Best Value "Normal" Lens for 6d?

[RustyTheGeek]

I am a beginner but the BEST VALUE I think would be the 24-105 F4 L.  It is cheaper as a kit lens on the 6D and if you don't like it you can probably sell it without losing any money.

+1.  Good value as a kit, but really lowly priced with the 6D in some instances.  Primes would complement the 24-105 nicely.

Yep.  +1  Ditto.  Go for this.  Much better value and highly useful.

[crasher8]

I got frightened and didn't get anything.  I'm gonna hold off and then maybe go with a 6D/24-70 f4 IS kit one day (and maybe a 35 or 50 prime and long zoom of some sort).  I'll likely do a 6D/7D II comparison when the time comes and see what happens.

 

That would be a good setup. And then you'll want wide, and then wide prime and then Macro and then TS and the,,,,,…….etc etc yadda yadda

BUT don't put off getting the 135 f/2 as long as I did.

[EOBeav]

BUT don't put off getting the 135 f/2 as long as I did.

Oh man, I just sent my 135mm f2 rental back last week. Worst day of my life. Well, not really, but I was pretty sad to see it go...

[Cory]

I exchanged my 135 for a 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 - more useful for indoor volleyball.  The 135 2.0 was sort of an "inbetween" focal length for my needs.  I wonder if that'll change by going to FF.  If so then it'll be clear that I'm a dick.

[bigdogmn73]

Best value is the kit lens 24-105...

[Knut Skywalker]

On FF a fast 50 will be a very good normal lens. I started on my 5D MkII with only the 50mm 1.4 and i shot everything with it. Landscape, portraits, concerts etc. It's amazing how versatile a 50mm on fullframe is.

[CanNotYet]

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8?

[Jim K]

I exchanged my 135 for a 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 - more useful for indoor volleyball.  The 135 2.0 was sort of an "inbetween" focal length for my needs.  I wonder if that'll change by going to FF.  If so then it'll be clear that I'm a dick.

Yes, the 200 2.8 will be like your 135 on a crop 

[robbymack]

"Best value"?  Depends how you define value.  For IQ per $ it's hard to argue against a 50 1.8. In these terms the value of the kit 24-105, when purchased in the kit, is also pretty high. I'd probably not get the 24-70f4 IS in the kit unless it was heavily discounted and even if the 24-105 was no longer available in the kit it can still be had in the used market for $700 or so.

[marceloshak]

Best money/IQ value is 50mm 1.8 II.

+1

[dstppy]

Best value is the kit lens 24-105...

Since the OP is talking about having paid for a 6D, I agree 100%.

On that same lines, I don't think the 50mm 1.8 is really that good for 'best value' since the 1.4 is much better . . .

It's all how you define value.  The 70-200mm 2.8 IS is a GREAT value, when talking about the 200mm L 2.0 IS

[TrumpetPower!]

If you're buying the lens along with the camera, the best value is going to be whatever standard zoom is in the official Canon kit.

If you already have the camera, the best value would have to be the Shorty McForty. It's still worth giving a shout-out to the Plastic Fantastic, but the Shorty McForty is a significantly better lens for not much more money, and therefore has a better price to value ratio.

If you really want a fast 50, then the f/1.4 wins the day. It's a better lens than the L in virtually every respect for a small fraction of the price.

b&

[dickgrafixstop]

The 28-105 bundle with the 6d is a winner.  If you have the 6d or are short of cash, look at the
28-135IS that was bundled with a bunch of cameras.  No, it doesn't have the red ring, but it is
an excellent piece of glass and it's one third the price of the 24-105.  I'd also suggest that  for the
price of the 28-105 you could buy a nice pair of primes - my pick would be the 35mmf2.0 and the 85mmf1.8.  With those two, the 6d and a good pair of shoes, there are very few spots that would be
safe from my photos.

[bseitz234]

If you really want a fast 50, then the f/1.4 wins the day. It's a better lens than the L in virtually every respect for a small fraction of the price.

b&

I'm thinking about moving up from my 50 1.8... Kind of stuck between the 1.4 now, or waiting a bit (not necessarily a bad thing, since I do have the 1.8 if I need it) and saving up for the 50L or seeing what sigma releases for a new fast 50, since their 35 has been such a big hit. I'm curious why you say the 1.4 is better than the L in virtually every respect... I know about the slightly curved focal plane the L has, but does the 1.4 do other things optically better? or is it just the smaller/cheaper/lighter that you're getting at?

[paulc]

I'm putting in another vote for the 28-135 IS.  You can generally score one second-hand for just a bit over $200 and it will serve most of your general purpose needs better than any other $200ish lens.