Musings on Photography

Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS

Posted in Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS, equipment by Paul Butzi on May 22, 2007

Oplopanax horridus - “Devil’s Club”

It’s been just about a month since I got the 24-105 and the 24mm TS-E.  Time for at least a partial update.

Over the past month, the lens that’s ended up living on the body is the 24-105 IS.  It’s sharper than the 28-70 f/2.8L, and although it’s big, it’s no worse than the 28-70 was.

The big win, though, is the image stabilization.  Buying the IS lens was partly an experiment to see how I felt about handholding in the low light situations I’ve been running into lately.

So far, this experiment has been a success.  Image stabilization is not a panacea, but it’s clearly a partial solution to the ‘well stopped down for depth of field/low light’ problem a significant part of the time.  I’m still dragging out the tripod with regularity, but often on walks when I take just the camera, the IS means the difference between not being able to make the photo, and being able to make it.

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Doug Plummer said, on May 22, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    I keep wondering why I lug along a tripod on my jobs, since I so rarely use it anymore. That 24-105 IS lens is scary how good it is. It’s something of a party trick for me to make a 1/4 second tack sharp handheld. It makes for a more casual style of shooting–it becomes less of a “event” to make a photo, and more something that happens while encountering the world as I go through it.

  2. Brian Windrim said, on May 23, 2007 at 9:49 am

    I’m very interested in Paul’s (and Doug’s) expriences with the 24-105 f/4L IS as I got mine three weeks ago and am still “evaluating” it on my 20D.

    So far I’m just not seeing the sharpness that I have been used to from my 17-40 f/4L, on the same body. All of this has been with the IS turned on.

    In the past day or so I’ve tried some quick (so far) trials with IS off, and for handheld shots at fairly high shutter speeds the results appear substantially sharper.

    I need to look into this further, and it could just be that I have a poorly-performing example of this lens. But it seems possible to me that above a certain shutter speed the image stabilization could be detrimental rather than beneficial.

    Any thoughts?

  3. Ed Richards said, on May 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    How about some comments on the 24mm TS? I have recently seen some serious architecture work done with a 5D and TS lenses, stitching two images together using the shift.

  4. Sean said, on June 5, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    I recently had to make a choice between the 24-105 and the 24-70 f2.8 for my 5D. I eventually wound up going with the 24-70 because of my love of selective focus. I’d still like to buy the other lens when finances permit.

  5. Tim Parkin said, on July 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    I’m just in the process of selling all of my other lenses (16-35,35L,50/1.4,70-200LF4,100Macro) and keeping the 24-105 and the 24TSE because they are stunning and unique. The 24-105 is as sharp as my 35L is and the 24TSE is my ‘pretend’ large format for big near/far shots..

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: