# Help deciding on going full frame



## Rob-downunder (Aug 16, 2014)

Hi All,

This is my first post, although I have spent quite a bit of time looking at older threads and gained some very useful information. I am currently considering going full frame and would like some input from those that have gone before me. I currently own the following equipment:
Canon 550D
Canon EFS 18-55
Canon EFS 55-250
Canon EFS 10-22
Canon EFS 18-135 STM
Canon EF 50 1.8
Canon EF 85 1.8
Canon EF 70-300 L (on order awaiting delivery)
Canon 430EX flash
Manfrotto Tripod
Sounds like a lot when I write it all down. So a bit of background. I started with the 2 kit lenses (18-55 and 55-250) and quickly found that when I was out walking around on holidays taking pics I didn't want to be carrying multiple lenses and swapping them out all the time (also the wife doesn't really like hanging around whilst I swap gear adjust settings etc - sounds of "can't you just take the picture and lets get going"). So I got the 18-135 which suits me just fine in terms of a walkabout lens. This lens is on my camera most of the time for holiday type pics (50%) and the other 50% of the time if I go out to spend some time doing creative photography (without the wife in tow) I will take additional lenses and will use them as needed.
With the current setup I have been a bit disappointed with the sharpness of the 18-135, think the 10-22 is a good lens, don't use the 18-55 and 55-250 really, and use the 50 and 85 when I want to do shallow DOF or low light stuff (not often). 
I also tend to take a fair bit of low light stuff with my 18-135 when doing holiday pics - an hour either side of sunset - usually when doing these pics I am not wanting to carry multiple lenses.
So my current issues are:
1) I want a general improvement in the sharpness of my pics as I tend to like having them printed reasonably large and I think the current EFS lenses just won't give me the image quality I would like.
2) Shooting around dusk with my 18-135 walkabout (even in dark shade sometimes), I am either getting blurred photos due to having to drop the shutter speed to low (even with IS) or bumping the ISO too high and getting unacceptable levels of noise.
I have been purchasing my recent lenses with a view to eventually going full frame (can't wait to play with the 70-300 - my first L lens)
My thoughts have been to upgrade to a 6D with a 24-105 as a walkabout, use the 70-300L as my long lens, a 16-35 F4 as my wide angle and keep the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for portraits and shallow DOF as well as low light. The 6D will solve my issues with noise and ISO whilst the L series lenses will solve my sharpness problems. I have read about the 6D AF issues, and don't think that will be an issue for me as most of my shots are static and for the odd shot of action I can use the centre point and crop later.

The area I want some feedback on is the 24-105. From all that I have read the newer 24-70 is lots better, but I won't go with that lens as that would give me a similar range on FF to the original 18-55 on crop that I found too limiting initially. I know that the 24-105 will be shorter than the 18-135 (equivalent approx. 216 mm), but I think I could live with 105, but definitely not 70 on the long end. I have read plenty of reviews and opinions on the 24-105 to believe that as an L lens it is pretty average and has a lot of distortion at around 24mm. 

So my questions are:
1) Will the 24-105 provide a significant IQ improvement when used on FF compared to using the 18-135 STM on a crop. I am not interested in using the 24-105 on a crop camera, so many of the comments I have read which compare using both on a crop camera are not applicable to my scenario as in that case they would only be using the centre of the 24-105 not the full view.
2) Should I stick with the 18-135 STM and wait for the 7D mkii which I expect will also have significantly improved noise / ISO and will solve that problem for me, but will then still leave me with the image quality issues from the EFS lens, as I don't see any better quality walkabout lens that will suit me if using a crop sensor. (The 24-105 would not be wide enough for me on a crop).

So what do you think - 6D, 24-105, 16-35 F4, 70-300L or 7D mkii, EFS 10-22, EFS 18-135 STM, 70-300L.

I can't see any other scenarios that would give me the walkabout options that I want and also achieve the IQ I want.

Sorry for the long post - I thought too much info is better than not enough. I look forward to hearing your thoughts especially if you have been down the same path as I am going.

Rob


----------



## ecka (Aug 16, 2014)

Rob-downunder said:


> So my current issues are:
> 1) I want a general improvement in the sharpness of my pics as I tend to like having them printed reasonably large and I think the current EFS lenses just won't give me the image quality I would like.



What size are your prints?
Are you shooting RAW and doing some post processing later? If not, then perhaps you should.



> 2) Shooting around dusk with my 18-135 walkabout (even in dark shade sometimes), I am either getting blurred photos due to having to drop the shutter speed to low (even with IS) or bumping the ISO too high and getting unacceptable levels of noise.



Well, there is Sigma 18-35/1.8, but you won't like the focal range .



> I have been purchasing my recent lenses with a view to eventually going full frame (can't wait to play with the 70-300 - my first L lens)
> My thoughts have been to upgrade to a 6D with a 24-105 as a walkabout, use the 70-300L as my long lens, a 16-35 F4 as my wide angle and keep the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for portraits and shallow DOF as well as low light. The 6D will solve my issues with noise and ISO whilst the L series lenses will solve my sharpness problems.



Makes sense.



> I have read about the 6D AF issues, and don't think that will be an issue for me as most of my shots are static and for the odd shot of action I can use the centre point and crop later.



Works for me .



> The area I want some feedback on is the 24-105. From all that I have read the newer 24-70 is lots better, but I won't go with that lens as that would give me a similar range on FF to the original 18-55 on crop that I found too limiting initially. I know that the 24-105 will be shorter than the 18-135 (equivalent approx. 216 mm), but I think I could live with 105, but definitely not 70 on the long end. I have read plenty of reviews and opinions on the 24-105 to believe that as an L lens it is pretty average and has a lot of distortion at around 24mm.
> 
> So my questions are:
> 1) Will the 24-105 provide a significant IQ improvement when used on FF compared to using the 18-135 STM on a crop. I am not interested in using the 24-105 on a crop camera, so many of the comments I have read which compare using both on a crop camera are not applicable to my scenario as in that case they would only be using the centre of the 24-105 not the full view.



I think that even the old EF 28-135 IS USM on 6D would be better than EF-S 18-135 on a Rebel.



> 2) Should I stick with the 18-135 STM and wait for the 7D mkii which I expect will also have significantly improved noise / ISO and will solve that problem for me, but will then still leave me with the image quality issues from the EFS lens, as I don't see any better quality walkabout lens that will suit me if using a crop sensor. (The 24-105 would not be wide enough for me on a crop).
> 
> So what do you think - 6D, 24-105, 16-35 F4, 70-300L or 7D mkii, EFS 10-22, EFS 18-135 STM, 70-300L.



Wait for Photokina first. 6D Mark II may be coming soon as well 
6D, 24-105, 16-35 F4, 70-300L would definitely give you more potential.


----------



## Badger (Aug 16, 2014)

I have the 6D, 24-105 combination and I have been happy with it for convenience and flexibility. I will tell you however that more and more, when I know what I'm shooting and I'm not just "walking around", I am using the 85mm 1.8 for portraits. I believe you also have that lens. It gives me the level of sharpness and bokeh I'm looking for consistently. I will say probably 30% of my pictures today are taken using the 24-105. Think of it as a high end kit lens. I'm also a recent strong believer in AFMA.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 16, 2014)

The combination 16-35F4 + 24-105 + 70-300L makes a great set of lenses. This does not solve the problem (for his wife) to change lenses often.
Of these three, the 24-105 has more distortion and less sharpness than the other two, but still have superior image quality (in full frame) compared to your 18-135.
Your prime lenses will shine with 6D, but 50mm could be replaced by the great 35mm F2 IS in the future, to an angle of view more different of his 85mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2014)

The 6D + 24-105 will certainly be sharper than your 550D + 18-135. However, once you have that setup, I suspect you'll start comparing the 70-300L images to those with the 24-105, and soon be considering the 24-70/2.8 II despite the more restricted focal range. 

I had the 28-300L for a while, IQ is equivalent to the 24-105L across the range. I have sold both the 24-105L and 28-300L, and now use the 24-70/2.8 II paired with the 70-300L for travel/walkaround, or with the 70-200/2.8L IS II for indoor events.


----------



## Rob-downunder (Aug 16, 2014)

Thanks for your replies so far. To answer one question - yes I shoot in raw and process in Lightroom. My ideal solution would be a 24-105 mkii with equivalent sharpness to the other recent releases from Canon, but it doesn't seem likely this is going to be released. Purchasing the 6D with 24-105 plus the 16-35 f4 will cost in the vicinity of $4000 aus, which I am prepared to pay to get the quality if the 24-105 on FF will deliver significantly sharper images than the 18-135 STM on crop. However if this isn't the case then I can probably do a 7d mkii body and keep the rest of my kit for around $1500 aus (guessing at the price here). 
I accept the 24-104 won't be in quite the same league as the other 2 L zooms, but will it be significantly better than what I have now?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 16, 2014)

Rob, IQ of a properly exposed image in good light is not going to be a huge difference between full frame and a crop body. I have sold my crop cameras and gone to all full frame, I do use the low light capabilities of Full Frame where it makes a big difference.

Lenses also make a big difference. If you are having issues, try live autofocus on a tripod, and if you see a difference, its likely due to autofocus errors. 

I'd wait for the next new generation of cameras to see what improvements newer sensor designs bring. If the rumored sensors with multiple layers actually happens, then the potential for better and more accurate colors might make the higher prices worth while. I also expect to see some huge price drops this fall as Christmas approaches and Canon blows out old inventory.


----------



## ecka (Aug 16, 2014)

Rob-downunder said:


> Thanks for your replies so far. To answer one question - yes I shoot in raw and process in Lightroom. My ideal solution would be a 24-105 mkii with equivalent sharpness to the other recent releases from Canon, but it doesn't seem likely this is going to be released. Purchasing the 6D with 24-105 plus the 16-35 f4 will cost in the vicinity of $4000 aus, which I am prepared to pay to get the quality if the 24-105 on FF will deliver significantly sharper images than the 18-135 STM on crop. However if this isn't the case then I can probably do a 7d mkii body and keep the rest of my kit for around $1500 aus (guessing at the price here).
> I accept the 24-104 won't be in quite the same league as the other 2 L zooms, but will it be significantly better than what I have now?



Well, sometimes my 500D with 18-55IS produced perfectly nice and sharp images and 7D wasn't that much different. Now 6D is just delivering it most of the time (instead of sometimes) even with non-L lenses. 40mm pancake is my walkabout.
There are no L EF-S lenses or even good+fast+cheap(affordable) primes (my weapon of choice) and I wouldn't be surprised if 7D'II cost more than 6D, so FF is a win-win for me.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2014)

My two cents:

The cheapest upgrade would be the 15-85 EF-S. It's image quality and focal range are comparable to the 24-105 L.

As Mt. Spokane said, the differences between full frame and a crop body in good light are not that significant.

However, if you really have the full frame itch and it's not going away until it's scratched, then you might as well cut your losses and make the change sooner, rather than later. 

A lot of people are counting on the new 7DII to be some breakthrough technology in sensors. I'm not so sure, but it's probably worth waiting three weeks or so to see. 

In the U.S. a 6D is incredibly inexpensive right now. With a 24-105 kit lens they've been as low as $2,000 from unauthorized dealers and about $2,200 from an authorized dealer if you hit it at the right time. I don't know about the situation in Australia. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 24-105. It is an "L" lens and deserves that designation. 

Either a 24-105 and 70-300 L kit on full frame or a 15-85 and 70-300 L on crop will cover more than 90 percent of shooting situations. When traveling, those are really the only lenses you'll need to pack. The 3mm difference between 15 and 18mm at the wide end is significant. At some point, regardless of which kit you choose, you can supplement it with a wider zoom, but you will need the wider zoom only occasionally. 

Personally, I would never even consider a 24-70 as the range is just too short for my taste and with that narrow of a range, I'd rather use primes. 

If the 7DII turns out to have some game-changing, physics-defying sensor in it, then all bets are off. Otherwise, I really don't expect for there to be an upgrade of the 5DIII for quite some time, while the most likely upgrade to the 6D would be 70D/7D style autofocus.


----------



## Hannes (Aug 16, 2014)

When people say the 24-105 isn't sharp, they are comparing to other high end offerings and it is worth bearing in mind you can now find them for less than a third of the 24-70 II. My copy is very sharp 24-70mm wide open but after that the IQ drops a little. The f4 is sharp enough for most people but f4 may be a little limiting in some situations. Maybe the Tamron 24-70 is an option?


----------



## candc (Aug 16, 2014)

if you are trying to consolidate and streamline your gear and go ff then i would skip the 24-105. the fl gap in between the 16-35 and 70-300 is not a big deal and you have a 50 already. i am also interested in the new tamron 28-300 for a do it all lens, dustin abott says its pretty good.


----------



## timmy_650 (Aug 16, 2014)

I moved from my t2i to a 6D and have loved every second of it. I think you will be really happy with them move. Ps I do love the 40mm 2.8 on a 6D. I don't care for the 50mm 1.8. I dont have the 24-105 but I have the 28-135 IS but I don't use it much but it gives me much better quality than most anything I could get with my t2i (except with 70-200 or 24-70 mark2)


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 16, 2014)

Not sure about the claims that "in good light" FF and cropped have few differences.

What is good light? High noon? Studio lights? Ok, fine. But that is very limiting.

Proper exposure? Great, but even the most skilled, experienced photographers find themselves in changing light situations and underexpose, meaning a HUGE difference in noise.

I have a 60D, which apparently has the same or slightly less noise as a 7D in the same situations, and a 5DIII. There is very big difference between the two at ISO 400. I can get up to 1250 or 1600 on the 5DIII before I start having the same noise as the 60D at ISO 400.

How many people shoot in studio conditions? How many want to shoot in noon day sun? We all have different tolerances for noise, and a Rebel or other cropped sensor might produce satisfactory images for large prints, but to claim that there is little difference in real world, common, shooting situations is misleading.

Is the 5DIII perfect? No. Completely free of noise in the shadows at 400 if I've underexposed? No. But it is much less noisy than my 60D in similar situations.

Want to crop in on eyes on a cloudy day? If you want details in the irises, you have to sharpen with pumped contrast, maybe brighten the shadows a touch. The noise quickly becomes apparent to the point that the eyes become the limiting factor in print size.

Get the best you can afford. Don't borrow on a credit card! But just know that the difference between Canon FF and cropped does not begin only in poorly lit interiors or after sunset outdoors.


----------



## rowlandw (Aug 16, 2014)

Have both! I have the 6D and 7D. Each has its strong points. However, I tend to shoot wide more than tele, and FF gives me that. You can always crop narrower but never wider!


----------



## ecka (Aug 16, 2014)

rowlandw said:


> Have both! I have the 6D and 7D. Each has its strong points. However, I tend to shoot wide more than tele, and FF gives me that. You can always crop narrower but never wider!



You can stitch .


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 16, 2014)

When you first use the 24-105 you may not understand why people don't rave about it. Then you may try the 24-70II and you will see for yourself. When you do, you just might never want to use it again, especially because iq is important to you. You can zoom with your feet. Why don't you try both lenses for yourself at a camera store before you buy?

sek


----------



## aprotosimaki (Aug 16, 2014)

RE: 24-105mm 

Not stellar but it is awesome for IR photography: no hotspot.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 23, 2014)

I went to FF 6D specifically for low light work and wide angle and shallow depth of field with fast lenses wide open. There's two stops difference in noise between the 60D and 6D. 60D is now my birding camera and walkabout casual camera (15-85). My landscape, macro, starscape, etc camera is the 6D, and I expect that I will be using it with both primes and zooms. I currently have a flock of manual focus legacy lenses that I use with the 6D, while I decide what normal prime and short telephoto I want.


----------



## Rob-downunder (Aug 26, 2014)

Decided to bite the bullet and have ordered the 6D, 24-105 and 16-35 f4. I should have delivery in a couple of days and am looking forward to playing with my new toys.


----------



## DRR (Aug 26, 2014)

I think you'll be thrilled with that combination.

For me the jump from 7D to 5DII was a larger quality jump than any lens upgrade I've ever made. It's true that with proper light you'll never be able to tell the difference between crop and FF, but I often shoot in less than ideal conditions, and while the 5DII still isn't a "perfect" camera for me, my keeper rate went up substantially going from crop to FF. 

This was also at a point where I had the 7D plus L lenses so the lenses were not the limiting factor. I had gone by the old adage of upgrading glass first, although honestly if I had to do it again, I don't think I'd do it that way. That was true in the film days, when glass was often the limiting factor, since you could also easily "upgrade" your film with a different stock. These days, your camera IS the film - and it's not like you can drop in an upgraded DPAF sensor into your old 20D. And with sensor improvements dramatically outpacing lens improvements I would say make sure you have a body that works for you and then find the best glass you can for it.


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 26, 2014)

Rob-downunder said:


> Thanks for your replies so far. To answer one question - yes I shoot in raw and process in Lightroom. My ideal solution would be a 24-105 mkii with equivalent sharpness to the other recent releases from Canon, but it doesn't seem likely this is going to be released. Purchasing the 6D with 24-105 plus the 16-35 f4 will cost in the vicinity of $4000 aus, which I am prepared to pay to get the quality if the 24-105 on FF will deliver significantly sharper images than the 18-135 STM on crop. However if this isn't the case then I can probably do a 7d mkii body and keep the rest of my kit for around $1500 aus (guessing at the price here).
> I accept the 24-104 won't be in quite the same league as the other 2 L zooms, but will it be significantly better than what I have now?



I have a 6D and Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art lens. Considering it's a zoom, it's almost as good as a prime at any focal length you choose. I little post processing for barrel, pin cushion, vignette, and- BAM! You've got a real keeper. Sharpness is excellent, and there's no way to correct an unsharp photo.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 26, 2014)

Rob-downunder said:


> Decided to bite the bullet and have ordered the 6D, 24-105 and 16-35 f4. I should have delivery in a couple of days and am looking forward to playing with my new toys.


Congrats and I think you'll love your new gear. I haven't used the well-regarded 6D or 24-105 lenses, but I can tell you that the new 16-35 is a fantastic lens and will really show you the benefits of a FF sensor.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 26, 2014)

Rob-downunder said:


> (also the wife doesn't really like hanging around whilst I swap gear adjust settings etc - sounds of "can't you just take the picture and lets get going").



Instead of replacing the lenses/camera, how about replacing the wife?

(my wife is standing behind me)

SMACK!!

Only kidding honey, only kidding! Kinda....

SMACK!!!

You should put the camera away and spend quality time with your wife ;D

Phew.


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 26, 2014)

Rob-downunder said:


> Hi All,
> 
> This is my first post, although I have spent quite a bit of time looking at older threads and gained some very useful information. I am currently considering going full frame and would like some input from those that have gone before me. I currently own the following equipment:
> Canon 550D
> ...



I don't see any disadvantage in getting a 6d and 24-105 kit. You can always sell the lens easily. It's better that you compare the IQ yourself rather than relying on other user's opinion. My guess would be that you'll like the 24-105. Build quality alone is a huge difference from your EFs lenses. IQ is average or above average depending on who you ask. You need to see for yourself whether the IQ meets your needs. It may be good enough for you.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 26, 2014)

With full frame costing less than $1,500 now (used or on sale), I can't think of any reason to stay on crop unless your budget is under $1,000.


----------



## Tanispyre (Aug 26, 2014)

The biggest complaint I have heard about the Canon 24-105 is the high distortion. Have you considered buying a body only, and a third party lens. The 24-70 F2.8 VC lens from Tamron is amazingly sharp and has image stabilization. Or the Sigma 24-105 which has the same resolution as the Canon version, but lower distortion.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Aug 26, 2014)

It sounds like you want the convenience of an all-in-one zoom but the quality of primes or tighter zooms. Unfortunately for all of us, you can't have both.

I'm with the camp who suggest you don't overlap your focal lengths so much (ie. 16-35/24-105) and go with the 16-35, 50, 70-300. You said you didn't want to be swapping lenses all the time. But I guess if you don't mind carrying all that around, it's still the most flexible. You'll enjoy the 6D I'm sure. You've traded convenience for quality.


----------



## Peerke (Aug 26, 2014)

Perhaps your camera/lens combination is not giving you the sharpness you think you should have because of bad calibration? This is what a 40D with a EFS 18-135 can produce:







Not bad at all I guess, specially for an amature who won't print big.


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 26, 2014)

Peerke said:


> Perhaps your camera/lens combination is not giving you the sharpness you think you should have because of bad calibration? This is what a 40D with a EFS 18-135 can produce:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a crazy cool level of sharpness.


----------



## KacperP (Aug 26, 2014)

My idea for going FF is "only if I'll start earning money with it". Money, not pennies. 
Currently I have 60D.
I had EF-S 17-85, replaced with 15-85 as walkaround and gained significant IQ (especially with DLO in DPP)
Also had EF 28/1.8, but Sigma happened.
Two months with Sigma 18-35/1.8 now, and I can live peacefully without FF.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Aug 26, 2014)

Dude. New 6D, kit/whitebox 24-105 for less $$...16-35 f2.8 new/refurb and a used 70-300...might seriously want to go with a used/refurb 100-400 since you're at the 100 end on the 24-105...

-J


----------



## NancyP (Aug 26, 2014)

Peerke, I can smell the lavender coming out of my monitor. Lovely photo.


----------



## Rob-downunder (Aug 26, 2014)

It sounds like you want the convenience of an all-in-one zoom but the quality of primes or tighter zooms. Unfortunately for all of us, you can't have both.

I'm with the camp who suggest you don't overlap your focal lengths so much (ie. 16-35/24-105) and go with the 16-35, 50, 70-300. You said you didn't want to be swapping lenses all the time. But I guess if you don't mind carrying all that around, it's still the most flexible. You'll enjoy the 6D I'm sure. You've traded convenience for quality.

-------------------------
Sorry - I am not sure how to paste previous comments (above) properly.

My intention is to have a good quality walkabout all in one solution when on holiday etc with the wife. Pickup the 6D and 24-105 and off we go with no need to swap out lenses. I am hoping to see a good IQ improvement over the 550D and 18-135 STM.

Then when I want to go off on my own and enjoy doing some more creative photography I have the 16-35 f4, 70-300 L, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 in addition to the option of the 24-105. 

Hopefully this setup gives me the best of both worlds.

And if I get crappy photos I can't blame my equipment!!!!!


----------



## PepeSilvia (Aug 26, 2014)

9VIII said:


> With full frame costing less than $1,500 now (used or on sale), I can't think of any reason to stay on crop unless your budget is under $1,000.



Even if your budget is under $1000, a used 5D Classic goes for around $500 and is a much better option than pretty much any crop camera in that $500-1000 range in my opinion.


----------



## Peerke (Aug 27, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Peerke, I can smell the lavender coming out of my monitor. Lovely photo.



Thnx Nancy. The provence in the beginning of July. What a place to be


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 27, 2014)

Rob-downunder said:


> Decided to bite the bullet and have ordered the 6D, 24-105 and 16-35 f4. I should have delivery in a couple of days and am looking forward to playing with my new toys.



Let us know what you think.

Format a used CF card in a computer just before placing it in the new camera. Otherwise, the image numbering will pickup from what was on the old card, and its nice to have it start out with a low number on a new body. If its a new card, no issue.

I use Reikan Focal almost immediately to adjust the AFMA of all my lenses. I have all my targets printed out and setup in preparation for receiving the camera. I first verify operation of the camera with a few shots, but do not try to photograph anything seriously until I've calibrated the autofocus. Normally, most of my lenses fall within +/- 5 points which is the Canon tolerance, and being off by 5 points is not a huge issue. However, some lenses exceed the 5 points, and then AF accuracy is a issue.

AF accuracy can be a camera issue, a lens issue, or both. If, for example, the body is in spec at -5 and the lens is in spec at +5, the results will cancel out. But, if they are both +5, then the result will be a AF issue, and a -10 needed to adjust it. That's a extreme case, bodies tend to be very accurate, but it happens and is easy to adjust.


----------



## ecka (Aug 27, 2014)

PepeSilvia said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > With full frame costing less than $1,500 now (used or on sale), I can't think of any reason to stay on crop unless your budget is under $1,000.
> ...



I'm not sure about the $500 5D, but no crop can beat 40/2.8STM on FF .


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 27, 2014)

To the OP:

I have the 6D and recently took it with Canon's 24-105L to Hawaii. I also had my 100L macro and 40mm pancake with me. The 24-105 was on the 6D about 98% of the time. I used the macro only for a few hours one day (that may have been the biggest surprise of the trip for me) and the 40mm not at all. 

I also have the 70-300L which is a fantastic lens, but left it home as I wanted to go lighter on this trip. 

I also plan to get the 16-35 f4 later on this fall/winter. 

So, consider my post to be post-purchase reinforcement. 

Cheers,

Vivid


----------



## terminatahx (Aug 27, 2014)

I avoid recommending gear that has not been released yet, so based on what you've stated, the 6d is a better option for you. If you were open to considering other bodies I'd say go with the 5DmKIII.

The EF24-105 should be removed from the L line. It's mediocre at best. So if you can tolerate it's weaknesses, it should suit you fine. Or, if 105 is not important, but IQ is, I'd recommend getting the 24-70 F4 or 2.8L II.


----------



## nc0b (Aug 27, 2014)

I use my 6D or 5D Classic about 80% of the time over my 60D or 40D for general photography. The crop bodies are most useful to me when shooting wildlife where the extra reach is helpful. If a new or used / refurbished 6D is not in your budget right now, consider the 5D classic. I just captured some fantastic shots of a lone antelope in my yard with my 5Dc and a 300mm f/4 lens. If buying a 5D classic, try to select one with a serial number that starts with 2 or 3. They have a better rear display from a color rendition standpoint. I do see 5Dc bodies on Craigslist for $500 on a regular basis. I bought mine almost two years ago for $900, and have no regrets. Except for wildlife or birds, I prefer the focal length of my zooms on a full frame body.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 27, 2014)

Rob-downunder said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Sorry for the long post - I thought too much info is better than not enough. I look forward to hearing your thoughts especially if you have been down the same path as I am going.
> 
> Rob



Hi Rob,
Here is my advice: Unless you are ready to spend big bucks on full frame f/2.8 zoom lenses, stick with APS-C. 

While a EF 24-105mm f/4 at f/4 on Full Frame will give you much better low light performance than an EF-S 18-135 f/4-5.6, it won't give you *that* much better performance than a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 at f/2.8 on APS-C. It will still be better, but IMO not throw all your EF-S lenses away and all the hassle you will need to do to upgrade better. You could use primes, but that does not sound like the flexibility you want.

If you really want to go full frame and want to use zooms, I would not do so until you can afford a 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Now that is a zoom that will really shine in low light and make the full frame transition worthwhile. The 24-105 f/4 on FF is an upgrade, but so is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 on your current camera; I would explore the latter instead if you are not trying to break the bank. Once you can afford 6D + 24-70 f/2.8L II - then upgrade to full frame.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 27, 2014)

Rob-downunder said:


> My intention is to have a good quality walkabout all in one solution when on holiday etc with the wife. Pickup the 6D and 24-105 and off we go with no need to swap out lenses. I am hoping to see a good IQ improvement over the 550D and 18-135 STM.



I'm sure you will (and you will likely be amazed by how much better 6D + 24-105 is in low light/high ISO). One caveat, though - when you use your 18-135, how often are you near the long end? You doubtless know this already, but in case you don't, while the 24-105 is usefully wider than the 18-135, it's less than half as long (the FF equiv. of 135mm is 216mm); so the 24-105 doesn't provide the same "all in one" convenience. You may find the 70-300L more useful than you expect! (For similar convenience, the Tamron 28-300 may be worth checking out; I've seen some fairly good reviews of it.)


----------



## moreorless (Aug 28, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Hi Rob,
> Here is my advice: Unless you are ready to spend big bucks on full frame f/2.8 zoom lenses, stick with APS-C.
> 
> While a EF 24-105mm f/4 at f/4 on Full Frame will give you much better low light performance than an EF-S 18-135 f/4-5.6, it won't give you *that* much better performance than a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 at f/2.8 on APS-C. It will still be better, but IMO not throw all your EF-S lenses away and all the hassle you will need to do to upgrade better. You could use primes, but that does not sound like the flexibility you want.
> ...



I don't think he's really "wasting" FF here though, he might not get a great deal of low light advantage from a 6D + 24-105mm vs a 17-55mm F/2.8 on his current camera BUT he will get improved range so its give and take.

One alternative that might be worth considering is the Sigma 24-105mm OS, reviews I'v seen tend to point towards it correcting the Canon 24-105mm's weaker performance wide open at the tele end.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 28, 2014)

terminatahx said:


> The EF24-105 should be removed from the L line. It's mediocre at best. So if you can tolerate it's weaknesses, it should suit you fine. Or, if 105 is not important, but IQ is, I'd recommend getting the 24-70 F4 or 2.8L II.



I don't agree. The 24-105 is very well built, definitely "L" quality, auto focuses quickly and quietly and is pretty good optically. The 24-105mm range is provides an extra 50% of reach over the standard 24-70 zooms. Its also a terrific bargain at around $600 on the used market. Excellent quality for that price!

There are of course better standard zooms, but they all cost more money, so the consumer has choices. I owned one of these lenses for two years and was very pleased with the images I captured with it. I replaced it with a 24-70 2.8 II last year, but if I didn't have the funds available I would still be using it.

Not all L's are excellent optically, some are just good. Personally, I like having options within the L designation.


----------



## Rob-downunder (Sep 7, 2014)

So I finally got all my gear and have had the opportunity to take some pics using all 3 of the new zooms and thought I would give some feedback to those that offered advice as well as some info for those who may be going through the same process as myself.

For my standard usage as a walk around holiday kit the 6D with 24-105 is much much sharper than the 550D with the 18-135 STM. This was my main goal to improve image quality for a one lens holiday setup and I am very happy with the results. 

Of the other 2 lenses - the 70-300L is brilliant. That thing is so sharp you could cut yourself with it !!! The 16-35 F4 is also very sharp. I haven't taken many shots with the 16-35 F4 but early indications are great.

So now I have to list all of my crop equipment on Ebay.

This first started with me looking at going to L series lenses rather than EFS lenses to improve image quality. However none of the focal length ranges for the zooms made sense for a single walk around holiday lens. So that lead to the conclusion that if I was going to L series zooms for image quality, then I would also need to go to a full frame body to make the zoom ranges make sense. I was also looking for the higher ISO quality available from the 6D.

So all I in all I am a very happy 6D owner and would encourage anyone else considering the move from a crop sensor body with EFS lenses to do the same if funds permit.


----------

