Canon Lens Questions

So, I had to sell all of my camera gear (except for two lenses that got stolen, gah) to make rent while I was waiting for a work permit a few years ago and stopped following photography or shooting anything except iphone 5s/8.

I had been using a 5d2 and 24-70 f2.8 / 24-105, 50mm 1.8 i (which I loved but only used for video), and a 70-200 f4, all enough for my needs which consisted mostly of ski pics for a blog, some lifestyle for a defunct guiding company, and occasional work shooting art or events. All of the latter will never happen for me away from NYC, especially the art part, but I miss it and want to put a little kit together.

It looks like a lot has changed over the photo world since 2008, especially mirrorless cameras and phones that have made a lot of the above unnecessary.

On the other hand it looks like this is kind of an opportunity. A 6d is more than enough camera for me and improves on some of the focusing nonsense of the 5d2 and has some creature comforts from the future (circa 2012). I don't mind carrying a heavy camera, so I don't need fancy mirrorless shit, although the dslr could be left behind on multipitch climbs and the price tag of a used body is pretty reasonable. For some reason these go for less than the 5d2's even though they seem on paperwork to be improved in every way if a bit more 'prosumer' with the sd card (which i could care less about).

Is anything doing with lenses these days?

Specifically, the 70-200 was tack fucking sharp with awesome color, but that range isn't that great on a FF anyway. Would I really feel like I took a step back if I tried the 70-300 IS which costs way less and has a bigger range and maybe wouldn't need full sunshine to avoid camera shake on the long side?

Is there a difference with the 24-105 i vs ii? or is the 24-70 f4 is worth picking up since carrying the heavy glass of the 2.8 was maybe the only lens I would complain about skiing? What would you get if money ummm was an object and wanted something to walk/hike/crag with?

Maybe I am missing the boat to jump the gun onto an M series anyway?

Hope to add some stoke to this thread at some point and will be looking at the usual suspects like From_The_NEK, Smokkan, and Supermoon as well as all you other kooks for advice, thanks!

Do you have any equipment at the moment, or starting fresh?

EF stuff can seemingly be had for cheap, but there's certainly a shift to RF mount (full frame mirrorless). EOS-M is sort of Canon's bastard child, but will seemingly live around for a while (though doesn't seem to be a ton of R&D into lenses there).

I think you'd really have to decide EF vs RF vs EOS-M first.

EF: cheaper, but sloowwwllyy getting phased out (which will take forever). Works on FF, also works on RF mount with an adapter
RF: New fancy stuff, won't work on any old mount. $$$ (ish)
EOS-M: crop sensor only, no idea on what canon's future is here.

I'm currently using both EF and EOS-M. Film camera is still EF mount so I'm reluctant to get rid of everything and move to RF mount, but the size of the mirrorless IS nice.

If I was starting from scratch, I'd probably seriously consider an R series body. Kinda depends how much you find yourself wanting to buy/sell lenses over the years. If it's just one and done, then could look at the eos-m stuff. Can be pretty reasonable all things considered and quality is more than decent.

That said, there's also seemingly a lot of people moving away from Canon in mirrorless land these days, I know a few other guys would know more there... I'm still a Canon fanboy though.

Are you really tied to the Canon platform? From what I understand, the Sony E mount lineup is much more built out than the Canon RF.

thanks guys.

i wasn’t tied to it exactly, but there is something worthwhile to me in being familiar with the menus and where the buttons are. i have a sony point and shoot laying around that i basically can’t use after being programmed to canon. not having to open a manual to change the iso is worth a lot!

so since in this realm i’m kind of an old dog refusing to learn new tricks. after using canon film cameras too, it’s just easier for me.

i ended up just snagging that 6d i was looking at for what i think was a really fair price. i took his whole kit including his 24-105 i, 580 i and some other extras.

that glass is pretty versatile. maybe they have improved on it but obviously the sky is the limit when talking camera gear but im still living in this planet.

i do think i want to make a decision soon on the tele, 70-200 f4 L which seemed like a great value or the 70-300 is.... which has a little more range and might also be a decent value?

that is not often an adjective for canon glass it seems.

FWIW I pair the 6D with the Canon 24 MM 2.8 IS USM prime for hiking. Really light lens non budget buster and the combo (6D with no battery pack) is compact and relatively light considering.

Attachment 362250

Can't go wrong with the 70-200 f/4 (non-is) and can be found for pretty cheap these days. That lens is killer.

That said, lots of good things said about the 70-300 L. If it was a question of non-L 70-300 vs 70-200, I'd definitely go 70-200.

For reference, this is a 6D with the 70-200 f/4L from 2 weeks ago, cropped a decent amount:
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...189960&thumb=1

damn happy to see that i’m in some good company for wanting to carry around one of these full size cameras. those are both great shots! i’ll look up the prime.

the long lens in question was the 70-300 non L... being something i could crag or hike with a little easier. i think it’s about 325 used here versus the 70-200 f4 which is like 550. But can you put a price tag on results like that?

If you're ok with 3rd party lenses the Sigma 200-500 2.8 might be what you're looking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ml242

i think it’s about 325 used here versus the 70-200 f4 which is like 550. But can you put a price tag on results like that?

---

I think the 70-200 is $600 USD new right now, so should be able to find it for <$500 used I would think? Reading around online, the 70-200 > 70-300 non-L in every regard except reach. TBH, across my 16-35f/4 L and 24-70 f/4 L, the 70-200 still impresses me everytime. It's insanely sharp, the contrast and colours are amazing and everything just looks _so_ good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ml242

damn happy to see that i’m in some good company for wanting to carry around one of these full size cameras. those are both great shots! i’ll look up the prime.

the long lens in question was the 70-300 non L... being something i could crag or hike with a little easier. i think it’s about 325 used here versus the 70-200 f4 which is like 550. But can you put a price tag on results like that?

---

FYI, there's a "new" Canon 70-300 non-L version that's quite an improvement over the old build... it's much nicer and more solid, and while I owned it for a short time I thought it was a bit faster to focus as well. I've nailed some really great shots with that lens, I think it's right up there with the 70-200 f/4L as long as you aren't shooting f/4 portraits. I think it goes for around $350'ish on the used market, but that was a couple of years ago so it might be way cheaper these days with all things Canon moving towards the R mount.

If you're looking at the 70-200 L line, I'd probably steer towards the f/4 IS version... just as sharp and fast-focusing, and you obviously get the IS which helps with the longer focal length and bigger lens. But for most applications, I think the 70-300 II will work great.

smmokan, i took your word for it and paid 450cad for the 70-300 ii from and old quebecer tonight.

i loved that f4 and kalisto was pretty convincing but i did remember that the reach left me wanting more at times and i guess i wanted to try something different too. ‘nano technology’, sweet marketing, canon. fuckers.

i don’t see why they can’t just make a super sharp 100-400 is that fits in your pocket with all the IQ of a blackbird sr-71 over beijing for 500$ but so be it.

i am also now packing that 24-70 f4 IS and that beast is sharp and way lighter than the old 2.8... but not as sharp or as glowy wide open. if i ever do another wedding i hope to appreciate the four stops of stabilization but when the hell will i even be inside a building that isn’t my house in the near term? so maybe another crappy pick. fuck.

but i’m pretty sure that one of these days with a lot of practice and if i just spend enough my finger will connect with the shutter at the right time.

hah. I just love the 70-200, but curious to hear your thoughts about the 70-300.

Got another banger from the weekend.
Attachment 364203

GOTDAMMN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalisto

hah. I just love the 70-200, but curious to hear your thoughts about the 70-300.

Got another banger from the weekend.
Attachment 364203

---

Oh yeah!

flat light, snowing, tiny mountain and too many trees but i tried that 70-300. way too much lens for this bump but it seemed to focus ok in tough conditions with the flakes flying, although i missed on the next frame which may have been a bit better. It would be fun in some bigger terrain to have this much lens but not feel like there's 750ml in the pack or so I am telling myself so far.

Attachment 364436

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timberridge

If you're ok with 3rd party lenses the Sigma 200-500 2.8 might be what you're looking for.

---

Might need to mask up and rob a bank...That beast is only $25,999......heh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rbtree

Might need to mask up and rob a bank...That beast is only $25,999......heh

---

Solid bump!


I got to play with an R5 with the new 70-200 f2.8 this weekend... man, do I miss having a camera and a long lens..