UKC

I have a Canon 6D. it came with a standard 24-105 zoom lens. Which is OKish.

I bought a Canon 100-400 MkII L zoom. Which is fantastic.

So I am torn between getting the soon to be released 24-105 L mk II, or go for a prime lens, say a 50mm L with the much bigger aperture available, down to f1.4.

I mainly shoot outside, landscapes or wildlife.

Thoughts?

In reply to Fredt:

How much different is the mk II 24-105 going to be over what you have?
Sounds like you should think about:
(Samang?) 14mm f2.8
TSE24 mk II -- especially if you are into landscapes, works with extenders.
~35mm fsmall (btw, the 40mm pancake is considered excellent for the cost)
600mm f4 bankrupter.

In reply to Fredt:

Or get a wide-angle lens. There are plenty to choose from, get one to suit your style, standards and pocket.

I have the 24-105 IS lens. I think it rather better than 'OK-ish'.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


Quite. I think it's a terrific lens for 'kit' lens.

In reply to Fredt:



I'm tempted by the new 24-105 for the IS as a travel/hill lens. The 50mm L is 1.2 and eye wateringly expensive. The 1.4 USM is much cheaper and apparently superb.


The 28 2.8 IS?

I have a 17-40 f4, it is small and very light and I have had some good results from it. Not too expensive either.

In reply to Removed User:


I have the 50 / 1.4 and it's good, but the down side is some nasty green fringing when wide open.

In reply to Fredt:

Why would you go for a 50mm for landscapes? Asides from lighter weight it offers very few real world advantages. And the 50mm 1.2L is very much a pro portrait lens.

I'd have a look at the 16-35 2.8 if you've got the money or 17-40 F4 (still very good) as wide angle lens choices.

The Samyang 14mm 2.8 is superb if you want to get into astro photography.

Or the 24-70 2.8 if you're thinking of replacing the 24-105. Or as you said upgrading to the 24-105 Mark II. It's never going to be quite as good as the 24-70, but it's an exceptionally convenient focal range.

The 100-400 MkII L should cover all your zoom and wildlife needs for now, especially if combined with a 1.4x teleconverter. It also makes for a solid macro lens.

In reply to Fredt:

Many thanks for all the suggestions, certainly some food for thought that I had not considered before.

I suppose I was originally concerned about having 'continuity', having the 24-70 and the 100-400, or am I being paranoid about not having a gap in the range?

In reply to Fredt:

I would definitely get a prime. It'll be a nice change from those big slow zooms.

First choice would be a macro lens in the 90-105mm range, which will double up for portraits. If you're into nature it will open up way more opportunities. The 50/1.4 is a good idea too, probably the cheapest option and will be small and fun. Alternatively I'd get a wide prime, probably 20mm. IMHO lenses wider than 20mm are difficult to use effectively, I have a wide zoom but haven't used it for years.

Don't worry about having gaps in the range. Of far more value is getting your head around how certain focal lengths draw a scene.

In reply to Fredt:
I saw a review of the new 24-105mm that said it wasn't an improvement over the old one. I really liked my Mk-I, a great do it all.

I'd consider:

50mm 1.4 (a must have bargain for the IQ it delivers)

And if you have money to burn:
70-200 L F4 (for when you don't want to lug that 100-400 beast around). A corker of a lens.
16-35mm L (to make use of that FF and wide)
Sigma 150mm for marcro (if you want to get into it)

In reply to James Rushforth:

I've seen some reviews saying the Samyang 14mm would be pointless on an apsc camera. I've got a d5500 I'd like to use it on for astrophotography and landscape, do you think it'll be any good?

Thanks

In reply to rossowen:



Which reviews were those? Doesn't seem to make sense - if the point is that you want a fast, wide , coma-free lens then what better options are there? Yes, it's designed to work well on a FF camera, but so what? So is the EF 50mm F1.4 and EF 70-200 F2.8 IS USM but I don't hear people saying they're 'pointless' on a (for example) EOS 7D.
Mystified.

In reply to Marek:
Thanks. A couple of reviewers on YouTube say there is not much point on anything other than FF. I'm still learning this stuff but I think they were saying you don't benefit from the wide aperture on a crop sensor and might as well stick with the kit 18-55 (although that's not wide angle?). I'll post some links. The main reviews seemed to really sing its praises though, even on APSC.

One: youtube.com/watch?v=8eXK5IJk4FA&

In reply to Fredt:

When I get the urge to buy new camera kit I try to temper the cravings by identifying what opportunities I'm missing by not having the current gadget of my desires. You said you do mostly landscape and wildlife - what sort of pictures would you want to take that you aren't getting now? Does that narrow the choice down for you?

Having said that I found it remarkably easy to convince myself I had a case for buying the Canon 16-35 f4 (not the v spendy f2.8) to replace my 17-40. Its so important to get that extra ounce of sharpness in the corners!

In reply to Fredt:

If you find yourself using the 24-105 lens at certain focal lengths more than others you could try a fast and sharper prime at that focal length. There is a new canon 16-35mm 2.8 that gets great reviews for wide angle. This also has the advantage of dropping the price for the previous version. The Mk11 24-105 is already available by the way.

In reply to rossowen:



Hmm. There's a lot more the lens specs than focal length. It all depends on what you want from you camera/lens. If you're just taking holiday snaps on the beach in P mode, then yes, not much point in the Samyang lens. APS-c or FF. If you you want to get night time pictures (stars or landscapes) then you'll very much appreciate the 'Sammy'. APS-c or FF. And don't forget, the Samyang lenses are all fast and manual focus which makes a bit more 'special situations' lenses.

In reply to john1963:

LR metadata is useful to see what focal ranges have been used (can filter by lens & camera)

In reply to ChrisJD:

Another vote for a 70-200 -- the IS isn't needed for a 6d, so go cheap and light (light is right), and get a hood.

In reply to Jon Read:

I'd prefer to go for the IS version

In reply to Fredt:

I mainly use the following...

Cheapy 14mm
Canon 50mm 1.2
Canon 24mm 1.4
Sigma 35mm 1.4
Canon24-70 2.8
Canon 70-200 2.8
Canon 24-70 2.8
Canon 100-400

My favourite by far is the 50mm. Then the 70-200. The 24mm is top notch as is the Sigma 35mm.

I have but rarely use the following.

Canon 17-40.

Use for work
One macro, one tilt shift and one very long lens.

Based on your original question I would say, buy the 24mm 1.4 or 70-200 2.8.

In reply to Fredt:

I've just bought the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art prime lens for my 6D. Overall IQ is outstanding between f2.8 and f11. Corners a little soft and very slightly vignetted at f1.4 but central definition is still excellent, even wide open. Vignetting vanishes after f4.

There's no image stabilisation, so you would risk blurry shots with shutter speeds longer than 1/60th sec handheld.

In reply to Fredt:

If you're in to landscapes I'd strongly recommend the 16-35 f4 IS, it's ridiculously sharp and the IS is very useful if you don't want to carry a tripod. The 50 1.4 is also great but at least with the copies I've got the 16-35 is sharper, I still love the 50 but rarely use it below f2. Very different lenses obviously, I agree you'll like what you see if you get a prime but that 16-35 is as sharp as any print I've used yet.

I'm looking at maybe the new sigma 85 1.4 art as my next which I've got high hopes for....

In reply to Fredt:

Also, as others have said you should look at what you're actually using your lenses for. I set up smart collections in lightroom to show me what focal lengths I'm using most often, the numbers aren't always what I expect. You may find you're always using your widest (buy something wider), longest (go longer) or always 50 (go prime!).

Obviously it won't be so clear cut but it'll give you something to go on.

In reply to Fredt:

I have the following:

17-40mm L
50mm f1.4 (non L)
100m f2.8 IS L macro
24-105mm IS L
100-400mm IS L (traded in a 70-200 L f4 non-iS)

Bang for buck I would definitely recommend the 50mm f1.4. It's not an L but gives great results and is relatively cheap. The 50mm f1.2 L maes me go weak at the knees but I couldn't justify the cost (or slow focussing!) for normal use. It is only a portrait lens in reality butthe 1.4 is a great option.

I also would defend the "old" 24-105mm. Great lens and is my daily walk around lens.

The 100mm L macro is pin sharp and also an excellent portrait lens if you are able to stand back and/or for candid shots. One of my favourites.

The 17-40 is also a lovely lens, fairly small/light and at a reasonable cost. However, some of the other/newer wides would be well worth considering.