Worth getting the Canon R6 for just the f1.8 and f2.0 lenses?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,264
Re: Worth getting the Canon R6 for just the f1.8 and f2.0 lenses?

Smiller4128 wrote:

Hello all,

I’ve been debating switching systems from my Sony A7III for awhile now. Before that, I was completely invested into Fujifilm and absolutely loved it. But, I got lured into the Full Frame market with Sony, but just simply haven’t been as happy with it. It definitely has better the better AF, but to me, the Fuji was just a lot more fun to use.

With this in mind, I’ve been trying to decide if I want to switch to either a Nikon Z6II or a Canon R6. In either case, I’m not looking to get any of the PRO glass (f1.2-f1.4 primes of f2.8 zooms) right away, if at all. I was happy with the f1.2-f1.4 primes on my Fuji and don’t see why the f1.8-f2.0 primes and f4 zooms on full frame would be any different to me. I just can’t see spending $2000+ on a lens when I just do photography for fun.

With this in mind, I’ve been looking at the various prime lenses for both Nikon and Canon. Nikon has very excellent f1.8 lens selection to choose from wether it’s the 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm. The 50mm f1.8 S from Nikon is even DPreview’s highest rated lens right now. Subjective I know, but impressive none the less. But, Canon’s lenses in that range seem a bit odd to me. The 35mm f1.8 is a Macro lens...I’m curious if this affects its use as a environmental portrait lens?

I don't think this causes any problems really.

The newly announced 50mm f1.8 is a mere $199...how good is that going to actually be for such a cheap price?

Bad. Bad bokeh. Wide open it's sharp in the very center. If you want to do portraits with the subjects in the center only the sharpness is fine, however, if you like rule of thirds compositions it's not good enough or you have to stop down.  But beside sharpness, for portraits you will always have that bad bokeh. In my opinion it's a lens you should skip, unless you're on a budget.

And the 85mm f2.0 is an odd aperture choice over a f1.8 isn’t it?

Not a problem for me. Even stopping down this lens a bit often.

The 35mm, 50mm, & 85mm lenses are my “go-to” lenses. I use that range for about 95% of my portraits and other things I shoot. I’d like to add a 24mm as well, but I don’t think Canon will have a cheap f1.8 version of that for some time. Based upon their current lineup, they’re more likely to go with a 24mm f1.2 pro lens first. Anyways, I’m curious if anyone has any experience with these lenses and can you recommend them?

The 35mm is okay. Heavy vignetting, but that might not be a problem with in camera correction and good modern sensors. I don't think 35mm options for other mounts are a whole lot better....

The 85mm is good. The IS is good. Sharp wide open across the frame. It has a lot of contrast, and although this is a good thing for the subject, it can make it's bokeh appear to be a bit more more busy than it actually is....

50mm and Canon is always a problem, always has been and always will be. If you are happy carrying (and paying for) an f/1.2 lens it's fine, but you're not i would definitely go Nikon.

I'm solving the Canon 50mm gap with an adapted 50mm f/1.4 Art.... but that's not compact or light at all.......   It has probably a bit more round bokeh at f/1.8 than the Nikon lens, it provides more light for the AF-system, oh, and Canon focuses wide open where Nikon doesn't,  but beside these things.... i don't see why the Nikon 50mm wouldn't be the better lens.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +15 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow