|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on December 04, 2020 Pros: All-rounder of great construction quality. Cons: Chromatic aberrations at 24mm. Opinion: It is a very heavy and economically demanding all-rounder objective. These two characteristics, however, are commensurate with the great constructive care. My specimen shows at 24mm at the edges marked chromatic aberrations. Perhaps staying on a 28-105 f.4 would have had greater optical quality and less weight. If flanked by the 16-35 f.4 there would have been no problems covering focal distances. The stabilizer is appreciable. It's a great piece of optics. |
 | sent on July 06, 2020 Pros: All-rounder, quality,Bokeh Cons: Maybe the price Opinion: Great all-rounder, best for Canon. Used for over a year I can say that you can do from landscapes to portraits. Really good optical quality to have a great focal excursion. At f4 already good but at 5.6 really the maximum. Goal to have if you want to exit without changing Too many fixed. Autofocus good and great stabilization. |
  | sent on August 04, 2019 Pros: Versatility, build quality, stabilizer,boken Cons: A little soft TA, chromatic aberrations, 24mm distortions Opinion: A versatile lens with the classic range of focals that on FF allows you to cover many needs. Excellent build quality and excellent stabilizer. I have never tried the previous version so I can not say what the improvements are. Soft to TA, it suffers from chromatic aberrations and 24mm distortions. It's definitely the classic "all-rounder" lens that allows you to go out with a "minimal" body-goal set, which I needed for the "daily" and "holiday" outings. Obviously my assessment of quality is very influenced by the fact that I do the comparison with the surrender of the 16-35 f/4 IS, a monster of sharpness from board to board also to TA and poor distortion. |
 | sent on July 06, 2019 Pros: Versatility, robustness, construction, optical quality Cons: Weight Opinion: Compared to the first version, those ugly dark 24 mm corners have disappeared, the optical quality I judge it more than good, not only, but to perceive differences with more ephaly ephaly opticals, such as. The 24-70 2 8 II, you have to enlarge a lot and does not always come out to the worst: the 24-70 I owned but I preferred the most compromised solution between the two. Often I find myself traveling only with that optics on the 6D2: the perceived quality of the images is definitely satisfying and even the blurred, if used at f/4 is pleasant, of course you can not expect the same bokeh of the 85 superlumbosis. Impeccable autofocus, excellent construction and excellent stabilizer. Only the weight was in favor of the old version. |
 | sent on April 04, 2019 Pros: Sharpness, no deformation at 24 mm, excellent focus on the entire frame. Cons: A bit soft at f 4 and slightly on the outer corners. Opinion: I use it with 6D Mk. II for about 3 months both in the open and in the studio. Considerable improvement over everything compared to the previous series. Excellent yield also to f 4, but it gives the best of itself from F 6.3. Great focus on the whole frame. Very efficient Stabilizer. I Would say it is a great compromise between price and quality. |
 | sent on January 03, 2019 Pros: Sharpness, versatility, stabilizer, material quality, robustness, construction, tropicalization. Cons: In my opinion NO! Opinion: I say it is my favorite lens and I believe that anyone who owns a reflex (professional or amateur) should have it in his kit! I think the lens is all about doing 90% of the shots you want to take. Great focal excursion for landscape photos, panorama, mountain, close-ups and portraits, weddings and creams, street... It goes without saying that the f/2.8 would be better, but already having the f/4 in your hands I think is MORE than enough! I mean, I'd recommend it in a thousand!!! |
 | sent on June 24, 2018 Pros: Versatility and effectiveness Cons: Footprint Opinion: I have not tried with diagrams or things like that, but after more than twenty years of photography though amateur, I can make a judgement. It's a great lens to do the dirtiest jobs. From 24mm to 105, it covers the overwhelming magigornanza of applications, a decidedly high-level mechanics, an excellent optical yield, considering the object and very good in absolute terms, an effective stabilizer, a brightness that... ok not the best But for a 4x that starts from 24mm an F 2.8 is not prpprio to be proposed: weights and encumbrances would be unmanageable. I have sharper lenses, nicer, and plastic I don't deny it. However this is a lens that makes it pretty good in the embodied and even the Greens are very beautiful. Colors are affixed! It has no poetry, this is normal for a zoom like this. The opening on the Shadows is generally good, by the standards of a product like that, but the blurry is really valuable. It denotes a general quality of respect, both mechanically and optically. So it is a professional lens in all respects and should not be considered as the poor child of an excellent class of Canon lenses, it is not so! Inside the bag of a he manages to make sense and finds its space when it needs an operational ease and at the same time a good yield, without having to go down to the compromise of a stinking optics to be able to do something very difficult. Undoubtedly an exceptional lens for the photographer who looks for a good quality, a truly professional object and a zoom to make us all with the least effort. I made a good buy! |
 | sent on March 11, 2018 Pros: Sharpness, Stabilization, Versatility, Boken Cons: Nobody Opinion: I have not had a chance to make a direct comparison with the predecessor but I am fully satisfied with this perspective. Versatile and of great quality. On the whole excursion returns shots of absolute level. Convenient the latch on the lens body. Latest generation technology that is well integrated with the most recent machine bodies. The boken is extraordinary. Excellent all-rounder that hardly detaches from the car body. Recommended. |
 | sent on March 07, 2018 Pros: It has been improved a little bit compared to the predecessor, but above all the sharpness, stabilization and the ugly distortions in the corners. Cons: The only thing that hasn't changed since the old version is that bit of chromatic aberration. Opinion: I can't understand why this lens has had bad reviews in the past, maybe for the price it cost? Even the DXO charts do not give a positive judgement... because maybe they are not part? Or maybe Canon has done in the meantime technical adjustments? To the practical Act I was very satisfied by the sharpness returned, the AF precision, the excellent stabilizer, the excellent construction and the lack of distortion/elongation in the corners at 24mm. The only cons, but acceptable, is that wire of chromatic aberration at the edges in the strong contrasts that has not been solved. The price for me is no longer a cons because the web is quietly located from €680 to €800. I speak from one that went from Canon 24 105 f/4 L IS USM to Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L USM II (for here I was not for the absence of the stabiliser and for those more 35mm in my travels) to this Canon 24-105 F/4 L IS USM II. Maybe (but I do mainly landscapes) what I miss compared to 24-70 2.8 is only the 2.8. |
 | sent on September 07, 2017 Pros: Complete in everything! Stunning sharpness. It is a blade at all focal points Cons: Only one! Weight. Opinion: I had the previous version, which 105 mm did not like much. This instead of any focal point is exceptional. It has an inexpensive construction, and a fantastic stabilizer. Not to mention the colors it gives. What the hell out of the way. I can not understand who is talking to him impetuously. For me one of Canon's best lenses. |
 | sent on August 16, 2017 Pros: All Cons: Nobody Opinion: Taken this lens as a handyman for my 6d and I can say I did not go wrong as a very convenient and very versatile lens for the focal lengths from the wide-angle to the canvas. As Canon's own series L construction, also the very large and fast focusing and zoom ringers, the focus is very fast. I would highly recommend it. !! Good light at all !! |
| sent on July 25, 2017 Pros: Very convenient in maneuvers, good handle, more than good sharpness, covers almost every need. Cons: If positioned at 24mm, by shoulder strap, tends to move to 105 mm by increasing the bulk, probably the weight exceeds the friction of the screw. I hope the "flex" for this extra work will not be used and will break before the expected. For now I have repaired with an elastic brake. The shoulder strap could be improved by increasing the "grip" on the shoulder. (Sic) Opinion: An "honest" lens that does his job well. The price is in line with the quality offered. Undoubtedly if the lens's incisiveness was that of the old canon fd 100 mm f2 it would be excellent. But not always the high incisiveness is a good thing. For prints on paper up to 20x30 between a Leica elmarit and a canon 24-105 there is no difference. Perhaps canon seems even more engraved. With prints over 50x60 Leica says the law with its "plasticity". Yes, I know it is only adjectives, but the difference is visible. You must have STAMPARE.rn |
  | sent on July 17, 2017 Pros: Construction, tropicalization, comfortable and wide focus and zoom ring Cons: for the moment none, maybe a little price Opinion: it would be a little early for me to review this zoom as I took it from a few days. Of the previous one I had 3 to I appreciated the comfort of the excursion and I also saw the defects at 24mm and the not exhilarating definition to f4, after a trip or holidays , to bring only one lens, I always sold them. However, I do not think I resell this series because the advantages, related to the excursion and therefore to the only really all-rounder lens in Casa Canon, remain all. To these well-known advantages I have to add a more well-groomed construction and not only for the anti-stretching lock and the attachment of the lampshade. Even the hike, the path of the zoom seems to me lower, like that of a 24-70. It all seems to me to be much improved, the feeling of solidity by maneuvering the dials, for example. Optically and especially to diaphragm a little closed, frankly it seems to me better than the previous one especially in the rendering of colors. What else to say, for now I have only seen pleasant things and I am very happy with the purchase, then we will see... Don't forget the very effective stabilizer. I vote 9 only as a precaution but it seems to me a product of considerable quality, I absolutely do not share the average vote too low resulting from the votes of the users, by the way, if I have to judge by the reviews so far I do not seem all dissatisfied, how come so many people break this lens without even motivating their vote? By the way I see a lot of confusion between this new L II and the previous L I, even some reviews present here I think refer to the previous model and should be moved. Even in the market there are ads that clearly refer to type L I mixed with those of type L II increasing the confusion between the two models. Update: After intensive use during a holiday period I would confirm the goodness of the product only if the price fell to the level of the previous one, there is nothing that can justify buying it at a double price. I recently researched this lens (September 2019) and found it at a price of less than 700 euros new with European guarantee and I would say that now it is definitely worth it, it is cmq a great all-rounder that allows you to start on the road with only one lens and lead to house beautiful photos. |
 | sent on June 25, 2017 Pros: Construction from true L, tropicalization, beautiful and large focus and zoom ring Cons: Weight, a real brick! Compared to the first 24-105 series gains a bit more sharpness on the edges but is not exciting, unfortunately it loses sharpness in the center especially at 105. Let's say now the gap between edges and center is less obvious, but it's normal to lower the sharpness to Center instead of improving more that at the edges? Opinion: Several years after the release of the previous one I expected something better than Canon. I was not satisfied with the gearbox, I also have the 24 70 f4 which fortunately has a significantly superior quality. Pity on the 24th 105 would have the most interesting focuses for a matrimonialist ....... Then the weight, a real brick and even the size have greatly increased. Mah! I expected more in everything. |
 | sent on June 20, 2017 Pros: Sharpness, colors, L series design, versatility, speed and AF precision Cons: Nobody at the moment (just bought) Opinion: Surely I will be shocked by all the purists, but I just replaced my 24-70 f.2.8 L USM II with this optic that I find, despite the lower brightness, much more versatile for the kind of photos I do. I used this optic with a Canon EOS 5D MK III and I did not see any loss of quality and made in the shots made. Vote 9 |
| sent on March 24, 2017 Pros: Sharpness, portability, focal Cons: Nobody Opinion: This lens was my first quality lens. I purchased it as "do everything" thanks to the excellent zoom range, without any repentance. The quality of the L-series lenses is always great, certainly a great investment for those who, like me, need a very flexible lens with a great quality. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
