The Canon EF 24-105mm is designed for use on a full-frame body, so by mounting it on a cropped-frame model, you’d expect it to perform better in these less extreme corner areas. As you can see from the crops below, the EF 24-105mm isn’t perfect with a little fringing apparent when zoomed-out, but it clearly out-performs both EF-S lenses in this first test. The other full-frame lens, the EF 17-40mm also shows an advantage here.

With all four lenses zoomed-in, the playing field becomes much closer. There’s some softness on the EF 24-105mm with its aperture wide open, but otherwise the results are good. That said, the EF-S 17-85mm delivers a better esult here when its aperture is wide open. In the meantime, the Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens is looking soft here. Now let’s take a look at the fringing and macro results.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L USM		Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM		Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6		Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM
24-105mm EF L at 24mm f4		17-85mm EF-S at 17mm f4		18-55mm EF-S at 18mm f3.5		17-40mm EF L at 17mm f4
24-105mm EF L at 24mm f8		17-85mm EF-S at 17mm f8		18-55mm EF-S at 18mm f8		17-40mm EF L at 17mm f8
24-105mm EF L at 24mm f16		17-85mm EF-S at 17mm f16		18-55mm EF-S at 18mm at f16		17-40mm EF L at 17mm f16
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L USM		Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM		Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6		Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM
24-105mm EF L at 105mm f4		17-85mm EF-S at 85mm f5.6		18-55mm EF-S at 55mm f5-6		17-40mm EF L at 40mm f4
24-105mm EF L at 105mm f8		17-85mm EF-S at 85mm f8		18-55mm EF-S at 55mm f8		17-40mm EF L at 40mm f8
24-105mm EF L at 105mm f16		17-85mm EF-S at 85mm f16		18-55mm EF-S at 55mm f16		17-40mm EF L at 40mm f16

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM		Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM		Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6		Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM
24-105mm EF L at 24mm f4		17-85mm EF-S at 17mm f4.0		18-55mm EF-S at 18mm f3.5		17-40mm EF L at 17mm f4
24-105mm EF L at 105mm f4		17-85mm EF-S at 85mm f5.6		18-55mm EF-S at 55mm f5.6		17-40mm EF L at 40mm f4

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM macro using Canon 400D / XTi

24-105mm EF L at 105mm f8 Max area of 90x60mm

The dark lines are 10mm apart and the result is not cropped. Smaller areas are preferred in this test.To measure and compare the Canon 24-105mm’s macro performance on a cropped-frame body we photographed a chart using it and a number of rival lenses at a focal length and distance which delivered the maximum possible reproduction.

The image left was taken with the Canon EF 24-105mm mounted on an EOS 400D / XTi body and zoomed-into 105mm f8 where it captured an area measuring 90x60mm. This is roughly the same as the EF 17-40mm and a small improvement over the EF-S 17-85mm, but the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens beats them all here. Now let’s look at the geometric distortion for this lens.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM		Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6		Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM
17-85mm EF-S at 85mm f8 Max area of 104x70mm		18-55mm EF-S at 55mm f8 Max area of 66x44mm		17-40mm EF L at 40mm f8 Max area of 92x62mm

24-105mm EF L at 24mm f8 Distortion: 2.65% barrel

To measure and compare the Canon 24-105mm’s geometric distortion on a cropped-frame body we photographed a test chart consisting of a grid pattern, using it and a number of rival lenses.

The lenses were tested at their widest focal lengths with an aperture of f8 in Aperture Priority mode.

The images were analysed with Imatest using 5th Order line calculation and the full areas presented here at a reduced resolution.

The image above was taken with the Canon EF 24-105mm lens on the Canon EOS 400D / XTi body at 24mm f8. Barrel distortion was measured at 2.65% which is measurably below that of the two EF-S lenses, especially the EF-S 17-85mm which scores quite badly in this respect. Again this is one of the benefits of mounting a full-frame compatible lens on a cropped-frame body, and the other EF lens below also performs well. It’s interesting to compare this to the same EF lenses mounted a full frame body on this page.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM	Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6	Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM
17-85mm EF-S at 17mm f8 Distortion: 5.71% barrel	18-55mm EF-S at 18mm f8 Distortion: 3.35% barrel	17-40mm EF L at 17mm f8 Distortion: 2.9% barrel

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM telephoto geometry using Canon 400D / XTi

24-105mm EF L at 105mm f8 Distortion: 0.663% pincushion

To measure and compare the Canon 24-105mm’s geometric distortion on a cropped-frame body we photographed a test chart consisting of a grid pattern, using it and a number of rival lenses.The lenses were tested at their longest focal lengths with an aperture of f8 in Aperture Priority mode.

The images were analysed with Imatest using 5th Order line calculation and the full areas presented here at a reduced resolution.

24-105mm EF L at 24mm f4 Mean corner fall-off: 84.4%

To measure and compare the Canon EF 24-105mm’s vignetting and light fall-off on a cropped-frame body we photographed a white target with a highly diffused custom filter using it and a number of rival lenses.The lenses were tested at their widest focal lengths with the aperture wide open in Aperture Priority mode.

The images were analysed with Imatest and the full areas presented here at a reduced resolution. Bigger percentages are better.

The image above was taken with the Canon EF 24-105mm lens on the Canon EOS 400D / XTi body at 24mm f4. Here the light falls off in the corners to an average of 84.4% of the centre measurement, which means you’ll barely notice any darkening in the corners with this lens when zoomed-out on a cropped-frame body. In contrast, the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens and EF-S 17-85mm exhibit more noticeable darkening in the corners, especially the latter. Of course this is one of the benefits of using a full-frame compatible lens on a cropped-frame body, something you’ll also see with the EF 17-40mm.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM		Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6		Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM
17-85mm EF-S at 17mm f4 Mean corner fall-off: 57.8%		18-55mm EF-S at 18mm f3.5 Mean corner fall-off: 68.8%		17-40mm EF L at 17mm f4 Mean corner fall-off: 79.4%

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM telephoto uniformity using Canon 400D / XTi

24-105mm EF L at 105mm f4 Mean corner fall-off: 83.6%

The images were analysed with Imatest and the full areas presented here at a reduced resolution. Bigger percentages are better.To measure and compare the Canon 24-105mm’s vignetting and light fall-off on a cropped-frame body we photographed a white target with a highly diffused custom filter using it and a number of rival lenses.The lenses were tested at their longest focal lengths with the aperture wide open in Aperture Priority mode.

The image above was taken with the Canon EF 24-105mm lens on the Canon EOS 400D / XTi body at 105mm f4. Here the light falls off in the corners to an average of 83.6% of the centre measurement, which again means you’ll barely notice any darkening in the corners with this lens when zoomed-in on a cropped-frame body.

While you’d expect a full-frame compatible lens to perform well in this regard on a cropped-frame body, the other models we’ve compared it to also exhibit little darkening in the corners when they’re zoomed-in. Either way, vignetting / light fall-off is not an issue with the EF 24-105mm when mounted on a cropped-frame body. This is in some contrast to its performance on a full-frame body, where the vignetting can be quite apparent – see this page. Now let’s move onto our sample images gallery.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM		Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6		Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM
17-85mm EF-S at 85mm f5.6 Mean corner fall-off: 77.5%		18-55mm EF-S at 55mm f5.6 Mean corner fall-off: 83.8%		17-40mm EF L at 40mm f4 Mean corner fall-off: 82.2%