The value for money is superb. I didn't have to judge it against the rest of the crop because I bought it the second it became available on FF. Great performance on 5 DII. Since the wide angle no longer functions (since the lens is now larger than 38 mm), I don't see the sense in bringing it to the crop if I continue to use it. Furthermore, I believe that 24-105 is a perfect replacement for 15-85. There aren't enough stars in the sky to make the FF a bad choice for a universal zoom, especially…

It seems the lens is rather content. Its "L" moniker is well deserved because of the high quality and depth of the image it presents. It has a stubborn autofocus (it becomes problematic even at dusk, when it's nearly dark outside). Outdoors, it produces stunning images, but indoors, the camera's small aperture becomes apparent. It will work wonderfully with a fixed 50 f/1.4 street-indoor lens, I believe. I wouldn't wear it without a hood around his neck because he's obsessed with hares.

I purchased a Canon 50D with an EF-S 18-200 3.6-5.6 IS lens a month ago. After a month of use, I noticed that the sharpness of my 18-200 (about which I have no complaints) was not as good as I had hoped. I got rid of them in a matter of weeks and bought an EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. Changing from a 200 mm to a 105 mm lens was challenging, especially considering how much I enjoy photographing reportage. I considered bringing 24-70, but that's already too short (for me) without a stabilizer. However,

According to what I've gathered, there are a lot of comments on the internet written by seasoned photographers who frequently criticize this glass, which can confuse beginning photographers like me. I always tell first-time drinkers that this is an excellent glass. I use a Canon 500D for my photography, and comparing this lens to a whale lens is like comparing apples and oranges. Those. Feels like it's 2 different cameras. The lens has a good feel to the touch, focuses swiftly and virtually…

By the way, if you take it financially, it is really reasonable. More expensive than the 17-40, but with a wider range of focal lengths and a stub. There is essentially one raspberry, indoors on a crop, and then narrowly, in latitude on the street, which is 17, which is 24. Even at this price range, there is only the 70-200, but using it as your single lens seems foolish, thus 24-105 is your only option. The darkness is not an issue for me; I simply need to compare the exposures I get indoors…

This is an excellent lens for use in professional reporting. I like it because it can be used in a variety of situations, it is reliable, and it produces outcomes that can be predicted. I read some reviews on this site that complained about "unsharpness"; guys, the professional range of Canon lenses does not include any lenses that are not sharp. Following the completion of the transaction, any autofocus glass must be hauled to the official service in order to be aligned alongside the…

For amateurs, say "wider! and longer!" Not a large aperture, right? related hole = 4. This is what? Not everybody is aware. "Even though a stabilizer is present, it is preferable not to use it." Ivory on Ivory! hilarious and illiterate. You can decide if you require this lens or not. There is no try-before-you-buy policy. inquire of experts? "How without it?" can only have one response.

I nearly regretted purchasing it. Only appropriate for travel when you need the most freedom possible but cannot change the lens. Additionally, the comparatively small size enhances ease and effectiveness. All the rest are defects. It's odd that "L" appears on such a lousy lens. But you have to remember that the rest of my lenses are also "L", well, fixes. Worst L I have in my bag.

His drawing's lack of skill and its "disgusting" bokeh are frequently mentioned as flaws. Dear comrades, artistic photographs can be fixed—preferably the best ones. Regarding the drawing, it is "electronic", lacks artistic merit, and is entirely made of plastic from the L series. "Bokeh" . Yes, probably not, however there is a blur zone that is entirely digestible and does not at all make one feel disgusted (such glasses exist). It is said above where to find artistic bokeh. The idea of…

Pick one out of the many available (!) Unlike the 70-200 F4IS, from which images literally breathe air and ring with sharpness, the L-ka will not be shooting on the F4 frames that are pleasing to the eye in every regard. While the right lens is preferable, having the 24-105 on hand for the other 10% of the time is a huge help. Overall, I'd give it a strong 4—maybe even a 5.

It is necessary to have an external puff because. At 24 millimeters, the frame will still contain a shadow cast by the lens hood; however, these are merely aesthetic concerns, as a protective filter is also required due. The 77mm lens just begs to have a scratch put on it)))]. There is a slight problem with the back focus, and I will fix it using the 50D's programming interface. I've been wanting to treat myself to this glass for quite some time now. Convenient and easy to use in compared to…

There are a lot of people who remember that when this lens first came out on the market, it had a price tag of 32-31 TL, but after a couple of years, the price dropped dramatically to 23 TL. The reason for this is because these lenses break down after a while and repairs cost 8 TL; therefore, Canon made the decision to sell your lens, similar to how automakers sell their products, once in a store, and the second time in a service. (23+8 same 31tr.) It is my view that when I purchased this lens,

The fact that this is not the first "Elka" lens means that there is no stormy enthusiasm around this lens. The ones before it are highly specialized repairs, and in comparison to them, the 24-105 zoom is nothing more than a kit that has been upgraded. Both the crop-sensor Mark 1D III and the full-frame Mark 5D II are used for shooting by me. After the changes, notably those made to the 135/2L, there was an unpleasant sensation of the picture being soapy, and if the 135 delivers razor sharpness…

An good general purpose lens. Previously, there was the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 in addition to the converter. 2x magnification and aperture of 1.4 at 50 Since I do much of my photography on vacations and on the road rather than in a studio, the question of portability and adaptability has become increasingly important to me. I was able to sell all of the zooms and buy one universal, which resulted in the loss of fifty kopecks. The glass is excellent in quality. In comparison to the 24-70…

This lens is incredibly practical, reliable, top-notch, adaptable, and boring. For several months, I used this model with various lenses to take images with while traveling, in close-up, and from a wide angle. Unfortunately, while there are still many excellent pictures, none of them truly amaze or inspire awe in terms of the lens's technical prowess. It has been empirically proven that this glass loses to lenses made specifically for these focal lengths at all focal lengths. As a result, it…

It has been my intention to discuss this perspective for quite some time now. One of the most underappreciated Canon lenses, in my opinion. The lens can only be used on full-frame cameras. He had a crop camera with a lens comparable to that of a toy whale zoom. The image displayed on the full frame, complete with crispness and bokeh. Photographers and filmmakers alike will find it invaluable as a general-purpose reportage and studio zoom. This is my first dedicated crop lens. And it's the only…

As a normal lens for my 60D, I decided to purchase it. Aside from the lack of the characteristic sharpness of L-cams, everything seems to be running smoothly. The FF's owners are the only ones who sing his praises, as this information is withheld from the public. Those who possess crops should not be given it. It performs about as well as a whale lens on the Mark and somewhat better on a crop. It turns out to be a whale encased in a weatherproof and dustproof structure. A 70-200mm F4L USM is on

Those who photograph with full-frame cameras, or those who are planning to move to it in the near future, should consider purchasing this lens. There is a fantastic 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens available for people who are satisfied with the crop. The cropping process causes both 24-xx L-zooms to lose their wide-angle capabilities, which renders them unfit for "regular" use. It is only reasonable to compare 24-105 to 24-70 because 24-70 is in the same general price range and class as 24-105. Because…

I use it for crop, and the range of focal lengths is sufficient to meet virtually all requirements. There is a width available for filming in inside environments. This lens is located on the carcass the vast majority of the time. The sharpness is excellent, however not quite as outstanding as that of the 70-200/4 IS. My opinion is that the lens hood could have been improved by making it deeper; yet, in FF it might have been possible for it to penetrate the frame. It's just a nice, sturdy lens…

Amazing glass! Considering the caliber of L-ku, the cost is just right. Comfortable in the hand, moderate in weight, and a joy to draw with The brightness is the biggest drawback. It's obvious that f4 isn't functioning, lathers. It's always sharp at f5.6, though you'll need a higher ISO if you want to shoot indoors without a flash. Retains the focal range of 24–105 despite being inferior to fixes in the same price bracket. I shoot with a 60D; the wide-angle lens is lacking, but the portrait…