Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM on Rebel XSI

I have spent a few weeks peering thru lens reviews and thinking about my needs and I am considering purchasing theCanon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM for my Rebel XSI.


My ONLY concern or hesitation is the effective focal range with the XSi 1.6x sensor. I know the wide angle focal end will be longer on my body. But I think it wont bother me too much as I hardly use below 30mm now on my current lens.


My plan is for this to be my general purpose, high quality, take everywhere lens that I invest my money in and take most of my shots with. And for a second telephoto lens i'm planning on buying theCanon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for a little more focal reach.





Please give me your thoughts, opinions, and advice.


Thank you!

I'd say the 24-105 is an excellent choice. Although it is designed for FF bodies, I used one on my 7D and was thinking, "Wait, my 7D isn't full-frame?". However I suggest instead of a 70-300 lens (they all are mediocre) you look at one of the 70-200 lenses. there are four to choose from, I suggest the 70-200 f/4IS lens, but maybe thats too much $$ (I can't afford it yet myself...YET [8o|]).


Good Luck, and welcome to the forum!


brendan

thanks!





i do plan on buying a 70-200 l, but not for probably a year or two. I figure i would get a general purpose 24-105mm l and then buy the cheap Ef 70-300mm for the reach to get me by for the next year or so until I can upgrade.


How did your 24-105 work on your 7D? was it wide enough? how were the image quality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nimblybimbly85

How did your 24-105 work on your 7D? was it wide enough? how were the image quality?

---

24mm is wide enough for landscapes, but it won't give the same wide effect of a 10-22mm or FF body. Image quality was excellent, no gripes whatsoever. Im an outdoor shooter so the f4 aperture is not of concern; indoors it's a clod without a flash.

The 24-105L is a greatgeneral purpose/walkaroundlens, I have used this on 3 crop bodies and love the range and the IQ--This is a good choice. As far as more reach, I started out with a cheap 75-300 and was constantly disapointed. My suggestion: Go with the 24-105L and save for one of the 70-200Ls. The other thing you might consider is go straight for one of the 70-200Ls, Here is why:


First: You can take some wonderful landscapes with a midrange zoom just by targetingthe interesting features rather than the whole scene, even sunrises and sunsets look great with these types of lenses.---Check out some of the famous landscape photographers and youll see what I mean.


Second: If you spend most of your time outside, youll probably find the range more useful than even the 24-105.


Third: the 70-100 range (even on a crop body) is often used for portraits and other people photography


Finally, I have a friend at work and his only lens is a 70-200 F4L and he has done some wonderful work with just that Lens.


Just my 2 cents worth, Hope it helps--others chime in if you think i am in error here.


Good Luck,


Bob

I recently picked up a 24-105mm. I find it fairly soft at f/4, and sharp at f/5.6 (it may go sharp before f/5.6, I haven't had time to test everything yet). With that in mind, I'm thinking I would have been better off with the 15-85mm. I have to use the slower aperture to get a decent picture right now anyway. The 15-85mm issupposed to be super sharp, I'd get the wide angle range back, and when I get a 70-200mm, there will be less overlap.


Just another option for you to consider.


I'm considering sending mine back to get the 15-85 instead, but haven't made up my mind quite yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

I find it fairly soft at f/4,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

24-105 @ 105 &amp; f4.0, hand held - 100%crop


Is this soft?


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/IMG_5F00_0084.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

I recently picked up a 24-105mm. I find it fairly soft at f/4, and sharp at f/5.6 (it may go sharp before f/5.6, I haven't had time to test everything yet). With that in mind, I'm thinking I would have been better off with the 15-85mm.

---

According to the reviews, the 24-105mm f/4L IS is actuallyquite sharpwide-open at f/4 (see [url="http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]Bryan's review[/url], or the [url="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/188-canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-usm-l-is-lab-test-report--review]photozone.de review of the lens tested on APS-C[/url].If I had to guess, I'd say you probably have an autofocus issue with that lens on your body. See the [url="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths]"This lens is soft" and other myths[/url] article for a more complete description of the issue. I suspect what is happening is that you're noticing the AF issue at f/4 because of the thinner DoF, and it 'gets sharp' at f/5.6 because the DoF is then deep enough to encompass the front- or back-focusing.


Unfortunately, reading your profile you have a T1i, so if the focus adjustment is the issue, all you can to correct it would be to send the lens and probably the body to Canon for calibration, or get a different copy of the lens and hope you get lucky. In fact, the lack of AF Microadjustment was one of the factors that prompted my very recent upgrade from the T1i to the 7D (myEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM was front-focusing on my T1i). When I checked my lenses on the 7D, I found most of them benefited from some degree of AF microadjustment - it was clearly lens-specific, since the adjustments applied ranged from +2 to -5, and some (such as the EF 85mm f/1.8) required no adjustment. Since each unit of AF adjustment is 1/8 of the DoF at the maximum aperture, the lens that needed the +5 adjustment would have been slightly out of focus wide open, but in focus stopped down by one stop, based on the math.


So, before giving up on the lens, you might consider contacting Canon Service (especially if you bought the lens new, in which the warranty would cover the calibration).


Just my 2&cent;.


--John

...the 24-105mm f/4L IS is actuallyquite sharpwide-open at f/4...and as Mark clearly demonstrated as I was typing the rather lengthy post above!!

I just did a quick test with a meter stick at 45 degrees, at 24mm, 70mm, and 105mm.


When focusing from 2' or so away, the focus points are sharp, though at 105mm it's certainly right on the edge of the near OOF edge.


When focusing from 8' or so away, the 105mm looks a bit soft all over. It's definately more in focus towards the correct point, but it never achieves a nice sharp image at any point along the ruler.


In these artificial tests, I'd never notice without pixel peeping. In real-world shots, I noticed from the unzoomed previews, so perhaps it's worse with distance. When it's lighter out tomorrow I'll be able to test better. Right now I have to rely on my trusty range-hood lamp for sufficient light.

In the center, at least, Bryan's ISO 12233 chart images show that the lens is very sharp at f/4, at all focal lengths. Ideally, zoom lenses should be tested at their longest focal length, and at 25x that focal length (your 8 foot test fits that criterion). You may have a lens in need of service - if it's new and under warranty, definitely call Canon. If you bought it used, it's still worth a call to Canon Service - they'll give you a free estimate if it needs repair. Honestly, the 24-105mm f/4 is a much better lens than the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 - I really think you're better off with the 24-105mm lens, unless you really need the 15-24mm range (in which case, I'd suggest the EF-S 10-22mm).


Personally, I do have a couple of EF-S lenses, but they're lenses for which there's no real L-series equivalent, i.e the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 andthe 17-55mm f/2.8 (the latter was a tough debate vs. the 24-70mm f/2.8L, but i wanted the IS and the wider end for my 'walkaround' lens).

Ok, so I once again put my stove's hood's light to work, along with a nice black and white logo on a box (PC Organics Oreo ripoffs cookies, before you ask), the cookie's ingredients list, and the text near the tab on a box of some Premium Plus crackers.


From this I can see, when at 105mm, from 3', that the white of the box is ghosting 3-5 pixels into the black text on the cookie's logo. Aside from this one case with a large contrast with stove lamp glaring off the white of the box, everything else seems fine.


*shrug* Not sure what the issue was on the other shots I took. Perhaps glare again, though from the sun. Anyway, I can safely say I've now put this lens though it's focus-based paces, and aside from the focus being on towards the near edge in the one ruler test, everything seems fine.