# Going FF very soon; what to do about lenses?



## ScottyP (Dec 16, 2012)

Hi,

I am going full frame. Soon. Nearly dove in on Cyber Monday. Now just stalking prices.
I may get 5D3, or I may go 6D. Either way, I obviously need a new "walking around lens". I will be keeping the T3i body but I will be selling the wonderful 17-55 f/2.8 zoom lens. I already have a 70-200 f/2.8 mk2. I also have the nifty firty 1.8.

I have never shot FF before. I am wondering if for the "normal lens" I should either:

1.) Get the 24-105 f/4 at the nice discount for package/kit deal, or
2.) Just get a prime (85mm?) (50mm?) and live with it, or
3.) Wait for 24-70 f/4?

I know I need a walk-around lens. I worry that only a prime or primes would be too hard to work? 

I am also aware that you get a serious discount if you buy the lens with the camera, so the 24-105 looks great.

I could MAYBE do the 6D plus 24-70 f/2.8 mk2, though it would be a real stretch.

There is no way I could do more than the 24-105 if I bought the 5D3.

Should I go 6d instead? I know the advice is usually to go lenses first and then bodies.

ALSO, what about a cheap 50mm or 85mm? Supposedly Sigma is getting good at these for the price?

Sorry for so many questions.

I shoot:
Portraits of my elementary school kids, and
Some non-serious kid soccer, and
Candids of the family, and
misc., and
who knows?

Thanks!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 16, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am going full frame. Soon. Nearly dove in on Cyber Monday. Now just stalking prices.
> I may get 5D3, or I may go 6D. Either way, I obviously need a new "walking around lens". I will be keeping the T3i body but I will be selling the wonderful 17-55 f/2.8 zoom lens. I already have a 70-200 f/2.8 mk2. I also have the nifty firty 1.8.
> ...


For "walk-around" go for the 24-105 .... You will get a really good deal if you buy it as a kit with either the 5D MK III or 6D.
I've never used the 6D ... but I have the 5D MK III and I would highly recommend it ... with 5D 3's incredible high ISO capabilities the 24-105 will do more than a 17-55 f2.8 could on a 7D (Just a few months ago I had the 7D & 17-55 f/2.8 IS ... Which I sold to fund the 5D 3 and couldn't be happier).
But if you for for 6D & 24-105, not only will u get a great deal (monetarily), you will probably have some more money left to buy an EF 85 f/1.8 or EF 28 f/1.8 or maybe one of the new Sigma primes everyone is raving about.
Happy shopping.


----------



## squidgyg (Dec 16, 2012)

6D is a fine camera if you do feel the need to stretch for a better lens, however have you considered the Tamron 24-70 VR? not too far off the IQ of the 24-70 mark ii and roughly the same price as the 24-105


----------



## bycostello (Dec 16, 2012)

the lightest one!!! i only say that half jokingly!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 16, 2012)

squidgyg said:


> however have you considered the Tamron 24-70 VR? not too far off the IQ of the 24-70 mark ii and roughly the same price as the 24-105



The Tamron, apart from a so-so af speed, is definitely is very far off Canon's 24-70ii concerning the sharpness except for the center. That might not matter much for some portrait or travel uses, but will for architecture or landscape. Sill a great value lens, if you get a good copy because Tamron's qc seems to be even more lacking than Canon's. But you can have the Tamron adjusted for free and it has 6 years warranty (Canon: 1y).



ScottyP said:


> 1.) Get the 24-105 f/4 at the nice discount for package/kit deal, or
> 2.) Just get a prime (85mm?) (50mm?) and live with it, or
> 3.) Wait for 24-70 f/4?



You should look at your current shots and determine how often you go from 70 to 105, i.e. if loosing the zoom range is an inconvenience even if you've got a 70-xxx lens.

You didn't write about your budget - Canon's 24-70/4 as a new lens is overpriced but seems good because of the newest IS system, near-macro capability and and supposedly better iq as the "old" 24-105, but the latter is an absolute steal when in a discounted kit (there are also lots of used lenses around). Otherwise if you want f2.8 for whatever reason on a budget have a look at the Tamron.


----------



## sanj (Dec 16, 2012)

Going by what you like to shoot, 24-105 is your best choice. It is my favorite walk around lens. Very versatile with IS....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2012)

For miscellaneous and who knows, the 24-105L is a great choice, and you can't beat the price as a FF kit lens. The 85/1.8 is great for portraits on FF.


----------



## learncanon (Dec 16, 2012)

Portraits of my elementary school kids - 50mm f1.8
Some non-serious kid soccer - 70-200 f4 non IS
Candids of the family - iPhone 5 camera

cheap and cost efficient.

low input=high output
what a great way to enjoy photography


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 16, 2012)

For your needs, I vote for 6D + 27-70 f2.8 II. Since you already have 70-200, 6D + 24-70 f2.8 II and 70-200 is a super combo, exccept shooting soccer game. It's do able, will be little challenge though 

24-105 is just 24-105, nothing special about it.....however the 24-70 f2.8 II is a ANOTHER diff story 

Here are couple shots of 24-70 under normal and low light with 5D III. The 2nd photo was cropped almost 70%.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 16, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> 1.) Get the 24-105 f/4 at the nice discount for package/kit deal, or
> 2.) Just get a prime (85mm?) (50mm?) and live with it, or
> 3.) Wait for 24-70 f/4?
> 
> ...



You already have a good cheap 50mm, so I don't think that should be a priority at this stage at all; replace it with another of the same or something else if it breaks. If you want a fast prime for portraits, try the 85 1.8 or, even better, the 135L - but as those lengths are covered by your 70-200, I would wait until you see how *that* lens performs for portrait work on your FF; you may find it's (more than) good enough, at least to start.

Since you already have 70-200, it may seem silly to recommend a lens that overlaps with it, but the 24-105 is, as others say, excellent as an all-purpose walk-around lens (it seems as light as a feather after the 70-200), especially if you use software to straighten out the distortion at the wide end; quite a bargain if acquired as a kit lens. If you avoid an overlap by getting 24-70 you lose versatility and convenience, and at great expense. But if you prefer to take that route, consider the recent Tamron unless you take the sort of photos where corner sharpness really matters (nothing on your list suggests it does). Regardless of whether you get a 6D or 5DII, I would be inclined to start with the 24-105 until you get familiar enough with how your lenses work on FF and then decide what you need/want next.


----------



## robbymack (Dec 16, 2012)

Get the 24-105 in the kit. If not then the tamron 24-70, the new canon is sure nice, but for another $1000 youre better off saving that for the little ones college fund especially since the tamron has vc which is nice whether shooting still subjects in really low light or like me have a wife with shaky hands .


----------



## Bluesmachine (Dec 16, 2012)

Might be an idea to get the kit lens if you have nothing else. That being said, due to the way I look at things I really prefer the 85L on my 5dmk3 and prior to that, loved the Sigma 50mm 1.4 on the 60D. Now that being said, there is a lot of talk about a new 85mm coming out, so maybe get the Sigma 85mm. I've seen that getting rave reviews recently.


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 16, 2012)

The 6d and the 24-70 ii, it is a stellar lens. The 6d is a great camera, it actually has superior iso. And for portraits, the 24-70 would by important. And the af should work for soccer, I shoot with a 7 af point rebel, and I still get sharp in-focus images. you may just not benefit enough from the 5d mark iii. The 6d would also be a good partner with your t3i, if your used to it, and like the performance other than the sensor, the 6d will work very well. Soccer is only a secondary subject for you, it is hard to find a camera that addresses more than one of your needs, that is one of the reasons the 1d series was such a success.

6d


----------



## dswatson83 (Dec 17, 2012)

The new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II is an awesome lens. However, the price is very high and the improvements are there but not extremely significant. Instead I would look 2 lenses you can get for the same price as the 1 Canon: Look at the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC as a walk around lens because it ads stabilization and has better sharpness than the version 1 Canon 24-70 f/2.8 so it is plenty good enough. It's also only $1300. Then look for a wider prime lens like a 50 or 35mm that looks good wide open. I'm disappointed with the 50mm lenses available right now but i'm a big supporter of the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. This lens is beautiful, built extremely well, and the tests are showing unbelievable sharpness wide open: 
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review


----------



## Botts (Dec 17, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> 1.) Get the 24-105 f/4 at the nice discount for package/kit deal, or
> 2.) Just get a prime (85mm?) (50mm?) and live with it, or
> 3.) Wait for 24-70 f/4?



You should look at your current shots and determine how often you go from 70 to 105, i.e. if loosing the zoom range is an inconvenience even if you've got a 70-xxx lens.

You didn't write about your budget - Canon's 24-70/4 as a new lens is overpriced but seems good because of the newest IS system, near-macro capability and and supposedly better iq as the "old" 24-105, but the latter is an absolute steal when in a discounted kit (there are also lots of used lenses around). Otherwise if you want f2.8 for whatever reason on a budget have a look at the Tamron.
[/quote]

He's already using a 24-70 (effectively), and a 70-200mm. Losing the long end (losing the crop) on the 70-200mm may be more of a concern. He may want to consider a teleconverter even?

The OP may even want to consider buying the kit, and then reselling the 24-105mm that comes with it. It's what I did, and I sold it for $850. That'd get him most of the way to the 24-70/4 IS or the Tamron 24-70/2.8 IS.

If he is coming from a 17-55/2.8, despite the ISO advantages of the 5D3/6D, there's a good chance he may still want IS and 2.8. If he is shooting evening landscapes or evening family group shots hand held, then any aperture/IS advantage will likely come in handy. Going from the Tamron 2.8 to the Canon 4, would be the difference between 3200-6400, or 6400-12800, which is certainly noticeable if printing larger. Noise reduction would wipeout any sharpness advantage of the 24-70/4, doubly so the 24-70/2.8 as it doesn't have IS.

He may want to trade sharpness for the aperture (and thus noise) advantage, depending on his shooting habits.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> For miscellaneous and who knows, the 24-105L is a great choice, and you can't beat the price as a FF kit lens. The 85/1.8 is great for portraits on FF.



Ditto. +1 The 24-105 was my first L lens and that was on crop. It's a great deal for a lens when packaged with the body. Just do that first. Don't over think it. The 85/1.8 is pretty inexpensive and a fantastic portrait lens. Get that too if you like. And the 24-105 isn't bad for portraits either. Don't buy any more lenses for a while. Learn to use those first. Buy lighting or reflectors or books. Enjoy the camera. Don't get too caught up in the equipment. Heck, you already have a 70-200! You'll be set for a while. How do you plan to carry it all? Good storage or carry systems aren't cheap either.

Enjoy your FF camera!!


----------



## tpatana (Dec 18, 2012)

I'm in the same process now. I already sold all my EF-S lenses, and bought 24-105 and 70-200. (and 50/1.4).

Waiting for good deal on the 5D3 and then it's bye bye 7D.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 18, 2012)

RustyTheGeek said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > For miscellaneous and who knows, the 24-105L is a great choice, and you can't beat the price as a FF kit lens. The 85/1.8 is great for portraits on FF.
> ...



Good advice. I think I can make do very nicely with the 24-105 and maybe an 85 f/1.8 prime.

I am thinking that dark/dim shooting is worth more to me than fancy sports shooting. At least until my little ones get faster! That gives me 4 or 5 years. I think I will wait for the 6D plus 24-105 to finally drop a few hundred below $2699 at B&H or Adorama, then grab it.


----------



## elflord (Dec 18, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I know I need a walk-around lens. I worry that only a prime or primes would be too hard to work?


Depends on what you take pictures of when you "walk around" 



> Should I go 6d instead? I know the advice is usually to go lenses first and then bodies.
> *Maybe (or maybe the 5DII which is a steal right now), but not if the reason is to get the 24-70 mkII *
> Portraits of my elementary school kids, and
> *70-200mm and the 50mm f/1.8 has you covered*
> ...



You have all the bases covered for the short term. So my suggestion would be to shoot with the 50mm f1.8 and the 70-200mm for a while and see what you find yourself missing 9e.g. do you find yourself wanting to fill the gap at the wide end, or do you want a good portrait prime like the Sigma 85 ?) 

The only lens worth considering right now is the 24-105, and only then because you get it at a discount if you buy it with the body, AND it would be a nice addition to what you already have. But then you'll always have the opportunity to spend money later if you don't do so now


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 18, 2012)

Put in the same shoes, I'd rather get a 17-40 F4L. You need a UWA if you're taking a lot of landscapes. The 50mm can serve as your walk-around lens (or you may replace it with the 40mm pancake or 50mm F1.4 if you want). You've already got the 70-200 as your tele. 24-105 will just be redundant.


----------

