Great lens especially for the very low price

PROS

* Very sharp across the image even wide open.

* Low Chroma. I read a test ([...]) that found higher than normal amounts of CA in this lens at some apertures but I don't see it. My standard test is to shoot bare tree limbs on bright sunny days & look for purple fringing especially at the edges. I'm not seeing anywhere near the level of fringing shown in some of their test shots.If anything I'd call it "low" I read elsewhere that one of Canon's goals in adding the aspherical element to this lens was to reduce CA so I'm thinking maybe the lens tested in photozon.de was just a bad apple.

* Image Shake control works. I can't attest to how often it provides a full 4 stops worth of shake reduction but I can see a very clear result when using it.

* Fast accurate focusing. One of the reasons I purchased this lens was because I was dissatisfied with the performance of my (more expensive) Sigma 17-35 EX (the newer model) which while sharp is just too slow and inaccurate a focuser for close work in action sports. The new Canon solved that problem.

* Compact light weight & unobtrusive. Not much bigger than a normal lens.

CONS

* Barrel Distortion at 18mm (28mm) While not exsessive for an inexpensive lens this is one area where you will see benefit from spending hundreds of dollars for a much more expensive Canon "IS" or "L" or buying a fixed focal length lens. In most real world situations it wasn't all that noticeable. I could usually correct for it in Photoshop but this is not a lens for critical architectural work etc. I have taken hundreds of photos with this lens and barrel distortion has only called attention to itself a few times. I suspect this is one price paid for the very compact design.

* Not very fast. Another area where an "L" has an edge. At F3.5 28mm equivalent and F5.6 85mm this lens is relatively slow compared to a pro lens. This effects stopping the action in low light. OTH you will have to spend hundreds more to get a usable top speed of F 2.8 and that is *only* one stop faster at 28mm equiv. I think both this lens' sharpness and the IS system mitigate this "Con." It took me a while to learn that I could shoot wide open at all focal lengths without having the outer third of the image turn to mush.That's pretty amazing for a zoom at this price. You don't have a stop or two you almost never use because it is too soft. And the IS system works well in low light though that doesn't figure in in stopping the action.

* Does not have that red stripe. Sad to say some will never buy this sharp handy little lens because in is not an "L" and/or doesn't cost $[...]. Yes it does does look a little "plasticy" probably doesn't have the build quality for heavy everyday use by a real working pro and does not look massive mounted on your camera body like a "fast" pro lens that's squeezing out that last F stop. But IMO it looks very similar to Canon's newer IS lenses so there is no scarlet letter immediately identifying you as "cheap." In other words "Get over it."



So why did Canon produce such a good lens at such a bargain price? I'd say that it's because Nikon announced their intention to do the same a little while ago. Also Canon's old non IS 18-55mm lens had the rep of being something of a dog. Finally several competing cameras now have IS built into the body. Canon had to respond with a sharp IS lens that they could put on the Rebels & the 40D. In terms of sales the low end of the DSLR market is both hot and very competitive. We're the beneficiaries.More detail ...

Mixed feelings

Intro

I was eagerly expecting this upgrade from Nikon since I have not been very pleased by the old AF-D version. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens was a performant lens with careful handling and focusing of static or relatively static subjects. However for action shooting AF with the D version was lacking the kind of snap needed for those "razor sharp" details. Moreover very prone to flare and coma and with somewhat low contrast rendition of images the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D was never my lens of choice even for portraiture. During 2007 I got a Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO Lanthar (in Nikon mount) manual focus that gave me the pleasure of portraiture as I wanted to be (really for the money that lens is awesome).

However having a better focusing less flare-prone high contrast 50mm prime was tempting and as rumours about an AF-S version started to appear I decided to sell my old f/1.4 and get the new AF-S version.

However even this upgrade did not entirely match my expectations. I try to detail below some of my findings.



Subject isolation sharpness DOF and bokeh

One of the reasons of getting a large aperture lens is isolation of subjects. Subject sharpness smooth transitions on D0F interval and pleasant bokeh (see below) is the triad that usually influence purchase of such lenses. I have another one: ease of use and reduced weight. The third: getting a prime that has usable AF on D40/D40x/D60 (yes this can be used). Moreover I am more and more tempted to use fixed focals for general photography and walkaround thus I lack a performant 35mm prime that will act as a normal focal for my D300 to use most of the time (like back in the old days of film when I was less lazy and spoiled by zooms).

The new 50mm f/1.4 does an excellent job at isolating the subject and sometimes you have to take a lot of care about focusing exactly on those portions of the image that you want to be sharp since even slight deviations might defocus quite severely. The custom stop difference for DOF blurring between a DX and FX is about one stop which means that a f/1.4 on DX achieves the kind of DOF that you will get with a f/2.0 lens on a FX. However those of you who wish to get that "magic almost 3D look of images" should keep in mind that this subjective perception of the image is a combination of subject isolation and peripheral perception of the eye of the blurred background - thus the higher the quality of the bokeh the better the "3D" look of the image.

Unfortunately the extreme sharpness of this lens - even wide open at f/1.4 - comes at a price a bokeh which in my opinion is not so pleasant. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM produces a better looking (smoother with no harsh artifacts due to diffraction on aperture rim) bokeh but with lower sharpness overall. In the end all comes to your personal preference: sharpness or excellent bokeh ? You cannot have both as a consequence of optical constraints. Nikon tried to launch a rasor-sharp wide opened prime (which it is) with good DOF capabilities within an optical formula and glass specs that do not generate a tremendous amount of smooth blurring of the background (bokeh). Please remember that depth of field only gives an estimate of blurring of a subject which is in the focus interval i.e. how blurred the image will be just outside the DOF interval. DOF does not correlate with the DEGREE of blurring of objects placed at SIGNIFICANT distance behind the subject in focus. If the background is far enough (which translates: outside the depth of field) and the subject if close (inside the hyperfocal distance) the DEGREE of blurring is related to the absolute physical size of the lens aperture. That's why the bokeh is better with large diameter glass and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has "better" bokeh (smoother)than the 50mm AF-S. A basic rule of thumb (that you might consider in your "bokeh-oriented" purchases) when comparing lenses of same focal distance is that the quality of bokeh is directly proportional with the result of: (glass frontal element diameter)/(aperture value F). For example for a 50mm f/1.4 with a 25mm frontal element that proportion will yield apx. 18; for a 50mm f/1.4 lens with a 50mm frontal element the result would be apx. 35. You would expect a doubling of of the blur with such large glass.

However large frontal element and better blur comes at the price of heavy optics and more aberration-prone lens which translate in lower sharpness and reduced microcontrast. The 50mm f/1.4 AF-S Nikkor excels at sharpness and microcontrast (which is not the case of Sigma) thus you will have to choose based on your personal shooting preferences which lens to pick in the end. Maybe a Zeiss ?



Color accuracy

The lens is on the cool side and this means that colors will be perceived by your eyes as more natural. Remember that what our brain interpretes as pure white (and make you think "this is white") is something that has quite a lot of blue in it. This is why in bygone days they were adding blueish bleaching stuff when doing laundry: the sensation of perfect white.

However this slight tendency to the cold side has a consequence when shooting with flash: try to compensate a bit the color temp and make it a bit warmer otherwise soome magenta casts will appear especially in shadows.

Under natural light the color and contrast are almost perfect with well defined hues and very good to excellent separation of colors (something which the old 50mm AF-D did not display) and a wonderful absolutely wonderful microcontrast.

Used under overcast the lens will retrieve images that have a slightly dramatic "journalism-like" look with deep blues and blacks (excellent as density for printing) and well defined details.

The color rendition does not change with aperture values just your perception of better contrast will increase as the aperture narrows (due to increased sharpness per field).

Due to the relative small glass element diameters the lens behaves like a planar thus very low distorsion (close to absent) at the minimum shooting distance can be observed making it ideal for closeups. This is more obvious on DX format.

No vignetting observed by me both on DX and FX.



Build

The lens uses plastic but a very good quality one. Is bigger and heavier than the old AF-D (weight: 8.1 oz (230g) AF-D vs. 10.2 oz (290g) AF-S; length: 2.0 inch (50mm) AF-D vs. 2.1 inch (54.2mm) AF-S; diameter: 2.6 inch (66mm) AF-D vs. 2.9 inch (73.5mm) AF-S) but not as heavy as the Sigma (18.3oz (520g); 3.33in x 2.69in (84.5 mm × 68.2 mm) );

The focusing ring is acceptable damped but not for precision MF in my opinion.



Overall rating and conclusions

Yes I recommend buying this lens due to its exceptional sharpness wide open color rendition contrast and compactness. Moreover owners of D40/D40x/D60 finally have a cool prime they can use on their AF crippled cameras (no internal motor) which - I believe - is the primary reason this lens was launched on the market.



However bokeh lovers should look elsewhere in my opinion or carefully select scenes and compositions if they are looking for the ultimate blurring of the background. If I'd had enough to invest I would take both: the Sigma for the bokeh and more poetry in my images the AF-S for studio shooting sharpness and subject isolation.



The choice is yours.



Highly recommended.



Dec 22 2008 (I made myself a birthday present)



----------



Update: February 2nd 2010



Some updates on image quality. Actually not true one of the comments to my review in what concerns the bokeh on a full-frame. I have a D700 now and the bokeh of this lens at F/1.4 is far less pleasing even than the DX 35mm f/1.8 in DX mode on D700. By the way the 35 DX is one of the best lenses (image-wise in what concerns sharpness AND color rendition) I ever bought. Not to mention the stellar APO LANTHAR 90mm at 3.5 (a 90mm lens though) - unfortunately an extinct bird such a pity !



The issue is that physics cannot be cheated: large glass diameter = better bokeh. That's it. But this AF-S G 50mm has some other advantages especially on a FF. For example better focusing under incandescent light. Not dim incandescent (focus accuracy is heavily dependent on wavelength). Or as a perfect companion for going out "light" - reminds you of good old days of fixed focals. Or the very good correction of curvature (reacts almost as a PLANAR and recommend it for portraits) at the expense of CA of course - but this is easily correctable in pp. For example the sigma 50mm f/14 is very sharp but with a curvature that reminds of a 35 mm FF lens. Overall the most pleasant bokeh (IMO) on any Nikon lens is on the 200mmf/2. But that's another league. I am a lucky person: I have access to a wide array of lenses and I can test them. I hope I will have enough time to spend to post these opinions on my website. Finally would I buy this lens again knowing what I know now ? Of course. It is a very welcomed update in the aging nikon lens lineup.More detail ...

Best macro lens by far

I love Canon. Although there were times when I shot with Nikons (D700 D300) and were pretty impressed with the result I always came back to Canon.

This is the first is macro lens for Canon and they got it right. I have used the 60mm 100mm & 180mm macro before and by far this is the best!

Now if you already own a 100mm macro you should try it before upgrading because the IQ of the lens are identical. I usually use this lens for portraits (yes I know the 85mm & 135mm is a better portrait lens.) of my daughter and the IS is awesome. Hand holding 1/40 I can still get a sharp picture.



The thing that I really hated about the non-IS 100mm macro was the distribution of weight - it was the most awkward thing to shoot with. This lens feels lighter because of the even distribution of weight and size (gradual taper) and it includes a deep hood.



I know $1K is a hefty sum of cash but considering what you get and how long it can last you - I don't know why you would settle for the non-IS.



--- Edit ---



I found that for portrait the bokeh on this thing is incredibly smooth. Instead of the angular blurs (lights flowers etc) you get a smooth circular blurs due to its spherical diaphragm. But I guess that's in the eye of the beholder...More detail ...

A Real Lens!

October 2006 Update:

I thought I owed this Lens review an update after shooting with it for almost a couple of years and having the pleasure of shooting with a variety of L Lenses: 70-200L 16-35L Fisheye 50mm and the Kit lens. This is what I've found:



1) Bar none the best "portrait" lens I own. There's just something about this 85mm focal length + f/1.8 that brings out detail....faces have so much dimension with this lens they look 3 dimensional. When I want to get shots of my daughter that amaze I use this lens. When I look at my picture archive on my computer I can easily spot the ones taken with this 85mm. My friends some of which who don't know much about photography pick pictures taken with this lens as their favorites - they ask wow how did you get that picture? I have a few blown up pictures to 16x20 and 11x14 of my daughter for my parents from this lens which are magnificent.



2) I thought that when I bought my 70-200L I would never use my 85mm again I was wrong. I routinely find myself putting on the 85mm and shooting pictures with it. Also Its much lighter and less imposing than my 70-200L so when I just want amazing portraits don't need the higher 200mm and don't want the weight and want a real shallow depth of feel and out of focus backgrounds I go for the 85mm.



3) I also have a 16-35mm L which I use quite a bit for inside shots and panoramas which stays on my camera most of the time but there's just a special look to the longer mm rating that you get which makes portraits just work better with the 85mm - so when I take off the 16-35 I usually mount this 85mm.



4) I really thought that between the 16-35mm L and the 70-200L I'd never ever use the 85mm I was wrong. There are wonderful advantages to this lens which make it a keeper for me....the construction on this lens has held up very well after years it looks brand new. I do have a UV/Haze filter that I use as a protector I got from Amazon (about $25) - great value.



There's allot to be said for a non "L" lens which consistently winds up on my camera when I own several "L"s which cover the mm of this lens. To me its an L: built like an L color and saturation comparable to an L It's my "L" lens that doesn't have a red stripe.



Original Review:

I bought a 20D recently with the 18-55mm kit lens and to start out I bought a 50mm f/1.8 lens which really got me interested in the faster f/stops to blur backgrounds and take pictures in lower light. My kit lens was not fast enough (hard to blur background and hard to take pictures in low light) and both the kit lens and 50mm lens did not have Ultrasonic which made me miss focus more often with moving targets.



I looked quite a bit and found the 85mm f/1.8 lens. Although Amazon only had a few reviews the photography forums I found were buzzing about how this lens should've been labeled an L lens. Pros might know why but 90% of the reviews I read said it was comparable to an L lens in quality and that it was very affordable.



I bought this lens and I have to tell you I was very impressed with it right from the start. On construction its heavier than the kit lens and the plastic 50mm II lens. It has a metal mount and very solid construction. If you look through it you can see allot of glass which tells you it has a wide aperture and consequently its much heavier than the kit lens or 50mm lens. But...its heavy in a good way. It balances the camera and makes it look like a real camera.



So what's good about this lens? For one you can take great pictures in low light with the f/1.8. I photographed a stage play handheld with this lens and no flash (non allowed) and I got tremendous results. Ultrasonic helped with every picture in focus and all very sharp with vibrant colors very nice saturation and I used ISO 400 and I could even freeze the action on stage.



As a portrait lens it really can blow the backgrounds into a very nice buttery blokeh and with the Ultrasonic - I haven't missed focus once. Its also wonderful for inside pictures with no flash. The F/1.8 is really versatile.



A few notes. If you're going to get a 70-200 L zoom lens you might wind up not using this lens as much but for parties its allot less intimidating than a big white lens. I hear this lens was designed a long time ago and not really designed for digital and that some strange effects can be seen with it on digitals. I have not gone looking nor experienced any of these. Its just a tremendous value at $350. I was not able to use this lens as a macro as it was not designed as such but I have thought of putting an extension tube on it to see what I get but haven't done so yet.



Constructed Solid. Solid feel smooth focusing ring distance window autofocus with a real Ring USM. Five Stars! Amazon shipped fast on this for me - Great store.More detail ...

Plain review in plain terms with sample shots

The short version:



Pros:

The optical quality is great the speed is terrific and it compares well to the 70-200mm lens that people like to say blows this out of the water (I believe they are wrong - but we will get into that later) and finally the price cannot be beaten. Buy it.



Cons:

No hood extends as it zooms and the quality of the picture in low light situation lessens a little.



The long version:



I am writing this in simple terms. I found several several reviews on this lens but they were all in technical terms and leaves you scratching your head a little. So if you are like me maybe this review will help you.



I bought this lens a couple months ago from US1Photo.com (check these guys out. They regularly have significant sales and terrific customer service). I use this lens with a Canon 40D.



I take several types and styles of pictures so I needed a lens that would do the best job at several things and have a very affordable price (right at or less than $1000). I looked through new used third party (Tamron Sigma etc) lenses and read too many reviews and looked at too many images to count and spent four hours in a photography store playing with lenses before I decided to spend money and take advantage of this lens. All in all I spent about a week's worth of time in research and testing before I bought this lens.



---

Edit:

Okay so amazon won't let me put a link here. This is how you find me.

~Go to Flickr

~Then type in a "/" then "photos" then "/" and last type in "gman_five0"

And that should take you there.

---



Test of comment #1:

~The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM does not track moving objects very well and the farther to the end of the zoom the slower the tracking.



(Flickr Gallery page 2)



This I have found to be completely wrong. I have used the lens at several sporting events and found that it tracks rather nicely. I was able to track every step of a base-runner from first base to second slide and recovery after the play without losing ONE shot.



To see what I am talking about check out my gallery on Flickr. The older ones are NOT done with this lens or camera and taken actually several years ago. I will reference the pictures in question.



Safe Got There By a Mile Breaking Up That Double Play (please note that as time goes on from the date that this was posted the pictures may have been re-moved). Also "Safe" was used instead of another shot taken at the same time and angle with a 70-200mm IS lens.



To take these shots I used "AI focus" and the "H" settings on my camera for quicker tracking and the H settings for about 6 frames per second.



Test of Comment #2:

~The 200-300mm range is nice in theory but a tack-sharp photo from the 70-200mm f/4L at 200mm is going to look better cropped than a 300mm full-frame photo from this lens.



Again I found this to be wrong. Though I have no actual "full sized" picture for this if you comment back with an email address then we can arrange a viewing of one. Otherwise take my word for it I own several lenses and this one stacks up well.



(Ref Flickr Gallery)



The pictures from the Dance Theater and Tashina were all taken at the 200-300mm focus lengths. Again they are not full sized because of photo pirates but if you email me we can see about full sized shots.



Test of Comment #3:

~The IS motor is loud



I do not know what these people are talking about but if you call that loud...

On the other hand I have heard (once) the sound of the IS motor but if you are not listening for it you will not even notice it.



Things I have found about the lens:



If you spend some time with the lens will be one of your best friends. It is a great lens especially for people on a budget (like me). To take the best pictures you cannot just twist it on and go to shooting. Take the time to LEARN about the lens (change shutter speeds ISO settings aperture white balances etc) and it will show you where it shines - just like the L series lenses and the 70-200mm IS.



This lens has a solid make and feels like it will last forever. Then again as you zoom the lens does extend and is plastic. So watch out if you are doing sports. You may get it knocked off. It did well for me though. Extending while zooming makes putting a hood on the lens a bit (very little; so little that you cannot tell) awkward and it looks kinda goofy.



I like the lens because it is not as bulky as the 70-200mm lens and it is extremely mobile. It is as quick as some other lenses not as quick as some and quicker than others. It will give you great quality pictures. It does have its limits however: in low light situations not being able to take it back a couple stops and get a wider aperture will not give you the same shot as a 70-200mm. Then again like I said it doesn't drop to that f/2.8 and does not cost all that money. This has been the single drawback for me about the lens.



I use this lens for portraits (Tashina Samantha) for sports (see gallery) and music (Shawn Pander - See Gallery). So it's pretty versatile. I have yet to use with it flash but that is because I simply do not like to use flash. I have yet to use it in a studio setting but when I do I will amend this review and add a couple of those pictures as well.



This lens comes highly recommended from me. I am not a big time highly paid or well known photographer. I just like to shoot and like what I shoot to be of the best quality that I can have AND afford at the time. So if you are like me and cannot spend the needed $1500 - $1700 on a 70-200mm IS lens then spend your money on this lens. You will not be sorry for it.

---



On another note comments are welcome. This is my first ever review on here so let me know if there anything else that you would like to know about and I will do my best to answer the question in the most plain terms as possible.

More detail ...

Very Nice Lens But it Has its Quirks

After exhaustive research on many lens I finally decided to plunk down the $500+ (at the time this was written) to purchase this lens. It may not be the best on the market but it compliments my Nikon 18-70mm DX lens nicely. I was looking towards Nikon's 18-200mm DX lens however; the price pushed me to choose this one (as it was nearly half the price and my two lens can nearly cover all the range of the one 18-200mm).



QUALITY/WEIGHT:



build quality is cheap yet sturdy... the plastic is a little chinky but cuts down on the weight. My Nikon D200 has no problem handling the lens weight however; I have heard (unconfirmed) reports that this lens is a little heavy for the lighter cameras (D80 D70 D40 ETC). The Ring Connector is metal and has a rubber gasket on the outside so as to provide minor protection (for the lens mount) from the elements.



You also have to keep this in mind when discussing weight quality & price; the bulk of the price of this lens is going into the glass elements (all 17 elements of them). It gets expensive when you place that many high-quality optics into a tube. I'm really not that surprised a the price although $400 price-range would probably be more suitable for this lens



FOCUSING/LENS ATTRIBUTES:



Focusing can be quite fast... at times. You'll find at the Max 300mm focal range that the lens has a pretty hard time auto-focusing in on a subject. At times it would focus pretty quick at the 300mm range while at others it cannot focus at all. You can get around this quirk by bringing the subject into near focus (manually) then letting the auto-focus take over; it works every time. I find this focus problem disappointing especially given the price of this lens.



The quality of the Bokeh (Out of focus areas of the photograph) is very nice and pleasing. The images are sharp vignetting (dark areas in the corner of your photos) is hard to find and lens flare rarely a problem.



VIBRATION STABILIZATION:



All I can say is that it works... it can come in handy. It's not going to stop the image guaranteed for you; it's only meant to slow down the rate at which the camera moves (vibration from holding). You can notice the difference; with it off you'll see that the image (at say 300mm) really bouncing around; then you flick on VR. It takes a sec or two but then the image smooths out it still wobbles around but much more slowly.



With VR enabled you can usually go 2-3 (sometimes 4) stops down then what you'd normally be able to do when hand holding.



THE "SHOCK" TEST:



I haven't "shock tested" my lens yet (IE dropped it) but I have heard (again unconfirmed reports here) that it holds up pretty well to a drop... although I would never recommend testing that out.



IMPORTANT NOTE:



The 70-300mm range should be noted: Although the lens states that it is a 70-300mm zoom this lens was intended for a 35mm camera or full-frame CCD/CMOS sensor Digital Camera. All (or at least the majority) of Nikon's DSLR (D200 D80 ETC) are NOT Full-Frame sensors. They are approximately 1.5x factor of a full-frame sensor (due to the smaller sensor size).



What does this all mean?



Well it's simple since this is a 35mm lens and not a DX lens (ie built to account for the 1.5x factor in most nikon digitals) you have to apply the 1.5x conversion. This means that the Nikon 70-300mm on a Nikon DSLR will give an apparent zoom equivalent to a 105-450mm lens. I actually do not mind this apparent zoom and this should also cut down on vignetting; as what the lens projects onto the sensor is larger then the area of the sensor itself. In short: parts of the image spills over the sensor since this lens was meant to project onto a full-frame sensor/35mm film.



CONCLUSION:



Pros:

Pleasing Bokeh

Fast Auto-Focus (when working properly)

Vignetting is minimal

Image Stabilization (VR)

Flare is minimal

1.5x factor (105-450mm) makes for nice zoom

Colors are very good



CONS:

Plastic Casing

Near Inability to Auto-Focus at 300mm range

Price (even though it is cheaper then the 18-200mm DX)

1.5x factor (105-450mm) might make it more zoom then you need

Lens could be faster (F/4 would have been nice)



I love this lens even for it's quirks however; you may want to wait till it drops in price a little more (it falls almost bi-weekly). It may not be the fastest on the market but it's size optics image quality and VR make this a must have lens for Serious Nikon users! More detail ...

A great general-purpose lens

I've owned the 24-70mm for almost a year now. This lens has been a favorite of many since it replaced its well-regarded predecessor the 28-70mm. It shoots images that are very sharp and have excellent contrast and saturation. It's sharp wide open and only gets better when stopping down. The USM (Ultrasonic Motor) focuses very fast and full-time manual focusing is allowed. I've thought about buying a 50mm f/1.4 but the results from this lens are so good I'm having a hard time justifying the purchase. I've been nothing but pleased with the pictures I get from the 24-70mm. The constant f/2.8 aperture is great for shooting indoors and produces a very nice bokeh (background blur) when shooting portraits. This lens is much heavier than comparable consumer-grade zooms but I don't object to the weight. I actually like the heft and feel of this lens on my 20D. The only feature I wish it had is IS (image stabilization).



The one thing preventing an unqualified recommendation is the recent release of the Canon 24-105mm f/4.0L IS. The latter lens costs about the same and has some noteworthy advantages. It is .7" shorter .2mm narrower and .6 lbs. lighter. It has 3rd generation IS that gives you a 3-stop shutter speed advantage when shooting handheld. I know from my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS that image stabilization is a very welcome feature when shooting handheld at slow shutter speeds. And obviously the 24-105mm adds an extra 35mm of focal length on the long end.



The 24-70mm bests the 24-105mm in one way: It's a faster lens. That translates into the following advantages: At f/4.0 the 24-105mm cannot stop subject motion blur as well in low-light situations where the 24-70mm's f/2.8 can give you a shutter speed that is twice as fast. Note that IS does not have any impact at all on subject motion blur only on camera shake on your end. If bokeh (background blur) is important to you the 24-70mm will have a slight advantage over the 24-105mm given its wider aperture. A wider aperture also helps a camera focus a little better in low light.



The first run of the 24-105mm had a flare problem (see Canon's Web site for more info) and the early production models have been recalled. But the problem has now been fixed. You'll have to consider your photography priorities when deciding which of these two excellent lenses best suits your needs. You would be well served by either.More detail ...