The Lowly Canon 24-105 f4L
A modern classic
Lowly, an adjective meaning low in status or importance. Looking at the internet one could easily conclude that if you want good pictures, do not ever consider the 24-105 f4L. If one must resort to such a horrid object, definitely never, ever get near the first version.
What happened, what did this lens do that now warrants such disdain? How can my observations and conclusions be so wrong? I’ve owned one of these since the naughts. It came with my Canon 5D Mk II. I had no other EF mount lenses at that time. The bundle looked like a great deal to me. Worked fine, pictures looked good to me. I even liked it… a lot.
I’ve theorized about this state of affairs many times. Being less hyperbolic, there are a few people over the last fifteen years that offer praise that is balanced and similar to my own experience but those photographers are the minority. Opinions vary but there are plenty of people that seem to have done valid side-by-side comparisons and come up with wildly different results.
Theory No. 1: Sample Variation
Could it be that the 24-105 L had far greater sample variation than any other Canon lens? Possibly, contrary to popular belief all lenses have a large degree of sample variations. Newsflash, most of them are not noticeable even if measurable. That must mean the 24-105 L has sample variations that are widespread and extremely noticeable. I don’t believe this. I’ve had the opportunity to use dozens of them. I’ve never noticed a dud. I’ll allow for sample variation because my experience even though varied, is anecdotal.
Maybe it’s not sample variation, instead, it could be a particular sensitivity to knocking it out of calibration? I know this is true of the Canon 24-70 2.8L version 1. That lens was extremely sensitive to perfect front element alignment. If you looked at it the wrong way it caused an issue. Even so, the latter lens doesn’t have a reputation for being a mediocre lens. I’d bet the general off-the-cuff opinion is that the version 1 24-70 2.8L is better. That’s not true aligned or not.
Theory No. 2: Focus Fine Tuning
A huge number of the 24-105 f4L lenses were dumped into the photographic community with the 5D Mk2 “kit”. That’s how I got one. The 5D Mk2 didn’t have AF fine-tuning, if a lens is front or back-focused it was not user-correctable. I submit, many, many photographers didn’t understand this and had no idea how to fix it (back to Canon service with the body). They then flocked to the photographic forums to issue a carefully considered judgment based on a comparison to another random lens that focused perfectly on their camera.
And… as the internet goes the myth that the 24-105 f4L was substandard was propagated by a bazillion people that never used one. Another gagillion people that didn’t even own Canon cameras helped propagate it some more. Meanwhile, people that don’t visit forums continued to buy 5D Mk2 and Mk3 kits while living happily ever after.
Theory No. 5: It’s Not New, Expensive, Or Exciting
What good is a lens that does everything well? A maximum aperture of efffff four, useless. Using it at apertures like f8 or f11, who does that? Everyone has one of these ”kit lenses”, literally everyone. People that don’t even own Canon bodies have them. Important photographers that have them don’t use them, they bought something “better”.
Amazon affiliate reviewers don’t even bother linking to them, how are they going to get a commission on something everyone has? How many likes and comments does anyone get when they buy one? None, you get far more likes and comments when you buy the kit because it was the only way to get the body right now and talk about your 85 1.2L. Who the hell gives a shit about a lens you can buy used for $300, $450 if you want one that was never used.
Theory No. 4: The Ultimate Sin
The kit, god help you if you’re a lens relegated to “the kit”, condemned forever to be included with a camera. Good lenses worth a damn cost a lot, they are not included in the same box with a camera body, everybody knows that. If you accidentally buy a camera and there’s a lens in the box, the first step is to pick it up with rubber gloves and dispose of the toxic object.
After proper disposal or exile at a minimum, the next step is to spend $2000 or more on a mostly equivalent f2.8 zoom. Use that, and claim how much better it is to all those fools that use a lesser lens. You can do your duty by extolling this as loud as possible in strong terms on the internet. Alternatively, you can subtly cast shade on the photographic ghetto denizens in person while attending gatherings where other people have that hunk-o-shit mounted on their camera in full daylight, oh god.
I’ve come to the conclusion that a mixture of all of these factors contribute to the 24-105 lens’s reputation as a sub-par optic. Introduced in 2005, there are better lenses. Are they wildly better? Could you tell in most picture-taking circumstances? Would one of those better lenses stand out even in a large print? No.
All of the comparisons that suggest superiority are edge cases. The performance advantages are immaterial in most pictures. The scene, circumstances, light, and actual use vary far more. Sure, grab the best lens that suits your particular needs and be happy. I have far more expensive lenses than the almost free 24-105L. Are they “better”? Sometimes. Are they mostly the same? Yep.
Which lens has shot more pictures that I used? Which lens is most likely to be on my camera when I’m working quickly and I need a variety of perspectives and crops? You guessed it, the lowly 24-105 f4L version I. Here’s a secret, I have no hesitation to use it on the 5DsR. This is especially true when shooting verticals as 99% get cropped 4:3 and the corners never see the light of day. What about large apertures like f4? Well, nothing is in focus anyway (relatively nothing) so who cares. You’ll never see the difference, neither will I. I might if the subject was completely static or if the subject was flat.
Take the dumb picture at the top. I shot this on the way out the door with the 24-105 at 105 f/4. What’s in focus? Almost nothing. Should I have used my 100L macro lens? Nope, it would be the same picture. If zoomed all the way in and I looked at all the pixels critically from the 5DsR I still wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. There are one or two drops on the window that are in the same plane of focus that are critically sharp. “Better” is situational. “Better” is context-dependent. Better is not optimizing for edge cases as if every picture you make is that edge case.
A few years ago I was shocked that the Canon 24-105 f4 L was my most used lens. I measured that with metadata. If you asked me prior to looking I’d probably have answered “the 50mm prime”. In a way I’d have been correct. Looking across all camera brands and all 50mm lenses (or equivalent) that’s true. Even within Canon only pictures I would have guess the same, I would have been wrong.
I never bought a 28-70 f2.8 L for any Canon camera. I’ve used them. I’ve used both the version I and II but never felt the need to invest. I had the 24-105 f4 and that suited my needs better with no visible difference. I won’t claim that the 28-70 f2.8 L version II isn’t better. It’s another “classic”. For those that own one and don’t own a 24-105 f4L, you might want to grab a used one, they’re practically free. Consider it a beater lens to use in situations that might hurt your precious “good lens”. I’ll bet you’ll be surprised how great the kit lens happens to be.
In my opinion the Canon 24-104 f4 L is the true classic in the same way the 50mm prime that used to come with film cameras in the 70’s. There are a ton of them quietly doing their job, making great pictures. They’ve survived many body upgrades. They work perfectly on three completely different generations of Canon bodies, film EOS, digital, and the RF mount cameras. They are accessible for any budget. What other criteria must be met?