# First Time Full Frame Buy



## Sabaki (Aug 11, 2015)

Hey everybody 

So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D. 

If you were the guy (or gal) behind the sales counter, which combination would you advice a first time full frame buyer to go for?

As mentioned, I'm pretty much sold on the 16-35/6Dii combo but those extra millimeters from 11-15mm on the 11-24 are so damn tempting. 
I do own a 24-70mkii

Any advice would be appreciated guys


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 11, 2015)

6D + 11-24. You'd be buying the 6D at a discount as compared with a 6D II at full price later and a large part of that difference is funding a better lens.


----------



## ReggieABrown (Aug 11, 2015)

Someone behind the counter can't sell you something that's yet to be announced, i.e. 6d Mark ii. Or did I miss the announcement?


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 11, 2015)

ReggieABrown said:


> Someone behind the counter can't sell you something that's yet to be announced, i.e. 6d Mark ii. Or did I miss the announcement?



Hey Reggie. Don't be so literal mate. I'm trying to cover all bases and ideas before I 100% commit, you know?

Any other comments you may have though?


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 11, 2015)

I suspect the earliest launch for 6dii is Christmas 2016, with spring 2017 being more realistic. Can you wait that long? There's a huge price difference between 6d mk1 and 2. Is it worth it? 

11mm is ridiculously wide on full frame. It's not for everyone. If you got the money and don't mind the weight, go for it. 14mm is more practical I think. In my opinion you should stick with your plan and get 16-35 and see how you like it on a full frame camera.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 11, 2015)

As 6D mkII is not yet announced, I would go for the 6D. You will see that full frame will give you much better photography, compared to crop. This is one of the biggest steps you can take, and for sure with those lenses. The 10-22 can be sold.

I would go for the 11-24, As I know how tempting GAS can be, and for sure if you are doubting right now. That doubt will never go away. This choice will give you top notch quality from 11 to 200. And believe me, you will not use your crops anymore. It also happens to me with the 7D and the 5D3. I even bought a 7D2 a few months ago, but hardly use it. I hardly get a keeper from that 7D2, but hey, maybe I am spoiled by the full frames, so my last investment yesterday was a second 1Dx so that I can go on safari in September to Uganda with only full frames (5D3+ 2x 1Dx).


----------



## Eldar (Aug 11, 2015)

You can have both the 6D and a 16-35 f4L IS fairly cheap. You´ll find them second hand and in the grey market. The lens takes regular filters and its IQ is great. The 11-24 is a fantastic lens, but it is a very challenging one. To make good use of the 11-16mm range, requires a lot of practice and a trained eye. I think you´ll be better off with the 16-35. From a cost perspective, you can get a 70-200 f2.8L IS II (same filter size as the 16-35/4) and a good fast prime on top of that ...


----------



## ksgal (Aug 11, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Hey everybody
> 
> So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.
> 
> ...



I think it depends on your shooting style. Me personally, I'm not a landscape/wide angle person, so buying an 11-24 is really not going to happen unless I win the lottery, or get jobs that require that lens. 

But- if you ARE a wide angle person, and love landscape and wide angle photography, I can't think of another lens that is as well regarded as this one. Have the money? love that subject of photography? Go For it! 

I'd think of it as 'renting' the 6D till the II version comes out, sell it and upgrade for the 6DII when it comes out and price drops after the first rush. That lens is an investment, and will far outlast multiple bodies in the future. 

A great pairing for landscape photography. 

JMHO.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 12, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.



Get the 6D. Its by far the best performance/price offer from Canon. Go for the non-wifi, gps model. You can probably get it for 1.000$(!)

This leaves money in your pocket for several extra lenses. Good lenses and fast primes will do more - much more - for your photography than anything Canon puts into the 6DII.

Finally, the 6D was far too expensive at launch. I expect Canon continue to ask customers to pay more and deliver less than the competition. 6DII will thus likely not even be close to the current 6D prices.

Good luck with your choice!


----------



## TheJock (Aug 12, 2015)

6D + 16-35 f4 + Rokinon 14mm + accessories like a good sturdy tripod, square filter holder and some ND/polariser filters + spare camera battery + new fast cards, all for the same price as a yet to be announced 6D2 or an 11-24L.


----------



## candc (Aug 12, 2015)

the 6d + 16-35 f/4 is a great combo. if you want the more exaggerated wide angle perspective then get a fisheye.


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 12, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> 6D + 16-35 f4 + Rokinon 14mm + accessories like a good sturdy tripod, square filter holder and some ND/polariser filters + spare camera battery + new fast cards, all for the same price as a yet to be announced 6D2 or an 11-24L.



+1


----------



## jcarapet (Aug 12, 2015)

Simply put, lenses hold value better than bodies do. If you are thinking about it from a long term value standpoint, go with 11-24 and 6d. 

I agree that you can get much cheaper options and better all-purpose lenses for when not doing landscape.. Consider that before buying.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 12, 2015)

I'll chime in as an owner of two 6D's + Canon 17-40 and an OLD tamron 17-35. I love the combo with the tamron 17-35. I've used the Canon 16-35 one time and have drooled over getting one ever since. I also own the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm 2.8. It's also a very good lens for the money. 

I think go with the 6D/16-35 now and be happy with what you own now, or you'll be chasing that dream until the new camera comes out. If you really are GAS bitten by the wider angle, the ROK/SAM 14 can be had for about $200 used or $300 new. I know money doesn't grow on trees, but that's pretty cheap scratch for the GAS itch in wide angle lenses. 

I'd rent the 11-24 for a weekend, walk around a local park or scenic location and try it a couple times before investing in it. It's a lot of cash for a specialty lens that I think you'll find you may not use as often at the super wide-angle 11mm. 

Landscape photography is one of my favorite types... 11mm makes horizon elements VERY small in the frame and diminishes their scale quite a bit. Mountain scenes are great to capture the breadth of the scene, but I've found there's more drama in capturing them almost as a portrait to gain some perspective on height and depth... that's not very easy to do with 11mm... it's not easy to do with 16mm or 17mm. Capturing perspective of a deep valley though... wide angles really shine. 

The TS-E series might also be a good option... Also a bit of a learning curve... but a satisfying result once you get it down. I'm still working on it... have to buy one to really get time to get the feel of them and "know" what you're going to get when you set tilt/shift settings etc... renting simply doesn't cut it with TS-E.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 12, 2015)

Landscape?

Get the 6D now. As others have said a 6D2 is a year or longer away. One can take a lot of pictures in a year. Also the biggest weakness of the 6D (for general photography) is the limited focal points, focal system. Not an issue for landscape shooting. Oh, and I absolutely love the GPS for landscape. I just took the 6D to the boundary waters on a canoe trip. Having GPS data made it pretty cool to map out the trip, all of our sites we camped at, a number of portages, etc.

The 6D is a very solid landscape camera.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 12, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Hey everybody
> 
> So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.
> 
> ...



I can only echo what others have said. Get the 6D, which is very cheap now - we don't know when or even if its successor will come, and how much it might cost. And 11mm is VERY wide. I think the 16-35 is a better all-rounder - you can use it for portraits and street scenes at the longer end, and you can always stitch panoramas for ultrawide. And the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm is a good cheap addition for even wider work.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 12, 2015)

If you're currently taking landscape photos with a smaller-sensor camera, do you like the ability to use a really wide zoom (e.g. the Sigma 8-16 aps-c lens at its wider end)? If you do, and you use it enough that the 11-24 would make sense (and can afford it reasonably enough), buy that rather than the 16-35, half of whose range you already have in an excellent and faster lens. 

If you haven't used a really wide zoom, just buy a current 6D, use what you have and try to figure out if you really want/need to go wider than 24 (assuming you're coming from aps-c, 24mm will seem very wide on FF). Really wide angle lenses are far harder to use effectively than other lenses, and I wouldn't assume the wider the better for landscapes. Rent/borrow before you buy.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 12, 2015)

Hey everybody 

Loads of very sensible and honest advice!

6D original is the favourite now, it will hold some resale value for when the mark ii is released

Appreciate all the advise, I know which direction I'm going in


----------



## unfocused (Aug 12, 2015)

Just to cause problems: have you thought about the 5DIII? Cheap right now as well and it's likely to be a better camera today than the 6DII will be when launched. If you don't need the features of the 5D, then the 6D will be just fine, but it was a thought.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 12, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Hey everybody
> 
> So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.
> 
> ...



I'd expect that you will have a tough time finding a 6D MK II. You should never count on Rumors about dates or features.

If I were seriously doing landscape, I'd look seriously at the 5DS / SR the 5Ds are discounted now, and those extra pixels will get you more detail. Learn to construct panoramas, your 24-70mm MK II is extremely sharp, and a panorama made with it will have more detail and less distortion than a ultra wide angle lens. Some use 300mm for landscapes.

There are uses for ultra wide lenses, where creating a panorama is impractical due to moving objects like waves in water or grain blowing in a field, but I'd still at least consider a high mp camera.

Your images with even a low price lens are limited by the camera. You pay for wide apertures, but then must stop down to f/8, f/11, sometimes more.


This is one case where you may get much more for your dollar than buying new lenses. Every lens you own will suddenly appear to improve a huge amount.

Personally, I do not do landscapes and do not need the detail, but I'd go to the new camera first in this rare case/


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 12, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Just to cause problems: have you thought about the 5DIII? Cheap right now as well and it's likely to be a better camera today than the 6DII will be when launched. If you don't need the features of the 5D, then the 6D will be just fine, but it was a thought.



I think the 6d is a better camera than 5dmk2. I suspect 6dmk2 will be a better camera than 5dmk3 in terms of features, IQ, and DR. But of course this is only speculation.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 12, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Just to cause problems: have you thought about the 5DIII? Cheap right now as well and it's likely to be a better camera today than the 6DII will be when launched. If you don't need the features of the 5D, then the 6D will be just fine, but it was a thought.
> ...



Now I'm in complete agreement...


----------



## LukasS (Aug 12, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.



I literally bought 16-35/4 today and guy behind the counter talked to me about 6D and its quality, so definitely those two items together would be a great combo. I would advise against 11-24 right now, it requires a lot of thought of how to incorporate those 11mm into a great shot. It will be easier for you (and for your wallet) to start with 16-35/4 and 6D.

Anyway whatever your decision may be do not forget to show your shots once you have body and lens . Have fun!


----------



## dak723 (Aug 13, 2015)

Not sure what type of landscapes you plan on taking, but I would start by just getting the 6D and using your 24-70. If you find the need for a wider lens, then you can explore that option. I have been shooting landscapes for 35 years and have never needed anything wider than 24. Rarely do I even go that wide. Most are probably shot between 30 and 60mm. I have the 6D and the 25-105L. I would recommend that combo before going wider as the extra reach is used fairly often even for landscapes.


----------



## timmy_650 (Aug 13, 2015)

I would suggest just going with the 6D and 16-35 f4 is. I would love the 11-24 but I love wide. I have the 8-15 fisheye and would love to have the 11-24 but the money isn't there. There is a lot of people don't like that wide. Start with the 16-35 and see how it fit you. Sell your 16-35 and you shouldn't loose much money.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 13, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Hey everybody
> 
> So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.
> 
> ...



I would just get the 6D1 and the 16-35 f/4 IS. The main improvement in 6D2 will likely be in AF points/sensitivity as this is 6D1 weakness, but this is pretty unimportant for landscape photography. The sensor on 6D1 is actually awesome for landscape, even better than 5D3 sensor.

The 11-24 is an interesting specialty lens but it is rare even for landscape that 11mm is needed. In fact, when I shoot landscape I use 25-35mm just as often as 16-23mm. So I would save the money and get the more practical 16-35 f/4 IS so you don't have to lug around as many lenses, and also spend money more wisely considering you are just starting out with FF.

The money you would have spent on a 6D2, I'd instead advise getting either a fast tele prime such as the 135mm f/2L so you can experiment with the greater DOF control of full frame and have a tele lens, or a general full frame telephoto L zoom lens of some sort such as 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS which is an excellent portable jack of all trades for landscape.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 13, 2015)

It might be sacrilege to say, but the 11-24's initial price point of around $3k seems to me to have been set just prior to recent Canon price reductions that have generally been attributed to currency fluctuations (yen went down 30 percent). If Canon hopes to sell a number of those lenses in year 2, I wouldn't be surprised to see some significant lowering of the price, recognizing that the "must have it" folks have already bought. 

The difference in price purchasing later versus now could even approach the full cost of a 16-35 f/4.

So, while speculative, the upshot is that if you get the 6D and the 16-35, you well could lose $200 when you sell them a year or two later. That's not a bad "rental" fee. But to do it the other way around, buying a $2k 6D2 and $3k 11-24, you could lose closer to $1,500 in the same period. 

I'm curious as to whether you might do better with the new Tamron 15-30 wide zoom. I have my eye on it. The vibration control won't be of much use to the landscape shots, but it's f/2.8, as unfashionable as that is among Canon new lens buyers. 

Very curious to see where you wind up. Good luck.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 13, 2015)

Hi Sabaki. 
Looking at this from different perspective, is your EF-S 10-22 wide enough for you? If so then 16mm will be the FF equivalent! If 10mm is not wide enough for your shooting style then maybe, just maybe you are in need of a wider lens, which one I'll leave to others as I have no idea there. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------

