# Advice...lens for my new Canon 6D



## froco (Jan 31, 2013)

Hello,


I just purchased Canon 6D. I need advice on what is the best lens to buy for portrait photography...or what kind of lens I am lacking?

These are the lenses that I already have:

Canon EF 50mm 1:1.8 II
Canon Zoom EF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 V USM
Canon Zoom EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III

any advise would be great! Thanks!!


----------



## bseitz234 (Jan 31, 2013)

For portrait, I'd start with the 85 f/1.8. If you tend to like tighter framed headshots, the 100 f/2 is almost identical except for being a slightly longer focal length. Otherwise, you've got most lengths covered except ultra-wide angle, so I'd think more about replacing lenses you're unhappy with rather than trying to complement...


----------



## d_biddles (Jan 31, 2013)

I'd have to concur with the above poster! The Canon 85mm 1.8 or Sigma 85mm 1.4 would both be exemplary


----------



## sdsr (Jan 31, 2013)

froco said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> I just purchased Canon 6D. I need advice on what is the best lens to buy for portrait photography...or what kind of lens I am lacking?
> ...



Lots of lenses make good portrait lenses (assuming by that you mean subject isolation + background blur), though which are most recommendable depends in part on what sort of portraits you're going to make and under what conditions. If you'll be fairly close, you'll want a shorter focal length (but probably not less than c. 70mm) and faster aperture. If you're going to be farther away, 200mm could be fine. Classic portrait primes are fast 85 and 135mm lenses. I'm especially partial to Canon's 100L and 135L and Sigma's 85mm 1.4, but either the much less expensive non-L Canon 85 or 100 might be a safer place to start, depending on your budget. Then again, you already have lenses which include those focal lengths. Do you want/need shallower focus? If nothing else, you can use the lenses you have to get a sense of which focal length you would prefer for portraits if you decide to go with a prime.

As for your second question - what am I lacking? - that's really up to you. Have you ever wished you had a lens that went wider or longer? Are you unhappy with the qualify of photos you take with the lenses you have? You would likely see an improvement (both in the resulting photos and the pleasure of simply using the lenses qua bits of machinery) if you replaced your zooms with, say, a 17-40L and 70-200/300L (it doesn't matter if you lack something between 40 and 70). Or with a 24-105L and 100-400L. Or you could go wild and get the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II. (And if you like the idea of making your camera as small as possible, you might consider the wonderful 40mm pancake lens.) If you're lucky enough to live somewhere with a good selection of lenses to rent - e.g. in the U.S. and thus will access to lensrentals - you could always experiment and see what you're (not) missing.


----------



## titokane (Jan 31, 2013)

I agree with most of the things the above posters have said. The 24-105 is great in many situations and very sharp, but lacks the subject isolation you might want for getting creative with a portrait. The 85 1.8 is my favorite lens for this, and is the lens on my 6D most of the time I'm doing portrait-type work. It's not razor sharp at 1.8, but at 2.8 you've got good sharpness and a narrow DOF.


----------



## Dantana (Jan 31, 2013)

+1 on the 85 1.8

My wife bought me one this past Christmas and it's hardly left my camera. 

Of course I'm on a crop and you're FF, so it won't be quite as long for you but I think you will get even better DOF separation.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 31, 2013)

An alternate to the 85mm f/1.8 (which I have, use, and love) is the 100L Macro. It is good at just about everything (other than zooming, that is), and creates the best bokeh this side of my 135L. It rivals and even exceeds the 85 as a portrait lens on a full frame (in my opinion), and is of course one of the best macro lenses out there.

The lens that is on my 6D the most is the Tamron 24-70 VC. It is a great combo for general purpose. It has gotten enough use that I am in the process of selling my 24-105L right now.


----------



## Dukinald (Jan 31, 2013)

You did not specify the type of photographs you usually take nor the budget. 

It seems you could use a UWA 17-40

Or the versatile 100L for macro / portraiture.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 31, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The lens that is on my 6D the most is the Tamron 24-70 VC. It is a great combo for general purpose. It has gotten enough use that I am in the process of selling my 24-105L right now.



This is off-topic, but curious as to what you like about your Tamron 24-70 VC over the 24-105. I have avoided non-Canon lenses to this point after hearing they were inferior, but have never tried one.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 31, 2013)

bholliman said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The lens that is on my 6D the most is the Tamron 24-70 VC. It is a great combo for general purpose. It has gotten enough use that I am in the process of selling my 24-105L right now.
> ...




I have both lenses, so I feel qualified to reply until Dustin gets back to you. The answer is everything, with the exceptions of reach & build quality. The Tamron is faster, optically superior in every way and has superior IS. You loose the 35mm on the long end, but you can crop with no real loss of IQ. Build quality of both are superb, though the Canon seems to be a little stouter.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 31, 2013)

bholliman said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The lens that is on my 6D the most is the Tamron 24-70 VC. It is a great combo for general purpose. It has gotten enough use that I am in the process of selling my 24-105L right now.
> ...



Build quality is pretty similar, the Canon wins for focal length, obviously, but the Tamron is sharper, has better transition to ooF and bokeh, has far less vignetting and distortion, has 1 stop better Image Stabilization, and, of course, the elephant in the room, is a stop faster.

I like the Canon a lot; it has served me well. I like the Tamron better. I reviewed the Tamron fairly extensively on my website:

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 31, 2013)

froco said:


> I just purchased Canon 6D. I need advice on what is the best lens to buy for portrait photography...or what kind of lens I am lacking?
> 
> These are the lenses that I already have:
> Canon EF 50mm 1:1.8 II
> ...



It's generally accepted that 85, 90, or 100mm on a full frame camera is a good length. Both of your zooms are in that area so either would work. Either the 85 or one of the 100 macros would get you sharper pictures than your zooms.... but quite often extreme sharpness on a portrait is less than flattering as it can show the slightest flaw in the subject, this depends a lot on the subject and taste. The macro lenses do give macro capability.... very important if you want it, useless if you don't.

My father was a police photographer. His pictures are technical perfection. Family pictures look like mug shots. Sometimes you want to go with softer and gentler.....


----------



## bholliman (Feb 1, 2013)

brad-man said:


> I have both lenses, so I feel qualified to reply until Dustin gets back to you. The answer is everything, with the exceptions of reach & build quality. The Tamron is faster, optically superior in every way and has superior IS. You loose the 35mm on the long end, but you can crop with no real loss of IQ. Build quality of both are superb, though the Canon seems to be a little stouter.





TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Build quality is pretty similar, the Canon wins for focal length, obviously, but the Tamron is sharper, has better transition to ooF and bokeh, has far less vignetting and distortion, has 1 stop better Image Stabilization, and, of course, the elephant in the room, is a stop faster.
> 
> I like the Canon a lot; it has served me well. I like the Tamron better. I reviewed the Tamron fairly extensively on my website:
> 
> http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/


Thanks for the information on the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and excellent review link. I am happy with my 24-105 for landscapes and general outdoor shooting, but its not an ideal indoor, natural light lens. I have fast 35mm and 50mm primes that I generally use indoors, but a zoom helps you get more shots when you can't "foot zoom" fast enough to get the shot. I'd love to have the Canon 24-70 L II, but its definitely not in my budget.

We have a big family event coming up in a few weeks. I think I'll rent a Tamron and try it out.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 1, 2013)

bholliman said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I have both lenses, so I feel qualified to reply until Dustin gets back to you. The answer is everything, with the exceptions of reach & build quality. The Tamron is faster, optically superior in every way and has superior IS. You loose the 35mm on the long end, but you can crop with no real loss of IQ. Build quality of both are superb, though the Canon seems to be a little stouter.
> ...



That is a good decision. Trying before buying is probably always better than listening to other's opinions.


----------

