6D + 24-105 vs T4i + 24-70 II

[robbymack]

I'll toss another idea out there, t4i plus used EFS 17-55 2.8 IS. The latter you can sell with little to no loss when, and if, you decide to make the jump back to FF. Or keep it, on a crop camera it's a wonderful lens, and it becomes a great wife or older child hand me down. You save yourself a boat load of cash this way and get a good set up to boot. The extra money can be put into the new 5d "v" fund ;D

 

[timmy_650]

If you can wait a few months I would say get the 6D and the 24-70 f4L. Right now it is a little out of your price range but i would guess you will be able to pick up for your price in a few months.

 

[verysimplejason]

Go for a 5dc or 5d2 if your money isnt enough and buy the 24-70. Those 2 ff are still a lot better than t4i and you'll be exposed to the DOF of an FF. This way, you won't think of upgrades until at least your camera goes down. As for me, if i have that kind of money, it will be a 6D + 50mm f1.4 + 85mm F1.8. Ive got already a 28mm to cover the wide end. Agreed, primes are more inconvenient to use but I prefer the IQ of a prime. But if youre earning money through photography, a 24-70 is a must.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. Gone are the days that prime lenses are better than zooms. As I said before, I already purchased the 6D + 85mm f1.8 and promptly returned them because the 85mm had unimpressive sharpness, color, contrast, and aberration correction compared to the 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II that I sold. I was willing to give up the focal range versatility, but the 85mm was simply inferior in all other aspects as well. There's nothing really wrong with the 85mm f1.8, but its 20-year-old design just doesn't stand up to a top of the line zoom that costs $1800 more, which was what I was used to using before.

Also, I'm not quite sure a 5Dc is better than a T4i. The sensor is, for sure. But what about the ergonomics and controls? Autofocus? Video? (I do shoot video occasionally, mostly at home for fun.) Actually, it would appear that the T4i is better than the 5Dc in every way EXCEPT sensor. Not a very convincing argument for the full frame crowd.

I don't know if you've got a bad copy of 85mm but I've tried it and found it's acceptable for its price. True, it might not be able to match 70-200 open wide but stopped down, I think it's almost comparable especially if you take into consideration its price.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/322/%28brand%29/Sigma/%28camera1%29/0/%28lens2%29/241/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/0/%28lens3%29/408/%28brand3%29/Canon/%28camera3%29/0

I think you're into more of a consumer than an enthusiast/professional at least for now since you're also looking at video autofocus (even 6D and 5D3 doesn't have one). By all means, T4I is better than 5DC on that area. As for ergonomics, it's subjective from person to person. I have suggested a good 5DC or 5D2 camera because I know a lot of photographers who want to go FF but didn't go FF all at once just because of the price (I'm one of them). While it's still better to invest on a lens than a body, you also should know that you can only take advantage of the 24-70 or 70-200 fully if you're using an FF body. ISO and DOF aside, I for one value the fact that I can go for a wider focal length using a 24-70 and an FF than using it with a crop body. That alone for me makes investing on a 24-70mm lens more worthwhile. Of course that maybe isn't the case for you. If you think you can be happy with the T4I and 24-70, then by all means, buy it. You can still upgrade later if needed. I'm not here to convince you otherwise. I'm just letting you know what I feel when choosing between an APS-C and an FF body.

 

[Botts]

For $2,699 and $2,499 if you can find a great deal, you can effectively sell the 24-105mm for probably $750 used after you have the cash to go to the 24-70 f/2.8.

Also, I reread the gear you had before. Did you feel you were lacking normal length lenses back then? You effectively had a 16-35mm and a 70-200mm before. Also, how did you find the apertures that you had back then?

The 10-22 was a 3.5-4.5, on a crop sensor. When you consider the ~2 stop ISO advantage on the 6D vs the T3i, you could effectively shoot a 16-35mm f/7-8.8

You could probably consider buying a used 70-200mm f/4IS due to the ISO advantage on the 6D as well. If you went used, again, you could sell this for a minor loss when you want to upgrade to f/2.8

 

[Wildfire]

I don't know if you've got a bad copy of 85mm but I've tried it and found it's acceptable for its price. True, it might not be able to match 70-200 open wide but stopped down, I think it's almost comparable especially if you take into consideration its price.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/322/%28brand%29/Sigma/%28camera1%29/0/%28lens2%29/241/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/0/%28lens3%29/408/%28brand3%29/Canon/%28camera3%29/0

I think you're into more of a consumer than an enthusiast/professional at least for now since you're also looking at video autofocus (even 6D and 5D3 doesn't have one). By all means, T4I is better than 5DC on that area. As for ergonomics, it's subjective from person to person. I have suggested a good 5DC or 5D2 camera because I know a lot of photographers who want to go FF but didn't go FF all at once just because of the price (I'm one of them). While it's still better to invest on a lens than a body, you also should know that you can only take advantage of the 24-70 or 70-200 fully if you're using an FF body. ISO and DOF aside, I for one value the fact that I can go for a wider focal length using a 24-70 and an FF than using it with a crop body. That alone for me makes investing on a 24-70mm lens more worthwhile. Of course that maybe isn't the case for you. If you think you can be happy with the T4I and 24-70, then by all means, buy it. You can still upgrade later if needed. I'm not here to convince you otherwise. I'm just letting you know what I feel when choosing between an APS-C and an FF body.

I was comparing the 85mm to a $2000 lens and it didn't meet my high expectations (my fault, not the lens) -- I agree that the 85mm f1.8 is acceptable for the price, but for just a few hundred more I'd rather get a sharp zoom that covers the same focal length plus many more. As for video, I'm not interested in the AF so much as just having the ability to take video, which I don't do often but I'm extremely glad to have it when I do. And the crop factor... I know I'd be lacking on the wide end with the 24-70 on an APS-C sensor but the plan would be to live with it until I had enough money to shell out for an FF body!

And I do appreciate the advice from you and everyone else on here, this is a great discussion and I'm glad you decided to join in

Also, I reread the gear you had before. Did you feel you were lacking normal length lenses back then? You effectively had a 16-35mm and a 70-200mm before. Also, how did you find the apertures that you had back then?

The 10-22 was a 3.5-4.5, on a crop sensor. When you consider the ~2 stop ISO advantage on the 6D vs the T3i, you could effectively shoot a 16-35mm f/7-8.8

I did (and still do) have the 50 1.8 and the 40 pancake -- however, I decided that I wanted a sharp standard zoom rather than get more or better primes. I loved the 70-200 for its image quality, but I now feel that I would rather have that same quality in the 24-70 focal range.

As for apertures, f2.8 is good enough for me. Shooting with the 70-200 I never felt limited by its aperture, and I used it every time for my telephoto needs, even when I had access to primes with larger apertures. Losing a full stop of light at F4 would not be ideal, but for now I can live with it considering how amazing the 6D's high-ISO performance is.

The variable aperture of the 10-22 annoyed me, but the image quality was excellent. However, I rarely shot it wider than 15mm (and when I did, I didn't like the distortion) so although I'm sure the 16-35L is a great lens I'm not really considering it because half the focal range will most likely be wasted.

So basically for my type of shooting, non-L primes do not perform well enough, L primes are not versatile enough for the price, 16-35 is too wide, and 70-200 is too telephoto. A zoom covering the focal range of 24-85mm would be right where I want to be and it just so happens I've been spoiled by the sharpness/color/contrast/versatility/f2.8 of the 70-200 II. I would personally be okay with sacrificing the extra focal range of the 24-105 for the image quality of the 24-70 but it is simply not within my budget right now.



All that said, thanks for the advice everyone. I have decided to go with the 6D + 24-105 kit, and plan to save up for the 24-70 in the future.

 

[verysimplejason]

Wow! Congratulations on your new purchase. I hope I too have that kind of money already. If you've got a good copy of 24-105, you might end up not wanting a 24-70 at all. 6D got an amazing ISO performance that you won't miss that much the wide open aperture.

 

[Dylan777]

I don't know if you've got a bad copy of 85mm but I've tried it and found it's acceptable for its price. True, it might not be able to match 70-200 open wide but stopped down, I think it's almost comparable especially if you take into consideration its price.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/322/%28brand%29/Sigma/%28camera1%29/0/%28lens2%29/241/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/0/%28lens3%29/408/%28brand3%29/Canon/%28camera3%29/0

I think you're into more of a consumer than an enthusiast/professional at least for now since you're also looking at video autofocus (even 6D and 5D3 doesn't have one). By all means, T4I is better than 5DC on that area. As for ergonomics, it's subjective from person to person. I have suggested a good 5DC or 5D2 camera because I know a lot of photographers who want to go FF but didn't go FF all at once just because of the price (I'm one of them). While it's still better to invest on a lens than a body, you also should know that you can only take advantage of the 24-70 or 70-200 fully if you're using an FF body. ISO and DOF aside, I for one value the fact that I can go for a wider focal length using a 24-70 and an FF than using it with a crop body. That alone for me makes investing on a 24-70mm lens more worthwhile. Of course that maybe isn't the case for you. If you think you can be happy with the T4I and 24-70, then by all means, buy it. You can still upgrade later if needed. I'm not here to convince you otherwise. I'm just letting you know what I feel when choosing between an APS-C and an FF body.

I was comparing the 85mm to a $2000 lens and it didn't meet my high expectations (my fault, not the lens) -- I agree that the 85mm f1.8 is acceptable for the price, but for just a few hundred more I'd rather get a sharp zoom that covers the same focal length plus many more. As for video, I'm not interested in the AF so much as just having the ability to take video, which I don't do often but I'm extremely glad to have it when I do. And the crop factor... I know I'd be lacking on the wide end with the 24-70 on an APS-C sensor but the plan would be to live with it until I had enough money to shell out for an FF body!

And I do appreciate the advice from you and everyone else on here, this is a great discussion and I'm glad you decided to join in

Also, I reread the gear you had before. Did you feel you were lacking normal length lenses back then? You effectively had a 16-35mm and a 70-200mm before. Also, how did you find the apertures that you had back then?

The 10-22 was a 3.5-4.5, on a crop sensor. When you consider the ~2 stop ISO advantage on the 6D vs the T3i, you could effectively shoot a 16-35mm f/7-8.8

I did (and still do) have the 50 1.8 and the 40 pancake -- however, I decided that I wanted a sharp standard zoom rather than get more or better primes. I loved the 70-200 for its image quality, but I now feel that I would rather have that same quality in the 24-70 focal range.

As for apertures, f2.8 is good enough for me. Shooting with the 70-200 I never felt limited by its aperture, and I used it every time for my telephoto needs, even when I had access to primes with larger apertures. Losing a full stop of light at F4 would not be ideal, but for now I can live with it considering how amazing the 6D's high-ISO performance is.

The variable aperture of the 10-22 annoyed me, but the image quality was excellent. However, I rarely shot it wider than 15mm (and when I did, I didn't like the distortion) so although I'm sure the 16-35L is a great lens I'm not really considering it because half the focal range will most likely be wasted.

So basically for my type of shooting, non-L primes do not perform well enough, L primes are not versatile enough for the price, 16-35 is too wide, and 70-200 is too telephoto. A zoom covering the focal range of 24-85mm would be right where I want to be and it just so happens I've been spoiled by the sharpness/color/contrast/versatility/f2.8 of the 70-200 II. I would personally be okay with sacrificing the extra focal range of the 24-105 for the image quality of the 24-70 but it is simply not within my budget right now.



All that said, thanks for the advice everyone. I have decided to go with the 6D + 24-105 kit, and plan to save up for the 24-70 in the future.

6D + 24-105 for $2500 @ BH. Hope is not too late:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12388.0

 

[Wildfire]

6D + 24-105 for $2500 @ BH. Hope is not too late:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12388.0

Don't worry. I got it from www.uniquephoto.com -- They had my previous 6D return as store credit already. I asked if they would match the B&H price and they did, and threw in the free bag/memory card too!

Thanks, Dylan!

 

[jdramirez]

I know you want to jump into the full frame... and I'm looking to get a 5d mkiii within a year.

This is really tough. There is an equal argument for both... and I have ambivalent feelings... I want to say get the 24-70 and the t4i. The t4i will run maybe 650 or so and when you sell it for $500, you won't lose much after a year. I like my 24-105, but I don't love it. Especially compared with my very nice primes (100mm f/2.8L IS Macro).

I've had a few zooms to include the 18-55mm, a 55-250mm, 75-300, 70-300, 70-200 f4L USM and the f2.8L USM. And I've been just disappointed enough in all of them. The 25-105 is good enough in a pinch when I know I need something wider, but indoors, I do need to bounce the flash. It's just not a good enough option.

BUT... I think the 24-70 is still at the plateau of it's highest cost because of production delays and still a decent amount of demand. I think if you waited a year, the cost would probably drop by $200 or 300... but is it worth waiting... probably not.

I know everyone says that there isn't a HUGE difference between the 24-70 and the 24-105, but I like my 24-105, but I love my 100mm f/2.8L prime. I'm not sure how well the 24-70 compares with the best primes, but if it is close, then I'd suggest to go that way.

Well, I'm in a different situation than you, but I've been happy with my 60D, 24-105, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm. I have about $2300 saved up and I want a 135mm f/2, a 5Dmkii, and a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii. So... not enough to actually get all of what I want.

Basically I'm saying I'm as confused as you are, but I'm happy with my 60D, and I'm hoping to be ECSTATIC with a 5D mkiii. And if I'm not, I'm going to be SO disappointed that I spend 2 grand to maintain the status quo.

 

[jdramirez]

How would you feel about finding a good deal on a used 5DII and still get the 24-70 II ? It's still over your budget, but not too much. That would be a great compromise, and you could later upgrade the camera if you cared to. Pictures should be tack sharp, image quality should be close to a 6D...

You can find the d5 mkii for around $1400 or so... maybe 1300... So it would be around $700 from getting both. I like the idea... I was looking at the mkii for a while and I think it is very comparable to the 6D. It's not a good option for me because of the focusing issues, but it seems like a good suggestion.

 

[jdramirez]

The T4i is a great camera. The true cost to own is very, very low. If you buy the body for $600 or less, the per year cost to own - depreciation - is going to be less than $100 per year, maybe as low as $50. Buy it for $600,, use it for 2 years, sell for $475 or more. Incredibly cheap for incredibly much camera.

If you are going to listen to others advice, listen to those who HAVE OWNED the T4i. Many who haven't just don't "get" that camera. The sensor is basically as good as/the same as the other Canon sensors right now, just in a crop. The auto focus is the same as the Canon 60D.

Good luck.
Michael

In some place, you can find the 60D plus a 18-135mm for 900 (Frys)... sell the lens for $300 and bam... 60D for $600. I like the feel and performance of the 60D (the rebels just are too small). I think the ISO performance of the t4i is marginally better though.

 

[michi]

How would you feel about finding a good deal on a used 5DII and still get the 24-70 II ? It's still over your budget, but not too much. That would be a great compromise, and you could later upgrade the camera if you cared to. Pictures should be tack sharp, image quality should be close to a 6D...

You can find the d5 mkii for around $1400 or so... maybe 1300... So it would be around $700 from getting both. I like the idea... I was looking at the mkii for a while and I think it is very comparable to the 6D. It's not a good option for me because of the focusing issues, but it seems like a good suggestion.

I have a 5DII. I really don't know what focusing issues people talk about. Sure, it's not as good as some brand new cameras, but it has never let me down.