The weight is 10oz heavier, the 70mm feels limiting for portraits, and there is no IS, which means besides the 1 stop of light, I'm still gonna be in a bad place in low light after that

600g)+ 0.7X macro mode+ updated IS-- not the best portrait lens; 70mm is short-- expensive ($

This lens is considerably less sharp and less contrasty than my other zoom lenses (16-35mm mkii and 70-200mm mkii).

Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS+ lighter (540g vs. 670g)+ much cheaper ($200 used)+ slightly more telephoto range-- 28mm vs. 24mm-- older and less effective IS-- variable aperture-- zoom creep and

At the "normal" range of 50mm, my humble Canon 50mm f/1.4 has considerably better color and contrast, not to mention better low-light capability

The 24-105mm has image stabilization for hand-held shots (and it works)and it is sharper than my primes, so I would say you could safely use it for most shots...cleaning up things a bit in Photoshop if edges get vignetted at the wide

I was pretty satisfied with it until the err 01 pop out on my camera (google err 01 for canon 24-105mm), you will find hundreds of complains from many photograph forums

I bought this at the same time as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens, so I have a much sharper lens (the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a definite "wow" lens) to compare it to, so I will say this lens is acceptably, moderately sharp without a lot of post-processing.

This lens is NOT - when I bought it some months ago, I could instantly see an improvement in clarity and color over the Canon EF 28-135mm I had started out with some years earlier.

You can get the basic specs from other reviews, but what I enjoy most from the 24-105mm is the image color, working range( 38.4mm - 168mm with the 1.6 crop factor on the 7D)

I purchased a Canon 70-200mm f/4 zoom lens and completely fell in love with it

wide angle can get a little skewed, f/4 all the way to 105mm is an advantage.

My 50mm f/1.4 has been gathering dust since I picked this up.

However, the 24-105mm f/4L bests the 24-70mm in versatility, even though it only goes to f/4.The much wider zoom range, image stabilization,

Another advantage; You can blow out the background with a portrait for example at F/4 at 100mm more than you can in the 24-70 range at 2.8

Another advantage; You can blow out the background with a portrait for example at F/4 at 100mm more than you can in the 24-70 range at 2.8

This lens offers a compromise between the more expensive 24-70mm f2.8 and the less expensive non-L glass kit lenses.

I love the versatility of this lens, 24-105mm is very useful, specially if you only want to carry one lens with you

I got this lens to complement my 10-22mm and 100-400mm lenses.

I also have an excellent 70-200mm f/4L IS lens, which is my second pick for my sports events.

okay in its shortest/longest focal length (i.e., 24mm and 105mm), and the image quality degrades at around 50mm

The difference in quality between the two lenses was very noticable so I tried the 24-105mm and love it.

Might not be wide enough on a 1.6x crop body, in which case I'd recommend the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

the more expensive EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM for some focal lengths

and I feel much moreconfident using it when the 17-40mm is not appropriate

For some enthusiats who wants to complete the line of lens I think getting a much wider than 24mm is good and a telephoto lens with a 2.8 aperture and with a reach of 200mm or more preferable with IS.

Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS+ lighter (540g vs. 670g)+ much cheaper ($200 used)+ slightly more telephoto range-- 28mm vs. 24mm-- older and less effective IS-- variable aperture-- zoom creep and

I do own the 135 f/2L, as well as the 85mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4 - but the versatility of the zoom range here makes this one my usual go-to lens.

This lens is very good at both 24mm and 105mm but rather soft at 70mm.

The extra reach of the 105mm came in handy many times, and the 24mm was not at all as limiting on my crop sensor cameras as I feared it would be

Otherwise purchase and enjoy the 28-135mm IS lens.

Not as sharp as the 70-200mm f/2.8L lens (it also costs half as much), but sharper than the kit lens and the 55-250mm lens that I had with my T1i, requiring less post-processing to get a sharp image.

24mm on the wide end is like 35mm on a crop sensor, which is too narrow for a general purpose lens

While I've gotten some great photos out of the 24-105, I also have the 100mm f/2.8L macro (which I highly, highly recommend!), and the IQ of the macro lens is clearly superior with shots taken with the same settings (aperature, shutter, 100mm, etc.).

If you don't mind forgoing "reach," I would highly recommend the 17-55mm f/2.8, which is one of the best low-light lenses you can buy

If you're starting out in digital photography, I'd strongly recommend that you ditch the kit lens as soon as you can, and start off with the 50mm/1.8 prime (the nifty fifty), this 24-105mm/f4, and a Speedlite 580

I love my 24-70mm f/2.8L to pieces, but I'm finding myself reaching for this one more and more due to it's versatility

The 50mm gets better bokeh, but other than that, this blows away all other aspects of my lenses

What this lens is not is super fast (only f/4), super wide (24mm) or super telephoto (105mm).

But go search online for "Canon 24-105mm error

Its focal range is not perfect for a crop camera such as mine; 17mm would have been perfect at the lower end

Ido, it's the incredible 17-40mm.

Either way, I found myself more and more often leaving the 24-105 at home, and using the 28-135, what extends to a nice 200mm 35mm equivalent

It offers a very useful 24-105mm focal range without compromising on sharpness

I highly recommend the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for everyday walk-around photography.

The 24-105mm at 105mm was quite steady