Canon 6D + 24-105 L combo not that great?

[Ruined]

Personally, I do not think full frame is worth it if the primary lens you are going to use is the 24-105L f/4 IS.

Before you release the dogs on me, here is the rationale:

Even the cheapest full frame camera, the 6d missing some features, is more expensive than the top of the line APS-C camera. So you are talking about paying around $2599 for a 6D + 24-105L f/4 IS vs $2299 for a 7D + 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (these prices will of course be reflected in the rental price). In order to come closest to matching that aperature speed using the 6D w/ a zoom, you need to spend an additional $2000+ on a 24-70 f/2.8 (which actually does not have the IS that the 17-55mm has).

So, I would say you are somewhat defeating the purpose of full frame by primarily using an f/4 zoom lens with it as much of the APS-C noise can be compensated with an f/2.8 zoom - especially with the new 20.2 sensor.'

Thus in summary, I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.

 

[ashmadux]

Ive found that once i stepped up from rebels, lenses that have worked spectacularly all of a sudden had different souls.

Hey, when you guys post samples, can you please..

NOT POST DOWNSIZED IMAGES TO SHOW SHARPNESS

sorry for yelling, but there's no way to accurately judge a file if its downsized. Everyone does it and i dont understand why.

thx for listening

 

[Woody]

So, I would say you are somewhat defeating the purpose of full frame by primarily using an f/4 zoom lens with it as much of the APS-C noise can be compensated with an f/2.8 zoom - especially with the new 20.2 sensor.'

Thus in summary, I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.

Please note (i) the resolution of 24-105 f/4 IS on 6D far outperforms that of 17-55 f/2.8 IS on APS-C camera (ii) FF cameras offer DOF flexibility that is not easy to match from the APS-C line. You can easily verify (i) by using the comparison tool on the-digital-picture.

 

[Frodo]

Please note (i) the resolution of 24-105 f/4 IS on 6D far outperforms that of 17-55 f/2.8 IS on APS-C camera (ii) FF cameras offer DOF flexibility that is not easy to match from the APS-C line. You can easily verify (i) by using the comparison tool on the-digital-picture.

Having both a 7D and 5Dii, I agree. My 5D classic produced sharper images than the 7D.
DXOmark rates the 7D/17-55 at 9MPix sharpness compared to the 6D/24-105 at 14MPix. That is half as much again.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So, I would say you are somewhat defeating the purpose of full frame by primarily using an f/4 zoom lens with it as much of the APS-C noise can be compensated with an f/2.8 zoom - especially with the new 20.2 sensor.'

Thus in summary, I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.

Please note (i) the resolution of 24-105 f/4 IS on 6D far outperforms that of 17-55 f/2.8 IS on APS-C camera (ii) FF cameras offer DOF flexibility that is not easy to match from the APS-C line. You can easily verify (i) by using the comparison tool on the-digital-picture.

yeah, probably so, in the center area at least, but even at the edges the difference probably helps bring it somewhat closer to even, although I still think a good lens on an aps-c body delivers more detail at the edges than a 24-105 does on FF, at least on the wide side. But yeah it is something to keep in mind.

although I wouldn't use the comparison tool to compare on TDP in that manner

Anyway, yeah the main thing isn't that he is doing worse moving to FF and using that lens. It is more that using that lens he is not fully maximizing the best that can be gotten out of the FF sensor the way using a 17-50 maximizes what you can get out of an aps-c sensor. But that is a very different matter than claiming you are doing worse than on aps-c.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

oh and yeah doing micro focus adjustment can be realllly important, even a 300 2.8 IS can look a mess if the MFA is off

 

[bholliman]

I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.

f/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to f/4.5 on full frame, so, you would not have to invest in a 24-70 2.8 lens to equal the APS-C + EF-S 17-55 2.8 combo. The 24-105 f/4.0 IS would be a reasonable FF match to this lens (but slightly faster and with added focal range).

 

[Pi]

I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.

f/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to f/4.5 on full frame, so, you would not have to invest in a 24-70 2.8 lens to equal the APS-C + EF-S 17-55 2.8 combo. The 24-105 f/4.0 IS would be a reasonable FF match to this lens (but slightly faster and with added focal range).

Having used the 17-55 on crop and the 24-105 on FF,; the latter beats the former in every possible way: resolution, borders included, color, and light gathering.

 

[CarlTN]

Ive found that once i stepped up from rebels, lenses that have worked spectacularly all of a sudden had different souls.

Hey, when you guys post samples, can you please..

NOT POST DOWNSIZED IMAGES TO SHOW SHARPNESS

sorry for yelling, but there's no way to accurately judge a file if its downsized. Everyone does it and i dont understand why.

thx for listening

+1 !!!!!!

 

[CarlTN]

I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.

f/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to f/4.5 on full frame, so, you would not have to invest in a 24-70 2.8 lens to equal the APS-C + EF-S 17-55 2.8 combo. The 24-105 f/4.0 IS would be a reasonable FF match to this lens (but slightly faster and with added focal range).

+1 !

 

[CarlTN]

I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.

f/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to f/4.5 on full frame, so, you would not have to invest in a 24-70 2.8 lens to equal the APS-C + EF-S 17-55 2.8 combo. The 24-105 f/4.0 IS would be a reasonable FF match to this lens (but slightly faster and with added focal range).

Having used the 17-55 on crop and the 24-105 on FF,; the latter beats the former in every possible way: resolution, borders included, color, and light gathering.

Agreed. I owned a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 with IS, used it on my 50D for about 5 months. I was not all that impressed with the "sharpness"...at all. The IS just worked ok...the IS on the Canon 24-105 works a bit better. Neither of these lenses is perfect though, far from it...but the 6D is pretty close to perfect on its own, for what it is. The same can NOT be said for the 70D...no matter what lens is on it.

 

[Janbo Makimbo]

I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.

f/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to f/4.5 on full frame, so, you would not have to invest in a 24-70 2.8 lens to equal the APS-C + EF-S 17-55 2.8 combo. The 24-105 f/4.0 IS would be a reasonable FF match to this lens (but slightly faster and with added focal range).

Having used the 17-55 on crop and the 24-105 on FF,; the latter beats the former in every possible way: resolution, borders included, color, and light gathering.

Agreed. I owned a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 with IS, used it on my 50D for about 5 months. I was not all that impressed with the "sharpness"...at all. The IS just worked ok...the IS on the Canon 24-105 works a bit better. Neither of these lenses is perfect though, far from it...but the 6D is pretty close to perfect on its own, for what it is. The same can NOT be said for the 70D...no matter what lens is on it.

+1 !!!

 

[Loswr]

I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.

f/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to f/4.5 on full frame, so, you would not have to invest in a 24-70 2.8 lens to equal the APS-C + EF-S 17-55 2.8 combo. The 24-105 f/4.0 IS would be a reasonable FF match to this lens (but slightly faster and with added focal range).

Having used the 17-55 on crop and the 24-105 on FF,; the latter beats the former in every possible way: resolution, borders included, color, and light gathering.

Minor technical correction: every possible way except that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS allows use of the more accurate high-precision f/2.8 AF points on APS-C bodies which have them, whereas the 24-105mm f/4L IS does not allow use of the high-precision points (except on a few 1-series bodies prior to the 1D X). But I'd still choose the 24-105 on FF (and in fact, I did).

 

[Pi]

Minor technical correction: every possible way except that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS allows use of the more accurate high-precision f/2.8 AF points on APS-C bodies which have them, whereas the 24-105mm f/4L IS does not allow use of the high-precision points (except on a few 1-series bodies prior to the 1D X). But I'd still choose the 24-105 on FF (and in fact, I did).

But f/2.8 on crop is like f/4.5 on FF, so...

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi folks.
I think that was perhaps a bit harsh unless by user error you mean not setting up AFMA. Perhaps these things don't come from rental houses as an AFMA correct pair, just grab a body and the next lens in the rack, body and lens may never have met before. It would only take a lens and body from the wrong ends of the tolerance range to foul up a days shooting, Just a thought!
Coming from a 40D and probably not getting a manual for the camera (due to some people selling them off on eBay) OP may not have known where to find it.
Apologies if this has already been covered, I am working my way through the thread reading each post in turn.

Cheers Graham.

I rented a Canon 6D with the 24-105 L lens for a shoot on Saturday from BorrowLenses.com. I went up to New England Dragway for a NHRA event and shot a ton of images but when I got home and pulled the images in photoshop they weren't tack sharp.

I had the IS on and was shooting at good shutter speeds but the images just weren't as sharp as I thought they would be from a full frame camera. Is the 24-105 really as bad as people say it is? I noticed on on some of the images that the center would be sharp but would quickly fall off on the sides even at f11.

With results like this I wish I hadn't rented it and just brought my old Canon 40D along. At least the results would of been better. Now I'm reconsidering if I should even buy a Canon full frame all together and instead get the 70D.

A perfectly fine combinations... perhaps user error!

 

[sanj]

That's all you got?

Perhaps if you posted some images we might be able to provide useful feedback

Hahahaha! Well said.

 

[sanj]

This combo will certainly make great, sharp photos if Afma, focus and shutter are in place.

You need to figure out where you going wrong, not the gear.

 

[Janbo Makimbo]

This combo will certainly make great, sharp photos if Afma, focus and shutter are in place.

You need to figure out where you going wrong, not the gear.

+1 !!!

 

[Loswr]

This combo will certainly make great, sharp photos if Afma, focus and shutter are in place.

You need to figure out where you going wrong, not the gear.

Do please keep in mind the OP is talking about rented equipment, and while I know lensrentals.com thoroughly tests everything before it's sent out, and while most rental houses claim to do so, probably not all of them do so.

For those commenting about renting a body+lens and expecting the lens to be AFMA'd to that body, I really doubt a rental house would do that, it's up to the renter (which is why it's always a good idea to be sure you have the equipment in hand a day or two before you need it).

 

[Sporgon]

For those commenting about renting a body+lens and expecting the lens to be AFMA'd to that body, I really doubt a rental house would do that, it's up to the renter (which is why it's always a good idea to be sure you have the equipment in hand a day or two before you need it).

I can see the AFMA facility on modern bodies opening a whole can of worms for rental. I believe only the 1Dx recognises lenses by serial number, so with a lesser body AFMA'd for say one 24-105 would inevitably make it inaccurate on another. Also you would have the issue of hirers playing with the AFMA and possibly getting it wrong.

It would be an unviable task for rentals companies to continually check.

I guess the moral of the story is when renting a body check the AF accuracy yourself straight away.