Lens for 6D

graeme_ncl

graeme_ncl

Messages
114
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
Yes
Merry Christmas to all :)

Well I'm very excited to find a lovely new Canon 6D body under the tree this morning :) And thankfully I have an EF 50mm f1.4 to bring over from my old 40D. But what should I add to it for general walkabout purposes? I'm moving from a 17-50 f2.8 Sigma on the old body which has been fantastic. Any recommendations welcome :) A whole new world of glass awaits..
 
graeme_ncl said:
Merry Christmas to all :)

Well I'm very excited to find a lovely new Canon 6D body under the tree this morning :) And thankfully I have an EF 50mm f1.4 to bring over from my old 40D. But what should I add to it for general walkabout purposes? I'm moving from a 17-50 f2.8 Sigma on the old body which has been fantastic. Any recommendations welcome :) A whole new world of glass awaits..
Click to expand...

Well, happy Christmas and enjoy your new present - I'd get the 24-105 lens for a general walk about lens :)
 
Great gift - someone likes you a lot!

I would agree go for the 24-105 great walkabout lens and not too pricey second hand.:)

Merry Christmas to all.
 
Another vote for the 24-105L. Magic lens at a reasonable price.
 
Lots of love for the 24-105! Thanks everyone [emoji106]
 
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (no IS), or maybe a 24-70 is the most direct comparison to the Sigma, just to through some more into the mix.
 
Thanks for the recommendation. I mainly like to shoot landscapes, and low light / long exposure is a favourite of mine so I wonder if the ultra-wide 16-35 f4 might actually be a good shout, with my existing 50 above that then maybe something a bit longer in the future if I ever need it. Food for thought! Cheers all
 
I have the 16-35 F4 and it's brilliant. In fact it has completely replaced my 24L which now never gets usedsi i have decided to sell it.
 
A late run on the 16-35 f4! I really love my 50mm prime, and I wonder whether, if I got the 16-35, I'd ever actually miss the 15mm gap between the two lenses. The 16-35 certainly is very attractive and clearly very well regarded, and above the 50mm a further prime maybe would suffice (I don't really need anything too long for what I do). More food for thought...
 
Have you considered a prime for general walk about? 35mm on FF is a sweet spot for me (and many others).
 
pridash said:
Have you considered a prime for general walk about? 35mm on FF is a sweet spot for me (and many others).
Click to expand...
It's a fair question. My 50mm is my first prime and as I said I find it to be fantastic, and you're right that I should consider a 35mm. Too much choice..
 
I have both the 16-35 and 24-70. The 16-35 is indeed a staggeringly good lens and so so sharp but I'm not sure I'd class it as a walkabout as 35mm is still pretty wide on full frame. All down to what the OP shoots most I guess.
 
graeme_ncl said:
Thanks for the recommendation. I mainly like to shoot landscapes, and low light / long exposure is a favourite of mine so I wonder if the ultra-wide 16-35 f4 might actually be a good shout, with my existing 50 above that then maybe something a bit longer in the future if I ever need it. Food for thought! Cheers all
Click to expand...

I have a 5Dii and I also shoot mainly landscapes and cityscapes. I have the 24-105 L IS and also the 16-35 L IS. If you asked me which one I used the most, I would say the 16-35. Ive just been to Cuba and for ease sake I took just the 24-105. There were times when I regretted it. The 16-35 is a magnificent lens :)
 
graeme_ncl said:
It's a fair question. My 50mm is my first prime and as I said I find it to be fantastic, and you're right that I should consider a 35mm. Too much choice..
Click to expand...

Horses for courses. Try it and see. For me I ditched the 50 once I had the 35L and it's the lens I use for most situations. I've even travelled with just the 35 on holiday and found it sufficient for most things. I've also got a 17-40 for when I need really wide but it seldom comes out. I'm considering selling that and just getting a Samyang 14mm instead for the odd times I need an UWA.
 
I have the 24-105L on the 6d and I love it, brilliant lens. When I want to go really wide, as above, I use the Samyang 14mm which is a great lens :)
 
Last edited:
I have the 16-35f4 and the 24-105, love them both for different reasons. 16-35mm is amazing
 
Thanks all, lots to consider. As I said earlier I mainly shoot landscapes and particularly enjoy low light work. Both the 16-35 f4 and 24-105 f4 would certainly appear to be wide enough for my needs. I'm less sure I will get the use out of the longer end of the 24-105 but that said I'm sure it could prove useful. The amount of things I've read about the amazing quality of the 16-35 makes it really tempting (heart!) however I do wonder whether the more 'all-round' focal range of the 24-105, supplemented by something like the Samgyang 14mm f2.8, might overall give me a really versatile and good value (head!) combo that meets and maybe exceeds my needs... More to
think about..
 
I had the 24-105 and found it quite soft at the long end. Maybe I had a bad copy. I then moved into primes only for the next 10 years and was only tempted back to zooms by the 16-35. This has now more or less replaced my 24L. I just sushi could afford to keep both.
The 16-35 is not a low light lens but does have great IS but if it's the wide aperture look your after then it's not going to deliver. But then no zoom is, you would be best off with a zoom and a prime. 16-35 and a 50mm prime is a good combo.
I have a Zeiss 50mm F2 and its my absolute favourite lens. Not for everyone but I love it.
 
The 24-105 isn't perfect - it suffers from noticable barrel distortion at the wide end for example - but the key thing is that it's a stellar lens for the money.

Regards the prime vs zoom argument, the general adage is that the latter provides flexibility whilst not being able to match the image quality of the former. I have to say that, with some of their recent zooms, such as the 70-200 II, 24-70 II and now 16-35 f/4, Canon are closing the gap to the primes quite significantly. The only big advantage primes have now is in aperture, i.e. really fast f/1.4 or f/1.2 at the wide focal lengths, or f/4 at the 500/600mm lengths.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Regards the prime vs zoom argument, the general adage is that the latter provides flexibility whilst not being able to match the image quality of the former. I have to say that, with some of their recent zooms, such as the 70-200 II, 24-70 II and now 16-35 f/4, Canon are closing the gap to the primes quite significantly. The only big advantage primes have now is in aperture, i.e. really fast f/1.4 or f/1.2 at the wide focal lengths, or f/4 at the 500/600mm lengths.
Click to expand...

Well put.
With the advances in sensor technology having a wide aperture for low light has also become less of an issue since you can ramp the iso up and not cause much loss in IQ. Of course there is nothing which can replace that look you get when shooting wide open at 1.2/1.4.
 
Vertigo1 said:
The 24-105 isn't perfect - it suffers from noticable barrel distortion at the wide end for example - but the key thing is that it's a stellar lens for the money.
Click to expand...

This is where knowing your lenses is important to get the most out of them. Do some tests to work out its sweet spot and for example if that's 30-90mm on the 24-105 then shoot accordingly knowing ou have that extra width or length if you need it.
 
Ross_Curtis said:
This is where knowing your lenses is important to get the most out of them. Do some tests to work out its sweet spot and for example if that's 30-90mm on the 24-105 then shoot accordingly knowing ou have that extra width or length if you need it.
Click to expand...
The barrel distortion is easily fixed in LR though, one button press and it's gone :)
 
odd jim said:
The barrel distortion is easily fixed in LR though, one button press and it's gone :)
Click to expand...

Indeed - or just add lens corrections to your import preset and then you don't even need one button press :)
 
vote here for the tamron 24-70 2.8 IS .. perfect walk around lens for me (and nearly as good as the canon for a fraction of the price)
 
I've got the taproom 24-70 on my d810 and whilst its sharp I'm just not sure on the colour rendition.... i find it really flat!

When i had my 6D i though the combo of that plus the sigma art lens to be UNBELIEVABLE.... most specifically the 35mm...
 
I use the 16-35 on my 6D for landscapes with excellent results.

I'd thought about getting the 24-105 but in my (sometimes incorrect) mind ...it's easier to crop in for length than find space to walk backwards for width :)
 
Thanks all. I've enjoyed just having my 50mm this past week and I continue to like the idea of using just primes. I think I'm decided on a Samyang 14mm, but above that I'm still not sure. The Sigma 35mm Art is so well regarded, as is the Canon 16-35mm f4, they are both very tempting. The 24-105mm that so many have suggested continues to be of interest too but as I said earlier I'm less sure i'll use its longer end so much. And I still have my 40D and good old Canon 55-250 if I need distance. More thinking required!
 
Well after *much* deliberation I've taken the plunge and ordered a 16-35 f/4L on good old 2 year 0%. Exciting! Thanks everyone for your help & advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top