Buying Advice: What First Lens for a Full Frame?

[jdramirez]

+1 for the 85 1.8. Id still go with a 24-105L as your first ff lens for all around. But for a prime if you can afford the 350 or so it cost the 85 1.8 is a great lens. Very sharp, has a extremely fast focus. If it's over budget the 50 1.8 for 100 would be my next choice for a prime.

I still have my 24-105mm... it was my first L lens and I really liked it... though I'm not sure I would say I ever loved it...

I'm considering the sigma 24-70 f/2 if that ever becomes a reality... otherwise 24-105 is just fine. That's my I'm going to be outdoors and I don't know what I am going to photograph lens. Otherwise... if i know what is on the docket... I know which lens to take.

 

[emag]

No matter what else you get, be sure to get the 50/1.8. Dirt cheap and optically excellent. If it falls to the ground on a cold night while you're shooting astro because you foolishly placed it on the bumper and forgot........get another one. ;D

 

[jdramirez]

No matter what else you get, be sure to get the 50/1.8. Dirt cheap and optically excellent. If it falls to the ground on a cold night while you're shooting astro because you foolishly placed it on the bumper and forgot........get another one. ;D

I was more afraid of breaking my 50mm f/1.4 because of it's history with auto focus problems... so much so I didn't take it out more than I ever did my f/1.8...

 

[scottkinfw]

If you can afford the 24-70 2.8 II, you will be in heaven.

sek

 

[Ryan85]

+1 for the 85 1.8. Id still go with a 24-105L as your first ff lens for all around. But for a prime if you can afford the 350 or so it cost the 85 1.8 is a great lens. Very sharp, has a extremely fast focus. If it's over budget the 50 1.8 for 100 would be my next choice for a prime.

I still have my 24-105mm... it was my first L lens and I really liked it... though I'm not sure I would say I ever loved it...

I'm considering the sigma 24-70 f/2 if that ever becomes a reality... otherwise 24-105 is just fine. That's my I'm going to be outdoors and I don't know what I am going to photograph lens. Otherwise... if i know what is on the docket... I know which lens to take.

I wouldn't say I love the 24-105 but it's a good all purpose lens. The op says a first ff lens and is on a budget that's why I'd recommend the 24-105. Otherwise I'm with you go with the 24-70 2.8L 2

 

[candc]

Your 18-35 works really well at 35 on the 6d, its about as good as the 35 art in that respect.

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art is for APS-C only I thought.

Maybe there is a converter... and there is a crazy amount of vinetting...

no converter is needed. sigma lenses for canon are ef mount so they fit on ff. the image circle covers the ff sensor at the long end of the zoom range. the vignetting at 35 is correctable with software.

 

[FEBS]

For starting the my suggestion is the 24-105 f4L. Great lens, performance much better on FF then on APS-C

 

[e17paul]

.....I should also note that I'm on a very tight budget. ....

Then there's only one right answer, EF 50mm f/1.8 II.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_8_ii
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
It's built like a toy, seriously, like Hasbro quality. Canon should create a marketing arm for these that sounds like a Western Pacific mainland cheap rip off, Canhoon maybe?

Cheap feel aside, it's got great IQ, fast focus, f/1.8 is pretty fast for low light, a more or less natural perspective, you can't go wrong with it. It just works and works very well.

50's were the "Standard" lens way back when, they've been made so long they've been rather refined for quite a while.

Working with a prime's limitations sure sharpens one's compositional skill set, zoom with your feet and all that that statement implies.

The 40mm Pancake is a little more money, has a very solid, professional build quality feel.
At f/2.8 it's not as low light fast as the 50mm, doesn't focus anywhere near as snappy as the 50 though the 50 is sometimes too fast and overshoots then hunts back.
The 40mm has an STM (stepping motor) for focusing that is both a curse and a feature.
The STM makes a groan/whine noise when running, non-mechanical and fully electronic focus goes to sleep rather quickly and then you cannot manual focus until you wake it again.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/870179-REG/Canon_40mm_f_2_8_EF_Pancake.html

+1
I started with only a 50/.8 II for my 6D, just as decades earlier I started with only a 50/1.4 for my OM-10. A 50 is surprisingly versatile, despite being a prime and not a zoom.

If a zoom is essential, the street price of the 24-105 STM is beginning to drop after its recent release, making it a more attractive alternative to the 24-105L. The 6D gives good results at higher ISO, so you can afford to lose a couple of stops of lens speed, providing you can achieve sufficient selective focus, if that is important to you.

 

[jebrady03]

2470 f2.8 ii

I see no smiley faces or winky faces to indicate that you're simply joking. You ARE joking, right?

OP, I feel like your 7D and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 are mismatched. Your camera is extremely durable and built for speed (can obviously be used for other things) and your lens is intended for low light, wide-normal angle, slower/more deliberate photography and (if I recall) isn't weather sealed in any way.

My recommendation would be to sell the Sigma and pair the 7D with a longer lens for reach limited photography. That usually crosses over with "action" photography as well which the 7D is well suited for. Then I'd pair the 6D with something wide-normal for every day shooting. Possibly a pair of primes (24 and 50, or even 35 and 100 for instance).

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

landscape, portrait, concert/music

landscape
No clue... I'd probably lead towards a Rokinon 14mm, but I'm not a wide angle guy.

portrait
85mm f/1.8 usm... very solid portrait focal length, sharp wide open, only around $350 or so used... andit can use used for concert... but it might be a touch short depending on how far you are.

concert/music
alternatively, the 100mm f/2 is a solid option. People don't talk much about it... but it does a solid job... and you get a touch more length.

Indeed, the uses to which the OP describes can only be properly served (on a budget) with prime lenses.

I strongly recommend Canon 100mm F2 for musical concerts and portraits. A lens forgotten by many, and almost as good as 135mm L.

Landscapes be well made with Samyang 14mm, but 40mm pancake could one supplement the set in the landscape where the exaggerated perspective is not desirable.

 

[Triggyman]

If you want prime:

EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and/or the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

If you want zoom:

EF 24-70 f/4 IS USM (if you are living in Canada it's on sale at $799 - about $600 off from regular price).
or
EF 24-105 f/4 IS USM

If you don't want "L" lenses, the you could consider the new 24-105 STM but I am not sure if it's available already for purchase.

 

[martti]

You do not want the Rokinon 14mm as your first lens. It is a fully manual lens which means that you have to focus it manually wide open after which you stop it down. It has a very peculiar type of distortion that you can correct in Lightroom with the proper profile. You do not want to look at the horizon or any other line that is supposed to be straight photographed with this lens without profile correction.
After you have done all this you get ridiculously sharp pictures with the real-wide feel. There are lots of them on the used market as people get tired of them pretty soon. The price is 'right'. You do not expect miracles.

The 50mm f/1.8 has a plasticky feel but the photo quality is good. For all-around use it is a tad too long, especially in inside shots. The 40mm f/2.8 pancake is small, handy and sharp. I would recommend it as your first prime lens because of its usability. OK it opens only to 2.8 but you have plenty of ISOs on your 6D. Once you have lugged your camera around with an 'L' zoom lens a couple of months, you will appreciate the pancake.

I have had the 24-70 f/2.8 I for eight years now. If I do not know what I'll have to shoot, I put it on the camera.
Contrary to the belief, it is NOT built as a tank. In fact it is a fragile lens that goes out of alignment with the slightest bump. If you are considering a used 24-70 f/2.8 be very careful. It is very good when it is adjusted correctly but as you can read from various sites, there are lots of bad units in the market.

The 100mm f/2 is very good for portraiture. It is light, it focuses fast and its optical quality is excellent. If you go for primes, you would be well served by the 40mm and the 100mm.

If you want a zoom, probably the 24-105 f/4 L would be a long time companion. There are lots of them around second hand. That would be my first choice going zoomwise.

Sorry for the long posting.
(a potato)

 

[Twostones]

If you want prime:

EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and/or the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

If you want zoom:

EF 24-70 f/4 IS USM (if you are living in Canada it's on sale at $799 - about $600 off from regular price)
or
EF 24-105 f/4 IS USM

If you don't want "L" lenses, the you could consider the new 24-105 STM but I am not sure if it's available already for purchase.

I agree with Triggyman except i do not reccomend the 24-105 STM

 

[gregorywood]

I was surprised that no one had mentioned the 35mm f/2 IS until just a post or two up from here. Like you, I have both the 7D and the 6D and the 35mm is great on the 7D (55mm FF equivilent) and simply superb on the 6D. I can't recommend that lens enough.

For a zoom - no one has suggested the 17-40mm f/4L IS. It's versatile in that it gives you UWA on the 6D and a 28-65mm equivilent on the 7D. It can be had for around $600 on the Canon Refurb site at certain times.

The downside to the combo of those two is that the focal length overlaps. The quality produced by the 35mm f/2 IS is noticably better than the 17-40mm though, at least in my humble opinion.

Greg

 

[martti]

The 17-40 is an OK walkaround lens for the crop body. It would be better complimented with a short tele, 85mm or 100mm than the 35mm. The 17-40mm is good value.

 

[Marsu42]

The quality produced by the 35mm f/2 IS is noticably better than the 17-40mm though, at least in my humble opinion.

I find the iq of the 17-40L leaves nothing to be desired if used properly and with the purpose the lens is intended for. It's not a pj's run and gun lens though (get f2.8) or for low-light handheld in general (get IS)

 

[Triggyman]

If you want prime:

EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and/or the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

If you want zoom:

EF 24-70 f/4 IS USM (if you are living in Canada it's on sale at $799 - about $600 off from regular price)
or
EF 24-105 f/4 IS USM

If you don't want "L" lenses, the you could consider the new 24-105 STM but I am not sure if it's available already for purchase.

I agree with Triggyman except i do not reccomend the 24-105 STM

Now after reading reviews of the STM, I wouldn't recommend it either.

 

[timothetoad]

Wow! I appreciate all the responses.

After some research, it seems that the 24-70 f2.8 II is the most versatile option across all photography. But the obvious set back is the insane price point that's completely out of my budget.

May just stick with the 50mm 1.8 for now, until I land a decent job and save up for the lens.

Is the quality in optics noticeably better in the 50 1.4 compared to the 1.8?

 

[Ryan85]

I'd say the 24-105 is more versatile but that's another debate. The 24-70 2.8 2 is the better lens. To answer your question if your talking about the the canon 50 1.4 it's not noticeably better than the 1.8. It has a better build quality though. As far as sharp photos not much difference. Now if you're talking about the sigma 50mm art that's a different story

 

[martti]

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a very old design (1993). It is heavier and more expensive than the f/1.8.

photozone.de about the f/1.4:"The bokeh is generally good but not outstanding. Typical for such lenses there's quite a bit of bokeh fringing (LoCAs) at large apertures. The build quality on a decent level and a step up from the EF 50mm f/1.8 II but it doesn't reach the Sigma AF 50mm f/1.4 EX HSM here. The micro-USM AF drive operates pretty fast and near silent. All-in-all a sound offer at a sane price".


photozone.de about the f/1.8; "A more significant weakness of the lens is the rather nervous bokeh (out-of-focus blur) which may spoil the game in some shallow depth-of-field situations. At around 100EUR/US$ you can't expect superb build quality but frankly it's "good enough" here anyway and it's certainly one of the value kings out there".

pretty good reviews of all possible lenses here: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1