Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM EF Lens

I bought this lens after using a Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM for a couple of years. My photographic style had centred around a type of image that the 28-135mm didn't have the resolving power to cope with, although it had been a very good lens to me. I suspect that someone somewhere will also be wondering whether to make the same upgrade, so I'll try to help as much as I can.

The first, and most obvious difference between the two lenses is build quality. The 28-135mm isn't bad, but there is (what I would call) considerable play in the lens' extending barrel even when it's not extended, although it is worse when stretched to its full 135mm reach. The 24-105mm is very solid, and even when the lens is extended to 105mm there is not a single millimeter of play - just what I like. Also, as it is part of the L series family, the materials used to build the 24-105mm are fantastic quality and feel lovely in the hand, making the 28-135mm seem plasticky in comparison.

In use the lenses handle relatively similarly, apart from a tiny bit of play in the 28-135mm's zoom ring that is absent from the 24-105mm. As a result the 24-105mm has a more positive zoom action that is hard not to get spolit by - going back to the 28-135mm feels like being demoted, even though it's not a bad lens!

Image stabilisation (it has a 'z' but I refuse to spell like an American!) features on both these lenses, but the 24-105mm sports a newer, better model. It's silent and so smooth you have to make sure occasionally that it is turned on. In contrast the 28-135mm makes a constant whirring humming noise, with an even louder motor noise that lasts for a split second when the stabiliser starts up and shuts off.

Both lenses are lightweight enough to balance well on my 35mm EOS 30 which is about 500g or so. The slightly weightier 24-105mm would still match well on one of Canon's 'mid range' DSLRs like a 30D or 5D.

Image quality is something of a minefield in a review. Most people have different opinions of what is good image quality, but in my opinion the 28-135mm loses too much sharpness towards the edge of the frame when wide open, although in general use it performs very well.

It's in high contrast photography that I noticed the biggest difference in peformance between these two models. The humble 28-135mm can't hide the chromatic abberation (CA) around subject edges, e.g. leaves against a bright sky. The 24-105mm performs much better, and I haven't noticed any CA yet. Very impressive. Neither seems to render colours any better than the other, indicating that the 28-135mm punches above its weight.

Centre sharpness of the two isn't as different as you might think. Both are pin sharp in the middle, but the 24-105mm holds onto this sharpness across most of the 35mm frame, when the 28-135mm falls behind.

Focusing is quick and quiet with both units. In normal conditions the more expensive L lens has the edge, but I would have expected it to do better in certain (admittedly rare) situations, where it can sometimes fail to find a focus point.

To sum up, as I am running out of characters, the EF 24-105mm F/4 L IS USM is a convincingly better lens than the EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM. However, I have perhaps been spoiled by it, and must admit that for about 24 months I thought the cheaper lens was more than good enough. It comes down to what you can afford. Got the money? Go for the L! On a budget? The 28-135mm will serve you well.

The 24-105 is a great utility lens, one that was missing from my camera bag. Not exceptionally fast (only f/4) but consistent throughout the focal range. The L class optics are great and the image stabilization takes its operational versatility down to equivalent faster lenses. In my opinion this lens beats the f/2.8 equivalent that I was looking at, with image stabilization and a greater focal length at £150 less.

An Excellent professional quality lens, easy to use IS feature is just great fixed aperture across the range is brilliant, a pleasure to own & use.