Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens
$669 + $22.99 Postage + ($6.99 optional insurance)
Comes with Australian Warranty by Kogan.
Comes with all accessories
EW-83H Lens Hood
E-77U Lens Cap
LP1219 Soft Case
E Lens Dust Cap
May come white boxed as a kit lens split.
L Series Lens, enough said.
iOS Users Only
$5 credit for referrer and referee.
It's $4 cheaper at dwi http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/astore/Canon-EF-24-105mm… free metropolitan shipping.
$4 cheaper + the value of not buying Kogan
both are just as bad as each other
Never had any issues with DWI camera dept and I've spent quite a fair bit of $ with them.
same here, great company. I guess like with any company nobody is 100% perfect so people can have issues.
I've never had any issues with DWI either. And I've bought;
Canon 6D,
16-36mm L II lens,
a 6D battery grip,
canon speedlite 600-ex rt
and multiple batteries for a 6d and 600d.
All using separate shipping orders and not a single issue was found.
It's not if they stuff breaks, is what they do about it when it does.
Comes with Australian Warranty by Kogan.
It's an L series, don't these come with international Canon warranty ??? or do Kogan remove the warranty cards ???
Probably because it is part of a kit lens and the warranty is tied to the whole package and not individual parts
No it doesn't. That's how Canon rip us off in Australia.
http://www.canon.com.au/en-AU/Business/Support/Warranty/Warr…
This warranty is valid only for Products that are purchased new and unused:
(a) in Australia or New Zealand; and (b) sourced from Canon Australia Pty Ltd or Canon New Zealand Ltd (“Canon”) or its distribution channel.
Canon Australia or Canon New Zealand’s distribution channel refers to its network of authorised distributors, dealer and retailers. Canon-branded products that have been sourced by end-users, distributors or retailers from any source other than through Canon Australia or Canon New Zealand (including ‘grey’, ‘parallel’ or ‘direct’ imports) are not Canon Australia or Canon New Zealand products.
- This clause relates to goods supplied in Australia only:
Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and for compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced if the goods fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure.
If you purchase from a company with an Australian ABN/ACN you will be covered, regardless of what Canon wants you to believe…
Express warranties != statutory warranties
Covered.. from the original supplier… ie kogan, you wont get warranty from Canon Australia.
Covered.. from the original supplier…
and the manufacturer or importer
http://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/…
http://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Warranties%20and%20refun…
"Sellers – Each sale is a contract between the
seller and the consumer. So if the seller breaches
the contract by providing goods that do not
meet a statutory warranty or condition, it is their
responsibility to provide a remedy.
If a seller has to return goods to a manufacturer
for assessment or repair, the seller should arrange
delivery.
The law allows sellers to recover the cost of the
remedy from the goods’ manufacturer or importer,
if the problem was related to a manufacturing
fault
The law also gives
consumers the right to pursue a manufacturer or
importer for a remedy, even if goods were bought
from a retailer."
"Because each sale is a contract between the
buyer and the seller, consumers are entitled to
insist that the seller provide them with a remedy,
even if a problem is due to a manufacturer’s fault."
Kogans goods don't come from australia? they come from HK?
So im guessing seller is Kogan, and manufacturer could be considered to be canon HK?
what interests me is the line that it is for the seller to get the money back from the manufacturer
the confusing thing is the "OR" word "manufacturer OR
importer" and "This clause relates to goods supplied in Australia only"
Is kogan considered an Australian Retailer?
It clearly states that grey import is not Canon Australia product. You can try and let me know how it goes mate.
The ACL only applies for good purchased from an Australian Retailer. In this case, when purchasing grey goods from Kogan, you are ordering and charged by Kogan HK. Check the invoice when you order. You'll notice they'll be no ABN, just a business registration number from HK.
well that definitely clears things up :D
Cheers guys!
I'm getting the impression Kogan is guaranteeing the fix, not Canon.
It's not an Australian product, but it is an Australian warranty.
u gotta send it back to kogan in HK :P
You normally get it sent back to Kogan locally. They pay for shipping back to them too. That's what my friend did with his Kogan-sourced phone when it developed a problem.
L lenses WORLDWIDE do not come with international warranty as of Sept 2011
Another victim of Osama.
Slow, soft and outdated optics. The Tamrom 24-70/2.8 VC dances circles around it (sharper at 2.8 than the Canon is at 5.6, without the massive fringing) for an extra $150.
dont know why this comment is getting negged. exact reason i sold my 24-105L, upgraded to the tamron 24-70VC
As much as I liked my 24-105L (I wouldn't call it soft, maybe I got a good copy), it's an old design and people shouldn't discount lenses from other manufacturers especially when it's a newer lens. The 'L' designation and that red ring around the lens doesn't automatically make it the best there is.
That's not really a like for like comparison. You choose between range and optics. The closest rival is the 24-120mm on Nikon, but that costs more and useless if you're already committed to Canon.
That 70-105mm is a fair amount of range to lose. If you can live with it, then yeah. I prefer a 17-70 on crop to a 17-50, and this is the FF equivalent.
It's a standard range zoom, which competes with other standard range zooms. It's totally a like-for-like comparison - same as comparing family cars, refrigerators or phones, there are always tradeoffs between competing products. Doesn't mean they aren't competing.
In this case, you trade the 70-105 range (and a red ring!) for an extra stop of aperture and superior optics. That range is pretty irrelevant anyways, especially if you have a fast 85mm or one of the multitude of excellent 70-200 variants. And a stop of aperture trumps everything, imho.
Either way, Canon has dropped the ball in this space. The new 24-70/4 is too expensive, the 24-70/2.8 lacks IS (but has a hilarious price tag, at least locally) and the 24-105 kit lens desperately needs a refresh.
It's not like for like.
THis has a range of 24-105, not 24-70. Makes it an excellent walkaround lens
Agreed, 24-105 is different to 24-70. Not everyone might find the extra bit useful, but some people do. Different people have different needs after all.
The weight saving and slightly extra reach are enough reasons for many people to choose Canon 24-105mm over Tamron 24-70mm. As much as I love f2.8, I still prefer a lens with 200g lighter when I'm travelling.
i've been waiting for years for canon to give me something to buy in the 24-70 range to go with my 70-200 IS lens… and they have DEFINITELY dropped the ball here.
I love my 70-200, but its hard to stay loyal to canon when they refuse to build anything of note in the wider ranges that isnt stupidly priced.
the tamron as mentioned above is VERY tempting indeed.
Not slow? I would rather have a a slighty softer shot and have that extra reach, 157mm vs 105mm, even at the same cost. (The canon 24-70 is about $2K.)
F4 is slow. It's 1/125th and sharp vs 1/60th and blur.
And there is no 'slightly' about it.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-…
If you want to trade speed and quality for slightly more reach, that's your prerogative I guess.
Fortunately, not everyone pixel-peeps at 100%. A good photo is about the subject and composition. It doesn't have to be pin-sharp. Photography is an art, we shouldn't make it too much of a science.
And that's completely irrelevant to choosing a lens. No one said you can't take a good photo with a bad lens, just that there are lenses with objectively better image quality available for the money.
Unless the L on the box grants you some kind of magical +1 Arts. In which case, I humbly withdraw my argument.
If you don't pixel-peep, does it matter? If you're not printing large portraits or viewing at 100%, can people tell the difference without a loupe? Are they admiring the photo or analysing the technical aspects?
Do note your original comment only mentioned the difference in sharpness.
I'm saying sharpness and fringing isn't the main reason to choose a lens.
e.g. choosing between f/2.8 vs an extra 45mm totally depends on the buyer's needs. You can't say one is better than the other.
No one ever said it was the main reason to choose the lens, so you are arguing against yourself here. Or a man made of straw, I guess.
I said it's soft, it's slow and it has outdated optics in comparison to the alternative offered. All those things are objective facts. 'It doesnt matter because composition not pixel peeping!' is a dumb argument when they are similarly priced.
If I was saying 'dont buy this, buy the two thousand dollar Canon instead because you cant take good photos with it because its soft', then you would have an argument. But I'm not, and you don't.
Whilst i agree with you, let's not pull another pixel peep wars. There have been enough of them on the internet.
I agree it's pretty outdated and tamron 24-70mm 2.8 is a better option. But it comes with a price of being heftier and slightly shorter reach. I would feel comfortable to carry 24-105 and 50mm for travelling. If I carry 24-70mm, I may need to add 1 more short telephoto lens like 135L - and at the end this combination is quite heavy.
The other competitor, Sigma 24-105 doesn't offer significant improvement regardless being heavier and has 82mm filter size.
In the past few years, I've taken photos on six continents. I don't recall a single time I would have needed an 85-100mm lens. I find subjects are either within the reach (with or without a mild crop), or way outside it to the point that the extra 30mm wouldn't make a difference (and so would be carrying a long lens in addition to my walkaround and UWA - ie, Africa, where less than 400-500mm is largely pointless).
I guess it depends what you mainly want to shoot. If you do that whole 'travel street' thing (which seems to mostly be 'take candids of poor people and/or begging children'), I can see why a short tele might be useful. But I'd also say your requirements are pretty nonstandard.
The weight thing doesn't seem like much of an issue. It's the same weight as a third of a water bottle, or a pocket full of loose change, or a hundred other things you carry without thinking. I also carry a medium format rangefinder and an x100 with me, as well as the kitchen sink my wife seems to pack, so 200g is pretty inconsequential :)
Thanks for sharing jjcf. I just visited the IQ comparison website you've mentioned before, it looks Tamron is sharper. How do you find the AF speed and accuracy in comparison to Canon's 24-105 or the older 24-70L? Also did you find any problem with locking at low light? Does tamron have that QC issue like sigma?
You're only reading your comment one way.
No one ever said it was the main reason to choose the lens
I quote your original post:
Slow, soft and outdated optics. The Tamrom 24-70/2.8 VC dances circles around it (sharper at 2.8 than the Canon is at 5.6, without the massive fringing) for an extra $150.
After saying that, and only that, now you're saying no one ever said sharpness was a reason not to get the Canon? You only gave sharpness as the reason not to choose the Canon.
I said sharpness doesn't matter as much as people think, as good photos aren't necessarily sharp.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm
In the past few years, I've taken photos on six continents
I also carry a medium format rangefinder and an x100 with me
But I'd also say your requirements are pretty nonstandard.
Have you ever considered that maybe your requirements are nonstandard? How many people here have taken photos on six continents, or are planning to?
Remember, just because you don't find the extra 35mm (or 56mm on a crop) useful, doesn't mean everyone else won't either. Not everyone is like you and takes the same kind of photos as you, on six continents.
The Tamron is fine for people who are happy with 70mm. I definitely agree that L doesn't always mean best nowadays, but a 24-70 is not the same as a 24-105. And at that level of lenses, worrying about sharpness might be getting towards the nitpicking side.
OK slower than 2.8. One stop, if you are into bokeh that makes a difference. Not sure how many begginers would notice the differnce.
One stop is TWICE (or half) the light. That's huge in low light situations.
I've been shooting professionally for 30 years and am trying to give good advice for beginners. Getting negged by people who may have very little experience and their knowledge is from what they may have read is not helpful for others.
We all have different experiences and have different things we find important. (I never negged you btw), I was just pointing out that one stop certainly has a more useful outcome thank just bokeh.
As a pro, your needs are probably very different from an enthusiast/hobbiest/beginner - so your advice may not be the pinnacle of knowledge you feel it is. (I don't mean any offence here)
I'm not saying not to give advice, but allow others to have their opinion also (different strokes for different folks)
Thanks for replying. I am trying to help beginners, I was one too, so I know that good advice can save hours of research and hundred of dollars of mistakes. A pro has exactly the same needs as a beginner, to take the best photo his budget allows.
There is a reason why the 5D's kit lens is this lens as it is the most popular 'non-professional' lens around. Top pro photographers will use this lens OR the 24-70 on one body and the 70-200 on another body, with both around their neck, weighing like 100Kg.
PS The lens is IS which lets you drop 2 stops in speed. Having an extra stop from 2.8 to 4.0 is not really that useful in low light, if you are depending on that one stop to take the photo when it's dark, that's not what happens in real life and a flash pointing at the ceiling is what happens.
I absolutely agree with you - I have lots of pro gear and have been shooting for a few years but I am no pro, I'm just a 'dude with a camera' who likes to shoot a lot. And I agree that a (good) flash is an absolute for shooting indoors (bouncing of course). And I use two bodies and the lenses you mention (more money than sense :) though I usually make my wife use one while I use the other (then switch when I need :)
But I often go out without my flash (for weight, and bulk) and sometimes wish I had that extra stop (I only have the f4 70-200, not the f2.8) - obviously I can use the ISO to help but being (one of those annoying) pixel peepers, higher ISO tends to annoy me - especially if I want to crop and scale.
I'm not rooting for any of the lenses in this thread - they're all good lenses and each have their place. I was just trying to highlight that one stop of extra light may be important to some. (It is to me sometimes). Obviously this comes at the cost of razor thin DOF - which can also negate any benefit of the extra stop, but not always (still subjects).
Interesting that they give u the hood etc
If it's genuine that cost a bit too.
Yeah it's prolly the white box verison which is the ones that is usually packaged with the body
All Canon L lenses come with Hood in the package.
The hood is plastic and costs 10 cents to make and sells for about $40 so don't lose it.
My 70-200/f4 didn't - purchased new from DWI a couple of years ago.
Were they selling hoods for $40 as well? :)
Dunno, I purchased a $5 from ebay - works a treat.
I've actually bought about 6 ($5) hoods from ebay - they are all perfect, never had any issues with any of them. There is no way I'd waste my money paying for original when it's just a piece of plastic (some with felt lining)
The hood itself is about $50 for a genuine one. I recently lost mine and had to buy another one…
I keep bagging the 18-55 lens and keep saying how bad it is (and also the twins lens combo), and that everyone is better off buying the cheapest body (if necessary) and getting a better lens. Well folks, this is one of those excellent lenses you should buy. On a cropped camera you are really getting 36-157 (approx) so the wide side is not ideal, 24mm would be better - it is much better on a full frame camera as it is the full 24mm - so if you want to take photos in small rooms with lots of people then it is not the best, but quality-wise excellent lens.
edit why bother
This is a good travel lens and great for video on DSLR. But F4 is not good enough for low light shootings.
Hi Guys, long time stalker, first time poster. Had to create an account to inform you guys as I've got this as a kit lens. Before purchasing, I'd advise you guys to google a common fault with this lens "Err 01 canon 24-105" as I'm having this issue at the moment. I and many others believe it's a design fault but Canon seems to think otherwise. Other than that, a superb all rounder lens.
For what MOST people will be using it for, this lens will be more than sufficient. I've used this exact lens for work on an almost daily basis for the past 5 years and have never had a complaint regarding its speed or apparent "softness". Sure its not the fastest OR sharpest lens i own, but unless your blowing your photos up to make large prints (not on canvas since it will look soft anyway) and then getting them professionally printed (not your BigW photo kiosk) your not going to notice any lack in sharpness, plus it more than makes up for in versatility.
For what this lens offers in terms of build quality, optics and focal range on a full frame camera, its a great deal at this price, plus the IS makes it great for video use.
I have already own the 18-135 STM lens on a crop sensor, would buying this "L" lens an improvement to standard kit lens?
You buy this and I'll buy your 18-135mm stm from you. :D
i find this range of this lens a bit too narrow on a crop sensor, definitely preferred a 18mm zoom on a crop. id suggest a 17-50~ if you are thinking of upgrading, but you'd want a "stm" lens to make use of a 650d/700d.
I have the 18-135 without the STM… wondering as well
.. looks a bit like a coffee mug!
lol
You may be right as it is coming from Kogan.
If I were a Canon shooter…this is the only lens I'd need!
Well, a nifty fifty would be cool, but this is perfect for near enough everything! If you're on the fence, get it! It's especially good for video with the smooth, but substantial focus and aperture rings.
Sweet price for what was my fave lens when I was still shooting with DSLRs. I paid over $1k for mine.