6D mkii - great camera for the money now that the price has dropped? Owners opinions?

Messages
75
Edit My Images
No
#1
So the 6D Mark 2 has had a somewhat frosty reception since it's launch last summer, with some review alluding to the fact that it was a lot of money with other cheaper rivals doing as good a job, if not better.

Fast forward some 18 months, and with grey units available for c.£900 now (possibly due to the bad press?!) or £1k with a 3 year warranty - is the 6dmkii now in a completely different realm in terms of similarly priced competitors to when it was released at full price and, actually, a great camera body for under a grand? It seems to me that the reviews seemed to review it as a £2000 camera when it is now half that effectively!

I have been shooting with a 70D for a couple of years (mainly landscapes) but am interested in upgrading; in fact, one of the most disappointing things should I upgrade would be that I couldn't keep my 10-18mm EF-S lens - would the 17-40mm f/4L be a step up from this, or should I really be considering the 16-35mm.

Of course, I have been tempted to sell all the Canon gear and go with a Sony such as the A7ii however I am reluctant due to the other lenses/flash units etc I have.

Cheers all
 
Messages
3,723
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
If I were on a tight budget and genuinely needed something that wide, then I'd see if I could find a mint-ish used 17-40L (with a reputable dealer's warranty) for around £300 and use it at f/11 or above. However, if I could afford it, then I'd go for the 16-35 L as it's a more modern lens and should be noticeably better at wider apertures.
 
Last edited:
Messages
724
Name
Tristian
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
I have been ponderings the same question recently.

£900 seams a good price for what you get. The main drawback for me is the position of the focus points. I don't think the dynamic range would be a deal breaker for me.

I have just moved from a 70d to an 80d as I got a good deal but the high iso performance is not much of an improvement. I think the 6dmkii would help me with the higher iso pics.

I watch this thread with interest.
 
Messages
23,050
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#6
2 things...

Don’t get sucked into the ‘6dII bad review’ nonsense; the 6dII is a better camera than it’s predecessor other than 1 simple measure (DR at base ISO)

The 6dII price has come down in almost exactly the same way as the mkI did.

If you want a Canon FF camera, the 6dII is a great buy, however if youre not tied to buying Canon, there are possibly better options out there. And if your main use is with a lens you would also have to replace, I cant understand why you feel tied to Canon.
 
OP
OP
J
Messages
75
Edit My Images
No
#7
Thanks everyone for your input so far :)

With regards to the two wide angle lenses, the more modern design was something I had thought of myself - shame that the newer lens costs twice as much! Although I wouldn't see using a smaller aperture for landscapes as really ever being an issue?

Phil - you have hit the nail on the head with the point I was trying to make re the bad initial reviews, I was definitely not sucked in myself but hoping some owners will be along on this thread to help my decision! Also, I would say that the main lens I use is in fact 24-105 f4L; I was only highlighting the 10-18mm as this is the one that wouldn't be useable on FF ;)

I'm not totally opposed to switching systems as per the original post, but 4 lenses, flash unit and all the other little bits and pieces such as extra batteries etc make it a lot of hassle!

the 6dII is a great buy
this is exactly what I was thinking, cheers!
 
Messages
14,044
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#8
17-40L (with a reputable dealer's warranty) for around £300 and use it at f/11 or above
While this may be the only way to use one, even that is not enough with probably most copies. They are all either very soft on the left or on the right, or if you are really really lucky moderately soft on both sides. The focal field curvature is really closer to a sphere rather than a flat plane, and to add to an injury they only come calibrated for the centre performance only. Same goes for the older 16-35 f/2.8. In other terms you are better off with any newer Tamron than that.
 
Messages
23,050
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#9
I’ve owned a 17-40 and have to say it’s the only L lens I’ve used that I would happily never use again. I bought a Tamron 17-35 which is better in every way except it doesn’t ‘feel’ like a quality lens. It works brilliantly though and was an absolute bargain. If you sell your crop WA you can afford the tamron and the new 50mm STM (another bargain lens)
 
Messages
3,723
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
The 40mm STM (pancake) isn't a bad little lens either, if you want something a bit wider than a 50mm - I often find 50mm is a bit too 'tight' and 35mm can be a bit too 'remote'.
 
OP
OP
J
Messages
75
Edit My Images
No
#11
Interesting comments, thanks all (50mm STM is one of the lenses I own already actually!)

It's amused me that even when the thread asked about the 6Dii and lenses most comments have been about the lenses rather than the camera :LOL: surely someone must have used one extensively to make comment?!
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#12
Interesting comments, thanks all (50mm STM is one of the lenses I own already actually!)

It's amused me that even when the thread asked about the 6Dii and lenses most comments have been about the lenses rather than the camera :LOL: surely someone must have used one extensively to make comment?!
In general the lenses are more important then the body - the camera is just your control deck essentially, I know I'd rather have a cracking lens on a mediocre camera than other way round.

There is a 6DmkII thread on here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-eos-6d-mk2-owners-thread.656751/

Have a look through that, maybe even revive it and see if any 6DII users come out of the woodwork
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,667
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
Seeing that you are not invested in FF EF glass and mainly want to shoot landscapes why not get a Nikon D750 if you want a DSLR. It's doesn't cost much more and is lot better for landscapes, action and pretty much most things apart from videos.

Also price+performance wise Nikon 18-35mm is great.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
J
Messages
75
Edit My Images
No
#14
Thanks for that, good idea
There is a 6DmkII thread on here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-eos-6d-mk2-owners-thread.656751/
Have a look through that, maybe even revive it and see if any 6DII users come out of the woodwork
24-105mm f4L, 50mm STM and 70-300mm, along with flash unit so got a few EF things, admittedly not huge amounts ££££ wise!
Seeing that you are not invested in FF EF glass and mainly want to shoot landscapes why not get a Nikon D750 if you want a DSLR. It's doesn't cost much more and is lot better for landscapes, action and pretty much most things apart from videos.

Also price+performance wise Nikon 18-35mm is great.
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#15
Another idea, if you don't need FF and want to hang on to your EF-S lenses would be to consider the 80D. It seems to do pretty much everything the 6DII does just with the smaller sensor. You'd save £300 that you could use to buy a nice prime lens.
 
OP
OP
J
Messages
75
Edit My Images
No
#16
Ok so to update... having looked into the alternatives and being very close to switching to a Sony system, I bit the bullet and went for the 6D Mkii and upgraded my EF-S wide angle to a 16-35mm f4L.

First impressions are wholly positive; the image quality seems to be a nice step up when using the existing lenses I have experience with on the old body, and even when the ISO is higher than ideal there seems to be less noise than the old camera.

I am yet to take it out and use properly in a landscape scenario, but I'm positive it's been a good choice.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment, particularly on the wide angle lens debate - had I not posted this thread and subsequently done more research into the 17-40mm I would have probably gone for that!

One final observation - on the crop body the 50mm prime I have always seemed to be a bit too much focal length wise and I would be regretting not just using the 24-105mm, however without the 1.6x crop effect it feels a hell of a lot more useable! When I have some 'proper' examples I will be sure to post up for the people who commented that they were thinking of doing something similar.
 
Messages
23,050
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#17
Edit... congrats on your purchase, surprised you didn’t go for the Sony.

...
One final observation - on the crop body the 50mm prime I have always seemed to be a bit too much focal length wise and I would be regretting not just using the 24-105mm, however without the 1.6x crop effect it feels a hell of a lot more useable! When I have some 'proper' examples I will be sure to post up for the people who commented that they were thinking of doing something similar.
I’ve had a 50mm from film EOS days, and can honestly say I never took a shot on a crop body I was happy with. I use it regularly on the 6d - in fact so much that I bought an STM version so we could have one each, and the STM is a much better lens, well worth a swap costing less than £50
 
Messages
3,723
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
Edit... congrats on your purchase, surprised you didn’t go for the Sony.


I’ve had a 50mm from film EOS days, and can honestly say I never took a shot on a crop body I was happy with. I use it regularly on the 6d - in fact so much that I bought an STM version so we could have one each, and the STM is a much better lens, well worth a swap costing less than £50
Have you tried the 40mm STM pancake lens Phil? It's become one of my favourites as it's that bit wider than the 50mm, without it actually looking 'wide' if you know what I mean. Quite sharp across the whole image too, especially if stopped down a couple of stops.
 
Top