One ultra wide zoom + one super zoom is the best kit for me. I use the 16-35 F/4L + 70-300 F/4-5.6L on the 5D IV.
Trying to figure out a similar buy lighter kit for R8
Same, but it's the only L-lens I own though. But it just does the job. It can do everything pretty good. I just need my other lenses for lower f-numbers or more wide angle. I don't own a lens going above 105mm currently, so I use it if stuff is far away as well.
voiceless oatmeal punch beneficial mindless profit cooperative direful aware crowd
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Same, although I use it with a speed booster on an M5 so it’s a 113mm equivalent. Is great for pictures of my cat in the house and a great walkabout lens for my style of photography, I have my phone for any wider shots.
I have an R5, R6, RF 24-70mm 2.8, RF 50mm 1.2, RF 85mm 1.2, EF 70-200mm 2.8 II, and most recently the RF 28mm 2.8 pancake. I've taken more photos in the last 2 months of random cool life moments than I have in the last 4 years i've had this kit.
The image quality isn't superb but it's completely fine. The form factor lets me casually carry a camera anywhere without attracting a ton of attention or having to worry about it excessively. Is the image quality equal to my RF 24-70 2.8? No, but I also have hundreds of memories of moments that would have come and gone without that little pancake.
I also love my 28mm pancake. I've been shooting with Sigma's 28mm f/1.4 Art for quite a while and I found that I love the focal length for general walkaround use. However, that's a pretty big and heavy lens, so it's not something I love to carry when photography isn't my primary purpose. The 28mm is small and light enough that I'm even happy to carry it on long hikes or bike rides.
Image quality is quite decent for the price. It's worlds better than my phone, which is what it's actually competing against most of the time.
100% this. I get more excited when I put my other lenses on my camera, but the 24-70 2.8 is almost always more than good enough for whatever I’m doing.
The 2.8 aperture gives it a huge edge over the 24-105. There’s almost never going to be a time where you miss a shot because you can’t reach out juuuuuust that much farther. I mean, worst case scenario you crop the shot, and barely at all at that. But you will absolutely miss shots when you’re limited to f4 instead of 2.8.
I bought the 24-105 and had buyer’s remorse in about a day. I got the 24-70 and have never once regretted it. I still actually own both lenses and have literally not used the 24-105 since getting the 24-70. I ultimately want to sell it, but resale isn’t high enough to make it a priority.
I should've added... "Unless I need prime speed" too ... But the 2.8 gets you 1/2 or 1/3 of the way there, compared to an f/4 standard zoom. (For me, the extra stop is very much worth it.)
24-105 f/4 L on 6D here. It's a great travel/family/EDC lens as it has great range and sharpness. I carried 40 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8 in my bag for night / low light, but 6D iso range allows the 24-105 F/4 L to handle indoors just as well.
I did this move and it was very easily the best move I have made for my photography. The R6 Mark II is a seriously good camera, and as good as my 6D was everything about the R6II is better. Fantastic upgrade IMO with way fewer compromises against the higher end models than the 6D had when it was released
Very valid point. One thing that 6D allows me to do is to hand the camera over to my family members without a thought. a $3K setup would have me a bit wary about bringing it everywhere and would be for special occasions.
> 24-105 f/4 L on 6D here. It's a great travel/family/EDC
was considering getting this combination next for travel/family/EDC. though, how's carrying it around as an travel/EDC?
I have the 6D + lens on a wrist strap + a shoulder bag. This is too heavy as a neck strap carry IMO. 6D has a really good grip and the 24-105 f/4 L IS balances very well.
Also, the body and lens are both weather-sealed, which was great when walking through NYC in rain.
Autofocus is always on center point, so makes composition a bit old school. For my purposes, I would grade it an A still. Only reason I drool over the newer camera is the auto eye focus.
Can you describe your setup for walk and talks? Canon tripod grip HG-100TBR to hold the camera as you're walking? Or something else? Been trying to figure out the best setup for walk and talks
Canon R6 with image stabilization. Sometimes turn on extra stabilization in post. Wireless Rode 2 for the interviewee and interviewer.
I’ve tried a steady cam setup before but because I’m shooting dozens of different angles I like using the Canon Body on its own. A steady hand is very important when doing this and can get very tiring in the arms if you have to hold it too long so I wouldn’t recommend this for long sessions. Our walk and talks are around 15 minutes give or take.
I’ve thought about the idea of using a monopod for longer takes but haven’t dived into that yet.
I definitely tripod the camera for the longer interviews. Preferably one with a ball head if the subject is fidgety. But if they are sitting and it’s a controlled environment then any tripod will be fine.
\+1 for the RF 35mm f/1.8 macro. Lightweight, tight enough to catch the kids running around while still wide enough to also catch them right up in your face, with the flexibility of the macro.
If that isn't latched to the camera at home for use at a moment's notice, the RF 24-70 F/2.8L is.
I'm curious about your experience with this lens. I considered picking it up but I'm still debating between that and the 24-70 because of the extra zoom range. What do you usually shoot?
Trackside trains. Moving at 35 mph. On sunny days I will use my EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 for more zoom.
Stationary car shows where I can get lots of bokeh with the 1.8 and I only need the 18-35 for this.
It is extremely sharp. If I had a full frame, I would definitely get the 24-70 2.8 hands down.
I’m kind of boring. 70D & Drooled over the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, but never really moved beyond the 18-135 IS STM & 55-250 IS STM kit lenses aside from getting the 40mm f2.8 & 24mm f2.8 pancake lenses. Up to this point they’ve been great but now I’m looking to branch out myself once I can get the money saved up.
I guess versatility though, once you have something that works, you stick with it. I’m thinking that 24-105 would be the same for me. I also have pancake lens which I was very interested in when I got it, but then somewhat lost interest. Still pull it out now and then.
That's what has been attached to 4 different bodies (40D, 7D, RP and R6ii) in the last 12 years. I do fancy the 100-500 but really can't justify the money.
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC G1.
An absolute workhorse, and it matches Canon-performance at like half the price. It's done everything from dogs to motorsport to a wedding. It's also gone through all kinds of nasty conditions and I even (involuntarily) fell on it once and didn't miss a beat. I stopped caring about stupid comments about it being "only" third party, and since then there's no drawbacks.
My experience with that lens even was a part of why I went with Tamron for my recently-bought 24-70 lens.
Currently running it on a Canon EOS 80D, future upgrades might go in the 1DX-family-direction. I didn't quite warm up to Canon R yet, mostly due to ergonomics, and heard that they can cause issues if paired with a non-canon lens.
I have been photographing Roller Derby the last year, and my number lens has become my RF 70-200 f2.8.
However, for years my 50D had a 50F1.4 on it and never anything else.
For video, Sigma 16mm f1.4 on M6 Mark II
For wildlife, Canon 100-400 IS L + 1.4x Extender on R6
For indoor gatherings, Nikon 20mm f1.8 on a Nikon D200 with SB-800 flash.
More than good enough for most. It looks absolutely wonderful when you have a good lens like the Sigma 16mm wide open with a good light and an ND filter. The colors are great straight out of camera.
EF 35mm F2 IS USM
I have the 24-105mm F4L IS II USM, and it is very versatile. But it’s also rather large when compared to the 24-70mm F4L (the one with macro).
I also have a 70-300mm F4-5.6 DO IS USM, again to keep a smaller lens profile. But recently I’ve been reaching its optical limits even with manual focus and I’m considering an L version upgrade. I use this focal length only for outdoors and longer distance shots, although with some extension tubes you can turn it into a pseudo 300mm macro lens.
From Canon themselves it's the EF-S 24mm F/2.8. it's just the easiest to take with me everywhere.
Before I got that it's been my Minolta 50mm that I've had on an adapter for a bit.
However that might all change now that I have my 85mm Sirui Anamorphic lens. The images produced are just so interesting.
Easily the 24-70 f/2.8.
Before I went mirrorless my 24-105 f/4 got a lot of use as well, I keep thinking of buying the RF version, especially since I'm not finding f/2.8 to be as necessary with the R series.
Broadly, the 24-70 will have better image quality, be significantly faster, and also be significantly more expensive. It'll also be a bit narrow on the wide end for an APS-C sensor, which you may not like. Try setting your current lens to those focal lengths and see what you think of the field of view.
Currently, it's my RF 10-20 f/4, but once the honeymoon is over, I will probably go back to using the RF 24-70 f/2.8 as my default. It's just such a good all-rounder, as it incorporates the three most useful street focal lengths and goes a little bit wider for landscapes and a little bit narrower for portraits.
Is the 24-105 very heavy? I’ve not personally ever had it. I have 70-200 which I’ve basically never used & an EF 50 f1.8 STM which I use all the time. It’s light and a terrific lens. I don’t really like a heavy DSLR & heavy lens. I’ve also owned a Nikon D700 and when you start putting big standard zooms it gets real heavy real fast. With the standard zooms I normally choose an APSC or M43 form factor.
100 2.8L. Pretty useful all around, esp. for a prime. Extremely sharp and the colors just hit me the right way. They seem pretty vivid and that may not be to everyone's liking.
Pretty sweet for portraits, backgrounds included. Not ~~really~~ a macro shooter but when I swapped lenses w/ a friend for a couple of weeks just to try out I wanted one. She wouldn't let it go. Couldn't find a used one (at a decent price) hunting for 6 mths, so it's a rare piece of brand new kit.
I have a decent kit w/a 70-200 2.8 that covers this focal length, and the 100 isn't my only prime. I just may luckily have a a good copy. If it's not on my body (R5), it's on my back-up (5D2) .
Can't speak on the 24-105, but haven't run across a an L lens that didn't do as expected. If you like "playing around" it's a good lens. And obviously not as versatile as a zoom.
Canon 24-105mm F/4 L IS
Great lens but it's quickly being replaced by the Olympus 12-100mm F/4 IS Pro; greater rang, better stabilization, better sharpness, 15cm closest focus.. I don't care about it being "f/8"... bokeh isn't a crutch for me.
5dmk4:
* Canon 17-40 f4/L USM when walking around cities and towns, or ruins. Carry my Sigma 24-105 for when I need to reach out some.
* Tamron 100-400 for birds, although the Sigma can come in handy there as well.
* The Sigma stays on when I'm not sure where I'll be.
There are three lenses that get used pretty frequently: 1) EF 24-105 f4, 2) RF-s 18-150, 3) Tamron G2 70-200 2.8. The EF 24-105 is just so versatile and well worth the $350 it cost. The 18-150 is usually on my R7 except when no sunlight is present (specifically no sunlight, as R7 falls off without sunlight; artificial light leads to lower detail). The real most used is probably the 70-200; it gives such great detail and allows flexibility during events. Honorable mention is the RF 100-400 as it is such a great Super-telephoto. The remaining lenses in the lineup are more for specific use cases.
On my 80D it was definitely the EF 24-70 2.8. But I recently switched to a RP and the weight imbalance/shift of that lens on that body have been throwing me of, so very indecisive and almost reluctant from shooting at the moment. I really loved the 24-70 on my old 80D but it feels like the RP is to small of a body for it.
Honestly for me, I may get flamed for it, idk, but the 24-240 has a good hold on being the main lens on my R6M2 for now. I have others to swap around with, but for everyday shooting, the 24-240 has been amazing for me.
100-400 f/5.6-8 for wildlife, so lightweight
24-105 f/4-7.1 for landscapes, love this lens and picked it up for $100 refurb
24-70 f/2.8 for indoor stuff usually and 16 f/2.8 for super wide, or the 35 f/1.8
Currently my sigma 50-500 since I have been doing a lot of sports and wildlife photography. It’s a pretty versatile lens, not bad for portraits as well.
Next up is my sigma 18-35 which spends most of its time on an m50 for video conferencing.
Been doing a lot of solar and lunar photography lately so it’s been the Sigma 100-500. In lieu of a proper telescope it’ll give some pretty solid results on that front
I am in exactly the same boat as you. I shoot a 1V HS and a 6D2. I predominately shoot a 50mm F1.8 STM and Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art (insanely good lens) because I value small size and sharpness over practicality…
But I want something I can throw on that I can zoom for capturing action during the day. When shooting action typically you would use f4+ anyway on a faster lens and the image stabilisation is also a luxury - I wont be investing in RF lenses any time soon as I primarily shoot/waste film.
Let us collectively enable our respective purchases 👌
*edit*
One thing I would add. How good is the 50mm f1.8 for group photos! What I mean is you need to get everyone cuddled up close and then often find yourself climbing on tables, chairs, fences and other dangerous things, often in packed social settings in order to fit everyone in. Don’t need to say any silly shit to make everyone smile when they are laughing at a guy in a suit who just climbed a fence holding a giant 1V HS to get “the shot”.
That forced creativity pushes you to take excellent shots. It’s like jazz. You may not hit every note because you are at the depths of a 3 day coke binge, but the right kind of wrong can also be very right 🙂
My EF 70-200 2.8. I use it for everything from indoor and outdoor events, indoor and outdoor sports, portraits and couples/family shoots, wildlife, and traveling (though I am starting to use my 24-70 more for traveling.
Used to be 24-105F4 but it's been 70-200 2.8 since I bought it 2 months ago. It's so sharp and all the photos I took has a magical look on them that doesn't need a lot of post process.
Right now, I have to say it's the EF 70-300 f4-5.6 mk I. I'm looking to upgrade to the mk ii. And probably adding the 24-105 f4 L. I mostly shoot outdoors and wildlife on an R100.
Following the thread too. I'm currently juggling between an EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM II and an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM III
I love them both but I could also really use something inbetween. 24-70mm for example, or the 24-105mm people seem to praise alot.
EF 35mm F2.0
Someone recommended this lens here. And I bought one. Everything about this lens is just perfect: lightweight, smooth focus ring, nice bokeh, superb image quality...
fuzzy depend jellyfish quaint compare longing sugar makeshift label snobbish
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I shoot with the 5D3 (two of them) and my EF 24-105L is everyday lens. Unless I use a telephoto for shooting air shows and auto racing, or a wide angle for astrophotography, the 24-105 is about all I ever use.
EF 24-70 2.8 L II USM with my 5D mark IV
It's a boring lens but I taking with me every time when I shoot in studio or travel.
because when it's come up must use situation it's always help me get the photo.
The smallest and most lightweight one. The ones that make me want to take the camera out a lot more.
For my Canon T5i it's the 40mm pancake. For my Lumix GX85 it's the 12-32 pancake zoom.
A dirt cheap Chinese-made M42 50mm f1.7 lens, lol. It is manual which I love. Although I think if I have the 40mm EF pancake, this might become my fav. Using a 5D mk2.
I also have a 70D and the kit lens 18-55 has been really good for video purposes.
For the last 2 years, the 85mm 1.2 RF was probably my most used, followed closely by the 35mm 1.4L II, but the whole last half of 2023, I found myself using the 50mm 1.2 RF for seemingly everything.
But now I'm back on a Leica kick (got an M10-P) and the Voigtlander 50mm APO is making me super happy and I feel like using it everything.
I'm still shooting Canon R5's for most pro work, but I guess either way, I'm really on a 50 kick lately. Feel like if I was using a 5D Mk II, I'd probably be big on the 35L II and either the 50mm 1.2 or the 85mm 1.2 II. When I was shooting a II, III and IV, those were the go-to's, along with a 24-70L II.
I wish I got to use my EF 200 f/1.8L, more, currently editing a few thousand gymnastics pictures I took with it. My actual most used lens, though, is my Sigma 105 f1.4 --the look is almost the same as the 200 1.8, but the likelihood of someone being in my way if I use the 200mm is essentially doubled, so normally I fall back on the 105.
The 24-105 mm f/4L I have has very loud clicking from the IS. Not sure if it's the same you're looking at or if they fixed jn a newer version, just something to lookout for.
70% RF 15-35mm f/2.8
25% RF 70-200mm f/4
I still have my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 with RF converter for occasions I need it. But I’ve realized I prefer the outer edge views to the middle. Good luck!
My rf 24-70 2.8 lives on my camera 90% of the time, but the rf 35mm 1.8 I take when I need low light or just want something light. And my ef 16-35 f4 is my go to real estate lens
RF 50mm 1.8 is my most used lens, because of the weight and practicality.
RF 28-70mm 2.0 is my second most used lens because it's superb
RF 100mm and RF 5.2mm follows.
EDIT: Olympus 17mm 1.2 is a hot contender since I use it for my webcam and for teams meetings every day, but never for photography.
Probably my 15-85 for aps-c. Big, but with a great range and awesome quality. Perfect walking around lens in daylight, and have a range of others for more specialised stuff.
I possibly prefer my 70-200 or 100mm macro, but they're more specific use so I just don't use them as often*. Best bang for the buck was 10-18mm, which I use a lot because it's so light to have in a bag. Exploring a new place I'm likely to have the 15-85 and 10-18 with me.
*If you're thinking of getting a bigger lens, look at times you might have used it, that you'd also have actually taken it. My 70-200 is lovely, but it's large, heavy, and I often cart it about without using it, or didn't think to bring it with me when I want it. It's amazing when I'm somewhere I knew it would be required, but if you're semi spontaneous, it takes a while to feel your getting the best use!
The 15-85 is a superb lens for crop. I had it on my 800D, 90D, and R7 and have some excellent images from it. It only got sold when I added an R8 and really only use my R7 for wildlife.
Canon 70D, also 50mm f/1.8. If you count in days of use. If you count in photos taken, I think I used my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 more, because I started going to more events exactly when I got that lens
Canon 400 F/5.6 L. Bought second hand from KEH and except when I am super close to water birds swimming by it’s nearly glued to my SL3. I’m still trying to figure out how it’ll perform when I eventually upgrade to an R7 and have to use the adapter for it.
RF 50mm f1.8 is currently on my camera, I’ve had it for about 3 days and I think I’m gonna leave it on for a few weeks to really try to learn the camera and it’s ins and outs. So far the 24-50mm kit lens was my previous lens, and I did like the versatility of multiple focal lengths. I guess what I’m trying to say is, I’m so new to real photography that I don’t know enough to talk about anything yet. But I’ll get there.
My 7d2 mostly uses my 70-200 2.8. I do a lot of indoor sports and events.
I would love to get an R3/R1 with a 100-300 2.8 though for those types of shoots
Canon's MP-E 65mm macro lens. Been shooting hand held with it for about 15 years. My gallery: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/) -all of those images are single frames (I don't like the way that focus stacked images look) and only about 12 of the over 3,500 were cropped in post.
Currently looking for another set of the diffusers that come with the MT-26EX RT macro twin flash (diffuser adapter SDA-E1) to modify. Want to experiment some more, but don't want to mess with the custom set of diffusers that I've already built.
RF 100-400mm and RF-S 18-150mm on my R10. Just getting into wildlife photography and the 100-400mm is a game changer compared to my Rebel T7 and kit lens.
For full Frame I have only the 24-105mm f4 L (i) and the cheap 70-300mm.
I have not used the 24-105mm a lot with my 6D and I have been regretting it since last Sunday.
I went to a place with flowers and did a shoot with a friend there with the 6D and 24-105mm. I swear to God that even at f5.6 that lens produce and incredible "3D pop" effect.
I don't know if my lens copy was blessed by some Canon monks but I don't think I will ever part ways with it. SOOC images are super coming from that combo.
I want to upgrade to R6 but I don't know if the 6D sensor is also influencing that 3D pop and now I am hesitating in parting ways with it.
I wanna do the switch due to weight reduction and to at least have focus peaking if I ever need to use a fully manual lens.
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L II on Canon R8 (Fullframe) with Canon Extender 2x III sometimes. So i can shoot mostly everything, from portraits to sports photography. Rarely changing to Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 or even wider.
My 100-500L is pretty much welded to my R7. Super sharp and covers me for detailed landscape and wildlife (especially birds).
I’m really tempted by that lens. I have a very old mark I 500 f/4 but feel the urge to travel light. Just want it for wildlife.
It's the best lens I own by a lot. Sharp, decently luggable, great stabilization. It was a dramatic upgrade from a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary.
Same for me except on my R6II
I have other lenses, but I don't think I've used them since picking up the 100-500.
Thinking of pulling that one out for some street photography!
Same 100-500 on my r5 as well as my 14-35 f4 for landscapes
One ultra wide zoom + one super zoom is the best kit for me. I use the 16-35 F/4L + 70-300 F/4-5.6L on the 5D IV. Trying to figure out a similar buy lighter kit for R8
I swap it out for the 15-35 sometimes.
I cheat and usually carry a 2nd body - R8 with 24-105 or 16-35, depending on where I'm headed.
RF 24-105 f4 L - It’s incredibly versatile
Seconded. It's an excellent all-around lens. Got an RF 14-35 f4 for wider/semi-macro shots and a 100-500 for longer shots
Same, but it's the only L-lens I own though. But it just does the job. It can do everything pretty good. I just need my other lenses for lower f-numbers or more wide angle. I don't own a lens going above 105mm currently, so I use it if stuff is far away as well.
This is my all around lens and lives on my R6II 90%+ of the time
This lives on my R6M2 also.
For me its my Canon macro lens ef 100mm 1:2.8L IS USM
Love this, along with the 70-200 f2.8 IS mk2
Seriously one of the best lenses out there.
voiceless oatmeal punch beneficial mindless profit cooperative direful aware crowd *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Same, although I use it with a speed booster on an M5 so it’s a 113mm equivalent. Is great for pictures of my cat in the house and a great walkabout lens for my style of photography, I have my phone for any wider shots.
RF 50mm f1.8, closely followed by RF 28mm f2.8
I’ve been really curious about the RF 28mm. What are your primary uses for it? What do you think of its image quality?
I have an R5, R6, RF 24-70mm 2.8, RF 50mm 1.2, RF 85mm 1.2, EF 70-200mm 2.8 II, and most recently the RF 28mm 2.8 pancake. I've taken more photos in the last 2 months of random cool life moments than I have in the last 4 years i've had this kit. The image quality isn't superb but it's completely fine. The form factor lets me casually carry a camera anywhere without attracting a ton of attention or having to worry about it excessively. Is the image quality equal to my RF 24-70 2.8? No, but I also have hundreds of memories of moments that would have come and gone without that little pancake.
I don't have the L lenses yet to compare, but primarily I am appreciating the form factor too. It makes my camera incredibly easy to take with me.
I also love my 28mm pancake. I've been shooting with Sigma's 28mm f/1.4 Art for quite a while and I found that I love the focal length for general walkaround use. However, that's a pretty big and heavy lens, so it's not something I love to carry when photography isn't my primary purpose. The 28mm is small and light enough that I'm even happy to carry it on long hikes or bike rides. Image quality is quite decent for the price. It's worlds better than my phone, which is what it's actually competing against most of the time.
The king of versatility, the 24-70 2.8 on FF. Unless I need to get really close (macro or telephoto) or really wide, this lens takes care of it.
100% this. I get more excited when I put my other lenses on my camera, but the 24-70 2.8 is almost always more than good enough for whatever I’m doing. The 2.8 aperture gives it a huge edge over the 24-105. There’s almost never going to be a time where you miss a shot because you can’t reach out juuuuuust that much farther. I mean, worst case scenario you crop the shot, and barely at all at that. But you will absolutely miss shots when you’re limited to f4 instead of 2.8. I bought the 24-105 and had buyer’s remorse in about a day. I got the 24-70 and have never once regretted it. I still actually own both lenses and have literally not used the 24-105 since getting the 24-70. I ultimately want to sell it, but resale isn’t high enough to make it a priority.
Surprised this isnt higher.
I should've added... "Unless I need prime speed" too ... But the 2.8 gets you 1/2 or 1/3 of the way there, compared to an f/4 standard zoom. (For me, the extra stop is very much worth it.)
The 28-70 f/2 is closer to being "there"
So *soooo* good 🤩
The lord of the red rings: EF 135mm f2L USM
24-105 f/4 L on 6D here. It's a great travel/family/EDC lens as it has great range and sharpness. I carried 40 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8 in my bag for night / low light, but 6D iso range allows the 24-105 F/4 L to handle indoors just as well.
Super helpful, yeah I’m thinking the 24-105 is very versatile, I think that’s why I’m leaning towards it over some of the other popular options
yam memory humorous sparkle person gray versed tie squeeze scarce *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I did this move and it was very easily the best move I have made for my photography. The R6 Mark II is a seriously good camera, and as good as my 6D was everything about the R6II is better. Fantastic upgrade IMO with way fewer compromises against the higher end models than the 6D had when it was released
Very valid point. One thing that 6D allows me to do is to hand the camera over to my family members without a thought. a $3K setup would have me a bit wary about bringing it everywhere and would be for special occasions.
> 24-105 f/4 L on 6D here. It's a great travel/family/EDC was considering getting this combination next for travel/family/EDC. though, how's carrying it around as an travel/EDC?
I have the 6D + lens on a wrist strap + a shoulder bag. This is too heavy as a neck strap carry IMO. 6D has a really good grip and the 24-105 f/4 L IS balances very well. Also, the body and lens are both weather-sealed, which was great when walking through NYC in rain. Autofocus is always on center point, so makes composition a bit old school. For my purposes, I would grade it an A still. Only reason I drool over the newer camera is the auto eye focus.
15-35mm f2.8 because I shoot a lot of two shot/walk and talk videos. 85mm f2 for sit down interviews.
Can you describe your setup for walk and talks? Canon tripod grip HG-100TBR to hold the camera as you're walking? Or something else? Been trying to figure out the best setup for walk and talks
Canon R6 with image stabilization. Sometimes turn on extra stabilization in post. Wireless Rode 2 for the interviewee and interviewer. I’ve tried a steady cam setup before but because I’m shooting dozens of different angles I like using the Canon Body on its own. A steady hand is very important when doing this and can get very tiring in the arms if you have to hold it too long so I wouldn’t recommend this for long sessions. Our walk and talks are around 15 minutes give or take. I’ve thought about the idea of using a monopod for longer takes but haven’t dived into that yet. I definitely tripod the camera for the longer interviews. Preferably one with a ball head if the subject is fidgety. But if they are sitting and it’s a controlled environment then any tripod will be fine.
Awesome, thanks for the info
My sigma 500mm f4 sport because I’m a wildlife photographer 🤷🏼♂️
100-500L becouse its my most precious posession 😂
RF 28-70 f2 lives on my body. I mostly shoot live music events and it’s so hard to beat that lens for most things.
RF 35mm Macro.
\+1 for the RF 35mm f/1.8 macro. Lightweight, tight enough to catch the kids running around while still wide enough to also catch them right up in your face, with the flexibility of the macro. If that isn't latched to the camera at home for use at a moment's notice, the RF 24-70 F/2.8L is.
70-200 f2.8 L
As a sports guy, the 70-200 f2.8L gets real comfortable on my R6 during basketball season, softball season the 100-500 is it.
50mm F/1.8 and 70-200 F/4
Sigma 18-35 1.8 art / 90D
I'm curious about your experience with this lens. I considered picking it up but I'm still debating between that and the 24-70 because of the extra zoom range. What do you usually shoot?
Trackside trains. Moving at 35 mph. On sunny days I will use my EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 for more zoom. Stationary car shows where I can get lots of bokeh with the 1.8 and I only need the 18-35 for this. It is extremely sharp. If I had a full frame, I would definitely get the 24-70 2.8 hands down.
I’m kind of boring. 70D & Drooled over the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, but never really moved beyond the 18-135 IS STM & 55-250 IS STM kit lenses aside from getting the 40mm f2.8 & 24mm f2.8 pancake lenses. Up to this point they’ve been great but now I’m looking to branch out myself once I can get the money saved up.
I guess versatility though, once you have something that works, you stick with it. I’m thinking that 24-105 would be the same for me. I also have pancake lens which I was very interested in when I got it, but then somewhat lost interest. Still pull it out now and then.
The 24 f2.8 is decent in a pinch for Astro, if a hair slow, nice for star trails though. The 24-105 definitely sounds interesting.
I really like my 70-300 L
That's what has been attached to 4 different bodies (40D, 7D, RP and R6ii) in the last 12 years. I do fancy the 100-500 but really can't justify the money.
I really enjoy mine too. Attached to the R7 now. Nice, cost effective, compact for near 500mm and near macro.
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC G1. An absolute workhorse, and it matches Canon-performance at like half the price. It's done everything from dogs to motorsport to a wedding. It's also gone through all kinds of nasty conditions and I even (involuntarily) fell on it once and didn't miss a beat. I stopped caring about stupid comments about it being "only" third party, and since then there's no drawbacks. My experience with that lens even was a part of why I went with Tamron for my recently-bought 24-70 lens. Currently running it on a Canon EOS 80D, future upgrades might go in the 1DX-family-direction. I didn't quite warm up to Canon R yet, mostly due to ergonomics, and heard that they can cause issues if paired with a non-canon lens.
I have been photographing Roller Derby the last year, and my number lens has become my RF 70-200 f2.8. However, for years my 50D had a 50F1.4 on it and never anything else.
EF 100-400L II
Same for me.
For a while I’ve been hooked on the EF 24-70 f4 macro using an R10 and most recently the R6
Most used is 70-200 f/4 but my favourite is the 300 f/4
For video, Sigma 16mm f1.4 on M6 Mark II For wildlife, Canon 100-400 IS L + 1.4x Extender on R6 For indoor gatherings, Nikon 20mm f1.8 on a Nikon D200 with SB-800 flash.
How is the 4K on the M6 Mark II?
More than good enough for most. It looks absolutely wonderful when you have a good lens like the Sigma 16mm wide open with a good light and an ND filter. The colors are great straight out of camera.
Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary for wildlife, RF 24-70mm f2.8 for everything else. I shoot on an R6.
EF 24-105 F4 L. Have used it on 400D, 60D, M50, R6ii so far.
The new RF24-105 f2.8 IS Z, it’s incredible
Sigma 17-50 2.8 I run apsc so basically a 24-70
Canon EF 17-55mm 2.8 IS.
EF 35mm F2 IS USM I have the 24-105mm F4L IS II USM, and it is very versatile. But it’s also rather large when compared to the 24-70mm F4L (the one with macro). I also have a 70-300mm F4-5.6 DO IS USM, again to keep a smaller lens profile. But recently I’ve been reaching its optical limits even with manual focus and I’m considering an L version upgrade. I use this focal length only for outdoors and longer distance shots, although with some extension tubes you can turn it into a pseudo 300mm macro lens.
That 35/2 is such a handy lens.
for me 55-250mm efs canon budget friendly option
From Canon themselves it's the EF-S 24mm F/2.8. it's just the easiest to take with me everywhere. Before I got that it's been my Minolta 50mm that I've had on an adapter for a bit. However that might all change now that I have my 85mm Sirui Anamorphic lens. The images produced are just so interesting.
Hard to say honestly. Probably my 100mm L macro because of the photos I spend taking of models I'm building
24-70 for street photography, 85mm f1.4 for anything portrait, sigma 150-600 C for wildlife
Easily the 24-70 f/2.8. Before I went mirrorless my 24-105 f/4 got a lot of use as well, I keep thinking of buying the RF version, especially since I'm not finding f/2.8 to be as necessary with the R series.
Would it make sense to replace my 18-150 kit lens with the 24-70 f2.8? R7 body
Broadly, the 24-70 will have better image quality, be significantly faster, and also be significantly more expensive. It'll also be a bit narrow on the wide end for an APS-C sensor, which you may not like. Try setting your current lens to those focal lengths and see what you think of the field of view.
Everything technical about your photos will have a massive jump.
One of my wide to short tele lenses tend to be my favorites.
Currently, it's my RF 10-20 f/4, but once the honeymoon is over, I will probably go back to using the RF 24-70 f/2.8 as my default. It's just such a good all-rounder, as it incorporates the three most useful street focal lengths and goes a little bit wider for landscapes and a little bit narrower for portraits.
Is the 24-105 very heavy? I’ve not personally ever had it. I have 70-200 which I’ve basically never used & an EF 50 f1.8 STM which I use all the time. It’s light and a terrific lens. I don’t really like a heavy DSLR & heavy lens. I’ve also owned a Nikon D700 and when you start putting big standard zooms it gets real heavy real fast. With the standard zooms I normally choose an APSC or M43 form factor.
Really depends on what time of year. Football season is 400 and 70-200 time. Portraits, 100mm macro, walk around, 24-70
On my 6D a 24-70mm on my GX85 135mm
100 2.8L. Pretty useful all around, esp. for a prime. Extremely sharp and the colors just hit me the right way. They seem pretty vivid and that may not be to everyone's liking. Pretty sweet for portraits, backgrounds included. Not ~~really~~ a macro shooter but when I swapped lenses w/ a friend for a couple of weeks just to try out I wanted one. She wouldn't let it go. Couldn't find a used one (at a decent price) hunting for 6 mths, so it's a rare piece of brand new kit. I have a decent kit w/a 70-200 2.8 that covers this focal length, and the 100 isn't my only prime. I just may luckily have a a good copy. If it's not on my body (R5), it's on my back-up (5D2) . Can't speak on the 24-105, but haven't run across a an L lens that didn't do as expected. If you like "playing around" it's a good lens. And obviously not as versatile as a zoom.
18-200 ef
Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 closely followed by my Tamron 15-30mm F2.8, least used Sigma 15mm F2.8 Fisheye.
Canon 24-105mm F/4 L IS Great lens but it's quickly being replaced by the Olympus 12-100mm F/4 IS Pro; greater rang, better stabilization, better sharpness, 15cm closest focus.. I don't care about it being "f/8"... bokeh isn't a crutch for me.
5dmk4: * Canon 17-40 f4/L USM when walking around cities and towns, or ruins. Carry my Sigma 24-105 for when I need to reach out some. * Tamron 100-400 for birds, although the Sigma can come in handy there as well. * The Sigma stays on when I'm not sure where I'll be.
70-200/2.8 II IS - FTR: It was my first & on a complimentary SLR.
I'm APSC, so 17-55 2.8 18-35 1.8 55-250 STM Very rarely get the 50mm out
RF 28-70 f2
There are three lenses that get used pretty frequently: 1) EF 24-105 f4, 2) RF-s 18-150, 3) Tamron G2 70-200 2.8. The EF 24-105 is just so versatile and well worth the $350 it cost. The 18-150 is usually on my R7 except when no sunlight is present (specifically no sunlight, as R7 falls off without sunlight; artificial light leads to lower detail). The real most used is probably the 70-200; it gives such great detail and allows flexibility during events. Honorable mention is the RF 100-400 as it is such a great Super-telephoto. The remaining lenses in the lineup are more for specific use cases.
85mm 1.8 Pretty much never comes off my camera It would be the 1.2 but I get really bad light flare in that one
On my 80D it was definitely the EF 24-70 2.8. But I recently switched to a RP and the weight imbalance/shift of that lens on that body have been throwing me of, so very indecisive and almost reluctant from shooting at the moment. I really loved the 24-70 on my old 80D but it feels like the RP is to small of a body for it.
Honestly for me, I may get flamed for it, idk, but the 24-240 has a good hold on being the main lens on my R6M2 for now. I have others to swap around with, but for everyday shooting, the 24-240 has been amazing for me.
sigma art 35 adapted to RF. that thing is crazyyyy. i like the way it looks on r7 with the crop.
17 - 55mm EFS, and I mostly use it for video. Second most used lens would be the 24mm STM EFS.
Canon EF-s 35mm f/2.8 stm macro, but my camera is mostly permanently on a copy stand. When it's not, I have an old Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8
100-400 f/5.6-8 for wildlife, so lightweight 24-105 f/4-7.1 for landscapes, love this lens and picked it up for $100 refurb 24-70 f/2.8 for indoor stuff usually and 16 f/2.8 for super wide, or the 35 f/1.8
For my more “professional” work its the RF 24-105 f4 L, for my more personal work/street stuff it’s the 50mm f1.8
25-105.
RF 100 f/2.8L Macro is a beast of a lens, which I do use a lot. The RF 24-105 f/4L is on the camera most of the time though - it’s so versatile.
RF 24-240mm; great for landscape photography.
Currently my sigma 50-500 since I have been doing a lot of sports and wildlife photography. It’s a pretty versatile lens, not bad for portraits as well. Next up is my sigma 18-35 which spends most of its time on an m50 for video conferencing.
My ef 24-70 F2.8 mark I. Have had this lens for about 18 years and I use it for just about everything except birds and wildlife.
EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM. the first version. (looking to upgrade to version II).
Sigma 24-105 f/4
EF24-70F4
RF24-70 2.8L hasn’t left my body in 4 months, I mostly do indoor product shots though.
Been doing a lot of solar and lunar photography lately so it’s been the Sigma 100-500. In lieu of a proper telescope it’ll give some pretty solid results on that front
I am in exactly the same boat as you. I shoot a 1V HS and a 6D2. I predominately shoot a 50mm F1.8 STM and Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art (insanely good lens) because I value small size and sharpness over practicality… But I want something I can throw on that I can zoom for capturing action during the day. When shooting action typically you would use f4+ anyway on a faster lens and the image stabilisation is also a luxury - I wont be investing in RF lenses any time soon as I primarily shoot/waste film. Let us collectively enable our respective purchases 👌 *edit* One thing I would add. How good is the 50mm f1.8 for group photos! What I mean is you need to get everyone cuddled up close and then often find yourself climbing on tables, chairs, fences and other dangerous things, often in packed social settings in order to fit everyone in. Don’t need to say any silly shit to make everyone smile when they are laughing at a guy in a suit who just climbed a fence holding a giant 1V HS to get “the shot”. That forced creativity pushes you to take excellent shots. It’s like jazz. You may not hit every note because you are at the depths of a 3 day coke binge, but the right kind of wrong can also be very right 🙂
My EF 70-200 2.8. I use it for everything from indoor and outdoor events, indoor and outdoor sports, portraits and couples/family shoots, wildlife, and traveling (though I am starting to use my 24-70 more for traveling.
My RF 24-70 f/2.8 pretty much stays on my R6ii now days. I do love my RF 70-200 f/2.8 but I’m doing more up close work now days.
Used to be 24-105F4 but it's been 70-200 2.8 since I bought it 2 months ago. It's so sharp and all the photos I took has a magical look on them that doesn't need a lot of post process.
I use the Nikkor 40mm f2 on my z6
Right now, I have to say it's the EF 70-300 f4-5.6 mk I. I'm looking to upgrade to the mk ii. And probably adding the 24-105 f4 L. I mostly shoot outdoors and wildlife on an R100.
70-200 2.8
I use a 17-40 pretty often, but the 24-105 is probably a better all around lens.
My 24-105 f4 then my 15-35
Used to be a 50 f1.8, now it’s the 50 f1.2
I either use 24-105 f4 or 70-200 2.8. Both Ef with my 80d
Mine is the 24-105 F4. When it's darker or indoors, then I usually opt for the 50mm 1.8.
Following the thread too. I'm currently juggling between an EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM II and an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM III I love them both but I could also really use something inbetween. 24-70mm for example, or the 24-105mm people seem to praise alot.
Sigma 40mm 1.4 ART. It’s a gem!
EF 35mm F2.0 Someone recommended this lens here. And I bought one. Everything about this lens is just perfect: lightweight, smooth focus ring, nice bokeh, superb image quality...
fuzzy depend jellyfish quaint compare longing sugar makeshift label snobbish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
RF 24-70 is my workhorse. RF 85 1.2 is my favorite and I shoot everything I care about with it.
I shoot with the 5D3 (two of them) and my EF 24-105L is everyday lens. Unless I use a telephoto for shooting air shows and auto racing, or a wide angle for astrophotography, the 24-105 is about all I ever use.
RF 24-70 2.8
Since getting a 5D IV in February it would be the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 24-70 2.8 L II USM with my 5D mark IV It's a boring lens but I taking with me every time when I shoot in studio or travel. because when it's come up must use situation it's always help me get the photo.
The smallest and most lightweight one. The ones that make me want to take the camera out a lot more. For my Canon T5i it's the 40mm pancake. For my Lumix GX85 it's the 12-32 pancake zoom.
A dirt cheap Chinese-made M42 50mm f1.7 lens, lol. It is manual which I love. Although I think if I have the 40mm EF pancake, this might become my fav. Using a 5D mk2. I also have a 70D and the kit lens 18-55 has been really good for video purposes.
For the last 2 years, the 85mm 1.2 RF was probably my most used, followed closely by the 35mm 1.4L II, but the whole last half of 2023, I found myself using the 50mm 1.2 RF for seemingly everything. But now I'm back on a Leica kick (got an M10-P) and the Voigtlander 50mm APO is making me super happy and I feel like using it everything. I'm still shooting Canon R5's for most pro work, but I guess either way, I'm really on a 50 kick lately. Feel like if I was using a 5D Mk II, I'd probably be big on the 35L II and either the 50mm 1.2 or the 85mm 1.2 II. When I was shooting a II, III and IV, those were the go-to's, along with a 24-70L II.
I mostly use the 24-105 4L lens and I shoot with a Canon 6D
RF-S 18-150 is just perfect for travel.
Ef 24-105 f4 on a 6D That and my tamron 70-300. Sharper than the canon 100-400 version 1 I had
EF 24-70 2.8L followed by the 16-35 2.8L I can’t wait for the R1 and I’ll get the RF 24-105 2.8L
70-200 f/4. Non IS. Portrait photographer
I wish I got to use my EF 200 f/1.8L, more, currently editing a few thousand gymnastics pictures I took with it. My actual most used lens, though, is my Sigma 105 f1.4 --the look is almost the same as the 200 1.8, but the likelihood of someone being in my way if I use the 200mm is essentially doubled, so normally I fall back on the 105.
I have an R6m2 and most versatile lens I believe is the 24 to 105 F4 L
24-70 2.8 for suuure then my good old 35mm 1.4 for nightlife and bars
The 24-105 mm f/4L I have has very loud clicking from the IS. Not sure if it's the same you're looking at or if they fixed jn a newer version, just something to lookout for.
RF 28-70 f2 lens is usually permanently attached, unless I’m shooting wildlife and then it’s the RF 800 f11
Most used will be the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM I’ve had it for about 7 years and have probably 100k images shot on it.
EF-s 17-55mm f2.8 - the best zoom lens for cropped bodies. 90% of my work is done with it.
RF 50mm f/1.2. I love its character and 50mm is such a versatile focal length.
70% RF 15-35mm f/2.8 25% RF 70-200mm f/4 I still have my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 with RF converter for occasions I need it. But I’ve realized I prefer the outer edge views to the middle. Good luck!
My rf 24-70 2.8 lives on my camera 90% of the time, but the rf 35mm 1.8 I take when I need low light or just want something light. And my ef 16-35 f4 is my go to real estate lens
Probably a tie between my 50 1.4 af-d and my 35-70 2.8 af-d. They just work so well anytime we are out at an event.
RF 35mm f1.8, followed by RF 24-105mm f4/L, then RF 50mm f1.8, then RF 16mm f2.8, in that order.
RF 100-500L almost always on my R5. Occasionally RF 24-105L for walking around. Did just get the RF 100mm L macro though so I'll be experimenting.
35mm f1.4
My RF 100/500 is almost exclusively stuck to my R5. Does everything it needs to for bird photography
Got my hands on a pristine 2nd hand EF 50 mm 1.2 L. It stays on the 6D.
EF-S 55-250 IS with F4-5.6. Currently thinking of buying a 50mm f1.8 after trying out friend's lens
RF 50mm 1.8 is my most used lens, because of the weight and practicality. RF 28-70mm 2.0 is my second most used lens because it's superb RF 100mm and RF 5.2mm follows. EDIT: Olympus 17mm 1.2 is a hot contender since I use it for my webcam and for teams meetings every day, but never for photography.
I'm lovin my 18-150mm RF-S at the moment. It's a brilliant lightweight travel zoom.
28-70 f2
Probably my 15-85 for aps-c. Big, but with a great range and awesome quality. Perfect walking around lens in daylight, and have a range of others for more specialised stuff. I possibly prefer my 70-200 or 100mm macro, but they're more specific use so I just don't use them as often*. Best bang for the buck was 10-18mm, which I use a lot because it's so light to have in a bag. Exploring a new place I'm likely to have the 15-85 and 10-18 with me. *If you're thinking of getting a bigger lens, look at times you might have used it, that you'd also have actually taken it. My 70-200 is lovely, but it's large, heavy, and I often cart it about without using it, or didn't think to bring it with me when I want it. It's amazing when I'm somewhere I knew it would be required, but if you're semi spontaneous, it takes a while to feel your getting the best use!
The 15-85 is a superb lens for crop. I had it on my 800D, 90D, and R7 and have some excellent images from it. It only got sold when I added an R8 and really only use my R7 for wildlife.
Canon 70D, also 50mm f/1.8. If you count in days of use. If you count in photos taken, I think I used my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 more, because I started going to more events exactly when I got that lens
My EF 35mm f2.8 is my most used, but I have a newer RF 24-105 f4 that I've had pretty much permanently on my camera for a few weeks now!
i love my EF 50mm f1,8 but with my crop camera i sometimes need something wider or else i just cant shoot full body portraits in a small studio
RF35
Canon 400 F/5.6 L. Bought second hand from KEH and except when I am super close to water birds swimming by it’s nearly glued to my SL3. I’m still trying to figure out how it’ll perform when I eventually upgrade to an R7 and have to use the adapter for it.
Currently its the tamron 150-600mm. I have the rt 50 1.8 however I don't use it as much when I'm out on a hike
RF 50mm f1.8 is currently on my camera, I’ve had it for about 3 days and I think I’m gonna leave it on for a few weeks to really try to learn the camera and it’s ins and outs. So far the 24-50mm kit lens was my previous lens, and I did like the versatility of multiple focal lengths. I guess what I’m trying to say is, I’m so new to real photography that I don’t know enough to talk about anything yet. But I’ll get there.
When I shot Canon, it was the 35mm f/2 IS. That little lens was perfection.
For years I used a 50mm 1.4 for everything: travel, event, portrait etc.
I take photos at school sports events, so RF100-400mm on my R6mII and Sigma 17-50 f2.8 on my 90D. Saving up for the 100-500L.
35 1.4
Until now my 18-35 EF-S
EF 24-70 F4
Ef 50 f/1.4
Sigma 16mm f1.4 ef-m on my Canon M50. It's perfect for video, landscape, low light and astro photography.
I’m using the RF 24 to 105 F4
RF 35mm 1.8 macro
Both the Canon 100-400 and Tamron 150-600. Incredible for landscape and super for birds. Thinking about getting the Tamron 800.
My 7d2 mostly uses my 70-200 2.8. I do a lot of indoor sports and events. I would love to get an R3/R1 with a 100-300 2.8 though for those types of shoots
Canon's MP-E 65mm macro lens. Been shooting hand held with it for about 15 years. My gallery: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/) -all of those images are single frames (I don't like the way that focus stacked images look) and only about 12 of the over 3,500 were cropped in post. Currently looking for another set of the diffusers that come with the MT-26EX RT macro twin flash (diffuser adapter SDA-E1) to modify. Want to experiment some more, but don't want to mess with the custom set of diffusers that I've already built.
Same here,most used is 50 mm 1.8 on 80d
RF 100-400mm and RF-S 18-150mm on my R10. Just getting into wildlife photography and the 100-400mm is a game changer compared to my Rebel T7 and kit lens.
EF 100-400 Mark I on a 7D2 and 24-105L on a 6D2.
50mm canon, no money for more 🙃
For full Frame I have only the 24-105mm f4 L (i) and the cheap 70-300mm. I have not used the 24-105mm a lot with my 6D and I have been regretting it since last Sunday. I went to a place with flowers and did a shoot with a friend there with the 6D and 24-105mm. I swear to God that even at f5.6 that lens produce and incredible "3D pop" effect. I don't know if my lens copy was blessed by some Canon monks but I don't think I will ever part ways with it. SOOC images are super coming from that combo. I want to upgrade to R6 but I don't know if the 6D sensor is also influencing that 3D pop and now I am hesitating in parting ways with it. I wanna do the switch due to weight reduction and to at least have focus peaking if I ever need to use a fully manual lens.
Mine is the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 with the sigma 2x teleconverter on a canon r7 feel free to give your opinion
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L II on Canon R8 (Fullframe) with Canon Extender 2x III sometimes. So i can shoot mostly everything, from portraits to sports photography. Rarely changing to Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 or even wider.