Hey /p/
So I recently purchased a Canon EOS 6D with the 24-105mm f4 and I am now trying to build up my lens collection. I have a bit of money to spend but I don't want to blow it on an expensive lens when something cheaper will do just as well from my purposes (total casual when it comes to photography; first DSLR).
So here's what I'd like to get within the next few months:
50mm prime
85mm prime
35mm prime
70-200 telephoto
Wide angle
Now, as far as prime lenses, the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art has jumped out at me, but it's a bit more than I wanted to spend on one lens at this point. I could either go with the Sigma, or instead pick up the Canon 50mm 1.4 as well as a Canon 35mm or 85mm. Which would you recommend?
I was also looking at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM as a telephoto. I also noticed they have another one has image stabilization, but it's also about twice as much. Should I get the one with IS or go with the cheaper one?
Haven't looked too much into the Wide angles. Any you could recommend?
I know I'm kinda asking a lot of questions. I'm just new to this, and I was hoping for some informed opinions on the subject. Much appreciated.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2008:05:13 08:57:11 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2658 Image Height 1225
>50mm
The Nifty Fifty
>35mm
The Nifty Fifty with 3-5 steps back
>85
The Nifty Fifty with 3-5 steps forward
>70-200
The Nifty Fifty with varying amounts of steps forward.
>>2716003
Is the image quality really negligible between the 1.8 and the 1.4 (or 1.2)? I'd like to get the best quality possible without spending more than a grand.
>>2716007
The Nifty Fifty is about $125, so you can get 8 of them to cover all of your needs.
If you're new, you shouldn't have bought a 6D.
Not to say that a beginner shouldn't use a full frame camera, but you probably would've benefitted from a smaller body. Most people end up not pursuing photography because their spanking new camera is too heavy to carry around.
Skip the Canon 50/1.4; that piece of shit has the worst AF motor.
>>2716011
What about when I'm at a concert and there is a mob of people between me and my subject?
Or if I want to get a shot of a bird in a tree? I'm not very good at climbing..
Or if I want to get a picture of a mountain in front of me, but there is a mountain right behind me as well?
Nifty fifty is nice, but it isn't a magic lens.
>>2716017
Well, a big reason I had for going full-frame was because I really like taking night pictures, and the full-frame is going to give me the best results there.
Do you have any recommendations besides the Canon 50mm 1.4 or 1.8?
>>2716025
If you can't use the nifty fifty at all times, you're not a good enough photographer.
>>2716027
Oh sure, I could use it at all times, but it's not going to give me the pictures I want.
I should have known better than to come to 4chan for advice..
>>2716029
You should know better than to doubt the nifty fifty.
>>2716030
I think you just like saying nifty fifty.
I bet if we had a gear related thread, this discussion would have been a lot more fruitful.
>>2716027
>>2716029
Ken rockwell could shoot nascar with a nifty fifty.
if you need anything more (or less) than a nifty fifty you are not good enough to get closer (or farther away)
>>2715997
>trying to build up my lens collection
PLEASE DON'T REPLY TO THIS MAN HE IS ALREADY A LOST CAUSE
>>2716253
thank you!
> total casual when it comes to photography
> looking at $1200 l lens
> hurr durrrrrr
>>2716237
You guys are total faggots. Sometimes you want that feature compression of a telephoto. It's not all about how close or far you are, but framing a shot sometimes requires some zoom.
>>2716327
feature compression is literally all about how close or far you are....
How about you tell us what you want to shoot first? Also as a first timer you should maybe invest in one lens for one thing (e.g. get a wide angle if you want to do architecture/landscapes, telephoto for wild life etc.) and try that kind of photography to see if you like it instead of buying 50 lenses to later find out that you don't like a certain type of photography
>>2716017
the 6D is only 200 grams heavier and only slightly larger than the T3i, which is fucking tiny and compact as hell.
>>2715997
>50mm prime
get the sigma A
if you don't want to spend money get the nifty nifty
>85mm prime
use the tele zoom or take some steps forward with the 50mm
>35mm prime
get the sigma A
if you don't want to spend money get the nifty nifty and some steps backwards
>70-200 telephoto
the 70-200 f/2.8L is good enough, you should be able to find a used one for a decent price
>Wide angle
sigma 8-16
ah, also
>>2716017
>Well, a big reason I had for going full-frame was because I really like taking night pictures
you should have gotten a used a7s, it has around 1/32 of the noise of a 6D
I tried taking night pictures with a 5DmkIII (which according to DxO has about as much noise as the 6D) + a 50mm f/1.8 and it was a pain
After seeing this thread I'm beginning to understand the exasperation many of you feel about gearfags.
>>2716361
What kind of dumb shit are you if you think compression is the same as focusing distance, compression is how far away the subject appears to the background, with a 200mm the background will appear both blurrier and closer to the subject than it would on a 50mm, and with a 35mm or even a 28mm the background will appear to be less blurry and farther away from the subject.
>>2716327
It was a joke you dingus.
But seriously, Ken Rockwell has said that he can't think of any reason why you'd ever need a longer lens than a 70-200. He's pretty retarded.
>>2715997
That being said, there's really no reason not to get a nifty fifty as your first prime. it's cheap as fuck and very sharp for the price. It's the best price/performance lens you can get.
You already have the 24-105 though, so why are you looking at getting a bunch of primes in the first place?
>>2716795
>so why are you looking at getting a bunch of primes in the first place?
he's a moron gearfag.
> g-g-g-gots to get muh 8 prime lenses
> oops just borowd $8000 for lenzez for a total casual
> oops can't carry them around with me
> oops only brought one lens with me and now i need one of my other 7
> oops the quality of muh fotos didn't change
> oops my payday loans are due, beter pawn those lenzes now
>>2716798
