|
I'm moving up to full-frame with the R6 and since my beloved 17-55mm is EF-S I'll need a replacement. As far as I can tell there's only a few possibilities: From Canon: The only kit lens availble here, the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1, which sounds like it's quite bad unless you're a total beginner (~€340). The RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM (€1205) The RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM (€2094) The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM (€1563) Sigma has a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS and USM for €1100 but reviews seem to be 50% "it's bad and soft" and 50% "this is the best lens ever". Tamron has a virtually identical one for almost the same price (€1040) with pretty good reviews. Given that the 17-55's main strength was the f/2.8 throughout, the exorbitant price of the RF 24-70, and the lack of IS on the EF 24-70, I'm leaning towards either the Sigma or the Tamron. I have two other Sigma Art lenses I'm very happy with, so I'd be surprised if the 24-70 was actually bad, but does anyone have any experience with either of these? Am I missing anything else around the €1000 mark that would qualify? Thanks. gschmidl fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Aug 11, 2020 |
#
¿
Aug 11, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Sigma lenses in general seem to have a bad rep for softness, I have their 35mm f/1.4 and I don't think I've ever hit focus wide open. I think the Tamron would be best. I have no such problems with the 150-600 and 14-24 but a lot of people are reporting it with this one, yeah. The only thing that puts me off about the Tamron is that the focus ring goes the "wrong" way, but I'll accept that if it's the clearly better lens. Thom12255 posted:In case you didn't know, your EF-S lense will work fine with the R6, you'll just get a lower MP picture. I know - the question is whether the 10-ish MP that remain (plus the 1.6 crop) are worth keeping it. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The original EF 24-105 f4 L is probably the best bet, and is what I'm currently scouring the internet for a good price on. You can easily get it for about $450 and if you survive the mind-numblingly dry reviews of Christopher Frost you'll find the optical performance of every similar lens that has come since (the mk2, the RF mount L version, and the sigma art) are almost indistinguishable in image quality. You'd recommend the longer f/4 over the shorter f/2.8s?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:You've been shooting constant 2.8 on aps-c. Constant 4 on full frame will be indistinguishable. And, the 105 length will more closely imitate the lens you are replacing. The 24-105 is a great lens. Oh, of course, I forgot about the aperture "crop". President Beep posted:I have this lens and I absolutely love it. An awesome piece of equipment for the price. Alright, I'll keep an eye out. Thanks all!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Would you consider a mid-focal length prime instead? The RF 35mm f/1.8 is fantastic and not gonna cost a fortune. I've never really gotten warm with non-macro primes. Maybe I should learn.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Having a fast 35/50mm is a must, IMO. The 24-105L is a great zoom, but sometimes you gotta blow out those backgrounds... I do have the 50mm f/1.8 but I don't ever use it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
melon cat posted:Personally I find that "do-it-all" lenses like the 24-105L (and the Sony 18-105 F4) all suffer from the same problem- they're average at everything. It's a handy lens for documentary work and times where you can't swap out lenses and need to travel light. But their image quality just isn't anything special. They're also useful for beginners to find out which focal length they'll use the most. In my case, I started out with the Tamron 28-300, which was definitely average at best. When I bring something like the 17-55 it's because I'm not sure what I'll need and it's not always as easy as "just go closer/further away". Right now I'm leaning towards the RF 24-105 f/4L as it's an OK price in the first place plus €200 cashback if you buy it with a body. Of course it's not going to be as amazing as a lens that costs 4x as much, but it's still going to be better than anything I've used so far, and if I want to move "up" from it in a few years, I can always re-sell it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I have to agree with melon cat. When I was using a 24-105 f/4L lens a lot, I ended up with a lot of pictures that felt really similar to what mobile phone photos look like. At least for me, that defeats the purpose of carrying around my big fancy camera in the first place. Understood, but as I don't really care for dragging 10 kilos of lenses with me on vacation, something's gotta give somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
  I'll give it a shot. Thanks everyone!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
This angry baby is getting tiresome. "We pay the money. We decide what is appropriate behaviour from Canon" Yes, I'm sure this company valued at 228 billion yen is in desperate need of your $4500 and continued patronage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
Still waiting for my R6 body, nobody even pretends to have a release date here except Amazon. Idiotically, the Canon web shop has the kit in stock but not the body, presumably because nobody wants to pay an extra €360 for that trash 24-105mm f/4-7.1 kit lens.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
I wonder how expensive that 14mm T/S will be. I'm assuming "very".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:From what I can see the new R5 is Canon's top of the line mirrorless offering, correct? Is anyone shooting with one? Do EF lenses all perform well with it? I'd love any actual impressions from goons using one if possible. This is correct. I "only" have the R6 but all EF lenses work wonderfully with it with the adapter (which you can get for free if you're a CPS member and buy a body).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:That's really good news. I don't suppose you have any super-telephotos you've used with the adapter? Does the Sigma 150-600 count? If yes, I've used that and feel like it works even better than on the 80D I had before.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
The one negative I've found with the EVF on the R6 is that when it's dark and you have IS on, it "swims" pretty hard (i.e. a noticeable lag).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
This may not be much help since I know nothing about the 5Ds, but I upgraded from an 80D to the R6 and the autofocus is absolutely incredible even on a moving ship in the dark.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
My EF lenses aren't that old, but they are third-party (Sigma 150-600 and 14-24) and work flawlessly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:Do you have any reservations on the 20MP resolution from the R6 with wildlife pics from what you've seen? I'm really itching for an upgrade and as much as I'd like the R5 I don't know if I can stomach it without actually making money from it. Did you miss the top LCD screen? I reference mine on the 80D pretty frequently but maybe I can live without it. As an R6 haver, I thought I might miss the top screen but not only is there the wheel 800peepee51doodoo mentions, there's also a button that lets you go through the settings that used to be up there easily without taking your eye off the viewfinder/main screen. I was able to try both the R5 and R6 shortly before release and actually prefer the R6's labelled mode dial to the R5's unlabelled one - it only shows what mode you're changing to on the top LCD for god knows what reason. The only thing I found superior on the R5 in actual use, vs. specs, was the viewfinder resolution, and I've gotten used to the R6's in no time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2021 08:38
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Going from 24MP crop to 20MP FF is actually more like going to 7MP. It's too much for me I'm waiting to see the long rumoured R7 before I make any call. Oh, yeah, you definitely wouldn't want to use crop lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Even if you use FF lenses like most wildlife photographers who shoot crop you have to get much closer to get the same number of pixels on the subject as you would with a crop sensor. Overall you are losing a lot of pixels going from APS-C to FF. Sorry, I'm not good at words today. R6 + lots of crop (or APS-C lenses) is, as you correctly say, suboptimal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:For whatever reason Canon glass is super cheap right now. I just bought a used EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM for 495€ including shipping. It sells for 1500€ new and optically it is still a very good lens. Wouldn't be surprised if people were upgrading to RF.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2021 12:19
|
|
Maybe people just use zooms more nowdays?
|
ijyt posted:Fair! I should have thought about component shortages considering how long I spent hunting for PC hardware. The R6 is loving amazing, especially at low light. Note how you can see the stars. Taken freehand while on a vaporetto:  Also shooting into light:  Bird eye tracking through a window with the Sigma 150-600  Macro: 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
The 150-600 is amazing and I have zero problems with it on the R6.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:The RF L series is out of this world. This is true, but I've been especially blown away by the additional quality improvements on my EF Sigmas. Canon has, to my knowledge, absolutely nothing to offer that can compare with the 20mm f/1.4, the 14-24mm f/2.8, or even the 150-600mm. Oh, and a question: is anyone aware of a drop-in astro/"clear skies" filter for the EF-RF adapter? Breakthrough Photography allegedly has one but it's perpetually out of stock and from various sources it sounds like they're unable to even fulfill one of the 20 filters they offer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
I was so "scared" of the battery life of my R6 when I took it to Norway for aurora photos that I brought two extra batteries and two power banks just in case. I didn't even use half a battery the entire 5 days.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2023 07:01
|
|
|
xzzy posted:That's a boss lens for them to release but holy cow 10mm is wide. That's the sort of thing you think you need in your bag "just in case" and then never touch it. I exclusively use my 14-24 Sigma for city travel. Used to be the EF-S 10-24 but the wider the better for me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Interesting. Those seem too low for me. Do you never want to get a tighter look at something going on farther away from you? In cities, I mostly photograph architecture so that's what I usually go with. If I know in advance I might want another lens I'll bring one, e.g. my last trip to Trieste was the 14-24 and the 150-600, since I knew the Barcolana regatta was happening on that weekend. For hiking etc. I'll bring the ultrawide and whatever else seems most useful.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2023 08:32
|
|
|
Oh, the 10-18 is not just f/4.5 but also RF-S  Make better lenses, Canon! I'm almost exclusively using Sigmas right now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:RF is already the best digital lens line that’s ever existed and it’s only getting better from here. It was a slow start sure, but they have absolutely killed it in the last few years. Here's the ones I use, with their closest RF equivalents: Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8: €1449 Canon RF 10-20mm f/4: €2699 Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3: €949 Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L € 3.145 Sigma 20mm f/1.4 €799 ...not sure which one to compare this to. There's great RF lenses, but way not enough of them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:There is also a 15-35 2.8 for RF that’s about $1800. The 24 1.8 IS is also killer and cheap at 400-500. They don't necessarily need to be cheaper, but worse aperture at twice the price is a bit of a killer. I realize this is very much a coming-from-preference  thing and I wouldn't see it that way if I didn't already own the Sigmas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
APS-C? gently caress!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 10:55
|
|