Best normal zoom for 6D: 24-70 F2.8 (old) or F4?

Heya,

Your 7D with the 17-55 is very similar to what you will get with a 6D and 24-70 in terms of field of view. You effectively get no real difference here. Consider that. Sure, the 6D has a better sensor, but unless you're printing large prints, that will hardly matter in a well processed end result when shooting landscape/buildings.

Limiting yourself to F4 at a purchase level of full frame and `L class lens seems like a real mistake to me. Why budget for quality and limit yourself with a physical limit like F4...

Very best,

Thanks, great advice. I don't think I mentioned this but I will sell my 10-22 and get a 16-35 F4 (that is the first lens I will pick up when I buy the 6D). I have a zoom already that works on full frame (70-300 IS USM) and one prime (Canon 50 1.4), but feel I will be left with a rather big gap between 35-70 that I'd like to consider a normal zoom for. Like I said, I am primarily a landscape/architecture guy, but with frequent travelling and 2 kids, I need something that can be more all purpose as well. Personally I'm leaning towards the 24-70 2.8 (old) because it's been such a reliable walk-around lens for so long until version 2 came out.

faizanrashid wrote in post #17155838
Thanks, great advice. I don't think I mentioned this but I will sell my 10-22 and get a 16-35 F4 (that is the first lens I will pick up when I buy the 6D). I have a zoom already that works on full frame (70-300 IS USM) and one prime (Canon 50 1.4), but feel I will be left with a rather big gap between 35-70 that I'd like to consider a normal zoom for. Like I said, I am primarily a landscape/architecture guy, but with frequent travelling and 2 kids, I need something that can be more all purpose as well. Personally I'm leaning towards the 24-70 2.8 (old) because it's been such a reliable walk-around lens for so long until version 2 came out.

Do you really want to carry around a full frame and big F2.8 brick when traveling with 2 kids? I'd get a small compact for that kind of stuff. Just a thought. Walking around with $3k of camera hanging from your neck while traveling, with kids, is just not the most fun thing ever. I use my tiny mirrorless EOS-M with 22mm F2 pancake for that sort of thing. Again, just a thought.

I would not worry about having gaps in focal lengths. Do you really need 1mm increments? You will have 16-35. But will you shoot at anything other than 16mm, 24mm and 35mm with that? Or even just 16mm and 35mm? Think about it. From there you have 50mm. Then 70+. Do you really need 55mm, 60mm, 65mm? I don't think you need every increment. That's half a step forward/backwards. You can handle that. I would just focus on having the right lens for what you want. If you do landscape & arch, the 16-35 will be a very useful lens to you. But then again, have you considered how powerful a tilt shift lens would be here? The Canon 24 TSE or 17 TSE would be a very strong contender here. Nothing wrong with having wide, normal, and telephoto and leaving it at that. Like 24mm, 50mm and telephoto zoom. Done.

Very best,

Interesting point you make there about travel. I will confess I have travelled with my full kit and backpack on all my trips but when out and about exploring I go light carrying only about two lenses. My most frequent ones were the 10-22 and 17-55 on my existing 7D. What I am not aware of is how much flexibility will I have to shoot what I want with a 16-35, 50 1.4 and 70-300 on full frame (I have never really owned a FF before, so this is all very abstract to me right now). I personally feel a general all purpose walk around lens is a must in my kit (not just for travel). The 24-70 F4 isn't that expensive or heavy so maybe that's the one to consider?

If it was me, i would certainly consider the Tamron 24-70 VC, aside from many of their other lenses... the 24-70 and 70-200 are outstanding quality and build... and hold up extremely well to the Canon mkii versions.

Take a look at comparisons online, the Tamron is a steal.

Also, for the record... don't bother considering the Sigma 24-70... compared to Canons/Tamrons, really no contest!

Canon just released a new 24-105 non L at good price
I think based on recent track record that it will be sharp
One more option to consider

Or old and not so good, but a very cheap Tamron 28-70. For general walkabout 24-105LIS is great if slightly big and heavy. I can't see myself with kids and 24-70 f2.8 zoom. Too heavy.

faizanrashid wrote in post #17155917
Interesting point you make there about travel. I will confess I have travelled with my full kit and backpack on all my trips but when out and about exploring I go light carrying only about two lenses. My most frequent ones were the 10-22 and 17-55 on my existing 7D. What I am not aware of is how much flexibility will I have to shoot what I want with a 16-35, 50 1.4 and 70-300 on full frame (I have never really owned a FF before, so this is all very abstract to me right now). I personally feel a general all purpose walk around lens is a must in my kit (not just for travel). The 24-70 F4 isn't that expensive or heavy so maybe that's the one to consider?

Heya,

From 35 to 50, what's in that range that you need?
From 50mm to 70mm, what's there that you need?

Think about it. The gaps are not gaps. They're one or two steps forward/backwards physically. You don't have to stand in one spot and change focal length without moving. Combine the two. Flexible focal lengths that are normal. And the ability to move.

I would take a 16-35 over a 24-70 any day. I'd rather have the ultrawide and slightly wide normal view on one lens. That is much more walk around friendly and lets you shoot closer and closer to subjects, and covers your two main genres (landscape/arch). 35mm on full frame is a very good focal length for family and travel, it's slightly wide, but still normal.

70mm F4 is pretty boring. I don't see a reason to worry about that. You might as well go for a 24-105L if you're looking at F4L's. Even then, I'd rather have 50 F1.4 over 70 F4 any day, for nearly any reason. That's not a big difference in focal length. But massive difference in aperture. But, you have 70mm on the 70-300, so do you really need a mid-range zoom to do that?

Look through what you have shot and see the common focal lengths. Use that as a guide. You should be able to really see if you generally shoot on the wider side of things, or the telephoto side of things.

Very best,

faizanrashid wrote in post #17155917
Interesting point you make there about travel. I will confess I have travelled with my full kit and backpack on all my trips but when out and about exploring I go light carrying only about two lenses. My most frequent ones were the 10-22 and 17-55 on my existing 7D. What I am not aware of is how much flexibility will I have to shoot what I want with a 16-35, 50 1.4 and 70-300 on full frame (I have never really owned a FF before, so this is all very abstract to me right now). I personally feel a general all purpose walk around lens is a must in my kit (not just for travel). The 24-70 F4 isn't that expensive or heavy so maybe that's the one to consider?

Look, I do quite a bit of travel for pleasure in Asia with and without the bambino so I've honed the travel kit over years and trips. On FF I would take the 16-35IS and the 70-200IS f4. Throw in the 40STM or 35IS, if you want. Another approach that I've found useful in reducing weight, bulk and lens swapping is ahybrid kit consisting of the M with the 11-22IS lens covering the wide end, and the 6D covering the rest. Here are a couple of my last exploit in Asia with the hybrid kit.

bnguhk wrote in post #17157402
I personally would not want to play the Tamron lottery.

Completely silly.

There's absolutely noting wrong with Tamron, Sigma and Tokina.

Canon lenses often have front/back focusing, and other problems too.

Very best,

Really, Mal. Since 2004 I have bought maybe twelve Canon lenses. They have all been good out of the box. My Sigma 18-35 suffers from focus inconsistency. I gave up on the Tamron 24-70VC after not being able to locate a good copy after three attemps. Plus some of us can afford the Canon.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #17157466
Really, Mal. Since 2004 I have bought maybe twelve Canon lenses. They have all been good out of the box. My Sigma 18-35 suffers from focus inconsistency. I gave up on the Tamron 24-70VC after not being able to locate a good copy after three attemps. Plus some of us can afford the Canon.

Yeap,

And I've had L lenses that had front/back focus. As well as Sigma ARTs with focus problems.

Every great line contains these errors. Even Canon's biggest and best telephotos.

Doesn't matter if you can afford it or not (especially talking from a prosumer budget stand point in 35mm format), claiming a "lottery" from a 3rd party carrier that is no where near "new" to the photography world is just not the case. But then again, this is primarily a Canon forum, so I understand this common sentiment from these aggregates.

Very best,

So I'm reviving this thread (OP here) because I'm about to pull the trigger on picking up a 6D (a year later that planned!!!). I'm still not entirely sure what lens do go for apart from 16-35 F4. I know there were dozens of recommendations made but I'd restrict myself to either of the following and nothing else: Canon 24-70 F4, Canon 24-70 F2.8 Mark II or Canon 24-105 F4. So after reading tons of reviews and looking at image samples I think the best general purpose walk around that would be suitable for the kind of stuff I shoot is Canon 24-70 Mark II. With the others I feel I would be compromising in some way.

I also just got back from a nice trip to England and the lens I used most was the 17-55 2.8 on my 7D. The best thing about this lens (with F2.8) is I can every easily get great landscapes/architectur​e as well as photos of my kids without changing the lens. To make it easier to illustrate here are some pics, all taken with the mighty 17-55 2.8. Again, without compromising on what I'm after I feel that only the Canon 24-70 2.8 Mark II would fill the gap of my existing 17-55 when I move to FF.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xjyB​5Z

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xjyz​ue

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/wiJQ​aq

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xdrX​8S

I picked up a 6d earlier this year and love it! I just got a Canon 24-70II and it lives on my 6d 85% of the time. Get the 24-70, you won't regret it

faizanrashid wrote in post #17676842
So I'm reviving this thread (OP here) because I'm about to pull the trigger on picking up a 6D (a year later that planned!!!). I'm still not entirely sure what lens do go for apart from 16-35 F4. I know there were dozens of recommendations made but I'd restrict myself to either of the following and nothing else: Canon 24-70 F4, Canon 24-70 F2.8 Mark II or Canon 24-105 F4. So after reading tons of reviews and looking at image samples I think the best general purpose walk around that would be suitable for the kind of stuff I shoot is Canon 24-70 Mark II. With the others I feel I would be compromising in some way.

I also just got back from a nice trip to England and the lens I used most was the 17-55 2.8 on my 7D. The best thing about this lens (with F2.8) is I can every easily get great landscapes/architectur​e as well as photos of my kids without changing the lens. To make it easier to illustrate here are some pics, all taken with the mighty 17-55 2.8. Again, without compromising on what I'm after I feel that only the Canon 24-70 2.8 Mark II would fill the gap of my existing 17-55 when I move to FF.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xjyB​5Z Sarah_outside by Faizan Rashid, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xjyz​ue Adam_outside by Faizan Rashid, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/wiJQ​aq Towers Bridge Sunset by Faizan Rashid, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xdrX​8S Big Ben Sunset by Faizan Rashid, on Flickr

Faizan. Nice work.
Remember the kids grow up so fast. Enjoy.
I was going to recommend taking advantage of the 6D Kits with the 24-70 f/4 L IS or 24-105 f/4 L IS. But since you went to the top of the list it is hard to argue with a brand new 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II.
I have been looking to upgrade my 17-40 L and 24-105 L IS myself.
Since I am a proponent of IS I decided to pick up just yesterday the Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS for a quick trip to Rome.
After going back and forth on the 16-35 f/4 L IS and the 24-70 f/4 L IS I decided to go with the Wide Angle Zoom. No comprimizes in the lens at all as it looks to be the best of the best in the Canon Wide Angle Zoom.

So next on my hit list is the 24-105 upgrade.
Unfortunately Canon does not yet, Yet, have the no brainier clear cut solution the Standard Zoom for full frame as they do on the 7D crop sensor. Great image quality, f/2.8 and IS.......the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
Soon likely to take your advice and just bite the bullet and purchase the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II myself.... Ugh!
Enjoy the well thought out investment as you will not be disappointed.