New 6D user : 24-205mm f/4 kit or 24-70 f/4 + 70/200 f/4, or what else ?

Hey there,

I've started a couple of threads in the last few days, because I'm on holiday in Japan and was looking to get some new gear. Decision time has almost come now (tomorrow last time for purchases, hope to see a lot of your opinions when I get up )

I've had a 650D/t4i for 2 years (and a 500D before that), with a versatile 15-85 EF-S & the cheap but fantastic 50mm f1.8.
I shoot travel, landscape, street, some portrait and some party pictures (with a 430EXII speedlite), but not really sports / wildlife.

I'm not a pro, but it's a growing passion and some of my shots have had praise, so I'd say I'm starting to outgrow this gear. I was originally looking to get just more lenses, but it looks like I'm going to upgrade to full frame too. The IQ & low light behavior is just too tempting.

First, I should mention I've had a very hard time choosing between the Sony A7 & the Canon 6D: I think there's almost no question the A7 is the future, it's just more modern & feature packed with tricks like showing in-focus & overexposed areas, zooming in to help with manual focus, it has insane dynamic range (fixing highlights / shadows is a constant pain of mine), and it's way less bulky ! The 6D is also a bit long in the tooth (look at how many features from the 70D it's missing, even the 650D touchscreen!) and I wouldn't be surprised to see a mkII soon.

Strangely, having said all that, I think that familiarity with Canon + the fact that the 6D is a reassuring camera that I've seen (or its bigger brother the 5D) in the hands of so many people, are winning this battle for me, and I'm 80% sure I'm gonna stick with Canon for now and go for the 6D tomorrow in the shop. I just don't have time to ponder it any further. I might reconsider in 2 years when everyone is on mirrorless

So with this out of the way, what glass to go for ? I'll have to ditch the EF-S zoom for FF, and I'll keep the 50mm, other than that:

First, I don't think I need wider than 24mm : it looks about the same as 15 in APS-C that I had with my 15-85 EF-S and I was happy with that, so on that end 24 is fine.
On the other end, I thought I didn't need more tele power than 85 (APS-C), but I'm a bit confused to have read that the 70-200 is an excellent portrait lens...

Right now I see 3 options :

1) Just go with the 24-105mm 6D kit lens, and enjoy getting to know life in full frame !
After all, Ken Rockwell says this lens is "spectacular" and even "For smart people, it ought to be the only lens you ever need. With the crazy-high ISOs of the 6D, you don't need anything faster than f/4 to shoot in any light" ! I know it has bad distortion on the 24mm end though... and well, there's always a trick with kit lenses right ?

2) Go with a 24-70mm f/4 + a 70-200mm f/4.
Pros : better IQ for sure + much more coverage at the tele end (but for what?) + no compromises.
Cons : 3x more expensive, and I might have to carry both all the time.
The "3x more expensive" bit is somewhat countered by the "it's not every day you're in Japan, grab a bargain!" argument but still, image quality had better be much, much better than with a single kit lens to justify it ! Is that the case ?

3) 24-105 kit lens + a couple of cheap primes (other than the 50mm 1.8) ? Which ones ?

Thanks !

1. Oh read Rockwell with as much grains of salt as you can.

2. 24-70 F4 is not that better compared to 24-105. You can think of 24-105+70-200 F4. 70-200 will cover the focal length where 24-105 has its weakest spots. And I think you would still have room for a cheap fast lens like the 50mm 1.8.

Jonathan Brady wrote:

What about the 6D + 24-105 + 70-200?

You could also add the 40mm f/2.8.

With this setup you could cover practically every situation with 2 lenses (or 1).

Sorry there's a typo in the title, I mean 24-105 not 24-205 obviously.

The point of the 24-70 + 70-200 instead of the 24-105 alone is that the 24-70 has supposedly better IQ in its range (+ some macro functionality, I've read)

ppires85 wrote:

1. Oh read Rockwell with as much grains of salt as you can.

2. 24-70 F4 is not that better compared to 24-105. You can think of 24-105+70-200 F4. 70-200 will cover the focal length where 24-105 has its weakest spots. And I think you would still have room for a cheap fast lens like the 50mm 1.8.

Thanks,
The 24-70 is about 50% more expensive than the 24-105 (well not a 24-105 sold separately, but the difference between 6D body & 6D kit, which would be my actual cost for a 24-105). That's not prohibitive if it's much better.

If you don't shoot far away subjects, what would you typically use the 70-200 for and would you carry both usually ?
I'm definitely keeping the 50mm 1.8, any other must-have primes ? I've read good things about a 85mm Canon one I think (can't remember the aperture), isn't that already covered by the 24-105 mm though ?

frenchtraveller wrote:

ppires85 wrote:

1. Oh read Rockwell with as much grains of salt as you can.

2. 24-70 F4 is not that better compared to 24-105. You can think of 24-105+70-200 F4. 70-200 will cover the focal length where 24-105 has its weakest spots. And I think you would still have room for a cheap fast lens like the 50mm 1.8.

Thanks,
The 24-70 is about 50% more expensive than the 24-105 (well not a 24-105 sold separately, but the difference between 6D body & 6D kit, which would be my actual cost for a 24-105). That's not prohibitive if it's much better.

If you don't shoot far away subjects, what would you typically use the 70-200 for and would you carry both usually ?
I'm definitely keeping the 50mm 1.8, any other must-have primes ? I've read good things about a 85mm Canon one I think (can't remember the aperture), isn't that already covered by the 24-105 mm though ?

I would carry both without a problem. I got my hands on an F4 IS, but for my use I really need more speed. So I'm looking after a 2.8 non-IS L. And IMHO, 70-200 F4 L IS is a better lens at it's focal length compared to 24-105mm. The kit lens is very reasonable at wide focal lengths to normal (24-70). So they make a good combo.

50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are two different lenses that I'd rather think about them sepparately when building a lens environment for me to work. I think nothing replaces zooms and nothing replaces primes right now (as much as people talk the heaven out of 24-70 2.8 II L). They serve for different purposes. If you do architecture, I'd aim for 24mm 2.8 IS for example, at the affordable price range. It has less distortion and fringing. A simplier formula mostly make for better lenses. At an affordable range, if my thing is portraiture or I have any subject that I'd want to compress space and isolate, 85mm 1.8 is really a good and cheap call.

If you still think about normal focal length, I'd be thinking more about 40mm 2.8 STM or a normal wide like 35mm f2 IS. The 50mm 1.8 is a good champ, but soon to be retired. Compared to those two new guys on the team, the nifty-fifty eats some dust behind. We are really likely to see the 50mm 1.8 being substituted next year.

I like the consumer primes to substitute some zooms because of discretion, but they REALLY sacrifice flexibility. If I were to work with photography professionally, I would never give up covering my most used focal lengths with at least one zoom.

frenchtraveller wrote:

Jonathan Brady wrote:

What about the 6D + 24-105 + 70-200?

You could also add the 40mm f/2.8.

With this setup you could cover practically every situation with 2 lenses (or 1).

Sorry there's a typo in the title, I mean 24-105 not 24-205 obviously.

The point of the 24-70 + 70-200 instead of the 24-105 alone is that the 24-70 has supposedly better IQ in its range (+ some macro functionality, I've read)

I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS, but based on objective tests online, yes, it does appear to be a better lens across the shared range.  It also has 1 stop better IS, a macro mode, and is lighter and smaller.  It's also more expensive.  So, it's a cost:benefit analysis for you.  You've mentioned that cost isn't really a factor so it seems as though the 24-70 may be the right lens for you.  Except...

You've had the 15-85 for a while.  The 24-70 would be like having a 24-44 in terms of focal length on a crop sensor.  The limited zoom range isn't necessarily a bad thing if you frequently stay at one end or the other of the zoom.  But if you find yourself constantly bouncing back and forth across the zoom range, then you're in for a LOT of lens changing.  Similarly the 24-105 would be like having a 15-66 on a crop sensor.  That's a lot more range that you can work with before having to switch lenses.  Sometimes, some overlap in zoom lenses is a major advantage to minimize lens switches.

But again, if ultimate IQ is what matters, then the 24-70 is the right choice between those two options.

As for portrait lenses... the 70-200 will do very well.  The only downside is a lack of dramatic subject isolation and that's something that prime lenses can handle for you if you want it.  Typical portrait focal lengths vary between 50-135.  Some also use 24-35mm and also up to 200mm.  It really just depends on what you want to accomplish and what the space confines are.  Your subject matters too.  Me personally, I have the 35mm f/2 IS, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2 for portraits.  I find that the 85-135 focal range works best for what I like.  But I'm frequently outdoors and often photographing my 2 year old daughter.  If I were indoors and photographing people in tight spaces and/or groups of people, I'd probably choose the 35 or 50 (hence my earlier recommendation for the 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens for you).

My approach with the 6D is a 24-70 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS with a few faster primes for portraits. In my case, my primes are 35 f/2 IS, 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2 L, which make a great trio. All of these lenses are fairly lightweight and have great IQ.

frenchtraveller wrote:

Right now I see 3 options :

1) Just go with the 24-105mm 6D kit lens, and enjoy getting to know life in full frame !
After all, Ken Rockwell says this lens is "spectacular" and even "For smart people, it ought to be the only lens you ever need. With the crazy-high ISOs of the 6D, you don't need anything faster than f/4 to shoot in any light" ! I know it has bad distortion on the 24mm end though... and well, there's always a trick with kit lenses right ?

Despite what KR says , the 24-105 is indeed a very good lens.

2) Go with a 24-70mm f/4 + a 70-200mm f/4.
Pros : better IQ for sure

Not so sure. The 24-70/4 is weaker in the middle of the range, quite disappointing for a newer and a shorter lens. According to DXO it is brighter (better T-stop) but this is in the center only. It vignettes more at the long end.

+ much more coverage at the tele end (but for what?) + no compromises.

The 70-200/4 IS (I hope you mean the IS version) is excellent but why not the 24-105 + 70-200/4 IS?

Cons : 3x more expensive, and I might have to carry both all the time.
The "3x more expensive" bit is somewhat countered by the "it's not every day you're in Japan, grab a bargain!" argument but still, image quality had better be much, much better than with a single kit lens to justify it ! Is that the case ?

3) 24-105 kit lens + a couple of cheap primes (other than the 50mm 1.8) ? Which ones ?

The 50/1.8 has terrible AF. If you want cheap - the 85/1.8 maybe or the 100/2?

frenchtraveller wrote:

I shoot travel, landscape, street, some portrait and some party pictures (with a 430EXII speedlite), but not really sports / wildlife.

The 24-105 is the lens for that.

2) Go with a 24-70mm f/4 + a 70-200mm f/4.

Pros : better IQ for sure

Not sure that the 24-70 f/4L is significantly better than the 24-105 in terms of IQ, at least according to the numerous reviews.

While I've never even handled the 24-70 f/4L, I own both the 24-70 f/2.8L II and 24-105, and I can tell you that the 24-105 delivers excellent IQ, even in comparison to the 24-70 f/2.8L II, for which there is consensus about its superior optical quality. Due to its longer reach and IS, I strongly prefer the 24-105 for travel photography. On the other hand, for portraits or events I always choose the 24-70 f/2.8L II.

That said, I would never consider the 24-70 f/4L as a serious option. For me the only possible motivation for getting this lens is in its decent macro features -- I can understand that having the macro option available all the time without the need of changing the lens can be appealing.

Yes, I’d agree partly with that. The 24-70/f4 is a super lens, but the 24-105 has better reach, and allegedly nearly as good IQ. So unless you’re interested in the macro mode, the 24-105 would be more useful. The 24-70/f4 is the one to get if you’re really bothered about IQ, and take pictures of small objects, not really macro but small things. The 24-105 is more all-round.

OTOH, the ability to take photos of small things really well, is much more useful than people think, and the 24-70/f4 shines at that.

/Neil

Hey guys,

So, I was surprised to learn that the 6D + 24-70 f/4 is available as a kit here in Japan !

That makes the 24-70 f/4 just marginally more expensive than the 24-105, and that tipped the balance in favor of it for me : eventually, I went for a 6D + 24-70 f/4 kit, and a 70-200 f/4 IS.

The 70-200 is impressive and heavy for someone like me who's never touched this kind of gear before
Let's hope I won't miss using a single "good enough" lens like the 24-105 could have been, and as your latest posts seem to suggest.
Worst case, I guess I could easily sell or swap the 24-70 for a 24-105 if it turns out that was a mistake !

Will keep you posted, thanks !

I'm sort of deciding on adding a 6d and 24-70/105 myself for some time now.

Looking at lens tests (not dxo - they are a joke), the 24-70 is significantly better than the 24-105 - way less distortion, vignetting and better sharpness:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1

Plus the 24-70 have the better IS (hybrid) and is smaller and lighter and the 'macro' is a bonus. The 6d with 24-70 IMO would make a nice one lens travel rig on the 6d.

I decided against the 24-105 for these reasons even though it is quite a bit cheaper lately than the 24-70 in the kit. It depends what weighs the strongest in your mind - if it is image quality and portability, then the 24-70 is it. If you want the convenience of the longer range at the extent of IQ or price is a big factor, get the 24-105

Congratulations! The 6D&24-70/f4 is also available as a kit in Europe, I know that because I bought my second 6D&24-70/f4 as a kit, it saved quite a lot of money.

/Neil

Congratulations! The 6D&24-70/f4 is also available as a kit in Europe, I know that because I bought my second 6D&24-70/f4 as a kit, it saved quite a lot of money.

/Neil

frenchtraveller wrote:

Right now I see 3 options :

1) Just go with the 24-105mm

2) Go with a 24-70mm f/4 + a 70-200mm f/4.

3) 24-105 kit lens + a couple of cheap primes

I'd ditch the lot in favour of one really, really great standard prime. Sigma Art, Canon L, Zeiss Otus... you might not have the 'reach' that some folk need; you might not be able to photograph the same range of 'stuff' as other folk; but you'll have style and quality coming out of your ears.

Do more, or do better? It's an easy choice...

Al Downie wrote:

frenchtraveller wrote:

Right now I see 3 options :

1) Just go with the 24-105mm

2) Go with a 24-70mm f/4 + a 70-200mm f/4.

3) 24-105 kit lens + a couple of cheap primes

I'd ditch the lot in favour of one really, really great standard prime. Sigma Art, Canon L, Zeiss Otus... you might not have the 'reach' that some folk need; you might not be able to photograph the same range of 'stuff' as other folk; but you'll have style and quality coming out of your ears.

Do more, or do better? It's an easy choice...

Doh. Apologies for this too-late post.