Probably going to stick to non-L "Consumer-grade" lenses: Missing the point of Canon?

I started photography as a "serious" hobby about 2 years ago, and I have to admit at the start (and sometimes even now to a lesser degree) it was as much about gear as about the photography. I upgraded from an XSi to 60D to now a 6D. Although I violated the "glass before body" rule, the plan was eventually to add some nice L-lenses to my gear as well.

But I'm actually starting to pare down my lenses instead, I just sold off my only other L lens, the 70-200, because I just wasn't using it.

For what I shoot, I've been very happy with the pictures I've gotten from the 24-105 and the nifty fifty. Those 2 are my go to lenses. And I know I'm not maximizing the capability of those lenses yet because I've seen much better pictures from those lenses than I can take from other photographers. Plus if I want to just grab a camera for a non-photographic outing, I frequently just use my X100s now.

I also can't see myself adding any L glass in the near future, and if I do I think I'll add the more inexpensive "consumer grade" lenses instead - I've been dithering on an 85mm 1.8 for a while.

So ultimately my main Canon kit is the 6D with 24-105 and nifty fifty. A body and 2 lens. But if this is all I need at this point, am I kind of missing the point of owning a Canon? One of the biggest benefits of Canon seems to be the impressive lineup of awesome lenses. If I'm happy with just the body and 2 lenses, would I be better off going for another, maybe mirrorless system, like say Fuji or Sony?

If you're happy with what you have, why worry about it? The 24-105 is a good "L" lens. Sticking with what you know and like still leaves you able to expand your horizons in the future in case you decide you want to shoot (for example) Macro, or birds and wildlife.

Depends on what you shoot. If you need fast AF (sports, action, wildlife), there's no need to contemplate going mirrorless. If you don't, then mirrorless might offer a more compelling overall package due to its smaller size and lighter weight.

However, the only mirrorless full-frame system right now is the Sony A7/A7r, and I don't believe they have anything equivalent to the 24-105L yet. You could get a Canon adapter, but that eats away at any size/weight benefit to the point that I doubt it's worth the hassle.

IMHO - if you want to stay full-frame, stick with what you have and enjoy it. If you're really longing for a smaller setup and don't mind sacrificing IQ, look into APS-C or MFT mirrorless.

The Canon lens line is important for people who need specific lenses within the lineup. I guess this isn't you, but then again I'm not sure what the question is.

So you have a 6D and a couple lenses. Are you feeling like you would be better off with a similar kit from a different system? Which system and why?

Well, you are now finding out what I suspected all along. That is, that some, particularly newer lenses, non-L lenses are quite good, and an even better value. Also, that APS-C is good enough for 75% of the shots that you are likely to take.

Case in point: the recently released Canon EF-S 55-250 STM IS. Very good optically, and less than $350.

Case in point II: the EF-M 22F2 STM. As good optically as the 40STM Pancake, a stop faster, and even less expensive.

Don't hesitate getting the 85 1.8... its a great lens.

I use my 6D with a Tamron 28-75, 35 f/2, 100 f/2 and Sigma 70-200 OS. The only L I own is the 100-400, and that is because the Canon 70-300 is such a dog at 300mm. Make no mistake, if I ever hit the lottery, I'd run right out and buy a 24-70 II and 70-200 II to go with my shiny new 1Dx. As long as money counts, I can get by without a bag full of L, and my 6D.

Something else to consider is that "entry-level" lenses have gotten better over time.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16764086
Something else to consider is that "entry-level" lenses have gotten better over time.

Right. Don't forget that the lens means nothing if you don't have good technique and or boring subjects. An L lens is not going to make you a better photographer.

If you like what you have, don't change it. Sit back, look at your photos and think just how good they look and you're not even using the most expensive stuff.

I've been/I am in a very similar boat - I started in photography with a 350D with 50mm and 85mm f1.8 lenses and then replaced the body with a 5DII and picked up a 24-105mm. I also have an X100S. I've sold the 24-105mm and now have a three lens kit for the 5DII - the 50mm and 85mm f1.8 lenses and a 200mm f2.8. I also have the 40mm, but I am selling that as I don't use it now that I have the X100S. Like you I have contemplated going fully mirrorless (I do currently own a m43 camera), and have tried the Fuji system to see if it could replace my FF camera. I have come to the conclusion that for me right now it cannot and I'm better off keeping the Canon gear for the moment. As the mirrorless systems get better with regard to AF (particularly AF tracking) and high ISO performance that may change. That said, I'm not looking to acquire any more Canon lenses and am happy with the ones I've got even if there are plenty of really great L lens options I'm not exploring.

ean10775 wrote in post #16770908
I've been/I am in a very similar boat - I started in photography with a 350D with 50mm and 85mm f1.8 lenses and then replaced the body with a 5DII and picked up a 24-105mm. I also have an X100S. I've sold the 24-105mm and now have a three lens kit for the 5DII - the 50mm and 85mm f1.8 lenses and a 200mm f2.8. I also have the 40mm, but I am selling that as I don't use it now that I have the X100S. Like you I have contemplated going fully mirrorless (I do currently own a m43 camera), and have tried the Fuji system to see if it could replace my FF camera. I have come to the conclusion that for me right now it cannot and I'm better off keeping the Canon gear for the moment. As the mirrorless systems get better with regard to AF (particularly AF tracking) and high ISO performance that may change. That said, I'm not looking to acquire any more Canon lenses and am happy with the ones I've got even if there are plenty of really great L lens options I'm not exploring.

Yea,I feel exactly the same way. Nothing really gives me the full all around package the 6D does. The X100s is awesome, but I feel like the 6D has AT LEAST a full one-stop advantage in low light. Plus the X100s is fun to shoot with, but the 6D is just more reliable.

I wish Canon had a goldilocks 50mm lens. Something kinda in between the current 1.4 and 1.2 lenses, sort of like the newer 35mm f2 is. I really haven't been able to find a good reason to upgrade from the 1.8 to 1.4, and the 1.2 is not really in contention for me. I guess Sigma offerings are there, but I haven't used third party lenses yet. I'd probably add the 35mm f2 is, but if I figure if I have that mounted on my 6D, it's for portability, and that's what the X100s is for at the same focal length.

I started with a Rebel, switched to a 40D and now have it plus a 5Dc. Over the years I've acquired a 35 F2, a 50 1.8 and a Sigma 105 macro as primes, a 24-105, a 70-200 f4 is and a 70-300 is usm. And a 1.4 extender that I use with the 70-300. I'm "considering" an 85 or a 135. We'll see, not sure I really need one, not that I was ever stopped by that. <g>

I guess the point is: Would you be disappointed if you'd use a fuji or sony system after using a very good 6D? Maybe yes. I say that because i would be, i know it. When i held the Sony A7r for example in my hands together with its 50mm 1.8 zeiss it was indeed a good camera. But the lack of an optical viewfinder and the, how i find, very slow AF was just a dealbreaker for me and made me rethink about the idea to go mirrorless. I know there are fast focussing mirrorles cameras, but none that i know which has a FF sensor has a fast AF (never tried a leica m9 though - do they even have AF? :lol.

What i want to tell you is, if you want to go mirrorless (which seems the only reason leaving canon behind) you have to live with some shortcomings of the new system..

Canon makes quite a few excellent non-L lenses. For example: 35mm f/2 IS, 40mm pancake, 45mm TS-E, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm macro, etc. I don't think you're "missing the point" by not owning superteles, although Canon's telephotos are probably both the best in the range and the best overall. That said, I wouldn't ditch the 24-105 for a "consumer-grade" zoom. Canon's full-frame consumer zooms do leave a bit to be desired.

You don't have to buy them just because they exist...

Use what you want to use. It's not something worth overthinking.