First FF Lens Recommendations: Canon 6D

Until now, I had the T2i, my first "real" camera, with a kit lens. Few months ago I got the 50mm 1.4, but didn't like the softness likely due to camera focus issues and returned the lens. So after a great deal on Adorama a few days ago, I finally bought the 6D that came with the kit 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens, 40mm f2.8 STM, and 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM. Since none of these lenses provide the IQ that I want, maybe with the exception of the STM, my goal is to sell all of them and get the 50mm 1.4 instead (~$350). For extra zoom, I was also considering getting the 70-200mm f4L lens (non-IS, ~$600). I was just wondering what the more seasoned photographers might recommend in case I am missing something. I wouldn't want to spend more than about $1000 for all the lenses. I am aware that lacking IS means that I can't always shoot below 1/200 at the largest focal length, but I do have a tripod. I also considered getting the 35mm f2, but that would mean that I can get only one lens since it's so expensive and not significantly sharper at that.

As far as what shooting I might do, here are the most common:

• General nature/landscapes
  
• Stars and the milky way
  
• Close up of plants and insects (I will have to live without macro for now)
  
• A few family/portrait shots here and there

16-35mm mk 2 for
General nature/landscapes
Stars and the milky way

I say stop worrying about your kit, you have a great body and great set of lenses. GO OUT AND USE THEM. Stop worrying about benchmark websites and all that jazz. The 24-105 can cover 1, 2, and 4 of your list. For #3 buy a 100 Macro (under $400) and be set. The 24-105 has IS and as such great for video. Add he 50 1.4 if you really need a fast prime.

No need for UV filters (unless shooting in crappy conditions) and screen protectors are useless. Buy some proper CF cards (400x minimum).

GO OUT AND SHOOT

Tony_Stark wrote in post #15656631
I say stop worrying about your kit, you have a great body and great set of lenses. GO OUT AND USE THEM. Stop worrying about benchmark websites and all that jazz. The 24-105 can cover 1, 2, and 4 of your list. For #3 buy a 100 Macro (under $400) and be set. The 24-105 has IS and as such great for video. Add he 50 1.4 if you really need a fast prime.

No need for UV filters (unless shooting in crappy conditions) and screen protectors are useless. Buy some proper CF cards (400x minimum).

GO OUT AND SHOOT

CF cards won't do much for you, just keep the SD card you have. I agree with the rest though, make the most of the kit lens.

And start posting some of your work. All the threads/post you have made are purely gear related and pixel peeping. Stop worrying so much about gear and just enjoy the hobby. I know what its like to be obsessed over gear and what to buy but the most important thing here is taking photos and getting better everytime you pull the camera out. Just my 2 pennies.

Excelisus, I'm with Tony you have some great lens' get out and use them. I have the 24 - 105 mm L on a 7D and it is a magic lens. Nice length tack sharp all round great lens.

I should clarify: all those lenses came with the camera and I did not select them. For a very long time I didn't have a good camera setup and since then I decided that once I get an FF camera, I will do everything right. I might be a bit obsessing about sharpness right now, but I won't be happy about my gear if I don't optimize according to my previous plans. I know that I can get a much higher IQ within my budget and finally concentrate on shooting.

So given that I don't own any lenses (except for what's included in the kit), do you specifically think that a 50mm and 70-200mm is not a good setup for what I'm trying to do? I do need the 1.4 for indoor, low light situations. The 100mm macro would be nice, but if I'm not mistaken, I can't use it for regular 100mm distant shots, correct?

having 50mm as your widest lens would be a bit limiting...especially for some landscapes...

you can use a 100mm macro as a regular 100mm f2.8 lens...the macro just allows you to focus closer than normal...

are you keeping the 24-105mm?

I actually find my 50mm perfect on full frame for most of my work. I think the widest I would ever want to go is 35mm. Full frame is a lot wider than you think, especially coming from APS-C.

DreDaze wrote in post #15656701
having 50mm as your widest lens would be a bit limiting...especially for some landscapes...

you can use a 100mm macro as a regular 100mm f2.8 lens...the macro just allows you to focus closer than normal...

are you keeping the 24-105mm?

It's good to know that the macro can act as a regular lens. Now for sure instead of getting any primes near 100mm I will get the macro instead. In fact, it seems that if I sacrifice the 200mm zoom, I can forgo that lens and get the 100mm L macro instead, it even has IS and should be perfect for video! So I guess it's now the 70-200mm vs that 100mm macro.

And no, I'm not keeping any of the lenses that come with the camera, including the kit lens.

I know the crop factor issues. After all, I tried to use the 50mm on my T2i, which was effectively an 80mm and for sure was not wide enough. But I was hoping that the 50mm should be fine on FF, which I think is equivalent to 31mm on crop, i.e., enough to fit about 3 people in shot in a small room.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #15656631
I say stop worrying about your kit, you have a great body and great set of lenses. GO OUT AND USE THEM. Stop worrying about benchmark websites and all that jazz. The 24-105 can cover 1, 2, and 4 of your list. For #3 buy a 100 Macro (under $400) and be set. The 24-105 has IS and as such great for video. Add he 50 1.4 if you really need a fast prime.

No need for UV filters (unless shooting in crappy conditions) and screen protectors are useless. Buy some proper CF cards (400x minimum).

GO OUT AND SHOOT

I mentioned UV filter purely for protecting the lens. I want recommendations for good filters so they don't degrade the photo quality. And why do you say that screen protectors are useless? My T2i screen has a small scratch on it that would have been protected if it was covered. I have seen a lot of the photographers using the 5D that have some sort of a large plastic piece attached to the screen.

Excelisus wrote in post #15656734
I mentioned UV filter purely for protecting the lens. I want recommendations for good filters so they don't degrade the photo quality. And why do you say that screen protectors are useless? My T2i screen has a small scratch on it that would have been protected if it was covered. I have seen a lot of the photographers using the 5D that have some sort of a large plastic piece attached to the screen.

I have a 5D2 that I use as my main body for the last 2 years now, not a single scratch on any part of the camera.

How do you know what you have now is lacking if you never used any of it?

The 24-105L is a brilliant lens and have used it for a good chunk of my work and continue to do so. It is very sharp and very capable lens. Same with the 50 1.4, great lens, very sharp.

Stop worrying about filters, accessories etc that do nothing for your final image, use the damn equipment. Does a scratch on your screen affect IQ or resale value? UV filters hurt IQ more than anything. Only should be used for protection in environment which require them.

Nature/landscapes/plan​ts and even insects is my main thing, so I'll give recommendations for those things.

I would urge you not to consider *just* sharpness when choosing lenses for landscape work. Flare resistance is often just as important. The modern Canon zooms that I have are better shooting into the sun than my older Zuikos, in their day considered excellent in that respect. So I would not be surprised if your 24-105 is actually a better landscape lens than the 50mm f/1.4 (bear in mind, I haven't used either lens). Certainly I've seen others produce good landscapes from the 24-105, including one very famous photographer. Also, it's weather sealed.

What you will need if you keep the 24-105 as your main lens is raw processing software that corrects for lens distortion automatically, e.g. Photoshop CS5 or later. I don't know what version of Lightroom you'd need, but for sure the latest one should do it. That's where I'd put money in.

I like 50mm for seascapes but never carry *anything* in that focal length on normal landscape trips.

For flowers, you don't need huge magnification. Your 24-105 might even do it. The classic tool for this is a 90mm macro, and Tamron's excellent one is still available after all these years. I used an adapted Zuiko for several years. Flowers don't move, so a fully manual lens on a tripod is often feasible.

Speaking of tripod, if the one you have isn't up to a heavier full frame camera and lens, that should be an early buy - before more lenses, probably.

Now about the things that I don't shoot:

- your 24-105 is perfectly good for hand-held video. It's the one Lok uses for the DigitalRev videos, handheld. He gets good results with it IMO.

- for astrophotography, you want a lens without much coma. I suspect there's some $30 lens you can use on an adaptor that does well there, and you could find out which one by lurking in some specialised forum.

- for portraits, that 90mm macro is once again the traditional tool.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #15656785
I have a 5D2 that I use as my main body for the last 2 years now, not a single scratch on any part of the camera.

How do you know what you have now is lacking if you never used any of it?

The 24-105L is a brilliant lens and have used it for a good chunk of my work and continue to do so. It is very sharp and very capable lens. Same with the 50 1.4, great lens, very sharp.

Stop worrying about filters, accessories etc that do nothing for your final image, use the damn equipment. Does a scratch on your screen affect IQ or resale value? UV filters hurt IQ more than anything. Only should be used for protection in environment which require them.

The online tests are of at least some value. We all use them because it's not feasible to test everything ourselves. The sharpness of the 105 is good, but unless all those tests are wrong, my intended setup should provide much sharper capabilities.

It's good that you haven't scratched your camera. Not all of us are lucky. Sometimes my options are to either not carry a sluggish camera/bag with me and take no photos or put the camera in my gf's bag. Other times, I have to pack for traveling. In my case, screen protector would help. But you're right about the filters. I read more about them and they can reduce exposure by one stop and might or might not degrade photo quality. My environment doesn't really call for that protection. I just have to hope that an accident doesn't create a preventable lens trashing.

Excelisus wrote in post #15656888
...you're right about the filters. I read more about them and they can reduce exposure by one stop...

You're getting confused here with polarising filters. Those are handy in landscape photography, but only if you understand how they work.

If you pursue landscape photography with a passion you will eventually put yourself in the situation where you want to risk your equipment in poor weather. Consult the instruction manual for your 24-105 - some Canon zooms require a UV filter on the front to complete the weather sealing. I carry them for that purpose, but usually don't fit them.