Advice in full frame choice neede

I currently have a 70d and love it for its initial intended purpose, to take decent family pics and videos. It's light and it's movable screen is great for filming my boy. I won't be getting rid of this body as it does its job perfectly.

My dilemma is I love night photography, landscapes/seascapes and shooting the stars. I purchased a 10-22 efs for ultra wide shooting and a 17-55 for general shooting. The 10-22 is ok, but at 10mm it's got a lot of distortion and not sure if it's me, but seems really soft at the edges. So I want to get a wide angle L lens, however, this will require a full frame to get the wide angle to match the 10mm on a crop sensor. I only shoot for fun and am on a budget, so I was looking at the 5dmk2.

My question, would the 5dmk2 be a good full frame for my needs, or should I look at the 6d, or is the mk3 that much better and worth the extra time to save for it?

Any help and advice would be great appreciated.

6D would be perfect for your needs. HOWEVER, don't think that FF UWAs are necessarily better. I liked my 10-22 more than my 17-40. You will have much better ISO performance with the 6D though.

Way back when the 5D2 came out it was praised for a lack of amp glow or other artifacts pertaining to long exposures, so it's not a bad choice, I'm just thinking newer cameras could handle bigger ISO pushes. And then there's the whole deal with pattern noise, which could be a problem if you end up having to push shadows by a lot, but if you do exposure stacking, it might not be a problem.

My vote would be 6D and 16-35mm f4.

cali92rs wrote in post #17595472
My vote would be 6D and 16-35mm f4.

Exactly what I bought and it is a fantastic combination for your needs...

I would suggest going to this site for reviews of cameras for night and astrophotography:http://www.clarkvision​.com/index.html

In his very extensive reviews, the FF camera of his choice is the 6D and cropped sensor camera of choice is the 7D Mark II. Hope it helps!

Thanks so much for the advice everyone.

I'm not real good on post processing, knowledge and skill is seriously lacking in this department. I like to get the best shot I can with creative shooting, flash and or light painting, then just touch up and adjust colors, as that's all I know... but I am getting better, the more I use it.

The more I read, the more the 6d appeals and seems to fit my needs as you have mentioned, keen to hear opinions for and against.

I'm also looking at the 17-40 f4 L.

It's cost is s lot more affordable for me and its sharpness ratings seems to be comparable with the 16-35 f4 & 2.8 at f8. Does my research match up with people's experience? More reading for me to do.

I had the 17-40 for about 10 years - I loved this lens! A couple of months ago I did some trading and the 16-35 F4 L IS arrived. I can't comment on what you have read about the relative merits of these two lenses but, even on my first outing, I noticed significant improvements just by looking at the rear screen on my camera. My 16-35 F4 is sharper than the 17-40 was (the 17-40 was far from bad!) and produces MUCH less distortion. Additionally the corners of the image are very much improved.
My main concern was that I would loose the wonderful life and colour rendition that the 17-40 gave my images - I didn't! The 16-35 F4 L IS is pretty much equal in colour rendition and images have even more "life".
Basically this is the best "Bang for the Buck" upgrade that I have yet made - I would suggest you save a little longer and get the 16-35 F4 L IS.

Thanks for the input, I'll def keep that in mind.

johnf3f wrote in post #17596992
I had the 17-40 for about 10 years - I loved this lens! A couple of months ago I did some trading and the 16-35 F4 L IS arrived. I can't comment on what you have read about the relative merits of these two lenses but, even on my first outing, I noticed significant improvements just by looking at the rear screen on my camera. My 16-35 F4 is sharper than the 17-40 was (the 17-40 was far from bad!) and produces MUCH less distortion. Additionally the corners of the image are very much improved.
My main concern was that I would loose the wonderful life and colour rendition that the 17-40 gave my images - I didn't! The 16-35 F4 L IS is pretty much equal in colour rendition and images have even more "life".
Basically this is the best "Bang for the Buck" upgrade that I have yet made - I would suggest you save a little longer and get the 16-35 F4 L IS.

I was looking at an app, that has a heap of canon lenses all rated. I've since been reading reviews and the conclusion matches your finding. Looks like I might be saving a bit longer. Thanks for your advice

Whilst I think you would probably be happy with the 17-40, the 16-35 F4 is noticeably better and not hugely expensive. If getting the 16-35 meant months of doing without then it may not be worth it but as their prices are not that far apart then it may be a false economy to go for the cheaper option in this case.

johnf3f wrote in post #17600748
Whilst I think you would probably be happy with the 17-40, the 16-35 F4 is noticeably better and not hugely expensive. If getting the 16-35 meant months of doing without then it may not be worth it but as their prices are not that far apart then it may be a false economy to go for the cheaper option in this case.

Totally agree with what you're saying. After hearing the advice here and reading the many comparison reviews, the extra money I think will be worth it in the long run.

Now just need to find more stuff around the house to sell, to speed this up. Haha