Torn between lens choice

noneforit

noneforit

Messages
1,294
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I am planning on picking up a used 6D as I had one before and like the low light capabilities of FF. We have our first child on the way and want to get some good pictures throughout the months/years as well as using it for family events and days out etc.

I am torn between lens choice though.

I had the 24-105mm F4 IS previously and although it was a good all round lens, I felt it struggled indoors so over Xmas for example, I struggled to get any decent indoor images where there was not good lighting.

So its a toss up between the 24-105mm + a 50mm F1.8 for indoors/baby stuff or the Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC on its own as this seems to have good reviews.

Is F2.8 going to make a huge difference to indoor shots over the F4? Obviously I will be losing the extra reach of the 24-105mm but I wonder how many shots do people actually take between 71mm 105mm.

Used prices of the two Canon senses seem to be a similar ballpark to the Tamron.

Cheers
 
I think everyone is going to struggle to answer this. :beer:The 50mm lets in more light but no IS and the 24-70 is one stop slower but has VC. I think Tamron does a 45mm f1.8 VC just to make It harder to decide.
 
if you want a proper indoors lens I'd go for something like sigma ART 35mm/1.4. Its fast and wide enough for close ups without distorting the images.
Then when you have save enough money you can buy yourself an all purpose zoom like 24-105mm or something else.
I find stabilisation mostly useless for shooting people indoors as you will need a minimum shutter speed of about 1/60s shutter speed to freeze people.

Alternatively look into investing in a flash, that way you can even use the 24-105mm f4 indoors.
 
TBH I'd go 24-105 + 50 f1.8 - I think the extra 2 1/3 stops will make a bigger difference than VC, because it will allow you to freeze subject movement more readily. VC only reduces camera shake, and won't affect a child turning their head.

edit
Or wot 'e said. ^
 
Another vote for the f4 zoom and the prime.

If you're anything like me you'll want much of the baby in the DoF which will mean stopping down but as you've found you'll need wider apertures to keep the shutter speed up and/or the ISO down in lower light. Also if you're the sort who likes almost nothing in the DoF you'll want the prime :D

I wouldn't worry too much about IS as I'd want to keep the shutter speed into three figures to prevent blur due to subject
movement.

Also although I do like 35mm lenses I don't think I'd want to be shoving one in a babies face for a close up, I'd rather back off and use a longer lens.
 
With my first son I had a 5D and 24-105mm and 50mm prime - I mostly used the prime and was happy with the images.
8C8F5C2B-60EA-4416-859F-A73DD471B9FE.jpeg
By the time his little brother came along I had switched to Fuji and a 23mm prime (35mm equivalent) which I find to be a better focal length. The smaller kit also means it gets taken out more often - something that would definitely put me off an f2.8 zoom!
D766125A-5713-4E97-BC0B-6DC257D47B63.jpeg
 
Yes rather an apsc mirrorless like Fuji or Sony than a big ff dslr
 
Thanks for all the replies.

A mirrorless apsc is not something I had considered having never owned one before. I guess it makes sense if its lighter and smaller so would be far easier to take out.

Will do some research for the best used model + lens or lenses I can get for about £800-900 total.
 
Fuji X-T2 would be a good shout, the “kit” 18-55mm is great and you would be able to get one of the f2 primes in budget too.
 
Mirrorless is only an advantage if you find the DSLR too large - I have no idea how big the 6D is, but I was quite happy with a D610, taking it any and everywhere. With the A7III I use now, my bag is actually heavier, but image quality is higher.
 
If going for the 6D, I'd probably go for the 24-105L for long-term all-round versatility, and a mint 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens - I find 50mm can often be a bit tight for average domestic indoor usage, and at f/1.8 your depth of field will be very thin (which can make nailing focus on an unpredictably moving object quite difficult). The 40mm STM is a very compact lens that you hardly notice is on the camera it's that small and light. I find the image quality from it rather good too - check out some reviews.

I'd also consider getting a Speedlight flash such as the Canon 430 EX II, which is fairly compact and powerful, has the 24-105 auto-zoom range, and can be bought used fairly reasonably from MPB. etc. The 6D gives nice looking results with such a flash, but check out the relevant health and safety advice about babies and flash to avoid the possibility of causing any eye damage, etc. Once again, the flash would be for long-term versatility rather than immediate use. Hope these ideas are useful and best of luck choosing what's right for you.

noneforit said:
Obviously I will be losing the extra reach of the 24-105mm but I wonder how many shots do people actually take between 71mm 105mm.
Click to expand...

You can always check the information on the photos you took when you had your 24-105 lens and see how much you used the 71-105 length, and predict how much you might use that range in the future - perhaps for more candid shots from a distance in the garden, trips to the zoo, etc.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Mirrorless is only an advantage if you find the DSLR too large - I have no idea how big the 6D is, but I was quite happy with a D610, taking it any and everywhere. With the A7III I use now, my bag is actually heavier, but image quality is higher.
Click to expand...
I think the 6D is just about the smallest full-frame DSLR you can get (it certainly was when the model first came out), and was marketed with travel in mind. I find it makes for a very compact set-up with that 40mm pancake lens.
 
Choose the lens that is going to allow you to create the images you want to create... perspective/composition/DOF/etc. If you don't know what kind of images you will want to make then what you need from the lens is flexibility; in FL first, Ap second. For portrait type work something around 100mm (effective) or longer is typically most useful/flattering/natural.

"Light" is a different consideration; if you don't have enough get a flash and learn to bounce it.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Mirrorless is only an advantage if you find the DSLR too large - I have no idea how big the 6D is, but I was quite happy with a D610, taking it any and everywhere. With the A7III I use now, my bag is actually heavier, but image quality is higher.
Click to expand...

I think there are other non size related advantages such as the focus accuracy and consistency, being able to focus just about anywhere in the frame giving you more control over composition, being able to see the picture you're going to capture before pressing the shutter and of course as nandbytes says the eye/face detect is wonderful and could be a great help when photographing a baby.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Mirrorless is only an advantage if you find the DSLR too large - I have no idea how big the 6D is, but I was quite happy with a D610, taking it any and everywhere. With the A7III I use now, my bag is actually heavier, but image quality is higher.
Click to expand...

as above plenty of other benefits too. And in case of OP i'd say eyeAF is possibly single most useful feature that DSLRs lack.
 
noneforit said:
I will be losing the extra reach of the 24-105mm but I wonder how many shots do people actually take between 71mm 105mm.
Click to expand...

That is roughly 45 - 65 on a full frame so the answer to that is ALOT of photos

( if my maths are right, I think that is how it is calculated )
 
Get the 50mm and the 85mm (both 1.8). Then save a little more for a 35 later.
 
I bought it for the flexibility it offered, although checking my stats in Lightroom 105mm is by far the most common focal length I used with the 24-105mm.
 
woof woof said:
I think there are other non size related advantages such as the focus accuracy and consistency, being able to focus just about anywhere in the frame giving you more control over composition, being able to see the picture you're going to capture before pressing the shutter and of course as nandbytes says the eye/face detect is wonderful and could be a great help when photographing a baby.
Click to expand...

In the context of the OP. Yes, I'd agree that eye-AF is brilliant, but I'd assumed he'd be keeping the 6D.
 
ancient_mariner said:
In the context of the OP. Yes, I'd agree that eye-AF is brilliant, but I'd assumed he'd be keeping the 6D.
Click to expand...

As did I in my first post. I only posted again to answer the specific suggestion that mirrorless is only an advantage if DSLR's are thought to be too large.
 
Thanks for all the responses.

Its given me a lot to think about. A lot of my previous shots were family and friends during get togethers etc and the rest were architecture type ones on days out. I guess I have to decide if the weight saving of a mirrorless is what I am looking for or whether I just stick to a trusty 6D that I had before.
 
Personally I don't think you should view mirrorless just as a weight saving exercise. You can save bulk and weight by going MFT, APS-C or even FF if you're carful with your choice of body and lenses but there are other potential advantages to think about.

After living with mirrorless since the Panasonic GF1 came out I now wouldn't go back to a DSLR even if mirrorless offered no saving in bulk or weight or was even a bit bigger as I now see and value the other (for me) real advantages that mirroress offers.
 
noneforit said:
Thanks for all the responses.

Its given me a lot to think about. A lot of my previous shots were family and friends during get togethers etc and the rest were architecture type ones on days out. I guess I have to decide if the weight saving of a mirrorless is what I am looking for or whether I just stick to a trusty 6D that I had before.
Click to expand...
I think the original 6D is cracking value for money on the used market for a full frame camera with reasonable low-light performance these days, and it does produce lovely looking JPEGs straight from the camera, which saves time in Photoshop.

Do check out that 40mm pancake lens too. Here's a review from Kai (so not suitable for viewing at work, or in the company of people under the age of 18 or those likely to be offended or embarrassed by adult themes, innuendo, four letter words, etc. - you have been warned!), it refers to use in street photography, but I think the part about 50mm often being too 'tight' in its framing is demonstrated quite well.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p89smQck44
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Personally I don't think you should view mirrorless just as a weight saving exercise. You can save bulk and weight by going MFT, APS-C or even FF if you're carful with your choice of body and lenses but there are other potential advantages to think about.

After living with mirrorless since the Panasonic GF1 came out I now wouldn't go back to a DSLR even if mirrorless offered no saving in bulk or weight or was even a bit bigger as I now see and value the other (for me) real advantages that mirroress offers.
Click to expand...
You do realize that M4/3 receives/records 2 stops less light compared to FF don't you?
Personally, I wouldn't care that much for this type of photography because I would use flash if needed... but this discussion seems to be focused on indoor natural light photography.
 
sk66 said:
You do realize that M4/3 receives/records 2 stops less light compared to FF don't you?
Personally, I wouldn't care that much for this type of photography because I would use flash if needed... but this discussion seems to be focused on indoor natural light photography.
Click to expand...

I've been using MFT and FF for years so I'm well aware of the crop factor, thank you. Thankfully the MFT lenses I have tend to be sharp from wide open so I can happily shoot at f1.8 with my primes or f2.8 with a zoom and cope fairly well in all but extremely low light and in fact for anything but gallery quality prints viewed with a magnifying glass in other words normal pictures or prints viewed normally I find MFT ok at ISO 16k or even the max the camera will shoot at, 25,600, with care and a little fettling in CS5.

For stuff like baby photos indoors with anything like normal lighting a more recent MFT camera should be fine at f1.8+ 1/160+ and whatever ISO that calls up. I have Panasonic GX9 and GX80 and a Sony A7.

Anyway, this MFT talk may be all irrelevant. I mentioned MFT as one way of saving weight, as is mirrorless APS-C or even FF mirrorless with the right body and lens choice but I did go on to say that weight saving shouldn't be the main concern as there are other benefits. I'm not specifically recommending the OP goes for MFT or any mirrorless option.

Reading your post I find it hard to believe you read and understood mine, but hey ho.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Reading your post I find it hard to believe you read and understood mine, but hey ho.
Click to expand...
I read/understood it... which is why I said the sensor size issue wouldn't matter to me for this kind of photography. I also don't use f/1.x lenses much at all (I own one but haven't used it in over a year).
But a m4/3 + f/1.8 lens is operating at a significant handicap compared to a FF + f/1.8 lens... enough so that it might outweigh those other things you like about m4/3. For the type of photography being discussed here, it would for me.
 
sk66 said:
I read/understood it... which is why I said the sensor size issue wouldn't matter to me for this kind of photography. I also don't use f/1.x lenses much at all (I own one but haven't used it in over a year).
But a m4/3 + f/1.8 lens is operating at a significant handicap compared to a FF + f/1.8 lens... enough so that it might outweigh those other things you like about m4/3. For the type of photography being discussed here, it would for me.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be taking a half body picture of a baby with a FF camera and a 50 or 85mm f1.8 at f1.8 as I prefer a bit more dof and if I was to stop a FF lens down to say f4 and compare the results to a MFT set up at f2 or so the differences you're thinking about could be reduced.

I get the impression you think I'm recommending MFT to the OP and if you've read my posts I simply can't understand how you'd think that's what I'm doing and reading your latest post I still don't understand why you entered into this with me. Anyway. Enough thread derailment and that's my last comment on the largely irrelevant in this thread MFT v FF and crop factor issue.
 
After doing a bit of research, I am leaning towards the following:

Fuji XT2 with Kit Lens + 35mm F2 Prime.

The example shots online seem to be good quality and the F2 prime should allow me to take shots indoors that I want.

Body seems to be about £400-£450 used, Kit lens is about £200 and Prime is about £200-£250 so works out pretty much what I wanted to spend and if it means I can cut down on weight, I think this will be better as I will be more likely to take it with me most places.
 
noneforit said:
After doing a bit of research, I am leaning towards the following:

Fuji XT2 with Kit Lens + 35mm F2 Prime.

The example shots online seem to be good quality and the F2 prime should allow me to take shots indoors that I want.

Body seems to be about £400-£450 used, Kit lens is about £200 and Prime is about £200-£250 so works out pretty much what I wanted to spend and if it means I can cut down on weight, I think this will be better as I will be more likely to take it with me most places.
Click to expand...
No eyeAF tracking with X-T2. One of the main reasons for going mirrorless for you would be defeated.
X-T30 would be a better choice
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
No eyeAF tracking with X-T2. One of the main reasons for going mirrorless for you would be defeated.
X-T30 would be a better choice
Click to expand...

Interesting, will see if I can stretch the budget to this as it seems to be a third more used.
 
noneforit said:
After doing a bit of research, I am leaning towards the following:

Fuji XT2 with Kit Lens + 35mm F2 Prime.

The example shots online seem to be good quality and the F2 prime should allow me to take shots indoors that I want.

Body seems to be about £400-£450 used, Kit lens is about £200 and Prime is about £200-£250 so works out pretty much what I wanted to spend and if it means I can cut down on weight, I think this will be better as I will be more likely to take it with me most places.
Click to expand...
A great set up!
 
Unless there's a genuine benefit for you to go for a mirrorless camera (such as the eye AF tracking that's been recommended), then I think you're probably in danger of just sheep-walking into a trend via peer pressure, rather than for any really good reason.

Also, that Fuji is a crop sensor, so you won't get the same shallow depth of field and bokeh as you will from something like a full frame 6D. That's one of the things I really noticed when I changed from crop to full frame DSLR; I'd got shallow depth of field back! Those that have not regularly used a FF camera will probably not appreciate this factor as much as those that have and would miss not having that option.

The eye AF tracking feature is about the only thing that would persuade me to change to mirrorless at the moment, and even then I'd want full frame for those times when I want really good subject separation and bokeh.
 
Last edited:
I shot Canon full frame for 10 years before switching to Fuji and have also borrowed a 5D since switching. Yes, you get shallower depth of field with full frame and the potential for nicer images, but I found with my eldest son the Canon kit rarely came out, as it was significantly heavier/bulkier - which makes a difference when you factor in all the stuff you “need” with a small child, so most pictures were taken on mobile phones.
The Fuji is much smaller, the lenses are also smaller, so it comes with us everywhere. The jpegs are much better straight out of camera so there’s less time in Lightroom and the AF is better than my Canon.
 
Craikeybaby said:
I shot Canon full frame for 10 years before switching to Fuji and have also borrowed a 5D since switching. Yes, you get shallower depth of field with full frame and the potential for nicer images, but I found with my eldest son the Canon kit rarely came out, as it was significantly heavier/bulkier - which makes a difference when you factor in all the stuff you “need” with a small child, so most pictures were taken on mobile phones.
The Fuji is much smaller, the lenses are also smaller, so it comes with us everywhere. The jpegs are much better straight out of camera so there’s less time in Lightroom and the AF is better than my Canon.
Click to expand...
A 6D is quite a bit smaller and lighter than a 5D though, and it does make a difference. I've got a Canon EOS-3 film camera, which is a fantastic bit of kit with 45 zone eye-controlled focus points (you just look at one to select it) but I find I use my EOS 30v more, mainly as it's quite a bit smaller and considerably lighter, particularly when carrying two or more other cameras. I find the JPEGs from the 6D usually look great straight from the camera too, but the OP will know this as he's owned one before. I just thought it best to remind him about the DoF difference between crop and FF sensors, as it's easy to forget things like that when the shiny glint of a new camera is luring you towards the 'buy it now' button! :)
 
Mr Badger said:
Unless there's a genuine benefit for you to go for a mirrorless camera (such as the eye AF tracking that's been recommended), then I think you're probably in danger of just sheep-walking into a trend via peer pressure, rather than for any really good reason.

Also, that Fuji is a crop sensor, so you won't get the same shallow depth of field and bokeh as you will from something like a full frame 6D. That's one of the things I really noticed when I changed from crop to full frame DSLR; I'd got shallow depth of field back! Those that have not regularly used a FF camera will probably not appreciate this factor as much as those that have and would miss not having that option.

The eye AF tracking feature is about the only thing that would persuade me to change to mirrorless at the moment, and even then I'd want full frame for those times when I want really good subject separation and bokeh.
Click to expand...
:thinking:
You sheep-walk via peer pressure into any system whether 24X36, APSC or M43 mirrorless or not
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soeren said:
:thinking:
You can be sheep-walking peer pressured into any system whether 24X36, APSC or M43
Click to expand...
Or VHS or Betamax, or Cassette or 8 Track Cartridge, or DVD or Blue Ray. I've often found that it pays to wait by the gate and watch for a while. (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top