Just ordered a 6D!

Decided to pull the trigger on the full frame upgrade as I found a good price for the 6D w/ 24-105mm. Will be heading to Alaska this September to photograph glaciers and I wanted to make the switch. Couldn't justify the 5D MkIII as I really don't need the AF system.

I am also debating selling my 60D, 17-50 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 and using the money to get a 70-200 f/4 IS and a Manfrotto 055XPROB. Will have to see what kind of price I can get for the camera and lenses.

Any other must have lenses you would recommend? Keeping in mind I tend to not need f/2.8 these days. I shoot more landscape and wildlife stuff than anything else.

17-40L or if you can afford it the 24tse mkII.

remember you get less range with a 70-200 but over a stop of free shutter speed and dof on the 6d (over the 60d)

I like 17-40 on FF and 70-300L on my 60D. Makes a great lightweight travel setup

You don't want the 055xprob if you're going to be hiking and going cold places. Aluminium is horrible to hold in cold weather, and the 055 is a heavy beast.

Look for something light and carbon fibre such as Benro (on a budget) or Feisol (on a higher budget). They won't cause your back to ache, and will be much more pleasant to handle in cold weather. Plus the Feisol has machined aluminium parts which won't be at risk of shattering in cold weather unlike cast metal.

Congrats man. I also upgraded from the 60D to the 6D. It was a huge difference to me.

I like the idea of the 17-40L. One concern though, right now I use the 17-50 at f/2.8 to shoot the Aurora borealis (one of the few things I use f/2.8 for). With the 17-40L I will obviously lose one stop of aperture. Can I safely assume the 6D will handle higher ISO well enough that I can bump it up to make up for that one stop without sacrificing image quality? Shallow DOF isn't really that important to me in that FL range. Not enough to justify the 16-35L.

It will MORE than make up for it.

thegrandpoohbah wrote in post #15663574
I like the idea of the 17-40L. One concern though, right now I use the 17-50 at f/2.8 to shoot the Aurora borealis (one of the few things I use f/2.8 for). With the 17-40L I will obviously lose one stop of aperture. Can I safely assume the 6D will handle higher ISO well enough that I can bump it up to make up for that one stop without sacrificing image quality? Shallow DOF isn't really that important to me in that FL range. Not enough to justify the 16-35L.

Honestly, if you were happy with your 17-50 on your crop camera I would look into the Samyang wide primes (14mm, 24mm and 35mm) since 17mm on a crop is the equivalent of a 27mm lens on FF. Or, as stated, the 6D's ISO will make up for it

6D is easily more than a stop faster (in terms of noise) than a crop.

But a SY14mm would be cool too.

Markd102 wrote in post #15663638
It will MORE than make up for it.

^This

The 6d at 10000 looked better than my 60d at 3200. You will be shocked at how good 12800 is, especially compared to 6400 on your 60d.

As tommydigi mentioned, consider the 70-300L IS vs 70-200L IS. I'm using it on a 40D, but seriousely pleased with the performance. It is f/4.5 up to 185mm I believe. 4 Stops of IS, and you could use the greater reach on a Full Frame. Runs about $1400 with Rebate.

Sirrith hit right on the button. I have a 055xprob, and it is solid but very heavy. I chose it due to price and knowing I wasn't going to be carrying it far. My wife and I went on a cruise to Alaska a couple of years ago and we had a great time. You will be losing reach by going full frame. Every morning I saw pods of Orca's from the deck. I was wishing I had more reach than my 28-135 for the Orca's, Eagles, and other wildlife I saw. The 28-135 was great in town and on glaciers though. Next time I go I will have a 100-400 or similar tele/zoom. Have a great trip! -rick

Sirrith wrote in post #15662375
You don't want the 055xprob if you're going to be hiking and going cold places. Aluminium is horrible to hold in cold weather, and the 055 is a heavy beast.

Look for something light and carbon fibre such as Benro (on a budget) or Feisol (on a higher budget). They won't cause your back to ache, and will be much more pleasant to handle in cold weather. Plus the Feisol has machined aluminium parts which won't be at risk of shattering in cold weather unlike cast metal.

Thanks for the input. Good to know the high ISO noise handling is that much better.

I am still debating the Manfrotto. I have a Slik tripod right now that does the job, its just that the head on it isn't the greatest for fine adjustments. But it is light enough to hike with...

As for reach, I do have a 1.4x TC to fall back on if I really need it. I will look at the 70-300L but I really like the optics on the 70-200 f/4L IS.

You wont regret.

I highly recommend that you check out (i.e., rent) the 70-300 f4-5.6L IS before you buy the 70-200 f4L IS. The 70-300 is more compact and will fit mounted in most bags, the IQ is stellar, and the extra range will serve you well in Alaska.

This image was shot with the 6D and 70-300L at 300mm, f5.6, ISO 25600. The 70-300L and 6D make an outstanding combination.