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

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16762950
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?

Heya,

I find the mid-tier lenses are where the value really is. Top optics and speed, without the L-price tag. Really though, do you need weather sealing? Not all L-glass even is weather sealed (blows my mind...). I've had L-glass. I sold it. It was good stuff. But the end result, my photographs, really were not much different when compared to using simply modern mid-tier primes that cost way less but performed just as good to my eyes.

As for mirroless vs the 6D, good luck getting the ISO performance on those that the 6D has. I wouldn't even think of going to the mirrorless sysytems from the 6D unless you needed a pocket size camera.

Frankly, what's wrong with a 1 camera 1 lens setup? If it does the job? 24-105L covers a lot of common focal lengths, that zoom is a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm all in one with constant F4 and very sharp and has weather sealing, and the 6D has some minor weather sealing too. Look at it like that. Find a weather sealed and resistant mirrorless that has the robust ability of the dSLR?

The beauty is later, you can change to a better lens. Or lenses.

Just because you're not carrying a bag of 5+ L-lenses doesn't mean you have no point to use a dSLR camera, Canon or not.

From what you described, it sounds to me like you just want something that does point & shoot, as you've talking about using other devices for photos and you've described yourself in a way that sounds like you're not really interested in photography, but rather, just taking photos. This is not a negative thing, it's just an observation. End of the day, maybe a good mirrorless/point&shoot is more appropriate for you.

Very best,

I think if you pick carefully, there are some very good Non L lenses about.
Some people laugh at my little 40 mm pancake.
But seriously I think its top notch IQ - for the money.
Plus I don't give a dam what they think if it works for me. ( sure I always first listen in case they have some knowledge to hand down - but often its dumb snobbery)

[and I do have 2 L lenses so know what they are like]

MalVeauX wrote in post #16771542
From what you described, it sounds to me like you just want something that does point & shoot, as you've talking about using other devices for photos and you've described yourself in a way that sounds like you're not really interested in photography, but rather, just taking photos. This is not a negative thing, it's just an observation.

An incorrect one. If I was interested in just taking photos, I'd use my Iphone.

Try a sigma I did, and I doubt I'll ever go back!

drzenitram wrote in post #16771708
Try a sigma I did, and I doubt I'll ever go back!

I can see that.

The red ring doesn't magically improve a lens. There's plenty of good non-L lenses. (the 85mm F1.8 being a good example)

Read my signature and note that my 35/2 is listed for sale and might be getting sold tomorrow...

Who cares if you're not buying "L" glass? Use what works for you. If your current lens lineup works, awesome! Who cares what else is out there, if you're content with what you have, use it.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16771678
An incorrect one. If I was interested in just taking photos, I'd use my Iphone.

Heya,

Fair enough. Like I said, just an observation, not a mind reader. But that's what comes to mind when I see:

Again, not trying to cause offense or anything. Actually just probing to see what you're truly after. As you put it, it seems dSLR, while nice, may not be what you're after.

The end result is just a photograph, and if you're happy with it, that's great. There's a lot of people who have moved to smaller, mirrorless systems and there are people who moved exclusively to iphones for photography. If you're just putting images on the web, this actually works perfectly fine and there is some amazing stuff out there. The device is just the tool. But they put a lot of effort into making amazing photographs, regardless of the tool, if they're really into photography.

Very best,

If you're happy with what you have - keep it and go shoot!

I went several years with my UWA, 30/1.4 and 70-200, and I was perfectly content with my kit for a long time. If you like what you have, then don't worry about buying something else.

Go enjoy your gear and take photos!

The "L" designation doesn't necessarily mean a lens is sharper. There are two things for which you pay the extra money when you buy an "L" lens: One is tighter quality control. There is a better chance of getting a good lens when you buy an "L," but a good copy of a non-L lens may be as sharp, or nearly so, as an "L" lens. The other thing you're paying for is a better, more durable build, and often, water-proofing.

I have been using a non-L 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 lens since 2006. It has been my workhorse for scores of weddings, many business portraits, and other work. Before that, I had the 28-105, also non-L, which was responsible for the majority of the photographs in the Rock City Barns book in my sig. During that time, I also owned the Canon 28-80L, the 28-70L, the 24-70L (twice!) the Sigma 24-70, and the Canon 24-105L. They are all gone, but the 24-85 is still here and made the majority of my photographs at last Saturday's wedding and will probably be doing the same this Saturday.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16762950
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?

I went through a similar experience where I covered a certain FL range (because it was what gearhounds would make you believe is the thing to do) and bought specific lenses because they were supposed to be the best. Along the way, I found that they were indeed stellar lenses. I also found that I didn't particularly care for them, so I, too, sold them off.

Yes, one of the nice things about the Canon lineup is that there's a vast array of great glass... but that doesn't mean that you're missing the point by only using and owning the two or three lenses that really speak to you. To me, the point of the large selection isn't necessarily to own a lot of them, but to have a better chance of finding the right ones.

Some years ago, I picked up a 35-105 Canon f3.5-4.5 lens for cheap on an older Rebel film body and kept it at home as a handy-cam for either my wife or I to use for the occasional snapshot. After I sold my first 28-105 I began using the 35-105 a bit, and eventually tested it against some other lenses in my studio. Surprise, surprise! That 35-105 tested out as nearly as sharp as my 35mm f2 at the wide end (although it is closer to a true 40mm, not 35), nearly as good as my 50mm f1.8 at 50mm, and nearly as sharp as my 85f1.8 at the long end.

That was true for that particular lens, but as I said, since one of the reasons cheaper lenses are cheaper is that quality control is less rigid, the next one to come off the assembly line may have been a dog. So always test before your return/exchange period runs out.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16771542
From what you described, it sounds to me like you just want something that does point & shoot, as you've talking about using other devices for photos and you've described yourself in a way that sounds like you're not really interested in photography, but rather, just taking photos.

So, because he occasionally takes a P&S along instead of his dSLR, he's automatically not interested in photography? Gimme a break - it's called priorities and it's very situational; sometimes the bulk is unwanted, sometimes being on the other side of a camera is socially isolating, sometimes it can attract unwanted attention, etc, etc. Whatever the reason for not wanting to have it along at certain times, it doesn't mean that the benefits aren't valued at other times.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16770938
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 believe (from the info I have seen on the rumour websites) that Canon are bringing out a 50mm f1.8 IS soon. No idea when but by accounts it could be this year.
I tend to favour my 35mm f/2 IS over my 24-70 f/2.8 II these days. For me having an L lens doesn't mean I have the best, it's just that the L lenses seem to come in varieties that the non L's don't, so sometimes you have no choice. Not that I'm saying the 24-70 isn't one of the best, just that I have some thing cheaper that suits my needs more at the moment.

Don't beat yourself up about it. The reason is there is so much choice is because we all prefer to shoot in different ways, Canon are just giving us the options to get the best out of our hobby/work. I'm much happier with just a few lenses than when I had more. Less time having to think about what to use and more time to just get on with it.

I think if you stick to primes, you can get really good lenses. I have the 50 1.4 and used to have the 85 1.8. They take pretty damn good shots. I already regret selling the 85mm. I used to have the EF 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 USM and thought the images were almost as good as the 70-200 f/4L. On a crop it was a bit too much for my needs. I'm contemplating repurchasing that lens now that I have FF. On one end I want the 70-200 2.8 II, on the other hand, I could buy like 5-6 non L lenses for that price. Its hard to justify the L stuff sometimes. I totally see your point.