7D2 and EF 24 - 105 F4 L IS USM

[ThomasN]

Hope some of you guys can answer this question.

I will like to get the most crisp pictures with state of the art lens when I get my new 7D2.

Will it be okay to put a EF 24-105 F4L IS USM on a EOS 7D mark II?
Can there be any problems with corners etc. using the EF 24-105 F4L IS USM on a crop camera?

Thx

 

[Khalai]

You'll be just fine, if you don't mind the 38-168mm focal range...

 

[iMagic]

I echo the comments on photozone.de. If you are happy with the 39-168 FOV and the f/4.0 then its good. Another consideration is the 17-55 for APSC. More desireable range and f/2.8. But not weather sealed. Another option is the new 16-35 f4.0. FOV similar to 17-55 on the wide end, IS, weather sealed, but f4.0.

 

[mkabi]

Do you already have a 24-105? or is it something you are going to pick up sooner/later?

If you don't already have it, I strongly recommend Sigma 16-35mm f/1.8.

 

[IWLP]

I have had a 24-105 f/4L for five or so years now, using it exclusively on APS-C bodies. Currently, I shoot with a 70D.

Of my regular-use lenses, the 24-105 is one of the least impressive. It is a reasonable all-around lens, but the sharpness and overall look trails other lenses I use regularly, such as Canon's 10-22, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the times when my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 throws a sharp image. The 24-105 produces consistent results, has good build quality and is quite reliable. However, the images just don't "pop" in the way some of my other lenses do.

For my money, the 17-55 f/2.8 is a great all-around lens. I've rented two and used a third copy that a coworker has, and for IQ, speed, AF and all-around usefulness, it is my first choice on crop-sensor cameras. I will hopefully purchase one in the coming year. For me, it's main downfall is the build quality. I often shoot outdoors in dirty/dusty conditions, and the 17-55 (and reports of internal dust building with lens age) doesn't inspire confidence. However, I will use it mostly as an indoor lens and outdoors in non-dusty conditions.

YMMV.

 

[jeffa4444]

Canon has its new 24-105mm non L lens coming that maybe a better bet.

 

[Khalai]

Canon has its new 24-105mm non L lens coming that maybe a better bet.

MTF looks just about the same and since OP has already 24-105L...

 

[dgatwood]

The 24–105L really doesn't seem like a good match for a crop body. Unless you're planning to upgrade to full-frame in the next couple of years, you're probably better off with a 15–85 as a general shooting lens. It's sharper than the 24–105L, and it's a more useful focus range.

On the other hand, if you already have a 24–105L, then the best lens is the one you have with you.

 

[ajperk]

I did some shooting last weekend with the 24-105L on my t5i. While everything looked pretty good on the camera's LCD screen, once I imported them onto my laptop I was taken aback at how unimpressive the resolution was. It was noticeable without even having to do pixel peeping. This was particularly surprising as I've always felt I had an exceptional copy of the 24-105L (given how much grief I've read people giving it on this forum at times), which has never disappointed me on my 6D.

I'd consider some of the above recommendations. A couple years ago I had a copy of the EF-S 15-85 that could really give some great results. Unfortunately, it had major focus issues that I could never get Canon to iron out properly so I gave it up.

 

[GammyKnee]

I have to agree with other posters: the 24-105 is a capable & useful - though not outstanding - lens on a full frame body. Certainly there are times when I'm really glad I've got mine. However on a crop body there are better choices in terms of effective focal length range, max aperture & sharpness.

I really liked the ef-s 17-55 on my 7D; it was the very last crop lens to go as I switched over completely to full frame. But it all comes down to what you shoot and how you want to shoot it!

 

[TexPhoto]

The 24-105 IS f4 L will work great with any crop camera. As will any Canon lens intended for Full Frame.

The zoom range will be a little awkward, but would not be bad for some things. If you can have only one lens, this is not the choice I'd make.

Why not explain what you intend to shoot most of the time? Or why this lens?

 

[2n10]

I have had a 24-105 f/4L for five or so years now, using it exclusively on APS-C bodies. Currently, I shoot with a 70D.

Of my regular-use lenses, the 24-105 is one of the least impressive. It is a reasonable all-around lens, but the sharpness and overall look trails other lenses I use regularly, such as Canon's 10-22, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the times when my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 throws a sharp image. The 24-105 produces consistent results, has good build quality and is quite reliable. However, the images just don't "pop" in the way some of my other lenses do.

For my money, the 17-55 f/2.8 is a great all-around lens. I've rented two and used a third copy that a coworker has, and for IQ, speed, AF and all-around usefulness, it is my first choice on crop-sensor cameras. I will hopefully purchase one in the coming year. For me, it's main downfall is the build quality. I often shoot outdoors in dirty/dusty conditions, and the 17-55 (and reports of internal dust building with lens age) doesn't inspire confidence. However, I will use it mostly as an indoor lens and outdoors in non-dusty conditions.

YMMV.

I have the 17-55 and have not had any dust issues.

 

[Hannes]

I've used a 24-105 on a crop body for a while and works pretty well. As long as you don't need wide angle it is good. Now if you only have a crop body it is not the lens I'd go for, it is far less suited for the smaller sensors than the bigger. Think of it as the volvo of the lens world, reliable, well built but not very exciting. If you have the lens already by all means use it but if it is only for crop consider selling it and picking up a 17-55 2.8 used for no money difference unless you really need the extra 50mm at the long end but even then you'd be better off with a 70-200.

 

[Marsu42]

The 24-105 IS f4 L will work great with any crop camera. As will any Canon lens intended for Full Frame

-1, you definitely have to take your pick if you want at least the same performance as a good ef-s lens. With current sensor resolution, using only the center of the glass will result in mediocre performance like on the 17-40L, or think 50/1.8 wide open

Unless the sealing of a L lens is required, you're planing to upgrade to ff or dual-use lenses with ff a dedicated crop lens is the better choice. Ultrawide lenses are easier (i.e. better) to build for crop, and for the rest you're not carrying and paying for glass you're only using part of.

 

[Marsu42]

The 24-105 IS f4 L will work great with any crop camera. As will any Canon lens intended for Full Frame

-1, you definitely have to take your pick if you want at least the same performance as a good ef-s lens. With current sensor resolution, using only the center of the glass will result in mediocre performance like on the 17-40L, or think 50/1.8 wide open

Unless the sealing of a L lens is required, you're planing to upgrade to ff or dual-use lenses with ff a dedicated crop lens is the better choice. Ultrawide lenses are easier (i.e. better) to build for crop, and for the rest you're not carrying and paying for glass you're only using part of.

Will it be okay to put a EF 24-105 F4L IS USM on a EOS 7D mark II?

Not having the wide end is not that bad once you've gotten used to it, I've been shooting with a 28(!)-105 on crop for quite some time. When in doubt, add a real ef-s ultrawide to wide zoom lens.

 

[SDFilmFan]

I used a 24-105 on a Rebel and a 7D, and it worked fine. Better focus and bokeh than the 17-85 I had previously. Not much for wide angle (I have a 17-40 for that), though I appreciated the 1.6x105mm reach at some events. But the 24-105 didn't come alive until I put it on a 5D3, where it showed a sharpness I hadn't gotten before.

The old Rebel and 7D are gone now, and I use a 15-85 on the SL1 that replaced them. The 15-85 may be a better match for a crop sensor than the 24-105 (unless you really want the long end of it).

I now have a 24-70/2.8 II for the 5D3, but I keep the 24-105 for times where IS beats a single stop of shutter speed. It holds its own in many circumstances.

 

[ThomasN]

The 24-105 IS f4 L will work great with any crop camera. As will any Canon lens intended for Full Frame.

The zoom range will be a little awkward, but would not be bad for some things. If you can have only one lens, this is not the choice I'd make.

Why not explain what you intend to shoot most of the time? Or why this lens?

I would like an all-round lens which is solid build, can handle rough environment (little rain, moisture, dust, sand etc.) and will give top crisp pictures.
But maybe some of you can recommend another lens instead?

 

[NancyP]

NO LENS CAN HANDLE SAND. Have some mercy on its front element!
That being said, why not just use a rain cover or plastic bag? Canon doesn't make weather resistant fast normal primes for crop.

For non-weather-resistant lens, I have been using the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS for 4 years as an all-around lens, and I think it is pretty good as a travel and landscape lens. If you need speed and fixed aperture, try the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. If I needed a general use crop DSLR camera with excellent weather resistance in all focal lengths of its lens line, I would go for the Pentax. Sealing is top-notch, the camera can go overboard into fresh water and will still work fine when fished out. At least that's what the crazy Pentax users show. That would be my #1 pick for a kayaking camera.

 

[tomscott]

I have the 17-55mm and the 24-105mm and they are very close when compared on their native sensors, DOF is the same F4 on ff and 2.8 on crop is the equivalent to F4 on FF. What you need to remember is that and F4 aperture gives you a F6.3 DOF equivalent so its not exactly shallow. The F2.8 gives an F4 equivalent so is nice on crop.

I wouldn't use the 24-105mm on crop all the time but the long end is useful when needed. I took it to the Farn islands and stuck it on my 40D and my 5DMKIII with a 70-200mm and 2x extender. Because the wildlife was far away and the boat couldn't get too close the the shore it worked well, 38mm was wide enough and I could zoom to nearly 170mm without switching cameras, the 17-55mm would have been too short.

I have had issues with the 17-55mm and dust mine is full, if you buy one put a filter on straight away. The IQ is fantastic and is the best you will get on APC with FF equivalent of 24-70mm F4.

The 15-85 is also a great lens but the variable aperture is annoying and it is no sharper than the 24-105 they are about the same on a crop cameras but the 15-85mm has a better native range.

I find the 24-105mm works better on a FF camera i was pleasantly surprised with its sharpness after reading so many poor reviews and though experience the IQ is a little better than the 17-55mm but you get the extra 35mm range over the 17-55mm 24-70mm equivalent which is very useful. The 24-70mm F2.8 is nice but its heavy and the focal length is short when your used to the longer length.

Your best off sticking with native lenses for crop at the wide and mid tele range although the 16-35mm F4 IS is a nice proposition giving a 25-55mm range but that is too short for my liking. Your better off buying L lenses for the tele side like the 70-200mm give you a 110-320mm equivalent or 70-300mm is a 110-480mm.

 

[FEBS]

The 24-105L f4 is stopped down till f8-f11 a very flexible and walkaround lens on a FF. I was pleasantly surprised by this lens after I added a FF camera. On the 7D however, I found the 10-22 and the 70-200 f2.8 much better in IQ. If you have that 24-105L, don't change but keep it, just do stop down enough. If you want to buy, I would look for a better lens on APS-C