Thinking of buying a 6D.. need to replace my Sigma 1705

Needs some suggestions. I am thinking of picking up a 6D to upgrade from my 60D.

I currently own a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and Sigma 17-50. IF I understand correctly the Sigma wont fit. I was thinking of getting a 24-105 to be able to versatile and still be able to do moderate landscape work and still use for portrait work. Since I wouldn't have the crop factor, it would still come out to what ive been used to with my 17-50 on the wide end...

Should I be looking at anything else instead?

Thank you!

easiest thing to do is match your tamron 70-200 w/ a tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.

That's some good advice above. The Tamron 17-50 on a 60D will be equivalent to a 27-80 so if you get the 24-70mm with the 6D you'll have about the same spread.

digitalduck wrote in post #17754614
Needs some suggestions. I am thinking of picking up a 6D to upgrade from my 60D.

I currently own a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and Sigma 17-50. IF I understand correctly the Sigma wont fit. I was thinking of getting a 24-105 to be able to versatile and still be able to do moderate landscape work and still use for portrait work. Since I wouldn't have the crop factor, it would still come out to what ive been used to with my 17-50 on the wide end...

Should I be looking at anything else instead?

Thank you!

I also had to sell my sigma 17-50 when I upgraded to a 6D but I already had a 24-105 so it wasn't a problem and the 24-105 is a perfect walk round lens on full frame.
You will love the 6D for its image quality and low light performance. I find that the EF40 pancake lens coupled with the small size of the 6D makes a great combo when I want to travel light.

If you want to go really cheap the Tamron 28-75 is also a good option. Sharp centre and okay corners but can be had for around $300.

Thanks everyone.. I like the idea of the Tamron, because I wonder if id miss the extra stop of light and boken by giving up the 2.8 option and opting for the f4.... Perhaps it wouldn't matter, but when trying to blur out backgrounds that could make a big difference...

digitalduck wrote in post #17754950
Thanks everyone.. I like the idea of the Tamron, because I wonder if id miss the extra stop of light and boken by giving up the 2.8 option and opting for the f4.... Perhaps it wouldn't matter, but when trying to blur out backgrounds that could make a big difference...

The extra stop isn't there to begin with. The 6D will give you more than a stop in ISO from your 60D and as far as Depth of field and blur the 17-50 had an equivalent aperture of f4.5 when compared to full frame. You actually gain 1/3rd of a stop going from 2.8 on crop to 4.0 on FF.

FEChariot wrote in post #17755011
The extra stop isn't there to begin with. The 6D will give you more than a stop in ISO from your 60D and as far as Depth of field and blur the 17-50 had an equivalent aperture of f4.5 when compared to full frame. You actually gain 1/3rd of a stop going from 2.8 on crop to 4.0 on FF.

I concur. Biggest reason I love FF so much is it's magical blurring capabilities..... also the biggest reasons I hate it so much too when shooting groups much harder to get all in focus sometimes.

So yes.... crop 2.8 is equal to around FF 4.5 when bokeh/blur type stuff is factors but don't forget shutter is still aperture dependent. 2.8 will retain higher shutters in lower light than F4.

So since I like the idea of the 6D what if I could a 5dmII for about the same price?

Also.. given the suggestions (thank you) of the Tamron 28-75 and 24-70, as well as the Canon 24-105... should i still be looking at the 24-105 if I find if from something like $400 or even a decent bundle between the 6d and 24-105?

Should I be looking at either of the two (24-105 or Tamron 28-75) vs the Tamron 24-70) Also, I just thought that even though im getting more DOF... with the dof at f4 compared to 2.8 or even 1.8 be noticeable if im doing something like newborn... meaning, even though there is a big increase in DOF, will I prefer the DOF of something wider then f4?

digitalduck wrote in post #17757672
So since I like the idea of the 6D what if I could a 5dmII for about the same price?

Also.. given the suggestions (thank you) of the Tamron 28-75 and 24-70, as well as the Canon 24-105... should i still be looking at the 24-105 if I find if from something like $400 or even a decent bundle between the 6d and 24-105?

Should I be looking at either of the two (24-105 or Tamron 28-75) vs the Tamron 24-70) Also, I just thought that even though im getting more DOF... with the dof at f4 compared to 2.8 or even 1.8 be noticeable if im doing something like newborn... meaning, even though there is a big increase in DOF, will I prefer the DOF of something wider then f4?

Yes. The 6D and fast primes will change how you shoot. I think most people would refer to it as LESS (thinner) dof with fast primes on FF, not more.

Talley wrote in post #17755073
So yes.... crop 2.8 is equal to around FF 4.5 when bokeh/blur type stuff is factors but don't forget shutter is still aperture dependent. 2.8 will retain higher shutters in lower light than F4.

Sure but the ISO of the 6D at 3200 still beats ISO 1600 in a 60D so you can just bump the ISO to gain back the lost shutter speed. Its pretty much a blanket statement that can be applied to crop versus FF as long as you are talking the same generation of each camera.

digitalduck wrote in post #17757672
So since I like the idea of the 6D what if I could a 5dmII for about the same price?

Also.. given the suggestions (thank you) of the Tamron 28-75 and 24-70, as well as the Canon 24-105... should i still be looking at the 24-105 if I find if from something like $400 or even a decent bundle between the 6d and 24-105?

Should I be looking at either of the two (24-105 or Tamron 28-75) vs the Tamron 24-70) Also, I just thought that even though im getting more DOF... with the dof at f4 compared to 2.8 or even 1.8 be noticeable if im doing something like newborn... meaning, even though there is a big increase in DOF, will I prefer the DOF of something wider then f4?

The 6D pretty much bests the 5D2 at everything except maybe max shutter speed and max synch speed. Unless you just like the feel of the bigger 5D2 grip in your hands, there is little reason to get one over a 6D.

Having a 2.8 zoom on FF is going to give the the thinner DOF of a bag of 1.8 primes on crop. Only the Sigma 18-35/1.8 can compare. The Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is going to a very good lens, but you can probably pick up a prime or 2 to compliment a 24-105/4 for about the same price especially since used 24-105s are so plentiful in the used market.

I would skip the 28-75/2.8 however. I had one and its AF speed was too slow for my needs and it wasn't that sharp at 2.8 so I stopped it down to f4 anyhow. Thus I didn't feel like I lost anything when I upgraded to the 24-105 it aperture terms.

The 24-105F4L is a good lens and a bargain when purchased as a kit with the 6D. It produces really nice results.
It is an F4 lens, so will work better outside, or in good lighting inside. Nonetheless, you are looking at a much heavier lens, in price and size, when you go to F2.8 in a zoom.
I usually use fast primes indoors. If you do a lot of event photography, like weddings, then F2.8 will pay for itself.

FEChariot wrote in post #17757818
Sure but the ISO of the 6D at 3200 still beats ISO 1600 in a 60D so you can just bump the ISO to gain back the lost shutter speed. Its pretty much a blanket statement that can be applied to crop versus FF as long as you are talking the same generation of each camera.

Agreed however I was discussing the bokeh. By bumping up to F4 then you lose some on the bokeh.

Talley wrote in post #17759660
Agreed however I was discussing the bokeh. By bumping up to F4 then you lose some on the bokeh.

You are going to have to be more specific. Bumping up to f4 given the same lens? Same format? As written, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense.