lowside67

For my next trip to Africa I am bringing the 6D, my 17-40, and my 70-300L. Supplementing it is my new good friend the x100s which is portable and has a fast F2 lens. This camera is a rock star for evenings out.

Mark

dimramon

This would be the first time I've seen the words "light", "inexpensive" and "full-frame" in the same sentence.
If that's what you want, you are in the wrong camera segment and you may want to look for something else.

nkedel

Not asking for a light, inexpensive full frame DSLR body (although relative to others, that is exactly what the 6D is) but rather lenses.

If you don't get why I'd want a light, inexpensive lens to go with it (along with, rather than instead of, the big kit lens)... well, fair enough, but I don't see the point in hauling more than one body with me on trips and I've already got the 6D.

dimramon

I get what you want, I'm just telling you might want to regroup. If you want light (and inexpensive), sell the 6D.

As an alternative, you could take a look at some of Voigtlander's lenses. The 40mm 2.0, which gets pretty good reviews, comes to mind. I use some Voigtlander primes and I love them.

That lens is discontinued now - but you can check B&H or Adorama for quality used ones.

nkedel

And replace it with... what? There isn't a lighter, or subsantially cheaper full-frame body, and I don't only use the 6D when traveling. I've got no problem with the weight or size of the 6D when the 50mm/1.4 is on it.

I've got a T3i and an EOS M, if I want to bring those, but they're crop-frame, and the T3i with the 15-85 is heavier and longer than the 6D+50mm.

re: the Voightlander lens, I know a lot of people who like those, but going back to manual focus is unappealing (particularly on a body without split-image, and with no desire to fiddle with replacing the focusing screen)... plus like the Canon 40mm pancake (which would be great, otherwise), it's too close in focal length to the 50mm/1.4 I've already got.

I got some good suggestions on some 3rd party zooms up-thread, but haven't seen any deals on them compelling enough to order one sight-unseen. I'll probably have a look at B&H and Adorama in person next time I'm in NYC, but I've yet to find a local shops here in the Bay Area which was worth the time to drive there (Keeble and Suchat, for example, had prices on new equipment which are high enough to be comedy the last time I checked them.)

Failing that, if I need something sooner than I get to NYC, I'll probably just get the 24mm/2.8 IS. Even if it doesn't prove ideal as a walk-around, it's a handy focal length and relatively light and inexpensive (14oz, or nearly pound, lighter than the 24-105L.)

lowside67

You sound like you are really fine with a single fast prime, and if that's the case then you really should consider selling the 6D + 24-105 and replacing it with a Sony RX1R. It is a FULL FRAME 35mm F2 in a small compact body that has comparable if not superior image quality to a 6D with the 35mm F2 on it.

If you are going to carry your 50 1.4 and a 28 2.8 IS you might as well just have a 17-40 and save yourself the hassle of swapping lenses.

Mark

nkedel

If I only had the 6D for travel, that might make sense; if I were rich enough to have a 6D for chasing my daughter around with the 24-105 and 70-300 (and one of these days, I'd like to replace the 70-300 with the 70-210/4L) AND an RX1/RX1R, I'd love that. But I can't justify that when travel is a secondary use.

I really should give the 17-40 a longer look; it's over a pound, but it's still a little lighter than the 50mm/1.4 + 2.8/2.8IS combination (570g for the two vs. 500g for the 17-40) and my hope was to get to a point where I could just decide for the day whether to take out the 24-105 (heavy, but very versatile) or just the 28mm. Or, if I can find one, a lighter/more compact zoom.

I really like the weight/feel of the 6D with the old 28-105 USM, but it was a so-so lens to begin with (kit lens from the A2, back in the terminal 1990s) and mine has not been treated kindly over the years.

lowside67

I am a big fan of travelling light but don't underestimate the usefulness of the 17-40. Many of my favourite photos were taken at 17mm full frame. The 17-40 is relatively light, always takes great photos, isn't too expensive, it's a great choice. For me the choice was 17-40 vs 24-105 and the 24-105 is definitely the more versatile choice but the 17-40 is a great option if you prefer the focal length and is smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

shutter

THIS! THIS! THIS! Can't advocate the 17-40mm enough.

nkedel

Just a quick punchline: a friend at work was getting rid of his Canon gear, and had a broken 20mm/2.8 that he passed on (for free, as he can't be arsed to fix it.) I need to get the broken aperture replaced, but I assume that's going to be a lot cheaper than a new lens.

Any recommendation on a good place to send it for service? The nearest full-service shop I'm aware of (K&S in Palo Alto) was ridiculously overpriced the few times I tried to offer them my business.

My buddy is also selling his 17-40mm, and am likely to buy that from him if other coworkers don't bid it up too much.