|
Great walk around lens
- Reviewd on:
2008-12-31
By: D. Steinhauer
I purchased this lens just over a year ago and have loved it! It is on my camera most of the time. I would recommend it to a friend.
|
|
|
Great lens and it is worth the price
- Reviewd on:
2008-12-27
By: Roger Moore
This lens has the optical quality of the shorter zooms and the range provides enough opportunities to capture many great photos. The constant aperture along with DSLR's improved ability with high ISO's allows many great photos in low-light that were previously impossible.
I originally purchased the Tamron 28-75. It was a lens that took very good photos at times but it had some real limitations. The limited zoom kept me wanting more width at the wide end and more zoom at the telephoto end. Also, it was not good in low lighting. The lens would hunt to focus on the subject. Therefore, candid shots were challenging due to the inability to focus quickly.
I decided to purchase the Sigma 18-200. This lens gave me great range and I initially gave it very good reviews. However, as I started focusing on image quality, the superzoom convenience became less important. The compromises in image quality, aperture settings and other aspects became a hindrance. The vignetting and lack of sharpness required me to send it back for service. They fixed everything but my confidence in the lens.
I used to purchase the cheaper lens because I didn't believe the difference in image quality was worth the additional price. However, I now have many more "keepers" with the Canon. It focuses much faster than the Tamron. Now, I have many more candid shots of people indoors. The IS gives me handheld opportunities I couldn't get with the faster 2.8. I see more subtlety in color such as my daughter's brown eyes instead of looking black.
[...]
The Canon has changed my perspective regarding professional lenses. Although there are some lenses providing quality comparable to an L lens, I believe in purchasing them now because I've gone the alternative route and I see the limitations firsthand.
The constant aperture, IS, and L lens quality makes this a great all-around lens. People often use the term "all-around" to indicate an implied limitation. However, this lens can be used for weddings, travel, and many other situations. It's a great lens and I've sold the Tamron and I plan to sell the Sigma also.
|
|
|
Perfect, exactly what I wanted.
- Reviewd on:
2008-12-24
By: Jon Williams
Perfect, exactly what I wanted, brand new, fast delivery came un-opened with hood, case and manual in factory box. Sent a question to the company and they responded very soon. Great buy.
|
|
|
Great lens.
- Reviewd on:
2008-12-12
By: David Mckay
This lens has been great and if you are in the market for a high quality lens in this Focal length, spend a little more and get the L series like this if you can. It is well worth it.
|
|
|
A Real Performer and Workhorse of a Lens!
- Reviewd on:
2008-11-29
By: Jerald Allen Brendle
The 24-105 f.4 L (my first "L" lens) was just what I was needing to replace my 5 year old Canon 28-135mm that was starting to make strange noises while "image stabilizing".
First thing I did was shoot a series of exposures using my 40D body on a tripod using the self timer (IS off).
I shot exposures at each of the lens' marked apertures and focal lengths. My test target was a sheet of newspaper stretched tightly on a wall. I was very impressed with almost every image when viewed in PhotoShop CS2 at 100%. All I saw that I didn't really like was a little corner softness with the lens wide open around 70mm. For the most part,this lens is tack sharp, but a bit heavy and could have been another stop faster considering its hefty price! One nice feature that the optical magicians at Canon has pulled off though, is the fact the lens is somehow able to maintain its f.4 maximum aperture throughout the entire focal length range!
The build quality and auto focusing are superb. The image stabilization is quiet, quick and allows shooting handheld at much lower shutter speeds.
I debated long and hard between this lens, and the 24-70mm f.2.8. I could really have used that extra f stop of speed, but after reading everything I could find on the two, I went with the 24-105 because of its additional 35mm focal length reach, and even more importantly, its image stabilization feature that's lacking on the 24-70. IS can be a real "image saver" so many times by allowing lower ISO's and slower shutter speeds.
|