Gear Upgrade Advice

[dw2013]

Hi,

I'm a long time reader, first time poster - looking forward to being part of the Forum. I enjoy reading the various posts relevant to my interests, and have had fun trying out techniques etc that I have learnt from the knowledgeable members on here, so thanks!

Anyway, I am UK based, just a photography enthusiast interested in shooting landscapes, portraits, some sport (not particularly fast moving), wildlife etc - so, generally pretty varied.

I've recently upgraded from a 550D to a 6D - love the improvement in image quality. My current lens list is a 70 - 200 F4L IS, 24 - 105 F4L IS and a 50 1.8.

I'm fortunate to have £1500 - £2000 available for an upgrade, but wanted advice on what I should go for, and what will give me the best noticeable improvement in my shots. In general, I like to think my shots are fairly well exposed and sharp (with the exception of some 'action' shots due to 6D auto focus speed), so I am trying to improve my overall photo composition to make them more interesting to the viewers.

The options I have thought about (feel free to add anything I haven't thought of...)

- Sell the 6D, and invest in a 5D III;
- Sell 24 - 105, and buy the 24 - 70 F2.8L II;
- Upgrade 70 - 200 to the F2.8 II version;

Comments?

Sorry for the opening essay, and thanks for your input!

[Eldar]

I have the 5DIII and I am very happy with it. But I have used a 6D for a couple of weeks and I really liked that camera. In some areas it performs better than the 5DIII. Only reason to change body is if fast action is your main thing. If not, you will be much better off investing in the better glass.

[neuroanatomist]

The 24-105/4L IS is a very good lens, and the 70-200/4L IS is excellent.  Unless you require f/2.8 (indoor sports, for example), I'd consider getting a lens which offers something you don't have.  You list:

Landscapes - 17-40L, TS-E 24L II, TS-E 17L (and do you have a good tripod/head)
Portraits - 85L II, 135L (or 85/1.
Wildlife - 100-400L

Or perhaps a macro lens like the 100L.

[Eldar]

The 24-105/4L IS is a very good lens, and the 70-200/4L IS is excellent.  Unless you require f/2.8 (indoor sports, for example), I'd consider getting a lens which offers something you don't have.  You list:

Landscapes - 17-40L, TS-E 24L II, TS-E 17L (and do you have a good tripod/head)
Portraits - 85L II, 135L (or 85/1.
Wildlife - 100-400L

Or perhaps a macro lens like the 100L.

+1

[scottkinfw]

My thought is that you consider investing more time and effort in getting familiar with your new camera first.  The lenses you have are excellent and are likely not holding you back.  The 70-200 is excellent even though not the newest, etc., plus great to carry.

How about a flash, a tripod, a pack. various filters, or a different lens for a different purpose? 

Congrats

sek

[Menace]

- Sell the 6D, and invest in a 5D III;
- Sell 24 - 105, and buy the 24 - 70 F2.8L II;
- Upgrade 70 - 200 to the F2.8 II version;

From your list:

- keep the 6D - it's a lovely camera.
- keep 24-105 - it's a really good walk around lens on FF
- upgrade the 70-200 to II

also, as others have said, a macro, a flash or even 85 1.2 II are all valid options.

Have fun shooting which ever option you go with.

[apmadoc]

I had the 24-105, upgraded to the 24-70 f2.8 II.  On the plus side : I can really see the increase in sharpness.   On the downside : I do miss the IS and I really miss the extra reach of the 105

My personal recommendation is to look at the 16-35 f2.7 II

[dw2013]

Thanks for your comments - always good to hear different opinions.

I really like the 6D, so I'll get used to shooting FF images, and will learn more about the camera until I feel the need to upgrade to a 5D III (which may be a 5D IV if such a camera exists in 2 - 3 years).

I read a different thread over the last few days about the 6D and 24-105 compatibility, and that a few people experience differing quality images with the combination. Personally, I haven't noticed any issues, but I do wonder whether the c.£1,600 outlay for the 24-70 F2.8 II will provide me with a dramatic improvement in image quality over the 24-105. Maybe I will wait a year or so to see if the 24-70 F2.8 IS will reach production considering that there are rumours of a patent in place.

The 70-200 F4 IS is a fantastic lens, most of the images I get are excellent. What I find I am missing on occasions is the extra reach after I have upgraded from the 550D. So, if I upgrade to the 70-200 F2.8 II, this would work better with a 1.4 or 2.0 TC?

Or would it be better to invest in a longer focal length, such as the 300 F4 IS?

[neuroanatomist]

The 70-200 F4 IS is a fantastic lens, most of the images I get are excellent. What I find I am missing on occasions is the extra reach after I have upgraded from the 550D. So, if I upgrade to the 70-200 F2.8 II, this would work better with a 1.4 or 2.0 TC?

Or would it be better to invest in a longer focal length, such as the 300 F4 IS?

The 70-200 II does very well with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, with the 2xIII it's nearly as good optically as the native 100-400 (and the former has better IS).  If you plan on occasional use, a TC is fine. IMO, if you'll be using it a lot, you're better off with a native lens.

[Menace]

1.4x will work very well with the 70-200 2.8 II giving you the flexibility of the zoom. If I had to choose between the 300 4.0 or 70-200 2.8, I'd chose the zoom for my self.

Might be worth renting the two to get a real hands on experience

[dave]

Thanks for your comments - always good to hear different opinions.

I really like the 6D, so I'll get used to shooting FF images, and will learn more about the camera until I feel the need to upgrade to a 5D III (which may be a 5D IV if such a camera exists in 2 - 3 years).

I read a different thread over the last few days about the 6D and 24-105 compatibility, and that a few people experience differing quality images with the combination. Personally, I haven't noticed any issues, but I do wonder whether the c.£1,600 outlay for the 24-70 F2.8 II will provide me with a dramatic improvement in image quality over the 24-105. Maybe I will wait a year or so to see if the 24-70 F2.8 IS will reach production considering that there are rumours of a patent in place.

The 70-200 F4 IS is a fantastic lens, most of the images I get are excellent. What I find I am missing on occasions is the extra reach after I have upgraded from the 550D. So, if I upgrade to the 70-200 F2.8 II, this would work better with a 1.4 or 2.0 TC?

Or would it be better to invest in a longer focal length, such as the 300 F4 IS?

For me, the 24-70 ii is a bigger jump in image quality than the 70-200mm f/2.8 ii. The f/4 version of that is a cracker.

Having said that, a good tripod is a great investment and probably a better bet if you don't have one yet.

[Marsu42]

- Sell the 6D, and invest in a 5D III;

Only you can tell how much you are bothered by the mediocre 6d af...

- Upgrade 70 - 200 to the F2.8 II version;

Significant upgrade, but do you need the enhanced iq @ 100% crop or the better IS?

- Sell 24 - 105, and buy the 24 - 70 F2.8L II;

You need to look through your pictures, how often do you use 70-105 w/o switching to your 70-200, and how often were you limited by the f4 and wanted or were ok with a shallower depth of field of f2.8?

Otherwise I've thought the exact same thing as neuro wrote - uwa or macro, it's for your fun after all.

[Sella174]

Put the dough in the bank and wait for something really nice from Canon.