looking for opinions, help, suggestions, etc. on a lens for Canon 6D that can be the one and only lens I will ever need mainly Landscape photography while backpacking (and yes on a budget). Or two lens, one for a wide angle, say about 10-35mm and the second out to 300mm. Thanks!
Zoom: - http://www.tamron.eu/lenses/28-300mm-f35-63-di-vc-pzd or - http://www.tamron.eu/lenses/af-28-300mm-f35-63-xr-di-ld-aspherical-if-macro/ (i think this one is expensive but is better) Primes: - EF 24mm f/2.8 - http://www.tamron.eu/lenses/sp-af-180mm-f35-di-ldif-macro-11/
The 16-35/4 IS is a cracking little lens for the money and shouldn't give you back ache on a hike. On the other hand, 300mm and quality doesn't come cheap or lightweight. Bob
My landscape pick would be the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (after fisheye correction your left with a 16mm field of view with almost zero lateral chromatic aberrations and excellent edge to edge sharpness) My everyday pick would be the Canon ef 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 stm is (very underrated lens with optical quality that is equal to the 24-105 f4 USM L IS)
For portability I like the idea of 2 lenses, as you can see by what i own, I have two L zooms that cover a decent focal range. You can balance price, quality and utility of the lens, but you will have to give up one of them. I wouldn't scrimp to much on cost of glass after jumping to a full frame body. Since you want less lenses, your pretty much asking for quality zooms, which will cost a bit of money. For landscape you can decide between any of the L zooms and get a great lens, when i got mine the 17-40 was the only option back in 2004, however i probably would spring for the upgraded 16-35 now. That being said for landscape you probably will not need the extra stop or the IS much on a landscape lens. So the 17-40 would be a nice sub $1k pickup to cover the wide end. For telephoto you best saving up a bit. The 70-200 L's are all great and if you really need the extra length pickup a tele-converter. I would get IS however as it will be very valuable if your trying to hand hold shots with that lens.
Would agree with Johnsey, I have the 17-40 for landscapes and the 70 - 200 f2.8 for wildlife and stick on a x2 extender when needed! The 70-200 when used with the extender on the 7d mark ii is a killer combo!
When I travel I take my trusted 6D with a) the awesome 24-70 f/2.8 II b) the awesome Samyang 135 f/2.0 c) Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DGX converter. And that's also on hiking trips. The trick is to have a comfortable backpack which makes the weight less of an issue. I use a Click Elite Bottle Rocket; it takes a 2 or 3 liter Camelback; but I suspect the Jack Wolfskin Pro to be more comfortable (better aired). If one lens and one lens only : I'd opt for the 24-105 IS STM (light) or the 24-105 L IS USM II (weatherproof). I own a Sigma 100-300 f/4 that's good but too big and heavy, so...
I have been looking and doing my research and came across these two. I am interested in this one because of the price Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Aspherical Macro DI IF LD XR Lens For Canon EF Mount then there is this one... Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Aspherical Macro DI VC PZD A010 Autofocus Lens For Canon EF Mount What are the big differences and why should i get one over the other?
The second one is the new version of the first I think. Useful and ok I suppose, just don't expect top IQ.
Agreed, That long of a focal range for that price will have to sacrifice some image quality. I would expect some chromatic aberration and vignetting and it to be a tad soft wide open. Using on a full frame which uses more of the glass of the lens will make any limitations more evident. That said for the money it may be one of your better options if your looking for a Swiss army knife of lens. The second is the one listed on their site, looks like it came out in 2014 and added vibration compensation and the Tamron equivalent of the ultrasonic focusing motor.
24-105 will give you a good range for landscape through to portrait and if you are hiking get a 50 mm f1.4 or the plastic fantastic 50mm f1.8. The 50mm is excellent in low light and if dropped or damaged the loss will not be brutally expensive and cheap to replace. For a cheap lens the quality of the photos are great.
I dropped my 17-40 in India a few months ago and damaged the mount (deformed). Genuinely glad I had my 50 1.8 in the bag, believe me.
