Ordered 6D and 24-70 II, should I get a fast prime?

To those who have this combo, with the high iso capability of the 6D, did you find you needed lenses faster than f/2.8? I know that f/1.4 gets you other things like thinner DOF, etc., so there may be other reasons to get a faster lens.

And if so, what would be a good lens to get? 50/1.4 is relatively inexpensive, 35/2 is not much faster than the 24-70 but has IS, 35L is super expensive and the Siggy 35/1.4, well... I am hot and cold on this lens. One day it looks spectacular, but the next, I think that paying $900 to get a lens that can't focus is just BS in my book (others may be willing to put up with it, but come on, really).

The 24-70 is so sharp you can peel oranges with it. Coupled with your 70-200 and 100-400 you have it covered.

I see you have a 7D along with a 6D. I'm in the same boat. I'll say that I find the 6D is 2 stops better ISO-wise than my 7D. That being said, for indoor shots of my daughter, especially this time of year when it's dark so early in the evening, I still find my 50mm 1.2L stopped down to f/2 to be very helpful. Difference with the 6D is that those shots at around 6400 ISO with the 6D clean up easily compared to the 7D @ 6400 ISO.

So- depends on what you shoot. If you were looking to keep the costs in check, pick up a 50mm 1.4 and see if you like it. I found a good deal on a 50mm 1.2L, and use the fixed 50mm length a LOT, so I went with the L. But- if you've been fine in the past using your 17-55 2.8 with the 7D, my guess is you'll probably be ok without a fast prime. Or- pick up a used 50mm 1.4 and if 6 months from now you find it never gets used, sell it on without losing much, if anything.

I am prime biased, almost all good primes have a unique look to themselves to me. If you don't mind manual focus, you can get a m42 50 and adaptor for cheap and the glass is super nice. I have a takumar SMC 50 1.4 that is awesome, paid $40 for it, but aperture is stuck at 1.4.....which is better than 11 I guess

24-70 II is nice but Sigma 35mmf 1.4 or 35L are different in better ways.

24-70 II, @f2.8, 50mm

Bobbie

Quick thread hijack you have the sigma 85 1.4 and the canon 1.2 whats up with that and what are your thoughts on the 2.

A fast prime is always nice to have I a kit.

After shooting with my 50L and 85L for a while I actually find 2.8 zooms too slow lol but ymmv.

It's a balancing act though as you get to lower your iso and/or increase shutter speeds when shooting with a fast prime but having a thinner dof in the process, potentially.

gocolts wrote in post #16501254
I see you have a 7D along with a 6D. I'm in the same boat. I'll say that I find the 6D is 2 stops better ISO-wise than my 7D. That being said, for indoor shots of my daughter, especially this time of year when it's dark so early in the evening, I still find my 50mm 1.2L stopped down to f/2 to be very helpful. Difference with the 6D is that those shots at around 6400 ISO with the 6D clean up easily compared to the 7D @ 6400 ISO.

So- depends on what you shoot. If you were looking to keep the costs in check, pick up a 50mm 1.4 and see if you like it. I found a good deal on a 50mm 1.2L, and use the fixed 50mm length a LOT, so I went with the L. But- if you've been fine in the past using your 17-55 2.8 with the 7D, my guess is you'll probably be ok without a fast prime. Or- pick up a used 50mm 1.4 and if 6 months from now you find it never gets used, sell it on without losing much, if anything.

I am in the same boat as OP (but with Tamron 24-70, not Canon), and I have a used 50 1.4 on its way to me now. I used a Sigma 30 quite a bit with my 600D, so expect that I will get some use out of the 50. Time will tell.

Perhaps the 85?

Too long.. I don't really do portraits and stuff. I'm not sure I'll ever use an 85, although I love looking at the 85 and 135 threads.. I'm more interested in a fast indoor lens for general purpose use.

I'm now regretting not getting the 50/1.4 for $279 over T'giving. I'll probably consider the used market.. the 35/1.4s seem significantly higher in price and I don't want to go there until I know what the hell I want. The 50/1.4 seems like a good way to get my feet wet with primes, and if it is too long, I could probably move it without getting soaked.

EF 24mm f/1.4L II.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16502331
I'm now regretting not getting the 50/1.4 for $279 over T'giving.

Yeah, me too... But I have the cheap 1.8 and it's pretty damned nice. For only $100 you might consider it.

24-70LII + 85LII and you are set.

If you get the Sigma lenses calibrated, then they are great lenses for the cash (especially used prices). You should be able to get the 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm, all f1.4 at used prices, for the price of the 24-70mm II. This is something I am considering myself. Have owned the sigma 50 and 85 before, both very sharp with pleasing bokeh. However, they are not small lenses.

Psh you're good bro... that lens is sick