Suggestions for building a lens system for 6D

Hello,

I am an amateur photographer. I primarily shoot nature/landscapes. Vast vistas, beaches, sunrise/sunset, rain, mountains, waterfalls. I started, learned and have grown using the 6D with a 50mm f/1.8 stm. I am quite happy with the 6D and don't feel the urge to upgrade to the 5D Mark III just yet. Now I would like to build my lens collection. I will be visiting the Great Rockies, Yosemite and Olympic national parks this september.

After reading the posts here and elsewhere, I have arrived at a tentative list:

1. Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0L IS USM

2. Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM

3. Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM or f/4.0L IS USM

4. CanonEF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

First, as you can see, I have not listed any primes, all are zoom lenses. Second, I have listed the 70-200/300 despite never craving for such a reach in what I have done so far because given the sort of nature I would be encountering in these national parks, I though I should have at least one lens with that reach. Third, while I am not with unlimited money, I have been saving for years to buy pro quality lenses. So, I prefer to stay with the L glass.

So, three questions for you folks:

1. Is this a good shortlist; would you add/take away from this list?

2. Between the 16-35 and 24-105, if I had to buy one, which do you suggest? I realize the greater reach of the latter, but I have been reading *glowing* reviews of the former, and 16 is indeed wider!

3. Are any of the Tamron and/or Sigma lenses good enough for me stray away from the L series?

Thank you so much for your advice.

Cheers, Neil.

2. Between the 16-35 and 24-105, if I had to buy one, which do you suggest? I realize the greater reach of the latter, but I have been reading *glowing* reviews of the former, and 16 is indeed wider!

This is the only question I can chime in on. For what you like to photograph and the locations you mention, 24mm is really not wide enough. And that's from someone who rarely shoots wider than 35mm. For travel and landscape a high-quality wide-angle zoom is so useful. Especially when the range extends to 35mm. You can cover so much with this lens.

neilroy wrote:

Hello,

I am an amateur photographer. I primarily shoot nature/landscapes. Vast vistas, beaches, sunrise/sunset, rain, mountains, waterfalls. I started, learned and have grown using the 6D with a 50mm f/1.8 stm. I am quite happy with the 6D and don't feel the urge to upgrade to the 5D Mark III just yet. Now I would like to build my lens collection. I will be visiting the Great Rockies, Yosemite and Olympic national parks this september.

After reading the posts here and elsewhere, I have arrived at a tentative list:

1. Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0L IS USM

2. Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM

3. Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM or f/4.0L IS USM

4. CanonEF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

First, as you can see, I have not listed any primes, all are zoom lenses. Second, I have listed the 70-200/300 despite never craving for such a reach in what I have done so far because given the sort of nature I would be encountering in these national parks, I though I should have at least one lens with that reach. Third, while I am not with unlimited money, I have been saving for years to buy pro quality lenses. So, I prefer to stay with the L glass.

So, three questions for you folks:

1. Is this a good shortlist; would you add/take away from this list?

2. Between the 16-35 and 24-105, if I had to buy one, which do you suggest? I realize the greater reach of the latter, but I have been reading *glowing* reviews of the former, and 16 is indeed wider!

3. Are any of the Tamron and/or Sigma lenses good enough for me stray away from the L series?

Thank you so much for your advice.

Cheers, Neil.

the 16-35 f4L is should be the first for sure!  For your needs this lens will be wonderful.  From what you photograph, im not sure you need the middle range. You could consider getting the 16-35 f4l and the 70-300L. That would be a very nice travel combo for landscape and wildlife.

I agree with the first three choices on your list.

The 16-35 f/4L IS is a no brainer for landscapes, architecture, even environmental portraits if used with care.

The 24-105 is a very good kit lens and I've seen pros using it in the field. The 24-70 f/2.8L II is better, but twice as expensive.

A 70-200 is another no-brainer. The two big questions will be: f/2.8 or f/4, IS or not IS. Personally, I find myself using the f/2.8 aperture more often than not and find it key to many photos--but I do this stuff for a living. Some folks will suggest the f/4 version because it is lighter and cheaper. I also find the IS quite useful.

I have no opinion on the 70-300, but you may just buy a 1.4x extender for your 70-200 to get the extra reach. Or bite the bullet and get the 100-400 II when you can afford it.

neilroy wrote:

Hello,

I am an amateur photographer. I primarily shoot nature/landscapes. Vast vistas, beaches, sunrise/sunset, rain, mountains, waterfalls. I started, learned and have grown using the 6D with a 50mm f/1.8 stm. I am quite happy with the 6D and don't feel the urge to upgrade to the 5D Mark III just yet. Now I would like to build my lens collection. I will be visiting the Great Rockies, Yosemite and Olympic national parks this september.

After reading the posts here and elsewhere, I have arrived at a tentative list:

1. Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0L IS USM

2. Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM

3. Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM or f/4.0L IS USM

4. CanonEF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

First, as you can see, I have not listed any primes, all are zoom lenses. Second, I have listed the 70-200/300 despite never craving for such a reach in what I have done

So, three questions for you folks:

1. Is this a good shortlist; would you add/take away from this list?

Realized I didn't answer your question.  Yes it's a good shortlist!  I would take out the 70-200 if wildlife is your use.  You could add the 100-400 to the list.

2. Between the 16-35 and 24-105, if I had to buy one, which do you suggest? I realize the greater reach of the latter, but I have been reading *glowing* reviews of the former, and 16 is indeed wider!

for your uses, the 16-35 without question.

3. Are any of the Tamron and/or Sigma lenses good enough for me stray away from the L series?

Only in certain circumstances.  If you need f2.8 in your uwa Tamron has a nice 15-35mm f2.8.   If you need stabilization in a mid range zoom Tamron is the only one with a 24-70 f2.8 that has stabilization.  Sigma has some wonderful primes, but no zooms that would challenge the L's on full frame except the 24-35, which is a very small range

i would start with the 16-35 and then get a telephoto and see if you miss the middle range

I've owned all but the 70-200 f2.8 - I didn't buy that simply because it was too much to carry around with the rest of my kit at the time. I bought the f4 IS, then replaced it with the 70-300. That and the 16-35 are my two favourite lenses ever. I love 300mm for landscapes, it's great for isolating detail, and the 16-35 is just wonderful.

Thank you all so much. I will check out the 100-400, somehow i had missed that. @diness, thanks for the Tamron suggestion. It has really great reviews. And f2.8 can be very useful too. Cheers, Neil.

I think that if you plan to get a 70-200 and/or 70-300, then it makes for sense to have the 16-35 rather than the 24-105.

Personally I'd go with:

16-35

70-200 f4

Teleconverter 1.4x

Use the money that you were planning to use on 70-300l + 24-105 to get the 24-70 f2.8

This way you get the best landscape lens in the Canon system, the best 24-70 f2.8 zoom for general purpose/low light/portraits, an amazingly sharp 70-200 zoom and you can get some extra reach with the converter.

This combination would also allow you to have some cash for filters, always useful for landscapes.

I shoot similarly like you.

Get the 16mmZoom F4 i.s

I seldom use anything else for landscape with huge vistas although I have over 20 lenses.

get the zoom first then see if you need other lenses.

I recommend the 35mm lenses although the MK2 35mm L is fast becoming my go to lens.

i have all these lenses except the 70-200 f4 but I do have the f2.8. I have had the f4 in the past but sold it for the f2.8.

For your genre of photography my suggestions are as follows:

16-35 F4 IS - excellent quality and value for money. If you get no other lens on your list start with this one for your style of photography.

24-105 - this would be an add on, excellent lens as a walk about but that is not what you are primarily looking for. If you buying no other lens then this would be your first choice, but you have this covered by the other lenses you are looking at and you have a 50mm STM.

70-200 / 300 - I use the 70-300 as my long zoom travel lens as it is small, light and excellent quality, but it has a variable aperture. In your case I would suggest the 70-200 focal length as you could always add a 1.4x to bring it up to 280mm. Which one - well if you are never going to shoot at F2.8 then I you will not be disappointed with the f4 IS. The F4 IS is lighter than the F2.8 IS but matches it in IQ. If you do decide on the F2.8 then do yourself a favour and get the version II as it is much better than the version I.

If you want a more general purpose lens then I would consider the 100-400 II rather than the 70-200. It is indistinguishable in quality from either of the 70-200's. If you do spring for this FL then once again get version II and I would reconsider the 24-105 to fill the gap between the 35 and 100 range.

Hope this helps.

The 6D is an incredible camera, I love mine.
I also have the 50mm f1.8 II, and I have the 24-105mm f4 (got it as a kit).
The 24-105mm does a fantastic job as being an all around lens, I use it for pretty much all of the photography I do.
The 70-200mm f2.8 is a better lens for getting closer range, and it is also good with wildlife - but 200mm is not that far.

If you get 2 lenses, I would probably get the 16-35mm & the 70-200, with the 50mm that would be a great set of 3 lenses to have.
If you get one, I would get the 24-105.

I have had a 6D for about 2.5 years and I use it with the 16-35f/4is, 24-105f/4 (from 6D kit), 70-200f/2.8isII, 50f/1.8STM, 35f/2IS.

My $0.02 on what you should get:
16-35
24-105
100-400 MkII
plus the 50f/1.8STM you already have

16-35f/4 is fantastic, as everyone says. Your use case sounds perfect for it.

For the telephoto, I adore my 70-200 and I use it for hiking, landscapes and nature but I got it more for people/events and just because it made me happy. The f/4 version is just as good (minus the 2.8) and smaller/cheaper. But I find that 200 isn't long enough sometimes. The 70-300L and the 100-400II are both reported to be fantastic - get the 70-300 if travelling size is an issue (it's shorter and fits in bags easier, and I think it's a better travel option than 70-200f/4+1.4X) otherwise get the 100-400.  Any of the four are great though.

I'd still recommend getting the 24-105f/4 at some point. It may not be the most critically sharp lens (although mine is very good after MFA) but it is durable, handles well and has a good range with IS. It is perfect for when you want to go out with just one lens. It's unfortunate you didn't pick it up as a kit but you can find white-box versions pulled out of kits for a reasonable price.  But for a start you could carry the 16-35 and 70/100 telephoto plus your 50mm and have a reasonable compact 3-lens set.

So, 1) yes it's a good shortlist, 2) I'd get the 16-35 if you had to pick but I don't see them as an either/or option, 3) I have no experience with Tamron/Sigma.

Good luck.

hangtime wrote:

I have had a 6D for about 2.5 years and I use it with the 16-35f/4is, 24-105f/4 (from 6D kit), 70-200f/2.8isII, 50f/1.8STM, 35f/2IS.

My $0.02 on what you should get:
16-35
24-105
100-400 MkII
plus the 50f/1.8STM you already have

16-35f/4 is fantastic, as everyone says. Your use case sounds perfect for it.

For the telephoto, I adore my 70-200 and I use it for hiking, landscapes and nature but I got it more for people/events and just because it made me happy. The f/4 version is just as good (minus the 2.8) and smaller/cheaper. But I find that 200 isn't long enough sometimes. The 70-300L and the 100-400II are both reported to be fantastic - get the 70-300 if travelling size is an issue (it's shorter and fits in bags easier, and I think it's a better travel option than 70-200f/4+1.4X) otherwise get the 100-400. Any of the four are great though.

I'd still recommend getting the 24-105f/4 at some point. It may not be the most critically sharp lens (although mine is very good after MFA) but it is durable, handles well and has a good range with IS. It is perfect for when you want to go out with just one lens. It's unfortunate you didn't pick it up as a kit but you can find white-box versions pulled out of kits for a reasonable price. But for a start you could carry the 16-35 and 70/100 telephoto plus your 50mm and have a reasonable compact 3-lens set.

So, 1) yes it's a good shortlist, 2) I'd get the 16-35 if you had to pick but I don't see them as an either/or option, 3) I have no experience with Tamron/Sigma.

Good luck.

I have almost the same "inventory", just without the 16-35mm and I have the 100-400mm original.

neilroy wrote:

Hello,

I am an amateur photographer. I primarily shoot nature/landscapes. Vast vistas, beaches, sunrise/sunset, rain, mountains, waterfalls. I started, learned and have grown using the 6D with a 50mm f/1.8 stm. I am quite happy with the 6D and don't feel the urge to upgrade to the 5D Mark III just yet. Now I would like to build my lens collection. I will be visiting the Great Rockies, Yosemite and Olympic national parks this september.

After reading the posts here and elsewhere, I have arrived at a tentative list:

1. Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0L IS USM

2. Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM

3. Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM or f/4.0L IS USM

4. CanonEF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

First, as you can see, I have not listed any primes, all are zoom lenses. Second, I have listed the 70-200/300 despite never craving for such a reach in what I have done so far because given the sort of nature I would be encountering in these national parks, I though I should have at least one lens with that reach. Third, while I am not with unlimited money, I have been saving for years to buy pro quality lenses. So, I prefer to stay with the L glass.

So, three questions for you folks:

1. Is this a good shortlist; would you add/take away from this list?

2. Between the 16-35 and 24-105, if I had to buy one, which do you suggest? I realize the greater reach of the latter, but I have been reading *glowing* reviews of the former, and 16 is indeed wider!

3. Are any of the Tamron and/or Sigma lenses good enough for me stray away from the L series?

Thank you so much for your advice.

Cheers, Neil.

A lot of this depends on the budget.  If we assume that your budget is very limited, then, I would suggest the following:
If you're shooting landscapes and what not, most of your shooting is going to be done within the 24-100mm range.  You're going to go over that range only once in a while, so a 24-105 f4 would be your general purpose lens.  Alternatively, you might look into Tokina 24-70 f2.8   That zoom will cover perhaps 80-90% of your needs.   For the occasional foray into the ultra wide or med telephoto territory, you might want to consider some inexpensive, but decent prime lenses.  You might want to consider the Tokina 17mm f3.5, which can be had for a song on a used market.  If you need to go even wider, then perhaps the Samyang 14mm (although I think the 17mm would be more useful).

On the telephoto side, if you get the 24-70 as your main lens, look into the Canon 135mm f2 + a TC or a Samyang 135mm f2.  Samyang has no AF and no full aperture metering, but that may not matter for landscapes.  Else, you get the Canon.

If you get the 24-104 as your main lens, then look into Canon 200mm f2.8 + TC

I make these recommendations based on the assumption that the zoom is going to be on your camera at least 80% of the time, so it makes no sense to spend big money on an ultra wide or a med telephoto lens if you're just going to use it occasionally.

hotdog321 wrote:

I have no opinion on the 70-300, but you may just buy a 1.4x extender for your 70-200 to get the extra reach. Or bite the bullet and get the 100-400 II when you can afford it.

Bingo.

Dont have experience with the 70-300, but it seems over duplicative of the FL of the 70-200 f2.8, albeit lighter. If you think you might need something longer than 200mm, the 100-400L II f4.5-5.6 would close out the list. And if you might need longer, the 1.4x extender seems to work with this in spite of the narrow aperture, but you will have to tape three pins on the extender.

Thank you all so much for these suggestions. I am clearly spoilt for choice here, never a bad problem to have. I tried out the 100-400 in the camera store nearby, oh man, its just awesome! So, I think its between the 70-300 and 100-400. Somehow, I don't like the idea of a teleconverter.

Another quick question. My little brother has a 7D, and i want to gift him a couple lenses. He is learning landscape photography. So, I was checking out the EF-S 10-18 F/4.5-5.6 and the EF-S 10-22 F/3.5-4.5. Any thoughts on the non-L lenses for the 7D at all? I really appreciate your advice.

Cheers, Neil.

I mean, considering its a gift, you probably wouldn't want to go overboard on it...
One of those lenses are good - whichever one is cheaper I'd get.

And the 100-400mm>>>>The 70-300mm, I'd go with the 100-400 easily.

neilroy wrote:

Thank you all so much for these suggestions. I am clearly spoilt for choice here, never a bad problem to have. I tried out the 100-400 in the camera store nearby, oh man, its just awesome! So, I think its between the 70-300 and 100-400. Somehow, I don't like the idea of a teleconverter.

Another quick question. My little brother has a 7D, and i want to gift him a couple lenses. He is learning landscape photography. So, I was checking out the EF-S 10-18 F/4.5-5.6 and the EF-S 10-22 F/3.5-4.5. Any thoughts on the non-L lenses for the 7D at all? I really appreciate your advice.

For an UWA lens on an APS-C sensor (like the 7d), you definitely don't need to worry about it not being an L lens.  All L lenses are EF lenses, and are made to fit both full frame and crop sensors.  This means that it is harder to make them as wide as like a 10mm EF-S lens.

I haven't used it, but I have heard really great things about the newer 10-18mm STM lens.  The 10-22mm is a good lens too, but is more expensive and doesn't have IS.  The STM is a little slower though.  If I were buying one right now for a crop camera, I would go for the 10-18mm stm.

neilroy wrote:

Thank you all so much for these suggestions. I am clearly spoilt for choice here, never a bad problem to have. I tried out the 100-400 in the camera store nearby, oh man, its just awesome! So, I think its between the 70-300 and 100-400. Somehow, I don't like the idea of a teleconverter.

Another quick question. My little brother has a 7D, and i want to gift him a couple lenses. He is learning landscape photography. So, I was checking out the EF-S 10-18 F/4.5-5.6 and the EF-S 10-22 F/3.5-4.5. Any thoughts on the non-L lenses for the 7D at all? I really appreciate your advice.

Cheers, Neil.

My understanding of crop sensors, and teleconverters for that matter, is that they do not use the whole resolving power of a lens made for 35mm FF cameras.

This makes sense if you think about it -- every lens is designed to focus all the different wavelengths of light onto a certain spot a certain distance behind the lens. This image must be a certain size. Since most modern lenses are based on designs dating back to the 35mm days, these lenses will create an image perfect for a 35mm/FF sensor. If you place a smaller sensor in the same location, you will get a fraction of the image (losing the outside edges). So the lens outputs a full 35mm frame as it is designed to do, but a crop sensor only records the center of it.

If the crop sensor does not have the resolving power to go beyond what the lens gives it, then it just means that you are paying for and carrying around more glass than you really use.

If the sensor can resolve more than it is receiving, then in theory, a lens could be designed which is both lighter and cheaper that would give you a better picture as well if it is designed for a crop sensor.

I could be wrong...