# Prime Lens for 6D



## Rmafive (Jan 2, 2013)

Hi Guys,

I just got my first full frame camera for Christmas, a 6D. I am so excited and I am starting to look into buying a new lens for it. I currently have a 24-105 f/4L, which is an awesome lens I use everyday, along with an older 17-85 f/4-5.6 I had before I got the L lens. My next lenses down the road will be the new 24-70 and 70-200, but I don't want to spend 2000+ right now! 

I am starting to look into getting my first prime lens and I am having a hard time making a decision. My friend has a 35 mm f/1.4L lens, which I found quite amazing, though I didn't use it for long. I also am looking into a 50 mm f/1.4. I know these lenses have huge price differences, and I am also concerned about the looming update for the 35 mm lens. My main question is, what do you guys find the best focal length for an everyday prime lens? I feel kind of restricted at 50 mm, but I wonder if 35 mm is too wide for an everyday walk-around lens.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jan 2, 2013)

Have you tried the 50mm on your 6D, mine feels very usuable now compared to on my previous crop camera. Alternatively, you could try a cheap and cheerful. f2 35mm or the 40mm pancake ?


----------



## Rmafive (Jan 2, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> Have you tried the 50mm on your 6D, mine feels very usuable now compared to on my previous crop camera. Alternatively, you could try a cheap and cheerful. f2 35mm or the 40mm pancake ?



I haven't tried a 50 yet, but I plan on trying one soon. I had thought about the 40 mm; it's so small I could carry it in my pocket when shooting!


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 2, 2013)

I love the 40mm pancake on FF. And it's mad cheap!


----------



## gasherbrum (Jan 2, 2013)

I have bought a 6D and my prime lens will be the Voigtländer 40 2.0 . A beautiful pancace lens, build in metal and with manual focusing. So I don't care about bad focusing points. It will be a pleasure to use it.


----------



## phixional ninja (Jan 2, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> Have you tried the 50mm on your 6D, mine feels very usuable now compared to on my previous crop camera.



I strongly second this. My 50mm f1.4 never got a ton of use on my 7D because I only really wanted it in dim lighting, generally indoors, but indoors on a crop sensor it always felt cramped. Moving to the 5D3 has totally revitalized that lens for me. Beautiful wide aperture, and a field of view that is workable indoors.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 2, 2013)

Ditto on the *40mm/2.8* pancake and the *50mm/1.4*. However, my first prime way back was the *28mm/1.8 USM* and I still like using that lens on both crop and FF. It's a great lens you should also consider. All of these lenses are in the same sub $500 price range, esp if you buy one used.


----------



## Rmafive (Jan 2, 2013)

Now I am leaning towards the 50 mm f/1.4! I will definitely try to test one out before I decide.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 2, 2013)

The pancake is an excellent suggestion. If you need faster, than the EF50 f/1.4 or the new sigma 35 f/1.4 DG would serve you well. All three are great lenses, though the sigma is my favorite.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jan 2, 2013)

buy the 35mm f2.0 and the 50mm f1.8 - great prime lenses with minimal expense.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 3, 2013)

Rmafive said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I just got my first full frame camera for Christmas, a 6D. I am so excited and I am starting to look into buying a new lens for it. I currently have a 24-105 f/4L, which is an awesome lens I use everyday, along with an older 17-85 f/4-5.6 I had before I got the L lens. My next lenses down the road will be the new 24-70 and 70-200, but I don't want to spend 2000+ right now!
> 
> I am starting to look into getting my first prime lens and I am having a hard time making a decision. My friend has a 35 mm f/1.4L lens, which I found quite amazing, though I didn't use it for long. I also am looking into a 50 mm f/1.4. I know these lenses have huge price differences, and I am also concerned about the looming update for the 35 mm lens. My main question is, what do you guys find the best focal length for an everyday prime lens? I feel kind of restricted at 50 mm, but I wonder if 35 mm is too wide for an everyday walk-around lens.



Wouldn't it be more useful to find out what's best for you? You already have 35 and 50 (and 24 and 85 and 40) on your 24-105, so why not set it at the various prime lengths that occur on your 24-105 and see which ones suit most? (It's not quite the same as using a prime, but it's better than reading about them.) Or try something different - since the 24-105 is actually rather good (and very versatile; an ideal everyday walkaround lens, frankly), you might want to consider a prime outside that range such as the amazing 135L.


----------



## tiger82 (Jan 3, 2013)

Save your $ and go for an original 70-200 IS f/2.8L or the 70-200 f/4l. Great new and used copies are still available.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 3, 2013)

dickgrafixstop said:


> buy the 35mm f2.0 and the 50mm f1.8 - great prime lenses with minimal expense.



I would strongly suggest against the 35 f/2 on a FF body.


----------



## Rmafive (Jan 3, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> Save your $ and go for an original 70-200 IS f/2.8L or the 70-200 f/4l. Great new and used copies are still available.



I plan on buying the new 70-200 down the road, but I really think I would get more use out of a prime right now. I have used the 70-200 f/2.8L and I most definitely see the value in it.



bdunbar79 said:


> dickgrafixstop said:
> 
> 
> > buy the 35mm f2.0 and the 50mm f1.8 - great prime lenses with minimal expense.
> ...



Are you against the lens itself or the focal length on a FF body?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 3, 2013)

I'm against the lens itself, on a FF body. It works well on crop sensor, but the edges are way too soft, beginning rather earlier toward the center than I would normally like. If you use it, you'll want to crop a bit, or just get a 28 and 50 prime.


----------



## tiger82 (Jan 3, 2013)

I think it is better to first cover the entire focal range from 24 to 200mm then determine which focal length is best for you. I ended up with a 50 1.4 and the 100 IS macro within my 24-70 and 70-200 options. I got the 40mm pancake for when I want to walk around lightly.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 3, 2013)

You might be interested in what Kai has to say about it (50 and 35 mm, resp):

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/5-reasons-why-you-need/MzI1Mjg0MA_A_A

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/5-reasons-you-need-a/MzQ2MjUzNzk_A

Best of luck!
Daniel


----------



## infared (Jan 3, 2013)

How about the 35mm f/1.4 Sigma...? That looks like a killer lens. I own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and LOVE it. Low depth of field and incredible bokeh with fast focus. All my other lenses are Canon "L" glass (and one Zeiss) but I broke protocol with the Sigma because I just believe it offers more than Canon in that area at the right price. I do not own the Sigma 35mm ...but again, I think Sigma has trumped Canon once again with quality, style and price. 
Either one of those lenses would be a great cost-effective way to get your feet wet with a fast bokeh-licious prime in the normal or slightly wide lens range.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 3, 2013)

Rmafive said:


> My main question is, what do you guys find the best focal length for an everyday prime lens? I feel kind of restricted at 50 mm, but I wonder if 35 mm is too wide for an everyday walk-around lens.



35, 40 and 50mm are all great everyday walk-around lenses. Only you can decide which focal length you prefer. When I don't want to carry too much, I choose either the 50/1.4 or the 40/2.8 pancake. The new 35/2 IS looks like an ideal walk-around lens, but maybe wait till the price comes down. The Sigma 35/1.4 looks lovely, but is too big & heavy to be the ideal everyday walk-around lens.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jan 3, 2013)

If nothing else, the Shorty McForty is an awesome body cap.

Pro tip: mount the Shorty McForty, take off the grip (if you have one), turn on Live View, and you've now got the ultimate party camera. Not many people will realize it's the IQ / low light monster it is, and just think you've got a high-end point-and-shoot. Put it in green square mode and hand it off to people and they're still not likely to realize it.

Of course, there's also an awful lot to be said for the 400 f/2.8, as well....

b&


----------



## bycostello (Jan 3, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I love the 40mm pancake on FF. And it's mad cheap!



+1


----------



## elflord (Jan 3, 2013)

Rmafive said:


> I am starting to look into getting my first prime lens and I am having a hard time making a decision. My friend has a 35 mm f/1.4L lens, which I found quite amazing, though I didn't use it for long. I also am looking into a 50 mm f/1.4. I know these lenses have huge price differences, and I am also concerned about the looming update for the 35 mm lens. My main question is, what do you guys find the best focal length for an everyday prime lens? I feel kind of restricted at 50 mm, but I wonder if 35 mm is too wide for an everyday walk-around lens.



As a "walkaround" prime, I'd pick the 50mm focal length though it's really a matter of preference. Some people like the 50mm focal length, others like to shoot either wider or narrower -- so most of these people would lean towards either a wide angle or a wide angle/short tele combo like 35/85.

Wide angle lenses can be a challenge to compose with because (a) the tend to pull in a lot of background (including things you might want out of the frame) and (b) they tend to exhibit (more) perspective distortion which can be a challenge to work with if you're photographing people. 

Anyway, if you prefer wide angle lenses, get a wide angle lens. Take a good look at the Sigma 35mm as well as the 35L.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 3, 2013)

50mm 1.4
100 f/2 or 135L


----------



## Rmafive (Jan 3, 2013)

I tried out a 50mm f/1.4 earlier tonight and I feel like that is the best option right now. The cost of the 35L is too high considering an update is looming. The 50 definitely feels a little fragile compared to a sturdy L lens, but the cost definitely makes up for that. The performance is pretty impressive, much better than I had expected, and I feel like the focal length is just right for everyday shooting. I still feel like 35 mm will be a nice focal length down the road.


----------



## Jesse (Jan 3, 2013)

The iPhone has the FOV of a 35mm. Seems to work for everyone.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 7, 2013)

For sure get the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. Lensrentals said it was just about there sharpest and favorite prime lens. The reviews are amazing too: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

Just look at the Sigma next to the Canon f/2. What a nice looking lens. Sharp as crap too. 
Canon 6D Vs. 5D Mark III Hands On Review


----------



## 2trout (Jan 10, 2013)

yes, I have the 40mm, a good all rounder for sure!


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 10, 2013)

50mm + 28mm F1.8. Perfect! I've let my friend tried my 28mm on his new 6D. It's sharp even on the edges and super fast AF. It's IQ is a lot better when used with 6D.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 10, 2013)

I recently purchased a 6D also, upgrading from a 7D. I love my 35mm 1.4 with the 7D, but find it too wide for most around the house and other low light shooting with the full frame body. I tend to use my 24-105mm zoom frequently around 50mm for indoor shots.

I just ordered a 50mm 1.4 prime and I think I'll use it more than the 35mm going forward, even if its probably not as good a lens. The 50mm focal length on a FF is just a better one for me.

I may sell my 7D and 35mm lens at some point if I don't use them more than I am now.


----------



## Area256 (Jan 10, 2013)

I have both the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.4. I think the 50mm f/1.4 can do a lot more, but the 40mm is awesome in it's own way (really small, and really sharp). Actually I find I'm using the 40mm more often than the 50mm on my 6D. 

Of course a lot of that comes down to your style of shooting. I like the slightly wider 40mm for walking around with (possibly because I grew up with a 38mm film P&S), and the f/2.8 isn't all that limiting with the high ISO of the 6D. However when I want to shoot people, the 50mm f/1.4 just gives way more options in terms of the DOF control that lens can give you on FF. 

Although I've never actually used it, I'd suggest staying away from the 35mm f/2 - most review sites suggest it has poor edge performance, and the 40mm in actually really good in that regard.

I'd play with both in a store, and just get the one you feel best about.


----------



## Botts (Jan 10, 2013)

Area256 said:


> I have both the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.4. I think the 50mm f/1.4 can do a lot more, but the 40mm is awesome in it's own way (really small, and really sharp). Actually I find I'm using the 40mm more often than the 50mm on my 6D.
> 
> Of course a lot of that comes down to your style of shooting. I like the slightly wider 40mm for walking around with (possibly because I grew up with a 38mm film P&S), and the f/2.8 isn't all that limiting with the high ISO of the 6D. However when I want to shoot people, the 50mm f/1.4 just gives way more options in terms of the DOF control that lens can give you on FF.



Agreed. I also have the 50/1.4 and 40/2.8 for my 6D. The 40STM lives on my 6D, the 50/1.4 comes out for special occasions, i.e. darker available light shots, or where I need razor thin DOF.

If I'm using my 430EX at an event or party, I'll keep the 40STM on the 6D without a doubt. Shoot at f/4 with the strobe, and you're golden.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 10, 2013)

Botts said:


> Area256 said:
> 
> 
> > I have both the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.4. I think the 50mm f/1.4 can do a lot more, but the 40mm is awesome in it's own way (really small, and really sharp). Actually I find I'm using the 40mm more often than the 50mm on my 6D.
> ...



Several responders here stated they have both a 50mm prime and also the 40 2.8. I was just wondering if having two primes so close in focal length has advantages.

I just ordered a 50mm 1.4 and already have a 35L, so probably no need for a Shorty McForty now. But, I'm considering selling the 35L to come up for money for a 135L. To me the 50 1.4 should fill the bill of a small, light, low light lens. The 40 is smaller and lighter, but not as low light capable.


----------



## Standard (Jan 10, 2013)

I don't have the 40mm since I already have the 50L...so I can't speak to the advantages of having two similarly focal ranges. However I can say that already having the 50mm covered, I can easily do what the 40mm does with the 50L.

My personal recommendation when building up your lens collection is to simply look at your own shooting style and see what fits. For me, I'd build my lenses based on several things, one of which is the "half/double" factor, ie. I started out with the 50mm; I needed something longer so added twice the reach with the 100L (and later the 135mm for other reasons); I needed something wider than the 50mm, so went down half the focal length and added the 24mm; I then later found that I needed something even longer than the 100mm to take care of sporting events, wildlife, candid street shots, etc. and the 200mm 2.8L fits the bill. My last additional was the much, underated and affordable Samyang 14mm which is about half the focal length of the 24mm.

I suspect if I were to acquire the 35mm first, then I would likely have added the 85mm and 135mm next, respectively. And if I were into zooms (which at some time later, I suspect I may), then the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm would likely be on the list.

Hope this helps.


----------



## SJTstudios (Jan 10, 2013)

40mm, nice standard, small prime, iso should handle shutter speed.

The thing is, if a 24-70 is on the agenda, then an L prime may not be a good idea. You could get a 24-70 #1 for the $35mm 1.4.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 10, 2013)

Standard said:


> I don't have the 40mm since I already have the 50L...so I can't speak to the advantages of having two similarly focal ranges. However I can say that already having the 50mm covered, I can easily do what the 40mm does with the 50L.
> 
> My personal recommendation when building up your lens collection is to simply look at your own shooting style and see what fits. For me, I'd build my lenses based on several things, one of which is the "half/double" factor, ie. I started out with the 50mm; I needed something longer so added twice the reach with the 100L (and later the 135mm for other reasons); I needed something wider than the 50mm, so went down half the focal length and added the 24mm; I then later found that I needed something even longer than the 100mm to take care of sporting events, wildlife, candid street shots, etc. and the 200mm 2.8L fits the bill. My last additional was the much, underated and affordable Samyang 14mm which is about half the focal length of the 24mm.
> 
> ...



Good suggestion. I really prefer the 50mm focal length over 35mm on a full format camera, so a 24mm and 100mm prime would be good compliments and a nice core group of primes. At this point, I see more value to a longer focal length prime so I'm seriously looking at 100mm options (also tempted by the awesome 135L).


----------



## Ew (Jan 10, 2013)

I've both the 40 and the 50 1.4. 

I find that for me, they are different animals. 

I'm not sure if its the size or the optics, but with the 50 1.4 I tend to be very hands on, opening wide, adding NDs to stay open in full light, turning the manual focus, lots of futzing, lots of joy. 

With the 40 its more of a photo journalistic. I'll set it and go - 5d3 in M, ss=100, ap=3.2, auto iso 100~12800 and forget about it. Feeling free to hand the camera to almost anyone to take a shot once I've set the AF to a simpler mode. The 40 fly by wire mf is kida sloppy, so I'm never there. 

I enjoy both, and as previously stated in this forum (multiple times) - you can't go wrong with the 40's price point.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jan 11, 2013)

Take the grip off the 5DIII, put on the Shorty McForty, and add a wrist strap, and you've got the ultimate point & shoot camera. You can even put it in green square mode, turn on live view, and pass it 'round the table. People are likely to mistrake it for a high-end P&S and unlikely to think that it's the reigning IQ / low light monster that it is.

Use the 50 f/1.4 or the 35 f/1.4 (or whatever) for when you're being a photographer. Use the Shorty McForty when you'd otherwise reach for your iPhone but want a bit more image quality.

Oh -- and the Shorty McForty makes an awesome body cap....

I recently had an opportunity to buy a mint-condition 50 f/1.0L for $4k. I love the thought...but, realistically, that lone extra stop just doesn't give enough over the already-superlative 50 f/1.4, especially with the high ISO capability of the 5DIII. The 50 f/1.4 is at least as good from f/1.4 on, so the only reason to get the f/1.0 is for faster than f/1.4...and, frankly, it's not all that great from f/1.0 through f/1.4. It's pretty mushy wide open, even at the plane of focus. I might consider the f/1.0 for a small premium over the f/1.2L, but I already think the f/1.2L is overpriced....

b&


----------



## Rmafive (Jan 11, 2013)

I borrowed a 50 f/1.4 from a friend when I went on vacation over the weekend, and I think I probably used it about 50% of the time along with my 24-105. Whenever I knew I was going to be indoors or in a more low-light area I took the 50, and it made a huge difference. Though, I feel the 24-105 is the best lens for walking around, especially when you don't know what you'll be shooting. Given that I used the 50 so much, I am now leaning towards getting a 50L. If this is going to be one of my primary lenses, I would most definitely want the best quality. All of the advice has been extremely helpful!


----------

