So I made the jump to FF - now what?

[TonyMM]

Blaganzbe: re "Tony - do you feel like you need the IS?"

Yes, I value it - I prefer to take macro shots off a tripod, but fairly often am roaming around prospecting and find subjects like dragonflies, butterflies and flowers when tripod is not handy - I can ramp up the ISO and shutter and handhold - I get the shot more often with IS than I would w/o, I think.


Tony M

 

[Northstar]

get the 70-200...awesome in many ways.

 

[JPAZ]

Now that you have a FF sensor, you can often crop a pic in post and still get what you want without losing much quality. Here's and example of a shot with the 24-105 then I'll follow with a "down and dirty" crop. No other post done on this yet but right out of the camera JPEG used. Starting with a RAW and doing some PP work ought to get a reasonable result even without the long lens.

JP

 

[Pi]

IMO, it is the choice between the 70-200/4 IS and the 70-300 L. Slightly more speed vs. slightly more range. Unlike Neuro, my 70-200 stays vertically in my bag and takes the same space as any other "normal" lens. The 70-300 would not fit in my bag, I guess.

 

[ahab1372]

IMO, it is the choice between the 70-200/4 IS and the 70-300 L. Slightly more speed vs. slightly more range. Unlike Neuro, my 70-200 stays vertically in my bag and takes the same space as any other "normal" lens. The 70-300 would not fit in my bag, I guess.

It probably would - it is shorter than the 70-200. See comparison here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=404&LensComp=738&LensComp2=687

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, my 70-200 stays vertically in my bag and takes the same space as any other "normal" lens. The 70-300 would not fit in my bag, I guess.

Must be a deep bag. The 70-300L is about 1" shorter than the 70-200/4L IS, and with the hoods reversed, they are about the same diameter. So the 70-300L will fit vertically in more bags than the 70-200/4 IS, and if the 70-200 fits vertically, the 70-300 will, too. Unless your bag somehow exists outside of normal space in defiance of the laws of physics...

EDIT: beaten to the punch with a detailed spec comparison...

 

[Pi]

IMO, it is the choice between the 70-200/4 IS and the 70-300 L. Slightly more speed vs. slightly more range. Unlike Neuro, my 70-200 stays vertically in my bag and takes the same space as any other "normal" lens. The 70-300 would not fit in my bag, I guess.

It probably would - it is shorter than the 70-200. See comparison here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=404&LensComp=738&LensComp2=687

It might be too fat.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

JPAZ makes a good point about the ability to crop full frame images. I'd add that it works best if you have a sharp lens.

I got a 24-105 to use on my 5D3 about a month ago and I'm still getting used to it. Today I cropped a tiny area out of an image to post online and was truly impressed with the quality.

Discussions like this one are mostly for fun, but I'll toss in my thoughts. I shoot mostly people. If my only lens was the 24-105, I'd start getting some prime lenses to use at wide apertures and separate the subject from the background. Any primes in the range from 50 to about 135 are very useful for this, and in fact that is where I have concentrated my prime purchases. The 135 L is a great people lens and could be used for sports with a bit of cropping. Its also not terribly expensive.

 

[adhocphotographer]

I would probably say save up until you have better idea of what you want, then you can have more choice with a larger budget... You will quickly realise if you need more width or length...

But if you really want to get something, I can understand that, then the 70-300L would be my choice!

Enjoy!

 

[Jay Khaos]

If it were me starting over with a 6D and 24-105, wanted a longer reach, but can't afford the 70-200 2.8 is ii, I'd get the 135 L. You sacrifice the reach/zoom convenience, but get (arguably) the sharpest lens canon makes under $2000, better low light. If doing casual photography, i think the benefits of fast aperture would be more appealing to me than zoom convenience. Awesome bokeh too.. Plus you can get the 135 for less than 1000 (I forget the exact price)...

 

[TAF]

If you're used to the long reach of a crop, and you're certainly you'll make use of it, the 70-300L is a superb lens.

(truth be told, however, I would wait a bit and see if you don't find that cropping images from your 24-105 isn't just as suitable - when I upgraded to the 5D3 I bought the 70-300L since I was so used to the 320mm equivalent on my 50D, yet I use it very little - I can usually just crop the long end of my 24-105)

I would also recommend the shorty 40. Very inexpensive, the IQ is amazing, and it's very convenient for those times you want to be subtle.

 

[ahab1372]

IMO, it is the choice between the 70-200/4 IS and the 70-300 L. Slightly more speed vs. slightly more range. Unlike Neuro, my 70-200 stays vertically in my bag and takes the same space as any other "normal" lens. The 70-300 would not fit in my bag, I guess.

It probably would - it is shorter than the 70-200. See comparison here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=404&LensComp=738&LensComp2=687

It might be too fat.

Well, just stretch the bag a bit
But seriously, If, I already owned a 70-200 and wanted more reach, I'd consider a 1.4x Extender, especially if I had more lenses that could benefit from it. Or buy a prime longer than 300mm

 

[kireeti]

Congrats...welcome to FF world

Highly recommend one of these:

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

OR

2. 135L

+1 on the above lens

 

[bglanzbe]

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

 

[pedro]

The 50 f 1.4 is a fine lens, works well for me.

 

[Random Orbits]

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.

 

[bglanzbe]

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?

 

[Random Orbits]

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 70-300L will have better IQ than the 135L + 2x. The 70-300L matches well against the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II. The 70-200L f/2.8 IS II focuses better on lower contrast targets, tracks better, and has a 1-2 stop advantage but is heavier than the 70-300L. The 70-300L is compact and lighter, costs less than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and delivers IQ that nearly matches the 70-200L over much of the overlapping range and is better at 300 than the 70-200 is at 280.

For those that shoot sports and portraits, the 70-200 f/2.8 II is the ultimate zoom lens but is heavy. It also takes extenders well. The 70-200 + 1.4x will nearly match the 70-300L at the long end and will be a stop faster, and the 70-200 + 2.0x will come close to 100-400L. The 70-300L is arguably the best travel lens. For controlled portraits or when trying to maximize discretion (although a dSLR with a L lens will likely be much larger than what many people use, i.e. cellphones) or going for the shallowest DOF/maximum background blur, the 135L is a good choice, but for most other use cases, the zooms are better.

 

[Pi]

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

 

[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.