What lens to pair with 6D MK II

firemanchip wrote in post #18393476
Well the 24-70 has better IQ, lighter and smaller and has macro built in while the 24-105 has the extra range that I may want.

I personally would go with the 24-105 II, since the 24-70 F4 suffers from focus shift and has a sharpness issue at 50mm.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18393700
16-35

Thought so. It had to be the more expensive one! Oh well, a girl can dream, can't she?

17-40mm is a very decent hard working lens. I had mine for over 10 years, and it was my only wide angle for most of that time. But, I was shooting it with crop sensors (1D series, and APS-c) the whole time.

I got he 16-35 when I got my 5D3/1st ff.

Today's full frame sensors are so good, that you can clearly see the difference between the two.

that said, IF you intend to use the 17-40mm for landscapes always stopped down to f/8 or so, one would be hard pressed to see a real difference. And I do miss the 36-40mm part of the zoom range, and doubt I'd ever notice the difference between 16 vs. 17mm at the wide end..

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18393010
This is what I use as my walk around. Makes me work a bit harder, but I enjoy the results

I want to enjoy the results without working harder! That's why my main lens is 24-105, as I like to travel and that lens gives me a lot of range.

...Still thinking how I could work harder to get closer to the architectural details on top of the Notre Dame...

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18394651
17-40mm is a very decent hard working lens. I had mine for over 10 years, and it was my only wide angle for most of that time. But, I was shooting it with crop sensors (1D series, and APS-c) the whole time.

I got he 16-35 when I got my 5D3/1st ff.

Today's full frame sensors are so good, that you can clearly see the difference between the two.

that said, IF you intend to use the 17-40mm for landscapes always stopped down to f/8 or so, one would be hard pressed to see a real difference. And I do miss the 36-40mm part of the zoom range, and doubt I'd ever notice the difference between 16 vs. 17mm at the wide end..

Thanks. Good to know that the difference is visible. Since I've blown my budget for the next couple years anyway, I think it makes more sense to save for the 16-35 f/4 than the 17-40.

Yes; Thanks for the info. The second lens I get will be the 16-35. Now if choosing my first lens was that easy I would be set.

...and this is what I ended up doing. I passed on the range of the 24-105, the built in macro of the 24-70 f4 as well as the IS in both. Well see.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18390729
I had the 24-70 mk2 and gave up with it because it didn't have IS.
My 24-105 mk2 is my most used lens and I think it's really good.

Ascenta wrote in post #18390688
I also had the 24-105 I and II. The first one since 2006, just recently sold. That lived on my 30D, 50D then 7D2 for the 10 years. I'm now using the new 24-105 II on a 5D4. It's SOOO much better on a FF camera (but we all knew that). I totally think it's worth the upgrade over version 1.

As much as I like it, I'm still contemplating the 24-70 II since it's just so good...everyone says. I'm just worried about giving up the image stabilization.

It really is a great lens and that extra 70-105 I use quite often.

Not quite sure why IS is a deal breaker here. I've used this lens for every wedding I've ever shot and it still feels flawless. Never once wished I had IS on that lens. Curious as to what situations you'd need the IS so badly.

JM Photos wrote in post #18398635
Not quite sure why IS is a deal breaker here. I've used this lens for every wedding I've ever shot and it still feels flawless. Never once wished I had IS on that lens. Curious as to what situations you'd need the IS so badly.

Basically every situation, literally. I don't look "shaky" but I must be. The IS on/off is a night and day difference. It's unfortunately I have to put so much faith into a feature, but I'm just thankful it's an option. I have a 24-70 II coming, so we'll see how I do without the IS. Of course it will help having 2.8. I'll find out soon enough.

Why not look into the Tamron? The G2 will be available in Sept.

The 24-70 II is my go-to lens on my 6D. I haven't missed having IS on it even once. Just crank up the ISO to get the shutter speed up and you'll be fine.

Personally my most used lens on the 6D is my Sigma 24-105, which also gives stellar results. I don't know just how different it is from the Canon 24-105 MkII, I guess that the main difference between the two would be the position of the zoom ring (the price and weight aren't that different that I can recall).

I got my Sigma before the Canon MkII came out, but would likely do the same again as I was rather underwhelmed by the 24-105 MkI I had gotten (plus I prefer the zoom ring position of the Sigma).

Personally, it would probably advise against getting the 24-70 f4 - I tried it briefly and found it underwhelming as well.