24-105L or Sigma 35.1.4 for 6D walk-around

[wsheldon]

I've been pretty happy with my 50D kit for general travel/nature/event photography, but I've been wanting to pick up a FF camera to achieve shallower DOF more easily for portraits and lower noise when shooting indoor events (e.g. my son's plays in dark theaters). I downloaded RAW samples from DPR for the 50D, 6D and 5D Mark III and played with them all in LR 4, and I was shocked at the difference between either FF and 50D (easily 2 stops in noise and better contrast across the board). I was leaning towards a 5D mark III, but I just can't justify the extra cash (as an amateur) and don't want the extra bulk and weight for travel, so I've settled on a 6D for its smaller size and GPS.

My dilemma, though, is whether to buy the kit with 24-105L or skip it and put the $500 towards a Sigma 35 1.4 HSM. I already have a 17-40L, 70-200 F4is and 85 1.8, so that wouldn't leave too big a gap in FL, and since what I'm really missing with my 50D is DOF control the large aperture 35 seems really appealing (particularly after the reviews I've read here). The 35 at 1.4-2 looks better than 24-105 at 5.6-8 to my eye. I used to shoot fixed FL lenses exclusively in my film days, so I know the pluses/minuses of that from a creativity standpoint and have no problem "zooming with my feet".

Any opinions of 24-105 vs 35 1.4 for a walk-around would be appreciated. Either way I intend to keep the 50D for now (probably bolted to the 100-400L for zoo/wildlife work).

Thanks

-Wade

 

[Loswr]

What do you plan to shoot while walking around with a 'walkaround' lens? A 35mm prime doesn't offer a lot of flexibility. FWIW, f/4 on FF is like f/2.5 on APS-C for DoF. The 24-105L is a great general purpose lens on FF.

RE keeping the 50D, at low ISO the 6D image cropped to the APS-C FoV will give equivalent IQ (but only 7.8 MP); above ISO 800 the cropped 6D's IQ will be better.

 

[wsheldon]

What do you plan to shoot while walking around with a 'walkaround' lens? A 35mm prime doesn't offer a lot of flexibility. FWIW, f/4 on FF is like f/2.5 on APS-C for DoF. The 24-105L is a great general purpose lens on FF.

RE keeping the 50D, at low ISO the 6D image cropped to the APS-C FoV will give equivalent IQ (but only 7.8 MP); above ISO 800 the cropped 6D's IQ will be better.

Good point about the aperture differences to get the same DOF on FF vs crop. Regarding what I shoot in that range when traveling, it would be cityscapes/architecture, gardens, monuments and such outdoors, plus historic buildings and museums/aquariums indoors (when allowed). I'd also use the 6d for crowd shots and step in closer for some detail on individuals when I shoot events for local non-profits (my only semi-pro activity).

I use a 17-40 on the 50D for events now, often in the 20-40 range, so 35 on FF might be limiting there (wide end of my normal range). But the ability to use f1.4-2 on the 35 to blur backgrounds when moving in is compelling to me. For example, I love the playground shot in Justin VanLeeuwen's recent review of the 35 on his 5d mark iii (http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm/). I know there's a healthy market for nearly new 24-105L's split from kits on FM, so I probably couldn't lose by trying that lens first.

Regarding the 50D I plan to do comparisons, but I regularly print 13x19 and occasionally larger so I might miss the extra pixels at low-mid ISO. The 50D resale value is pretty low, so even if I can live with 7.8mp without cropping I'll probably keep it as a backup anyway.

I've learned a lot from reading your forum posts here, so thanks for sharing your insights.

 

[distant.star]

.
Here's what I would do.

Buy the 24-105 as part of the kit -- you get it for $500 and can sell it for $600 to $800 depending where you are, how you do it, etc. Try the lens for a while and see if you like it, see if it meets your needs.

If you don't like the lens, sell it for more than you paid for it and get the 35.

I sense in your post that you really want the 35 -- I can understand as the 24-105 has mostly sat since I got the Sigma 35. But you probably owe it to yourself to try the 24-105 first. It's a solid, L-class lens from Canon and you won't find fault with it. It won't cost you anything to try it, and that also gives you a few more dollars toward the 35 if you find you want to go that way.

 

[Loswr]

Regarding what I shoot in that range when traveling, it would be cityscapes/architecture, gardens, monuments and such outdoors, plus historic buildings and museums/aquariums indoors (when allowed). I'd also use the 6d for crowd shots and step in closer for some detail on individuals when I shoot events for local non-profits (my only semi-pro activity).

To be honest, you could use both. I really like my 35/1.4 (Canon L bought a couple of years ago, today I would quite possibly get the Sigma) as a nighttime walkaround lens. For architecture, 35mm often isn't wide enough (although the barrel distortion of the 24-105 is a problem for architecture). The IS on the 24-105 is good in museums - you get the f/1.4 shutter speed without the f/1.4 thin DoF.

 

[bholliman]

Buy the 24-105 as part of the kit -- you get it for $500 and can sell it for $600 to $800 depending where you are, how you do it, etc. Try the lens for a while and see if you like it, see if it meets your needs.

If you don't like the lens, sell it for more than you paid for it and get the 35.

+1 to Distant Star and Neuro's advise.

Buying the 24-105 as part of a 6D kit makes since economically, even if you later sell it and buy a 35mm. I think you will find a need for both lenses however.

Personally, I use my 24-105L AND 35L (and 50 1.4) frequently for different things. I use the primes for low light photography indoors and for evening outdoor shoots. I use the 24-105 for outdoor shots at f5.6/8 and up in good light. Also some for flash photography indoors.

 

[sdsr]

One thing you could do while pondering what to buy is attach your 17-40 to your 50D, set it to the equivalent of 35mm on FF (a bit less than 24mm) and spend a day wandering around using only that focal length and see how restricted you feel (if at all). I would find it too restricting, but that's me (I prefer details to scenes, so unless I expect to be inside my standard walkaround lens is more often than not my 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300L).

Regardless, though, I think buying the 24-105 as part of a kit makes the best sense financially, for all the reasons given so far by others. On FF you can get very nice background blur with it, by the way (though you'll want to be near 105 for optimal effect). Note that while the 35mm Sigma will make excellent background blur, you'll have to get pretty close to your subject, far closer than I would ever want to get to people (but again, that's me). If you do get the 24-105 first, wait and see how restricted you feel by *that*. You may be surprised at how well it performs, even in very low light (esp. on FF).

(I wouldn't overlook the new Canon 35mm IS either unless you're trying to minimize depth of focus.)

 

[miah]

I own the very flexible 24-105, but am considering the addition of a faster 35mm prime for nighttime walk-around. Though the Sigma f/1.4 gets rave reviews, I'm leaning towards the Canon f/2 for the IS and since "the Canon weighs 1/2 as much, is smaller and focuses closer," as stated here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=4092

That way, I can carry both lenses without adding too much weight/bulk to my [evening] kit.

 

[Quasimodo]

What do you plan to shoot while walking around with a 'walkaround' lens? A 35mm prime doesn't offer a lot of flexibility. FWIW, f/4 on FF is like f/2.5 on APS-C for DoF. The 24-105L is a great general purpose lens on FF.

So if am getting this right my 135 is actually f 3.2 on my wife's 600D? Is this true even if it does not exist any FF options? I am contemplating the new x100s and it has a 35mm equivalent, and a f2.0. Does this mean that it is really 35mm f3.2?

 

[Quasimodo]

What do you plan to shoot while walking around with a 'walkaround' lens? A 35mm prime doesn't offer a lot of flexibility. FWIW, f/4 on FF is like f/2.5 on APS-C for DoF. The 24-105L is a great general purpose lens on FF.

RE keeping the 50D, at low ISO the 6D image cropped to the APS-C FoV will give equivalent IQ (but only 7.8 MP); above ISO 800 the cropped 6D's IQ will be better.

Just re-read. Is it opposite? I.e. That the 600D and 135 is actually f1.25?

 

[Loswr]

So if am getting this right my 135 is actually f 3.2 on my wife's 600D? Is this true even if it does not exist any FF options?

Yes, for equivalent DoF, the 'crop factor' applies to aperture as well - the APS-C equivalent to the 135/2 on FF is a hypothetical 189mm f/3.2 lens. The FoV changes because of the smaller sensor; the DoF changes because to get the same framing with the cropped FoV, you need to be further from the subject (e.g. to take a head shot, you're further with a 135mm lens on APS-C than FF), and increased distance means deeper DoF. Exposure isn't affected (metering is the same), although obviously you can use a higher ISO on FF for the same amount of noise.

 

[Quasimodo]

So if am getting this right my 135 is actually f 3.2 on my wife's 600D? Is this true even if it does not exist any FF options?

Yes, for equivalent DoF, the 'crop factor' applies to aperture as well - the APS-C equivalent to the 135/2 on FF is a hypothetical 189mm f/3.2 lens. The FoV changes because of the smaller sensor; the DoF changes because to get the same framing with the cropped FoV, you need to be further from the subject (e.g. to take a head shot, you're further with a 135mm lens on APS-C than FF), and increased distance means deeper DoF. Exposure isn't affected (metering is the same), although obviously you can use a higher ISO on FF for the same amount of noise.

Ok, thanks. I learn something new every day

 

[Quasimodo]

I've been pretty happy with my 50D kit for general travel/nature/event photography, but I've been wanting to pick up a FF camera to achieve shallower DOF more easily for portraits and lower noise when shooting indoor events (e.g. my son's plays in dark theaters). I downloaded RAW samples from DPR for the 50D, 6D and 5D Mark III and played with them all in LR 4, and I was shocked at the difference between either FF and 50D (easily 2 stops in noise and better contrast across the board). I was leaning towards a 5D mark III, but I just can't justify the extra cash (as an amateur) and don't want the extra bulk and weight for travel, so I've settled on a 6D for its smaller size and GPS.

My dilemma, though, is whether to buy the kit with 24-105L or skip it and put the $500 towards a Sigma 35 1.4 HSM. I already have a 17-40L, 70-200 F4is and 85 1.8, so that wouldn't leave too big a gap in FL, and since what I'm really missing with my 50D is DOF control the large aperture 35 seems really appealing (particularly after the reviews I've read here). The 35 at 1.4-2 looks better than 24-105 at 5.6-8 to my eye. I used to shoot fixed FL lenses exclusively in my film days, so I know the pluses/minuses of that from a creativity standpoint and have no problem "zooming with my feet".

Any opinions of 24-105 vs 35 1.4 for a walk-around would be appreciated. Either way I intend to keep the 50D for now (probably bolted to the 100-400L for zoo/wildlife work).

Thanks

-Wade

Get both

For a walkaround the 24-105 is brilliant. To get creative, or low light, or street,- get the 35/1.4. I have both and they are both great, but with different uses. I had however a strange flarephenomenon that affected sharpness on the 35, as I wrote about in another thread here. The result is that I don't use it in studio, but for many other situations.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When I first bought my 35mmL, I put it on my 5D MK II and went to a local Fair and used it the entire day for walking around. It generally worked out well for that. Then, a couple of weeks later, I took it to a nearby limestone cave and made use of the wide angle and f/1.4 with no flashes allowed, it was great for that, but I could have used a longer focal length at times.

Once, I neglected to bring my 85mm into a Monster Truck show where I was photographing a friend who was driving. That was a big mistake, but I did the best I could, and the crops came out surprisingly well.

However, there are some places where a telephoto is needed, and the zoom comes in handy. I'd buy the 24-105 with the kit, its a huge bargain, and add a 34mm later. The 24-105 really shines on a APS-C camera, but 24mm is not always wide enough.

24-105 on 5D MK II at a play f/4 in low light

35mmL on 1D MK III extreme crop

 

[wsheldon]

One thing you could do while pondering what to buy is attach your 17-40 to your 50D, set it to the equivalent of 35mm on FF (a bit less than 24mm) and spend a day wandering around using only that focal length and see how restricted you feel (if at all). I would find it too restricting, but that's me (I prefer details to scenes, so unless I expect to be inside my standard walkaround lens is more often than not my 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300L).

Regardless, though, I think buying the 24-105 as part of a kit makes the best sense financially, for all the reasons given so far by others. On FF you can get very nice background blur with it, by the way (though you'll want to be near 105 for optimal effect). Note that while the 35mm Sigma will make excellent background blur, you'll have to get pretty close to your subject, far closer than I would ever want to get to people (but again, that's me). If you do get the 24-105 first, wait and see how restricted you feel by *that*. You may be surprised at how well it performs, even in very low light (esp. on FF).

(I wouldn't overlook the new Canon 35mm IS either unless you're trying to minimize depth of focus.)

I had the same thought yesterday about using my 17-40L + 50D set to about 22mm, so I'll definitely do that exercise. Good advice.

But I'm convinced that the 24-105mm will be a good investment no matter which way I go on the 35, so I'll probably end up with both. Once I get a FF I'm not likely to use my 50D + 10-22mm for landscape/interior shots, since I already have the 17-40, so I can sell that for ~$500. Great lens on crop, but from what I've seen the improved micro-contrast and tonality on FF will give me better results for that type of photography.

Thanks to all. Good stuff.

And I love those fair and track shots from Mt. Spokane Photography. Really inspiring work! Definitely the style of photography I admire.

 

[Camerajah]

dont think the that wide zoom will fit on the full frame

 

[wsheldon]

dont think the that wide zoom will fit on the full frame

No, you're right that it won't fit. It's an EFS so crop-only. That's why I don't think I'll use it.

 

[wsheldon]

Just some followup - I went ahead and bought the 6D + 24-105L kit, and I'm really impressed with both. The distortion at 24mm is pretty extreme but Lightroom's lens profile and the 6D corrections for in-camera Jpegs are quite effective so I can live with that. Background blur isn't as easy to achieve as I'd hoped (not bad at 105/f4 up close, but not awesome), but I have a 85/1.8 and that's wonderful on this camera for blurring the background for portraits. The 24-105L corners are great compared to my 17-40L even on crop so that's a welcome change. (On the other hand the 17-40 corners on FF are really bad at 17mm - nothing like the 10-22 at 10mm on the 50D).

I'll definitely keep the 24-105 for versatility and plan to add a fast 24 or 35 down the road. Thanks for all the advice.

 

[PureShot]

Hi, i have 24-105mm, last week i make few test with new tamron 24-70mm and sigma 35mm
my decision iam stay with 24-105mm the reason the 24-105 have a better range and the picture quality is very near to tamron. the sigma 35mm is very good but iam prefer stay with my tamron 90mm di macro for my utilization Portrait and macro. here http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330641-USA/Tamron_AF272C700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html#

 

[TommyLee]

if I may say
with a 5d3

a 24-105 is a great lens... for walkaround
24mm is actually pretty wide... and that lens is accurate and sharp too

but also you WILL have 'special needs'

super wide (I also sometimes bring a 14mm II...)
and for fast 'normal' the 35 f1.4 SIGMA...it really is better than the 35L... used both a lot...

then a 135 f2...
now you can do cafes' at night... portraits with more blur...
and a 12mm ext tube... and/or a diopter lens ... ..for OCCASIONAL macros... they also work on 24-105...

and I keep a tam sp pro 1.4x TC...for some more reach ....with 135mm f2 ==> 189mm f2.8
so now I have all the options

14mm, 24-105mm, 35 f1.4 fast, 135 f2/189mm fast... and some macro

camera and 4 lenses is a complete kit - IMO

start with the 24-105.. then .....consider a fast companion......like 35 1.4...
that pair is already almost a complete kit

maybe super wide 14m..........maybe fast tele (135mm)..

this really is a pretty complete kit...extended


I have ....70-200 (f4 and f28) but they are bigger and heavier.... the others go out more...

back to 24-105............ the basic start point...add specialty things as you go/grow

just my opinion

plus these are avail used..... and are medium priced lenses...

6D looks sensitive.. it will love the 35 1.4 (sigma OR Canon) and 135 f2 ...as you add them....
even from the used market...



TOM

p.s
I used to carry the hood from the 35L 1.4.... and use it on the 135 too.. saved space...handy
they are a kit in themselves..

then add 14L II
and the 24-105 is flex and quick response lens...

hope you get the 24-105 first..... then ONE specialist lens...at a time

enjoy