Canon advice

E

EdinDevon

Messages
98
Edit My Images
No
I all.

I currently have a 400D, 50mm 1.8, and 24-105 4L.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to upgrade the body between now and January but I'm a little conflicted and looking for advice.

I really like the look of the 6D. I do most of my photography in the evening so improved low light capability would mean a lot. And landscapes (especially as honeymoon in Canada next year). So thinking of getting a 17-40 4L.

But I'm wondering whether actually getting some lower level but newer tech might be better, and get some less expensive EF-S lenses to save some money. Wondering whether anyone has experience of say a 750DD and 6D?
 
EdinDevon said:
I really like the look of the 6D. I do most of my photography in the evening so improved low light capability would mean a lot. And landscapes (especially as honeymoon in Canada next year)
Click to expand...

If you like the look of it, then go for it, the 6D is a great camera and should do you nicely, especially working well with the 24-105 F4

Congratulations for next year and have a great time in Canada - it's one of the few places I'd like to visit...
 
Last edited:
EdinDevon said:
So thinking of getting a 17-40 4L.
Click to expand...

The 17-40 gets a great following and would work very well with the 6D and fall in nicely with your 24-105 F4 L lens, giving you a very nice focal range to take with you...
 
I would stay with the 6d and your existing lenses - maybe adding the 17-40 (used) if the budget allowed...
 
If you are going to be taking landscapes then I think the 17-40 is pretty much essential. In my view the 24-105 - great walk around lens that it is - is simply not wide enough for landscape photography. I own the 6D and until recently a 17-40 and they make a great combination. Some 17-40's can be a little soft at the edges but for landscape photography this is hardly an issue anyway. This can be eliminated by moving from F4 to F8.

Congratulations for next year.
 
If you do go with the 6D & 17-40f4L (great choice btw) I'd seriously consider purchasing the 17-40 second hand.
The 2nd hand prices I've seen on here and in shops have been really low, almost half the price of a new one, and most in excellent to mint condition!
 
I have to endorse that the 17-40 is an excellent choice secondhand as prices are often £300 or less for mint condition models. I would also say though that if your budget could stretch to the superb 16-35 f4L IS, you really do have a great lens imo and will never want to replace it.
Coupled with the 24-105, you've pretty much got the ideal set up.
Also, in case this hasn't been said, if you go for a 6D body, the EF-S lenses won't be compatible so bear that in mind if you do go full frame.
 
wardy07 said:
I have to endorse that the 17-40 is an excellent choice secondhand as prices are often £300 or less for mint condition models. I would also say though that if your budget could stretch to the superb 16-35 f4L IS, you really do have a great lens imo and will never want to replace it.
Coupled with the 24-105, you've pretty much got the ideal set up.
Also, in case this hasn't been said, if you go for a 6D body, the EF-S lenses won't be compatible so bear that in mind if you do go full frame.
Click to expand...

Do you think the 16-35 F4 is worth the extra £180? I did briefly look at it but kinda dismissed it as the price difference was quite high and not sure I'd use the IS that much. I do love the IS on the 24-105 though (love the whole lens tbh).

Thanks for e EF-S note, I've been thinking about full frame since I bought my dslr so only the kit lens I can't take with me. I might keep the 400D with a longer lens, the area is about the same as the cropped 6D.
 
I do personally think it's worth the extra but I guess if you're not using it a lot then the 17-40 is still a more than adequate lens. Some say the 17-40 can be a little softer but I think from what I've read, that is not a given it depends on your luck and to some extent, the skill level of the operator as with all lenses. A well known wildlife photographer called Arthur Morris in the \USA states that there is no such thing as a soft lens, it's the person behind the camera that gets the most from it.
In view of what you've said, I don't think you would be disappointed with either option, but would be very very happy with the 17-35!
The IS is really useful for me as I use it for wildlife close ups and low flight wide angle shots but if you're going for landscape then I guess it's not a deal breaker.
In the end it's personal choice and budget but good luck whichever way you decide to go.
 
There is an excellent 6d in the classifieds lol ;-)
 
Grumps1974 said:
If you are going to be taking landscapes then I think the 17-40 is pretty much essential. In my view the 24-105 - great walk around lens that it is - is simply not wide enough for landscape photography. I own the 6D and until recently a 17-40 and they make a great combination. Some 17-40's can be a little soft at the edges but for landscape photography this is hardly an issue anyway. This can be eliminated by moving from F4 to F8.

Congratulations for next year.
Click to expand...
The 24-105 is **more** than wide enough for landscape photography, it's nigh on the perfect landscape lens IMO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top