How would you round out this set...

[PezDispenser]

Hi all, new to the forums but this place is great. I own a 6D with a lens lineup of 24-105 f/4 L, 85 f/1.8, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Assuming I do not need longer length, what 1 or 2 lenses would you pick up in order to fill out the lineup in the hope of covering as many areas of shooting as possible?
Thanks!

 

[Braineack]

eh

 

[KmH]

None, unless you want to go into the somewhat specialized segment of Ultra Wide Angle focal lengths, or less than 24 mm.
Canon doesn't have a lot on offer in that area though.
It really depends on the type of photography you like to do.
You say you are not interested in more reach, and you do not mention close up work (Macro).

As it is now I would question the usefulness of the 24-105 mm because of the 70 mm to 105 mm overlap with the 70-200 mm.
Perhaps the approach should be to replace the 24-105 f/4L with a 24-70 mm f/2.8L - eliminate the focal length overlap and gain a bit of speed for the 24-70 mm focal range.

Used versions from $800 or so - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens

 

[PezDispenser]

None, unless you want to go into the somewhat specialized segment of Ultra Wide Angle focal lengths, or less than 24 mm.
Canon doesn't have a lot on offer in that area though.
It really depends on the type of photography you like to do.
You say you are not interested in more reach, and you do not mention close up work (Macro).

As it is now I would question the usefulness of the 24-105 mm because of the 70 mm to 105 mm over lap with the 70-200 mm.
Perhaps the approach should be to replace the 24-105 f/4L with a 24-70 mm f/2.8L - eliminate the focal length overlap and gain a bit of speed for the 24-70 mm focal range.

Used versions from $800 or so - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens

You nailed my initial thought exactly but wanted to hear someone else say it made sense to spend the extra money to move to the 24-70. My thinking was swap the 24-105 for the 24-70, then maybe grab either/both the 100 Macro to open up that end of things and the 35L 1.4 (eventually as last I checked I'm not filthy rich). I figure with that collection i really should be covered across the board for a long time (again, assuming I'm not looking at more length right now). Does that make sense? Again, sorry for the newb type questions…but I am just that.
Thanks KMH.

 

[curtyoungblood]

What's your budget?


I would look at something on the wide it that is faster than your 24-105. Specifically, I'd probably add a 35 f2 or the 24/28 (whichever lens looks better to you). A 50 1.4 may also be a good addition. Sigma's 35 1.4 is also supposed to be a great lens. EDIT: since you mentioned it, I've read lots of reviews that say that Sigma 35 is as good or better than Canon's. Also, if your budget is in that price range, you might want to consider the 16-35.

 

[ronlane]

I'll give you $20 and a 28-135mm for that 24-105 L glass.

 

[Derrel]

I do not see any real advantage to the extra speed of f/2.8...it comes at the expense of image quality, and frankly, f/2.8 is "not all that fast" anyway when there are SUPERB 35mm and 50mm lenses available. I went with the 14-105 f/4 L because of two things: Image Stabilizer for better,smoother panning, and for IS for shooting stopped-down, hand-held at slower speeds and for using in the wind, or when shooting off-handed, or out of breath, etc;; There's a reason IS/VR/OS has been implemented in many lenses; it has some advantages that even a tripod cannot bring you, like when panning, or shooting on a boat or when out of breath (like when hiking, out walking, and so on...you gonna take a tripod on an evening walk up the local mountainside or hills? prolly not...)

I'm not a fan of 24-70...24 and 35 and 50mm are all fine, and I like those lengths...it's that 70mm is not enough of a telephoto to give any "tele" effect, and it's not long enough for a good headshot length...

I see 24-70mm as a compromise lens desiged for close-range, utility work, grip n grin type stuff, but really boring look at the longer end. But everybody's needs are different; INDOORS, 24-70 makes more sense. Outdoors, it comes up short, immediately. I don;t worry about overlaps, since overlaps ELIMINATE the absolute need for lens swaps, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. There's a definite REASON canon came up with the 24mm to 105mm, image stabilized zoom lens...

What would "I" add??? Something SMALL, light, sharp, and unimposing. HUGE, fat, big, black (or white), ostentatious lenses kill a lot of social shots....people do NOT LIKE "big lenses". I would add the small, light 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4 Canon EF lenses. I shoot a 24/35/50 trio for parties and events because people do not like a MASSIVE, 44-ounce, 77mm filter thread lens jammed in their faces. You get much better pictures using a 35mm f/2 lens with a tiny size to it.

 

[bratkinson]

I'm a fan of overlapping zoom lens focal lengths. So my current bag is 16-35 f2.8L ii, 24-105 f4L, 135 f2L and 80-200 f2.8L (magic drain pipe). That way, I'm never 'forced' to make a lens swap, at least in my opinion. When I made to move to L lenses I still had my 60D, and found I needed the 16-35 to get 'wide enough' in tight spaces (FOV of a 25.6mm lens when on the 60D). Now that I've upgraded to a 5D3, the 16-35 gets mounted for about 5% of the shots...and that's primarily for indoor work. Outdoors, (city scapes, mostly) it's usually the 24-105 or 135.

So, I'd look for something on the wide angle side of things.

That said, though, don't go rushing out and buy a lens you don't have a real need for. Who knows? You might decide to do some birding and a 400mm lens will be what's needed, not a wide angle lens.

 

[scorpion_tyr]

17-40mm f/4L, 16-35mm f/2.8L, or 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM. You already have a decent wide angle at 24mm's, so unless you're looking to get wider than that I would really look at the 100mm Macro. In my experience just about every photographer dabbles in macro work from time to time, and the 100mm is an amazing macro lens, plus it makes a wonderful portrait and indoor sports lens as well.