So I made the jump to FF - now what?

[bglanzbe]

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!

 

[Loswr]

If you absolutely need 400mm, get the 100-400L. Else, I'd recommend the 70-300L. Avoid the 70-300 non-L, I suspect you won't be happy with the IQ, particularly between 200-300mm. The 70-200/4L IS is an excellent lens, too - but I think the extra 100mm of the 70-300L is worth the trade off of a variable aperture and loss of 1/3-2/3 stop. The 70-300L is heavier, but also more compact than the 70-200/4, the former fits vertically in many packs while the 70-200/4 needs to lie flat and thus take up more space.

EDIT: I should add that since you're coming from a FF equivalent of 432mm on the long end of your Tamron superzoom, 300mm will be shorter than you're used to, if you used the long end of the zoom. But I bet you'll find that cropping 300mm on the 6D gives you better IQ than 270mm on the T2i. Cropping from a 200mm 6D shot to the framing of 270mm on your T2i won't leave you very many MP...

 

[alexanderferdinand]

Depends on you, what you prefer.
I would take the 70-200/4 IS. Sharp, better IS then the 100-400.
Didn't dislike the 100-400, but the IQ was - lets say- ok. And 5.6 at the long end forced me often to choose ISO 3200 for a 1/320- 1/500 on a shady day.
Have fun choosing!

 

[-Jarred-]

I'd suggest upgrading the 50 1.8 to a 1.4.

The 70-200 f4L IS would be my pick out of the ones you mention if I had the budget for it, perhaps consider a 70-200 2.8L non IS.

 

[ahab1372]

+1 on the 70-300mm L, it is a great lens, great IQ, great IS, and short enough when retracted to fit in a lot of bags. for example, it fits vertically in my ThinkTank Urban Disguise 60 with lens hood in shooting position and camera attached.
I was not impressed by the 70-300 non-L when I rented it.

Also +1 on the 100-400 - it really depends on what you shoot. For birds/wildlife the extra reach will be useful. I used to shoot the 70-300 on a T3i, and still love it on full frame, but I'm thinking about replacing it with the 100-400 for that reason (or maybe adding a 100-400, or another 400mm option).

 

[Loswr]

For birds/wildlife the extra reach will be useful. I used to shoot the 70-300 on a T3i, and still love it on full frame, but I'm thinking about replacing it with the 100-400 for that reason (or maybe adding a 100-400, or another 400mm option).

I now have both the 100-400L and the 70-300L. If I had bought the 70-300L first, I'd have been tempted to consider the 400/5.6L instead of the 100-400L, especially for BIF. Only downside (other than lack of IS, not needed for BIF) is the long physical length compared to the 100-400.

 

[Cristi]

Hi,

I own a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM and I must say it's an absolutely amazing lens, everything is perfect with this one and I love it. I use only L lenses on my camera and between L and non-L it's a huge difference. Aside from the build quality, fast focusing, ergonomics, the IQ is greatly improved, it's like night and day. Besides this, I only would go for lenses with stabilization on them. At that reach, of 200mm or more it's very difficult to shoot without IS. You would need to bump up the shutter speed and ISO at the same time to compensate the loss of stops. The 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM has a 4-stop IS that really works brilliantly.

I only talk about what I have, I can't pronounce myself with the other ones, but also depends on what you are planning to do. For people, for subjects that aren't so far away, a 70-200mm is perfect, but if you're planning wildlife for example, I'll go for something towards 400mm.

 

[Dylan777]

Congrats...welcome to FF world

Highly recommend one of these:

1. 70-200 f2.8 IS II - if budget allows

OR

2. 135L

 

[AprilForever]

What to do? Mostly be sad that nothing is in focus anymore!!!

What do you shoot?

 

[retina]

I would get;
70-200mm f/4 IS
85mm f/1.8
and a speedlight

 

[JPAZ]

I had a 70-200 f/4 IS when I made the jump from crop to FF. If I did not, I'd have gotten the 70-300 L instead. The 70-200 is just too nice to let it go, so I'm holding onto it for now. Then, along came a good deal on the 100-400 refurb a few months back.......

I tend to shoot travel / people photos and frankly, cropping from my 24-105 is usually all I need (recently learned this lesson) so the long guns only come out for special times.

There is no one best answer here.

 

[duydaniel]

You will realize that it would be better off staying in cropped format.
That was my initial thoughts when going from Nikon D5100 to 5D3.

 

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

I agree with selling the 50mm ƒ1.8 and getting the ƒ1.4. Better build quality, better lens. Because of your having the superzoom from Tamron, I would suggest the 70-200mm ƒ2.8 from them as your next zoom. Both lenses with UV filters will run you under $2000. And with the sale of the other lenses and the nifty fifty, maybe under @$1200 out of pocket after all lenses you want to get rid of sell!!

Gary W.

 

[TonyMM]

I also made the jump from crop to 6D. I had 70-200L f4 and immediately saw the improvement in IQ -- and the higher ISO capability of the 6D makes crops from the 70-200 that look great, I have not felt the need for longer lens yet. of course, if you more regularly do wildlife, birds, etc., you may want to go longer - but the utility and build of the 70-200L is really pretty good.....

Tony M

 

[bglanzbe]

Tony - do you feel like you need the IS?

 

[cycomachead]

I made the jump to FF a few months ago, and will still keep my 7D, and it's still enough smaller to make a difference.

Then I realized I needed the 16-35... So I bought one. Welp. That was an expensive month! :O I also realized 5D3 raws are pretty darn big so I bought memory cards.

Still, it's so worth it!

 

[TommyLee]

not knowing WHAT you like to shoot

but
for me...I have a bunch of lenses..
and I regularly RETHINK what I NEED to do things..

I would say the number one lens used to be my 100mm macro (both versions were owned)
BUT the fav lens is the 35mm sigma f1.4 ...I would skip 50's and get this first
it will define low light shooting .... I am very sure

then...one USE of FF is realizing the wide-angle..
SO... immediately after financial recovery...
get either.. a 14mm II (expensive) or a 16-35 II......(almost as expensive)

finally for a little reach ...either a 135L f2 (with a 12mm tube), or the 100mm macro..

or for bigger reach.... a longer zoom like 70-200 f4 I.S. or f2.8 II... both are the tops...
those zooms get pretty useful for sports/action ...and even portraits...
but I would put that option down lower on the list...

wide...fast normal (35mm) ....and long/fast prime... CARRY-ABLE stuff

all the rest are very specialized ... and IMO... less needed..unless YOU are specialized...
then you NEED THEM

MAYBE 14mm II, 35mm Sigma and a 70-200 f2.8 (1.4x TC too) if you really want all that reach...

I could see starting with a 35 sigma and the 70-300L as mentioned
as the only two at first .....THEN an ultra - wide as $$ Permit...

I enjoyed / owned a lot of the good lenses but I come back to these limited choices...especially when I have to carry them anywhere

I admit to a 24-105 zoom as a staple..... a very good one... but the 'edge' comes from the primes...IMO

by the way
I dont use a tripod and seldom use a flash.. but weddings and such etc would need the flash

just some samples from the fav lenses

/////////////
6D is supposed to be sensitive...that would really work the sigma 35 f1.4 nice and hard...

enjoy the camera...dont miss 'wide' experiences...

TOM

 

[ahab1372]

I now have both the 100-400L and the 70-300L. If I had bought the 70-300L first, I'd have been tempted to consider the 400/5.6L instead of the 100-400L, especially for BIF. Only downside (other than lack of IS, not needed for BIF) is the long physical length compared to the 100-400.

I agree, I have been reading the reviews already
To the OP, that could be your long term plan as well - if you are interested in birds at all. As a general purpose (travel) zoom, I'd recommend the 70-300L

 

[JBeckwith]

You will realize that it would be better off staying in cropped format.
That was my initial thoughts when going from Nikon D5100 to 5D3.

Care to elaborate on this? Perhaps you were turned off by the learning curve going from Nikon to Canon and not so much crop to FF.

 

[cookinghusband]

Since you are on a tight budget

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, is cheap and acceptable IQ, lighter and versitile, you can also try 2nd hand one too at about $4-500. IQ is probably similiar or marginally worse comparing to the 70-200f4L in the 70-200 range.

do not buy 70-200 IS f4 L now, most people end up selling that to buy the F2.8 one instead, is better to save enough money and buy straight off. Also your 24-105 is overlapping half of its range already.

as for the 70-300mm L , sure it is very good but cost twice as much as the non-L also heavier too. may be wait for the next 100-400?