Looking to upgrade to Full Frame (Canon)

Dael_Pix

Dael_Pix

Messages
1,613
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
The time has come to think about going full frame.

My camera gear is in my signature.

Looking for a camera that will handle low light, wildlife (birds in flight etc), macro, landscapes, architecture and estate photography.

I was looking at the 6D, but now looking at the Canon 5D Mark II and III.

I take HDRs so would be nice to have an automatic setting that would take more than 3 shots of different exposures at a time?

Not too long ago I bought the Canon 10-18mm lens and love it, but it won't fit on a FF, so would have to sell it.
I would like a new lens that would be ideal for wide angle photography and some closer shots, and would last for some time, so maybe a zoom lens would be ideal? ....or a seperate zoom lens and wide angle lens.
 
Last edited:
Of the bodies you've listed, I think I would consider picking up a used 5DIII from the classifieds section.
Neither your 10-18 or 18-135 will fit on a full frame body, but then you know that already..
 
Just so you know what you're getting into.

You'll need a UWA and a standard zoom, only the Macro and long zoom will fit. But those will be shorter than you're used to them being.

I'd pick a 6d over the 5dII, because it's a better camera.

But if I was honest, I'd say you don't need a new camera and 2 lenses to improve your photography, you need some studying.
 
Hi Phil

UWA ?
Yes I know what lenses will and won't fit :p

So, why would you say the 6D is a better camera? Would it be ideal for what I want to use it for?
 
Suggested UWA on a budget.

The Tamron 17-35 2.8/4 is less than £200

But the std zoom is more complicated, you'll not get a direct replacement, a 24-105 or 28-135 will be close in quality to what you're replacing, but will be wasting the IQ available in a high end FF sensor.

The 2 lenses I'd pick in your shoes are the 17-40L and the 24-105L.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Hi Phil

UWA ?
Yes I know what lenses will and won't fit :p

So, why would you say the 6D is a better camera? Would it be ideal for what I want to use it for?
Click to expand...
Ultra Wide Angle

The 6d has a better sensor than the 5dII, a similar but slightly improved AF system.

But importantly, it has WiFi, GPS and lots of other minor enhancements.

The 5dIII is a different league.

As far as your requirements, any digital camera would do. Frankly I didn't address your requirement for a great HDR camera, because that's like asking for a great stove to warm up a pack of oven chips. IMHO it's a waste of time and money, but that's just my opinion.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Not too long ago I bought the Canon 10-18mm lens and love it, but it won't fit on a FF, so would have to sell it.
I would like a new lens that would be ideal for wide angle photography and some closer shots, and would last for some time, so maybe a zoom lens would be ideal? ....or a seperate zoom lens and wide angle lens.
Click to expand...

For FF wide angle have a look at the Sigma 12-24mm.
 
I've read that the 6D has a custom function for adding more bracketed exposures of up to 7 :)

I would definately buy the 24-105L as it seems to be a recommended lens. As for the wide angle, I'll keep looking, but I'll bear the 17-40L in mind :)
 
I've just bought a Mk2 and am still to put it through it's paces properly.

Also got the 17-40L & 24-105L and they are great lenses, the 24-105 especially.

I may upgrade to the MK3 at some stage as the MK2's images are noticeably noisy in the shadows. But then I'm coming from experience with Nikon D750.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I've read that the 6D has a custom function for adding more bracketed exposures of up to 7 :)

I would definately buy the 24-105L as it seems to be a recommended lens. As for the wide angle, I'll keep looking, but I'll bear the 17-40L in mind :)
Click to expand...

Or you could just do it yourself and shoot as many exposures as you like...

GreenNinja67 said:
I've just bought a Mk2 and am still to put it through it's paces properly.

Also got the 17-40L & 24-105L and they are great lenses, the 24-105 especially.

I may upgrade to the MK3 at some stage as the MK2's images are noticeably noisy in the shadows. But then I'm coming from experience with Nikon D750.
Click to expand...

The MK3 is still not a patch on the D750 for file PP.
 
woof woof said:
For FF wide angle have a look at the Sigma 12-24mm.
Click to expand...

What difference would the Sigma and my current 10-18mm look like on a FF ? I do love the 10mm and don't want to lose it on a new lens.
 
The 6d has massively better ISO performance than the 5d2. Over 800 ISO the difference is very noticeable, useful if you shoot in low light conditions, and for sport with slower lenses.

It also has a much faster and more sensitive centre AF point amongst other improvements.
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
What difference would the Sigma and my current 10-18mm look like on a FF ? I do love the 10mm and don't want to lose it on a new lens.
Click to expand...

your 10-18mm gives you a 16-28mm equivalent FoV on a FF sensor.
So the Sigma 12-24mm is quite a lot wider (every mm counts for ultra-wide angles).
 
To the op.

Dare I say it, but looking at your lens lineup and what you want to do, the 7D mkii might be a better choice.

I own the 6D and the 7Dii and there is not much difference in low light capability.
The 6D is not great for birding as the af is a bit clunky and the FPS is less than half that of the 7Dii.
Also, the 7Dii has better weather sealing.

Just my thoughts you understand.
 
soupdragon said:
To the op.

Dare I say it, but looking at your lens lineup and what you want to do, the 7D mkii might be a better choice.

I own the 6D and the 7Dii and there is not much difference in low light capability.
The 6D is not great for birding as the af is a bit clunky and the FPS is less than half that of the 7Dii.
Also, the 7Dii has better weather sealing.

Just my thoughts you understand.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree the 7d2 is anywhere near as good at low light than the 6d. I've used both for weddings, the 6d is light and day better over 800 ISO, in detail and noise handling.
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
What difference would the Sigma and my current 10-18mm look like on a FF ? I do love the 10mm and don't want to lose it on a new lens.
Click to expand...

Your current lenses simply won't fit, can't be mounted, you can modify the mount, but you'll risk the mirror hitting the rear element and they'll vignette

Just remember your crop factor. Your current lens starts at an equivalent 16mm on FF.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Jim. Just looking at comparisons and the 6D flies past the 7D in low light.
 
Phil V said:
Your current lenses simply won't fit, can't be mounted, you can modify the mount, but you'll risk the mirror hitting the rear element and they'll vignette
Click to expand...

Edit: From the years I've been taking photographs, you don't think I know I can't use EF-S lenses on full frame cameras?
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
What difference would the Sigma and my current 10-18mm look like on a FF ? I do love the 10mm and don't want to lose it on a new lens.
Click to expand...

You may be surprised how much difference every mm makes at the wide end whereas 10's of mm at the longer end of a longer lens may make comparatively little difference. So, the 12mm end of the Sigma 12-24mm is significantly wider than the 16mm equivalent starting point of your 10-18mm lens.
 
The Canon 5d Mk3 would be better than the 7D? I do want full frame and not another crop.

Considering the 450D has only 4shots a second, I'm used to it and won't be bothered about the 7D being a little better.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Edit: From the years I've been taking photographs, you don't think I know I can't use EF-S lenses on full frame cameras?
Click to expand...
I expected you to know, but your earlier question made it appear you were unsure.

Dael_Pix said:
What difference would the Sigma and my current 10-18mm look like on a FF ? I do love the 10mm and don't want to lose it on a new lens.
Click to expand...

I don't want to bang on about your low word count making your point difficult to understand sometimes... but...
 
Why do you always put me down Phil? Think I'll go back to ignoring your posts again.
 
Dael_Pix said:
The Canon 5d Mk3 would be better than the 7D? I do want full frame and not another crop.

Considering the 450D has only 4shots a second, I'm used to it and won't be bothered about the 7D being a little better.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the focusing system on the 7DII is better than the 5DIII and with faster frame rate is probably better too for birds in flight. For everything else, the 5DIII is probably as good or better.

FWIW, my other half uses a 450D and I use a 7DII which is a huge step up from the 450D. I don't believe there will be huge image quality differences between a 5DIII over a 7DII. Personally I've not found the 7DII to be significantly lacking anywhere, though clearly if you want to go FF it ain't that.
 
My vote would be for a good used 5D3. I prefer the senor on the 6D but the 5D3 is better in all other respects especially for BIF and wildlife.

As to replacing your 10-18 EFS lens then look at the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS. Not cheap but a superb lens that gives the same field of view as your 10-18 at the short end and goes a little further at the long end. Unfortunately if you do get a Canon 16-35 F4 L IS then you may not be happy with the 24-105 as a general purpose lens. The 24-105 F4 L IS is a decent lens by any standards but the 16-35 F4 L IS is just so much better! My standard zoom is the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 (lovely piece of kit!) but it is expensive and little better than the 16-35 F4 where their focal ranges cross.

You are entering a slightly different field with an FF cameras and the lenses can get pricey - but they are worth it!
 
I missed the 'birds in flight' comment.

I guess it's the 5d III then.
 
For birds in flight the 6d is more than capable too I'll add (as long as your'e using the centre point, which is all I ever use!). I get better results with the 6d than I do with the faster / better focusing 70d :)
 
Not being a Canon DSLR user I didn't know there crop lenses didn't fit full frame, when I changed to full frame on my Nikon at least I could stagger the purchase of lenses over a couple of months, and 'get by' using crop lenses. I also already had two FF lenses before the change.
 
Dael_Pix said:
What difference would the Sigma and my current 10-18mm look like on a FF ? I do love the 10mm and don't want to lose it on a new lens.
Click to expand...

I have the 10-18 for my 80D and really love that combo. The 10-18 was the first UWA lens Ive ever had, as Ive never really been in to the wide end much. It made me use my 80D more than my 5Dmkiii for a while as the widest i had for FF was 24mm.

The best equivelent I could find for FF is the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS, as already mentioned by others. Amazingly sharp across the frame. This wouldn't be much use on a crop but gives the same starting length on FF. on my old 5D3 the images really made me smile. Something about UWA that seems to have a certain look that i love.

Going FF is a big change though, and not a cheap one. If it were me id get a 80D (assuming you are using a 450D at the moment) and stick with the lenses and focal lengths you already have. This will help with BIF as well as the loss of the crop factor can be a bit of a negative for this sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
Or consider the excellent Samyang 14mm f/2.8. Its manual focus but that's a non issue with such a UWA, and its fast so great for astro. Its the equivalent of approx 8mm (non fisheye) on a crop for comparison.

And its less than £300.
 
dave_bass5 said:
14mm on a Canon crop is 22mm unless I'm not understanding your post Jim.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is 14mm on full frame is the equivalent of 8mm on a crop (8.74 to be exact I think for a Canon crop), so has a wider field of view than your 10mm current setup :)
 
Last edited:
johnf3f said:
My vote would be for a good used 5D3. I prefer the senor on the 6D but the 5D3 is better in all other respects especially for BIF and wildlife.

As to replacing your 10-18 EFS lens then look at the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS. Not cheap but a superb lens that gives the same field of view as your 10-18 at the short end and goes a little further at the long end. Unfortunately if you do get a Canon 16-35 F4 L IS then you may not be happy with the 24-105 as a general purpose lens. The 24-105 F4 L IS is a decent lens by any standards but the 16-35 F4 L IS is just so much better! My standard zoom is the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 (lovely piece of kit!) but it is expensive and little better than the 16-35 F4 where their focal ranges cross.

You are entering a slightly different field with an FF cameras and the lenses can get pricey - but they are worth it!
Click to expand...

Totally agree with comment re 16-35 f4 it's a superb lens for the money and makes my 24-105 look pants when comparing images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top