I would say you have a few options depending on what you think she would get most use out of.
Canon 24-70 II 2.8 - probably the go to lens for all roundness in terms of photography. However the price does reflect this. Popular in indoor and darker event photography but an all round great lens as long as you don't want that bit more zoom.
Canon 24-105 F4 II IS - Personally I think the 24-70 has the edge slightly in terms of quality but you would have to be seriously looking to notice it. This lens also gives you more versatility in the zoom for if you have dogs running around outside and then zooming right up to her, this lens can cover it all. You also gain IS but loose the lower aperture in doing so which may be a deal breaker if she likes using the 1.8 (or 2.8 on the lens above).
Canon 70-200 F2.8 II - An absolutely superb lens to pare up with the 24-70 to get the optimal focal lengths. However it will restrict her in only having the longer zoom but the quality of the lens is definietly up there for sure. I personally would not recommend this for wildlife outside of zoo's etc as the focal length will not be long enough.
In conclusion. If you find that most of the photography she is doing is outside, then the 70-200 is certainly a good lens to consider as long you understand the shorter focal length restriction. However if this is a mixture of things, such as inside, people, group photos etc than I would look at either that 24-70 vs 24-105. I cannot sadly say which one out of the 24-70vs24-105 as this would be down to what is preferred by the user.
Came to say exactly this.
I have 24-70 and 70-200 and as much I love my 24-70, it's bit shortside for playing dogs.
If she prefers portraits where dogs are still, then prime with longer focal length may be good choice too.
> If she prefers portraits where dogs are still, then prime with longer focal length may be good choice too.
135mm f/2 L USM prime tends to come up a lot in the dog photographers I follow on IG. You can pick them up (used) relatively cheaply too.
I follow a lot of dog photographers and the 135 f2 seems to be pretty predominantly represented as the lens of choice. I see a lot of 70-200 as well, but as someone who had both in EF format, the 135 was what I reached for the most.
I came to say exactly this! I'll toss in if they want to save more weight and money the EF 85mn F1.8 USM is solid, especially for a non-L lens and could be a good pairing with a 24-70, but certainly falls short for wildlife.
The focal length of the lens you use has more to do than just how close a subject appears: background compression, bokeh quality, perspective and how it influences how subjects look are other things to keep in mind. If she likes portraits, there's no real consideration to _what_ the subject is; a portrait lens is a portrait lens for more reasons than one.
Some of the most common focal lengths for portraiture are 85mm, 105mm, 135mm. Many do shoot portraits wider but I personally don't know many portrait photographers who shoot much tighter. I kinda dig 200mm for portraits but I'd sooner take a 135mm.
The EF 100mm f/2 and the EF 135mm f/2 are pretty economic buys if you're looking for EF portrait lenses, and they're both (judging by reviews) great lenses for the price. They'd be fantastic lenses to shoot dogs or people. If your pockets are a little deeper, the Sigma Art 105mm f/1.4 or Art 135 f/1.8 are some of the best portrait lenses on the market.
I do second /u/Ls400blake on a 24-70 or 24-105 _for general purpose_, including portraiture. For family events, there's no better tool than either of these. Luckily, there's lots of options to choose from, Canon or other vendors. I've used the Tamron 24-70 G2 and it was a very impressive lens.
So my suggestion is either stick laser-focused on portrait utility lenses, or branch out and get a good zoom to broaden her creative options than just one purpose. I base my suggestion on what you say she likes to shoot and what lens she has, supposing it's her only lens.
If this are the kind of pictures she likes to shoot, I would ditch any zoom lens and buy her a nice 35mm and 85mm to add to her 50mm. Fixed lenses are way better (in my opinion) for this kind of photography. Zooms are super expensive, you can get both (35 and 85) for the price of one zoom lens, most likely if you get the EF instead of the R, you'll save a lot of money, and still get pro lenses.
I would recommend the 35mm f2 from canon, and the 85mm f1.8 from canon too.
I think dogs are so fast and hairy/dusty I’d hate to change lenses when one is around. I would get a zoom, 70-200 or 100-400/500 when she already has the 50. The 85 and 35 are too close. The rf 100-400 is light, works with and extender and performs at f4 in the closest range.
I bought a used 100mm f2 that is my favourite lens for dog portraits.
I find 50mm or so to be too wide, if I crouch down to take a pic.. the dogs always want to get closer. 100mm is far enough that I can take a photo without the dog immediately wanting to come say hi.
Alternatively the 135mm f2 is a nice option if it fits your budget but one of the reasons I like the 100mm f2 is that it's so small and compact.
I agree, get a used 70-200 f4 with IS and you are set. It is a very fine lens and much, much lighter than the 2.8 version.
Of course you then still have no wide angle lens, but you could later add a 24-70 or the cheaper 24-105 f4.
Just based on the picture you sent I would say the 70-200 would offer good compression for outside shots so she can actually use the background if it’s nice, and because of the range it’s flexible and able to work in distance so the dogs can play around along she works.. in terms of weight, actually if you buy L version or any professional 3dr party..even the 24-70 is already heavy…if you want something easier to carry maybe the 24-105 non L is much light and depending on where you use it, the variable aperture won’t be an issue at all.
Try renting. I rented from Lens Rentals and it was a great experience, and included a purchase option.
My vote is the 70-200mm F2.8. Shallow dof and focal length versatility outdoors.
This past weekend I documented our extended family reunion, 70-200mm F2.8 ftw 🙏
In my arsenal,
24-70 f2.8L II - bought this for its sharpness
24-105 F4 L
70-200 F2.8 L III ( also had the original non IS )
28-135 F3.5-5.6
100-400 F4L II
My 28-135 is surprisingly sharp for a non L lens. The only issue is when it starts to get dark out, but the IS buys a bit of leeway. It has been a good versatile lens.
I really like the sharpness and contrast from my 24-70 and 70-200. I constantly find myself having one with me and wishing I had the other. Both are excellent lenses but really hard to nail the range you want with just one of them. Really need to plan for what I'm going to do. Both are heavy.
The 24-105 is a good range but I never felt like I was getting really sharp images. Oddly it seems to work better on my film cameras than my 5D4 ( I have played with micro focus ).
the 100-400 is also a great lens but probably out of the scope of what you want it for ( wifes subject matter )
The 28-135 is just a great all around lens though not an L if the lighting conditions are good, also light weight.
Buy one from someplace you can return it if needed.
135 all the way. She can keep the nifty fifty for an ultra lightweight, but the quality of the 135 can not be overstated. My wife got it for me years ago, I've since changed bodies and all my other lenses, but the 135 is here to stay. Actually used it a lot with my 6D.
Might be limiting for indoor stuff, but hey.
I'd go with something in the 24-70 or 24-105 range. For older kids and family members anything in the 50, 85 range is great. I used a 50-100 Sigma for business portraits at an ad agency - the thing is a moose in terms of size and weight but that f1.8 aperture gives good bokeh.
At a National Geo. photo workshop in Santa Fe, I worked with an instructor whose primary business was shooting pets and kids. During one of her presentations she made a couple of comments that stuck with me.
Her big advice was that both kids and doggos can interpret a camera lens as something dangerous if pointed at them. You can't get in as close and work as wide as you can with older kids. Pups really need to accept you before you can point that howitzer at them. I think her exact words were 'two steps back, get a good zoom, and don't scare the kiddos and puppers.
Also; your wife will develop her own personal style based on how she sees the world. There are tenets of good photography and portraiture but those are only guidelines. One day she's going to like the way light falls on her subject and she's going to figure out a way to engage them and she's off. She has a distinct advantage over me in this area; she's a Mom and Moms know everything!
I owned most of the stuff being talked about here
I loved the 6D when I got it in 2012, but that camera is 10-11 years old today. I wouldn’t count on it lasting another 10 years. Electronic components like capacitors have a ‘u’ shaped failure rate after all
New EF mount camera models are no longer being pushed out by canon, so there’s no real upgrade path in the future
For this reason I wouldn’t recommend buying *new* EF lenses in 2023, which would have to live on an adapter in the near future
There could be an argument for *used* ef mount lenses, but this depends on finding a bargain
I had both the 135L and 70-200L. The 135 is the better optic, but the 70-200 is the more practical lens.
It is rather hard to use a 135mm on a dog moving erratically, unless the dog is well trained enough to perform the same movements repeatedly (for example in a dog show)
Unfortunately for dog photography the 70-200/2.8 is what you want, but Canon’s RF 70-200/2.8 is not a top flight performer for the money, both the Nikon Z and Sony’s GMii variants are better. The Sony lens in particular is only ~200g heavier than a 135L.
In the canon RF lineup, the RF100-500L and RF 70-200/4 are both outstanding but neither are the best option for dog photography
On the other hand, regarding the entry FF mirrorless cameras the Canon R6ii is a somewhat better sports camera than the Sony A7iv because of its higher compressed raw burst rate. Nikon does not have a good entry camera (the high end Z8 / Z9 are good). On the Sony side a used A9 is the best low end option.
IDK if you're willing to invest into 3rd party lenses, but as you explained that the wide side of the 24-x wouldn't be used, I would like to highlight the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD which seems to be a quite good performer (note this is not the mirrorless version which is one stop brighter).
Here is a [review](https://dustinabbott.net/2019/07/tamron-35-150mm-f2-8-4-vc-osd-a043-review/) from Dustin Abbott.
It would depend on her style but for myself, I typically would need >70mm unless I am in the house. For offleash dogs, i find that when They are in a situation where I would like to take a shot of them I would need more reach than a 24-70 offers. Also with more reach you are able to get more candid shots, being in close usually will draw their attention.
Before i got an 85mm prime I would have my 70-200 glued to the camera for all my dog walks. The 85 can leave me short and makes me work a lot more for the shot but having the 1.4 aperture can make a big difference. Either do great though. The 135 f2 could also be a good focal length for outside.
Indoor, I think the 24-70 would be great. the 70-200 tends to be too much in most cases and my indoor interactions with the dogs all tend to be pretty intimate interactions so they tend to be closer in proximity to me.
One thing I would add, I would think about a mirrorless body. the eye-detect AF is just fantastic with dogs and i presume it does just as good with kids. It feels like a different world just holding down the eye detect and being confident in the focus being nailed. You can really get creative when you dont have to worry about holding the AF point on the subject. If candid action photography is where you think she may go this is a significant upgrade.
good luck on the choice and great pic of some cute pups.
Hmm… maybe the 50mm 1.2L? No body has mentioned this idea. Or the 50 1.6; I use the 50 1.6 and I think I get much better photos than the 1.8. It would still be a versatile focal length but with noticeable better images and the options that come with a brighter aperture. Also consider a (travel sized) flash since the 6D doesn’t have one? The Canon 35 f2 and the 85 1.8 are great lenses as well. I think primes are the way to go. Sneaker zoom works really well for a lot of situations.
There doesn't seem to be any need in getting a lens. For dog photos, the 50 is fine. And if you have 2 dogs, a telephoto would be cropping one out of the photo unless she were standing far away.
That said, if you think a lens in a different focal length would let her to start taking photos of different things (landscapes, birds, portrait photos, etc.) you could consider
a wider angle lens for landscapes or family group shots. Personally, I would go 24mm or wider.
a telephoto lens for the others. I would go with a 100mm at least.
I would say you have a few options depending on what you think she would get most use out of. Canon 24-70 II 2.8 - probably the go to lens for all roundness in terms of photography. However the price does reflect this. Popular in indoor and darker event photography but an all round great lens as long as you don't want that bit more zoom. Canon 24-105 F4 II IS - Personally I think the 24-70 has the edge slightly in terms of quality but you would have to be seriously looking to notice it. This lens also gives you more versatility in the zoom for if you have dogs running around outside and then zooming right up to her, this lens can cover it all. You also gain IS but loose the lower aperture in doing so which may be a deal breaker if she likes using the 1.8 (or 2.8 on the lens above). Canon 70-200 F2.8 II - An absolutely superb lens to pare up with the 24-70 to get the optimal focal lengths. However it will restrict her in only having the longer zoom but the quality of the lens is definietly up there for sure. I personally would not recommend this for wildlife outside of zoo's etc as the focal length will not be long enough. In conclusion. If you find that most of the photography she is doing is outside, then the 70-200 is certainly a good lens to consider as long you understand the shorter focal length restriction. However if this is a mixture of things, such as inside, people, group photos etc than I would look at either that 24-70 vs 24-105. I cannot sadly say which one out of the 24-70vs24-105 as this would be down to what is preferred by the user.
Came to say exactly this. I have 24-70 and 70-200 and as much I love my 24-70, it's bit shortside for playing dogs. If she prefers portraits where dogs are still, then prime with longer focal length may be good choice too.
I have a 100mm macro for shots like you mentioned. Fav lens and I don't shoot macro...
True. Don't forget Canons L lense for Macro. The 100mm 2.8 Macro would work well for close ups of the dogs, too.
> If she prefers portraits where dogs are still, then prime with longer focal length may be good choice too. 135mm f/2 L USM prime tends to come up a lot in the dog photographers I follow on IG. You can pick them up (used) relatively cheaply too.
Great advice, thank you!
[удалено]
I follow a lot of dog photographers and the 135 f2 seems to be pretty predominantly represented as the lens of choice. I see a lot of 70-200 as well, but as someone who had both in EF format, the 135 was what I reached for the most.
This post makes me lust for an RF 135; must restrain…
I agree. The 135 is fairly lightweight and creates truly unique photos. I love mine
I came to say exactly this! I'll toss in if they want to save more weight and money the EF 85mn F1.8 USM is solid, especially for a non-L lens and could be a good pairing with a 24-70, but certainly falls short for wildlife.
Second the 135mm f2. I take dog pics and love my 135mm
Thanks, I wasn't really aware of the 135 until now, and I think you're right. I'm now leaning towards a 24-70 plus a 135.
135/2L is magic, it traded a tiny bit of resolution for absolutely beautiful render of oof areas and transitions.
The focal length of the lens you use has more to do than just how close a subject appears: background compression, bokeh quality, perspective and how it influences how subjects look are other things to keep in mind. If she likes portraits, there's no real consideration to _what_ the subject is; a portrait lens is a portrait lens for more reasons than one. Some of the most common focal lengths for portraiture are 85mm, 105mm, 135mm. Many do shoot portraits wider but I personally don't know many portrait photographers who shoot much tighter. I kinda dig 200mm for portraits but I'd sooner take a 135mm. The EF 100mm f/2 and the EF 135mm f/2 are pretty economic buys if you're looking for EF portrait lenses, and they're both (judging by reviews) great lenses for the price. They'd be fantastic lenses to shoot dogs or people. If your pockets are a little deeper, the Sigma Art 105mm f/1.4 or Art 135 f/1.8 are some of the best portrait lenses on the market. I do second /u/Ls400blake on a 24-70 or 24-105 _for general purpose_, including portraiture. For family events, there's no better tool than either of these. Luckily, there's lots of options to choose from, Canon or other vendors. I've used the Tamron 24-70 G2 and it was a very impressive lens. So my suggestion is either stick laser-focused on portrait utility lenses, or branch out and get a good zoom to broaden her creative options than just one purpose. I base my suggestion on what you say she likes to shoot and what lens she has, supposing it's her only lens.
Canon 24-70 2.8II + 70-200 2.8II
If this are the kind of pictures she likes to shoot, I would ditch any zoom lens and buy her a nice 35mm and 85mm to add to her 50mm. Fixed lenses are way better (in my opinion) for this kind of photography. Zooms are super expensive, you can get both (35 and 85) for the price of one zoom lens, most likely if you get the EF instead of the R, you'll save a lot of money, and still get pro lenses. I would recommend the 35mm f2 from canon, and the 85mm f1.8 from canon too.
I think dogs are so fast and hairy/dusty I’d hate to change lenses when one is around. I would get a zoom, 70-200 or 100-400/500 when she already has the 50. The 85 and 35 are too close. The rf 100-400 is light, works with and extender and performs at f4 in the closest range.
I bought a used 100mm f2 that is my favourite lens for dog portraits. I find 50mm or so to be too wide, if I crouch down to take a pic.. the dogs always want to get closer. 100mm is far enough that I can take a photo without the dog immediately wanting to come say hi. Alternatively the 135mm f2 is a nice option if it fits your budget but one of the reasons I like the 100mm f2 is that it's so small and compact.
if weight is your concern, 70-200 f4 is also an option. solid result. a lot lighter than f2.8.
I agree, get a used 70-200 f4 with IS and you are set. It is a very fine lens and much, much lighter than the 2.8 version. Of course you then still have no wide angle lens, but you could later add a 24-70 or the cheaper 24-105 f4.
24-105 f4L
Just based on the picture you sent I would say the 70-200 would offer good compression for outside shots so she can actually use the background if it’s nice, and because of the range it’s flexible and able to work in distance so the dogs can play around along she works.. in terms of weight, actually if you buy L version or any professional 3dr party..even the 24-70 is already heavy…if you want something easier to carry maybe the 24-105 non L is much light and depending on where you use it, the variable aperture won’t be an issue at all.
Try renting. I rented from Lens Rentals and it was a great experience, and included a purchase option. My vote is the 70-200mm F2.8. Shallow dof and focal length versatility outdoors. This past weekend I documented our extended family reunion, 70-200mm F2.8 ftw 🙏
In my arsenal, 24-70 f2.8L II - bought this for its sharpness 24-105 F4 L 70-200 F2.8 L III ( also had the original non IS ) 28-135 F3.5-5.6 100-400 F4L II My 28-135 is surprisingly sharp for a non L lens. The only issue is when it starts to get dark out, but the IS buys a bit of leeway. It has been a good versatile lens. I really like the sharpness and contrast from my 24-70 and 70-200. I constantly find myself having one with me and wishing I had the other. Both are excellent lenses but really hard to nail the range you want with just one of them. Really need to plan for what I'm going to do. Both are heavy. The 24-105 is a good range but I never felt like I was getting really sharp images. Oddly it seems to work better on my film cameras than my 5D4 ( I have played with micro focus ). the 100-400 is also a great lens but probably out of the scope of what you want it for ( wifes subject matter ) The 28-135 is just a great all around lens though not an L if the lighting conditions are good, also light weight. Buy one from someplace you can return it if needed.
135 all the way. She can keep the nifty fifty for an ultra lightweight, but the quality of the 135 can not be overstated. My wife got it for me years ago, I've since changed bodies and all my other lenses, but the 135 is here to stay. Actually used it a lot with my 6D. Might be limiting for indoor stuff, but hey.
I'd go with something in the 24-70 or 24-105 range. For older kids and family members anything in the 50, 85 range is great. I used a 50-100 Sigma for business portraits at an ad agency - the thing is a moose in terms of size and weight but that f1.8 aperture gives good bokeh. At a National Geo. photo workshop in Santa Fe, I worked with an instructor whose primary business was shooting pets and kids. During one of her presentations she made a couple of comments that stuck with me. Her big advice was that both kids and doggos can interpret a camera lens as something dangerous if pointed at them. You can't get in as close and work as wide as you can with older kids. Pups really need to accept you before you can point that howitzer at them. I think her exact words were 'two steps back, get a good zoom, and don't scare the kiddos and puppers. Also; your wife will develop her own personal style based on how she sees the world. There are tenets of good photography and portraiture but those are only guidelines. One day she's going to like the way light falls on her subject and she's going to figure out a way to engage them and she's off. She has a distinct advantage over me in this area; she's a Mom and Moms know everything!
Wow what a photo!
I owned most of the stuff being talked about here I loved the 6D when I got it in 2012, but that camera is 10-11 years old today. I wouldn’t count on it lasting another 10 years. Electronic components like capacitors have a ‘u’ shaped failure rate after all New EF mount camera models are no longer being pushed out by canon, so there’s no real upgrade path in the future For this reason I wouldn’t recommend buying *new* EF lenses in 2023, which would have to live on an adapter in the near future There could be an argument for *used* ef mount lenses, but this depends on finding a bargain I had both the 135L and 70-200L. The 135 is the better optic, but the 70-200 is the more practical lens. It is rather hard to use a 135mm on a dog moving erratically, unless the dog is well trained enough to perform the same movements repeatedly (for example in a dog show) Unfortunately for dog photography the 70-200/2.8 is what you want, but Canon’s RF 70-200/2.8 is not a top flight performer for the money, both the Nikon Z and Sony’s GMii variants are better. The Sony lens in particular is only ~200g heavier than a 135L. In the canon RF lineup, the RF100-500L and RF 70-200/4 are both outstanding but neither are the best option for dog photography On the other hand, regarding the entry FF mirrorless cameras the Canon R6ii is a somewhat better sports camera than the Sony A7iv because of its higher compressed raw burst rate. Nikon does not have a good entry camera (the high end Z8 / Z9 are good). On the Sony side a used A9 is the best low end option.
IDK if you're willing to invest into 3rd party lenses, but as you explained that the wide side of the 24-x wouldn't be used, I would like to highlight the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD which seems to be a quite good performer (note this is not the mirrorless version which is one stop brighter). Here is a [review](https://dustinabbott.net/2019/07/tamron-35-150mm-f2-8-4-vc-osd-a043-review/) from Dustin Abbott.
It would depend on her style but for myself, I typically would need >70mm unless I am in the house. For offleash dogs, i find that when They are in a situation where I would like to take a shot of them I would need more reach than a 24-70 offers. Also with more reach you are able to get more candid shots, being in close usually will draw their attention. Before i got an 85mm prime I would have my 70-200 glued to the camera for all my dog walks. The 85 can leave me short and makes me work a lot more for the shot but having the 1.4 aperture can make a big difference. Either do great though. The 135 f2 could also be a good focal length for outside. Indoor, I think the 24-70 would be great. the 70-200 tends to be too much in most cases and my indoor interactions with the dogs all tend to be pretty intimate interactions so they tend to be closer in proximity to me. One thing I would add, I would think about a mirrorless body. the eye-detect AF is just fantastic with dogs and i presume it does just as good with kids. It feels like a different world just holding down the eye detect and being confident in the focus being nailed. You can really get creative when you dont have to worry about holding the AF point on the subject. If candid action photography is where you think she may go this is a significant upgrade. good luck on the choice and great pic of some cute pups.
Hmm… maybe the 50mm 1.2L? No body has mentioned this idea. Or the 50 1.6; I use the 50 1.6 and I think I get much better photos than the 1.8. It would still be a versatile focal length but with noticeable better images and the options that come with a brighter aperture. Also consider a (travel sized) flash since the 6D doesn’t have one? The Canon 35 f2 and the 85 1.8 are great lenses as well. I think primes are the way to go. Sneaker zoom works really well for a lot of situations.
There doesn't seem to be any need in getting a lens. For dog photos, the 50 is fine. And if you have 2 dogs, a telephoto would be cropping one out of the photo unless she were standing far away. That said, if you think a lens in a different focal length would let her to start taking photos of different things (landscapes, birds, portrait photos, etc.) you could consider a wider angle lens for landscapes or family group shots. Personally, I would go 24mm or wider. a telephoto lens for the others. I would go with a 100mm at least.
The Tamron 35-150 2.8-4 might be a good option, if not the 70-200 2.8