# 6D W/ 24-70MM F2.8L II VS 5D III W/ EF 24-105 IS



## meywd (Nov 5, 2014)

Hi everyone, as you know from my previous thread i was wondering whether i should get the 6D or the 7D II first, all agreed on the 6D, and some suggested i go for the 5D III, since the budget was limited i wanted to go with the 6D W/ 24-70 f4 IS, however as i read many posts and reviews about the 24-70 f2.8 II vs the rest, i decided to push the budget for this combo, as shooting in low light was always a problem for me on the 600D, and flash was annoying on public places.

However as i read more and more about the 6D, i noticed that there were some who had issues with the camera that needed a return trip to Canon, even a local camera shop repair guy told me to forget the 6d as he fixed many which should have been brand new, and since i plan to buy the camera from Canada and ship it here (Jordan) the warranty will not benefit me unless i send it back to Canada, i know that bad copies of any device exists, and that it may happen with the 5D III, still a lower chance of bad copies is more assuring.

Plus in the price range of the 6D W/ 24-70MM F2.8L II i can get the 5D III W/ EF 24-105 IS, which as all of you say is the better camera, but as many say, the lens is more important, i believe that, still i can't make up my mind on this, on one hand the amazing low light performance of the 6D along with the IQ of the 24-70 2.8 II make this a killer combo in low light and landscape, on the other hand the 5D III will be the better camera for everything else and mainly birds and action, and you all agree that even though the 24-70 2.8 II is the king of the mid range zoom, the 24-105 is still a good lens.

So, what do you think, and thanks in advance.


----------



## sanj (Nov 5, 2014)

The 5d3 with 24-105 IS would suit ME much better and I believe is more versatile.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 5, 2014)

The 24-70 f2.8ii is a remarkable lens. It tack sharp all the way to the corners, has minimal distortion and much less CA than the 24-105. If you are looking for a landscape lens... You would be hard pressed to find an equal. As your budget has increased once, is there any room to allow you to choose the best of both worlds? 5d3 and 24-70?

If not, how about the 5d3 and the new 24-70f4is? If you don't need f2.8, you might consider this combo to get the more performance oriented body (for when you get a long lens to shoot those birds) and still have superior optics at landscapes.


----------



## ecka (Nov 5, 2014)

For me, 24-70L'II is just too big, too heavy, too expensive and optically (for what I do) gets beaten by any decent prime lens (even 50/1.8'II). However, it may be exactly what you need, depending on what are you going to do with that lens. It is a great workhorse, just like 70-200L'II.
For low light, F2.8 isn't really a solution even on FF, while for crop, there is Sigma 18-35/1.8ART, so I'd just forget about everything else in that range. I would get 6D + 24-105L + something + something (like 35/1.4ART + 85/1.8 ).

6D
smaller body (doesn't really feel any less sturdy)
no CF
slower flash sync 1/180sec
half stop better high ISO noise
WiFi, GPS

5D3
larger body (similar to 7D)
better AF system
6fps (1.5fps more than 6D)
better video features and quality (+MagicLantern)


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 5, 2014)

meywd said:


> However as i read more and more about the 6D, i noticed that there were some who had issues with the camera that needed a return trip to Canon, even a local camera shop repair guy told me to forget the 6d as he fixed many which should have been brand new, and since i plan to buy the camera from Canada and ship it here (Jordan) the warranty will not benefit me unless i send it back to Canada, i know that bad copies of any device exists, and that it may happen with the 5D III, still a lower chance of bad copies is more assuring.



Unfortunately the moment you have valid stats on tech items just by hearsay, the item will be long discontinued - the only other valid information will be with Canon under lock and key.

But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see Canon has cut many corners with the 6d which is essentially a 5d2 in a less sturdy body with some upgrades to their current tech and firmware standard. I already had my 6d drop out on me after rain which never happened with the 60d.

However, *any* single point of failure equipment can screw you, and the 5d3 is nowhere near 1d level at least afaik... so another viable alternative would be to have a second backup camera like a Rebel around just in case.



meywd said:


> still i can't make up my mind on this



My advice if you do *any* tracking is to get the 5d3 with the 24-105L, you don't need bleeding edge to do excellent photography and the reach advantage certainly is handy when traveling. But the main point is that the 24-105L is around for so long, you can sell your copy for nearly no loss if you're not satisfied if you find even more money lying around for a later 24-70L2 upgrade. But by then, you'll probably want other lenses like macro, tele prime, uwa or whatever.


----------



## Vivid Color (Nov 5, 2014)

I have a 6D, which I love, and I've never had any problems with it. I bought it not because it was less expensive but because it is lighter weight than the 5D Mark III. So if you can deal with the weight of the 5D Mark III, then I'd say get it as it clearly has more and better features than the 6D. As for lenses, if you're only going to have the one lens for a while, then I would say get the 24-105L as the extra range will come in very handy, especially when traveling. And as others of pointed out, getting it in a kit means that you can probably sell it for what it cost you. On the other hand, the 24-70 F/4 has some near macro capabilities, which may be nice if you are interested in using that feature and are willing to trade off the extra reach. At the end of the day, you won't go really wrong with any combination you pick. One final thought, whatever lens you get it, be sure to put one of the B+W XS-Pro filters with nano coating on it. The nano coating sheds dust and dirt like you wouldn't believe.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 5, 2014)

From what I recall of the provide thread, I still have to lean towards the 6d. Outside of birds in flight, which you can track with the center af point, but not as well, I think your better value is the 6d and the 24-70... though, I'm personally waiting for the stigma 24-70 f2... Is
If that ever actually happens.


----------



## pato (Nov 5, 2014)

First of all, I own a 6D with the Tamron 24-70 VC and am very happy with this combination.
True, the 5Dm3 offers many more software features and more AF points, if you are willing to use them. If you don't plan on using more AF points (I only use the center one) or if you don't like to fiddle in the menu to finetune the tracking features for birds in flight (or similar), then you'd be probably better off with the 6D.
With the big price difference in body, you might even consider to buy a low light lens like the Canon 50mm F1.4 and a flash (still in the price for the body difference). 
Alternative, you buy the 6D without any additional gear (besides lens) and risk that it maybe once breaks. In this case you have saved so much money that you can buy half a 6D again with just the savings 8)


----------



## jasonsim (Nov 5, 2014)

Have you told us what it is you like to shoot? Do you do this professionally...meaning that your livelihood depends on your photography and, therefore, your equipment?

For general needs, I would select a 24-70mm f/4L IS: it has the new IS system and unless you are a wedding photographer, I think it is better as a walk around lens. You might find that for low light situations, you might add a wider aperture lens like the Canon 50mm f/1.2L. 

If you do not need the reach or the speed of the new 7D II (10 fps), then I would sway you to go with the 5D MK III. It is every bit as responsive as the 1Dx and gives you more pixels to work with. It also have a more durable shutter and body. It can do 1/8000 second exposures; the 6D can only to 1/4000. The 5D has a respectable 6fps shutter drive which is very respectable and can be used for sports. The 6D not so much; you will be very frustrated tracking anything with a 6D.

The Canon 5D III is the best all around DSLR on the market. It does most things well and the image quality is stunning. 

If video is important to you, then you should be looking at a 70D. 

Hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Jason S.


----------



## meywd (Nov 5, 2014)

jasonsim said:


> Have you told us what it is you like to shoot? Do you do this professionally...meaning that your livelihood depends on your photography and, therefore, your equipment?
> 
> For general needs, I would select a 24-70mm f/4L IS: it has the new IS system and unless you are a wedding photographer, I think it is better as a walk around lens. You might find that for low light situations, you might add a wider aperture lens like the Canon 50mm f/1.2L.
> 
> ...



Thanks Jason, no i am not a pro,its just a hobby, so nothing depend on the gear, however i am focusing on astro and bird/wildlife photography, and that's why i wanted the 6D/7D II combo, these cameras are the best - with exception to the 1DX - and the budget didn't permit a 5D III along with a lens since i don't have a wide/medium range EF lens except the 50 1.8, but i pushed the budget a little to include the 24-70 2.8 II.


----------



## meywd (Nov 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > However as i read more and more about the 6D, i noticed that there were some who had issues with the camera that needed a return trip to Canon, even a local camera shop repair guy told me to forget the 6d as he fixed many which should have been brand new, and since i plan to buy the camera from Canada and ship it here (Jordan) the warranty will not benefit me unless i send it back to Canada, i know that bad copies of any device exists, and that it may happen with the 5D III, still a lower chance of bad copies is more assuring.
> ...




Thanks Marsu42, I am leaning more and more toward that option.


----------



## meywd (Nov 5, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> The 24-70 f2.8ii is a remarkable lens. It tack sharp all the way to the corners, has minimal distortion and much less CA than the 24-105. If you are looking for a landscape lens... You would be hard pressed to find an equal. As your budget has increased once, is there any room to allow you to choose the best of both worlds? 5d3 and 24-70?
> 
> If not, how about the 5d3 and the new 24-70f4is? If you don't need f2.8, you might consider this combo to get the more performance oriented body (for when you get a long lens to shoot those birds) and still have superior optics at landscapes.



Thanks Canon1, i wish but i already pushed it to the limit.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 5, 2014)

meywd said:


> Thanks Marsu42, I am leaning more and more toward that option.



It's a classic "body vs. glass" and damn difficult decision though, maybe you have the opportunity to play around with both zoom ranges (do you want 70-105?) and af systems a bit in a shop.

It very much depends on what you're shooting, but whenever I tried both cameras the difference in just about everything is so huge the 6d isn't redeemed by the minor advance in iq/banding. I'd just advise you to make up your own mind and don't take positive user reports "everything's peachy with the 6d" for granted, because the other experiences like mine with the sub-mediocre tracking cannot be dismissed as user error.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2014)

Depends on what you shoot:


If you are shooting more quickly/with less setup time, need a more comprehensive AF system, shoot a fair amount of burst, etc., the 5D3 will have a much higher keeper rate than the 6D. *Choose the lesser lens and better body in that case*. I think this would clearly apply to folks who shoot events, reportage, children, street, (and if you'd shoot it with a 5D3) sports, etc.


If you largely shoot stills in a composed, deliberate context and have time to frame everything up, a comprehensive AF matters less and you'll get slightly better results with the better lens. *Choose the lesser body and better lens in that case*. I think this would apply to portraiture and landscape work in particular. The only other thing that comes to mind would be concert photography, where the 6D's -3EV center point might be of use in pitch black concert halls.

Personally, I'd choose the 5D3 as it's the workhorse I know, and I'd give a hard look at that wonderful 24-70 F/4L IS lens, which I am a huge fan of. 

But it all depends on what you shoot, and what _your personal sweet spot_ of price / IQ / functionality / weight is.

- A


----------



## andrewflo (Nov 5, 2014)

Personally, I'd skip the 24-105 IS outright.

I'd consider either the 6D w/ 24-70mm II or the 5DIII w/ Tamron 24-70mm

Check out this review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMU1YPO_mXA

The Canon 24-70mm II is slightly sharper at the edges and has less vignetting than the Tamron, but both stomp the 24-105mm. Even taking the 70mm and cropping it to a 105mm FOV the Tamron is sharper (and the Canon will be even sharper than than the Tammy).

That's only my personal opinion. The 24-105mm is a SOLID lens that is coveted by many, I just think there are really strong alternatives to consider.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 6, 2014)

andrewflo said:


> The Canon 24-70mm II is slightly sharper at the edges and has less vignetting than the Tamron, but both stomp the 24-105mm. Even taking the 70mm and cropping it to a 105mm FOV the Tamron is sharper (and the Canon will be even sharper than than the Tammy).



I mentioned the Tamron, too, but not only didn't he ask for this option, but there are other possible concerns: With the Tamron, you don't get Canon/cps service and the af system isn't as good as Canon's. 

Furthermore, when buying a camera+body kit, the "old" 24-105 is extremely cheap and can be sold at no loss off money, while you're bound to loose money when selling a 3rd party lens like the Tamron which is still priced at about €900.


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 6, 2014)

If you get the 6D, you'll always be mentally berating yourself about not getting the 5D3.

You'll find the 24-105 to be a great lens. Sure, the 24-70 is better, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you really pixel-peep, and the extra reach is very, very handy too.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 6, 2014)

There is a way to make the 24-105L as good as the 24-70II for your landscape pictures: shoot in portrait and stitch. You'll be using a longer focal length so no need to worry about the rather 'added afterthought' results of the 24mm end.

If I was looking to use the lens for shallow dof portrait style images instead of primes I would go for the 24-70II if affordable. Test charts don't give the full picture.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 6, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> There is a way to make the 24-105L as good as the 24-70II for your landscape pictures: shoot in portrait and stitch. You'll be using a longer focal length so no need to worry about the rather 'added afterthought' results of the 24mm end.
> 
> If I was looking to use the lens for shallow dof portrait style images instead of primes I would go for the 24-70II if affordable. Test charts don't give the full picture.



No way. The sharpness, distortion and CA get worse and worse as you move to the corners on the 24-105. The 24-70f2.8ii is a dream all the way to the corners even wide open. You can stitch all the soft (relatively) images together you want to and it still makes a relatively soft panorama. The 24-105 was my go to landscape lens for 5 years. I have made thousands of images and hundreds of panoramas with it and used all focal lengths from 24-105 to do it. Panos with the 24-70ii are simply stunning.


----------



## milkrocks (Nov 6, 2014)

While i've no doubt both the Canon 24-70's are better than the 24-105, for my shooting needs the 6D + 24-105 are perfect as an everyday combo. Its light enough, easy to use and the combo of 105mm and effective IS allows for some nice family portrait work. I'm sure i'll buy a better body at some point (5DIV) but i'm much more interested in getting some better primes than I am in replacing the 24-105.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 6, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > There is a way to make the 24-105L as good as the 24-70II for your landscape pictures: shoot in portrait and stitch. You'll be using a longer focal length so no need to worry about the rather 'added afterthought' results of the 24mm end.
> ...



Depends on the focal length and overlap that you are using. I avoid 24 mil on the 24-105L, and my panos are generally shot between 35 and 60 mil, most of the time f8, always portrait orientation. With a generous overlap I cannot, in the (large) print see a practical difference between the 24-105L and lenses such as the 35L and 50/1.4. 

For single frame shots the 24-105L would not be my lens of choice for critical landscape work.


----------



## meywd (Nov 6, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> There is a way to make the 24-105L as good as the 24-70II for your landscape pictures: shoot in portrait and stitch. You'll be using a longer focal length so no need to worry about the rather 'added afterthought' results of the 24mm end.
> 
> If I was looking to use the lens for shallow dof portrait style images instead of primes I would go for the 24-70II if affordable. Test charts don't give the full picture.



Yeah that's a good idea, portraits and group shots are the main reason to get the 24-70 II, but i will also be using either the 50 f1.8, 100 f2.8, or the 70-200 f4.


----------



## meywd (Nov 6, 2014)

milkrocks said:


> While i've no doubt both the Canon 24-70's are better than the 24-105, for my shooting needs the 6D + 24-105 are perfect as an everyday combo. Its light enough, easy to use and the combo of 105mm and effective IS allows for some nice family portrait work. I'm sure i'll buy a better body at some point (5DIV) but i'm much more interested in getting some better primes than I am in replacing the 24-105.



That's a great photo milkrocks, tbh there are many lenses on the wish list, 50 f1.4 Art, 600 f4, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 16-35 f4 IS, and the 24-70 f2.8 II is one of them, f2.8 might not be too bright or have a very shallow DOF, but its a zoom, and so i wouldn't need to change lens every time i want to shoot a group in an event, the 6D or 5D III will solve half the issues i face using the 600D in low light, so i think the 24-105 will still perform well enough.


----------



## slclick (Nov 6, 2014)

5D3 w/Sigma 24-105 Art


----------



## milkrocks (Nov 6, 2014)

meywd said:


> milkrocks said:
> 
> 
> > While i've no doubt both the Canon 24-70's are better than the 24-105, for my shooting needs the 6D + 24-105 are perfect as an everyday combo. Its light enough, easy to use and the combo of 105mm and effective IS allows for some nice family portrait work. I'm sure i'll buy a better body at some point (5DIV) but i'm much more interested in getting some better primes than I am in replacing the 24-105.
> ...



Thanks for the photo compliment. While i'd really like to get a 85 1.2L, i've had decent results with the 85 1.8. My next lens will most likely be either a 35 f2IS or 50 1.2L (hopefully the later). I would not trade the 24-105L, 85 1.8 and 50 1.2L for a 24-70 2.8II for my purposes (and they are similar in price if you get the 50 on a refurb deal). Also know that if you buy a 24-105 (especially the kit) you probably won't lose much money on a future sale if you decide to upgrade. See below for a 6D + 85 1.8 shot of the little guy.


----------



## jepabst (Nov 6, 2014)

Bennymiata said:


> If you get the 6D, you'll always be mentally berating yourself about not getting the 5D3.
> 
> You'll find the 24-105 to be a great lens. Sure, the 24-70 is better, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you really pixel-peep, and the extra reach is very, very handy too.



Yeah, I disagree with pretty much all of this. The 6D is fantastic, and unless you are shooting sports, in my opinion, you don't to go to the 5DIII. The gains are in the focus points, shutter sp, dual slots. IQ is pretty much identical. And the 24-105 is fine, but it's sloppy - barrel distortion and vignetting and I'd take the extra stop of light long before I'd take the difference between 3x to 4x zoom. I would also definitely consider the Tamron if I was shooting low light events - because that IS is fantastic and some serious money savings. You could pretty much buy that lens by getting the 6D instead of the 5DIII. Very wise.


----------



## meywd (Nov 27, 2014)

well, thanks everyone for your input, the suffering is over, the wallet is thinner and the grinning wont stop - even as i write this , i got the 5D III w/ 24-105 f/4, i will state the obvious known decade long fact, FF is amazing, i didn't get to shoot much with it, since i got it after sunset, but even the nifty fifty is looking great with FF.

Here is one with the 5D III w/ 50 f/1.8 II


----------

