# So I made the jump to FF - now what?



## bglanzbe (Jul 7, 2013)

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!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2013)

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 (Jul 7, 2013)

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- (Jul 7, 2013)

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 (Jul 7, 2013)

+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).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> 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 (Jul 7, 2013)

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 (Jul 7, 2013)

Congrats...welcome to FF world 

*Highly recommend one of these:*

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

*OR*

2. 135L


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 7, 2013)

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

What do you shoot?


----------



## retina (Jul 7, 2013)

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


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 7, 2013)

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 (Jul 7, 2013)

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. (Jul 7, 2013)

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 (Jul 7, 2013)

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 (Jul 7, 2013)

Tony - do you feel like you need the IS?


----------



## cycomachead (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Jul 8, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> 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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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?


----------



## TonyMM (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> 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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> 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 (Jul 8, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > 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 might be too fat.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...


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 (Jul 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Congrats...welcome to FF world
> 
> *Highly recommend one of these:*
> 
> ...



+1 on the above lens


----------



## bglanzbe (Jul 8, 2013)

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


----------



## pedro (Jul 8, 2013)

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


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 8, 2013)

bglanzbe said:


> 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 (Jul 8, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> bglanzbe said:
> 
> 
> > How do people feel about the 135L with an extender?
> ...



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


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 8, 2013)

bglanzbe said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > bglanzbe said:
> ...



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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> 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.


----------



## Pi (Jul 8, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Also, no IS on the 135 is a big factor, even without extenders.
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2013)

bglanzbe said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > bglanzbe said:
> ...



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 (Jul 8, 2013)

bglanzbe said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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 (Jul 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...




Bonus snarky points to you my friend!


----------



## Vivid Color (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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 (Jul 8, 2013)

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.


----------

