First Time Full Frame Buy
- Thread starter Sabaki
- Start date
Sabaki said:
I literally bought 16-35/4 today and guy behind the counter talked to me about 6D and its quality, so definitely those two items together would be a great combo. I would advise against 11-24 right now, it requires a lot of thought of how to incorporate those 11mm into a great shot. It will be easier for you (and for your wallet) to start with 16-35/4 and 6D.
Anyway whatever your decision may be do not forget to show your shots once you have body and lens
. Have fun!
Upvote
0
Not sure what type of landscapes you plan on taking, but I would start by just getting the 6D and using your 24-70. If you find the need for a wider lens, then you can explore that option. I have been shooting landscapes for 35 years and have never needed anything wider than 24. Rarely do I even go that wide. Most are probably shot between 30 and 60mm. I have the 6D and the 25-105L. I would recommend that combo before going wider as the extra reach is used fairly often even for landscapes.
Upvote
0
I would suggest just going with the 6D and 16-35 f4 is. I would love the 11-24 but I love wide. I have the 8-15 fisheye and would love to have the 11-24 but the money isn't there. There is a lot of people don't like that wide. Start with the 16-35 and see how it fit you. Sell your 16-35 and you shouldn't loose much money.
Upvote
0
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
I would just get the 6D1 and the 16-35 f/4 IS. The main improvement in 6D2 will likely be in AF points/sensitivity as this is 6D1 weakness, but this is pretty unimportant for landscape photography. The sensor on 6D1 is actually awesome for landscape, even better than 5D3 sensor.
The 11-24 is an interesting specialty lens but it is rare even for landscape that 11mm is needed. In fact, when I shoot landscape I use 25-35mm just as often as 16-23mm. So I would save the money and get the more practical 16-35 f/4 IS so you don't have to lug around as many lenses, and also spend money more wisely considering you are just starting out with FF.
The money you would have spent on a 6D2, I'd instead advise getting either a fast tele prime such as the 135mm f/2L so you can experiment with the greater DOF control of full frame and have a tele lens, or a general full frame telephoto L zoom lens of some sort such as 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS which is an excellent portable jack of all trades for landscape.
Upvote
0
It might be sacrilege to say, but the 11-24's initial price point of around $3k seems to me to have been set just prior to recent Canon price reductions that have generally been attributed to currency fluctuations (yen went down 30 percent). If Canon hopes to sell a number of those lenses in year 2, I wouldn't be surprised to see some significant lowering of the price, recognizing that the "must have it" folks have already bought.
The difference in price purchasing later versus now could even approach the full cost of a 16-35 f/4.
So, while speculative, the upshot is that if you get the 6D and the 16-35, you well could lose $200 when you sell them a year or two later. That's not a bad "rental" fee. But to do it the other way around, buying a $2k 6D2 and $3k 11-24, you could lose closer to $1,500 in the same period.
I'm curious as to whether you might do better with the new Tamron 15-30 wide zoom. I have my eye on it. The vibration control won't be of much use to the landscape shots, but it's f/2.8, as unfashionable as that is among Canon new lens buyers.
Very curious to see where you wind up. Good luck.
The difference in price purchasing later versus now could even approach the full cost of a 16-35 f/4.
So, while speculative, the upshot is that if you get the 6D and the 16-35, you well could lose $200 when you sell them a year or two later. That's not a bad "rental" fee. But to do it the other way around, buying a $2k 6D2 and $3k 11-24, you could lose closer to $1,500 in the same period.
I'm curious as to whether you might do better with the new Tamron 15-30 wide zoom. I have my eye on it. The vibration control won't be of much use to the landscape shots, but it's f/2.8, as unfashionable as that is among Canon new lens buyers.
Very curious to see where you wind up. Good luck.
Upvote
0
Hi Sabaki.
Looking at this from different perspective, is your EF-S 10-22 wide enough for you? If so then 16mm will be the FF equivalent! If 10mm is not wide enough for your shooting style then maybe, just maybe you are in need of a wider lens, which one I'll leave to others as I have no idea there.
Cheers, Graham.
Looking at this from different perspective, is your EF-S 10-22 wide enough for you? If so then 16mm will be the FF equivalent! If 10mm is not wide enough for your shooting style then maybe, just maybe you are in need of a wider lens, which one I'll leave to others as I have no idea there.
Cheers, Graham.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
