Camera or lens

Hey there,

I'm having a tough time on what to do. I was thinking of picking up a 6D this weekend but wonder if I should hold out to the end of the year and just buy a new lens. I have a 70D right now. I have a 50 1.4, 85 1.8, Sigma 17-50 OS and a Tamron VC 70-300. I know the Sigma won't work on the 6D. The reason I say hold out to end of year is because all the Rumors of the 5DM4 might be coming and that might lower the 5DIII. If i buy a lens this weekend i was thinking of the Tamron 24-70 2.8, this way I have a FF lens and I can then sell the 17-50 and have same Wide view but gain more reach. Let me know what you would do or what you think I should do.

Used Tammy for $900 shipped on here right now. Do it!

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17520953

Nightfire wrote in post #17520952
Hey there,

I'm having a tough time on what to do. I was thinking of picking up a 6D this weekend but wonder if I should hold out to the end of the year and just buy a new lens. I have a 70D right now. I have a 50 1.4, 85 1.8, Sigma 17-50 OS and a Tamron VC 70-300. I know the Sigma won't work on the 6D. The reason I say hold out to end of year is because all the Rumors of the 5DM4 might be coming and that might lower the 5DIII. If i buy a lens this weekend i was thinking of the Tamron 24-70 2.8, this way I have a FF lens and I can then sell the 17-50 and have same Wide view but gain more reach. Let me know what you would do or what you think I should do.

The thing is that if you are going to sell the 17-50 straight away is that you will then have no wide angle coverage on your 60D. Actually your 17-50 covers the same range as a 28-80 would cover on FF, so really the 24-70 offers about the same coverage on FF as your current lens now gives you on crop. In other words wide to short tele. The 24-70 on your crop will though is about normal to mid tele. Unless you can afford to keep both lenses until you can upgrade to FF later in the year I think you would be better keeping that money towards your later upgrade. I think you will really miss that 17-23mm wide angle range that you would otherwise lose.

Alan

Thanks Allen,
I was gonna hold on to the 17-50 until after I get a FF. I really want a FF and might just get that and then get the 24-70 later this year. I'm really getting into Portraits and I think the 85 will be a great lens to start out with. Besides the price is great right now on it also

Nightfire wrote in post #17521040
Thanks Allen,
I was gonna hold on to the 17-50 until after I get a FF. I really want a FF and might just get that and then get the 24-70 later this year. I'm really getting into Portraits and I think the 85 will be a great lens to start out with. Besides the price is great right now on it also

Heya,

You have plenty fine glass and your camera is fine here.

If you're getting into portraits, look to lighting. It makes the difference. A larger sensor, does not. And your glass is more than adequate for portrait.

Very best,

Nightfire wrote in post #17521040
Thanks Allen,
I was gonna hold on to the 17-50 until after I get a FF. I really want a FF and might just get that and then get the 24-70 later this year. I'm really getting into Portraits and I think the 85 will be a great lens to start out with. Besides the price is great right now on it also

If you are keeping the 17-50 too then the 24-70 on crop covers just about the ideal range for portrait photography. I will though support MalVeauX in that what you have is great, but that spending some money on lighting equipment is also a damned fine idea. Being able to really control the light is such a great thing to have. I don't use it much, but I have one of those cheap chinese made three head studio kits with a few simple modifiers. It makes life real easy to be able to play with the light like that. if you are really getting into portraits then lighting is the most important factor in your final images, especially with the kit you already have.

Alan

I would keep what you have, as far as lenses. Install the cropped lens on the 60D, and forget it. Buy the 6D, and use it with your other lenses, and then decide which lens will fill the gaps in your portrait endeavor

B.

I had the 70D with the 15-85. When I got the 6D + 24-105 combo I decided that there was no point in keeping the 15-85 when I can do the same frames with that new combo, and the IQ would be better (and so it was). So I sold the 15-85, and now I use the 70D only with the long telephoto, as it has a longer reach when I need it, mainly for birds.

LBsimon, how much better all around do u think the 6d is from the 70d? Do you see a big difference from the 2. I'm just wondering if IQ is going to be worth it or should I just hold out. I will be doing the same thing when I go FF, 70d will be for wildlife and backup.

From what you said, it isn't clear what your needs are. You don't mention if you are interested in interior low light photography, and a 35F2 or 35F1.4 would be great here. The lens would still work fine on full-frame, but with a wider view.
You don't seem to have a macro lens either. Adding glass may be a good way to go.
Why do you want to go full-frame?

Nightfire wrote in post #17524823
LBsimon, how much better all around do u think the 6d is from the 70d? Do you see a big difference from the 2. I'm just wondering if IQ is going to be worth it or should I just hold out. I will be doing the same thing when I go FF, 70d will be for wildlife and backup.

My main interests are birds, landscapes, and architecture. For the last two I noticed a considerable jump in the IQ between these two cameras. However, last Saturday I took the 6D with the 100-400 II to shoot birds and I liked the results too. Still, the 70D is my main birding camera.

The wife needs to photograph her paintings for galleries, and she also noticed and considerable improvement for that.

Still, the 70D is an excellent camera, and my wife, who is also into birding, is trying to confiscate it from me!

It sort of depends upon your needs, uses and preferences.

70D has a much more advanced AF system than the 6D. 19-points, all cross type vs 11-points with only the center one cross-type. Both are more than adequate for fairly sedate portrait shooting, but for other things, particularly any sports/action, the 70D might be better. 70D also has "better" Live View focusing (which we'll probably see implemented on 5DIV). However, the 6D's AF is able to focus in lower light... about 2EV lower than 70D, which complements the 6D's higher usable ISO/low light shooting capabilities.

Personally I like my 24-70/2.8 for portraiture much better on one of my crop sensor cameras, than on my full frame camera. To me, 70mm is only marginally "long enough" on full frame. I do like the FF camera for portraits, but use it for those with 85mm, 70-200/2.8 and 135/2 lenses a whole lot more than with my 24-70.

Not sure what you think the 6D will do for your portraits and general photography, that 70D isn't already doing. Unless you make really large prints (or crop a lot), and unless you like to shoot in low light situations a lot... not sure I'd bother with the FF camera. Sure, you'll see a difference between FF vs crop sensor images if viewing them at 100% on your computer... But that's equivalent to making a five foot wide print and then viewing it from 18" away. This is not a "typical" use of an image or way of viewing it. If you make prints more reasonable sized (8x10, 11x14, even 16x20) you will see little, if any difference. If you post and share images online or use them to illustrate a website, you will see no difference at Internet resolutions and reasonable sizes. Either camera is perfectly capable of making magazine cover size and quality images.

I think a lot of people buy into FF just because of all the hype.... and because they are in the habit of viewing their images overly critically on their computer monitor, at utterly ridiculously high magnifications.

I just hear that a FF has more dynamic range and are just sharper overall. If I buy more glass, I want it to be able work on FF also. I hear that FF lenses are not as sharp on a crop sensor. That I would get sharper images using lenses made for the crop sensor. I'm just weighing my options.

Nightfire wrote in post #17525454
I just hear that a FF has more dynamic range and are just sharper overall. If I buy more glass, I want it to be able work on FF also. I hear that FF lenses are not as sharp on a crop sensor. That I would get sharper images using lenses made for the crop sensor. I'm just weighing my options.

It's the other way around. Because you need to magnify the image on the crop sensor more to produce a standard size image (say an 8x10) the image on a FF will be sharper for the same lens. It's not the same thing...