# 6D + 24-105 vs T4i + 24-70 II



## Wildfire (Jan 14, 2013)

Say I have about $2700 to spend. Two things that are of the utmost and equal importance to me:


Having a full frame sensor with great high-ISO performance in a modern body
Having the sharpest, widest aperture standard zoom on the market

It seems I cannot get both without spending more money. If I must compromise, should I sacrifice the sensor or the glass? Discuss.

Note: I don't care that the 24-70 is not wide on the T4i, as I would eventually sell the crop body and move up to full frame anyway. Just assume that image quality and light transmission are the most important features of the lenses to me.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 14, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> Discuss.



Yessir: The 24-70ii on crop is plain overkill since you don't use the outer glass areas, but pay for edge to edge sharpness and carry the weight. Plus 24mm*1.6 crop factor is not a standard zoom anymore. The only reason for the crop solution would be a plan to upgrade to ff in 1-2 years and being very short on money (camera bodies loose value fast, i.e. 5d3 $1000 in a year, but L lenses don't).


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 14, 2013)

Get a 5D2 and save the extra cash for the 24-70 II.


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 14, 2013)

I'd vote for the 6D + 24-105mm a hundred times of I could. The Full Frame world is an amazing thing.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 14, 2013)

Normally, I would go for the better glass over a body. But, the 24-70 II is only a marginal upgrade over the 24-105 and the 6D is vastly better than the T4i.


----------



## gilmorephoto (Jan 14, 2013)

While it's typically good advice to go for glass over body, in this case, both lenses are "good glass" and the step up to full frame is huge in terms of image quality (the color rendition and noise are just so much better, glass aside). Plus, the 24-105 is very versatile (long end similar reach as 70mm on crop and much wider at the wide end) so you have a flexible set-up and that is always a good way to start, unless you have very specific needs.


----------



## Wildfire (Jan 14, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> The only reason for the crop solution would be a plan to upgrade to ff in 1-2 years and being very short on money



That happens to be exactly my situation XD


The reason I decided to start this poll is that I used to own a 70-200 IS II, 5D2, 10-22, and T3i. I planned to use this setup professionally for low-light events after graduating with my bachelor's degree. However, I instead took a job offer (non-photography related) and for now will be shooting low-light events, on-location portraits, and products/food non-professionally. All of this would be for personal use and I will rarely be paid for the work, hence the reason I cannot spend $7000 on the ideal setup (5D3, 24-70 II, 70-200 II) right away.

I sold the 70-200/5D2 and 10-22/T3i and replaced them with a 6D and 85mm f1.8 (the extra money I saved went towards important, non-photography-related expenses). However, I simply wasn't impressed with the 85mm. Although a great focal length, I felt that sharpness, color, contrast, and aberration correction were inferior to the 70-200. I now realize that should not have been surprising, since the design of the 85mm is 20 years old and it's $1700 cheaper. But with everyone talking about how great primes are compared to zooms and whatnot I just expected a lot more from the 85mm. I returned the 85mm and the 6D body as well, planning to buy the 6D/24-105 kit instead. But now I'm worried that if the 85mm f1.8 wasn't impressive enough for me, neither will the 24-105...

Perhaps I'm just picky about glass. I know that the photographer makes the photo, not the gear. But knowing that my photos could be sharper or less distorted really annoys me. I've never shot the 24-105 -- I feel like the distortion would bother me, but maybe I'll be completely satisfied with it and my worries will have been for nothing. Or maybe I'd be perfectly okay being stuck with a Rebel for a year knowing I have the best glass available. I have speedlites to offset the high-ISO disadvantage. Of course, they'd also offset the f4 disadvantage too... I'm indecisive, aren't I?

So that's why I'm interested in hearing what you guys think about all this. ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 14, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> Say I have about $2700 to spend. Two things that are of the utmost and equal importance to me:
> 
> 
> Having a full frame sensor with great high-ISO performance in a modern body
> ...



I would go with 6D + 24-105 for now. Save $$$ until you ready, sell your 24-105 and get 24-70 f2.8 II


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 14, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> But knowing that my photos could be sharper or less distorted really annoys me.
> Or maybe I'd be perfectly okay being stuck with a Rebel for a year knowing I have the best glass available.



You can fix distortions nicely with current software like LR and esp. dxo for complex distortions, and for sharpness, well, you know it depends on the final output size but I also feel that a shot should be sharp at 100% crop just for the sake of it.

If you're not going to sell your shots a rebel should be fine, I'm also still on 60d with the iso800+ iso problem.



Wildfire said:


> I'm indecisive, aren't I?



I sympathize, because I know how hard it is to make up one's mind if top gear is out of reach for the time being. The one thing you should make up your mind about is if you really need the f2.8 of the 24-70, if not you're immediately saving €1000+ for other important non-"core" stuff like lighting accessories and filters. Btw - I'm also still undecided between 24-70 and 24-105 because of the immense price difference and IS.

The larger apertures imho are mostly for available light shooting and subject isolation if you want that, with flash support f4-f5.6 should be also just fine with the higher iso capability of the 6d.



Dylan777 said:


> Save $$$ until you ready, sell your 24-105 and get 24-70 f2.8 II



... or the 24-70/2.8IS when it's out


----------



## Vivid Color (Jan 14, 2013)

A key point you mentioned is the ability to shoot in low-light situations. The 6D does this beautifully. I recently bought it in the kit form with the 24-105L. (My previous DSLR was the t1i.) The t4i is rated ISO expandable to 25600, but the 6D does 25600 easily and with amazingly little grain. Your two criteria are: 1) Having a full frame sensor with great high-ISO performance in a modern body, and 2) Having the sharpest, widest aperture standard zoom on the market. I'll add your 3rd criteria for clarity and that is 3) within your budget contraint. The 6D fulfills the first criteria and the crop t4i does not. Given your budget constraint, the 24-105 is a match. So, while the 24-70 II may be a better lens, you can still meet your criteria within your budget constraint. Going the t4i route means ignoring your first criteria of the full frame censor. Finally, it is because you said you wanted to shoot in low-light that I would refrain from buying the 5dII.


----------



## Ew (Jan 14, 2013)

Consider the 6D with a Tamron 28-75 2.8

Bought it originally for my 7D when I could not justify the cost of the 24-70, but enjoyed it a great deal. Fell in love with it again when I added the 5D2 to the mix. Sold it only because I had to provide a good general lens when I sold the 7D.

Its a great lens for 1/2 the price of a 24-105. Nice center, but you need to work with the vignette in post upto 4.0 if you're not into those types of images. 

Tried the 24-105 a few times, and while a nice lens that gets results, it never really inspired me. I always felt that its a bit laking in character - almost brilliantly sterile. Great for a 1 lens setup. 

As stated above, the 6D will give you much more joy than a rebel series body. No sence in spending $£€¥ on a compromise now if you're planning on going FF - it seems that your decision has been made. While I still really like my 600D, the 5D3 gets a 30:1 usage ratio based on meta data stats.


----------



## Eli (Jan 14, 2013)

Get the 6d and 24-105, the one stop between f2.8 and f4 is easily compensated for by higher usable ISO, and then you can just add some cheap primes for low low light, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, etc.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jan 14, 2013)

Buy a 6D and pop a 50mm f1.4 on front, use for several weeks, buy a wider or more tele prime to suit your needs, use for a year, see if you have enough for a 24-70 - simples


----------



## dave (Jan 14, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Normally, I would go for the better glass over a body. But, the 24-70 II is only a marginal upgrade over the 24-105 and the 6D is vastly better than the T4i.



Have owned both and the 24-70mm ii is absolutely not merely a marginal upgrade over the 24-105mm L. The 24-105 is a great, versatile lens. The 24-70 ii is stunningly good.


----------



## michi (Jan 15, 2013)

How would you feel about finding a good deal on a used 5DII and still get the 24-70 II ? It's still over your budget, but not too much. That would be a great compromise, and you could later upgrade the camera if you cared to. Pictures should be tack sharp, image quality should be close to a 6D...


----------



## unadog (Jan 15, 2013)

I'll disagree.

I have the T4i and the 5DIII. I have owned the 24-70 for many years, first version I and now II.

The T4i is a great camera. The true cost to own is very, very low. If you buy the body for $600 or less, the per year cost to own - depreciation - is going to be less than $100 per year, maybe as low as $50. Buy it for $600,, use it for 2 years, sell for $475 or more. Incredibly cheap for incredibly much camera.

As a pro, the ONLY reason I keep the 5DIII in addition to the T4i is for ISO 6400 and above. Otherwise I could live with the T4i as my main camera.

The 24-105 is good, but I sold mine to go back to my bread and butter 24-70. I use that for 85% or more of my work.

Add the 17-40 for $500 and you are covered on the wide end. Or buy the 18-135 STM for video and wide angle. 

Wait for Canon to launch a brand new sensor before you upgrade to full frame. It will cost you next to no money to buy & use the T4i. Then you can keep it as a backup camera.

If you are going to listen to others advice, listen to those who HAVE OWNED the T4i. Many who haven't just don't "get" that camera. The sensor is basically as good as/the same as the other Canon sensors right now, just in a crop. The auto focus is the same as the Canon 60D.

Good luck.
Michael


----------



## Wildfire (Jan 15, 2013)

unadog said:


> I'll disagree.
> 
> I have the T4i and the 5DIII. I have owned the 24-70 for many years, first version I and now II.
> 
> ...



Thanks for playing the devil's advocate. As I mentioned before I owned a Rebel as well (the T3i) and I was extremely happy with it -- the only reason I moved on to full frame was for the high-ISO noise performance during low-light shooting. Like you, I feel that I'd be happy with the Rebel as my only camera if only it could shoot at a higher ISO with less noise (and had a 7D-like autofocus system... of course, I was willing to skip the 7D for the 6D's sensor and I still would -- the 9 and 11 point AF systems work well enough)


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 15, 2013)

Go for a 5dc or 5d2 if your money isnt enough and buy the 24-70. Those 2 ff are still a lot better than t4i and you'll be exposed to the DOF of an FF. This way, you won't think of upgrades until at least your camera goes down. As for me, if i have that kind of money, it will be a 6D + 50mm f1.4 + 85mm F1.8. Ive got already a 28mm to cover the wide end. Agreed, primes are more inconvenient to use but I prefer the IQ of a prime. But if youre earning money through photography, a 24-70 is a must.


----------



## Wildfire (Jan 15, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Go for a 5dc or 5d2 if your money isnt enough and buy the 24-70. Those 2 ff are still a lot better than t4i and you'll be exposed to the DOF of an FF. This way, you won't think of upgrades until at least your camera goes down. As for me, if i have that kind of money, it will be a 6D + 50mm f1.4 + 85mm F1.8. Ive got already a 28mm to cover the wide end. Agreed, primes are more inconvenient to use but I prefer the IQ of a prime. But if youre earning money through photography, a 24-70 is a must.



I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. Gone are the days that prime lenses are better than zooms. As I said before, I already purchased the 6D + 85mm f1.8 and promptly returned them because the 85mm had unimpressive sharpness, color, contrast, and aberration correction compared to the 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II that I sold. I was willing to give up the focal range versatility, but the 85mm was simply inferior in all other aspects as well. There's nothing really wrong with the 85mm f1.8, but its 20-year-old design just doesn't stand up to a top of the line zoom that costs $1800 more, which was what I was used to using before.

Also, I'm not quite sure a 5Dc is better than a T4i. The sensor is, for sure. But what about the ergonomics and controls? Autofocus? Video? (I do shoot video occasionally, mostly at home for fun.) Actually, it would appear that the T4i is better than the 5Dc in every way EXCEPT sensor. Not a very convincing argument for the full frame crowd.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 15, 2013)

We can debate the merrits of different lenses till the cows come home, but that does not address the OP's requirement for high ISO....

The current full frames beat the current APS-C crop bodies for high ISO....


----------



## robbymack (Jan 15, 2013)

I'll toss another idea out there, t4i plus used EFS 17-55 2.8 IS. The latter you can sell with little to no loss when, and if, you decide to make the jump back to FF. Or keep it, on a crop camera it's a wonderful lens, and it becomes a great wife or older child hand me down. You save yourself a boat load of cash this way and get a good set up to boot. The extra money can be put into the new 5d "v" fund ;D


----------



## timmy_650 (Jan 15, 2013)

If you can wait a few months I would say get the 6D and the 24-70 f4L. Right now it is a little out of your price range but i would guess you will be able to pick up for your price in a few months.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 15, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Go for a 5dc or 5d2 if your money isnt enough and buy the 24-70. Those 2 ff are still a lot better than t4i and you'll be exposed to the DOF of an FF. This way, you won't think of upgrades until at least your camera goes down. As for me, if i have that kind of money, it will be a 6D + 50mm f1.4 + 85mm F1.8. Ive got already a 28mm to cover the wide end. Agreed, primes are more inconvenient to use but I prefer the IQ of a prime. But if youre earning money through photography, a 24-70 is a must.
> ...



I don't know if you've got a bad copy of 85mm but I've tried it and found it's acceptable for its price. True, it might not be able to match 70-200 open wide but stopped down, I think it's almost comparable especially if you take into consideration its price.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/322/%28brand%29/Sigma/%28camera1%29/0/%28lens2%29/241/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/0/%28lens3%29/408/%28brand3%29/Canon/%28camera3%29/0

I think you're into more of a consumer than an enthusiast/professional at least for now since you're also looking at video autofocus (even 6D and 5D3 doesn't have one). By all means, T4I is better than 5DC on that area. As for ergonomics, it's subjective from person to person. I have suggested a good 5DC or 5D2 camera because I know a lot of photographers who want to go FF but didn't go FF all at once just because of the price (I'm one of them). While it's still better to invest on a lens than a body, you also should know that you can only take advantage of the 24-70 or 70-200 fully if you're using an FF body. ISO and DOF aside, I for one value the fact that I can go for a wider focal length using a 24-70 and an FF than using it with a crop body. That alone for me makes investing on a 24-70mm lens more worthwhile. Of course that maybe isn't the case for you. If you think you can be happy with the T4I and 24-70, then by all means, buy it. You can still upgrade later if needed. I'm not here to convince you otherwise. I'm just letting you know what I feel when choosing between an APS-C and an FF body.


----------



## Botts (Jan 15, 2013)

For $2,699 and $2,499 if you can find a great deal, you can effectively sell the 24-105mm for probably $750 used after you have the cash to go to the 24-70 f/2.8.

Also, I reread the gear you had before. Did you feel you were lacking normal length lenses back then? You effectively had a 16-35mm and a 70-200mm before. Also, how did you find the apertures that you had back then?

The 10-22 was a 3.5-4.5, on a crop sensor. When you consider the ~2 stop ISO advantage on the 6D vs the T3i, you could effectively shoot a 16-35mm f/7-8.8

You could probably consider buying a used 70-200mm f/4IS due to the ISO advantage on the 6D as well. If you went used, again, you could sell this for a minor loss when you want to upgrade to f/2.8


----------



## Wildfire (Jan 15, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> I don't know if you've got a bad copy of 85mm but I've tried it and found it's acceptable for its price. True, it might not be able to match 70-200 open wide but stopped down, I think it's almost comparable especially if you take into consideration its price.
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/322/%28brand%29/Sigma/%28camera1%29/0/%28lens2%29/241/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/0/%28lens3%29/408/%28brand3%29/Canon/%28camera3%29/0
> 
> I think you're into more of a consumer than an enthusiast/professional at least for now since you're also looking at video autofocus (even 6D and 5D3 doesn't have one). By all means, T4I is better than 5DC on that area. As for ergonomics, it's subjective from person to person. I have suggested a good 5DC or 5D2 camera because I know a lot of photographers who want to go FF but didn't go FF all at once just because of the price (I'm one of them). While it's still better to invest on a lens than a body, you also should know that you can only take advantage of the 24-70 or 70-200 fully if you're using an FF body. ISO and DOF aside, I for one value the fact that I can go for a wider focal length using a 24-70 and an FF than using it with a crop body. That alone for me makes investing on a 24-70mm lens more worthwhile. Of course that maybe isn't the case for you. If you think you can be happy with the T4I and 24-70, then by all means, buy it. You can still upgrade later if needed. I'm not here to convince you otherwise. I'm just letting you know what I feel when choosing between an APS-C and an FF body.


I was comparing the 85mm to a $2000 lens and it didn't meet my high expectations (my fault, not the lens) -- I agree that the 85mm f1.8 is acceptable for the price, but for just a few hundred more I'd rather get a sharp zoom that covers the same focal length plus many more. As for video, I'm not interested in the AF so much as just having the ability to take video, which I don't do often but I'm extremely glad to have it when I do. And the crop factor... I know I'd be lacking on the wide end with the 24-70 on an APS-C sensor but the plan would be to live with it until I had enough money to shell out for an FF body!

And I do appreciate the advice from you and everyone else on here, this is a great discussion and I'm glad you decided to join in 




Botts said:


> Also, I reread the gear you had before. Did you feel you were lacking normal length lenses back then? You effectively had a 16-35mm and a 70-200mm before. Also, how did you find the apertures that you had back then?
> 
> The 10-22 was a 3.5-4.5, on a crop sensor. When you consider the ~2 stop ISO advantage on the 6D vs the T3i, you could effectively shoot a 16-35mm f/7-8.8


I did (and still do) have the 50 1.8 and the 40 pancake -- however, I decided that I wanted a sharp standard zoom rather than get more or better primes. I loved the 70-200 for its image quality, but I now feel that I would rather have that same quality in the 24-70 focal range.

As for apertures, f2.8 is good enough for me. Shooting with the 70-200 I never felt limited by its aperture, and I used it every time for my telephoto needs, even when I had access to primes with larger apertures. Losing a full stop of light at F4 would not be ideal, but for now I can live with it considering how amazing the 6D's high-ISO performance is.

The variable aperture of the 10-22 annoyed me, but the image quality was excellent. However, I rarely shot it wider than 15mm (and when I did, I didn't like the distortion) so although I'm sure the 16-35L is a great lens I'm not really considering it because half the focal range will most likely be wasted.

So basically for my type of shooting, non-L primes do not perform well enough, L primes are not versatile enough for the price, 16-35 is too wide, and 70-200 is too telephoto. A zoom covering the focal range of 24-85mm would be right where I want to be and it just so happens I've been spoiled by the sharpness/color/contrast/versatility/f2.8 of the 70-200 II. I would personally be okay with sacrificing the extra focal range of the 24-105 for the image quality of the 24-70 but it is simply not within my budget right now.



All that said, thanks for the advice everyone. I have decided to go with the 6D + 24-105 kit, and plan to save up for the 24-70 in the future.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 16, 2013)

Wow! Congratulations on your new purchase. I hope I too have that kind of money already. If you've got a good copy of 24-105, you might end up not wanting a 24-70 at all. 6D got an amazing ISO performance that you won't miss that much the wide open aperture.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 17, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if you've got a bad copy of 85mm but I've tried it and found it's acceptable for its price. True, it might not be able to match 70-200 open wide but stopped down, I think it's almost comparable especially if you take into consideration its price.
> ...



6D + 24-105 for $2500 @ BH. Hope is not too late:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12388.0


----------



## Wildfire (Jan 17, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> 6D + 24-105 for $2500 @ BH. Hope is not too late:
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12388.0


Don't worry. I got it from www.uniquephoto.com -- They had my previous 6D return as store credit already. I asked if they would match the B&H price and they did, and threw in the free bag/memory card too!

Thanks, Dylan!


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 18, 2013)

I know you want to jump into the full frame... and I'm looking to get a 5d mkiii within a year. 

This is really tough. There is an equal argument for both... and I have ambivalent feelings... I want to say get the 24-70 and the t4i. The t4i will run maybe 650 or so and when you sell it for $500, you won't lose much after a year. I like my 24-105, but I don't love it. Especially compared with my very nice primes (100mm f/2.8L IS Macro). 

I've had a few zooms to include the 18-55mm, a 55-250mm, 75-300, 70-300, 70-200 f4L USM and the f2.8L USM. And I've been just disappointed enough in all of them. The 25-105 is good enough in a pinch when I know I need something wider, but indoors, I do need to bounce the flash. It's just not a good enough option. 

BUT... I think the 24-70 is still at the plateau of it's highest cost because of production delays and still a decent amount of demand. I think if you waited a year, the cost would probably drop by $200 or 300... but is it worth waiting... probably not. 

I know everyone says that there isn't a HUGE difference between the 24-70 and the 24-105, but I like my 24-105, but I love my 100mm f/2.8L prime. I'm not sure how well the 24-70 compares with the best primes, but if it is close, then I'd suggest to go that way. 

Well, I'm in a different situation than you, but I've been happy with my 60D, 24-105, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm. I have about $2300 saved up and I want a 135mm f/2, a 5Dmkii, and a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii. So... not enough to actually get all of what I want. 

Basically I'm saying I'm as confused as you are, but I'm happy with my 60D, and I'm hoping to be ECSTATIC with a 5D mkiii. And if I'm not, I'm going to be SO disappointed that I spend 2 grand to maintain the status quo.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 18, 2013)

michi said:


> How would you feel about finding a good deal on a used 5DII and still get the 24-70 II ? It's still over your budget, but not too much. That would be a great compromise, and you could later upgrade the camera if you cared to. Pictures should be tack sharp, image quality should be close to a 6D...



You can find the d5 mkii for around $1400 or so... maybe 1300... So it would be around $700 from getting both. I like the idea... I was looking at the mkii for a while and I think it is very comparable to the 6D. It's not a good option for me because of the focusing issues, but it seems like a good suggestion.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 18, 2013)

unadog said:


> The T4i is a great camera. The true cost to own is very, very low. If you buy the body for $600 or less, the per year cost to own - depreciation - is going to be less than $100 per year, maybe as low as $50. Buy it for $600,, use it for 2 years, sell for $475 or more. Incredibly cheap for incredibly much camera.
> 
> If you are going to listen to others advice, listen to those who HAVE OWNED the T4i. Many who haven't just don't "get" that camera. The sensor is basically as good as/the same as the other Canon sensors right now, just in a crop. The auto focus is the same as the Canon 60D.
> 
> ...



In some place, you can find the 60D plus a 18-135mm for 900 (Frys)... sell the lens for $300 and bam... 60D for $600. I like the feel and performance of the 60D (the rebels just are too small). I think the ISO performance of the t4i is marginally better though.


----------



## michi (Jan 23, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> michi said:
> 
> 
> > How would you feel about finding a good deal on a used 5DII and still get the 24-70 II ? It's still over your budget, but not too much. That would be a great compromise, and you could later upgrade the camera if you cared to. Pictures should be tack sharp, image quality should be close to a 6D...
> ...



I have a 5DII. I really don't know what focusing issues people talk about. Sure, it's not as good as some brand new cameras, but it has never let me down.


----------

