Canon R6 Lense purchase sequence advice sought

[Mark Romero 2]

3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

- How a few of you got to $30k, pro vs. non-pro, etc. baffles me

OK, to simplify things and to make sure that we aren't just giving you bad advice:

What exactly is your budget?

Also, do you anticipate a need for things like audio equipment and lighting and backgrounds and green screen and a computer rig that will handle the video? Because if you don't already have such things, they are going to have to come off the budget.

[kye]

5 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Sweet - sounds like an ad hominem - I sold my A7III because of the video side not photos.  Your comments make sense regarding photo only and much of it I never made an argument against - I never said that my A7iii sucked at photos or shooting sports.  I don't like the color for video and tried correcting to get a more Canon/Fuji/Panasonic look.  It wasn't successful and therefore I am moving on.  I think that is a logical and not uncommon thing.  But you're free to disagree.

 

I agree - that said do you think a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 used is worth the buy rather than a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II?

 

I think the point has been lost in this thread ... I am sold my a7iii due to video color - not because f/2.8 or f/4 lens.  I am having trouble following at this point since these responses are unrelated to my inquiry/post/discussion.

 

I fail to see how this works with poor LED lights in an indoor track with people sprinting and having ridiculous fast shutter speeds - the ISO has to be very high and the extra stop of light is needed. 

I do not feel that these responses are relevant to my post (video/photo) and feel like many people respond with their own experiences and opinions unrelated to the original inquiry.  It's wild to me.

Not ad hominem.

I think the challenge was that you did give the impression that your budget was limited, and I was also with @Mark Romero 2 in thinking that taking photographs of students likely meant you were a teacher and therefore on low pay.

So the discussion was about what you could get the biggest value from, with the assumption that you'd probably not have enough to get what you needed at first, and it was about getting good basic coverage to get you up and running and then you could improve things down the line when you'd been able to set more money aside.

To put it rather bluntly, your whole argument about Sony colours not being minimum standard combined with your lack of colour grading skill or knowledge really just points out that you don't have much experience in making the types of videos you're talking about making.  

One of the first videos I ever tried to grade was on a Canon 700D and it was a panning shot of my daughters birthday party with my wife carrying the cake about 4 meters from the kitchen to the table as we all sung happy birthday.  What I didn't know at the time was the kitchen light and dining table light were different brands of compact fluorescents, and that even with that glorious Canon colour science (to be praised above all else!!!) the shot was unusable.  I would have begged to even get Sony colours.  I have been teaching myself colour grading in Resolve for about 5 years now, and I've only just recently gotten to the point where I can deal with difficult mixed lighting situations like that and get good results.

So when you post saying you want recommendations, say things that indicate you're very budget constrained, indicate you want glorious Canon colours but don't know anything about colour grading in the real world and don't want to learn, and then turn around and insist that the fastest professional zoom lens is your minimum standard, well.  I'd challenge that assertion.

Someone else pointed out that f2.8 gives a level of background blur and that's a reasonable argument, but it's a nice-to-have with a limited budget, and I was talking about low-light performance in a low-light environment with faster shutter speeds, not about background blur.

Maybe as Mark has suggested, if you could share your real budget then we'd be better able to help, although to be honest, the best equipment still makes images that look like crap if the person using them doesn't have the required levels of skill, and shooting in uncontrolled conditions requires more skill than grading Hollywood films.

[SRV1981]

42 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

OK, to simplify things and to make sure that we aren't just giving you bad advice:

What exactly is your budget?

Also, do you anticipate a need for things like audio equipment and lighting and backgrounds and green screen and a computer rig that will handle the video? Because if you don't already have such things, they are going to have to come off the budget.

Budget:  I can go for a new 24-105 f/4 or a used 70-200 f/2.8 EF mount (unsure of whether to get a Sigma or Canon II)

Audio - I have a Deity D3

Lighting - I have 2 LED Lights for interviews

Computer - MacBook Air w/M1 chip

*The discussion I generated was about which combo of lenses make sense - in general and when looking at a timeline (i.e. do you start off with the 35 prime and then add a 70-200 f/2.8 or start with a 24-105 and then add a 35/100 or 135 prime - etc. **not** about budget persay)

Also 50/50 video/photos - much of the recent responses got far away from those points and focused on pro's doing photography and unrelated to original question(s)

 

Thanks!

[SRV1981]

3 minutes ago, kye said:

To put it rather bluntly, your whole argument about Sony colours not being minimum standard combined with your lack of colour grading skill or knowledge really just points out that you don't have much experience in making the types of videos you're talking about making.

I politely disagree with this.  If preference of image (color/DR/highlight roll-off/etc.) didn't dictate body choice then everyone would choose the same body most of the time.  How many posts, videos, articles are written to discuss color?  You can lean on my inexperience to make an argument but I think it's a shallow argument - but then again the title is about the R6 and buying lenses - not debating bodies?

I appreciate the feedback - I do concede I'll have to continue to improve my ability to color correct in photo/video but I put that in another post regarding whether i should get 1 body for photo/stills or separate and get a photo camera and a video camera separate.  In that discussion it seemed to me that i'd have to spend a bit to get a good video camera but I could get away with buying a used photography camera.  The problem for me was that the alternatives to Canon (fuji/Panasonic) have poor AF, which is still important in video for me (Sony is out - for now - because I do not like the skin tones, I don't have the skill to currently get it to the look i want, I don't have the time to do that correction and therefore having a camera that gets closest to what I want SOOC or with dropping a LUT is where i'm heading so that seems to be Canon).

[kye]

2 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

I politely disagree with this.  If preference of image (color/DR/highlight roll-off/etc.) didn't dictate body choice then everyone would choose the same body most of the time.  How many posts, videos, articles are written to discuss color?  You can lean on my inexperience to make an argument but I think it's a shallow argument - but then again the title is about the R6 and buying lenses - not debating bodies?

I appreciate the feedback - I do concede I'll have to continue to improve my ability to color correct in photo/video but I put that in another post regarding whether i should get 1 body for photo/stills or separate and get a photo camera and a video camera separate.  In that discussion it seemed to me that i'd have to spend a bit to get a good video camera but I could get away with buying a used photography camera.  The problem for me was that the alternatives to Canon (fuji/Panasonic) have poor AF, which is still important in video for me (Sony is out - for now - because I do not like the skin tones, I don't have the skill to currently get it to the look i want, I don't have the time to do that correction and therefore having a camera that gets closest to what I want SOOC or with dropping a LUT is where i'm heading so that seems to be Canon).

My comments aren't really about which body you should buy, they are more talking about why people in this thread have responded the way they have.  

You have to understand, the internet is full of people who want worlds-best-results, want to get them with a budget of basically nothing, and don't want to have to learn anything or do any work.  This is an understandable perspective because film-making is hard and people don't always know that up-front, but what differentiates someone who is naive from someone who is deliberately trolling and wasting everyones time is how they respond when people suggest that the equation of expectations/budget/skill doesn't add up.  

Your responses, while civil and straight-forward, seem to have a reluctance to them that has made me question how sincere you are, and perhaps others might have questioned that as well.

This thread is about helping you, but if the math doesn't add up then calling out these things actually is helping you, even if you'd rather not hear it.  

Perhaps rather than respond with comments such as "I need that" you'd take a few sentences to explain why you'd prefer that particular thing and what you might be willing to compromise elsewhere to get it.  For example, I believe your most recent post is the first time you've acknowledged that learning any colour grading will be required.

It really comes down the triangle of 1) excellent results, 2) budget friendly, and 3) easy and quick - pick one.  You can't have two, and you definitely can't have all three.  This discussion is about how to trade these off against each other, and is not about trying to break the math of the proposition.

[SRV1981]

1 hour ago, kye said:

My comments aren't really about which body you should buy, they are more talking about why people in this thread have responded the way they have.  

You have to understand, the internet is full of people who want worlds-best-results, want to get them with a budget of basically nothing, and don't want to have to learn anything or do any work.  This is an understandable perspective because film-making is hard and people don't always know that up-front, but what differentiates someone who is naive from someone who is deliberately trolling and wasting everyones time is how they respond when people suggest that the equation of expectations/budget/skill doesn't add up.  

Your responses, while civil and straight-forward, seem to have a reluctance to them that has made me question how sincere you are, and perhaps others might have questioned that as well.

This thread is about helping you, but if the math doesn't add up then calling out these things actually is helping you, even if you'd rather not hear it.  

Perhaps rather than respond with comments such as "I need that" you'd take a few sentences to explain why you'd prefer that particular thing and what you might be willing to compromise elsewhere to get it.  For example, I believe your most recent post is the first time you've acknowledged that learning any colour grading will be required.

It really comes down the triangle of 1) excellent results, 2) budget friendly, and 3) easy and quick - pick one.  You can't have two, and you definitely can't have all three.  This discussion is about how to trade these off against each other, and is not about trying to break the math of the proposition.

That said,

What do you think makes more sense for a balance of photo/video - sports/events/docs

1. 24-105 f/4 + 35mm f/1.8

2. 35mm f/1.8 + 85mm f/1.8

3. 70-200 f/2.8 + 35 f/1.8

I will most likely get 1 lens to start and then i'll save for a second... to me, it seems that the above combos will get me where I want to be in most situations.  Again,  this isn't work so I don't have to worry too much and can change lenses for the most part without worrying about missing footage (i.e. I can shoot with one lens and if I want to get another angle I can stop and patiently switch lenses - no rush)

[kye]

30 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

That said,

What do you think makes more sense for a balance of photo/video - sports/events/docs

1. 24-105 f/4 + 35mm f/1.8

2. 35mm f/1.8 + 85mm f/1.8

3. 70-200 f/2.8 + 35 f/1.8

I will most likely get 1 lens to start and then i'll save for a second... to me, it seems that the above combos will get me where I want to be in most situations.  Again,  this isn't work so I don't have to worry too much and can change lenses for the most part without worrying about missing footage (i.e. I can shoot with one lens and if I want to get another angle I can stop and patiently switch lenses - no rush)

I'm not really sure that those are the best combinations of lenses.

For sports, it will depend on where you sit, but there is likely to be a large difference in distance between someone being on your side/end of the ground and the other side/end of the ground, and you'll need to zoom to compensate for this (as you can't walk onto the court/field).  In this sense, I'd suggest a 70-200, or perhaps even 100-400, but you'll know better what you're shooting and what focal lengths work best for that.

For non-sports, you are likely to have more flexibility in where you can walk, so you can zoom with your feet a lot more, but there are compromises here too.  I shoot with a 35mm prime for my travel and events coverage, and find it's in the sweet spot, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't get a better shot if I was able to go wider or longer.  In this sense a 24-105 would be the best range of focal lengths and would give you the focal length you'd want for most situations.

Now, the question is you can afford.  Ideally you'd buy a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8, but I'm guessing that's not in your budget.  So, the question is what can you compromise?

You could compromise the wider zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for docs / events.

You could compromise the sports zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for sports.

You could compromise the speed of the wider zoom and go for a cheaper zoom (kit lens), but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of image quality (although kit lenses are actually very good these days).

You could compromise the speed of the sports zoom and go for a cheaper one, but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of low light performance.

Essentially these are things you'd have to try for yourself and find out.  I have invested in very nice lenses but only did that over time and with much trial and error, mostly trying out cheaper alternatives and only buying really expensive glass once I had confirmed that the focal length was right and that the aperture was actually required.

Perhaps the alternative is to buy a second hand 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 and a 75-300/4-5.6 and try them out and see what focal lengths you actually use.  Then sell them and buy what you have actually used when filming real situations you find yourself in.  For the wider lens, try and set it to a particular focal length and just use it like that without zooming, that will tell you if you can work around having a fixed focal length for that kind of work.

[SRV1981]

7 minutes ago, kye said:

I'm not really sure that those are the best combinations of lenses.

For sports, it will depend on where you sit, but there is likely to be a large difference in distance between someone being on your side/end of the ground and the other side/end of the ground, and you'll need to zoom to compensate for this (as you can't walk onto the court/field).  In this sense, I'd suggest a 70-200, or perhaps even 100-400, but you'll know better what you're shooting and what focal lengths work best for that.

For non-sports, you are likely to have more flexibility in where you can walk, so you can zoom with your feet a lot more, but there are compromises here too.  I shoot with a 35mm prime for my travel and events coverage, and find it's in the sweet spot, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't get a better shot if I was able to go wider or longer.  In this sense a 24-105 would be the best range of focal lengths and would give you the focal length you'd want for most situations.

Now, the question is you can afford.  Ideally you'd buy a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8, but I'm guessing that's not in your budget.  So, the question is what can you compromise?

You could compromise the wider zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for docs / events.

You could compromise the sports zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for sports.

You could compromise the speed of the wider zoom and go for a cheaper zoom (kit lens), but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of image quality (although kit lenses are actually very good these days).

You could compromise the speed of the sports zoom and go for a cheaper one, but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of low light performance.

Essentially these are things you'd have to try for yourself and find out.  I have invested in very nice lenses but only did that over time and with much trial and error, mostly trying out cheaper alternatives and only buying really expensive glass once I had confirmed that the focal length was right and that the aperture was actually required.

Perhaps the alternative is to buy a second hand 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 and a 75-300/4-5.6 and try them out and see what focal lengths you actually use.  Then sell them and buy what you have actually used when filming real situations you find yourself in.  For the wider lens, try and set it to a particular focal length and just use it like that without zooming, that will tell you if you can work around having a fixed focal length for that kind of work.

All great points!  If anything, I may rent lenses and bring them to an event and track practice to try out for video/photo then go ahead and purchase.  

Here's 2 videos of guys using 85 1.8 for sports on Canon:

1. 85 1.8 and indoor Sports

2. 3rd Party 85 1.8 General

[kye]

3 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

All great points!  If anything, I may rent lenses and bring them to an event and track practice to try out for video/photo then go ahead and purchase.  

Here's 2 videos of guys using 85 1.8 for sports on Canon:

1. 85 1.8 and indoor Sports

2. 3rd Party 85 1.8 General

Some posts back I made the comment that people only share the images that look good, or situations that paint them in the best possible light.  I got a little bit of that from those two videos.

The first video was a guy standing next to a volleyball court on one side of the net and taking shots that are all within the width of a volleyball court.  This is great, and if you're only ever going to be shooting full-height or mid-shots of people playing volleyball then that video shows it's all good.  

However, if you will ever:

• shoot something other than volleyball
• shoot something other than those compositions (full or mid shots)
• stand anywhere other than right next to the court

Then the video doesn't really cover what happens then.  You might find that this guy went out and shot 2000 images that were all terrible for a variety of reasons, but managed to scrape together a dozen or so nice images and then tell a story of success in order to make himself appear like a pro, get paid work, drive people to subscribe, or use his affiliate link (or whatever motivation he has).  Sadly, these things happen and it pays to be skeptical.

The other guy took some nice shots, but think of all the other compositions he could have taken.  

I don't know about your role in shooting, but there are two kinds of shooting situations.  The first is where you shoot what you shoot and you get what you get and you enjoy that.  The second is that you must capture what happens.  I would imagine that if you're shooting sports in any systematic way, then each player will want a selection of shots of them doing cool things, and it's not acceptable to deliver spectacular shots of some players and crappy shots of other players, regardless of where they were standing.  Nice shallow DOF looks great, but if it comes at the expense of the composition or coverage you get of the other players, or that great moment that happened, then it's too high a price to pay.

Renting is a great way to get quick feedback, but don't rent the good ones.  If you rent a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, take them and use them, then you'll get great results but probably won't have learned anything.  Only by actually shooting with limitations will you understand what impacts that limitation has, what options you have to overcome it, and if you can live with that.

Every equipment purchase I have made has been based upon trying to go without, trying a lesser solution, trying a workaround, and only buying the expensive things when I tried to shoot real projects with lesser equipment.  

[Mark Romero 2]

26 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

All great points!  If anything, I may rent lenses and bring them to an event and track practice to try out for video/photo then go ahead and purchase.  

Here's 2 videos of guys using 85 1.8 for sports on Canon:

1. 85 1.8 and indoor Sports

2. 3rd Party 85 1.8 General

Depending on where you will be shooting from, and depending on how much you can crop in (for stills, anyway), an 85mm f/1.8 could be handy due to the darker conditions and less attractive backgrounds found in high school sports. So the shallower depth of field AND the extra stop of light COULD be helpful if you can get close enough and / or crop enough.

It might mean however that you would end up shooting in 4K 30p / 60p and then delivering in 1080p for video so you can crop in enough in video.

I don't know how fast the AF is on 85mm f/1.8 lenses is. It might be great! It might be mediocre, since it generally serves as a "portrait" lens. So it is worth looking in to first.

Again, this is all contingent on you being able to get in close enough. EDIT: See @kye post immediately above with his observations about the volleyball shots.

Off topic but possibly helpful: While a lot of photographers swear by 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 for wedding photos, one of the best wedding photographers I have seen uses f/1.8 primes. 

I would assume though that the 70-200 f/2.8 would be the "safe" bet for most sports due to the distances involved. During daytime events when there is enough light, you might be able to use a teleconverter too on the 70-200 f/2.8 (I don't think all lenses are able to be used on a teleconverter). A 1.4X teleconverter will give you 50% increased zoom range at the penalty of one stop of light (and DOF, I think), so your f/2.8 would be an f/4 lens with a zoom range of 105-300mm.

But I have no idea which Canon lenses are compatible with the various teleconverters. And again, it would probably only be beneficial during outdoor daylight shoots. 

[Mark Romero 2]

34 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

2. 3rd Party 85 1.8 General

  

28 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

All great points!  If anything, I may rent lenses and bring them to an event and track practice to try out for video/photo then go ahead and purchase.  

Here's 2 videos of guys using 85 1.8 for sports on Canon:

1. 85 1.8 and indoor Sports

2. 3rd Party 85 1.8 General

I have several Yongnuo LED lights and flash guns. Based on my experience with them, I would be VERY hesitant to buy a Yongnuo lens. I would worry that it would break within three months.

[kye]

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Off topic but possibly helpful: While a lot of photographers swear by 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 for wedding photos, one of the best wedding photographers I have seen uses f/1.8 primes. 

One of the key things that is in play here, and I haven't heard @SRV1981 really comment on, is having a deep understanding of what is about to happen and being able to be ready for it so that it can be captured.

Weddings, as spontaneous and magical as they may look in the photos, are often rigidly planned and highly controlled methodical events where a good wedding photographer will be able to list every angle, every shot, every focal length, and every challenge they will have on a given day after having only done a quick walk-through at each venue

So in that case, yeah, a good wedding photographer who has shot 500 weddings could probably anticipate the key moments enough to magically frame with a prime.  

Weddings are also a relatively malleable event too, where the photographer can direct or otherwise control a lot of the shots.  While sports have a certain degree of predictability to them, they have rules after all, there is no malleability or doing it again.  Events may or may not be quite so predictable and/or malleable.

This is where the skill comes together with experience to take up any shortcomings in flexibility that the equipment offers. Mostly, the better the images are coming out of a piece of equipment, the more of a PITA that equipment is to work with, and the more that it expects you to revolve around it rather than it being flexible with what is happening.

[gt3rs]

14 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

That said,

What do you think makes more sense for a balance of photo/video - sports/events/docs

1. 24-105 f/4 + 35mm f/1.8

2. 35mm f/1.8 + 85mm f/1.8

3. 70-200 f/2.8 + 35 f/1.8

I will most likely get 1 lens to start and then i'll save for a second... to me, it seems that the above combos will get me where I want to be in most situations.  Again,  this isn't work so I don't have to worry too much and can change lenses for the most part without worrying about missing footage (i.e. I can shoot with one lens and if I want to get another angle I can stop and patiently switch lenses - no rush)

EF 85 1.8 I had that it is ok but too short for most sports, I sold it as it was mostly collecting dust. If you find a really cheap used ok but if not stay away as there is a new RF 85 2.0 so the EF 85 1.8 value is tanking... 200 $ max

If it would be me:

EF 70-200 IS II used (1000 usd), Adapter EF-R (100 usd), RF 24-105 4-7.1 used (220 usd)

When you have some more money left add

RF 35 1.8 used (350 usd) or RF 50 1.8 used (180 usd) by looking at the focal length that you will use the most out of your experience with the RF 24-105 4-7.1......

If you did not buy yet the R6 I believe is sold in kit with the RF 24-105 4-7.1  (this is why there are so many used one on the market selling out of the kit, I got mine for 190 usd)

 

[SRV1981]

2 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

EF 70-200 IS II used (1000 usd), Adapter EF-R (100 usd), RF 24-105 4-7.1 used (220 usd)

When you have some more money left add

RF 35 1.8 used (350 usd) or RF 50 1.8 used (180 usd) by looking at the focal length that you will use the most out of your experience with the RF 24-105 4-7.1......

If you did not buy yet the R6 I believe is sold in kit with the RF 24-105 4-7.1  (this is why there are so many used one on the market selling out of the kit, I got mine for 190 usd)

I love this! Thanks!  That is interesting that 85 didn't have the reach - you may be right!

For the 70-200 - what's your take on Sigma vs. Canon; and if Canon EF II or EF III?  Refurb/Used?

I love the 35 1.8 idea!

For the 24-105 what's the thought here?  It's 4-7.1...why not f/4?  And how do you see this helping?  I guess good light/daytime for docs/sports?

for sports/docs the 70-200 f/2.8 is clutch; the 35mm 1.8 is great for general/overall video/photo in all situations

[SRV1981]

How does this lens look: https://www.mpb.com/en-us/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-canon-fit-lenses/sigma-70-200mm-f-2-8-ex-dg-os-hsm-canon-ef-fit/sku-1321771/

 

[SRV1981]

Looks like the Sigma is a good alternative and savings to Canon 70-200:

 

https://versus.com/en/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm-vs-sigma-70-200-f-2-8-dg-os-hsm-s

[UncleBobsPhotography]

On 10/27/2021 at 4:28 AM, kye said:

I don't know about your role in shooting, but there are two kinds of shooting situations.  The first is where you shoot what you shoot and you get what you get and you enjoy that.  The second is that you must capture what happens.  I would imagine that if you're shooting sports in any systematic way, then each player will want a selection of shots of them doing cool things, and it's not acceptable to deliver spectacular shots of some players and crappy shots of other players, regardless of where they were standing.  Nice shallow DOF looks great, but if it comes at the expense of the composition or coverage you get of the other players, or that great moment that happened, then it's too high a price to pay.

This is a great comment. I prefer to do the first type of shooting, and when the goal is to get the best photos without caring about documenting the event, I will almost always chose a 50mm prime. From my experience, my photos simply turn out better with a 50mm than a 35mm or zoom, but I have to admit that a 35mm is considerably more versatile and a zoom even more so. When it comes to video, the argument becomes even more important.

[SRV1981]

On 10/31/2021 at 4:38 AM, UncleBobsPhotography said:

This is a great comment. I prefer to do the first type of shooting, and when the goal is to get the best photos without caring about documenting the event, I will almost always chose a 50mm prime. From my experience, my photos simply turn out better with a 50mm than a 35mm or zoom, but I have to admit that a 35mm is considerably more versatile and a zoom even more so. When it comes to video, the argument becomes even more important.

Nice! I got the RF35 1.8 and Tamron 70-200 2.8