opinions about my future set?

[HaveANiceDaisy]

Hi everyone! I've read countless topics here on CanonRumors and since everyone is so nice and helpful here I finally made an account! This is my first topic, i'd greatly appreciate any input!

So I've had a Rebel for a couple years now and feel like i've used it to its maximum potential and am finally (after intensely saving up) making the jump to a full frame, the 6D. The only lens I have that is EF is a 14mm f2.8 so that would be the only lens to start out with but I have 3 lenses in mind but only want to pick 2 out of the 3.
The 24-105 f4L and 70-200 f4L or Sigma 50 f1.4 and 70-200 f4L.
So here are some things that are making me confused. I mainly shoot landscapes and portraits and the 24-105 comes as a kit lens with the 6D totalling to more or less $500 as opposed to it's $800 if I were to buy it separately. I was thinking the Sigma 50 would be a good everyday lens but the kit price is so tempting! Do you think it would be a good idea to get the kit lens and sell it for possible $700 in which I could then profit a little bit and buy the 50? Has anyone used both of the two? would you say one is better than the other in terms of focusing and image quality? Also, if I were to keep the 24-105 do you think the overlapping focal length with the 70-200 is redundant? Will it cover the same length too much to the point where I should definitely get the sigma 50 and 70-200?

 

[Zv]

Buy the 6D with 24-105 kit. Sell it. Then use the money to buy either the 70-200 f/2.8 II or if that's too much try the 135L and maybe a Sigma 85 too. Don't waste time and money on the in between stuff. I have recently discovered f/4 is not enough for indoor shots of any kind. Though that said you will be able to push ISO a lot further with a 6D.

Are you doing outdoor portraits? Studio? Events?

 

[yablonsky]

I found that 14mm is too wide on FF. Sell the 14mm and get a 17-40 4L and a 70-200 4L IS. This combo is very versatile for landscape and travel and not too heavy to carry. I used that combo a lot. It's great!

 

[Zv]

I found that 14mm is too wide on FF. Sell the 14mm and get a 17-40 4L and a 70-200 4L IS. This combo is very versatile for landscape and travel and not too heavy to carry. I used that combo a lot. It's great!

If it's too wide then just crop the image later in post. Better to have too wide than not wide enough. Though I do agree that the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 IS combo is light and very versatile. It's my standard go out and about combo with a 5D II.

 

[SDFilmFan]

The kit 24-105 will be very nearly as wide on the 6D as a 14mm on your crop camera. I've never tried the Sigma 50mm, but I had the Canon 50 f1.8 and now have the Canon f1.4, and frankly I'd rather have the f4 and the IS of the 24-105 for indoor portraits.

I'd recommend you get the 24-105 and the 70-200 f4 IS. Actually, I'd really recommend you get the 24-105 and the 70-300L, as they are the two I use 90% of the time on my 5D2.

 

[Albi86]

Hi, having a FF without using primes IMHO is a crime

Having a 14mm you're covered for landscapes, at least at the moment. I would buy the 24-105 kit for general use and the 135L for portraits. Or even better, buy the Tamron 24-70 instead of the 24-105. For a tighter budget, a 85mm prime like the Canon f/1.8 USM or the Sigma f/1.4 are also very good on FF and around 135mm equivalent if you mount them on your crop.

 

[chauncey]

Photographers have two golden rule that say "never put cheap glass on a quality camera" and "bodies come and go but glass is forever".
I tied an aftermarket lens just one time...never again. Check your lens reviews and MTF characteristics, http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/Documents/digital_slr_educational_tools/en/ef_lens_work_iii_en.asp and reviews.
Go with a 70-200 for that first good lens, f/4 if your work is all outdoors or the more expensive f/2.8 if you may take it indoors.

 

[Random Orbits]

Get the 6D as a kit, try it for a while and then decide what the next move will be. If you decide to upgrade the midrange focal lengths you can always make a profit selling the 24-105. You might also consider getting the plastic fantastic, 50 f/1.8, (even cheaper used) with a 24-105 and 70-200. It won't add much to the cost and you get to decide how you like a 50mm prime before committing more to that focal length.

The 24-105 and 70-200 overlap, and for the overlap region, the 70-200 is better. That said, sometimes you just want to use one lens when going on a short jaunt and don't want to bring a larger or multiple lenses, so the 70-105 range is nice and is better than having nothing at all.

When I moved FF, I sold the 17-55 and replaced it with a 50 prime. So when I went anywhere, I found myself usually carrying at least two lenses: 16-35 and 50 or 50 and 70-200. It was a bit of a pain. The value of the 24-105 is its versatility; it'll lose the IQ battle to most other red rings.

 

[Zv]

I do agree that having one lens that covers wide to telephoto is very useful. I sometimes wish I had the 24-105L. However, if you are serious about portraits primes are the way to go. An 85 and a 135 and you're all set.

I also think one of the cheap 50's might be worth investing in. They really come in handy and on a FF you can can work in some real tight spaces.

So many ways you can spend your money that it really depends on your own shooting style. We could advise you all day long about this lens and that. But at the end of the day only you know what you actually need.