Lens recommendations for canon r6

[rionelo]

I just got a bundle from a colleague that has

Canon R6 Canon RF 50mm f1.8 + Tiffen UV Filter + Cap Canon RF 35mm f1.8 + Cap Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 + Tiffen UV Filter + Cap

I am looking to shoot landscapes, people, low light and animal pictures This is my first full frame Any lens recommendations or anything I should take care of?

[jrhoffman75]

---

@rionelo wrote:

I just got a bundle from a colleague that has

Canon R6 Canon RF 50mm f1.8 + Tiffen UV Filter + Cap Canon RF 35mm f1.8 + Cap Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 + Tiffen UV Filter + Cap

I am looking to shoot landscapes, people, low light and animal pictures This is my first full frame Any lens recommendations or anything I should take care of?

---

If by animal you mean wildlife (i.e. not pets) you might want to add the 100-400mm zoom.

[Waddizzle]

• I strongly recommend that you stop using the UV filters.  If you feel the need for a protective filter, then use a high quality clear filter.  
  
  You don’t need a UV filter, anyway, because there is a probably UV filter layer built into your image sensor assembly.  This was done in DSLRs.  I’ve never given it any thought before now for MILC bodies.  
  
  UV filters would impair AF performance in a DSLR. Remember, a DSLR uses a separate AF sensor and a mirror. When the mirror flipped up, the light could reach the image sensor with its UV filter. 
  
  My EF 100-400mm II was always a bit softer with a UV filter. 

[ebiggs1]

I agree, UV filters aren't needed but better than nothing. I tend to disagree on the 100-400mm as I consider 400mm to be the shortest FL for wildlife. Generally. But again it's better than nothing. And it does depend on what type wildlife you want to photograph. Obliviously a small bird id different than shooting an elephant.

The 24-105mm is going to be your main most go to lens so adding the 100-400mm does make some sense in your case. Then perhaps one of the 600mm or 800mm primes.

[March411]

You never mention budget so here's some thoughts across the range. This is specific to wildlife (or sports photography), they can be used for portrait but not the best for landscape. The RF 24-105mm will fill the landscape gap nicely as well portraits.

I have used the RF100-400mm with very nice results for wildlife. The price is attractive ($650 US) and the lens is an easy all day carry. With the smaller sensor on the R6 cropping will impact IQ so you will need to get closer to your subject. I prefer the 100-500mm unless I am hiking all day and then I use the 100-400 to reduce weight. A 1.4X extender sometimes makes the trip. Less overall bulk.

The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF ($940 US) or the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon EF ($1700 US). Both would require the Canon adapter ($129) is widely used with good success. The same thing can be said for the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 for Canon EF ($1400 US) with the Canon adapter ($129). 

RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM ($2700 US). Personally love this lens but it has a heavy price tag.

None of these lenses are super fast and require decent light. Photographing people in urban settings could be challenging, bumping up the ISO will help but then you will need software to quiet the noise.

There is also the RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM ($1900 US), again not real fast, focal length is somewhat limiting to wildlife and maybe people depending on the setting but still a nice lens. Wait times for this lens have been a bit extreme!

[ebiggs1]

The previous post seems to stress on "not real fast" but in fact is, these super zooms are generally fast enough most of the time. Today's cameras handle higher ISO's better then ever and are very much more manageable. Of course a good editor is great to have but in the end this does all depend on the results you are good with. 

[March411]

Some are willing to compromise IQ, I am not one of those people.

My feedback isn't based on conjecture it's based on owning, using the equipment and viewing the results. Except for the Tamron lens I own or have used extensively each lens noted in the post. My goal is to assist members with as much valued information as possible.

Higher ISO will impact IQ/DR and a faster lens will always minimize the impact on the ISO, even if its only a couple stops. Dawn, dusk, urban shading, poor sports lighting and dense foliage to name a few will create challenges as it relates to IQ performance as it relates to ISO. 

The R6 does handle the higher ISO better than my R5 but the fact remains that when you get around 4000/6000 you'll start to see noise. If you are throwing images up on Facebook you may not care. When offering feedback one should attempt to be through, concise and offer information that always leans towards producing a quality image. That is the only goal and the reason behind noting the speed of a given lens. May times those same challenges are not a problem with fast lenses. Others may want to except or recommend mediocrity which is entirely their choice.