# Move to full frame (6D) or New Lens?



## chasinglight (Jul 16, 2013)

Hi, I currently shoot with the canon 7d. I have the 15-85 which I use for landscapes, all around lens, and occasionally portraits; the 50 1.8 which I use for shallow DoF and low light work; 100-400 which I use for birds and wildlife; and the 70-200 f4 IS which I use occasionally for portraits and landscapes. 

My question is if you had a choice of whether to add the 6D to the line up (for most shooting except wildlife) or buy a fast zoom like the 24-70 2.8 (version 1) which would you do? I like the idea of the 6D because it will create cleaner images, provide better low light performance for family events, and will allow me to use the 70-200 more as I find the focal length either too long or too short on crop (never just right). At the same time, just getting the 24-70 would give me better low light performance and shallow DoF for events where lighting is not ideal.

Part of me says to get the 24-70 first as I would need a standard zoom on the 6D, but part of me really wants to try out full frame. I thought about just getting an old 5Dc to try out full frame, but I figured it was more worth the money to get a current model camera. The 5D3 is currently more than I would like to spend if anyone was thinking to suggest that instead. Thoughts?!?


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 16, 2013)

Are you aware of the fact that when you upgrade to 6D, you will have to ditch your 15-85 anyway? So it become whether to upgrade lens alone, or upgrade camera + lens, which would depend on your budget at least.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Jul 16, 2013)

From the last paragraph of your post it looks like you are aware that you would not be able to use 15-85 on your full frame and still leaning (or heart is aching) towards a full frame.

I see many possibilities
1. 6D plus 24mm prime now and later get 24-70 f/2.8 (and keep your lenses other than 15-85mm)
If budget permits I would probably go for a 35mm rather than 24mm, but all depends on budget.
2. Keep 7D, get 17-55 f/2.8 (in any case f/2.8 on crop is not the same as f/2.8 on full frame)
3. Keep 7D, keep 15-85 for all around and get the new sigma 18-35 f/1.8 for low light occasions.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 16, 2013)

chasinglight said:


> Part of me says to get the 24-70 first as I would need a standard zoom on the 6D, but part of me really wants to try out full frame. I thought about just getting an old 5Dc to try out full frame, but I figured it was more worth the money to get a current model camera. The 5D3 is currently more than I would like to spend if anyone was thinking to suggest that instead. Thoughts?!?



Same here, the unfortunate fact is: you need both, which results in quite a large investment over the also ok crop iq in good light. If you're lucky you might get a cheap 5d2 if you don't need the new 6d features (see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11309.0), and I'd advise the Tamron 24-70 over the Canon mk1 (the Tamron is as sharp or sharper and has IS, the better Canon af doesn't really matter on the 5d2/6d). 

Getting the 24-70 is a good idea because the 6d price keeps dropping, while the lens prices are stable, it's just that this focal length is a bit awkward on crop. So look for lens rebates and used ff cameras...


----------



## AmbientLight (Jul 16, 2013)

My recommendation is to purchase the 6D. Given the feature differences between 6D and 7D you will be able to make good use of both cameras, while the 24-70mm will not really come into its own on a 7D, because the focal length range of this lens is much better suited for a full-frame camera. On crop the focal length range of this lens will feel a bit awkward just as you noticed with the 70-200mm zoom.

Your expectation that you will be able to use your 70-200 much more often with a full-frame camera is in my opinion quite accurate. I have gone through a full-frame upgrade last year and have been using my 70-200mm zoom much more often on full-frame.

Be aware though that you are very likely to end up purchasing that 24-70mm zoom later on once you have made some image quality comparisons.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 16, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> My recommendation is to purchase the 6D. Given the feature differences between 6D and 7D you will be able to make good use of both cameras, while the 24-70mm will not really come into its own on a 7D, because the focal length range of this lens is much better suited for a full-frame camera. On crop the focal length range of this lens will feel a bit awkward just as you noticed with the 70-200mm zoom.
> 
> Your expectation that you will be able to use your 70-200 much more often with a full-frame camera is in my opinion quite accurate. I have gone through a full-frame upgrade last year and have been using my 70-200mm zoom much more often on full-frame.
> 
> Be aware though that you are very likely to end up purchasing that 24-70mm zoom later on once you have made some image quality comparisons.



Okay I'm glad you said that about the 70-200, because I LOVE that lens. The images that I get with it are just stunning... But that's when I can get them because its just an awkward focal length on a crop. I have actually thought about selling the lens, but I figured that's just silly because once I go full frame I will just want to buy it again.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 16, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> chasinglight said:
> 
> 
> > Part of me says to get the 24-70 first as I would need a standard zoom on the 6D, but part of me really wants to try out full frame. I thought about just getting an old 5Dc to try out full frame, but I figured it was more worth the money to get a current model camera. The 5D3 is currently more than I would like to spend if anyone was thinking to suggest that instead. Thoughts?!?
> ...



Thanks for your input. I have looked at the 5d2 and actually wanted it over the 6d for some of its features such as ergonomics and PC sync, but people still want a lot of money for 5d2s. On Craigslist people are asking on average 1800 and on eBay they seem to sell for about 1500. I recently saw that you can get the 6d for 1259 on digitalmonster. That's actually what spurred this quandary. 1259 is definitely a price I am willing to pay for a 6d. Honestly I would probably only be willing to pay $1000 for a 5d2 given its age and most likely the fact that it would be used.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 16, 2013)

If finances allow, get the 6D + 24-105 kit. Use the 24-105 until you have enough to replace it, if that is what you want. I used the 16-35/50/70-200 combo until the 24-70 f/2.8 II came out and it worked well, but it comes down to personal preference.

The 6D + 24-105 will do better than the 7D + 15-85, but the bigest improvement will come with your 50 and 70-200.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 16, 2013)

I would get the 6D, especially if you do much hand-held low light photography - you'll be amazed at how good images look at ISO 6400 and beyond, and thus surprised at how much more you'll use your 70-200 f/4, which is arguably a more useful focal length on FF anyway. As you already have 50 and 70 covered I would forget about an expensive 24-70 zoom for now and get something cheaper and wider such as the 17-40 L, or one of the new wideish primes with IS (24, 28, 35) or the cheap 40mm pancake (though it's perhaps too close to your 50mm) or the older 35mm f/2. (Or, when one of the crazy deals are floating around, get the 6D/24-105L kit.)


----------



## Zv (Jul 16, 2013)

.... Or .... your kit is fine, leave it alone and just go out and shoot. Do you have a speedlite? you might want to think about lighting as this is a cheaper and better way to reduce noise and improve overall IQ. Seriously , even just a $20 reflector can improve your outdoor portraits. 

For candid low light shots you have the 50mm 1.8 which works just fine, I had one for a few years and it served me well (kinda miss it now!). I use my EOS M now but that's a diff topic ...

Going FF alone is not the answer. So, you are willing to spend about $1500 on a 6D and $2000 on another lens just so you can get "cleaner images"? )

Sure the 7D can be noisy over ISO 1600 but are you missing a lot of shots because you can't use ISO 6400? Hmmm, I don't think many people use that for portraits anyway. (I could be wrong, I'm sure someone will come on here and prove me wrong!)

I was close to buying a 6D for a similar reason to you and had to just slap myself and say "shut the hell up and just use what you have". I've decided not to buy any more gear this year and to try and improve my technique and lighting skills. Two things that will improve IQ!

Then again who am I to object! Do what you like!


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 16, 2013)

Zv said:


> .... Or .... your kit is fine, leave it alone and just go out and shoot. Do you have a speedlite? you might want to think about lighting as this is a cheaper and better way to reduce noise and improve overall IQ. Seriously , even just a $20 reflector can improve your outdoor portraits.
> 
> For candid low light shots you have the 50mm 1.8 which works just fine, I had one for a few years and it served me well (kinda miss it now!). I use my EOS M now but that's a diff topic ...
> 
> ...



Leaving the kit alone is definitely an option. By no means is my kit sub par. Yes I have speed lights and I have even gotten usable shots with the 7d at ISO 6400. You just have to expose properly and use selective NR in post. And yes along with what you said I saw my IQ increase greatly as I have developed better technique and started ETTR even if that means raising ISO.

Maybe I am just falling victim to hype or my own love of gear, but I have always been curious about full frame. I shoot a lot (several times a week), but it is just a hobby with the occassional gig Ill do as a favor for someone. I was just seeking opinions to try to swap me either way. Thanks for your advice.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 17, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> but the bigest improvement will come with your 50 and 70-200.



I doubt the 50/1.8 makes a good ff lens, I have it and even on crop using only the center it's less than mediocre.



chasinglight said:


> Thanks for your input. I have looked at the 5d2 and actually wanted it over the 6d for some of its features such as ergonomics and PC sync, but people still want a lot of money for 5d2s.



Yes, again same here - I cannot find a used 5d2 on the open market that has what I'd consider an ok price considering shutter count and the improvements of the 6d. I just mentioned because you might happen to know somebody who'd sell a 5d2 for an ok price to "good hands" of an enthusiast.


----------

