# Canon 6d vs 24-70mm mark ii



## Nine-IX (Oct 30, 2014)

Weird title I know, but I'm trying to make a choice. 

Currently I have a 7D mark i and a 24-70mm mark i. The 24-70mm is a great lens, but it often whiffs on focusing. I'm amazed at how many more keepers I have with my 70-200mm and my 17-40mm. 

I also like my 7D, but I rarely use the advanced autofocus, instead using center point focus. Of course I also get the noise of a crop sensor. 

The 6D appeals to me for the full frame aspect. My 24-70mm does a better job the closer I get to my subject, so full frame will bring me closer without the 1.6x magnification. Am I fooling myself that my current 24-70mm will perform better on the 6D?

The 24-70mm mark ii appeals to me because I prefer to upgrade glass and would eventually be going to a full frame anyway. 

Due to finances, I would have to sell the body or lens to fund the new purchase. 

thoughts?


----------



## tron (Oct 30, 2014)

I would get the 24-70 II. I am sure the 7D will have much more noise than 6D at high ISO but you will be perfectly happy with your 24-70 II at low ISO. A noisy sharp and correctly focused picture is better than a clean out of focus image.

Just my opinion.


----------



## tayassu (Oct 30, 2014)

A lens is always above a body... Go for the 24-70, great lens!


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 30, 2014)

tayassu said:


> A lens is always above a body... Go for the 24-70, great lens!



Not at all sure that that is always the correct way to look at it, especially when there are leaps forward in technology. 

I would go for a 6D and get your 24-70 f2.8 tuned up by a Canon 'L' lens specialist service centre.


----------



## CANONisOK (Oct 30, 2014)

I'm with Sporgon. In many cases, I'd say invest in glass... but you're most of the way there already. You'd see a bigger improvement going from 7D mk i to 6D, than going from 24-70mm mk i to mk ii on APS-C.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 30, 2014)

Nine-IX said:


> The 24-70mm is a great lens, but it often whiffs on focusing. I'm amazed at how many more keepers I have with my 70-200mm and my 17-40mm.



Well, the 17-40 is a f4 lens and uwa at that, so it's not that hard to get something into focus  ... as others wrote, maybe you should get the lens serviced because the L1 is known for being more fragile than the L2 if it ever took a bump.



Nine-IX said:


> Am I fooling myself that my current 24-70mm will perform better on the 6D?



Yes, you are fooling yourself at least partly: One of the most important advances of the 24-70L2 is the more precise af motor, but *only* the 1dx/5d3 (and now probably 7d2?) can make use of it.

So basically you're paying for tech you cannot use, that's why the Tamron 24-70L might be a better combination - sharper than Canon's L1 and with IS, plus having a fast lens af doesn't really matter with the 6d anyway :-\



Nine-IX said:


> Due to finances, I would have to sell the body or lens to fund the new purchase.



Imho stretching your budget to get top notch glass on a crop is complete overkill, even though investment in lenses usually is the smarter choice. The f2.8 standard zooms are really designed for full frame for low light and thin depth of field - if that doesn't matter you could simply go for the f4 zoom otherwise.

You didn't write what you usually shoot, but with your L1 lens and the 6d you'll see a vast difference, while with the L2 it'll take some pixel peeping or very large prints to notice the difference.


----------



## Nine-IX (Oct 30, 2014)

thanks for the comments, very helpful. 

In response, I typically shoot portraits and family shots. I had a senior shoot last night and found that, in most situations, if I am patient and very deliberate with the 24-70mm, it will focus well, but it doesn't get it right every time like other lenses (most notably the 70-200mm). 

I didn't realize that the autofocus improvements on the mark ii are limited to 5diii and 1d.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 30, 2014)

I don't have a good reason, but I'm leaning towards the 6d.

You have a solid stable of lenses.... So am upgrade of the body should bring more significant results.... 

Maybe there is something wrong with the 24-70. I'd also suggest having it not only looked at, but paired with the body by cps.

Maybe mix in a prime lens... with the money you save.. a solid 35 or 85 might be a nice addition to all the zooms.


----------



## timmy_650 (Oct 30, 2014)

I would say say 6D. You will get wider lenses which is nice. I have the t2i which is the same senors and there was a big jump in my pictures when i went with a 6D. Think about how many pro used a 5D mark 2 and 24-70 i for years.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Oct 30, 2014)

I'm in the 6D camp. You have good lenses. You shoot portraits. The 7D is often criticized for IQ issues due to its sensor. I would definitely get the 6D first. (Plus, the 7D is about to be worth less due to the 7D-II coming out while the 6D is probably at it's best price ever while still being a current unit.)

I own the 24-70-II and the 70-200-II. I also own a 60D which has the same sensor as the 7D. I'm selling the 60D currently and I would sell the 24-70-II in a heartbeat before I sold the 70-200-II. They are both great portrait lenses but I'm not nearly as impressed with the 24-70-II as I continually am impressed with the 70-200-II. I owned the 24-70-I and it was great. I think the 24-70-II is too overpriced. I'd wait on that and maybe even get it used someday.

Get the 6D. You'll be glad you did as so many others have done before you.


----------



## Nine-IX (Oct 30, 2014)

I think that I am leaning heavily towards the 6d. I bought Reinken focal software last year and the microfocus on the 24-70mm varied across the focal range. I can't remember how much, but from what I read, it was within Canon "tolerances"


----------



## rs (Oct 30, 2014)

My recommendation us the 6D. For me, your lenses have a slightly awkward range on crop, and make a whole load more sense on FF. Plus the lower pixel density if the 6D is less fussy about the resolving power/finite focusing issues of your lenses.

Your focusing issues could possibly be resolved by another body and/or AFMA. If not, a good service is more than worth a shot.


----------



## gwilson (Oct 30, 2014)

I don't know if you would consider doing what I did but here it is anyway for your thoughts.
After purchasing the 6D with the kit lens a little over a year ago, I purchased the 40mm/2.8 pancake lens as my next lens. I chose the 40mm instead of any of the 24-70mm lenses because I intended to crop in PP and I wanted the best image quality for the price.
I am just an enthusiast, not a pro. Shortly after buying the lens, I took pictures of a friend's daughter's first birthday party in a restaurant party room. I just used the available light, no flash, and the family was happy with the results.
Of course you lose the 24-40mm range with the 40mm lens but you do have the 17-40 anyway which I think is also great on the 6d where it would show a wider angle than on your crop camera.
All the best to you whatever you choose.
Gary


----------



## D. (Oct 30, 2014)

Go with the 6D - that should give you the most bang for the buck. Note, however, that according to Photozone, the 24-70 2.8 v1 has strong field curvature at the wide end (see http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1). This probably isn't very noticeable on an APC camera compared to FF. So for wide angle landscape shots, you may want to use your 17-40 on the 6D.


----------



## Sarpedon (Oct 30, 2014)

Lenses are usually a better long-term investment than camera bodies. 

That said, go with the 6D. It's an upgrade much better suited to your preferred type of photography, and you'll notice a much greater boost in image quality, as others have said.

You'll also find that your creative options have grown significantly. Your 17-40 will now be a true wide-angle, and if nothing else, wide-angles are a lot of fun. Your temperamental 24-70 will now be capable of more impressive depth-of-field effects if you shoot close enough to your subject, and in portraiture, thin depth of field really pays off. It will help give your photos that extra pop, that 'professional' look, that a lot of photographers lust after. 

You won't see any of this if you just replace your zoom. So sure: the value of the lens will keep much longer than the camera, but what's more important than that is enjoying the picture-taking process, and finding ways to expand your creative possibilities. The 6D will help you do that.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 30, 2014)

I agree with those recommending the 6D. I upgraded from a 7D to a 6D and for my style of photography (similar to yours listed) it was a terrific upgrade. I also own a 24-70 2.8 II and its an incredible lens. If you have a good copy of the Mk1, you will probably be happy with the 6D/24-70Mk1 combo for some time.



Nine-IX said:


> thanks for the comments, very helpful.
> 
> In response, I typically shoot portraits and family shots. I had a senior shoot last night and found that, in most situations, if I am patient and very deliberate with the 24-70mm, it will focus well, but it doesn't get it right every time like other lenses (most notably the 70-200mm).
> 
> I didn't realize that the autofocus improvements on the mark ii are limited to 5diii and 1d.



The Mk2 focuses extremely fast and accurately on the 6D. Some here claim that the 6D doesn't benefit from faster lenses, but in my experience they AF faster and more accurately than f/4 and slower lenses.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 31, 2014)

Nine-IX said:


> I typically shoot portraits and family shots.


Reading this I instantly say that's best done with a FF and a fast zoom like the 24-70L or prime.

So I would 100% second Sporgon's advice. Get the 6D and let your 24-70L check and AFMA together with the new body. 

With the FF you have more possibilities about controlling DOF when doing portraits. And the V1 24-70L is sharp enough in center and midframe to get really good pictures.


PS.: Usually I'd always say go for the better lens, but not in your case.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 31, 2014)

bholliman said:


> The Mk2 focuses extremely fast and accurately on the 6D. Some here claim that the 6D doesn't benefit from faster lenses, but in my experience they AF faster and more accurately than f/4 and slower lenses.



That would depend on the light situation - in dim light, of course the af gets relatively better with faster lenses as it works wide open. It's just that it doesn't profit as much as it could with a real double-cross center point concerning reliability (esp. tracking) on low-contrast surfaces when *shooting* wide open.



Nine-IX said:


> I didn't realize that the autofocus improvements on the mark ii are limited to 5diii and 1d.



There's a lensrentals article on the 24-70L2 you might want to look up - as far as I remember, it basically states that good copies of the mk1 are as sharp as "normal" not-stellar copies of the mk2, and that only the newest 1dx/5d3 af systems can harvest the enhanced precision of the new af stepping motor. One decisive enhancement of the L2 seems to be better built quality against decentering though if your lenses take a beating in rough pj work.

Now these are no decisive reasons not to get the L2 on the 6d, but it certainly affects a decision to upgrade from the L1. As written, for these reasons some prefer to go for the Tamron with IS on the 6d.


----------



## TeT (Oct 31, 2014)

Nine-IX said:


> Weird title I know, but I'm trying to make a choice.
> 
> Currently I have a 7D mark i and a 24-70mm mark i. The 24-70mm is a great lens, but it often whiffs on focusing. I'm amazed at how many more keepers I have with my 70-200mm and my 17-40mm.
> 
> ...



On the practical side, you can sell your current 24 70 for more than you can sell your 7D.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 31, 2014)

mrk II is great a lens. In your case, I would go for FF.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 31, 2014)

Sounds like a consensus. 

I'd maybe suggest treading water for a while and see if a 6d mkii is on the horizon. 

Didn't the 6d come out better the 5d mkiii? And the 5d mkiv is rumored to come out in 2015..., So maybe they sneak a 6d out beforehand...


----------



## Nine-IX (Oct 31, 2014)

It sounds like a consensus on the FF 6D. I've always leaned toward putting money into glass, but I love the idea of higher IQ and the creative possibilities with the 6D. 

I also just saw that the 6D can Microfocus adjust on both the wide and tele end of the lens. the 7D doesn't allow that, so that may resolve most, if not all, of my focus issues on the 24-70mk1

I've been trolling canonrumors for years before finally signing in to the forums. Thanks for the help!


----------



## Nine-IX (Oct 31, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'd maybe suggest treading water for a while and see if a 6d mkii is on the horizon.
> 
> Didn't the 6d come out better the 5d mkiii? And the 5d mkiv is rumored to come out in 2015..., So maybe they sneak a 6d out beforehand...



Now you're just being cruel


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2014)

Nine-IX said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I'd maybe suggest treading water for a while and see if a 6d mkii is on the horizon.
> ...


6D came after 5DMkIII. So 6DMkII may come after 5DMkIV. Now the 5DMkIV has not even been rumored yet. Good luck waiting


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 31, 2014)

Nine-IX said:


> I also just saw that the 6D can Microfocus adjust on both the wide and tele end of the lens. the 7D doesn't allow that, so that may resolve most, if not all, of my focus issues on the 24-70mk1



Might be if your lens is really dodgy, but in my experience afma misses are much more likely to be generated by varying subject distance... Sigma now has an option to account for that in their lenses, while Canon (only) has the wide/long end system that doesn't make any difference at least on my zooms.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Oct 31, 2014)

The depth of field of a FF sensor &F/4 combo is shallower than the DOF of a APSC Sensor&F/2.8.
A FF&F/4 combo gathers more light than a Crop&F/2.8.

So maybe you shoud consider the 6d + 24-70 *F/4* IS L combo.


----------



## danjwark (Oct 31, 2014)

As a current 6D owner also having moved from crop (no regrets), I would suggest you may end up using your 70-200 more for portraits anyway as it's focal length on FF feels much better than on crop. It actually feels a bit long on crop which makes it tougher to use for portraits. My vote is to go the 6D route as you may just find it with the 70-200 is a killer combination.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 31, 2014)

I'd fix your lens and get a 6D. The old 24-70mm MK II are well known to have broken guides that can jam or cause inaccurate focusing. You can buy them from Canon and replace them yourself, but its best to have Canon do a complete checkup on the lens.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 31, 2014)

For the reasons given by others already, I would go with the 6D too; superb image quality and you will likely appreciate the high ISO performance. What's more, all your lenses will suddenly provide a much much wider angle of view, providing significantly different ways of looking at the world - it's rather like replacing everything at once. And since you already have 17-40 and 70-200, you might want to consider selling both your 7D and your 24-70 (much of whose angle of view on your 7D will be covered by your 70-200 on the 6D) and buying a decent prime or two to fill in the gap and/or allow you to play around with even shallower focus (if that's of any interest to you) - a fast 50mm, or an 85mm portrait lens, say. Or you may decide that the gap doesn't need filling....


----------



## Nine-IX (Nov 4, 2014)

sdsr said:


> For the reasons given by others already, I would go with the 6D too; superb image quality and you will likely appreciate the high ISO performance. What's more, all your lenses will suddenly provide a much much wider angle of view, providing significantly different ways of looking at the world - it's rather like replacing everything at once. And since you already have 17-40 and 70-200, you might want to consider selling both your 7D and your 24-70 (much of whose angle of view on your 7D will be covered by your 70-200 on the 6D) and buying a decent prime or two to fill in the gap and/or allow you to play around with even shallower focus (if that's of any interest to you) - a fast 50mm, or an 85mm portrait lens, say. Or you may decide that the gap doesn't need filling....



now that is a very interesting idea. I have a 50mm f1.8, but it leaves much to be desired. Moving up to the F/1.2 from the 24-70mm would probably cost me ~$400. hmmmmm


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 4, 2014)

Nine-IX said:


> now that is a very interesting idea. I have a 50mm f1.8, but it leaves much to be desired. Moving up to the F/1.2 from the 24-70mm would probably cost me ~$400. hmmmmm



Note that digital cameras cannot make full use of very fast f1.2 lenses as part of the light comes from the wrong directions (film was able to capture all of it) - so it's mostly for extreme thin dof and bokeh. And, I cannot help mentioning it, don't rely on the 6d af with these lenses - I've read from people upgrading to the 5d3 because the little brother simply cannot manage.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 4, 2014)

One good thing about the 6D is that you can swap out the existing stock AF screen for the extra-fine Eg-S screen (a $38.00 part and a DIY 5 minute effort) - focusing a manual focus f/1.2 lens at f/1.2 on the stock screen is a beeitch, the Eg-S is an improvement. I am shooting a bunch of back-of-the-closet all-manual film lenses on the 6D, with adapter - AIS Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 and AIS Nikkor 102mm f/2.5 among them.


----------



## ecka (Nov 4, 2014)

sdsr said:


> For the reasons given by others already, I would go with the 6D too; superb image quality and you will likely appreciate the high ISO performance. What's more, all your lenses will suddenly provide a much much wider angle of view, providing significantly different ways of looking at the world - it's rather like replacing everything at once. And since you already have 17-40 and 70-200, you might want to consider selling both your 7D and your 24-70 (much of whose angle of view on your 7D will be covered by your 70-200 on the 6D) and buying a decent prime or two to fill in the gap and/or allow you to play around with even shallower focus (if that's of any interest to you) - a fast 50mm, or an 85mm portrait lens, say. Or you may decide that the gap doesn't need filling....



+1


----------

