What lenses to get with Canon 6D? (First FF)

Excelsius · Feb 27, 2013

I am upgrading from T2i with the kit EF-S lens and wanted to find out what is the best lens(es) I should get for the 6D. My number one priority is image quality, above everything else.

What I will be shooting mostly:

General nature and landscapes
Astrophotography
Macro of insects and plants
Shooting in museums and people under darker conditions, indoors
Video recordings

My budget is around $1000. I wanted to get some lens suggestions and, more importantly, why you suggest a certain lens. I have two lenses in mind, but wanted to hear some opinions first.

Thank you.

rexbobcat · Feb 27, 2013

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 $350-$400

*Try and get a good copy of this lens for the best results*

It's sharp for its price range and it doesn't distort stars at the edge of the frame as badly as some more expensive options.

However, it's manual focus and it has noticeable, unusual distortion.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 $450

It performs better than the Canon version and it allows for shooting in low light

Canon 28mm F/2.8 IS $500

Good for video. It's sharp and has image stabilization.

These are all prime lenses because it's hard to find good zoom lenses that meet your needs in the price range that you've specified

Excelsius · Feb 28, 2013

Thanks. Online tests seem to indicate that the Sigma is sharper than Canon 50mm 1.4 under f2, but not above. That would be fine, but from what I read, a lot of the Sigma lenses seem to backfocus, even beyond MFA. That 28mm is nice, but it's almost $700.

What do you think about getting the 50mm 1.4 Canon ($300) and the 100mm 2.8L IS macro ($800)? The latter should let me shoot videos and also cover macro. I have also considered the 70-200mm f4L non-IS ($600).

o hey tyler · Feb 28, 2013

rexbobcat said:
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 $350-$400

*Try and get a good copy of this lens for the best results*

It's sharp for its price range and it doesn't distort stars at the edge of the frame as badly as some more expensive options.

However, it's manual focus and it has noticeable, unusual distortion.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 $450

It performs better than the Canon version and it allows for shooting in low light

Canon 28mm F/2.8 IS $500

Good for video. It's sharp and has image stabilization.

These are all prime lenses because it's hard to find good zoom lenses that meet your needs in the price range that you've specified

The sigma 50mm f/1.4 doesn't perform as well in terms of resolution as the canon equivalent last time I checked. Could be wrong.

EIngerson · Feb 28, 2013

If you want 1 lens to be a great all around lens, look at the 24-105L. Great quality, great range of focal length, and very good for video. The 100 macro and the 70-200 are great lenses, but not for the broad spectrum of work you want it for and still fit in your budget.

gw2424 · Feb 28, 2013

I would look at a 17-40mm (You could also look at the 20-35mm f/2.8) and a 50mm 1.4 (Canon or Sigma).

bigal1000 · Mar 1, 2013

Get the Canon 24-105L and stay from all the 3rd party junk lenses,that will be worthless in a couple of years and may not even function correctly with the 6D. My opinion only you all may have other opinions,but that is mine!

rexbobcat · Mar 1, 2013

o hey tyler said:
The sigma 50mm f/1.4 doesn't perform as well in terms of resolution as the canon equivalent last time I checked. Could be wrong.

I think it resolves a more but in other areas it seems the Sigma is better.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Le.../436/(lens2)/196/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436

But then if you go to Photozone.de the Sigma had a bit more resolution over the entire range wide open.

I'm honestly not too impressed with the Canon. I used Live View to manual focus and at 5x magnification it was hard to tell if I had achieved the best focus.

It was kind of expected but I was kind of disappointed lol.

CanonJim · Mar 4, 2013

If I had your budget and your requirements, I'd probably get the the 24-105L, and the 100 f/2.8 Macro. I wouldn't bother with the IS version of the 100.

Many people will scoff at the f/4.0 max apertures on the 24-105, but with the 6D's rather astonishing low light capabilities, all you need to do is bump up the ISO a bit and you can make up for the one stop of light that 2.8 would give you. The only thing missing is IS on the 100 so you may need to practice your handholding skill. Of course, for some macro you'll be on a tripod so it wouldn't matter.

bigal1000 · Mar 5, 2013

rexbobcat said:
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 $350-$400

*Try and get a good copy of this lens for the best results*

It's sharp for its price range and it doesn't distort stars at the edge of the frame as badly as some more expensive options.

However, it's manual focus and it has noticeable, unusual distortion.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 $450

It performs better than the Canon version and it allows for shooting in low light

Canon 28mm F/2.8 IS $500

Good for video. It's sharp and has image stabilization.

These are all prime lenses because it's hard to find good zoom lenses that meet your needs in the price range that you've specified

Rokinon? Go with Canon 24-105L Canon 50 1.4 tele Canon 70-200 f4 all great lenses that will fit the bill for you.
l

Excelsius · Mar 5, 2013

Ok, thank you. I guess for now I will stick to the kit lens then (24-105 4L). I will consider adding the 100mm 2.8 macro lens or the 50 1.4 later on, depending on what I think I lack after some shooting. I found out that I can also get extension tubes for macro. Since these do not have any lenses in them, the photo quality should not be affected. The 24-105 should be able to perform well. It can already focus to 45cm/1.5ft. The sharpness of the macro lenses is very alluring though and since I don't have a macro tripod (or want to get one for now), the IS version might be for me eventually. I'm reading some books and watching tutorials to find out what equipment I need for the results I want. I know that a tripod is very important for good macro shots (or pretty much any shot).