New (novice) member, seeking lens advise

adancito1211 · Jun 15, 2015

(The noob is strong with me, as you can tell...posted original post in the wrong forum)

Hi all. I am a new member here, and an aspiring photographer.

I am in the process of buying my wife a Canon EOS 6d and one or two lenses for our 5 year anniversary in a few weeks..shes a tad more skilled than I in photography.

Equipment will mainly be used for couple, family portraits, newborn sessions, senior photos and possible engagement sessions etc… My question to you is, which of these lenses would you recommend to go with first? Or what would be a good 1-2 combo?

1.Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
2.Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens
3.Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens
4.Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens Also, on the last two zoom lenses, what is the biggest difference (other than price) that we will notice in using them?

Also, if not on the list, which would you recommend?

thank you

ronlane · Jun 15, 2015

Welcome to the forum. Any of those lenses are good one. IMHO, I would start with the 70-200 f/2.8. Then you can throw out the f/4. Not sure what I would select next from your choices. (Personally I would be wanting a 24-70mm next)

waday · Jun 15, 2015

If you can swing the price difference, go with the f/2.8 rather than the f/4.0. For portraits and whatnot, I'm not sure she would use a 16-35 mm as much as a 24-70 mm? Plus, then you have a good range of 24 - 70 mm and 70-200 mm.

Bryston3bsst · Jun 15, 2015

I have the 6D. I bought it with the 24-105 and I added the 70-200 f2.8.

Those two lenses do anything I need or want. I shoot a lot of everything, wildlife, portraiture, glamor and fetish.

I have heard many people refer to the lenses that come with a camera as a 'kit lens' and as such they are inferior and worthy only of being sold to the unsuspecting newbie. To this I say horse crap. I can get killer results with either of these two pieces.

Point being, you might be able to save a couple bucks by buying the 6D with the 24-105 and then adding a bigger zoom. If you do go with the 70-200 I do strongly suggest the f 2.8 as opposed to the f 4. It is a bit more expensive but it allows much greater flexibility.

waday · Jun 15, 2015

Bryston3bsst said:
I have the 6D. I bought it with the 24-105 and I added the 70-200 f2.8.

Those two lenses do anything I need or want. I shoot a lot of everything, wildlife, portraiture, glamor and fetish.

I have heard many people refer to the lenses that come with a camera as a 'kit lens' and as such they are inferior and worthy only of being sold to the unsuspecting newbie. To this I say horse crap. I can get killer results with either of these two pieces.

Point being, you might be able to save a couple bucks by buying the 6D with the 24-105 and then adding a bigger zoom. If you do go with the 70-200 I do strongly suggest the f 2.8 as opposed to the f 4. It is a bit more expensive but it allows much greater flexibility.

Two things:

1. I think the term kit lens, at least in my opinion, is more geared towards the Rebel line of lenses that come with the camera in a kit (e.g., 18-55, 55-250 EF-S lenses). As opposed to the higher end, full-frame cameras that come with a lens, which is already pretty darn good and much better than the ones that come with the Rebel line of cameras. That said, the 'kit lenses' are pretty good, depending on your end goal/product.

2. The 24-105 is nice, but it is an f/4.0 lens. I'd personally rather have f/2.8 than a redundant 70-105 mm that would already be realized in the 70-200 mm f/2.8.

ronlane · Jun 15, 2015

Waday, you are correct, I'd rather have fast glass (2.8 or better). However, the 24-105 f/4 is half the price of the 24-70 f/2.8.

But as mentioned, I'd go with the 70-200 f/2.8 as the addition to that kit and be just fine for some time.

waday · Jun 15, 2015

ronlane said:
Waday, you are correct, I'd rather have fast glass (2.8 or better). However, the 24-105 f/4 is half the price of the 24-70 f/2.8.

But as mentioned, I'd go with the 70-200 f/2.8 as the addition to that kit and be just fine for some time.

Haha, that's true. I like spending other people's money, because it's free.

Derrel · Jun 15, 2015

I would go for a Canon 24-70mm zoom instead of the 16-35mm, and then a 70-200 zoom. The 135/2 is a nice, lightweight, very sharp lens, but it has no focal length flexibility, so it takes more pre-planning to use, and is less-flexible. (I own it...it's a good lens, but it's always only 135mm in length).

Your lens names on the last two are a bit perplexing...what you listed are actually OLDER models....both discontinued, but probably STILL available as NOS or new old stock...
3.Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens
4.Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom

There ARE f/4 70-200 "old", pre-IS lenses....not that great a zoom and there **is/was** a non-IS 70-200/2.8 that's also a good lens, and probably available new somewhere at a good price. SO...I dunno...I'd buy the 70-200 f/2.8 lens myself. In almost any version...pre-IS, IS, IS-Mark II. All are good. The NEW 70-200 f/4 L IS USM is better than the old non-IS f/4 one that came out 15-20 years ago...the new f/4 IS lens has professional level optics, and is very easy to carry!

I look at a 16-35mm lens as more of a wide-angle/landscape lens, which would be most useful indoors, for the fetish type stuff, when shooting in close-in situations from 15 feet and closer.

adancito1211 · Jun 15, 2015

Thank you all for your input. With so many lenses out there, didn't know which way to go for starters. I heard great things about the 135mm, especially for good bokeh and sharpness and awesome for portraits. Really want to gear towards something that is for good all around use and can produce the sharp images. And i didn't want to buy two lenses off the back that can give her the same results, when I can purchase one. if i did buy two, i wanted to get them to where they can achieve different goals.

On the 70-200 f/2.8 lens, is it worth springing the extra 6-700 for the IS II ? Or stick with first version first?

ronlane · Jun 15, 2015

If you are shooting the 70-200 on a tripod or at shutter speeds of 1/1000th of a second all the time, then you don't need the IS.

adancito1211 · Jun 15, 2015

Ok thank you so much.

And finally, if.i had.to go with just.one lens to get her....ome that she can get by with for a while and get the most done with....which would be the one to go with first?

Derrel · Jun 15, 2015

Any/all of the 70-200 f/2.8 Canon USM zooms are good lenses. The first one had no Image Stabilizer, then they came out with a Stabilizer version, and those were both made for a good many years. I honestly am not sure if the Mark II Image Stabilizer lens is really worth the added money for most people; honestly....I'm not convinced that the Mark II is needed for a lot of uses.

I think a 70-200/2.8 is the most-versatile lens, for me...I don't shoot a whole lot of wide-angle stuff, so for me, I'd say the 70-200/2.8 would be the most-useful lens for people work outdoors.

f2bthere · Jun 16, 2015

Congratulations on your first five years! Here is to many more...

As for lenses...In the end, it all comes down to the photographer and their working style. What works for one may not be great for another.

What has she been using so far? How has it worked for her? What does she like and not like about what she is using? What focal lengths does she use most?

One lens to do everything? Many portrait and wedding photographers got by with just a normal lens on a Hasselblad (80mm, which is about like a 50mm on a full frame). The advantage of a normal lens is that you can get a group shot or a full length shot of a couple in an engagement shot with enough of the environment in it. You can also make portraits of a single individual with a normal lens if you know how to use it (or crop).

You would be hard pressed in many situations if all you had was the 70-200mm f2.8. It is a fantastic lens but for her stated purposes, it would be a tough "only" lens. It is also big and heavy. Will she enjoy carrying it around?

I prefer lighter gear that lets me be more agile and doesn't make people feel like they are having a Canon cannon pointed at them

.

I would suggest the 135 f2 and something wider (50mm, 35mm or a zoom--16-35mm would be fine, as would something in the normal range as long as it isn't a cheap zoom lens.). Much easier to carry and handier to use. Less intimidating for clients (not that the 135 is small). Fast enough they can be used in lower light without flash (especially nice with babies). Great Bokeh.

Best of luck.

Overread · Jun 16, 2015

My advice - buy NOTHING

See when people have hobbies its very difficult to actually buy them gifts related to that hobby; even with the best intentions and research you are still not that person. What defines something as good is greatly influenced by the person - I know people that have bought top end lenses and then sold them because they were too big and too heavy for them to enjoy using.

You're going to spend a pretty big chunk of cash on this so do it in a way that lets her make her own choice on the gear she is going to use. That way you make the best move to ensure that what you get her is stuff that she will want to and will use. Otherwise you run the risk that that huge expensive lens could end up gathering dust.

You could take her out for a meal and then a trip to the camera store - you could ask her - you could get a gift voucher for a store - you could try and get her to tell you without making it obvious that you're going to get it etc..

Solarflare · Jun 16, 2015

As a general rule - NEVER buy people something thats about their hobby. UNLESS you have the same hobby and know at least about as much about it as the person in question (but even that is a gamble), OR you have asked the person what (s)he wants.

This is especially true with something like this. Maybe she'd rather have a Nikon F system, or a Sony FE system, or even a micro four thirds, or wants a 8x10 film camera, or whatever. YOU CANNOT KNOW. What system people prefer in photography depends very much on the person in question.

Personally I have been given insane amounts of crap I never bothered with just because people know I was interested in those fields. Yes I am, but I knew a lot more about these fields than they did, and what I received there was simply crap I was not interested in because I already knew that etc.