Canon 6d vs 24-70mm mark ii

[Nine-IX]

Weird title I know, but I'm trying to make a choice.

Currently I have a 7D mark i and a 24-70mm mark i. The 24-70mm is a great lens, but it often whiffs on focusing. I'm amazed at how many more keepers I have with my 70-200mm and my 17-40mm.

I also like my 7D, but I rarely use the advanced autofocus, instead using center point focus. Of course I also get the noise of a crop sensor.

The 6D appeals to me for the full frame aspect. My 24-70mm does a better job the closer I get to my subject, so full frame will bring me closer without the 1.6x magnification. Am I fooling myself that my current 24-70mm will perform better on the 6D?

The 24-70mm mark ii appeals to me because I prefer to upgrade glass and would eventually be going to a full frame anyway.

Due to finances, I would have to sell the body or lens to fund the new purchase.

thoughts?

 

[tron]

I would get the 24-70 II. I am sure the 7D will have much more noise than 6D at high ISO but you will be perfectly happy with your 24-70 II at low ISO. A noisy sharp and correctly focused picture is better than a clean out of focus image.

Just my opinion.

 

[tayassu]

A lens is always above a body... Go for the 24-70, great lens!

 

[Sporgon]

A lens is always above a body... Go for the 24-70, great lens!

Not at all sure that that is always the correct way to look at it, especially when there are leaps forward in technology.

I would go for a 6D and get your 24-70 f2.8 tuned up by a Canon 'L' lens specialist service centre.

 

[CANONisOK]

I'm with Sporgon. In many cases, I'd say invest in glass... but you're most of the way there already. You'd see a bigger improvement going from 7D mk i to 6D, than going from 24-70mm mk i to mk ii on APS-C.

 

[Marsu42]

The 24-70mm is a great lens, but it often whiffs on focusing. I'm amazed at how many more keepers I have with my 70-200mm and my 17-40mm.

Well, the 17-40 is a f4 lens and uwa at that, so it's not that hard to get something into focus ... as others wrote, maybe you should get the lens serviced because the L1 is known for being more fragile than the L2 if it ever took a bump.

Am I fooling myself that my current 24-70mm will perform better on the 6D?

Yes, you are fooling yourself at least partly: One of the most important advances of the 24-70L2 is the more precise af motor, but *only* the 1dx/5d3 (and now probably 7d2?) can make use of it.

So basically you're paying for tech you cannot use, that's why the Tamron 24-70L might be a better combination - sharper than Canon's L1 and with IS, plus having a fast lens af doesn't really matter with the 6d anyway :-\

Due to finances, I would have to sell the body or lens to fund the new purchase.

Imho stretching your budget to get top notch glass on a crop is complete overkill, even though investment in lenses usually is the smarter choice. The f2.8 standard zooms are really designed for full frame for low light and thin depth of field - if that doesn't matter you could simply go for the f4 zoom otherwise.

You didn't write what you usually shoot, but with your L1 lens and the 6d you'll see a vast difference, while with the L2 it'll take some pixel peeping or very large prints to notice the difference.

 

[Nine-IX]

thanks for the comments, very helpful.

In response, I typically shoot portraits and family shots. I had a senior shoot last night and found that, in most situations, if I am patient and very deliberate with the 24-70mm, it will focus well, but it doesn't get it right every time like other lenses (most notably the 70-200mm).

I didn't realize that the autofocus improvements on the mark ii are limited to 5diii and 1d.

 

[jdramirez]

I don't have a good reason, but I'm leaning towards the 6d.

You have a solid stable of lenses.... So am upgrade of the body should bring more significant results....

Maybe there is something wrong with the 24-70. I'd also suggest having it not only looked at, but paired with the body by cps.

Maybe mix in a prime lens... with the money you save.. a solid 35 or 85 might be a nice addition to all the zooms.

 

[timmy_650]

I would say say 6D. You will get wider lenses which is nice. I have the t2i which is the same senors and there was a big jump in my pictures when i went with a 6D. Think about how many pro used a 5D mark 2 and 24-70 i for years.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I'm in the 6D camp. You have good lenses. You shoot portraits. The 7D is often criticized for IQ issues due to its sensor. I would definitely get the 6D first. (Plus, the 7D is about to be worth less due to the 7D-II coming out while the 6D is probably at it's best price ever while still being a current unit.)

I own the 24-70-II and the 70-200-II. I also own a 60D which has the same sensor as the 7D. I'm selling the 60D currently and I would sell the 24-70-II in a heartbeat before I sold the 70-200-II. They are both great portrait lenses but I'm not nearly as impressed with the 24-70-II as I continually am impressed with the 70-200-II. I owned the 24-70-I and it was great. I think the 24-70-II is too overpriced. I'd wait on that and maybe even get it used someday.

Get the 6D. You'll be glad you did as so many others have done before you.

 

[Nine-IX]

I think that I am leaning heavily towards the 6d. I bought Reinken focal software last year and the microfocus on the 24-70mm varied across the focal range. I can't remember how much, but from what I read, it was within Canon "tolerances"

 

[rs]

My recommendation us the 6D. For me, your lenses have a slightly awkward range on crop, and make a whole load more sense on FF. Plus the lower pixel density if the 6D is less fussy about the resolving power/finite focusing issues of your lenses.

Your focusing issues could possibly be resolved by another body and/or AFMA. If not, a good service is more than worth a shot.

 

[gwilson]

I don't know if you would consider doing what I did but here it is anyway for your thoughts.
After purchasing the 6D with the kit lens a little over a year ago, I purchased the 40mm/2.8 pancake lens as my next lens. I chose the 40mm instead of any of the 24-70mm lenses because I intended to crop in PP and I wanted the best image quality for the price.
I am just an enthusiast, not a pro. Shortly after buying the lens, I took pictures of a friend's daughter's first birthday party in a restaurant party room. I just used the available light, no flash, and the family was happy with the results.
Of course you lose the 24-40mm range with the 40mm lens but you do have the 17-40 anyway which I think is also great on the 6d where it would show a wider angle than on your crop camera.
All the best to you whatever you choose.
Gary

 

[D.]

Go with the 6D - that should give you the most bang for the buck. Note, however, that according to Photozone, the 24-70 2.8 v1 has strong field curvature at the wide end (see http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1). This probably isn't very noticeable on an APC camera compared to FF. So for wide angle landscape shots, you may want to use your 17-40 on the 6D.

 

[Sarpedon]

Lenses are usually a better long-term investment than camera bodies.

That said, go with the 6D. It's an upgrade much better suited to your preferred type of photography, and you'll notice a much greater boost in image quality, as others have said.

You'll also find that your creative options have grown significantly. Your 17-40 will now be a true wide-angle, and if nothing else, wide-angles are a lot of fun. Your temperamental 24-70 will now be capable of more impressive depth-of-field effects if you shoot close enough to your subject, and in portraiture, thin depth of field really pays off. It will help give your photos that extra pop, that 'professional' look, that a lot of photographers lust after.

You won't see any of this if you just replace your zoom. So sure: the value of the lens will keep much longer than the camera, but what's more important than that is enjoying the picture-taking process, and finding ways to expand your creative possibilities. The 6D will help you do that.

 

[bholliman]

I agree with those recommending the 6D. I upgraded from a 7D to a 6D and for my style of photography (similar to yours listed) it was a terrific upgrade. I also own a 24-70 2.8 II and its an incredible lens. If you have a good copy of the Mk1, you will probably be happy with the 6D/24-70Mk1 combo for some time.

thanks for the comments, very helpful.

In response, I typically shoot portraits and family shots. I had a senior shoot last night and found that, in most situations, if I am patient and very deliberate with the 24-70mm, it will focus well, but it doesn't get it right every time like other lenses (most notably the 70-200mm).

I didn't realize that the autofocus improvements on the mark ii are limited to 5diii and 1d.

The Mk2 focuses extremely fast and accurately on the 6D. Some here claim that the 6D doesn't benefit from faster lenses, but in my experience they AF faster and more accurately than f/4 and slower lenses.

 

[Maximilian]

I typically shoot portraits and family shots.

Reading this I instantly say that's best done with a FF and a fast zoom like the 24-70L or prime.

So I would 100% second Sporgon's advice. Get the 6D and let your 24-70L check and AFMA together with the new body.

With the FF you have more possibilities about controlling DOF when doing portraits. And the V1 24-70L is sharp enough in center and midframe to get really good pictures.


PS.: Usually I'd always say go for the better lens, but not in your case.

 

[Marsu42]

The Mk2 focuses extremely fast and accurately on the 6D. Some here claim that the 6D doesn't benefit from faster lenses, but in my experience they AF faster and more accurately than f/4 and slower lenses.

That would depend on the light situation - in dim light, of course the af gets relatively better with faster lenses as it works wide open. It's just that it doesn't profit as much as it could with a real double-cross center point concerning reliability (esp. tracking) on low-contrast surfaces when *shooting* wide open.

I didn't realize that the autofocus improvements on the mark ii are limited to 5diii and 1d.

There's a lensrentals article on the 24-70L2 you might want to look up - as far as I remember, it basically states that good copies of the mk1 are as sharp as "normal" not-stellar copies of the mk2, and that only the newest 1dx/5d3 af systems can harvest the enhanced precision of the new af stepping motor. One decisive enhancement of the L2 seems to be better built quality against decentering though if your lenses take a beating in rough pj work.

Now these are no decisive reasons not to get the L2 on the 6d, but it certainly affects a decision to upgrade from the L1. As written, for these reasons some prefer to go for the Tamron with IS on the 6d.

 

[TeT]

Weird title I know, but I'm trying to make a choice.

Currently I have a 7D mark i and a 24-70mm mark i. The 24-70mm is a great lens, but it often whiffs on focusing. I'm amazed at how many more keepers I have with my 70-200mm and my 17-40mm.

I also like my 7D, but I rarely use the advanced autofocus, instead using center point focus. Of course I also get the noise of a crop sensor.

The 6D appeals to me for the full frame aspect. My 24-70mm does a better job the closer I get to my subject, so full frame will bring me closer without the 1.6x magnification. Am I fooling myself that my current 24-70mm will perform better on the 6D?

The 24-70mm mark ii appeals to me because I prefer to upgrade glass and would eventually be going to a full frame anyway.

Due to finances, I would have to sell the body or lens to fund the new purchase.

thoughts?

On the practical side, you can sell your current 24 70 for more than you can sell your 7D.

 

[Dylan777]

mrk II is great a lens. In your case, I would go for FF.