lens for 6D

[roygbiv]

My name is Roy. Hello, I bought my first DSLR two days ago, a Canon 6D, but I've not yet puchased a lens. Does anyone have a recommendation? I'm not rich, but I am single and working, so I prioritize quality above price. I want a wide angle, fast lens. I've been looking at Canon's 24mm 1.4 prime, but reviews are scarce. Digital Rev did one. Anyone have experience with this lens or another that you like? Please keep in mind that I want a prime. I appreciate anyone kind enough to let me know what you know.

I'm looking to do some shots of the night sky, some light painting and stuff in the woods and mountains near my house.

[rpcrowe]

I am wondering why you are set in buying a prime as your first lens? IMO, either the Canon 24-70mm twins: f/2.8L Mark II or f/4L IS; or the 24-105mm f/4L IS would give you a lot more flexibility in your first lens. Even a used 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark I would be a consideration as well as, at a lower cost, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 might be another option...

[inkista]

+1 on Richard's suggestion of a walkaround zoom as your first lens: more versatile. The type of photography you're talking about doesn't particularly need a fast/large max. aperture lens, as it's generally done on a tripod with longer exposures. A used EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM can be had for around $700 these days.

However, I'd recommend not looking at the fast prime Ls right off the bat--they're hideously expensive and can sometimes be considered exotics. Check out how big and heavy they are, first and consider renting before you buy. Just me, but if you must go with a prime as your first lens, I think you might be better served with a less expensive lens that's not quite so wide, that will be easier to handhold (stabilized), say, the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM or EF 35mm f/2L IS USM. They'll be just as sharp as the Ls, and much easier to use. It's difficult without experience (or the EXIF information of images taken with a zoom lens) to judge which focal lengths will work the best for you, and the more extreme the focal length of a lens (wide or long), the more specialized its use will become.

Just because someone on a blog somewhere says THE lens for them is a 24mm f/1.4 doesn't necessarily mean it's the lens for you. It all depends on what/how you personally shoot, and that's something only you can tell for yourself and to do that you probably need some experience. Your task here is not to find the Best Lens Ever--but to find the best fit for you and what you shoot. Price, size/weight, features, stabilization, focal length, max. aperture, build quality, and image quality are all part of the picture. I can extol the joys of shooting fisheye all day long, but that doesn't mean everyone else must have one.

That said, if I want to get some words of wisdom from those with practical experience of a lens, I tend to hit the review section of the Fred Miranda board. They've got 42 capsule reviews of the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II. Read all of them, and you'll probably get a very good idea of the strengths, weaknesses, and copy variance on that lens as well as the type of users the lens appeals to.

[Polar01]

Roy: now that you have a high quality camera, and want to do what you stated suggest something like the EF17-40mm f/4L USM, know a number that shoot is and love it, not as fast as the 16-35mm 2.8 but than again 1/3 the price, and as to do what you want , is going to be sitting on a tripod anyways. The f/2.8 lens will not give you any better images than the f/4 costing 3 times the f/4 as it is the person behind the camera that creates the great images. Getting a prime at this time is a waste of time and money, get the short zoom, then learn everything about what the camera/lens combo will do, push both of them and yourself to the edge until you do not even think but just do. To get there you will have to practice, practice and some more practice each and everyday. Once done then think about a lens that will allow you to develop more, I will guess right know, that it will be a 24-70mm, not a prime if you are shooting what you state above.

Cheers: Allan

[roygbiv]

Thank you all for your responses and insights. I especially appreciate the link to the reviews. They were helpful and included photos taken with the 24mm 1.4. The reason I am looking at this as a first lens is this: Primes are sharper than zooms. I love a sharply focused image. Primes have more light gathering ability in general. I want that shallow DOF sometimes, and I would rather have three primes than one zoom. I don't want to buy a zoom now and then re-cover its focal length as I purchase the primes I really wanted to begin with. I'll be patient enough to wait until I can get what I really want rather than buying a zoom.
I used a film camera for a long time. I know what I want to shoot. So I don't have to cover that ground. I think renting a lens is a good idea. I'm going to check the fees. You all sound knowledgeable, and I'm glad you're willing to help. I just don't want a zoom lens.

[RustBeltRaw]

Primes are sharper than zooms.

Barely. Among modern pro lenses, the difference is so slight that it normally takes lab conditions to make it visible. At the less expensive end of the lens spectrum, this is more true. In some cases, like comparing the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II to the 200mm f2.8L II, the zoom actually comes out on top.

I don't want to buy a zoom now and then re-cover its focal length as I purchase the primes I really wanted to begin with. I'll be patient enough to wait until I can get what I really want rather than buying a zoom.
I used a film camera for a long time. I know what I want to shoot.

Personal preference is the most valid reason to get primes instead of zooms. I am also an exclusively-prime shooter, but none of them are L-series.

Canon's USM series lenses are excellent. Instead of the $1,750 24mm f1.4L, I would get a 24mm f.28 IS USM, 100mm f2.0 USM, and 35mm f2.0 IS USM. That gives you a standard, wide, and short telephoto setup for a few hundred less than a single 24mm f1.4L. And you can take the purchases in bites if you need to. Adding one lens to your kit at a time and taking a while to get used to its feel is not a bad idea.

[roygbiv]

Thank you Lex. I agree with you about preference. I want to feel good about my purchase, and that comes in different ways for people. I will have a look at some zooms if I can rent them. I don't know how different lenses and primes are nowadays, but they used to be noticeably different. I want to compare some photos from these lenses side by side, maybe photos from a prime 24 beside photos from a zoom 24-70. I'm eager to get a lens, but it's a money thing. The 24mm 1.4 has a design flaw according to some reviews I read today. AF is a problem in most of them. So I'm still not sure. Thank you for your reply.

[RustBeltRaw]

The 24mm 1.4 has a design flaw according to some reviews...

Many of the L primes have quirks like that. The 85mm f1.2L "Canonball," for instance, is notorious for sluggish focus. There's no technical reason it should be, but I think Canon is putting a heck of a lot more design effort behind its L-series zooms these days. I'd rent a 24-70mm f2.8L II USM and a 70-200mm f2.8L II IS USM for a few days. If you find the image quality or the ergonomics of a zoom unacceptable, then have a look at primes. L zooms are much better than consumer zooms. L primes are negligibly better than USM primes.

Note that while I use primes almost exclusively, that's a purely ergonomic preference that I don't recommend for everyone. I curse my lack of easily-switchable focal length constantly, but at day's end, I still prefer to work that way. No idea why.

[inkista]

... I used a film camera for a long time. I know what I want to shoot. So I don't have to cover that ground.

Ah. Someone who knows what they're doing! Yay! Film shooters switching to digital are getting thinner on the ground these days, so I just assumed a first-time SLR owner. Forget everything I said about suitable focal lengths.

As for modern zoom performance, here's a sample from my 5DMkII and my 24-105 f/4L IS USM @24mm--a lens that is generally denigrated as being a compromise L, and weakest at the 24mm end. The 6D's kit lens. The new baseline. The 24-70 f/2.8L and 24-70 f/4L IS are both said to be better optically, if less convenient.


5DMkII + 24-105L. @24mm, iso 400, f/16, 1/60s.

And while the corner performance may not be perfection, there's the fact that I can also do this with the very same lens handheld, thanks to stabilization and full-frame high ISO performance:


5DMkII + 24-105L. @24mm, iso 6400, f/4, 1/3s

As a film shooter, the idea of actually being able to use the super-high ISO settings (and digital post-processing for noise reduction) is probably something you haven't had a chance to wrap your brain around yet. Likewise, IS (image stabilization) may not be something you're familiar with--think of it like having monopod capability built in. It can't do the work of a tripod, but you can successfully lower your "safe" handholding shutter speed by 1-3 stops. My usual limit without stabilization is in the 1/30-1/60s neighborhood.

A 24/1.4 will probably beat it handily on DoF control, though. But then, a 24/1.4 can't go to 105.


Canon XT/350D. EF 24-105L @105mm. iso 800, f/4, 1/100s.

However, I do get the fast-fast prime and thin DoF affection.


5DMkII + adapted Olympus OM-mount Zuiko MC Auto-S 50mm f/1.2. iso 1600, f/1.2, 1/30s. handheld.

So don't let any of us stop you from getting a 24L if that's what you really want.

[inkista]

Many of the L primes have quirks like that. The 85mm f1.2L "Canonball," for instance, is notorious for sluggish focus. There's no technical reason it should be, ...

IIRC, the 85L is focus-by-wire [i.e., the focus ring is not mechanically coupled to the focus mechanism] which makes the MF a bit less tactile. And there are some awfully big heavy elements in that there lens for the focus motors to be shoving around.



All good technical reasons, to my mind, why the focusing performance of the lens feels a bit "off" to those used to more modest lenses that don't have either of these issues.

I would also say that you probably want to put in some hands-on time to offset review reading. There is the unfortunate tendency in these digital days for some shooters to obsess about tiny technical issues that may not actually affect you practically in shooting as much as they say it will.

[JR1]

I am wondering why you are set in buying a prime as your first lens? IMO, either the Canon 24-70mm twins: f/2.8L Mark II or f/4L IS; or the 24-105mm f/4L IS would give you a lot more flexibility in your first lens. Even a used 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark I would be a consideration as well as, at a lower cost, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 might be another option...

I have to agree why limit yourself to a prime

[JR1]

EOS 10D camera, 800asa, 25mm lens, 5 sec exposure.

You don't need special gear for astro photography start simple

[Adrian]

We have the luxury of various L primes (including the 85mm f1.2L and 100m L macro) along with the standard triumvirate of zooms. Having compared sharpness of say the 85 1.2 and the 70-200 Mk II f2.8L at 80mm, there is no discernible difference in normal use. The 1.2 end of the 85mm has its uses, but the extremely shallow DOF also brings major limitations. Focus is not an issue in my experience.

Personally I find the [this used to say 500mm!] 50mm non L 1.4 very useful (although I believe it is being discontinued?) and the 100mm macro is also a lens we use a lot, but beyond that I would personally choose the high end zooms for the mix of performance and practicality rather than primes: these days I think that the assertion that primes deliver better optic results is something of a fallacy. The 6D is a fairly light camera and may feel a bit unbalanced with heavy glass. Best to try some out. The lens that is on our 6D most of the time is a 24-105 f4 L, though now I would probably buy the new light f4 24-70 L, which is a great lens, quite light, much less bulky than our f2.8 version.

[DanK]

Roy,

I too migrated from film, but 5 or 6 years ago. I grew up shooting prime-only because in that era, primes were far better than zooms. As several people have suggested, it is a different world now, and I actually now own only two primes, both macros. For everything else, I am using zooms. There are some compromises--e.g., my walk-around is the 24-105 L, and as Kathy mentioned, it has some flaws, e.g., fairly severe vignetting at the short end. On the other hand, I have yet to notice any substantial compromises with my 70-200 f/4 IS L.

I'm not presuming to say that zooms are your better option. Only you can decide. however, I do think it may be worth your while to explore the relative quality of current zooms and primes before you decide.

In any event, enjoy your new camera!

Dan

[RustBeltRaw]

IIRC, the 85L is focus-by-wire [i.e., the focus ring is not mechanically coupled to the focus mechanism] which makes the MF a bit less tactile. And there are some awfully big heavy elements in that there lens for the focus motors to be shoving around.

All good technical reasons, to my mind, why the focusing performance of the lens feels a bit "off" to those used to more modest lenses that don't have either of these issues.

I would also say that you probably want to put in some hands-on time to offset review reading. There is the unfortunate tendency in these digital days for some shooters to obsess about tiny technical issues that may not actually affect you practically in shooting as much as they say it will.

I did shoot the Canonball for an afternoon, and as an action photographer, I stand by the slow-focus statement. But you're right, the problem is not so great that the lens should be disregarded. It's portrait-centric and extremely wide, so I suspect the servo is geared down to slow the focus throw and give the contrast detection system a little more time to work. The glass weight certainly plays a role, but the 70-200mm f2.8L II focuses fantastically quickly, and as another hefty lens, it also has a lot of glass to throw around.

[rpcrowe]

Roy posted...

“Primes are sharper than zooms”
Some are and some are not! I doubt if you could accurately choose, if shown a selection of images shot with top grade zoom lenses mixed with images shot with top-grade primes, which images were shot with the zoom and which were shot with the primes. However, I am talking about top-line zoom lenses, not the kit lenses which produce adequate, but not outstanding, images or the extended range zoom lenses which have recently become popular…

“I love a sharply focused image”
So do I, please see the comment above…

“Primes have more light gathering ability in general”
Nope… A zoom lens at 50mm and f/2.8 will gather the same amount of light as any prime 50mm lens at f/2.8. Sure an f/1.4 prime will “gather” more light than a f/2.8 prime but, often at the expense of sharpness. Please revert to comment #1,,,

“I want that shallow depth of field sometimes”
Like this? Shot with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens at f/5.6



Or this? Shot with the same lens at f/8



“I would rather have three primes than one zoom”
This was the opinion of almost all pro photographers in the early days of still camera zooms. That is why photojournalists commonly carried more than one, and often several, bodies. They had a different focal length on each body.

“I don't know how different lenses and primes are nowadays, but they used to be noticeably different.”
You are totally correct. The first zoom lens for a still camera that I ever used was a 43-86mm Nikkor in the mid-1960’s. The results were so bad that I never shot with another zoom lens until I began my digital career 40-years later.

I think that you will find that top-line zooms of today are excellent optically and mechanically. They also allow you to frame the image exactly as you want it. I seldom have to do any major cropping because the zoom allows almost perfect framing. I use a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS on my 7D cameras (as a hold-over from prime days I still shoot with two bodies).

However, The prime lens advocates say that you can "zoom with your feet". Try that with a canyon or body of water between you and your subject...

Finally...
I would not want to shoot with any of the extended range zoom lenses that are on the market today. Perhaps forty years from NOW the extended range zoom lens will become the tool of choice for professional photographers as the shorter focal range zooms have become the choice for many photographers THESE DAYS!

[Colin Southern]

The reason I am looking at this as a first lens is this: Primes are sharper than zooms. I love a sharply focused image.

Proper sharpening workflow will have a far bigger impact on image sharpness than the inherent differences between any quality zoom and prime.

Also, primes restrict you to their respective fields of view; if that's not the EXACT field of view that you require then you're going to need to crop - and THAT degrades an image (compared to a prime).

For what it's worth, I have more primes than zooms, but they hardly ever get used; these days primes are for more specialist use (eg tilt and shift or extreme wide angle).

How are these for sharpness?









(Click for bigger image)

Not a single prime used for any of them

[Colin Southern]

Personally I find the 500mm non L 1.4 very useful

Trailer mounted?

[Adrian]

Ah, the dangers of typo's Colin. 50mm. It's a great little lens and I often use it at family gatherings or in restaurants when we are on holiday (my wife expects plenty of photos of her with her relations!). It's useful indoors, weighs almost nothing and is not so "in your face" as some of the L glass. And it's cheap! Gives acceptable results (for me anyway) even at the 1.4 end.

PS I do wish I could post without typo's. I get worse as I get older. And I'm not that old!

[travis4567]

I have a 6D and an arsenal of lenses but just picked up the Canon 40mm pancake lens and it has become my everyday lens. It is a great focal length and is so light and compact making the 6d much more manageable carrying around all day, and the price can't be beat. And it's as sharp as any lens in my bag.