6D vs. 600D with good lenses?

[ecka]

To Pato: If we can afford it, 6D seems to be it. I can see what you mean about the EF Lenses. It was a concern for me also. That is why I have decided to go with the kit with 24-105... Roughly, the lens is around 1100 and the body is 2000. You do the math. In the mean time, you are getting a great camera and a great lens. I doubt I will be looking for any other lens other than a couple of much cheaper primes. So, at this point I am not even worrying about the EF lens prices. If the day comes to buy a EF lens that is really expensive, I will assume somehow I am making real good money from this hobby. At that point, the cost will be funded by the hobby and I'll be writing it off as a business expense.

Well, if there was an equivalent EF-S lens for every EF lens and just as good, then they would be just as expensive (or even more). For example, 24-105L beats the EF-S 17-55/2.8 in every way - build, DoF, IQ, focal range, while both are similar in size, weight and price. Take a look at EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, the EF-S equivalent would be 17-85/2.2-3.5 IS USM, I doubt that it would be any smaller, better or cheaper. Actually, I'd prefer 6D+28-135/3.5-5.6 over 60D+17-55/2.8. So, I call this myth busted

It's busted as long as you're talking about comparing the EF-S lens on APS-C with the EF lens on FF. But for example, when both are used on the same APS-C body, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 delivers better IQ than the EF 24-105/4L, and (IMO) the former is a more useful focal range (24mm is 'normal' on APS-C meaning no wide angle therefore the 24-105 is not a 'general purpose zoom' covering wide to short tele).

Personally, I'd prefer the 60D+17-55 over the 6D+28-135 any day. But I'd take 6D+24-105 over both.

Well, of course I'm talking about EF on FF vs EF-S on APS-C. The myth claims that EF lenses are more expensive, because they are meant for FF. I'm just saying, that L lenses are more expensive for different reasons and if those same reasons were included in every EF-S lens, then there would be no big difference in price.

 

[Loswr]

Well, of course I'm talking about EF on FF vs EF-S on APS-C. The myth claims that EF lenses are more expensive, because they are meant for FF. I'm just saying, that L lenses are more expensive for different reasons and if those same reasons were included in every EF-S lens, then there would be no big difference in price.

I disagree, sort of... For wide angle and normal lens designs, the smaller image circle means less glass is needed - for an equivalent level of build quality, an EF-S lens will cost less to produce than a corresponding EF lens. I say 'sort of' because the reality is that production costs are only one factor (and not the most important one) in determining lens pricing - Canon would likely charge the sameand keep the difference as profit...

 

[Pi]

Get FF from the beginning. If you start building a crop system, it would costs you more later to go FF.

The 6D+24-105 would perform very similarly to the 60D+17-55 combo but there are still differences worth paying for - better resolution at equivalent settings, the 24-105 has a better range, you can get very clean files in good light with the 6D. But the most important thing is that you can build a better system with the 6D in the future.

 

[Pi]

Negative points are
- only EF lenses = more expensive

Actually, equivalent EF-S lenses, when they exist, are more expensive, like the 17-55 vs. the 24-105, the 10-22 vs. the 17-40, EF-S macro vs. the 100 macro.

 

[ecka]

Well, of course I'm talking about EF on FF vs EF-S on APS-C. The myth claims that EF lenses are more expensive, because they are meant for FF. I'm just saying, that L lenses are more expensive for different reasons and if those same reasons were included in every EF-S lens, then there would be no big difference in price.

I disagree, sort of... For wide angle and normal lens designs, the smaller image circle means less glass is needed - for an equivalent level of build quality, an EF-S lens will cost less to produce than a corresponding EF lens. I say 'sort of' because the reality is that production costs are only one factor (and not the most important one) in determining lens pricing - Canon would likely charge the sameand keep the difference as profit...

Then how comes that EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's only UWA APS-C offer, which is like 16-35/5.6-7.1 FF equivalent? Is APS-C+10-22USM any better than FF+17-40L, while both lenses priced similarly.

 

[Loswr]

Then how comes that EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's only UWA APS-C offer, which is like 16-35/5.6-7.1 FF equivalent? Is APS-C+10-22USM any better than FF+17-40L, while both priced similarly.

Actually, yes. The 17-40L on FF is a soft mess in the corners, especially wide open, and has major barrel distortion at the wide end (3.6%, although the 24-105L at 24mm has even more distortion). The 10-22 on APS-C is sharp into the corners, and has far less distortion (1.2%, and that's another area where EF-S wins for the 17-55, which is at 2% distortion at 17mm vs. 4.3% for the 24-105L on FF).

 

[ecka]

Then how comes that EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's only UWA APS-C offer, which is like 16-35/5.6-7.1 FF equivalent? Is APS-C+10-22USM any better than FF+17-40L, while both priced similarly.

Actually, yes. The 17-40L on FF is a soft mess in the corners, especially wide open, and has major barrel distortion at the wide end (3.6%, although the 24-105L at 24mm has even more distortion). The 10-22 on APS-C is sharp into the corners, and has far less distortion (1.2%, and that's another area where EF-S wins for the 17-55, which is at 2% distortion at 17mm vs. 4.3% for the 24-105L on FF).

For fair comparison we should use 17-40L at f/5.6-7.1 vs 10-22USM wide open. I've noticed before that 17-40L has soft FF corners at wide angle and stopping it down doesn't help much. For that reason I never bothered to try it myself. However, lots of angry worshipers argued that it's perfect at f/5.6+. I still don't believe them. Perhaps my definition of perfection is different . Can you confirm that?

 

[Pi]

Then how comes that EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's only UWA APS-C offer, which is like 16-35/5.6-7.1 FF equivalent? Is APS-C+10-22USM any better than FF+17-40L, while both priced similarly.

Actually, yes. The 17-40L on FF is a soft mess in the corners, especially wide open, and has major barrel distortion at the wide end (3.6%, although the 24-105L at 24mm has even more distortion). The 10-22 on APS-C is sharp into the corners, and has far less distortion (1.2%, and that's another area where EF-S wins for the 17-55, which is at 2% distortion at 17mm vs. 4.3% for the 24-105L on FF).

For fair comparison we should use 17-40L at f/5.6-7.1 vs 10-22USM wide open.

Right, the confusion comes from the inability of people to understand equivalence.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=271&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=335&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[pfortissimo]

If you were going to go APS-C, I'd say get the 650D. It has support for STM lenses and does the in-video AF. It's a significant leap.

I'd recommend getting this refurbished kit with the STM zoom, then adding the 50mm prime.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_331230_-1

The old 18-135 was rubbish, but the new 18-135 STM has excellent resolution. The 5.6@135mm may seem bad, but you will get decent bokeh from compression.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/776-canon_18135_3556stmis?start=2

Good luck!

 

[Pi]

The 10-22 on APS-C is sharp into the corners, and has far less distortion (1.2%, and that's another area where EF-S wins for the 17-55, which is at 2% distortion at 17mm vs. 4.3% for the 24-105L on FF).

The 17-55 has less distortion at 24mm eq.? I did not know that!

The distortion of the 24-105 is the price you pay for the real wide end and for a slightly more reach. The 15-85 distorts a lot, too. Distortion with today's digital workflow is not such a big problem anymore.