First Time Full Frame Buy

Sort by date Sort by votes
S

Sabaki

Dec 4, 2012
799
0
9,771
51
Cape Town, South Africa
#1
Hey everybody

So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.

If you were the guy (or gal) behind the sales counter, which combination would you advice a first time full frame buyer to go for?

As mentioned, I'm pretty much sold on the 16-35/6Dii combo but those extra millimeters from 11-15mm on the 11-24 are so damn tempting.
I do own a 24-70mkii

Any advice would be appreciated guys :)
 
#5
I suspect the earliest launch for 6dii is Christmas 2016, with spring 2017 being more realistic. Can you wait that long? There's a huge price difference between 6d mk1 and 2. Is it worth it?

11mm is ridiculously wide on full frame. It's not for everyone. If you got the money and don't mind the weight, go for it. 14mm is more practical I think. In my opinion you should stick with your plan and get 16-35 and see how you like it on a full frame camera.
 
Upvote 0
#6
As 6D mkII is not yet announced, I would go for the 6D. You will see that full frame will give you much better photography, compared to crop. This is one of the biggest steps you can take, and for sure with those lenses. The 10-22 can be sold.

I would go for the 11-24, As I know how tempting GAS can be, and for sure if you are doubting right now. That doubt will never go away. This choice will give you top notch quality from 11 to 200. And believe me, you will not use your crops anymore. It also happens to me with the 7D and the 5D3. I even bought a 7D2 a few months ago, but hardly use it. I hardly get a keeper from that 7D2, but hey, maybe I am spoiled by the full frames, so my last investment yesterday was a second 1Dx so that I can go on safari in September to Uganda with only full frames (5D3+ 2x 1Dx).
 
Upvote 0
#7
You can have both the 6D and a 16-35 f4L IS fairly cheap. You´ll find them second hand and in the grey market. The lens takes regular filters and its IQ is great. The 11-24 is a fantastic lens, but it is a very challenging one. To make good use of the 11-16mm range, requires a lot of practice and a trained eye. I think you´ll be better off with the 16-35. From a cost perspective, you can get a 70-200 f2.8L IS II (same filter size as the 16-35/4) and a good fast prime on top of that ...
 
Upvote 0
#8
Sabaki said:
Hey everybody

So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.

If you were the guy (or gal) behind the sales counter, which combination would you advice a first time full frame buyer to go for?

As mentioned, I'm pretty much sold on the 16-35/6Dii combo but those extra millimeters from 11-15mm on the 11-24 are so damn tempting.
I do own a 24-70mkii

Any advice would be appreciated guys :)
Click to expand...

I think it depends on your shooting style. Me personally, I'm not a landscape/wide angle person, so buying an 11-24 is really not going to happen unless I win the lottery, or get jobs that require that lens.

But- if you ARE a wide angle person, and love landscape and wide angle photography, I can't think of another lens that is as well regarded as this one. Have the money? love that subject of photography? Go For it!

I'd think of it as 'renting' the 6D till the II version comes out, sell it and upgrade for the 6DII when it comes out and price drops after the first rush. That lens is an investment, and will far outlast multiple bodies in the future.

A great pairing for landscape photography.

JMHO.
 
Upvote 0
#9
Sabaki said:
So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.
Click to expand...

Get the 6D. Its by far the best performance/price offer from Canon. Go for the non-wifi, gps model. You can probably get it for 1.000$(!)

This leaves money in your pocket for several extra lenses. Good lenses and fast primes will do more - much more - for your photography than anything Canon puts into the 6DII.

Finally, the 6D was far too expensive at launch. I expect Canon continue to ask customers to pay more and deliver less than the competition. 6DII will thus likely not even be close to the current 6D prices.

Good luck with your choice!
 
Upvote 0
#10
6D + 16-35 f4 + Rokinon 14mm + accessories like a good sturdy tripod, square filter holder and some ND/polariser filters + spare camera battery + new fast cards, all for the same price as a yet to be announced 6D2 or an 11-24L.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Simply put, lenses hold value better than bodies do. If you are thinking about it from a long term value standpoint, go with 11-24 and 6d.

I agree that you can get much cheaper options and better all-purpose lenses for when not doing landscape.. Consider that before buying.
 
Upvote 0
#14
I'll chime in as an owner of two 6D's + Canon 17-40 and an OLD tamron 17-35. I love the combo with the tamron 17-35. I've used the Canon 16-35 one time and have drooled over getting one ever since. I also own the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm 2.8. It's also a very good lens for the money.

I think go with the 6D/16-35 now and be happy with what you own now, or you'll be chasing that dream until the new camera comes out. If you really are GAS bitten by the wider angle, the ROK/SAM 14 can be had for about $200 used or $300 new. I know money doesn't grow on trees, but that's pretty cheap scratch for the GAS itch in wide angle lenses.

I'd rent the 11-24 for a weekend, walk around a local park or scenic location and try it a couple times before investing in it. It's a lot of cash for a specialty lens that I think you'll find you may not use as often at the super wide-angle 11mm.

Landscape photography is one of my favorite types... 11mm makes horizon elements VERY small in the frame and diminishes their scale quite a bit. Mountain scenes are great to capture the breadth of the scene, but I've found there's more drama in capturing them almost as a portrait to gain some perspective on height and depth... that's not very easy to do with 11mm... it's not easy to do with 16mm or 17mm. Capturing perspective of a deep valley though... wide angles really shine.

The TS-E series might also be a good option... Also a bit of a learning curve... but a satisfying result once you get it down. I'm still working on it... have to buy one to really get time to get the feel of them and "know" what you're going to get when you set tilt/shift settings etc... renting simply doesn't cut it with TS-E.
 
Upvote 0
#15
Landscape?

Get the 6D now. As others have said a 6D2 is a year or longer away. One can take a lot of pictures in a year. Also the biggest weakness of the 6D (for general photography) is the limited focal points, focal system. Not an issue for landscape shooting. Oh, and I absolutely love the GPS for landscape. I just took the 6D to the boundary waters on a canoe trip. Having GPS data made it pretty cool to map out the trip, all of our sites we camped at, a number of portages, etc.

The 6D is a very solid landscape camera.
 
Upvote 0
#16
Sabaki said:
Hey everybody

So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.

If you were the guy (or gal) behind the sales counter, which combination would you advice a first time full frame buyer to go for?

As mentioned, I'm pretty much sold on the 16-35/6Dii combo but those extra millimeters from 11-15mm on the 11-24 are so damn tempting.
I do own a 24-70mkii

Any advice would be appreciated guys :)
Click to expand...

I can only echo what others have said. Get the 6D, which is very cheap now - we don't know when or even if its successor will come, and how much it might cost. And 11mm is VERY wide. I think the 16-35 is a better all-rounder - you can use it for portraits and street scenes at the longer end, and you can always stitch panoramas for ultrawide. And the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm is a good cheap addition for even wider work.
 
Upvote 0
#17
If you're currently taking landscape photos with a smaller-sensor camera, do you like the ability to use a really wide zoom (e.g. the Sigma 8-16 aps-c lens at its wider end)? If you do, and you use it enough that the 11-24 would make sense (and can afford it reasonably enough), buy that rather than the 16-35, half of whose range you already have in an excellent and faster lens.

If you haven't used a really wide zoom, just buy a current 6D, use what you have and try to figure out if you really want/need to go wider than 24 (assuming you're coming from aps-c, 24mm will seem very wide on FF). Really wide angle lenses are far harder to use effectively than other lenses, and I wouldn't assume the wider the better for landscapes. Rent/borrow before you buy.
 
Upvote 0
#20
Sabaki said:
Hey everybody

So I've been longing to explore landscape photography with a full frame camera and EF lens. I'm pretty much sold on a 16-35 f/4.0 with a 6Dii but I'm guessing with a similar financial outlay, I could buy a 11-24 and original 6D.

If you were the guy (or gal) behind the sales counter, which combination would you advice a first time full frame buyer to go for?

As mentioned, I'm pretty much sold on the 16-35/6Dii combo but those extra millimeters from 11-15mm on the 11-24 are so damn tempting.
I do own a 24-70mkii

Any advice would be appreciated guys :)
Click to expand...

I'd expect that you will have a tough time finding a 6D MK II. You should never count on Rumors about dates or features.

If I were seriously doing landscape, I'd look seriously at the 5DS / SR the 5Ds are discounted now, and those extra pixels will get you more detail. Learn to construct panoramas, your 24-70mm MK II is extremely sharp, and a panorama made with it will have more detail and less distortion than a ultra wide angle lens. Some use 300mm for landscapes.

There are uses for ultra wide lenses, where creating a panorama is impractical due to moving objects like waves in water or grain blowing in a field, but I'd still at least consider a high mp camera.

Your images with even a low price lens are limited by the camera. You pay for wide apertures, but then must stop down to f/8, f/11, sometimes more.


This is one case where you may get much more for your dollar than buying new lenses. Every lens you own will suddenly appear to improve a huge amount.

Personally, I do not do landscapes and do not need the detail, but I'd go to the new camera first in this rare case/
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
PowerShot V1 first impressions and sample images
Replies
12
Views
6K
Loswr
L
D
Chances of IBIS in next R>7?
Replies
6
Views
2K
dr croubie
D
axtstern
Thoughts on the folly of buying an exciting camera of the future but then being stuck in the past.
Replies
18
Views
7K
scyrene
S
L
RF 14-35mm f/4L IS – Distortion Correction Testing
Replies
28
Views
16K
LogicExtremist
LogicExtremist
tiggy@mac.com
R5 arrived... First impressions for stills
Replies
90
Views
18K
[email protected]
tiggy@mac.com
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu