5 ms·

The top lens for the top camera (Canon 5D Mark III with Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS) is sold in a packaged kit with the body. This lens is...not very good. It's

The top lens for the top camera (Canon 5D Mark III with Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS) is sold in a packaged kit with the body. This lens is...not very good. It's only popular because they're bundled. I think this site is useful, however. It gives you a very quick way to navigate to a whole collection of photos of any body/lens combination. If you're in the market for a body/lens, this seems like a good source to go to. No side-by-side comparisons like an edited review, but at least an overview. Do professionals actually post photos to the sites this scrapes from, or is it mostly amateurs using expensive gear?

itsjustjoe 10y ago
What? the 24-105 is an L lens and a solid walk around choice. I bought the 24-105 well before upgrading my body. Are you thinking of the 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6?
- ghaff 10y ago
  Yeah, I think parent is confused. This is a $1,000 lens--definitely not a kit lens. [EDIT: Apparently it was available as a bundle at one point.]
  - chris_7 10y ago
    It is a kit lens in the literal sense, I purchased one with a 6D, but not in the pejorative sense like the 18-55mm.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      :-) My bad. I didn't check. I have a Mark III but I didn't buy it with a lens so assumed they bundled something cheaper.
  - itsjustjoe 10y ago
    They are not wrong in that it is bundled with the MkIII. But I feel like the demographic that purchases the MkIII aren't getting the 24-105 with it 'just cause'
  - detaro 10y ago
    It was a common kit lens for the 5D Mk III, and AFAIK in the pairing the lens limits the camera (edit: from a pure optical quality perspective). It's not a bad lens at all, but clearly an allrounder with compromises and not a specialist. (And thus a good kit lens and it's not a surprise many people use it, since getting a zoo of better lenses is really expensive and a lot to carry around)
    - mi100hael 10y ago
      > the lens limits the camera IMO it's just the opposite. It's L-quality glass, and the IS makes it a decent performer for low-light and video as well. With the exception of pixel peeping, I'd feel far more limited with a single fast prime in most situations.
      - detaro 10y ago
        I meant "weaker" purely from an optical perspective: the camera has a higher resolution than the lens can deliver, at which point there's the question if the money isn't better spent elsewhere, assuming you don't have other reasons to go for the expensive high-end body. Generally a characteristic of bundled lenses: they are flexible and (with the better cameras) high in quality, but generally they don't reach the body in quality. (Although looking at tests again, it seems better than I remember the one I borrowed a while back) And e.g. if i were to switch to full-frame, I don't need the extra length of the 24-105 and would go for a sharper off-brand 24-70 2.8 (although there is a new revision of the 24-105 around the corner), since I'd want to cover longer ranges with additional lenses anyways. But that option wasn't available when the Mk3 came out, and I totally get why people choose the 24-105.
  - mastazi 10y ago
    > This is a $1,000 lens--definitely not a kit lens. It is also definitely not an f/2.8 lens like all the other top lenses associated with this camera. I too have found it puzzling just like the parent did.
    - paulmd 10y ago
      Lens speed is not the end-all be-all of photography. The 24-105L is significantly longer and has image stabilization. Sometimes the ability to handhold with a shutter speed 2-3 stops slower trumps the ability to increase the shutter speed 1 stop. IS lenses are generally considered better for all-around photography, particularly for subjects which do not move like landscapes. Faster lenses give you more ability to stop the action of a moving subject and a shallower depth of field (given equivalent focal length). The 24-105L is probably the most solid general-purpose lens for a full-frame in Canon's lineup, it's silly to disregard it just because they offer a bundle with full-frame bodies.
      - mastazi 10y ago
        All you say is correct and I agree that lens speed is not the only element to consider. As you noted, it is a trade-off between different factors. My main gripe with the 24-105L vs. the 24-70L (i.e. the lens that came second in that chart) is not just speed in itself, but the fact that the former has a zoom extension of more than 4X (my previous comment should have been more exhaustive). As an old-style guy, I usually am uneasy with zoom ratios over 3X because I believe they are detrimental to quality. So when I have to trade between zoom extension vs. something else, I often go for the latter. The MTF charts for the 24-105 f/4 L [1] and the 24-70 f/2.8 L II [2] seem to confirm my gut feeling... [1] https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/standard-zoom/ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-usm https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/d... (click on "Read more..." to see the MTF graph) [2] https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/standard-zoom/ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm/ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii-usm https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/d... (click on "Read more..." to see the MTF graph)
- chris_7 10y ago
  Yeah, the 24-105 has consistently excellent reviews, e.g.: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-105mm.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-105mm.htm http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm...
- no_protocol 10y ago
  If you can only afford one lens, it's a fine all-around piece. It just isn't as good as some other choices. Many have complained that it is too soft. I was explaining why this combo is at the top of the list and commenting that it's popular, but not "the best" combo.
  - hrrsn 10y ago
    It's definitely not a bad lens, but I did find it really soft. I replaced it with the EF 24-70mm f/4L which is leagues sharper.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    You said that it is just not very good. Go ahead and try to find a 24 105 lens that can outperform it at the same price range.
brudgers 10y ago
I suspect the frequency at which zoom lenses appear at the top of the data is in part related to their inclusion as 'kit' lenses. I suspect that it is also in part a natural consequence of their versatility. By which I mean that because a 24-105mm zoom can be set to a suitable focal length for everything from landscape to portraiture to a bit of sport, in aggregate it will be used for more pictures than any of the prime lenses one would use in each of those situations. To put it another way zooms that cover wide angle to telephoto get used because they're really useful. Particularly when taking pictures under uncertain conditions. Any lens suitable for one of those conditions will stay in the bag in other contexts.
vvanders 10y ago
Yup, you don't even see the "holy trinity"(35L/85L/135L) anywhere in the top 10. Neat data aggregation but there's a lot more that goes on in lens selection.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  Because you take less photos with those as you need to change the whole time depending on the situation. Not surprising on the contrary.
  - vvanders 10y ago
    You can also zoom with your feet :). If I know I'm going to need multiple focal lengths I'll usually use two bodies but I find the constraints of a prime lens to force me to think about composition and give better results overall.
    - ekianjo 10y ago
      > If I know I'm going to need multiple focal lengths I'll usually use two bodies Sure but the amount of people using and carrying two bodies is very limited compared to the ones who have only one or only want to travel light. >I find the constraints of a prime lens to force me to think about composition and give better results overall. Yes and no. There are pictures you just cannot take without a zoom - you can only zoom with your feet if the subject is on a path where you can actually walk.
      - mobiuscog 10y ago
        > There are pictures you just cannot take without a zoom - you can only zoom with your feet if the subject is on a path where you can actually walk. That's what crop is for ;)
      - vvanders 10y ago
        > Yes and no. There are pictures you just cannot take without a zoom - you can only zoom with your feet if the subject is on a path where you can actually walk. Well, if you want to get that pedantic the longest focal length lenses Canon makes aren't zooms, they're primes ;). If we're talking professional photographers all of them are going to be using two bodies(aside from the craigslist specials) simply because having your one body die on-shoot is going to make for a very unhappy clients. Like a parent comment mentioned earlier, this dataset looks shifted towards the non-professional dataset which is important to consider when looking at the data.
gnarcoregrizz 10y ago
Its a great lens. It would be my pick for the best Canon lens as an all-arounder (either that or the 24-70L, but iirc that one is much heavier). The sensors are so good nowadays that you can shoot well in low light even with the f/4 aperture.
- mi100hael 10y ago
  Plus the IS (mostly) makes up for the f/4 and makes a difference for video as well.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    IS is a game changer for video. Its really light and day with and without.
ekianjo 10y ago
I have that lens and its one of the best Canon lenses. Not much distorsion, not bad vignetting, very good resolution and with an included IS for video shooting as well. Its not without reason that most serious Canon pro photographers recommend it.

itsjustjoe 10y ago

What? the 24-105 is an L lens and a solid walk around choice. I bought the 24-105 well before upgrading my body. Are you thinking of the 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6?

ghaff 10y ago
Yeah, I think parent is confused. This is a $1,000 lens--definitely not a kit lens. [EDIT: Apparently it was available as a bundle at one point.]
- chris_7 10y ago
  It is a kit lens in the literal sense, I purchased one with a 6D, but not in the pejorative sense like the 18-55mm.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    :-) My bad. I didn't check. I have a Mark III but I didn't buy it with a lens so assumed they bundled something cheaper.
- itsjustjoe 10y ago
  They are not wrong in that it is bundled with the MkIII. But I feel like the demographic that purchases the MkIII aren't getting the 24-105 with it 'just cause'
- detaro 10y ago
  It was a common kit lens for the 5D Mk III, and AFAIK in the pairing the lens limits the camera (edit: from a pure optical quality perspective). It's not a bad lens at all, but clearly an allrounder with compromises and not a specialist. (And thus a good kit lens and it's not a surprise many people use it, since getting a zoo of better lenses is really expensive and a lot to carry around)
  - mi100hael 10y ago
    > the lens limits the camera IMO it's just the opposite. It's L-quality glass, and the IS makes it a decent performer for low-light and video as well. With the exception of pixel peeping, I'd feel far more limited with a single fast prime in most situations.
    - detaro 10y ago
      I meant "weaker" purely from an optical perspective: the camera has a higher resolution than the lens can deliver, at which point there's the question if the money isn't better spent elsewhere, assuming you don't have other reasons to go for the expensive high-end body. Generally a characteristic of bundled lenses: they are flexible and (with the better cameras) high in quality, but generally they don't reach the body in quality. (Although looking at tests again, it seems better than I remember the one I borrowed a while back) And e.g. if i were to switch to full-frame, I don't need the extra length of the 24-105 and would go for a sharper off-brand 24-70 2.8 (although there is a new revision of the 24-105 around the corner), since I'd want to cover longer ranges with additional lenses anyways. But that option wasn't available when the Mk3 came out, and I totally get why people choose the 24-105.
- mastazi 10y ago
  > This is a $1,000 lens--definitely not a kit lens. It is also definitely not an f/2.8 lens like all the other top lenses associated with this camera. I too have found it puzzling just like the parent did.
  - paulmd 10y ago
    Lens speed is not the end-all be-all of photography. The 24-105L is significantly longer and has image stabilization. Sometimes the ability to handhold with a shutter speed 2-3 stops slower trumps the ability to increase the shutter speed 1 stop. IS lenses are generally considered better for all-around photography, particularly for subjects which do not move like landscapes. Faster lenses give you more ability to stop the action of a moving subject and a shallower depth of field (given equivalent focal length). The 24-105L is probably the most solid general-purpose lens for a full-frame in Canon's lineup, it's silly to disregard it just because they offer a bundle with full-frame bodies.
    - mastazi 10y ago
      All you say is correct and I agree that lens speed is not the only element to consider. As you noted, it is a trade-off between different factors. My main gripe with the 24-105L vs. the 24-70L (i.e. the lens that came second in that chart) is not just speed in itself, but the fact that the former has a zoom extension of more than 4X (my previous comment should have been more exhaustive). As an old-style guy, I usually am uneasy with zoom ratios over 3X because I believe they are detrimental to quality. So when I have to trade between zoom extension vs. something else, I often go for the latter. The MTF charts for the 24-105 f/4 L [1] and the 24-70 f/2.8 L II [2] seem to confirm my gut feeling... [1] https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/standard-zoom/ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-usm https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/d... (click on "Read more..." to see the MTF graph) [2] https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/standard-zoom/ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm/ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii-usm https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/d... (click on "Read more..." to see the MTF graph)
chris_7 10y ago
Yeah, the 24-105 has consistently excellent reviews, e.g.: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-105mm.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-105mm.htm http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm...
no_protocol 10y ago
If you can only afford one lens, it's a fine all-around piece. It just isn't as good as some other choices. Many have complained that it is too soft. I was explaining why this combo is at the top of the list and commenting that it's popular, but not "the best" combo.
- hrrsn 10y ago
  It's definitely not a bad lens, but I did find it really soft. I replaced it with the EF 24-70mm f/4L which is leagues sharper.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  You said that it is just not very good. Go ahead and try to find a 24 105 lens that can outperform it at the same price range.

brudgers 10y ago

I suspect the frequency at which zoom lenses appear at the top of the data is in part related to their inclusion as 'kit' lenses. I suspect that it is also in part a natural consequence of their versatility. By which I mean that because a 24-105mm zoom can be set to a suitable focal length for everything from landscape to portraiture to a bit of sport, in aggregate it will be used for more pictures than any of the prime lenses one would use in each of those situations. To put it another way zooms that cover wide angle to telephoto get used because they're really useful. Particularly when taking pictures under uncertain conditions. Any lens suitable for one of those conditions will stay in the bag in other contexts.

vvanders 10y ago

Yup, you don't even see the "holy trinity"(35L/85L/135L) anywhere in the top 10. Neat data aggregation but there's a lot more that goes on in lens selection.

ekianjo 10y ago
Because you take less photos with those as you need to change the whole time depending on the situation. Not surprising on the contrary.
- vvanders 10y ago
  You can also zoom with your feet :). If I know I'm going to need multiple focal lengths I'll usually use two bodies but I find the constraints of a prime lens to force me to think about composition and give better results overall.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    > If I know I'm going to need multiple focal lengths I'll usually use two bodies Sure but the amount of people using and carrying two bodies is very limited compared to the ones who have only one or only want to travel light. >I find the constraints of a prime lens to force me to think about composition and give better results overall. Yes and no. There are pictures you just cannot take without a zoom - you can only zoom with your feet if the subject is on a path where you can actually walk.
    - mobiuscog 10y ago
      > There are pictures you just cannot take without a zoom - you can only zoom with your feet if the subject is on a path where you can actually walk. That's what crop is for ;)
    - vvanders 10y ago
      > Yes and no. There are pictures you just cannot take without a zoom - you can only zoom with your feet if the subject is on a path where you can actually walk. Well, if you want to get that pedantic the longest focal length lenses Canon makes aren't zooms, they're primes ;). If we're talking professional photographers all of them are going to be using two bodies(aside from the craigslist specials) simply because having your one body die on-shoot is going to make for a very unhappy clients. Like a parent comment mentioned earlier, this dataset looks shifted towards the non-professional dataset which is important to consider when looking at the data.

gnarcoregrizz 10y ago

Its a great lens. It would be my pick for the best Canon lens as an all-arounder (either that or the 24-70L, but iirc that one is much heavier). The sensors are so good nowadays that you can shoot well in low light even with the f/4 aperture.

mi100hael 10y ago
Plus the IS (mostly) makes up for the f/4 and makes a difference for video as well.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  IS is a game changer for video. Its really light and day with and without.

ekianjo 10y ago

I have that lens and its one of the best Canon lenses. Not much distorsion, not bad vignetting, very good resolution and with an included IS for video shooting as well. Its not without reason that most serious Canon pro photographers recommend it.