Is the 6D still relevant?

I was shooting Nikon for years, but -- like many of us do -- I switched brands. First it was Sony (ugh) then I went Nikon and have been awhile. But I've been so tempted to grab a 6D and a prime like a Tamron VC lens or a Sigma Art and just leave it attached to the body for certain lifestyle work. Maybe 35 or 50mm. I now have an opportunity to grab a mint one with <10K on the shutter for $450. Good deal? Seems so! But I don't know. I'm not one for the megapixel race or pushes 5 stops in LR so seems like this body will be relevant for years, no?

Somehow mine still works and my clients still pay for the photos without complaint.

$450 is a steal.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18750876
Somehow mine still works and my clients still pay for the photos without complaint.

$450 is a steal.

Yup. There are still people out taking great shots and in some cases making money with 30Ds, 5D classic, etc. No reason why you couldn't use a 6D well into the future.

My 6D is still going strong, no complaints here.

Awesome. Good to hear. Thanks!

I know it's beating a dead horse, but I really do like certain aspects of the color science.

Now, lenses are the question. I will pick up the 40 STM because it's such a cool lens. But I want one prime.

I was looking at the Tamon 85 VC
Sigma 35 or 50 ART

I have the Tamron 45 on my Nikon and it's stellar. So don't need to duplicate that.

Any thoughts?

crashwins wrote in post #18750889
Awesome. Good to hear. Thanks!

I know it's beating a dead horse, but I really do like certain aspects of the color science.

Now, lenses are the question. I will pick up the 40 STM because it's such a cool lens. But I want one prime.

I was looking at the Tamon 85 VC
Sigma 35 or 50 ART

I have the Tamron 45 on my Nikon and it's stellar. So don't need to duplicate that.

Any thoughts?

The 40 STM is a prime and it sure is cool and very compact. There isn't a bad choice between the Siggy 35 or 50 ART. If you want a 35 that has great optics, image stabilized and reasonably priced (particularly on the secondary market) you could look at the Canon 35 F/2 IS... If you don't need a faster lens than F/2 that is.

I have the Sigma 35A and Canon 85 1.8, don't feel a need to upgrade either. Only 50 prime I have is 30+ years old manual focus adapted lens. Between the other two primes I don't feel a need for a different 50.

I am mostly using a tripod or shooting live subjects where I use shutter speed to freeze action, so IS on those is not needed. 85 is compact and kind of stealthy, in that subjects don't expect it to have that kind of reach. 35 is great for environmental portraits and the occasional real estate exterior. It has a little barrel distortion but it cleans up easily.

I answered the Canon vs Nikon question back in 1973 because of the Canon FD 50 f1.4. This lens was (someone stole it 14 years later) so good, I found and scanned a 1981 negative and printed a 24X36 wall hanger.

Canon never made an EF equivalent (the EF 50 f1.4 is too sensitive/finicky/frag​ile to be considered an equivalent).

If I bought another FD 50 f1.4, my Canon FTb would be relevant...