So I made the jump to FF - now what?

[Pi]

Also, no IS on the 135 is a big factor, even without extenders.

fwiw, the 135 L is my favorite lens on my FF body. I am personally in the camp that believes IS is a crutch to too many shooters. A TON of great images were created before it's inception and if you have a high ISO capable body such as the 5D3 or 1Dx it's not an issue. This lens resolves like no other in my arsenal and has the most fabulous contrast and color rendition.

I own the 135L, and I consider it the best lens I own or have used. But ... speaking about 135 + extenders, lack of IS is a big problem. BTW, tons of great images were painted before photography was invented.

 

[Loswr]

How do people feel about the 135L with an extender?

It takes the extender ok, but it will lose to the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II in IQ/IS. If you don't have 70-200L zoom, then 135 + extender is a good way to extend the focal length range.

Do you think it is better than the 70-300?

The 135L + 1.4x is definitely not better than the 70-300L (but it's pretty similar to the 70-300 non-L).

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

So I finally made the jump and upgraded my T2i to a 6D. I am LOVING it. I know that there are lots of critics out there that have negative things to say about the 6D, but being an amateur / hobbyist, I could not be happier. The one downside (which I obviously knew going into this) was not being able to use my EF-S lenses (Canon 10-22 and Tamron 18-270) so I am in the process of selling those.

I currently have the Canon 24-105 and the Canon 50 f/1.8 lenses for the 6D. I don't have a substantial budget, but I am thinking that I need to get a zoom lens as well. What do people recommend? I am currently between the following:

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens (I know there are always rumors of this lens being upgraded - but let's put that aside for now).
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens

Would appreciate thoughts of the group and especially experience from those with the Canon 6D who own any of the above lenses.

Thanks!

Looks like your looking for a longer lens based on the list. I know it just got discontinued, but, if you can find a copy of the 70-200 2.8 (the non-IS version) snag it. Price wise it shouldn't be too bad. It's a great lens and I see that other longer lenses without IS are on your list, so te lack of IS shouldn't be an issue.

Other options to consider -

85mm 1.8 is a great lens
135 is a great lens.

I'd list more but that would probably mean selling stuff (like that 24-105)

 

[crasher8]

Also, no IS on the 135 is a big factor, even without extenders.

fwiw, the 135 L is my favorite lens on my FF body. I am personally in the camp that believes IS is a crutch to too many shooters. A TON of great images were created before it's inception and if you have a high ISO capable body such as the 5D3 or 1Dx it's not an issue. This lens resolves like no other in my arsenal and has the most fabulous contrast and color rendition.

I own the 135L, and I consider it the best lens I own or have used. But ... speaking about 135 + extenders, lack of IS is a big problem. BTW, tons of great images were painted before photography was invented.

Bonus snarky points to you my friend!

 

[Vivid Color]

As others have posted, I do not recommend the 70-300 non-L. I can, however, highly recommend the 70-300L. I have one and love it. That said, It fits my needs, which may be different from yours.

 

[sdsr]

Among the zooms you mention I used to own the 70-300 IS and now own the 70-200 f/4 IS L and 70-300 L. Perhaps I had an unusually good copy of the 70-300 IS but while the 70-300 L does provide superior images, the superiority isn't glaringly obvious, and I bet it's far superior to your Tamron ultra-zoom at any length where they overlap. The 70-300 L is, however, plainly superior from a purely mechanical point of view - it's quite superbly made, has excellent stabilization and on my 6D never hunts for focus unless it's so dark I can hardly see what I'm trying to focus on, and even then it usually gets it right. The 70-200 f/4 IS is superb too, but I don't think I've used mine since I bought the 70-300, largely because I use the 70-300 at 300 a lot for background blur - 300 does that better than 200. Coming from APS-C, depending on how you used your Tamron superzoom you may well find yourself limited by a 70-200. If you doubt you'll want to go beyond 200mm, toss a coin between those two.

(I've only rented the 100-400, and maybe the copy I rented wasn't a particularly good one, but it didn't seem quite as good to me - mechanically or otherwise - as the 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300 L, and I actively disliked the fussy bokeh it conjured up on busy detail fairly close to the subject.)

 

[rahkshi007]

It actually depend what are you shooting.

For me if best value lens are:

Landscape:

17-40mmL , if got better budget get 16-35mm L II

Portrait:

135mmL , if got better budget get 85mmL II

Low light event:

70-200mmL non is, if got better budget get the IS II version

 

[7enderbender]

It all depends on what you want to do with it. All the lenses you list are very good all-purpose lenses. If you have anything more specific in mind there may be alternatives.

Somebody mentioned it already but I would always start with a 135L for the longer end before buying expensive big fast heavy zoom lenses - or settle on a lighter and cheaper f/4 lens. But again that all depends on use and preferences.