CANON 6D

[rjacobucci]

One thing worth mentioning is that there's 2 versions of the 24-105, one is the F/3.5-5.6 STM and the other is L, F/4.
HUGE difference, and there's kits available with both.

Is one better the other?

 

[DB_Cro]

Um, yeah, the 'L' lenses are top of the line stuff from Canon, better optics and constant aperture, even if the
24-105 (and 17-40) are the two at the bottom of the range, they're still A LOT better then most other lenses.

I wouldn't get the other one.

 

[Didereaux]

Um, yeah, the 'L' lenses are top of the line stuff from Canon, better optics and constant aperture, even if the
24-105 (and 17-40) are the two at the bottom of the range, they're still A LOT better then most other lenses.

I wouldn't get the other one.

Absolutely agree...and apologize for not pointing that out before. YES the 'L' lens!

 

[SweOz]

Hi,
Also a newbie to this forum.
I have used the EOS 6D for about 3,5 years now and most of the time I'm extremely pleased with the camera. There's only two things that I sometimes miss on this entry level 35mm sensor camera. Autofocus speed is to slow for any form of sports photography which means I have to manually prefocus to get a good result. Other is FPS which is again in spots photography a bit on the slow side. Apart from this two "short comings" it's a fantastic camera creating photos that blows me away.

I've got quite a few lenses since I've been using Canon EF mount since the 1990s but I keep coming back to 3 of them.

EF 24-105mm f/4L, a lens many like to poo poo on forums but I find it to be a very steady performer that rarely lets me down, aperture 4 is certainly a bit slow in some situations but again, this lens keep delivering.

EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L, bought this lens 2nd hand about 3 years ago and it's still tack sharp and delivers excellent colours and fantastic shallow depth of field at F2.8 at 200mm

EF 50mm f/1.2L, Another polarising lens among Canon users, not the sharpest lens you can get but the result can be absolutely fantastic. Some say earlier versions back focus a bit but my 3 year old lens have never showed any issues.

Sometimes also use the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM as a nice lightweight performer.

Good luck with your camera purchase

 

[TCampbell]

When you get a new DSLR camera body, you typically want a general-purpose "walk around" lens. These are usually "standard zoom" lenses that have a zoom range running from moderately wide-angle (not extreme) to moderately telephoto (also usually not extreme.)

These make very good lenses to get started because they can be used in a broad variety of shooting situations. The lenses aren't optimized to any one kind of photography and there are often better lenses for specific niches within photography. These general-purpose zooms aren't meant to addresses niches.

Canon's "L" series ("Luxury" lenses) are their top-end lenses. The typically have the best optics... but it's far more than that. They also usually have better focus motors, better aperture mechanisms that provide for a well-rounded aperture and smoother out-of-focus blur. They are often (but not always) weather-sealed lenses (weather sealed lenses are not water proof. Do not submerge them. They can handle "spray", rain, etc. but cannot handle water under force or pressure. If you're standing in the ocean and you get swamped by a wave, you've probably damaged the lens and camera.) The build quality is usually significantly better and they can take a bit of a beating and still be fine (they can certainly take more abuse than a typical lens.)

Most L series lenses have price tags that are north of $1000 USD -- though there are a few exceptions.

Canon does make the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II -- and though it's range is only 24-70 and not 24-105, it delivers a more impressive image and it can provide an f/2.8 focal ratio throughout the entire range. It is a very impressive lens, but it's also about $1800.

For farther focal length needs, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II is pretty much impossible to beat. It provides 4 stops of image stabilization, very fast focusing, tack-sharp optics, an f/2.8 focal length throughout the range, and has minimal "breathing" (virtually all competitors lenses have a huge "breathing" issue.) "Breathing" refers to the notion that at any given focal length, if you adjust ONLY the focus on the lens, you'll notice the focal length of the lens is changing (the area that fits within the frame is expanding) so you're not really getting the focal length that you've selected. It happens because shifting the focusing elements within the lens has an effect not just on the focus distance (as you'd expect) but also on the entire focal length (which you might not expect.) The Canon 70-200's have very little "breathing" meaning that you actually are getting the focal length you selected ... or at least very close to the focal length you selected (every lens breathes at least a tiny amount.)

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II is probably the best 70-200 in the industry... but it's price tag is about $2k.

All of this is to say: If you want the very best... you could get the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM II and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II and you'd own two very impressive lenses. Also you'd be about $3800 poorer and you wouldn't own a macro lens.

Picking that first lens is a bit of a decision. My general advice in the past has been: If you *can* afford to get both the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/2.8 combination, then that's certainly the highest quality option there is. But if you can't afford to get BOTH of them... then the 24-105 will offer a little more general purpose versatility than you'd get with the 24-70 f/2.8 alone.

If you want a low-light lens option, then the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (and make SURE it's the "STM" version and not the old EF 50mm f/1.8 II) which is a very low cost way to get a low focal ratio lens. There's also the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (about $350). The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens is about $950 and it's better, but of course it's also about $600 more. I do NOT recommend the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM casually... that lens is slow to focus and is NOT intended for fast candid shooting situations (it's really intended for situations where the photographer has time to take the exposure and the ability to control the shot.... e.g. studio situations, etc.) The image quality of the 50mm f/1.2L is better... it's background blur is gorgeous. But it's more difficult to use that lens and if you use it in a hurry then you will not likely be happy with the results.

I think the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM an excellent choice for the "if I could only pick one lens... what would it be?" situation.

The EF 24-105mm f/4L does have a "macro" range but it's not a true macro lens. A true macro lens can get 1:1 image scale on the sensor (meaning objects are as large on your 35mm x 24mm image sensor as they are in in real life. If you take a photo of a US quarter (24.26mm) with a true macro lens at closest focusing distance, then the image of that quarter on your camera sensor will completely fill the vertical (narrow) direction of the sensor and will just barely be cropped at the edges. You can imagine that once you bring the image into a computer and view it on the screen that you'd have an enormous image of a quarter.

The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is a 1:4 macro scale. That means the image projected on the sensor is actually only 1/4 of the size of the object in real life (the tightest possible cropping would be roughly the size of four quarters laid edge-to-edge in the vertical direction.)

If you're shooting plants, flowers, etc. then that 1:4 is probably close enough. If you're shooting tiny insects... then you might prefer a true dedicated macro lens.

 

[kami_sn]

I hear all the good advices here and they are all true. My opinion is If you want something to start with and start slow get something like 50mm 1.8 or a 35mm prime, you can find them usually cheap specially if you look for used. Advantages are that they are small, light weight and at the price range they provide very good image quality, when I had my 6D I shoot lots of family portraits with my nifty fifty.

Primes will teach/make you think before completing your composition and push the shutter button. In addition they can be used in multiple scenarios from portrait to landscape.

After moving to Sony A7 II I have one 25mm and a 55mm prime and I can basically shoot all occasions that I used to do with my walk around canon 24-70 f4L I had, and in many cases the photos are even better since I have to think about composition.

My growing gear plan will be after this a 70-200 and maybe one 85 prime or 90mm Macro. Just my two cents...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[coreymcl]

Yesterday I picked up the 6D with the 24-105mm IS kit. In doing my research prior to purchase all the cameras in the range seem have to have some trade-offs. As others have mentioned I also plan on picking up a 70-200mm f/2.8 to build out my camera bag. As I want to be prepared for several upcoming trips including to; Montreal, Disney World, and Maui for our anniversary laster this year.

 

[Didereaux]

Yesterday I picked up the 6D with the 24-105mm IS kit. In doing my research prior to purchase all the cameras in the range seem have to have some trade-offs. As others have mentioned I also plan on picking up a 70-200mm f/2.8 to build out my camera bag. As I want to be prepared for several upcoming trips including to; Montreal, Disney World, and Maui for our anniversary laster this year.

Congrats. I doubt if you will ever have any regrets.

 

[wyogirl]

Don't forget to look at third party lens makers as well. I am a big fan of Tamron lenses... but be careful to look over reviews of the particular piece of glass that you are eying. As for the kit lens... the f4 is the better choice vs the variable aperture.

 

[Derrel]

Yesterday I picked up the 6D with the 24-105mm IS kit. In doing my research prior to purchase all the cameras in the range seem have to have some trade-offs. As others have mentioned I also plan on picking up a 70-200mm f/2.8 to build out my camera bag. As I want to be prepared for several upcoming trips including to; Montreal, Disney World, and Maui for our anniversary laster this year.

Good deal, Corey! Cograts on the new kit! I bought the ole' 5D with a 24-105/4 L USM and had a lot of good walkabout shots from that. Handy lens!

The 5D had/has a less-than-powerful AF module in it, and would not focus the 24-105-L very well on tricky action: I think the real issue is the slow-ish f/4 maximum aperture value, especially at the shorter focal lengths or in dimmer, low-contrast lighting conditions. I personally thought the EF 85mm f/1.8 was a very good lens, and the 135mm f/2-L was a superb performer. Both of those were really,really good lenses for me! Both of these lenses have very sharp, crisp image rendering, and you can crop their images pretty heavily if needed.I think that new 50mm STM Canon also looks like a great lens value.