Suggestions for building a lens system for 6D

SundridgePete wrote:

Hi there, I have the 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200 2.8. The 16-35 and 70-200 I can wholeheartedly recommend - I think they're wonderful. I find the 70-200 far too heavy to hike long distances with, however, so take the 135 prime. I find this long enough for compressed landscapes whilst also being a gorgeous portrait lens. The 100L macro would also be a good alternative and give you added flexibility. I have owned the 10-22 for crop and enjoyed using it, but found it to be slightly soft in the corners. The build was very good, though, and it was fun to use. A friend of mine uses the 17-55 2.8 on his 7D and has taken some wonderful shots with it as his usual walk around. I prefer the quality of his 17-55 to my 24-105. The 24-105 bugs me because it's not fast enough and it suffers a bit from flare and zoom creep. I know most others love it, but personally, I wish I'd gone for the 24-70 2.8. The same friend also has the original 100-400 and has taken some fabulous wildlife shots with it. Hope that helps - ultimately, pretty much all full frame lenses these days are fantastic quality - both Canon and third party - so you can't really go wrong. It's more down to personal choice with regard to aperture, focal length and weight.

I wouldnt advise putting an EF-S lens on a 6D.

Lawn Lends wrote:

I wouldnt advise putting an EF-S lens on a 6D.

The OP asked a follow-up question about a landscape lens for his brother, who shoots with a 7D.

hangtime wrote:

Lawn Lends wrote:

I wouldnt advise putting an EF-S lens on a 6D.

The OP asked a follow-up question about a landscape lens for his brother, who shoots with a 7D.

Ooops, my bad.

neilroy wrote:

(Snipped)

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.

The EF-S 10-22mm may as well be an L lens, as it is a very high-quality optic. As another member already posted, however, no EF-S lens is blessed with the "L" designation, though some are as good, or better, than some of the older L lenses.

I really like my EF-S 10-22mm, because I find myself using the 20mm to 22mm end quite often, and it has very low distortion for an ultra-wide lens, even compared to Canon's several 16-35mm L lenses. (10-22mm, with the 1.6x crop factor, has the same angle-of-view as a 16-35mm in the 35mm format.) While barrel distortion is correctable in post-processing, I would rather it be as correct as possible at the time of the shot.

My 10-22mm may as well be glued to my old 7D; they have become a rather permanently-paired unit. I may try the 10-22mm on one of my 7D Mark II cameras next month, to take advantage of the newer cameras' low-light capability, at about 14mm, for some starry-night landscapes.

The 10-18mm option was not available in early 2011, when I bought my 10-22mm, so I cannot comment upon it with any experience-based knowledge. Its lack of being able to zoom to 20mm to 22mm relegates it to being uninteresting to me.

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on these lenses. I really liked the 100-400 ii, but boy that is heavy! and even the 70-200 f/2.8 is a tank. So, i ended up with the 70-300 L. Its heavy too but manageable.

I bought the Canon 10-22, but as @SundridgePete noted, I felt the corners were too soft too, and even the center was not any sharper than the 10-18. So, i gave that back and got the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I really like how sharp it is all over. CAs are pretty bad, but that should not be too tough to correct, and I think it handles flaring better than what some reviews suggest.

Cheers, Neil.

neilroy wrote:

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on these lenses. I really liked the 100-400 ii, but boy that is heavy! and even the 70-200 f/2.8 is a tank. So, i ended up with the 70-300 L. Its heavy too but manageable.

I bought the Canon 10-22, but as @SundridgePete noted, I felt the corners were too soft too, and even the center was not any sharper than the 10-18. So, i gave that back and got the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I really like how sharp it is all over. CAs are pretty bad, but that should not be too tough to correct, and I think it handles flaring better than what some reviews suggest.

Cheers, Neil.

Like many here have and are suggesting, the ever popular Trio of Zoom lenses.

The Ultra Wide Zoom. Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS, 16-35 f/2.8 L, 17-40 f/4 L.

The Standard Zoom. Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Version II, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 23-105 f/4 L IS.

The Telephoto Zoom. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II, 70-200 f/4 L IS. Both have versions without IS.......

This is a great base to have at your disposal. You can then add the 100-400 as well if you like. Again these are suggestions.

You did notice how heavy the 100-400 is, and it is. I have the Version 1 Push/Pull design. Speaking of heavy I also have the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II, simply stellar, but.....Heavy. Before I purchased the f/2.8 Mark II, I had.....and still have the 70-200 f/4 L IS........Why Both? Because I could afford to keep them and it was Worth Keeping. The 70-200 f/4 L IS is that good, and a hell of a lot lighter in weight. When I need f/2.8 I have it. When I really do not, say Landscapes, I have no problems reaching for the f/4 L IS. Being 53 years old, I really have been thinking differently about the f/2.8 vs f/4. And my shoulder thanks me as well.

For Landscape work, the 16-35 f/4 easily the winner. A nice less expensive, lighter option the 17-40. I still have both. But the IS in the f/4 is wonderful. Last summer, Shooting handheld in Old Basillicas in Rome where tripods are not allowed, at 1/15 of a second really proved the added benefit of IS. Is f/2.8 needed for you? You decide.

The Standard Zoom range has the Biggest Hole for Canon as of yet. The f/2.8 with IS. I had the 24-105 f/4 for many years on a 7D body. Having purchased the 5D Mark III full frame a couple years back, the distortion at 24mm was apparent. So again f/2.8 or f/4 L IS. Then the 24-70 f/4 was introduced, albeit at a very high price. People bashed and bashed this little, smaller lighter lens. So Canon dropped the price significantly and more and more people opted for one. After our trip to Rome, I decided to give the 24-70 f/4 L IS a shot. Image Stabilization......

With a trip to Venice and Florence under the Christmas Tree, I knew the 24-70 f/4 L IS was going to get a workout.................and me as well. More on that later......

Again Stellar images shooting handheld at f/8 in low light, slower shutter speeds and crisp results that IS allowed for me.

The Telephoto Zoom. Having lugged around two 5D Mark III gripped bodies along with the 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 in a shoulder bag all day long in Venice and Florence. My body needed a break. Was the f/2.8 L IS Mark II needed for this trip? How often do you see Michelangelo's David? Yes it was... But how about a trip to say Iceland? So in a few months yes we are going to Iceland. Not too many Basilica's to worry about....but the Landscapes.......

So I am going to leave the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II at home in favor of the equally impressive, smaller, lighter f/4 L IS option. The f/4 L IS options proved worthy in the 16-35 and 24-70 versions, why the hell not.

So my "Greek Trilogy of the f/4 L IS" is complete. The 16-35 f/4 L IS, the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L IS, with understudies of 17-40 f/4 L and 24-105 f/4 L IS.

As you now have the 70-300 L IS, it shows how many options we have and do we really need f/2.8 at all times at our disposal.

16-35 f/4 Highly recommended. Useful on 6D as well as APS-C body

24-105 L you shall not be happy. Instead consider Sigma 24-205, its much better with same reach. Best would be 24-70 2.8 II but that is very expensive and you also loose IS and extra reach.

Sigma ART primes 35, 50 are surely the ones to consider in addition to these in case you want to consider primes.

If I were two get three lenses in the beginning for 6D, following three would cover everything and still give me OUTSTANDING RESULTS!

16-35 f/4 L

Sigma 50 1.4 ART

70-200 2.8 II

Note on 70-300L: Another outstanding lens for its reach and superb IQ. Over time if you think you would do bird photography then go for 100-400 II but otherwise 70-300 suffices for most outdoors casual outings to zoos and such! It is also a great wildlife + landscape (landscape doesn't have to be wide always ) lens!

I had 70-300L and enjoyed it a lot. At some point I started experimenting more with bird photography with small birds and I needed the reach so got 100-400 II. Since I had 70-200 2.8 II , over time felt that 70-300L was not used much so sold it.

thanks,

I use 24-70/2.8 and 100-400 II as a set most of the time. I would suggest ditching the 24-105 and getting the 24-70/2.8