A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Best all purpose lens for...

Featured Equipment Deals

Adding Textures to Flower Photos Read More

Adding Textures to Flower Photos

_About this image: With this shot of a setting sun seen through a cherry blossom, I focused on the flower blossoms, relying on the fact that throwing the sun way out-of-focus made it appear much...

Latest Equipment Articles

Nikon D610 Review Read More

Nikon D610 Review

The affordable full-frame Nikon D610: how it stacks up against other Nikon cameras, how it performs, and why it might be a good choice for your next camera.

Latest Learning Articles

26 Creative Photos of Water Drops Read More

26 Creative Photos of Water Drops

These absolutely amazing macro photographs feature a tiny elemental thing that can hold a lot of mystery. Take a moment to enjoy these photographs of water drops.


Best all purpose lens for Canon 6D

Bill Todd , May 11, 2013; 06:38 p.m.

I am about to buy a 6D with a 24-105 f4L lens. I already own a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and a Canon 100-400mm zoom. I sometimes find myself in a situation where I cannot switch lenses and I am looking for a "one size fits all" lens for these infrequent situations. I am leaning toward the Tamron 28-300 VC. The price is reasonable and for a lens I will not use often and the reviews seem quite good for a 10x zoom. Does anyone have any alternative suggestions I should consider?

Note: At four times the price, three times the weight and two times the length the Canon 28-300mm is not an option. Thanks for any suggestions or comments.
Bill

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

JDM von Weinberg , May 11, 2013; 08:57 p.m.

IMO, the 24-105mm is the "best all-purpose lens" for the camera, especially when combined with the 100-400mm and the macro.

I accept compromises are necessary, but the wide angle to 300mm compromises are more than I personally would accept. When you don't want to switch, assess the situation and leave either the 24-105 or the 100-400 on the camera for the shoot.
All you need is a ultrawide lens and you're set for broad-view, bear, or bug.

Bill Todd , May 11, 2013; 09:25 p.m.

Thanks JDM. You got me to look at this in a different way. I already have a 60D which I will keep until I upgrade it to a 7D or the much rumored 7D Mark II. For a little more money I could get a 70-200 f4L IS and have that on the 60D with the 24-105 on the 6D. That would give me nearly continuous coverage from 24mm to 320mm (adjusting for the crop factor) with much higher image quality. I would have to carry both bodies but in most situations that would not be a serious problem. Something to think about.

JDM von Weinberg , May 11, 2013; 09:33 p.m.

I recently bought a 50D to use with my 100-400mm, while I carry my 5Dii with the 24-105mm and find those together to be a very nice package. I originally looked at the 7D, but it was more than I personally needed and 2.5X more expensive.

It makes a huge difference on the 100-400mm "totability" if you get one of the Black Rapid (or clone) straps( http://digital-photography-school.com/black-rapid-rs-7-camera-strap-review ). It's almost like not carrying the huge rig.
You might even find that the 70-200 wouldn't really be necessary.

William W , May 11, 2013; 10:01 p.m.

I sometimes find myself in a situation where I cannot switch lenses.

As you have already mentioned those times are quite few. And in my experience those times are very VERY rarely coincident with not being able / allowed to carry two cameras and two lenses.

***

I already have a 60D which I will keep until I upgrade it to a 7D or the much rumored 7D Mark II. For a little more money I could get a 70-200 f4L IS and have that on the 60D with the 24-105 on the 6D.

A much more, all round elegant choice. IMO.

But - as you brought up the point up of weight, I’ll comment that I think the weight of those TWO cameras and TWO lenses will be about 30% more than the 6D with the 28 to 300L.

***

I realize that you stated the Canon L is out of the equation, but:
I haven’t used the Tamron lens. I have used the Canon35 to 350L (predecessor to the 28 to 300L): this use was out of necessity, where changing lenses was impossible and also a second camera was impossible.
The 35 to 350L was a very good lens for what it has to do: by all reports the 28 to 300 is exceptional for what it has to do and the IS is a much warranted addition.
Although I have not used the Tamron lens – if I were again in a position that I required only one lens and that requirement was only on the odd occasion I would rent the 28 to 300L IS in an heartbeat, not even considering the Tamron.
These “odd occasions” are when renting is ideal, IMO.

WW

Dan South , May 11, 2013; 11:03 p.m.

I could get a 70-200 f4L IS and have that on the 60D with the 24-105 on the 6D.


Excellent idea!

Marcus Ian , May 12, 2013; 07:49 a.m.

I sometimes find myself in a situation where I cannot switch lenses and I am looking for a "one size fits all" lens for these infrequent situations. I am leaning toward the Tamron 28-300 VC.

If this is the case, then a better choice may be a Tamron 18-270/3.5-6.3 VC PZD. Of course this doesn't have quite the IQ of either the 24-105 or the 70-200/4, but that combination is quite limiting in it's max FOV of 35mm, and also limits your long end. You of course have to pick the 'best for you', but that Dolphin that buzzes you while riding across the river on a ferry isn't going to wait for you to open the bag, switch lenses, and resume shooting. So when in an unpredictable shooting environment, you literally can be taking pictures of your kids on the seat, enjoying the ride one second, see them start to point, turn around and capture tight, very good, imagery of that swooping helicopter the next second. BTDT, and I had the 24-70 & the 70-200/2.8 in the bag at the time.
It really comes down to a) a 'one lens that covers everything' or b) a series of lenses that cover everything you need. You don't get to keep your cake and eat it too, unless you are willing to pay for all of the above, but even then, when you don't have time (or freedom) to mount/dismount lenses, all of them, except the one that's mounted, are useless hunks of glass, metal, plastic, and electronics.

But to me, the biggest benefit to an 'all-in-one' was that I did not need to carry around a camera bag all the time, I could simply carry the camera. At the time it was on a 50D, and beign able to selectively frame my shots w/o lens hijinks made it easier to carry all the time, and when shooting casually, it allowed me to always be prepared - many of those shots would have simply been impossible to predict (and therefore capture) without an all in one.

Mark Anthony Kathurima , May 12, 2013; 08:48 a.m.

I had the 24-105L as my all-rounder when I first got my FF. Loved it to bits. Amazingly versatile, very well built and great optically. Sadly, it got stolen. I currently have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which has proved very useful for close-ups of rings and such. I miss the width and the extra focal length on the 24-105, so I know I will eventually supplement my Tammy with another 24-105L.

William W , May 12, 2013; 10:18 a.m.

If this is the case, then a better choice may be a Tamron 18-270/3.5-6.3 VC PZD

Marcus, I understood the OP to mean that he wanted to use this "one size fits all" lens on the 6D.
Although this Tamron is an EF mount - it will vignette on a 6D.

Did you mean for this lens to be used on the OP's (existing) 60D?

WW

Bill Todd , May 12, 2013; 10:59 a.m.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Since no one proposed an alternative to the Tamron 28-300mm that will be my choice if I decide to buy an all-in-one.

Bill


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses