susanne_geert

<p>Thanks for all you great input - I really appreciate!</p> <p>I have now decided on buying the Canon 6D and along with it the Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 Art and the <br> Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS. I also want to get a generel purpose lens and the choice is between:</p> <p><strong>Sigma 24-105mm f/4 Art OS or</strong> <br> <strong>Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC</strong></p> <p>I made a new conversation in this forum for this question and if any of you have anything to add, please leave a comment there - I will appreciate very much. </p> <p>Here is the new question posted: <a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dS0f">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dS0f</a></p> <p>Kind Regards,</p> <p>Susanne</p>

<p>I have decided on buying the Canon 6D and along with it the Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 Art and the <br> Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS. I also want to get a general purpose lens and the choice is between:</p> <p><strong>Sigma 24-105mm f/4 Art OS or</strong> <br> <strong>Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC</strong></p> <p>My usage:<strong><br /> </strong>I use my gear for 'extended' everyday-use (a lot more than general people but not professional/making money from photography - yet, anyway - I would love to;-)<br> My main shooting will be:<br> - everyday life in my family indoor/outdoor (number one!)<br> - a bit of portrait (not portrait sessions but mere like my own kids etc.)<br> - holidays/vacations/travel<br> - food photography and other ‘item-shootings’ for blogging<br> - street<br> - (I don’t do any wildlife or sports, very little landscape)</p> <p>I can see the obvious pros/cons being extra aperture vs. reach. By the way, I already considered the Canon 24-105 and will not go for that one. The choice is most likely between the two mentioned above. </p> <p>Due to the great ISO-handling in the 6D it seems the impression is that f/4 is enough to shoot indoor (at night also?) with good quality. However, I am curious on how big a difference and what differences I should expect with these two lenses. For instance, how big is the difference in the possibility to create shallow DOF? Other considerations?</p> <p>If any of you have input or even better; experience with these lenses, I would really appreciate your comments. </p> <p>Kind Regards,</p> <p>Susanne</p>

<p>I am not sure how to upload photos.<br> But I could write a few words on how I try to improve the sharpness/avoid unsharp focus:</p> <p>- I almost always use the center focus point only<br> - Most of the time I use One Shot Focus - sometimes Ai Servo (which I was advised when shooting e.i. kids moving, but I find it difficult to work with - at least combined with center focus because use can't recompose)<br> - I try to make sure I have the shutter speed above 160/200 and often higher; some of the photos I am not satisfied with does not have a ss-issue<br> - I shoot AF (in case you wonder if I forgot to check it;-)<br> William - the following I don't understand/know what means:<br> "...also the details of how you have configured the AF functionality AND the Custom Function related to the AF Functionality.<br> (i.e. answering whether or not AF attributed to the Shutter Release Button or Back Button and supplying the details your CF III -1 and CF IV-1 Settings)."</p> <p>Kind Regards, </p> <p>Susanne</p> <p> </p>

<p>I see a lot of comments about the AF system being 'poor' (compared to the one in the 7D series) and therefore I am hoping this system would be improved by the 6D2.<br> With my present 60D (which I know can not be compared with the 6D) I often get images that I am not satisfied with regarding sharpness. Especially photos with people (moving). That plus the bad ISO performance is the main reason I want to upgrade my gear. <br> Maybe I get sufficient and so much better AF-system with the 6D that I will never again think about improved focusing abilities? What do you guys think?</p>

<p>Thanks for all your great inputs! I really appreciate you spending your valuable time helping me out. And William, Mark and Jeff - you are right about getting into the game;-)</p> <p>Actually, I have one concern I would liek to share with you;-) Maybe you want to put in your 2 cent on that also; maybe you have offered enough for now, and then that's totally alright with me;-)</p> <p>I am actually thinking about waiting for the canon 6D2 (instead of buying 6D now). I know the reasoning that you shouldn't wait for something that is not even (announced) in the market yet; and yes, there will always come something better if you wait.</p> <p>However, the 6D is old enough to expect a brother within reasonable time (I hope a year or so, but if it is much longer than that; then I would have just gone for the 6D today;-).</p> <p>The reason I am thinking of waiting is the hope for an improved AFs-system.</p> <p>I am then considering getting on or two of the lenses that I ant for the 6D now and start using them on my present 60D. I could maybe get the Sigma Art 50 mm /1.4 and/or Canon 70-200 /4.w</p> <p>What do you think of that - if any of you want to put ina word on those thoughts?</p>

<p>So you don't think that 50 mm and 85 mm would be too much overlapping if I went for that?</p> <p>I am - as mentioned;-) - drawn to the 135/2. However, I shouldn't get a lens because of (impressively!) great reviews... but only if it will cover a real need I have. And I do kind of see myself using this lens with its ability to work a bit more creatively with your photo style. </p> <p>However, if I don't want to get carried away ending up with too many lenses overlapping then I probably wouldn't buy both 70-200/4 and 135/2. But I am drawn to the ability to shoot wide open at f/2-4 with the 135/2 - but obviously drawn to the flexibility in 70-200. </p> <p>Those of you who have/had the 135/2 - could you but a few words on how you work differently with this lens (than with for instance 70-200)? How much do you have to move back/forward to compensate for the non-zoom?</p> <p>Those of you who have/had 70-200 - do you find the f/4 enough to make nice bokeh and shallow DOF?</p> <p>Mark - do I get you right that you think these four lenses would be a great choice (considering my needs):</p> <p>Tamron 24-70mm f72.8 VC<br />Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 (can this one be used for food photography and other closeups?)<br />Canon 85mm f/1.8<br />+ either Canon 70-200 f/4 or Canon 135/2 (which one is the best choice?)</p> <p>Kind regards,<br> Susanne</p>

<p>Thanks for the last contributes - I really appreciate! You have a good point, Dan - and yet it is nice to hear about the experiences from you - especially those of you who explain your thoughts and reasoning;-) </p> <p>Dan - great that you shared the range where most of your candids of kids were taken! Interesting reading - great to know;-) Of course, it makes me think again. I am really leaning towards the Tamron 24-70 f/2.0 VC for the general purpose lens, but both you and Neill point to the 24-105. I just keep reading a lot of people went from the 24-105 to the 24-40 and really appreciate the ability to separate the motive a bit more + the extra light that - as I read - really shouldn't be underestimated.</p> <p>I think you are right, Dan, that at f/5.6 I probably wouldn't see that big difference between the 135/2 and the 70-200/4. However, from the reviews I saw it seems the great thing about the 135/2 is that from wide open it produces so sharp and outstanding pictures, that really separates your motive. I was hoping to use it more often from f/2-4. </p> <p>So, say I start with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC + Canon 70-200 f/4 + Sigma Art 50 mm 1.4 (50 = great for general use). Would it then make sense to get also the Canon 85 1.8, or is is too close to the Sigma 50 mm (and redundant when I have to 70-200)? </p> <p>Would a 100mm make more sense than 85 mm? If yes, then which 100 would be your suggestion? I would like to be able to shoot macro, but I think I read that comes with a slower AF and I certainly don't want that, since I also want to use it for portraits and general use. </p> <p>The reason I keep looking a the primes is the ability to use apertures from f/1.4 - 4 as I often go for the 1.8 in my present Canon 50 mm 1.8 and the 2.8 in my present Tamron 17-50 1.8. I would like to be able to go lower than the f/2.8 in the Tamron. </p> <p>Thanks again, guys - I really appreciate you spending our time and experience/thought trying to help me out;-)</p> <p>Kind Regards, Susanne</p>

<p>Thank you for your great advices so far. Please keep them coming if anybody else has something to share;-)<br> <br />Someone mentioned that I should consider the Canon 100mm f/2 (instead of the Canon 85mm f/1.8). Do any of you have any thoughts on that?<br> <br />His advice (he works professionally selling cameras and equipment) was to get:<br> Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC<br />Canon 70-200 f/4<br />+ maybe either Canon 100mm f/2 or Sigma Art 50 mm f/1.4 (instead of 35mm)<br> <br />Personally I somehow hoped he would have recommended that 135/2 instead of the 70-200/4 (I would have liked a professional to convince me so I would feel better buying...;-) - but he went for the safer/versatile choice by 70-200/f.<br> <br />I just keep reading so many people SO fund of the 135/2 - swearing that they will never go back to 70-200/4. And then of course there are the ones who have both and find both very useful;-) I will not get both though as I think I will end up noy getting use of both.<br> Anybody have any experiences or great advice for me - I would really appreciate a lot (and again, please have my needs/use as described in mind if you put in your 2 cent;-) <br> <br />Thanks a lot, guys - you are really helpful!<br> Kind regards,<br> Susanne</p>

<p>Sorry - I didn't mean Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.<br> I did mean Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC<br> KR/ Susanne</p>

<p>Hi guys!<br /><br />I have been reading so many great and insightful answers in this forum so now I will try asking for help regarding my own troubles;-)<br /><br />I am about to upgrade (from Canon 60D + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC + Canon 50 f/1.8) to <strong>Canon 6D</strong>. I gave up waiting for 6D2;-)<br /><br />Now I am looking for good lenses to go along - preferably 3 lenses, unless you can really convince me why to get more (or less…;-).<br /><br />My main concern - of course, you can say - is that I want all my lenses to be used and not stored;-) Therefore I try to avoid overlaping too much unless they have different ‘best for’.</p> <p><strong>My usage:<br /> </strong>I use my gear for 'extended' everyday-use (a lot more than general people but not professional/making money from photography - yet, anyway - I would love to;-)<br /><br />My main shooting will be:<br> - everyday life in my family indoor/outdoor (number one!)<br> - a bit of portrait (not portrait sessions but mere like my own kids etc.)<br> - holidays/vacations/travel<br> - food photography and other ‘item-shootings’ for blogging<br> - street<br> - (I don’t do any wildlife or sports, very little landscape)</p> <p><strong>Lenses that I am interested in (for full frame)</strong>:<br> Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 or<br />Canon 24-105 f/4</p> <p>Canon 85 f/1.8<br> <br />Sigma Art 35 mm f/1.4<br> <br />Canon 70-200 f/4 IS or<br />Canon 135 f/2</p> <p>One thing I am thinking a lot about is that it seems when you start using primes, a lot of you get mere and more attached to them. Does that mean you end up not putting your all-around zoom (like the 24-70) on for occasions like kid’s birthdays parties/everyday life - so that the all-around lens becomes redundant?<br> <br />I hope a lot of you would take the challenge to point out the 3 lenses you think would be most helpful to me - it would mean a GREAT deal to me and I will be very grateful for each of your answers.</p> <p>Though it is always so inspiring to hear about favorites from individual use of different lenses (from that persons need), please keep my needs/usage in mind if you put in your suggestion for my top 3 (and maybe number 4 for the future wish list…;-)</p> <p>Thanks to everyone who will help me;-)<br> <br />Kind Regards,<br> Susanne</p> <p> </p>