Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,084
Re: Laowa 9mm

Ed Rizk wrote:

nnowak wrote:

I am going to make a few assumptions about your kit. First, an ultra wide angle zoom could replace both your TS-E 17mm and EF 17-40mm f/4.0. Second, you bought the RF 35mm f/1.8 primarily for the small size and focal length, and not for the macro capabilities.

I do like the macro capabilities. I reach for the EF 24-70 F4 half the time on my R, because of the 0.7-1 macro mode on it, particularly if I have no idea what I'm going to shoot. I like being able to pick off macros of opportunity when shooting landscapes or whatever. You really only need 1-1 magnification for bugs. The bugs aren't that pretty. I prefer florals and food. A lot of the M lenses have pretty good close focus, though.

Your 6D kit:

  • 6D - 770g
  • EF 17-40mm f/4.0 - 500g
  • TS-E 17mm f/4.0 - 820g
  • EF 24-70mm f/4.0 - 600g
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1570g

4260g total

Your EOS R kit:

  • EOS R - 660g
  • EF to RF adapter - 130g
  • EF 17-40mm f/4.0 - 500g
  • TS-E 17mm f/4.0 - 820g
  • RF 24-105mm f/4.0 - 700g
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1570g
  • RF 35mm f/1.8 - 305g

4685g total

A7 III kit:

  • A7 III - 650g
  • FE 12-24mm f/4.0 - 565g
  • FE 24-70mm f/4.0 - 430g
  • FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1395g
  • FE 35mm f/1.8 - 280g

3320g total

That's surprising, particularly if there is a corresponding reduction in volume. They look big.

X-T30 kit:

  • X-T30 - 383g
  • XF 8-16mm f/2.8 - 805g
  • XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 - 310g
  • XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1375g
  • XF 23mm f/2.0 - 180g

3053g total

M6 II kit:

  • M6 II - 408g
  • EF to EF-M adapter - 150g
  • Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 - 555g
  • EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 130g
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1570g
  • EF-M 22mm f/2.0 - 105g

2918g total

A few comments about these kits... You could swap out your TS-E 17mm and EF 17-40mm for the 1180g EF 11-24mm f/4.0 lens and save 140g in total weight. A RF mount version of the EF 11-24mm should be coming this year and it will likely be smaller than the EF mount version, but for sure not cheaper.

That's one of the lenses that I lust after. It couldn't replace the 17-40 for me, because it has the protruding bulbous element, like the TSE 17.

I use the TSE mostly on a tripod. I'm very careful with it because of that element. I put the cap on it if I'm going to walk more than 100 feet.

I use the 17-40 for hand held shots when I'm looking at property with other real estate brokers or clients. A tripod or a strange looking lens like the TSE 17 or the 11-24 would distract too much from the conversation. Even quickly previewing property by myself, it's just faster to use.

I guess the Sigma would have a similar issue with the front element, as well as the Fuji. That's what was so exciting about the extra wide Laowa prime combined with the 11-22.

A potentially lighter RF version of the EF 100-400mm should be coming soon too.

I'm pretty happy with the EF versions of lenses. I got the RF 24-100 for the extra reach and to check out an RF zoom. It's a really nice lens, but not a game changer over my EF 24-70 F4.

The Sony kit has a ton of options if you want to go smaller/slower or bigger/faster. For example, you could replace the Sony 24-70mm f/4.0 and 35mm f/1.8 above with the Sony E mount Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that weighs 550g.

Fuji has several heavier alternatives for a standard zoom such as the 16-55mm f/2.8 (655g) or 16-80mm f/4.0 (440g) that are both weather sealed. There is also a 23mm f/1.4 that is 300g if you wanted a brighter prime. The X-T2 and X-T3 bodies are both weather sealed as are most of the lenses in the above list. The only Fuji lenses I mentioned that are not weather sealed are the 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 and the 23mm f/1.4. The replacement for the X-T3 is rumored to be announced in February and it is supposed to include IBIS

It's a huge plus that Fuji's are the only weather sealed APSc lenses. Rain has yet to destroy any of my non sealed lenses, but the weather sealing just makes me feel better. Every one of them has been rained on, except for the TSE.

I am definitely going to read up on Fuji before making any decision.

The M6 II kit has some of the smallest lenses, but that comes at the expense of slower apertures. A replacement for your 24-70/105mm f/4.0 zooms would need to come in the form of adapting the 645g EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. If you want a brighter prime, you have the 16mm, 30mm, anf 56mm f/1.4 options from Sigma, or the Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Viltrox will be releasing 23mm, 33mm, and 56mm f/1.4 lenses in March for Canon, Fuji, and Sony mounts.

If you want to run dual systems, the Canon M system will get you the smallest possible "small" system.

That's probably the smartest thing for me to do. The M6ii with the 11-22 and the 18-150 for daylight and the 22 for night and indoors. Done. The whole thing fits in a couple of big jacket pockets. The 56 and the 9 are tempting, but that's GAS talking, and the 9 might or might not be a disappointment.

If you want to stick with a single system to do everything, Fuji and Sony have best options right now.

Your R will get there too, but it will take quite a few more RF lens announcements. RF versions of the EF 11-24mm and EF 100-400mm should be coming relatively soon, but neither will be remotely inexpensive.

The R is there. Every EF lens works perfectly on it. I have no problem whatsoever with adapting EF glass to the R.

I love the 100-400, but it doesn't get as much use as any other lens. It's the greatest walk in the woods lens, but I don't get out to the woods as much as I'd hoped. I hate having expensive things I don't use often.

If I went with the above two system setup, and sold the 100-400, the 17-70, the RF 24-105, and the 6D, my total 2 camera kit is smaller and lighter, and not such a big bite. Everything stays Canon, so there's not much to relearn.

There is one other option that you may want to consider and that would be a switch to Nikon mirrorless.

Nikon Z7 kit:

  • Nikon Z7 - 585g
  • Z 14-30mm f/4.0 - 485g
  • Z 24-70mm f/4.0 - 500g
  • Z DX 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 - 405g
  • Z 35mm f/1.8 - 370g

2345g total

The interesting thing about the Nikon option is the 14-30mm zoom. While not as wide as the 11-24mm and 12-24mm options, it is much wider than the 17-40mm and might still be wide enough for your architecture photography while also still accepting 82mm filters. This lens is also fairly small and is roughly the same size as your EF 24-70mm f/4.0.

Since you said you don't make much use of your 100-400mm, I threw in the Nikon 50-250mm lens as an alternative. This is a crop sensor lens that gives the same FoV as your 100-400mm on full frame. Mounted on the Z7, the camera will automatically crop to the APS-C frame size and give you 20MP files. The 46MP Z7 is the exact same size and weight as the 24MP Z6, so there is no penalty for choosing the higher MP camera (aside from price). You could accomplish a similar function with your R, but it would require using the adapter with a lens like the EF-S 55-250mm STM and the final output would be 11.5MP.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow