F4 or F2.8 or better Lens for Canon 6D: Ken Rockwell says no need to spend money on F2.8 lenses and that F4 is plenty for a 6D. I cannot rent the lenses to compare; i.e., 200 prime or...

Frequent Flyer Loc: Kujukuri, Japan

Ken Rockwell says no need to spend money on F2.8 lenses and that F4 is plenty for a 6D. I cannot rent the lenses to compare; i.e., 200 prime or 70 -200 or 300 prime until I get back to San Francisco so I'd like to hear from other hoggers. I want to shoot outdoors during the day.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

The f/2.8 70-200mm will autofocus better in low light situations than the f/4 version. The image quality is also slightly better on the f/2.8 version.

That being said, the f/4 version is much lighter and easier to use for hand held shots. The 6D with the 70-200mm lens is a great combination.

The 1-stop difference can be easily dealt with, within reason, by adjusting the ISO or shutter speed. I think this is Ken's reasoning in his review. Noise can be cleaned up fairly well with the raw files from the 6D.

For outdoor photography in average or better lighting, the f/4 version may be all you need. If you are considering using a teleconverter in the future, you may want to consider the f/2.8- you always want a little more reach than you have.

If you do any indoor sports photography then you will probably want the f/2.8 version.

Again, for the money, the 70-200mm f/4 and 6D is a combnation.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I think you are taking one of his statements out of context. Most likely he wasn't talking about ALL lenses, but only referring to a specific catagory of lens. You may want to re-read the article.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Frequent Flyer wrote:

Ken Rockwell says no need to spend money on F2.8 lenses and that F4 is plenty for a 6D. I cannot rent the lenses to compare; i.e., 200 prime or 70 -200 or 300 prime until I get back to San Francisco so I'd like to hear from other hoggers. I want to shoot outdoors during the day.

He was probably referring to the 6Ds ability to provide low noise images at high ISO in low light conditions, which is not usually an issue outdoors in good light. You would be better served with an f/2.8 zoom for indoor sports in order to get shutter speeds of 1/500: to 1/1000. Even the 6D has low light limitations..

The other reason to purchase faster lenses between f/1.2 to f/2.8 is to achieve a shallower depth of field than can be had at f/4. High ISO capability is not a replacement for a faster lens.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Listen to Ken and save money.

Frequent Flyer wrote:

Ken Rockwell says no need to spend money on F2.8 lenses and that F4 is plenty for a 6D. I cannot rent the lenses to compare; i.e., 200 prime or 70 -200 or 300 prime until I get back to San Francisco so I'd like to hear from other hoggers. I want to shoot outdoors during the day.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

PixelStan77 wrote:

Listen to Ken and save money.

Not sure if he's quoting Ken Rockwell accurately, but the choice between an f/2.8 and f/4 lens will depend upon the specific lens and its intended use. I think that all that is being implied is that the low light ability of the 6D will give you an extra stop of low noise sensor output. While useful, that in itself is not the only reason to select a slower rather than faster lens.

Frequent Flyer Loc: Kujukuri, Japan

"With the crazy-high ISOs of the 6D, you don't need anything faster than f/4 to shoot in any light."

In Mr. Rockwell's 2012 6D review regarding lenses he makes this statement that I take to mean all lenses even though it was referenced in a paragraph about the 24-105mmm kit lens. I got from your answers the wider lenses will provide a shallower DOF and work better at night or indoors. It will be best to rent some wider lenses and find out. Thank you for your responses.

Frequent Flyer Loc: Kujukuri, Japan

haroldross wrote:

The f/2.8 70-200mm will autofocus better in low li... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup:

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

Frequent Flyer wrote:

Ken Rockwell says no need to spend money on F2.8 lenses and that F4 is plenty for a 6D. I cannot rent the lenses to compare; i.e., 200 prime or 70 -200 or 300 prime until I get back to San Francisco so I'd like to hear from other hoggers. I want to shoot outdoors during the day.

If you can afford it get a 2.8mm lens. Canon has sales periodically on refurbished lenses. Good luck.

Newsuan Loc: Coatesville

When you say shoots better in low light, are we talking without the flash or in conjunction with the flash

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Agree with Ken

Frequent Flyer wrote:

Ken Rockwell says no need to spend money on F2.8 lenses and that F4 is plenty for a 6D. I cannot rent the lenses to compare; i.e., 200 prime or 70 -200 or 300 prime until I get back to San Francisco so I'd like to hear from other hoggers. I want to shoot outdoors during the day.

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

The Tamron 70-200 on a 6D is awesome!

teacherdad48 Loc: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho

cheineck wrote:

The Tamron 70-200 on a 6D is awesome!

Agreed! I have this combo also.

jwestman Loc: Grand Rapids, MI

Fortunately the store was very busy the day I went in to buy the 2.8 and I had to wait for several minutes while walking around with the lens on the camera. It is heavy. I bought the 4 and am very happy with it. It is terrific outdoors.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Rnjoy your F4

jwestman wrote:

Fortunately the store was very busy the day I went in to buy the 2.8 and I had to wait for several minutes while walking around with the lens on the camera. It is heavy. I bought the 4 and am very happy with it. It is terrific outdoors.