood always works and at 70mm it is even better than at 24mm, in the 24-105 the hood makes sense only at focal lengths up to 35mm, maximum 50mm. At 70-105 it is almost meaningless. In size, it is slightly larger than a blend from 17-40 4L (but it helps there - because it is shirik).
    On a full frame, 24-105, unlike 24-70 2.8, has more vignettes. There is also a little more distortion. HA, too, more. In general, 24-105 have more bad things :) But not by much. And most importantly, everything is corrected in the editor with a couple of clicks.
    In terms of autofocus speed and accuracy, both lenses are good. Everything is fast and accurate, even on an old woman 40d or an initial 650d. At 7d it may be faster (although I did not feel it), but even at forty everything is very, very fast, so the difference in speed from the carcass is small - so everything is fast.
    At a used price after the crisis 24-70, on average, 10-12 thousand more expensive than 24-105. At the same time, there are fewer focal points, heavier, no stub ... In general, the old 24-70 2.8 has a lot of disadvantages. The new 24-70 2.8 2 is sharper, but as for me it has lost some artistry. And the price. The old 24-70 2.8 has a very pleasant picture, the blur is more interesting (but this is all subjective, of course). The 24-105 under consideration has no particular artistry, although a decent portrait can be shot at 105 f4. I don’t know how to describe it, but still 24-105 is a purely reporter's glass, while from 24-70 2.8 it is possible to satisfy creative delights. True, in comparison with the sharp, assembled better than the tank and at the same time the artistic lens 70-200 2.8lis2, both 24-70 2.8 (and the new version) and 24-105 4lis fade ... It's a pity so far there is no such steep zoom from canon on shorter focus :)

  • Eugene

    So much for the struggle of opposites. canon vs nikon which is better. The main thing is not what but how to shoot. Hands from the shoulders is what matters.

  • Pastor

    The new version 24-105 4L has been released, I wonder how old it will be worse than the new one.
    And Canon has applied for a patent for a superzoom for ff - 28-560 f2.8-5.6. Not the fact, of course, that they will do something, but the weight and price are interesting. Most likely there will be a replacement for Elki 28-300. Considering that Canon hasn't made failing lenses for the last few years, this will be a bomb. Even for 200-250 thousand there is considerable interest in this lens. For ff, nothing was even close yet, a maximum of 300mm. And then there is also 2.8 on the short end, I suspect, also with a stub ...

  • Mr. boggy

    Hello! I’ll also say a little about this subject. On the 5th first, nothing is wrong, especially in portraits, but paradoxically, the old man 28-135 usm is sharper centered in the landscapes. And the edges of the subject, although they do not almost soap, but the softish picture is uniform throughout the field. The old 28-135 even on the crop at 18mp comes out sharper. This Elka has a picture on the four with a bold plus, she did not reach the sharpness of five. And figs argue, prof-not prof, this is NORMAL reportage glass on FF, and is fully suitable for professional use - the norms are picture, light and fast, relatively tight. Yes, and on nickels and even single ones there is no built-in puff, there is nothing to pinch your fingers.))) The new version was rolled out, the second one will be sharper, although the design is nothing longer than the old one and now looks like Nikon externally. ;-)

  • Koba

    I use it often. the resolution is quite low, with the Mark 3 taking photos at 12 megapixels. He himself was created for the top five. Stabilizer for a maximum of two stops. The trunk falls out on its own when longing on the camera. In short, it is difficult to recommend it. I always try not to use it. We hope that the new version will reach at least Sikm's 24-105, which I also bought recently and which this canon is superior in all respects, including weight ...

  • Koba

    Yesterday I tried the new version 24-105. The stabilizer is better, and everything else is even worse than the first version. The first version pulls dust like a real vacuum cleaner. Svob Mark3 (which is already up for sale!) Has to be cleaned every month. There is no sharpness, the kenon makes this lens on purpose to attract people to its system, this is such a fishing rod for foolish beginners who will then throw it away and buy other lenses, but with rare exceptions they will always run into such a rake and will pay kenon big money. Or maybe this is what the average global consumer needs? Sigma, on its really good 24-105, put the price higher than the Kenon one, as if indicating that it should be so, and that their glass is superior to the Kenon one at least in optical performance. By the way, after using it for almost a year, I can say that it smears focus very often, somewhere in 20-30 percent of snitches they turn out to be defocused, slightly, adjusting the autofocus does not help ... In a word, digging it up is a waste of money!

  • Victoria

    Good day everyone! I ask professionals for help. Which lens to buy on the canon 5d mark2 for weddings, weddings, kristin ... this kind of shooting. Thank you for your reply.

    • Professional

      Hello Victoria! In your case, NO! Events such as weddings, Christina, weddings often happen once in a lifetime, and shooting such a thing is a very important thing. Gain experience and then you will understand what lens you need.

      • Boris V.

        Cruel, but essentially correct. The owner of the 5d mark II should already have decided on the basic set of optics and other devices for shooting. I use this zoom 24-105, flash 600, 50 mm F1.4, 85 mm F1.8, and a tripod and other small things.

    • Pokekmon

      Canon 24-70 / 2.8L or Sigma 24-70 / 2.8, if Canon has a lot of money.

  • Paul

    Tell me, is the Sigma 24-105mm f2.8-4 much worse if you do not take into account the focusing speed and stabilization? The picture quality itself is of interest. I look at sample photographs and see no difference (sigma even has f2,8 by 24 mm)
    I mean, should you strive to buy this L-ki?

    • 1DsMk3

      Two different classes of glass.
      Sigma has something working with 5.6.
      You are comparing a budget half-whale film zoom at Sigma and ELK from Canon.
      Take a closer look at the Sigma AF 24-105mm f / 4 DG OS HSM Art Canon EF

  • anonym

    Thank you for the reviews. One significantly reduces the quality thereof. These are test shots taken by professional lenses on amateur carcasses and vice versa.
    Thank you.

  • Old Man Hottatych

    Those. if I want to bother, it’s better to get two, or three fixes for the price of one of this zoom !?

  • Engineer

    Again, there is no whole truth about this “cult” lens. And the truth is terrible. And it is carefully hidden. This lens is undersized and doesn't deserve a red ring. Having developed this lens 13 years ago, the Kenon firm has done a terrible thing ... Deception and forgery are, of course, rude words ... But! Fact one: many people know that it is impossible to shoot indoors with this lens without a flash - the reason is that it has a real aperture of 5.2, and not the declared 4.0.With 4.0 aperture, you can shoot a full frame indoors, which proves the competing Sigma24-105 Art ... The second fact: this is a terrible secret, do not tell anyone about it ... He has TWO IRIS !!!!!!! No, I'm not crazy ... The first aperture is common, like everyone else's, controlled by the photographer through the carcass. The second aperture is not full and does not depend on the will of the photographer, it is covered by 1-2 stops and it is controlled via a rocker lever from the zoom ring! What for? But because this underdog immediately after its development showed disgusting characteristics at focal lengths after 50mm. We urgently pushed in the second (secret) diaphragm, slightly covered at a long focus. Proof of? Take a close look at the optical layout. Do you see two thin vertical lines in the center, side by side, through one lens? This is IT. I myself did not believe in this until I had to disassemble the lens in order to replace the diaphragm cable. It is a pity that you cannot insert a photo here.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Here you can add a photo without any problems, in extreme cases add a link to it.

      • Engineer

        We look at the device of a miraculous lens and admire the second aperture

        • kotofei

          Do not look for happiness where there is none. Dark glass? - so why shouldn't it be dark if there are SO MANY boundaries of the transition between the environment and the environment (glass-air-glass). Any boundary of the media causes a drop in light transmission.
          Quite good glass, even the first version, just use it as directed.
          Incidentally, there is a wonderful full-frame bum-analog - canon 24-85 / 3.5-4.5.

  • Engineer

    I was surprised to find that in the second version of 24-105F4L TWO IRIS were again used. The unnecessary missed glass 24-70F4L also has two diaphragms. No, well, what? People hawala a red ring ... We draw conclusions: Kenon has run out of innovations, the company is going downhill. If they could do a 24-135F4L, and even a parfocal one, that would be cool, albeit a little bigger and heavier. And they've been riveting the same thing for 15 years, it's a shame. At the same time, Sigma, Tamron, Yongnuo show muscles ...

    • Arkady Shapoval

      With the same logic - where is Tamron / Sigma 24-135?
      Yongnuo uses patents 20 years ago for optics from Canon.

  • Engineer

    Tamron and Sigma with their latest original lines of optics are a delight. Yongnuo admires the penny prices for AF lenses. And no patents 20 years ago, YN no longer copies. The double Gauss (Planar) scheme in YN50F1.8 is not Kenon’s invention at all, this invention will soon be 100 years old. The second version of YN50F1.8 even the design has an ultra-modern, not like Kenon. The YN50F1.4 lens is generally unique both in design and in the OPTICAL SCHEME (the front lens is concave inward). By the way, I bought this amazing lens on Ali for (better sit down) only 10300 rubles. Aunt Sonya released a parfocal 28-135F4 with a motorized zoom (generally a unique thing). What is unique released Kenon? So with the new FF mirrorless Kenon, most likely, will be liquidated.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Yes, indeed, I forgot about 28-135 for the video.

    • kotofei

      And what is so “elite” about its autofocus? Let me remind you that AF EF lenses were also made by tokina and cosina (you know their products under the labels zeiss, voightlander, phoenix, soligor, etc.). Of the Chinese, the Meike 85 / 1.8 is also interesting. It seems that the late vivitar had something released before they fell apart / sold.

  • Alexander

    please tell me whether it’s worth changing your 24-135 to this model, the prospect of shooting a wedding, but I know for sure that Elks with aperture 2.8 will definitely not be pulled, at least in the near future

  • Dmitriy

    Hello Arkady!
    And a slight hanging of the trunk, when shaking at both 24 and 105, is this the norm for this lens (and generally for zooms) or a malfunction? thanks

    • Arkady Shapoval

      The easiest is the norm.

  • Oleksandr

    Hello. Has the quality of the Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM improved? It makes sense to purchase, like a whale to Canon R?
    Thank you.

    • Roman - judging by these tests, the difference is very insignificant. Slightly sharper, slightly better bokeh (less pronounced rings). The main advantages in ergonomics are less (even without an adapter, the adapter adds more to the weight and size), an additional control ring.

      If there are already 24-105 in stock, then I do not see much point in changing. And as the main whale glass, I would prefer the RF version.

  • Novel

    Good evening! Please tell me, I'm an amateur and I want to purchase a universal lens for canon 1300d for every day. I consider the options with the hands of either canon 24-105f 4l or canon efs 18-135mm nano usm. Tell me who dealt with these lenses, is there any point in paying for Elka? Thanks.

    • Roman

      The best staff for Canon crop - EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 IS. Both in image quality and aperture ratio. If this option is not considered, perhaps 18-135 will be more suitable as a universal one. 24-105 is a good full-time staffer, but 24 for crop is moderately wide, and for many scenes, architecture, landscape, cramped spaces it is often not enough. Well, 30 millimeters at the long end will also not be superfluous.

      Purely from experience and practical considerations, if you have a native 18-55 with a stub, I would buy a second lens 55-250 and wear both. So you cover the gigantic range of focal lengths and get even good portrait capabilities if you shoot at focal lengths of about 200mm on the street. If you categorically do not want to mess with two - 18-135.

      • Novel

        Thanks for the advice, I have 55-250 of the first version, I don’t always want to carry it with me, I mainly use fifty dollars, but sometimes it’s a bit too much in terms of focal lengths in the room.

    • Michael

      There's a meaning. The only question is whether 24 mm is enough for you for “universality”

  • Andrew

    What is the difference in focusing speed at the long end and the short end? I have quite significant, twice or even more, which is embarrassing

    • kotofei

      This is the case with many lenses. This is normal. If you are still in doubt, there are tons of reviews of this glass on the Internet with an example of focusing speed on the short / long end.

  • Mr. Boggy

    A normal lens, of course, cannot be ideal, but it works well in its environment, namely on FF. On crop only up to 10 megapixels, higher it is already difficult to break through sharpness. The portraits come out quite good, they have their own volume, in my opinion the small software of the picture gives a semblance of SF optics. Yes, I forgive him for this softness, he gives a good artistic picture, without eye-catching sharpness, only 24-70 2.8 and fixes are cooler.

  • Alexey

    I use it on canon R, a good lens, especially for its price. There are no complaints about sharpness. No "soapiness" is observed. They say that in the first version there was a variation in quality. Thank God I got a sharp specimen.

  • Mr. boggy

    Such a concept for this lens is an average sharpness for the entire field of the frame - so that the price does not press over the edges, plus compensation for aberrations. Also the fluorite element is paired with optical plastic in this model, so the sharpness is not perfect.

  • Andrei

    Dear Arkady! Many thanks to you, as well as to Alexey, the Engineer, and other commentators for your valuable comments on this lens! Having a very positive experience of using Canon's Eleks on XH-A1 and XM-1 camcorders, I thought that this 24-105 is a worthy son of the family, but apparently it’s not necessary once in a while. I just wanted to ask if such glass would “play” on Canon 550D and Canon 40D crops, and the review was made about them. Very nice. Thanks for helping with advice

Add a comment

Copyright © Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article

Version en español de este artículo