Thinking of getting a Canon R6? Trying to plan which lenses to get?

[AndrewCanon6D]

I used to shoot with Canon for a long time, but I sold it awhile ago and have been shooting with a Fuji X-T3 since. I like the X-T3, it is small and fun to use. But I miss full frame.

I have been thinking of getting an R6. I would love to be able to keep the Fuji and buy an R6, but I don't know if financially if I could afford that. I am also trying to plan out which lenses I might get (eventually) so I could have a plan of how much to save up for. Here's my current thoughts and would appreciate any feedback or advice for people who have used the R6 or are more familiar with RF Lenses in general. I have severe G.A.S. when it comes to cameras.. I am trying to consider what the overall expense would be from the get go

Possible purchase roadmap:
Canon R6 + 24-105mm f4L (used for general purpose and landscape)

Landscape: My original thought was the 14-35 f4. But to save money and weight, if 24mm was wide enough for most of my landscape, would the RF 16mm be sufficient for times when I wanted a little bit wider?

Wildlife/outdoor sports: I was originally thinking the RF 100-500. But to save money and weight, possibly the RF 100-400 plus either the 600 or 800 would be enough?

Portrait: Either 70-200 or 85, not sure

I know, lots of questions. If anyone has any feedback or thoughts about any of this, or other ways to get into this while saving money, would love to hear what has worked for others. Thanks!

 

[ronlane]

Hi. The R6 is a great camera. I have really enjoyed mine since I got it last December. You have a lot of questions and I can totally understand that. While it is hard for us to answer your needs/wants, I can give you some of my experience over the last 9 months.

I originally got the body only with a converter to use my EF glass on it.

I have a friend that has an R5 with the 24-105mm f/4 and that is a sweet lens and should be just fine for landscape and general photography. If the 24 isn't wide enough, remember that you can always do a pano.

Since getting my R6, I have purchased both the RF50mm f/1.8 and the RF16mm f/2.8 lenses to take on vacation to Hawaii.

The 16 mm if almost too wide for me. I think I would like a 20 mm or a 35mm instead of the 16.

My friend has used the 100-500 and the 100-400 with the R5 and had good results but remember that you need to shoot daytime sports or those won't be fast enough.

The 70-200 is almost a must in my opinion. The 85 would only be useful if you did a lot of portrait work.

Hope that helps.

 

[CherylL]

I shoot primes with the R6. Since I had EF lenses with 5D mark iii, I bought the control ring adapter. Best lens depends on what you shoot. I picked up a used EF lens because it was much cheaper than the RF lens. For portraits I primarily use the EF 135mm. The 50mm is good too for indoors. Get what fits your style and budget. Perhaps price out the adapter and used EF lenses vs the RF lenses.

I also have the Fuji XT-4 and in comparison, I love the R6 over the Fuji. However the Fuji is lighter for travel or hikes.

 

[RAZKY]

I used to shoot with Canon for a long time, but I sold it awhile ago and have been shooting with a Fuji X-T3 since. I like the X-T3, it is small and fun to use. But I miss full frame.

I have been thinking of getting an R6. I would love to be able to keep the Fuji and buy an R6, but I don't know if financially if I could afford that. I am also trying to plan out which lenses I might get (eventually) so I could have a plan of how much to save up for. Here's my current thoughts and would appreciate any feedback or advice for people who have used the R6 or are more familiar with RF Lenses in general. I have severe G.A.S. when it comes to cameras.. I am trying to consider what the overall expense would be from the get go

Possible purchase roadmap:
Canon R6 + 24-105mm f4L (used for general purpose and landscape)

Landscape: My original thought was the 14-35 f4. But to save money and weight, if 24mm was wide enough for most of my landscape, would the RF 16mm be sufficient for times when I wanted a little bit wider?

Wildlife/outdoor sports: I was originally thinking the RF 100-500. But to save money and weight, possibly the RF 100-400 plus either the 600 or 800 would be enough?

Portrait: Either 70-200 or 85, not sure

I know, lots of questions. If anyone has any feedback or thoughts about any of this, or other ways to get into this while saving money, would love to hear what has worked for others. Thanks!

I'm trying to understand your query. What focal lengths did you use with full-frame in the past? Present day full-frame lenses on full-frame cameras cover the same field as old full-frame lenses of equal focal length did on old full-frame cameras, so you ought to at least know what focal lengths you want. Which particular lens to buy, of course, is always a conundrum, but you can easily compare specifications and prices, and decide for yourself what to save up for. All any of us can do is tell you what we prefer, which may or may not be intelligent advice. Good luck!

 

[AndrewCanon6D]

Thank you both! This is helpful information

I'm trying to understand your query. What focal lengths did you use with full-frame in the past? Present day full-frame lenses on full-frame cameras cover the same field as old full-frame lenses of equal focal length did on old full-frame cameras, so you ought to at least know what focal lengths you want. Which particular lens to buy, of course, is always a conundrum, but you can easily compare specifications and prices, and decide for yourself what to save up for. All any of us can do is tell you what we prefer, which may or may not be intelligent advice. Good luck!

Good point. I used to have 16-35 f4, 24-105 f4, 100-400, and then 35, 50 and 135 primes

Those were purchased over a long time. Now when I'm looking at possibly rebuilding a collection with RF equivalents, it seems prohibitively expensive.

I guess my query was mainly checking how cheaper options may compare if other people had experience with it. I know all anyone can say is what they prefer, but I've always thought that could be valuable feedback

 

[RAZKY]

Thank you both! This is helpful information

Good point. I used to have 16-35 f4, 24-105 f4, 100-400, and then 35, 50 and 135 primes

Those were purchased over a long time. Now when I'm looking at possibly rebuilding a collection with RF equivalents, it seems prohibitively expensive.

I guess my query was mainly checking how cheaper options may compare if other people had experience with it. I know all anyone can say is what they prefer, but I've always thought that could be valuable feedback

Other folk's opinions are only valid if their standards are equal or higher than yours. The image quality of even the cheap kit lenses today is surprisingly good, to me at least. I think Canon has some kind of try before you buy program - you may want to check that out,